Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Hillary!-O!bama
Will the dreaded H-O ticket come to fruition? Rudy said yes. Now, Ross Kaminsky at Human Events says no.
In short, his reasoning is that:
1. Hill's ego is too big to take the media fawning over Obama
2. Obama has no reason to take the Veep slot, he's already got the cash and name recognition to run for President next cycle.
3. Obama's lack of experience makes him an undesirable Veep candidate, a heartbeat away from the W.H.
4. Obama doesn't help bring in any new demographics or states for Hillary (who is originally from IL herself).
In short, his reasoning is that:
1. Hill's ego is too big to take the media fawning over Obama
2. Obama has no reason to take the Veep slot, he's already got the cash and name recognition to run for President next cycle.
3. Obama's lack of experience makes him an undesirable Veep candidate, a heartbeat away from the W.H.
4. Obama doesn't help bring in any new demographics or states for Hillary (who is originally from IL herself).
Labels:
2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
October
(59)
- Solid Citizenship Award
- Hillary
- Giuliani's aide de camp loses her mind
- A pre-Halloween scare for Fredo
- All Bogged Down and Nowhere to Go
- Wow! They Got Something Right!
- Congratulations Judge Southwick
- Ponnuru on McCain
- The Surge continues to produce positive results
- Fred's NH campaign manager goes turncoat,
- Rating the candidates
- The Huckabee Train Starts a-Rolling
- In a decision that the VA GOP will likely regret,
- Hey, DC, you paying attention?
- McCain vs. Clinton
- Where I stand in Decision '08
- Update Your Votes
- Jindal wins LA-Gov
- A few great conservative quotes
- End of an Error
- The Clinton Machine
- The Ills of the Country - Now on the Web!!!
- Life is beautiful
- Berger-Libby Hypocrisy
- Brownback dropping out?
- That's why they play the game
- Turkish Military Action
- This is not helpful
- This came from email
- John Paul the Great
- A spot on analysis of where Mitt stands
- If this were the private sector...
- Huckabee's Horton?
- Sia - Breath Me
- ManBearPig
- Today's word of the day
- Quiz Time
- Gore on the move?
- Sell-a-bray-shun Time, come on!
- Defending Mitt
- Fred Thompson Debate - Hem, Haw, and Ummm
- Debate wrap
- Ranking the field
- Hillary!-O!bama
- I grow weary of the spin
- The Times must be joking
- Somebody annoint Peggy Queen
- First there were clouds in the distance...
- Obama: Flag pins are for phony patriots
- Scalia- by any means necessary
- It's nice to see not everything's upside down
- Shocked again! This time it's frightening.
- Fred continues to underwhelm
- A landmark poll on free trade
- How'd a nitwit like you get so tasteful?
- Iran
- Read it. Carefully. Every single word.
- It's so rare to be surprised by a film
- Counting the days
-
▼
October
(59)
3 comments:
Actually, I disagree with all of Kaminsky's points except a variation of #1. I think the largest reason Hill and Obama will probably not link up is b/c both of them have probably grown to hate each other during the course of this campaign. I realize that both of them (especially Hill) are possibly such political creatures that emotions never enter such considerations; they come about more from cold calculations. But I still think the pairing is unlikely.
With respect to points 2-4, let's start with 2. Both Obama and Hillary have to be realistic here: if either one of them wins presidency in '08, barring some hideous misfortune in the next 4 years they are almost a 5-star lock pick of the week for re-election in '12 (assuming a repub doesn't unseat them). I just don't see the Democratic party turning away from either one of these candidates in 2012 if they win in '08. Why would they? So the loser has to face the prospect of not being nominee until 2016, at which point country probably swings back to Repubs if it isn't already. This might be an acceptable delay to Obama since he's young, but I'm not sure he wants to wait that long.
On point 3, I don't think people give this much consideration when voting for prez/VP combo. I think a strong VP can help your cause, but a lack of experience in VP is unlikely to hurt at all.
On point 4, I'm not sure about states but I do think he could help with demographics. He seems to have more of the black vote locked up than Hillary, and furthermore he's one of the few candidates who can say he was against Iraq war from day 1 and voted against it. This might help Hill get far left to better embrace her, since they are rabidly against the war.
At the end of the day Dem party has to figure that a 1-2 punch of Hill-Obama is their best chance to re-take the white house. The question is, will the behind-the-scenes wrestling be strong enough to convince the candidates themselves that this is the way to go?
And if so, who is the Republicans best 1-2 counter punch? All of the republicans are getting trounced in head-to-head against Dems, but those polls now are meaningless. I think mitt-huckabee or mitt-hunter might be best 1-2. Once republican party picks a candidate and rallies all their support behind him, I think you'll see a dramatic improvement in our head-to-head #s against Dems in general election polling, regardless of who is picked.
On Point 3, see Quayle, Dan.
On point 4, I tend to think people overestimate the pull a veep has over a state, so I'm with you there. In terms of demographics, could it help? Yeah. Sure. I guess. But Hill really doesn't have to worry about the far left anti-war vote right now. As McAuliffe apparently said a few days ago, she's got the Dem nomination "in the bag."