Saturday, March 22, 2008

Obama/Clinton Is A Losing Ticket


The Democrats have a big problem on their hands. Their frontrunner is in serious trouble with Independent voters, and doubts about his electability have begun to surface in party circles.

In addition to this, Democrats appear headed towards an ugly battle on the convention floor in Denver which could tear the party apart, not only between supporters of Clinton and Obama, but also along racial lines.

It’s obvious that Hillary Clinton still wants the nomination, but it would be nearly impossible for her to acquire a delegate lead at this point.

The arguments which her supporters put forward in attempts to justify a Clinton nomination without a pleged delegate lead, are extremely weak.

One such argument states that Mrs. Clinton could potentially have a lead in the popular vote by the end of the process and that Democrats should abide by the will of the people and nominate the candidate with the most votes.

Of course, even if Clinton does surpass Obama in the raw vote total, Obama has been victorious in most of the caucuses. These caucuses don’t rely on raw vote totals. Therefore, there is no way of telling how far ahead Obama would actually be in the popular vote had these states gone with a primary system.

Another issue floated by Clinton suporters is that Obama has benefited immensely from Republicans and Independents, voting in Democratic primaries. The fact that Clinton leads among registered Democrats is an issue among party loyalists who don’t care for what they see as outsiders hijacking their process. Clinton's people argue that these Democratic votes are the important ones and that she is the true choice of Democrats for the party's nomnation.

This is a very dangerous line for the Clinton people to put out there, because it allows Obama to counter by saying that he has attracted Republicans and Independents into the party with his message.

These Republicans probably cast their ballot for Obama as an anti-Hillary vote, or because the GOP nomination was sewn up early and they wanted their vote to make a difference.

Still others were likely taken in by Obama’s charm, but are now abandoning him as they realize that he doesn’t share their ideological leanings and that some of his close associates are less than reputable.


It doesn’t matter. The arguments made by Hillary's surrogates simply won't cut it.

Obama has followed all of the rules, something that Hillary can’t really say, with her campaigning and victories by default in states that she knew perfectly well weren’t supposed to be involved in the process.

Despite this, Clinton still has a lot of delegates and a ton of power. This gives her several options.

If she feels that Obama will lose in the fall, she could just let him take the nomination and get slaughtered by John McCain. She will then run in 2012, forgiving Democrats who abandoned her and easily snagging the nomination. It will be an “I told you Obama was unelectable but you didn’t listen to me” candidacy.

Another option is to use her super delegates, and float the ‘unelectablity of Obama’ concept at the convention. If this happens and the party awards her the nomination, without a pledged delegate lead, every black city in America will burn.

Blacks will not come out to vote for Clinton in the general election and no Democrat can win the white house without the black vote. Once again, the result is a John McCain presidency.

Finally, Hillary could make a deal with Obama and release her delegates to him, giving him the majority needed to clinch the nomination. In exchange Hillary could demand that she be put on the bottom of the ticket as the Vice-Presidential nominee.

While this would ensure that no devisive floor fight would occur at the convention, such a ticket would likely lead to a huge defeat for the Democrats in November.

Conventional wisdom says that the when selecting a VP, priority number one should be picking someone who doesn’t hurt your candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives.

These negatives go up when she talks.

She has no charisma.

Every American knows who she is and has made up their mind already as to whether they like her or not.

She does not deliver a state which the Democrats would otherwise have difficulty winning.


White men would feel snubbed by the Democrats who have decided on a black man and a woman to represent their party.

Republicans who are not enthusiastic for McCain and who were thinking about sitting '08 out, would flock to the polls in order to stop the Clintons from regaining power.

Questions would rage in regards to who would actually be in charge of the nation. Is it Barack Obama in the White House or are Bill and Hillary making the calls from the Naval Observatory? This is a concept that will be completely unappealing to independents.

Hillary Clinton is probably the worst possible person for Obama to put on the bottom of the ticket, but Obama might have to.

