We Really Need a Clinton-Obama Hybrid
John Zogby just sent out his latest daily tracking poll, and the headline is that Clinton and Romney are slipping and Ron Paul is gaining.
Between 30 December and 2 January -- on the Dem Side -- Hillary Clinton garnered 24%, Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Richardson 7%, Biden 5%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich 0-1%, Undecided 5%.
On the Republican side, Huckabee pulled 31%, Romney 25%, McCain 10%, Thompson 11%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 10%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%.
We'll all know more tonight -- but on the Democratic side of the ticket, I'm just not sure what these numbers mean or should mean. It seems clear that there is no candidate yet that the Democratic Party really wants to coalesce around. The topsy-turvy nature of this close three-way race says something important.
Americans aren't happy with any of them as of yet. Hillary Clinton is both boosted and harmed by her last name, boosted and harmed by her extensive experience. Barack Obama has sizzle and traffics in "hope" -- but many Americans think that we need someone who's seen it all and knows how to remain level-headed in the most dire of times. Clinton scores better than both Obama and Edwards on the ability to take heat.
Edwards is also inspiring, a sculpted populist, but many Democrats fear that the failure to send a woman or black man to the White House at the most opportune time the party has ever had to do so will gut punch Democratic turnout in the November general elections. The thinking is that the absence of race and gender sizzle will stifle enthusiasm.
I think Hillary Clinton is going to be in this race for a long time, and may still win the primary. But one thing that should concern her team is the dynamic of an Edwards-Obama pairing, which is no where near happening yet.
There has been some subtle, behind the scenes flirtation and episodic moments of rejection between the Edwards and Obama camp. One Edwards insider told me that several months ago, Edwards was basically sending signals that he would take Obama as a running mate if Obama took the VP position. According to this source, Obama's emissaries flatly rejected the notion.
More recently, this same source tells me that communication has remained open between the camps and that the "deal" (though I hesitate to call it that as I don't believe anything has been formally arranged...but this is the word the source used) is to see who pulls first in the early primaries and who has dropped back. The suggestion from the Edwards campaign source is that Edwards would consider running in the No. 2 slot with Obama if Obama were dominating the early contests -- and vice versa if Obama was trailing.
I don't have a second source for this information -- but I trust the veracity of the comments made, general as they were.
I have a bit of a nightmare scenario that keeps me thinking about the question of steadiness, experience and the need for creative change in the White House. When I think through this lens, Edwards and Obama don't rank first -- but they also don't rank far behind Clinton.
I think that President Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards are going to be challenged in ways few American presidents have been. Other leaders -- foes AND friends -- are going to kick the crap out of the new president, testing the resolve, decision making, and new boundaries of the next American era.
I really wish that there was some way to run Obama and Hillary together. Everyone tells me that this is impossible. But I'd like to see them partnered -- experience and vision. Steadiness and innovation. Intellect and intellect. Getting either of them to accept the second slot would be painful for all involved -- particularly everyone else who wants to compete for the VP slot.
But it is clear that there won't really be a clear winner tonight in Iowa -- at least I don't think so. The spread is just too thin.
What the polls say is that we really want a hybrid.
Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
clinton would obscure everything that obama has going for him.
we need an obama-edwa
I COMPLETELY disagree.
For one thing, take this quote:
"The thinking is that the absence of race and gender sizzle will stifle enthusiasm
I have NEVER heard that ANYYWHERE, and it's an idiots view. The INTELLIGENT people want to vote for the right person without regard to racee or gender. If fate hands us that person as a white male, so be it. The Whole Point of the Civil Rights Movement was to be judged by content of character and NOT skin (or gender). The Presidency is NO PLACE for afirmative action programs!
Frankly, I'm VERY disappointed in who Hillary has become. If she were still the person she was when she fought for health care reform when her husband was pres, she'd be a far more reasonable president than she would be now. SHE removed herself from contention by becomming a StatusQuo , corporate shill.
I'm also disappointed that Obama comes up so short in certain areas. Frankly, he's FAR too corporatist for me. The reality is that the vast majority of America's problems are caused by the personification of the corporation - the balance is all wrong today. This happened because of too many years of republican rule wherein they gutted regulations - "deregulation" of virtually everything - attacked bankruptcy law, environmental law, etc. We DESPERATELY need to re-balance the civic-corporate equation and Obama just doesn't quite get it. And for that, I'm also sad...
I would LOVE to vote for a woman or non-white as an historic moment in history - we need that moment. But I'm not about to do it just because they're a woman or non-white. I will only do so when I think they're the best person available.
Mr Clemons,
You are going the right direction but you need to still keep going. You have transformed from "we need Hillary" to "we need a hybrid of Hillary Barack". You are starting to see the light. I encourage you to continue your soul searching so that you will know what we knew months ago that Obama, only Obama is the real agent of change in this election.
