Robert Novak writes in todays Chicago Sun-Times:
Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her choosing her principal rival — Sen. Barack Obama — for vice president.
They maintain Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, he represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.
This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton’s running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
Captain Ed responds:
Duane Patterson argued this same point a couple of weeks ago on CQ Radio. Obama comes from a state that will certainly support Hillary; it’s her native state, although now she hails from New York. Democrats already have the African-American vote locked up, and will not likely win any more by placing him on the ticket. Democrats have convinced themselves that Katrina has strengthened their grip on that demographic, and they may be right.
On the other hand, there could be significant risk in leaving Obama off the ticket. For one thing, he’s proven himself a good organizer, if not a terribly prepared candidate. His donor base outstrips Clinton’s, and so does the energy level from his campaign. There is also the matter of expectations, especially with the African-American community. Black voters may expect that a second-place finish should give them a seat at the ultimate table. If the Democrats instead opt for a white Southerner to round out the ticket, they may decide — with some justification — that they will never get their due from the Democrats. They may opt for a third-party candidate, or even the Republicans, althought that depends on whom the GOP nominate.
I think another point to take into consideration is that Hillary has cleaned Obama’s clock the last several months on at least a couple of issues, both of them related to foreign policy (the jab about his tough talk on Pakistan comes to mind) and it would look like a flip flop (not to mention blatantly insincere) if she went from vocally criticizing his approach to foreign policy to all of a sudden turning around and saying he’d make a good fit as second in command to her.
All this assumes, of course, that la Clinton will get the nomination - outgoing Bush advisor Karl Rove is certainly someone who believes she will, and his recent criticism of Hillary has led her to quip that Rove is “obsessed” with her. It’s still early on in the race for the nomination, but if the polls are any indication, he could be right: she’s going to be the one to beat come primary time.
Via Brian at Liberty Pundit (formerly known as Iowa Voice).
Related: Speaking of Robert Novak, John Hawkins recently had a chance to interview him. You can read the Q&A here.
| Email This Post | Print This |
- All this focus on a Hillary running mate is magnifying a problem she has that’s causing no small consternation in Liberal ranks. The question is, who could she pick that wouldn’t weaken her position in some way. Even if she picks Warner, she has a recognition problem, since very few voters know that much about him, and makes a weak ticket running against “celebs” like Rudy or Thompson.
- On the Rep side, its probable that Fred’s handlers are trying to hold back as long as possible, not willing to stake Thompsons “celeb” against Rudy’s combination of face + experience. The Reps could gain some strength by choosing Condi for VP, even though she’s said she isn’t interested. It would offset the “Fem” aspect, and in some measure, bring in a higher Black vote, especially if Hillary can’t go with Obama for the reasons you cited. Fred seems to look as if he’s bumbling, because of the reticence to face off with Rudy, all of which is by way of saying, a year and a half later I still think a Rudy/Condi, or Thompson/Condi are the two strongest tickets for the Reps. I prefer Rudy for reasons of experience under fire, and I think he is best equipped to deal with the Far Left loons, just as he did in NY.
- BBH -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 8/20/2007 - 9:53 am
I still think there is no way hillary can win.
Moderate women will come out of the woodwork to vote against her even if they haven’t voted in their lives.
As Rove said her unfavorables are high.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 8/20/2007 - 10:14 am
It’s amazing- every logical thinking liberal I’ve spoken with said the would be stunned by a Clinton victory in the Dem primaries. They think that it would mean an almost assured victory for the Republicans and they may be right.
However, Republicans over the last two years have been misunderestimating (to borrow a term) how poorly they’ve looked since 2004 Presidential election. They didn’t think they’s lose the senate, but they did. Between that and the ole Clinton charm (and the fact that Shillary is a chameleon on the issues) she may stand a chance.
God help us all.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 8/20/2007 - 11:16 am
- There was an article recently, can’t recall where I saw it for the link, that discussed Rove’s strategy in going after Kerry rather than Edwards in the 2004 cycle, based on the idea that Kerry was the weaker of the two, and therefore less likely to win, as opposed to Edwards on the same dais with Bush, the fumbling stogey Conservative, a case of charm versus poor presentation, and he did so because “they didn’t want to build Edwards up in popularity by attacking him”, so they went after Kerry instead.
- With that backdrop its interesting that Rove took his parting shot at Hillary, instead of Obama. You could read that in the same way as the Kerry/Edwards strategy. Of course as things turned out, Edwards proved to be an even worse empty suit than the Flipflopper, but they couldn’t have foreseen that at the time.
- In any event, I think you’ll see another Geraldene Farraro with Hillary if she does get the nomination, which is anything but assured at this point.