The Democrats really don’t have any good choices at this point.

Jerimiah Wright has severely wounded Obama. It appears that he has managed to stop the bleeding, but keep in mind that the American people really don’t know where Obama stands on the issues. They only know that he is an incredibly charismatic figure who spent God knows how many Sundays in the pulpit of a viciously Un-American, racist pastor.

I’m guessing that many evangelical Christians, who were not thrilled when McCain wrapped up the nomination, have been motivated by Wright’s angry sermons and will turn out in the fall to stop Obama. They will hold their nose and vote for McCain in high numbers. Perhaps not in the enthusiastic way that they came out for Bush in ’04, but enough to secure victories in places like Ohio and Florida.

When they add to the equation that Obama is to the left, politically of the vast majority of Americans, the Independents who stuck with him through “Pastorgate” will trickle away to the reliable, moderate, war hero.

This may be exactly what Hillary is hoping for.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

That is insane. A Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton will wipe out any GOP candidate.

The GOP "SWING" voters will leave regaurdless if Hillary, Obama, or J-Lo is on the ticket. I believe the DNC is aware of how republicans infuluence the democratic primaries. The superdelegates are no idiots. They will come up with a reasonable solution and deliever a win for the party this November. I can't hardly wait. I am buying my Uncle Sam hat.

Anonymous said...

No way, Dan. Hillary Clinton would never accept an offer of the vice presidency. With her position in the Senate secure and her long role as front-runner, the humiliation would be too great. Obama would be crazy to put her on the ticket anyway. Why have someone serving under you who is likely to be upstaging you? I don't agree with the talk about black cities burning either.

Anonymous said...

hillary would not want or accept the vp nod. if they won, she'd be vp - a demotion. if they lost, she'd be blamed. much better to let obama go down in flames all by himself, if we dems are dumb enough to give him the nomination.

and may richardson go with him.

adept2u said...

My issue with Hillary Clinton is that I feel she is only motivated by her own ambition. She may earnestly believe that her ambition and the interests of the Democratic Party and that of the American people are one and the same, but they are not.

Barack has given us a framework to discuss not just the thorny issue of race or gender, but several others that afflict every American. Issues like our disastrous adventure in Iraq, the continuing and impending disaster looming in the sub prime mortgage debacle, education, corporate greed, and so on. Rather than join in and constructively add to or even expand the thoughtful and mature discussion on some of the issues that divide us, and how we might go forward and tackle the issues we both share, she sends her husband out as attack dog to play to tired reactionaries with his Jesse Jackson statement, and question this great American Barack Obama’s patriotism with his more recent ones.

This is the politics of divisiveness that thankfully I believe we are turning the page on. We once had a great Democrat that when campaigning said something along the lines of this - If you are given the choice of candidates and one is preaching hope and the other is talking fear, you better choose the one with the hope. That candidate was Bill Clinton but Hillary is not Bill.

Anonymous said...

You're obviously an Obama supporting nutjob.

Obama's unelectable, Hill will beat him in the popular vote, and he should just drop out. No one wants that empty suit as their president. Sorry, you lose.

Anonymous said...

Funny as it sounds I ran this idea across a large group of Democrats tonight and everyone had positive takes on it. A McCain/Clinton ticket! I know it's a way out there because he probably wouldn't ask her but it's doable! It's a smart move politically for him too! He is having a tough time rallying support for the diehard right wing so he'd have to pander pretty hard.... with Clinton on the ticket he wouldn't have to pander... He would carry the moderate GOP vote and with Clinton she'd carry the moderate Democrat base. This is a group Obama has a hard time carrying and now with this weeks past events it's moving even further from him. Obama can NOT win the general election if he would lose in States like Ohio, PA, Michigan, etc where this base lives and which normally goes blue in general elections. McCain would most certainly like the cushion of those states to turn them Red in the general election. Neither side would have to carry the far left wing or the far right wing radicals in this election set up. After the Democratic party leaders have basically CRAPPED all over her in lieu of their prodigy golden boy Obama, If I were her I'd go Independent! You need a party to be recognized and at this stage she doesn't need that anymore.
Frankly, in the end it doesn't matter for myself and my group because we decided tonight should Obama get the nomination, we're going for McCain this fall!

