Barack Obama has victory within his grasp. All it would take is one masterstroke of political tactics, and the race would be all but over.
To accomplish this seemingly-impossible feat, all he would have to do is, first, immediately agree to a debate within the next week. The debate begins. The moderator asks some inane first question to Barack. Instead of answering it (no matter what he has been asked), Obama instead looks directly into the camera and says the following:
Instead of answering that, I would like instead to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.
Our party is now pretty equally divided between myself and Senator Clinton. The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but I don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions for their various candidates -- but I'm proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.
So I would like to take this opportunity to offer Senator Clinton the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should I be nominated for President. Should she be nominated, and should she offer the same to me, I am publicly saying I would accept that as well. I think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. I challenge my opponent to do the same.
Instant pandemonium! Among loud cheers from the crowd, the moderator finally sputters, "How do you respond, Senator Clinton?"
This paints Hillary into a very dicey corner. The only way out of it for her would be to immediately accept. But I don't believe she would do so.
I think the Clinton camp already has reams of spreadsheets showing exactly how many votes in which states are added for each possible VP nominee, and I don't think she'd dismiss all that triangulation in favor of what she would consider a "rash move." I see her giving a signature laugh (to buy a few seconds to think about it), and then giving some equivocating answer: "Well, I am not running for VP, I still think I'm going to win." If pressed by either Obama or the moderator, I still see her giving some version of: "It's way too early, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
I guarantee one thing, though. This would be the 15 seconds of this debate that everyone would see on the news that night. And I predict that it would mean the rest of the primaries would be a cakewalk for Obama.
There is a huge number of Democratic voters who are seriously conflicted over which candidate to vote for. True, there are staunch Hillary supporters, and a vocal Barack base as well. But there are also a whole lot of Democrats in the middle -- seeing good things and bad about both candidates -- who are so up-in-the-air that they're waiting until the last minute (there in the voting booth) to make up their minds. Given the promise from one of the candidates that a vote for him would also wind up being a vote for her as well, I would be willing to bet that it would turn this tide toward Obama.
Even if Hillary realized what was happening and later did come out for the "dream ticket" scenario (whether Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton), this would still end up helping Obama, since he thought of it first and showed leadership by proposing it on live television. Clinton (supposedly ready to lead on "day one") would be seen as not being able to make snap decisions, instead relying on cautious (and poll-driven) decision-making. Obama has been making the case for a while that he would decide things right the first time around (see: Iraq), and this would just reinforce that image.
This is also why it needs to happen during a live debate. Although the same tactic may have a more limited effect if rolled out in an Obama stump speech, it would be most effective during a debate -- when there is absolutely no time for the candidate to talk to her advisors about what to do.
Of course, because it is almost a tie race, and because this is a tactic (or, to be blunt, a "gimmick"), it could actually be used by either side at this point. Hillary has already had one "gotcha" moment in a debate, calling on Obama to support her Senate legislation. Obama, to his credit, immediately did so. This would mean Hillary would run a greater risk of the whole thing backfiring on her, and getting stuck with Obama as a running mate when she probably would have picked someone else, given a free choice.
But try as I might, I just don't see her attempting something this risky. I think the chances are much higher that Obama would be the one to make such a bold move.
And I think it would guarantee him star billing on that "dream ticket."
[I apologize for posting so many times this week, but you've got to admit it's been a busy week for politics!]
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
That's why negotiation is SO useful, now.
While I can completely understand anyone who is enthusiastic about their candidate, I'll also state that I am disgusted by those (on either side) who try to paint the opposition as the Anti-Christ (or worse, as bad as a Republican).
Argue for who you think is best, if you must. But focus on building your candidate UP -- not on tearing the other one DOWN. You're only doing the GOP's work for them.
How would you feel if Hillary did this to him--which is the far more likely scenario. She already had McAuliffe make a public statement that they would consider Obama as VP because he's so popular. Yawn.