- One thing to keep in mind is 2006 was definately not a win for the far left loons, in spite of all the claims to the contrary. Yes the Dems won control, but barely, and not enough to really push a pile of legislation, and even at that is was a preponderance of “moderate” Dems that got voted in, not the fringe lunatics. So the Dems cannot put too much hope on that. It was a signal that the voters were angry with Republican lassitude, but not angry enough to swing to far to the left. So far the fact is the hard left has won nothing, only lost the one campaign they were at all prominent in, the Lieberman disaster.
- If Rudy starts to hammer on the Border issue, and takes a strong Iraq psosition, with a clear, discriptive path to some sort of stable exit, the Reps could take this one with a very comfortable margin, particularly when the Dems are forced to swerve back to the center, and have nothing to offer than “so are we”. Its really the Republicans race to lose this time around, in spite of their poor showing in recent years. The Dems have actually been hurt from 2006, because they’ve done virtually nothing but run investigations since they got in, so they havn’t been able to capitalize, but have rather ended up looking just as bad as the Reps.
- Personally, I’d give Hillary 1 chance in 8 of winning the White House, and even that only if she manages to hang on for the nomination. Rudy looks like the best odds, provided the Reps don’t find ways to give it away.
- BBH -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 8/20/2007 - 12:18 pm
That won’t happen.
Rudy’s lawfirm represents the parties interested in the NAFTA superhighway.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 8/20/2007 - 12:24 pm
ST, The post title has “John” Warner. He’s the Republican. Yes, the post has Mark Warner’s name.
Comment by Baklava @ 8/20/2007 - 12:31 pm
Thanks. Just corrected it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 8/20/2007 - 12:34 pm
“…interested in the NAFTA superhighway.”
- Contrary to the common consensus, trade improvements and border control are not mutually exclusive.
- Here in San Diego, an area with two of the largest border ports of entry, We have built a wall and effectively increased border security about 6 fold. The results are rather telling. Cross border trade is up 50% in the past 4 years since these measures were implimented, while illegal traffic is down 90% on average. For a time, tunneling continued to be a problem, but with the addition of improved technology to ferret them out, that has been pretty much shut down too. Not suprisingly, pro-illegal immigration groups continue to propagandize the results, but the facts are there for all to see. As a matter of fact instead of hurting trade, it has actaully improved things dramatically. Along with that, San Diego is no longer considered a “good point” for drug and human trafficking, among the border gangs and coyotes. they’ve been forced to move further East, since the water ways are being shut down to a much greater extent now by the Coast Guard patrols.
- BBH -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 8/20/2007 - 12:50 pm
If placed in the context of a sterile, logical enviroment, that is correct. Reality dictates otherwise, as many corporations want the free labor.
Our politicians are beholden to these interests. Rudy is one of those politicians. NAFTA just isn’t a trade agreement, but the beginning of an open border policy for the whole of North America.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 8/20/2007 - 1:10 pm
- Its a hoped for movement….no more, no less, and here in Cal, only the produce industry, albeit very important, is really dependent on immigrent labor. But all of that is do-able too, with a tamper proof identity card. all you have to do is allow the banks to run the sytem, tied to an account as a requirement. That guarentees a very high level of accuracy. Still doesn’t require “open borders”. The businesses fight it because it would require honesty in labor practices, and taxation. No more sweaat shops and illegal labor practices. But thats a relatively small number of businesses.
- So all I see are positive reasons for not only border control from a homeland defense psosition, but to the betterment of everyone, even the immigrents themselves.
- Without it, border states like Cal are headed for financial disaster.
- And I did sign that online petition to stop that alliance you’re reffering to. It’s really not inevitable like people have been lead to believe. Good border control, enforcement of the illegal allien laws, guest worker programs, tamper proof personal identity cards, all of it will just make things better.
- BBH -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 8/20/2007 - 3:11 pm
Karl Rove, gave all Republicans and maybe candidates in particular, a strategy for winning. The gist was that he looks at an opponent’s strengths, not just their weaknesses. The reason being that the strengths are some, if not a lot, perception and are touted by their party as proven fact and hyped beyond whatever is there to begin with. I saw his point when he was reciting the long list of legisilative obstructions to health reform of any kind that Hillary has sponsored. Republicans and the Bush administration have tried in a number of ways to pass legislation to help all Americans afford good medical coverage, like giving small business owners the tax breaks that large corporations enjoy. And allowing tax payers to deduct their medical insurance premiums etc. As I recall, when the Hillary/Bill health plan was being considered she was asked by a senator if it would not kill some small businesses and she replied that she could not be responsible for every under capitalized business failure. She routinely gets by with claiming the high road in regard to caring about those who cannot afford health care and nobody calls her on it. One would think that democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wants the issue of health care reform, not a Republican solution.
Comment by ruth @ 8/20/2007 - 8:34 pm