Anonymous said...

Many churches and religious groups have looked into these sermons and the pastor to recognize him for good or bad. He was a man who brought truth, saved people and did many things like many servants of god. Also like many servents (of divine higher power. The thing this man faulted in not seeing the changes and difference we have made, partially because his faith. His faith was respectable as it taught from the bible, and taught thou shall not hate. The times have changed since that sermon so much that we can have a African American elected president this year. However, Obamas purpose is clear.... all children, not just white, black, asian, latino, but Americas children. It almost makes me proud to be an America, unless America lets vicious power-junkie Hillary Clinton rip it away from him. You guys should spend more time digging out her scandels. You can find one for every letter of the alphabet, not just the words once said by someone that would probably have been modified with some after thought to better convey hope in the message. Much of what he said was true. This war, our approach, and racial profiling are our realities. If we think their communities aren't affected, then why did no white people choose to come celebrate god with the black people? They are realities if we start looking at both canidate purely for who they are, what they've done, and what they plan to do it says a lot for Obama, and much less for Clinton. Research and exploit her dirty laundy, its the stuff that makes us cringe when we think about her running this country.
White Guy, Fostoria, Ohio

Anonymous said...

Good article Dan. But it looks a lot like Obama sold the VP slot to Bill Richardson in exchange for his endorsement- and some more Superdelegates. Obama just cured his Hispanic vote problem. And his White vote problem. The Obamath calculus is Black Vote + Hispanic Vote + "Progressive" Sheep Vote = More than Racist White Vote.
Just my humble opinion.
And for the "Progressives" who disagree but are incapable of controlling either emotion or rational thought, yes, I'm stupid, a moron, retarded, fat, ugly, etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

obama/klinton? Would any of YOU put YOUR LIFE between hillary robbem klipem and the presidency? I certainly wouldnt.

Anonymous said...

Obama will need a good old white guy to run with him as VP.

Clinton is 60 so she has two paths for Presidency. Win this year's primary or make sure Obama lose the general.

I have full confidence in Bill, Hillary and their surrogates like James Carville that they will put all they have to ensure that Obama lose the general. Someone please remind them that the County comes first, then the Party and then, if at all, the Clintons' person ambition.

Anonymous said...

Rev. Wright’s hateful and racist outbursts were not just random or impulsive, they are rooted in the doctrinal tenets which TUCC espouses.

A Talking point at TUCC (the church of Barack Hussein Obama):

• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
– James Hal Cone (A Black Theology of Liberation)

Black Liberation Theology, began as a form of Liberation Theology aka. Christian Marxism; made notorious by the Sandinista National Liberation Front, which was started by the CELAM (Conselho Episcopal Latino Americano - Latin American Episcopal Conference) and authored by Princeton Theologian Rubem Alves.

Anonymous said...

Both Hillary Clinton and Obama are unelectable. Hillary Clinton even more so, because she is hated by everyone in America who isn't a Democrat Party elitist. Obama is not hated, in fact he is liked by a majority of Americans including Republicans thus he will not hurt the party down the ticket.

What the Clinton supporters do not yet understand is that a majority of her support comes from the euphemistically-called "Jacksonian Democrats" who are voting for her because she is the whiter of two evils. Sorry, but that's the reason. Given a choice between her and a Scot-Irish male war hero, the same trailer-dwellers who give her a lead in backwoods Pennsyltucky will enthusiastically pull the lever for John McCain in November.

Anonymous said...

