More than Ever, Obama Needs Clinton

Many people have been screaming at Senator Hillary Clinton to abandon her presidential bid. They argue that she is selfishly standing in the way of party unity and increasingly the likelihood that Senator John McCain will be the next president. The Hillary-must-go-now crowd should tread lightly. What many of these people don't seem to understand is that Barack Obama cannot win the presidency without significant, sustained, and sincere support from Clinton. Consequently, he needs to be patient and give her whatever she wants -- even if it means giving her the vice-presidential nomination.

There are four reasons why Obama needs Clinton. First, the Obamaniacs have yet to accept that, for all the money and notoriety his candidacy has generated, he may be weakest Democratic nominee since former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. I know that seems counterintuitive, given the enormous amount of money he has raised, the way he has energized new voters, and the way his message is resonating with voters all over the country. The reality is, however, that he has not dominated the nomination fight -- indeed Clinton would already be the nominee if the Democrats allocated their delegates on a winner-take-all basis as the Republicans do in most states. Moreover, we don't yet know the full extent of the racial and cultural roadblocks between Obama and the White House. My study of race and politics tells me that those roadblocks are mountainous and we are not yet in the general election. This puts a high premium on picking the right running mate.

Second, Hillary Clinton can be a better running mate than anyone else being mentioned. Who among us believes that Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or John Edwards can go into Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia and deliver those states to the Democrats? At one level or another, they represent some of the old style politics from which Obama promises to move the country. It's also doubtful that Nunn, Biden, and Edwards for example, would be willing to go after their former colleague, McCain, as the running mate is expected to; Edwards' unwillingness to do that in 2004 is seen as one of the reasons why John Kerry lost.

Third, the 41-point beating he took in West Virginia even though it's widely accepted that he will be the party nominee underscores the serious problem he has in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Those realities can't be overcome by just holding campaign rallies and talking about inclusion. Obama needs a running mate that has credibility with these voters and can vouch for him on all the areas where questions exist. Who better to do that than the woman who won, or is far ahead in the polls, in those states in the primaries?

Obama needs someone who can make him palatable to the voters that have, heretofore, remained cool to his presidential bid. Some have not taken to Obama because they, idiotically, believe that he is a closet Muslim (as if that means he's disloyal to the country) devoutly dedicated to the teachings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or some of the other ridiculous notions being pushed by conservative talk radio. Even more don't like him because he is Black. Obama seems unwilling or unable to confront racism for what it is, so he will need someone who can divert attention from race to something else. Clinton can do that too.

But would such a teaming work in November? I think it could, given where the Republicans are in the eyes of the country. Recently losses by the GOP in previously safe southern House seats, President Bush's historic unpopularity, and questions about McCain's longevity suggest a voter mood that is sure to keep the Democrats in the game, Obama's weaknesses notwithstanding. An Obama-Clinton ticket may seem like a longshot but, upon further review, it may be the only way the Democrats can recapture the White House.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Comments

[McFlipFlop]

If the primaries were "winner-take-all", Obama's strategy would have been different to win this thing. That argument does not hold water.

Clinton's negatives are too high, and she represents the past. She would hurt the ticket.

Obama will select the appropriate VP. His campaign has proven that they know how to win.

[cadbury]

Great article!

This seems like a no-brainer to me. HRC has won approximately half of all Dem ballots cast and she appeals to groups that Obama has had difficulty in attracting. The fact that so many Obama supporters and pundits have totally discounted her for VP is part of the reason that her supporters are talking about staying home or crossing over to McCain. We don't need someone Obama is "comfortable" with on the ticket; we need a fighter who will help him to win. She's still in this thing because the voters in many states WANT her to be in it. Good Lord, she beat him 2-1 in KY! The fact that she has shown such commitment and pure stamina means that she (and most of her supporters) would work their hearts out for an Obama-Clinton unity ticket. Again, this is a no-brainer. I say let's make history TWICE in November.

[MrWinky]

If Obama's problem is that America is not ready for a closet mulsim, and angry black man (Wright), an elitist, not ready, etc., then why in the Hell would you pick the biggest cheerleader of those false claims to be his running mate. Everyone of those attacks would be verified on the Republican side by saying, "Hey, I'm just repeating what Clinton said..."

She made a choice to run the campaign she did, and it has consequences. I'm not talking payback, I'm talking reality. You cannot be someone's biggest critic, and play to all those fears which you list, and then turn around and be that candidate's biggest supporter.

