Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Ticket thoughts

Over this past weekend, Newt Gingrich (who is himself still considering a run at the Republican nomination) voiced his opinion the eventual Democratic ticket for 2008 would be Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as VP. Over at his blog this morning, x4mr has a post up explaining why he and Newt see eye-to-eye on this matter (eye-of-Newt ... get it??? Oh, I crack myself up .... ).

I know x4mr spends a lot of time perusing the blogs, but I had no idea Newt did ... both, however, obviously saw my comment last week in a thread at The Data Port, which included the following:

I can't see Obama/Clinton for partly the same reasons you give for not seeing Gore/Clinton -- why would Hillary take the second post instead of the safe Senate seat? About the only reason I can think of is if her reasoning ran to the macabre and she basically decided "Hey, 2008 was my chance, If I couldn't win then, I am not going to when I am 4 or 8 years older either ... so maybe I'll take the VP job now, and who knows, maybe Obama has a stress-induced heart attack or something."

On the other hand, I could very easily see Clinton/Obama, particularly if a deal were struck to give Obama some high-profile foreign policy portfolio. Eight years as VP would set him up nicely as the "heir apparent" in 2016, when he would still only be 55.


Now, I respect x4mr's opinion a heck of a lot more than I respect Gingrich's, and in all seriousness I am sure my comment above had no affect at on either of them reaching the conclusions they have. However, with all due respect to both (x4mr is due a lot more than Newt), and despite my prior musings, I think they are both wrong.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. I agree entirely with x4mr's assertion that ticket would win the race, and, in addition to merits I think both candidates have anyway, I confess I would love to see a White House with a women and a minority filling the two top slots of our government. It would just add to the attraction for me. I don't see it happening, however.

Clinton and Obama are clearly shaping up as the two most serious claimants to the Democratic nomination, and this is reflected in both camps starting to snipe at each other. By the time the convention actually rolls around, there will have been a lot of hard campaigning, and certainly some hard feelings generated by both sides.

Furthermore, there is another candidate who would seem to make much more sense to be Hillary's running mate should she win nomination - Bill Richardson.

Yes, Richardson is running for President as well, but odds are any conflicts between his campaign and Clinton's during the run up to the convention will be far smaller and less bitter than prospective issues between Clinton and Obama. Also, having served as both UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton's administration, the Clintons and Richardson should already have some degree of comfort working with each other.

Richardson has been (in my mind, at least) somewhat disappointing in the initial debates, but would add a lot to the ticket for Clinton - some foreign affairs experience, his own experience from governing a state executive branch. He would also provide representation from the Mountain West, an area with a growing population that has been trending increasingly Democratic in recent years. There's no real reason a Clinton/Richardson ticket would be any less competitive in the national race than Clinton/Obama.

So while I would personally like to see Clinton, should she win the nomination, select Obama as her running mate (I am particularly drawn to the notion of it setting him up as the natural Democratic "successor" when she leaves office), I think Richardson is the much more likely choice.

Don't just take my word for it though -- those futures traders down at Intrade happen to agree with me ... and for the record, I came to my conclusion before I checked the market listings.

6 comments:

Framer said...

It will be Mark Warner. I have been on that bandwagon since he announced he wasn't going to run. A deal was cut somewhere to get that to happen.

Richardson might move New Mexico, but Warner would help in the South where Hillary would need some traction, if not to win, to at least cause Republicans to spend money there. Not to mention he will still be fresh when we are tired of all of the other candidates.

There is way too much ego to allow a Clinton-Obama pairing. Anyway, you need an executive to balance out a senator, which is probably part of the reason you are thinking Richardson

At first I was a little scared of Richardson, but his debate performances have been abysmal. I'm just glad that we don't have to run against Warner as a presidential candidate.

x4mr said...

Hah!

Yea, Newt called me on my cell phone after you posted that remark at TDP to solicit my input. He suggested I post his thoughts at my blog.

As always, both your remarks and Framer's are solid, and it is going to take a stretch for such a ticket to occur.

Not sure how you know what you know, Framer, but it will be interesting to see if your remarks prevail. I can understand your conservative sentiments, but I cannot understand how you could be anything but appalled at the behavior of the current executive branch.

I want a blue tsunami to hit your party so hard it has to reinvent itself and purge the scum in the process.

Touchdown said...

Newt esta muy intelligente...like Sirocco y tranformer, he uses real big words (TR went to public school)

Clinton/Obama will be the ticket. Richardson would be a great choice for veep if Obama declines. I'll be sure to vote against them, either way.

Warner? Framer, (I heard he's a womanizer and the Clinton gang gave him a threat-down). Hilly would be insane not to put Obama on the ticket.

I'm more interested in the GOP side... Thompson has more baggage than my wife on vacation (but he's really good on Law & Order)...Romney's religion will be too much for the rest of the USA...that leaves Rudy & McCain. Rudy has broad appeal, McCain can make a comeback.

I don't see McCain as a veep, so if he doesn't get the nomination, he wouldn't make the ticket.

I see a Brownback/Huckabee/Duncan Hunter as the veeps...Rudy & McCain are moderates and they'll go for a conservative for the heartland/base.

If I had to make a call today, it'd be Giuliani/Brownback or a McCain/Giuliani.

Framer said...

Guiliani will not be a VP. Put that in stone.

I wasn't aware that being a womanizer was a disqualifier on the Dem side. It will be Warner. Hillary's group does not include Obama and she will want her group there. They (the Clintons) learned their lesson with the Al Gore thing.

I agree, McCain can have a resurgance depending upon how the surge goes, but it will still be very difficult for him to win. More than likely, a McCain return to prominence will just pull down Rudy's numbers, opening things up to give Romney or Fred a better shot.

Brownback is a good senator, but he will never be an executive, even as VP. I can think of 6 or 7 individuals to pair up with Rudy (should he get the nod) that would be better for the ticket (Hunter, Huckabee, and Hutchison just under "H" alone.)

x4mr said...

I'm not going to argue with Framer regarding the Hillary VP but will keep my prediction. Yes, it will take work, but what a ticket in this environment.

I am baffled that you guys think McCain can recover, and you should hope he doesn't. Framer is spot on about Giuliani and VP. Forget about it.

Sirocco said...

I am going to defer to my friends from the right regarding the Republican ticket -- I have no real feel at all about who might get the nomination there. I can't really believe it will be Giuliani, but he seems to be the leader at the quarter-pole.

Regarding Warner, I think he would be a fine VP, but in terms of electoral math what does he bring? Virginia? That seems questionable to me -- I can see him aloowing Dems to make it close there, but win the state? I don't see it.

In other southern states, the closest in the 2004 election was Florida, which went for Bush 52-47. With Jeb in the governor's chair there (not to mention the ongoing electoral problems in the state) I don't see that getting any closer either.

No other southern was closer than a 8% difference I don't believe.

Meanwhile, in 2004 New Mexico went for Bush 50-48. Richardson as VP practically guarantees that swaps to the Dem column. Nevada was 51-48 Bush, and Colorado was 52-47 (but showed signs of trending more Democratic in 2006). Richardson could benefit in those states as well.

That doesn't include the advantage Richardson might have vis-a-vis having a pre-existing working relationship with the Clintons too.

None of this is meant to support a Clinton nomination or a Clinton/Richardson ticket. I really haven't decided who I favor for the Presidential nomination yet, but should Clinton get it Obama would be my definite preference for the VP slot. I just think, however, that _if_ Clinton is nominated, Richardson is her most likely 1st choice for running mate.

For what it's worth, those Intrade guys rate Warner as 3rd most-likely as Dem VP candidate, behind Richardson and Obama.