Please tell me this man is not paid in any way for writing such trashy opinions supported by circular and laughably false leaps of logic. "Obama/Clinton ticket would fail because...Reason number 1 - Clinton is not Charismatic. Reason number 2 - White men would feel snubbed with a black guy and a woman on the ticket." Such sound and plausible logical connclusions based on hard facts that can be proven and that aren't random, imagined, false opinions of a single person in a glass bowl in any way. Bravo good man. You have convinced me. Who could possible argue...

PDXEric said...

Anyone who thinks Clinton would want a VP spot is insane. She has more power in the Senate and more opportunity to work for the change she envisions. While it is my hope that Democrats will wake up and see how poorly Obama stands to fare this November (see the latest maps at electoralvote.com) and pressure superdelegates to do their job and nominated someone with a fighting chance, Hillary will be the nominee in 2012 to challenge McCain.

I am also sick of the accusations that Hillary was the only candidate to "campaign" in Florida and Michigan. Barack Obama ran ads in Florida (he has used the excuse that they are national ads...which is bunk because you can always take specific regions out of national ad parameters), and both Edwards and Obama led a grassroots campaign for people to vote uncommitted in Michigan. What is pathetic is that Obama, who preaches from his mighty pulpit about empowering the people, yet he won't support any revote becaues he knows he is weak in each state. Politics of Hope = Politics of Nope.

Anonymous said...

This is nuts. Enough said.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me, but how could Obama be running a campaign in Michigan? His name was not on the effing ballot! Nor was he campaigning in Florida- he did not visit Florida and that's what "campaigning in Florida" means.

It's the Clinton camp that thinks it's OK to have elections with only one name on the ballot like they used to do in the USSR. Apparently she also thinks it's OK to trick African-Americans out of showing up at the polls like they used to do in Arkansas. The rules for primary scheduling were party rules agreed to beforehand now Hillary wants to change them because she feels it will be to her advantage. Pretty straightforward no- she wants it, so she should get it.

Well we've got news for you- the days of Clintonian redneck hate politics are over- Hillary can now crawl back into the woods and take Bill with her, if she knows where he is.

Anonymous said...

This guy is living proof of that old adage about "A--H---s and opinions, everyone's got one."

Shannonymous said...

I agree with adept2u and AGAIN want to call out the idiocy of the anonymous insults.

Anonymous said...

Just a reminder: The Republicans have brought us a $9 trillion dollar national debt, $105 oil, soon to be $4 gas, falling house prices, rising unemployment, rising inflation and an endless occupation of an Arab country which worsens all of the above. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will point out the John McCain supports ALL of the Bush policies that have caused this mess. The Democrats will win big. Conservative Republican=Borrow and Spend on War without End.

Dan said...

My question is, how does Obama expect us to buy into the fact that he's the guy who's going to bring us all together when he surrounds himself with individuals who are so divisive that it makes a large number of American's sick to their stomach?

In addition to this, no one as liberal as Barack Obama could possibly bring American's together on politcal issues, and on the issue of race he can't be taken seriously because the nucleus of his entire political career stems from that church pulpit. Where the beliefs and actions of it's pastor and many of it's congregants are the cause of the nation's racial divide in the first place.

In conclusion, let's not forget who's responsible for our divisions in the first place. It's the liberal Democrats who have sought at every turn to undermine the War on Terror and tho ongoing battle in Iraq.

They have unfairly attacked the president as a liar and a moron while he, unlike his predecessor, has for the most part kept himself above the partisan frey.

While this behavior is noble in a President it is also to his detriment. It has allowed the left to become louder and louder and gather many political neophytes and reactionarys to the undefined, rhetoric fueld campaign of someone like Barack Obama.

bartonb said...

DJ -

"My question is, how does Obama expect us to buy into the fact that he's the guy who's going to bring us all together when he surrounds himself with individuals who are so divisive that it makes a large number of American's sick to their stomach?"