The party is already starting to reunite, and when backers see Rendell, Strickland, Bayh, Carville, etc. all backing Obama, well, they are going to feel a little dumb to continue their grief. Also, as McCain campaigns for pro-life, panders to the religious right, more tax cuts to the rich, and so on. Well, they are going to remember why they have been pissed off the last 8 years.

[sandpiper]

And Vice-Vice-President Bill would do ... what, exactly?

[GunnyJ]

Your points are nicely written, but are way off the mark. To call Obama a weak candidate is off the mark, weak compared to who Bush I&II-Iraq, Reagan-Iran/Contra, Clinton-Lost Dem in House/Senate, all of these "great" leaders. Maybe it is time to think outside of the conventional political box and bring a fresh face and approach to the table. All of "you guys" making outstanding salaries have a clouded view of what is really going on. Give a poor person a ghost writer and a column so the real stories can be told.

[sssteverrr]

Obama needs the support of the whole Democratic apparatus as any and all candidates do. But he does not need Hillary Clinton in particular.

Clinton with Bill tagging alomg would only get in his way. Obama is the best candidate we could possibly have. Who would have suggested that Obama could have upset the intrenched and connected Clinton.

Obama is a leader. Something we have not seen since Robert Kennedy. He will destroy McCain and overcome any obstacle with wisdom, integrity, compassion and strenght

[ckdogs]

I think Jim Webb would be a much better option.

[atienne]

Why is it that Clinton is getting a pass for all the scandals she's been involved in? The repubs already tore her and Bill apart before, do you think they wouldn't if she was on the ticket? There is WAY more dirt on her than on Barack.

She is his opposite politically. Perhaps, that could work in his favor if he chose her. She plays the game as a repub and has been more of an enemy to his run than anyone. Nothing like extending the olive branch and showing his diplomacy skills, but I for one, find her phony, a liar, a panderer, and a horrible candidate and NO ONE I'd want to vote for, but that's just me.

To the author of this blog-Your use of the word 'Obamaniacs' discredits you as a writer and professional. All of this childish name calling in this election is disgusting and shows that you and others like you have not yet matured enough to be objective. This is frightening as people with these childish behaviors will vote and will help shape where this country goes.

[sky2blue]

I have to disagree with you on a few points. One in particular.

People still voting for Clinton aren't voicing "protest" against Obama. They think she can win.

[allonfla]

Actually the polls from WV and KY say that they expect Obama to be the nominee.

[burnt]

Spin, Michael... pure spin.

We DO need Clinton... to go now, before she inflicts more damage on a party that has worked for decades to form a unity that she divides and damages for entirely self-serving purposes. She can not be part of the solution, simply because she is so very much a part of the problem.

She lost.

She did it to herself.

She needs to quit now.

[bowseat93]

I'd be okay with Clinton on the ticket except for one tiny problem...all the sound bites she's made in the primary that are going to be part of the GOP attack strategy. You know, the ones where she says Obama only knows how to give speeches and that only she and McCain have the experience to be prez.

It'll be bad enough seeing that without her on the ticket. It'll be ludicrous to see it with her there.

[peskyliberal]

"he (Obama) may be weakest Democratic nominee since former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis."

Really?! Please tell us why Sen. Clinton could not beat Obama?

[Dustee]

Touche'!

[bigbingtheory]

Word. And I never heard Dukakis take on McCain and the GOP in general like Obama has already. He is the strongest candidate we've had in my life time and I'm going on 4 decades.

[TwoCentsWorth]

M. Fauntroy -- A "dream team" may have been a good idea but the well has been poisoned by those who continue to lash out at Senator Clinton. The result is that, if Obama is the nominee, I no longer believe Clinton supporters want to see her on the ticket with Obama.

The truth of the matter is that throughout this campaign the biased rhetoric against Senator Clinton that was engaged in by the DNC and by some national and state members of the Democratic party was unacceptable, but particularly abhorrent were the blatant sexist attacks by the MSM and pundits when it came to Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Collectively, what those behaviors show is that the Democratic party is not the political party women should join. Not even one stalwart male [or female for that matter] in the Democratic party stepped forward to denounce the demeaning language used by the MSM or pundits against Senator Clinton throughout this campaign -- and that includes her opponent, Obama.

The Republican party stalwarts would never have remained silent and permitted the sexist/misogynistic rants that were repeatedly aimed at Senator Hillary Clinton if she were their candidate. Bottom line message to women -- consider joining the Republican party, make it into a party that values women and families -- vote for McCain in the general election.