Well, I could see Clinton as VP. She could be Obama's Dick Cheney. Bwahahahaha
Hillary would be the centuries old gasoline engine part pf the Hybrid. You are WRONG. People want electric vehicles when it comes to politics. ZERO waste, no pollution, and cheaply rechargeable. Clinton is Legacy Technology. The crap you have to tolerate while you upgrade to the state of the art.
OBAMA 08!!!
"Edwards is also inspiring, a sculpted populist, but many Democrats fear that the failure to send a woman or black man to the White House at the most opportune time the party has ever had to do so will gut punch Democratic turnout in the November general elections. The thinking is that the absence of race and gender sizzle will stifle enthusiasm
Oh that's just great. We ignore the strongest candidate for the general election because we need the posited sizzle of race and gender. So we are voting for people because of their sex or race (a social construct by the way). Great. Good job explaining the primary race. We need a Black or a Woman.
Think I would prefer root canal surgery!
Enough of this genetic engineering!
Steve Clemons, I really appreciate your insightful and level-headed commentary.
I don't see anyway that Obama would want to peddle Madeleine Albright's foreign policy in a presidential campaign and vice presidential debate.
I used to think the vp spot would be too tempting for Obama to turn down but after seeing Hilary's campaigning I think Obama would probably say "thanks, but no thanks".
Ever had a great job where you had to work with icky people? It ruins everything.
I would love to see Obama and Richardson teaming up. Richardson has great experience. I think he started slow in this campaign - he looked physically unfit to me - but if he hits his stride I think people will see him as an experienced, well intentioned and wise politician.
I don't see Edwards running for VP again. Hillary/Obama I can see. I don't know why anyone would say it's impossible. They hold very similar positions on almost everything.
No, the polls do NOT say that we want a hybrid. The polls you cite only indicate what a subset of Iowa voters want. Democrats across the country, however, are clearly for Clinton as they have been all along.
Easy to see where this guy is coming from given that he lists Hillary first despite her placing third in the poll. On the GOP side it's ranked by poll result. Typo? I think not.
This is precisely what we don't need. Since I'm adding my voice to the blah-blah-blah prognosticators (man, you are really specific in your blah-blah-blahness in this post's analysis), what the aforementioned lack of cohesiveness is an indication of is, is that those most likely to be coalesced around are marginalized, and people are too weak and/or stupid to overcome that. It's really too bad that people can't make up their own minds, without the filter from those who would inform them.
I just hope that with all their trials, the next president will stop the hemorrhaging as we let our corporations ravage our own population. Apparently, the only question that appears on our plate now, is how many offshore nations are ALSO going to be able to pillage us.
From oil companies, to telcomm and cable companies, to corporate media, to financial giants, tort-reform, anti-people bankruptcy, pro-business bankruptcy, union busting, pension-go
With the housing burst and the subprime scandals..
Do any of these candidates offer relief from this? Edwards and Kucinich do.
The rest of the world can go to hell. Corporate American Raiders are slashing our throats here quite nicely.
I'm a proud lifelong Democrat in Arkansas. I've seen a lot firsthand here. Huckabee actually did a lot for Arkansas as Governor, while Hillary and Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing to help their home state as Mr. & Ms. Governor. But... Nobody wants to hear an Arkansan talk about Huckabee here. I voted for Bill in every race, locally and nationally. But now, since he and his opportunist wife gave nothing back to Arkansas - ever, most Arkansans (both Democrats & Republicans) don't support either Bill or Hillary. We are one of the poorest states in America, but we are home to some of the biggest corporations in the world (Wal-Mart, Alltel, Tyson Foods, JB Hunt, Stephens Inc., Dillards, Regions Bank, Worthen Bank, Acxiom, etc). Make no mistake about it: The Clintons are the frontmen for these corporations, but not the people. The Democratic Party hierarchy of Arkansas was recently purged and replaced by National Democratic Party personnel. My brother-in-law believed in Hillary and went to the Little Rock Dem HQ for Hillary, but was turned away as a volunteer. They have staffed the Little Rock center with 100% Washington-based operatives which are normally corporate lobbyists for Hillary in Washington and New York State. Yesterday, I realized Hillary has done the same thing in Iowa and New Hampshire. She and Bill are falling back on what put them in power in Arkansas, Washington, and New York: The corporations and lobbyists. As a lifelong proud liberal and Democrat who contributes as much money as he can to candidates he believes in, I am very doubtful Americans will see Hillary for who she really is: A corporate sellout unlike any other major candidate today. I'm saddened I believed in the Clinton's message for so many years and was duped by them like everyone else. She will never deliver on a single promise. Want to know with absolute certainty what Hillary will do if elected? Take a look at who is staffing these so-called volunteer Democratic HQ centers and see who they really work for in the last 24 months.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