Didn't Jerry Falwell - who campaigned big time to his evangelical crowd for Bush (mush to Bush's pleasure) - blame 9/11 on the gays and the 'liberals' and say that America DESERVES AIDS because of the hedonism it tolerates (of course, tolerating others = freedom, but that’s beside the point).

When George Bush won in 2004, did he not receive a congratulatory letter from the president of Bob Jones university saying this -

“In your re-election, God has graciously granted America — though she doesn’t deserve it — a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly. Don’t equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.”

“Though she doesn’t deserve it?” What, pray tell, does America deserve then, my good man?

Talk to me about "anti-American."
Much of the Evangelical born-again crowd would like to see several members of our free society ground into meat or shot out into space or burned at the stake or all three. Arguably - guys like the late Falwell and Pat Robertson and the anti-Catholic Bob Jones kooks and a whole lotta other hardcore (or even mild) right-wing Christian types could just as easily be described as "hating America" as could our new friend Jeremiah Wright. After all - this is the nation where men get to hump each other, where we wantonly kill babies, where atheists run rampant in the streets, where evolution is taught in our schools. Fundamentalist Christians can't stand all that... that... FREEDOM.

And yet.
Bush and the rest of the GOP have never once been called upon to denounce these myopic, narrow, hateful viewpoints perpetually espoused by this garrulous portion of their base.
Why is that?

In another post, a wonderfully verbose anonymous commentator said that I "obviously know NOTHING about what goes on in normal Christian churches.” I asked the comment-lobbing masked man (or woman) to explain how he (or she) knew that I knew nothing concerning the topic. Crickets. More importantly - I also asked for a clarification in regards to the descriptor “normal Christian church.” Also crickets.

Seriously, though. Is there a Normal Christian Church? Is a Church of Christ an NCC? What about Mormons? They’re not normal, right? No way. I’ve watched Big Love, that shit ain’t normal. What about a Kathlick Church, is that an NCC? Lots of Protestants would say “no,” right? What about those churches where they dance with snakes, believing that if they get bitten then thus hath God spoken? Are those churches NCCs? What about the Immanuel Lutheran church in Tampa, Florida, where I attended until I was old enough to make up my own mind about a few things? It was there, during my Confirmation class, that they showed us a video of some teens drinking and making out – actually KISSING! (don’t get excited, it was really softcore) - and then dying in a splendidly horrible car crash, a head-on bang-up job with a Mack truck. Their bodies (their “souls” now, I guess, I dunno, the narrative was confusing) were then dragged out of their vehicle by shadow monsters and then dragged underground and thrown into cages where devils poked them and mocked them. And then a guy in a suit walked on the screen and told us these kids deserved EXACTLY what they were getting. The kicker was that there had been a nice Jewish kid with this bunch. He spent most of the film’s first and second acts saying things like “We shouldn’t drink, guys,” and “Don’t you think we should get back to the dance,” and “You shouldn’t be kissing like that,” etc. But the poor Yid got dragged down to hell and thrown in a cage with his buddies. The man in the suit explained to us that – since he had yet to ask Jesus into his heart – he was just as guilty as the rest of them.
Anyway.
Is that an NCC?

What abut the Assembly of God Church in Springfield, MO, where my Grandfather was minister (John Ashcroft was in his congregation!)? Where on several occasions, I watched him and other ministers curse and condemn America for the way she tolerates drugs, sex, and rock and roll, begging the Bruce All-Mighty to hurry up and get on with the raining of the fire and the brimstone and all that. (translation: “Dear God – Please destroy America. Love, Our Church.”) I heard him damn our leaders for not coming down harder on homosexuality and abortion and divorce (they REALLY don’t like divorce, or at least they didn’t back then; at least in the case of “gay marriage destroying the sanctity of The Institution,” they weren’t being as silly as others). And all the while, the congregation shouted “Amen” and “Hallelujah’ and “Right on.”

