If the Republicans had nominated Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson, they would have been perceived as drifting to the right. Fair or not the “middle” would have seen the party as catering to the extremes.
In a Democrat year, the Democrat Party seems intent on nominating two of the few people who could lose this fall. McCain is running very strongly against both Clinton and Obama which is astounding.
Meanwhile, as if moving to the left during the primaries (”I will socialize health care more completely!” “I will leave Iraq faster!”) were not bad enough, the Democrats seem intent on slitting each other’s throats.
Ignore the blather that “competition is good for the party.” Fighting is not good for a party.
Ford nearly beat Carter after a tough primary season against Reagan in a much greater Democrat year (post-Watergate), but that is only a sign of what happens when a party nominates an untested, but charismatic candidate (Carter). It is worth noting that Ford did lose.
Carter faced a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy on the left. He lost in a Republican year (1984).
Both candidates who fought to the Convention lost.
Period.
The simple way to solve the Democrat debacle would be a “dream ticket,” but like “dream teams” in the Olympics such a ticket would be good for the base, but a bad team. When your “dream team” is playing the Peruvian national basketball team, the fact it does not play very well together is acceptable, but when it plays a real team, then it fails.
Both Clinton and Obama, especially Obama, have huge personal talents. They are not a good blend for each other, because their strengths and weaknesses do not compliment. Obama wins by being new and full of hope, Clinton is old (politics) and full of anger. Clinton wins by being tough and capable, but as a result her first act cannot be picking a man she says is not qualified to be president under pressure from Howard Dean.
The “dream ticket” weakens both candidates, because it is a bad team.
Let me give five reasons both candidates would not be well served by picking the other.
Obama Will Not and Should Not Do It:
1. Senator Clinton brings President Clinton.
President Clinton is a walking ad for clean living as a lifetime of hard living has caught up with him this year.
Having him campaign is like the Packers bringing back Lynn Dickey, bad knees and all, to replace Brett Favre.
2. Senator Clinton would bring McCain all the unity he needs on the right, if she is on the ticket.
Any sticker with her name on it would give McCain a bump with the small group of conservatives still holding out. This will be a close race and this small group of conservatives may be lulled into stupidly staying home by keeping Senator Clinton off the ticket.
3. Senator Clinton adds nothing demographically that would not be immediately gained by picking one of numerous qualified women who do not possess her baggage.
4. Obama would lose his change message and be easier to label a liberal with Clinton on the ticket.
“I am the new politics!” has been Obama’s best message, but then his first act in the new politics would be picking Senator Clinton, the leader of the Old Politics.
5. You win the presidency with electoral votes. Clinton brings none. Webb of Virginia? That is a good choice.
Clinton Will Not and Should Not Do It:
1. To win, Clinton will have to destroy Obama’s credibility as commander in chief.
Clinton cannot win the nomination without savaging Obama. She will savage Obama by claiming he is not fit to be president. How then can she turn around and make him a heart beat away from the presidency?
2. Clinton will not want to be overshadowed by her Vice President.
McKinley had the sense of self to pick Teddy Roosevelt for Vice President and put up with cartoons showing him as a tiny figure riding the Rough Rider’s horse. Anybody think that Senator Clinton has the sense of self to put up with similar political cartoon?
3. Polls show that Obama adds nothing, Clinton should not get without him. Obama brings Clinton no states.
Democrat primary voters are excited. The “independents” that almost always vote for Democrats are voting in high numbers in the primary. (Most so-called independents are actually regular party voters that prefer not to announce their allegiance.)
That is good, but not enough to win in the fall. Party hard-core voters are fired up to get rid of Bush, but Bush will not be on the ballot in the fall.
There is no polling evidence at the moment that shows Obama getting votes Clinton should not be able to get.
He helps her carry no states and as Al Gore knows it is electoral votes that matter.
Webb of Virginia? Now there is real help.
The only difficulty with this is that for Clinton to win, she must savage Obama . . . but that means that turn out amongst many Obama voters will be depressed against the moderate conservative John McCain. Who hates John McCain, war hero, who is a moderate?
This would suggest that Clinton must pick Obama regardless, but . . .
4. Clinton will feel that she can fire up and placate her base by picking a more DLC friendly type such as Harold Ford and not be overshadowed by Obama’s appeal.
5. Clinton, who already gets big footed by Bill, lacks the charisma to handle being near Obama, even if she had the psychological strength to do it. Even if she would, she shouldn’t.
Obama will not want to be “number two” and will be able to demand a big role if he agrees (for the good of the party) to give up a nomination he will have every right to feel he won. She cannot afford to give him the big role, because of her”Bill problem.”
Too many people already think electing Clinton would simply be Bill’s third term. She does not have enough perceived power to give more away.
Of the two possible results, Clinton-Obama is the most likely. However, if Clinton loses then Obama will be dragged down from Olympian heights
Obama and Clinton are not Reagan-Bush in 1980, because Bush lost to Reagan in 1980. Neither Obama or Clinton will “lose” this primary season and so there is not plain junior partner as Bush was in 1980. Second, Bush was not the equal to Reagan in any way politically. Reagan was thus always the obvious leader on the ticket. Both Clinton and Obama are so strong (when compared to each other) that both run the risk of overshadowing the other candidate and irritating the base.