[DTGB]

maybe you've always been a republican, otherwise you would never say such a thing.

i support and voted for Hillary and i agree the MSM has been pathetic in their choices of phrasing and language and i agree that sexism has raised it hand but i dont think the DNC has participated in desparaging women nor do i feel that the Obama campaign has either.
IF Hillary is offered the VP slot - SHE WILL TAKE IT. and she should, it would be a historic end to a historic primary and could hopefully bring all of these passionate people together.
the WORST that can happen is McCain winning, we can not allow that to happen on our watch.
if you are a Democrat, then elect one to the WH even if he's not first choice, McCain should be your last choice and talk about a guy w problems on women's issues!
time to come together, dream ticket or not.

[standard]

In point of fact, sexist, misogynist rants against Hillary Clinton have been a staple diet of the right wing of the Republican Party for years--and a leading cash crop of the folks who pander to their tastes.

What's been notable about this Democratic race, as far as sexism goes, is only that the lady doth protest too much. The pundits may not have rallied behind Mrs. Clinton's candidacy, but neither have a majority of Democratic voters, many millions of them women. Her campaign's incessant allegations of sexism against her in the MSM are as fanciful as her personal allegations of sniper fire against her in Bosnia. Both are assertions are plausible but, as it happens, untrue.

If you're looking for one stalwart Democrat who has rallied to Mrs. Clinton's side in the face of the (alleged) sexist attacks on her, you need only look to Geraldine Ferraro.

If you consider any attack on a woman candidate to be a sexist attack, then that's a different matter.

[bigbingtheory]

Yes, stoke the imaginary fire!

Name a sexist comment that came from an Obama supporter. Did we have phony commercials for the "Hillary Clinton testical lock box?" No that was Republicans. Women who think this is some kind of sexist conspiracy against Hillary will get over it. They'll realize that Obama beat her fair and square. He ran a better campaign, he's a better candidate. If they really believe Obama was sexist towards anyone they would be abhorred at the right wing attacks that would have been leveled had she won.

[coloradosiren]

Put Clinton on the ticket and watch some of our independents and crossovers rethink their position. Is Hillary worth everything we have worked for? Offering her the VP position will derail the change movement. Has it ever occurred to anyone the reason the Clintons are fighting so hard to get to the white house is because they need it to insulate themselves from the the infamous scandals and lawsuits on their coattails. My God, they are like Medusa. How do we make them go away?

[SethBLiNK]

So you're suggesting that Obama make her the running mate to appease her?

I'm not against putting Hillary on the ticket, but I would like to see her behave Vice-Presidentially before she is given that honor. We all know what it means to act Presidentially, and she's done plenty of that, but let's see some sign that she knows what it means to be a team player.

Obama has already begun the fight against McCain. Let's see her start to act like she's on the same side. Saying things that hurt Obama with working class whites, citizens of Michigan and Florida and other "swing voters" won't get it done. Let's get a sample of what she'll bring to the party.

[GaiasChild]

Clinton has disqualified herself as a running mate. ALL the arguments are pragmatic and practical and suggest that she's necessary to his ticket. She's antithetical to all he stands for and she's destructive. Therefore, all the practical pragmatic arguments really result in her face being absent on the ticket and in the cabinet. That will be Obama's decision and it may be that he values her at some level higher than her campaign has engaged her. She may have a higher value than she has demonstrated in this hysteria of being driven by denial and blind ambition.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

"Consequently, he needs to be patient and give her whatever she wants -- even if it means giving her the vice-presidential nomination."

so you're saying that he should take a beating from a bully and then turn around and give the bully what they want? what world are you living in?

[DTGB]

What world are you living in? this is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. she hasn't bullied him, she's campaigned. All's fair in love, war and politics.
just imagine the pit bull that she is taking aim on McCain on Obama's behalf. she's the best and Michael's right, all the candidates who's names have been tossed out are weak. VP candidates are the attack dogs, that is what they do in the campaign so the nominee can stay above the frey. i can't think of a better option and i agree that we have to come together. Kennedy HATED LBJ and they had a bruising primary, Lincoln stacked his cabinet w advisaries. we're not about to enter a love fest, we're about to enter into the worst general election in our history, we better be ready for fight.

[bigbingtheory]

BS. Kennedy never said that Nixon had more experience and LBJ only had a speech. JFK did not claim supporters of his opponent were delusional, duped and naive. And I don't believe JFK ever tried to change the rules to suit him in mid contest. Her campaign was a shameful experience. She acted as if she was entitled. She courted the right and turned her back on the left that defended her during her years as 1st lady. She rallies Republicans better than McCain can. She would hamper the ticket severely and besides a woman and a black man at the same time? The odds would not be in our favor.