What about my Grandmother’s (different side) church, a tiny brick good ol’ Southern Bethel Baptist church? It was there that the Pastor – during a sermon - denounced knowledge and science. An exact quote: “In the eyes of the faithful, P.H.D. might as well stand for post hole digger.” He went on to curse those who seek to obtain knowledge outside of what God wants them to know and asked God to punish the scientists who created most of our diseases and who rip our moral fabric apart by preaching Darwinism and for trying to scientifically prove that – believe it or not – God does not cure cancer for those who pray and smite those who do not.

This just in: Lots of churches all over America spit hateful fiery rhetoric every Sunday morning. Anger loves to manifest itself as venomous Bible Ire when it thinks the Holy Spirit courses through its veins. I’m sure this might sound like I’m justifying/placating/excusing Wright’s diatribes. The truth is that I couldn’t care less. The guy’s pissed off at what he has perceived to be a failing on the part of our nation to live up to its own ideals.
So are a lot of people.
But if anyone in the media is going to try calling into question the patriotism of a politician who has had association with someone who believes America has turned her sweet copper patina back on God in whatever manner and is thus deserving of Most Righteous Retribution, let’s be sure to seize and analyze every sermon every made in every church attended by, endorsing, associated with, and publicly supporting every politician and campaign out there. That’ll at least sober this conversation up, level the playing field, and maybe even lead us to that Big National Dialgoue on the Seperation of Church and State that we’ve never gotten around to having.

dan said...

If Falwell, Robertson or the heads of Bob Jones university had been GWB's "personal sriritual "advisor for two decades or if we knew that the current President had sat through hours upon hours of sermons by a man who publicaly professed hatred for America, everybody certainly would have had issues with it.

The major difference is that when these guys give their opinions, however offensive you an I may find them, concerning Gays and abortion, it's based on religious belief.

Wright was talking politics and making statement's that can be easily disproven.

A better comparison would have been if Bush was a member of a White supremacist church. If that had been the case, he would have been forced to drop out of the 2000 race, the day after that news came out.

Shannonymous said...

Bravo, B, Bravo. Once again you just opened up a major can of whoop ass in a beautifully eloquent way.

The bottom line (as I said in my comment under "Obama Changes His Story" that B referred to which conjured crickets) is that most leaders of organized religion spout hate of some sort.

Whatever church Bush goes to, I'm sure if someone had been taping the sermons for the last 8 years they'd find enough hate and fear-mongering to match Wright.

Anonymous said...

1) You can't accuse anyone of being a racist, because if you do that you're a racist yourself;

2) You can't accuse rich corporations (or individuals) of doing things that hurt poor people, because if you do that you're engaging in class warfare (this also applies to accusing Republicans of enacting policies that help the rich and hurt the poor);

3) You can't question whether America's foreign policy actions may have contributed to, much less directly caused, an attack against America, against American interests abroad, or against an American ally, because if you do that you're disloyal and you hate America;

4) You can't call for an end to the occupation of Iraq, because if you do that you don't support the troops (you know, the same troops 4,000 of whom have been killed and tens of thousands of whom have been maimed in Iraq);

5) You can't require the federal government to obtain warrants before tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists, because if you do that you are leaving America vulnerable to attack;

6) You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam (which didn't work), but you can compare it to the occupation of Japan and Germany after WWII (because they did work);

7) You can't talk about the historical fact of racism in American society (see number 1, above);

8) You can't say that the South started the Civil War because it wanted to preserve slavery (see number 1, above);

9) You can't disagree with Likud policies when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict;

10) You can't accuse David Vitter of doing exactly what Elliott Spitzer did; and

11) You can't call Rush Limbaugh a junkie, nor can you call him a hypocrite for railing against drug addicts while being a huge pill-head himself.

These are just the most important of the current Rules of The Game. Our conservative friends will be only too happy to let us know when the rules are changed, which happens roughly 100% of the time when a conservative violates one of The Rules.