pstscrpt, you say (as has been echoed by the media) that Clinton may be positioning herself for VP or 2012 candidate.
However, if she cuts Obama down enough that he is unelectable by November in order to position herself for 2012, everyone in the Democratic Party will hold her responsible. Why would they reward her with the nomination four years down the road?
It would depend on how many people believe that was her intention, wouldn't it? And, while I think people are voting for Obama because they actually like him, Democrats seem to have a history of nominating people mainly based on perceived electability, and getting boring candidates nobody really likes, like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
She *could* try to pull off a superdelegate coup, but this would look like a backroom deal and shred the Party like never before. I think she's running for VP at this point. I don't think Obama wants to run with her though.
I was talking to a friend of mine (my editor, actually) yesterday, and naturally we turned toward politics. He said he couldn't remember the last time a runner-up was offered the VP spot. (I kindly reminded him about Edwards.) But, other than that instance, is he right? Coming in second doesn't give you any special privileges than saying, "I almost won."
I can remember another: Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.
I think, too, IIRC, that Dan Quayle ran in the primaries against Bush Sr. but was never really a viable opponent.
But, no, there's no inherent promise given to someone who comes in second. I think, though, that this is a special case. I'm not convinced it is what will happen - i still think Obama will pick Tim Kaine - but i think there must be a lot of pressure on Obama behind the scenes to pick Clinton as his running mate. Clinton has a lot to offer as a candidate: a campaign organization, influence in the party, and, what, 33 million people who voted for her in the primaries?
Most of that baggage, including Mr. Clinton, is carried by people who won't vote Democratic anyway.
The Clintons themselves are probably more well connected than anyone else in the Democratic Party; quite a few people in the party worked for the Clinton administration. If the Clintons think they can possibly pull off a superdelegate coup... there's some substance to that.
BTW i was researching the runner-up-as-veep situation and found that in 1988, runner-up Jesse Jackson stayed in the race until the convention, in part because he was hoping to run for VP. Dukakis went with Bentsen instead. I don't recall hearing people say at the time that the contentiousness of that race had anything to do with Dukakis not winning, but who really knows to what extent the killed enthusiasm of Jackson supporters affected the outcome?
If the Clintons think they can possibly pull off a superdelegate coup... there's some substance to that.
If they do, I won't be voting Democrat this year. If the party has that little respect for the votes of the public, then I don't want to hand them power.
Huckabee wants the position too. I think there's a realistic chance McCain could go with Romney or Huckabee, because a governor would round out the ticket well.
IMO he may well pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal is young, charismatic, has that rising star quality about him.
I would have picked the first option, but I don't think it will Rend the democratic party. I think that's a bunch of trumped up baloney. That might be used as justification for the miraculous McCain victory when the Republicans steal the 3rd election in a row by purging voter rolls and hacking tabulators. As long as we have a justification, we won't riot, no matter how loony the justification is cough**chatty-dems**cough
I think the Party is creeping toward the edge. Tempers are hot; grudges have been formed. I think Americans have gotten complacent with regards to the major parties--we haven't seen one go the way of the dodo since the early 20th century (and even then the Republican party reconstituted itself).
If only. It's nothing more than a changing of the guard. The Clintonistas have ruled the DNC for 16 years, mostly ineffectively. Dean, Edwards, and Obama are just the next wave.
There's so much media hype for everything, because the more they hype, the more they have to talk about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:36 pm (UTC)However, if she cuts Obama down enough that he is unelectable by November in order to position herself for 2012, everyone in the Democratic Party will hold her responsible. Why would they reward her with the nomination four years down the road?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:57 pm (UTC)I think, too, IIRC, that Dan Quayle ran in the primaries against Bush Sr. but was never really a viable opponent.
But, no, there's no inherent promise given to someone who comes in second. I think, though, that this is a special case. I'm not convinced it is what will happen - i still think Obama will pick Tim Kaine - but i think there must be a lot of pressure on Obama behind the scenes to pick Clinton as his running mate. Clinton has a lot to offer as a candidate: a campaign organization, influence in the party, and, what, 33 million people who voted for her in the primaries?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 07:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 08:04 pm (UTC)The Clintons themselves are probably more well connected than anyone else in the Democratic Party; quite a few people in the party worked for the Clinton administration. If the Clintons think they can possibly pull off a superdelegate coup... there's some substance to that.
BTW i was researching the runner-up-as-veep situation and found that in 1988, runner-up Jesse Jackson stayed in the race until the convention, in part because he was hoping to run for VP. Dukakis went with Bentsen instead. I don't recall hearing people say at the time that the contentiousness of that race had anything to do with Dukakis not winning, but who really knows to what extent the killed enthusiasm of Jackson supporters affected the outcome?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 11:05 pm (UTC)If they do, I won't be voting Democrat this year. If the party has that little respect for the votes of the public, then I don't want to hand them power.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 11:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 07:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 08:12 pm (UTC)IMO he may well pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal is young, charismatic, has that rising star quality about him.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 08:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 06:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 07:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-22 07:43 pm (UTC)There's so much media hype for everything, because the more they hype, the more they have to talk about.