These two will not share a ticket. Hillary doesn't need someone to outshine her. Barack doesn't need someone to bring him down. There are a tiny fraction of true blues that would think this is a good idea. Tiny. And none are people who wouldn't vote for almost any other ticket.
While I don't agree with everything you say, to clarify, I would feel the same way if either candidate did this. I would feel it was a bold and risky political tactic that just might serve to convince a lot of the fence-sitters who are having trouble picking the best choice out of two very good ones. Although I set it up for Obama, I really think either campaign could reap votes with this tactic.
Although there are plenty of supporters of both candidates posting comments here, I truly believe that the proportion of conflicted Democrats is a lot bigger than "tiny," although I do concede that your last sentence is probably right. They would likely vote for any Dem ticket in November, but I bet they would support a candidate who appears to be trying to unify the party in the primaries.
Of course, as always, I could be wrong about that.
Thanks for commenting!
-CW
All this machiavellian check and mate chess game stuff is just old-style politics.
We've had enough of that for the past 16 years.
But thanks for sharing, anyway.
Sincerely,
OtayPanky
I see why you call yourself a poet. Your command of the language is masterful. You put the question (as it should be asked) much, much better than my attempt at it. Even though it sounds like it, Obama would not actually be offering it to her, and have plenty of wiggle room later to pick who he wanted for VP. But -- the important part -- it would still put her on the spot in a big way. Or he could even leave her a bit of wiggle room (by ending his question with "consider" instead of "accept" as you wrote), and still look like the one "reaching out to unify the party" which is the ulterior motive in asking the question in the first place.
I bow to your political framing skills. I wish I had written it the way you did. Well done!
-CW
my idea comes from your latest column. if on the issue of delegates hillary could deal from a position of what is right instead of what's in her immediate self-interest, it would put her on the moral high ground that barack seems to have monopolized thus far.
part 1: make a secret deal with howard dean that if she negates the PR nightmare which is the race for "super-delegates," the party will fund re-votes in florida and michigan.
part 2: publicly ask her superdelegates to vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates - regardless of who it is. doing something "because it is right" even though it's not to her immediate advantage would actually play to her eventual advantage, especially in the general election. at the very least it would land her a few solid news cycles, AND show leadership on a dicey and divisive issue.
part 3: do some public lobbying for a re-vote in florida and michigan. then when dean does what she asks, she once again comes off publicly as a principled leader who people will follow, not the opportunist the obama camp wants to portray. all of which will give her a boost in the remaining primaries as well as the general election, because once again she is seen as a competent leader who solves difficult problems.
-just an idea....
cognito ergo populistae
2) It really grinds my gears when people use 'myself' incorrectly.
You know what? You're right. I had to look it up, myself. I'm usually pretty good in the grammar department, but although it's not "incorrect" it is indeed "frowned upon" to use the word the way I did. But seriously, I was trying to put words in Obama's mouth, and in so doing I attempted to match his oratory style as best as I could. I bet I could find a clip of him using "myself" in this way, as it just seems like the style of speech he uses.
But I offer you my mea culpa. I was unaware of this rule. I myself will use the word correctly in the future.
heh heh.
-CW
Write and post as many essays as ya like, they are always of interest. That said, I hope this is not an early excuse as to why the Friday Talking Points will be late tomorrow? :) Agape.
No, the excuse as to why FTP will be late will be fresh and unique, as always!
Agape yourself... (whoops, gotta look that up)
-CW
Just give Obama's trajectory a few more weeks and we'll all have forgotten that the two were ever even. The super delegates eventually will do what is best for the party and the country. Hell, faced with the prospect of borrowing from Bill, Clinton may even do a Romney and do what's best.
Of course, Obama would be an idiot unworthy of the office if he ever seriously considered Clinton for veep.
While you're probably right about Obama doing well for the next few weeks, what if Clinton takes Texas and Ohio in a month? Then we may be right back to the same point we're at now....
-CW