Posted by Damozel | Even before her win tonight, Hillary was pointing out that a Hillary win would demonstrate the fallacy of the 'Obama is inevitable' argument.
Hillary Clinton said if Barack Obama does not win Pennsylvania despite his huge campaign war chest, people ought to ask the question, “Why can’t he close the deal?”...
Clinton went to say that if she wins Pennsylvania, she will have accumulated wins in key states that Democrats need in order to retake the White House in November. She seemed to be speaking directly to superdelegates when she tried to raise doubts over Obama’s ability to win. “With his extraordinary financial advantage, why can’t he win a state like this one if that’s the way it turns out?” Clinton asked. “Obviously we have a long way to go before people are finished voting and the votes are counted. This will be one more in a long line of big states, states that Democrats have to win.”(CBS News)
At Political Punch earlier today, Jake Tapper also wondered why the much better-funded Obama can't win over Clinton's constituents.
I don't begrudge the Obama campaign for successfully setting Sen. Clinton's bar so high -- that's its job -- and of course I understand that in order for Clinton to have a real shot, she needs a big W so as to eat away at Obama's 800,000 popular vote lead, and to make the argument to super-Ds that states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida are a problem for him.
Fine, fine.
But what's so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner -- flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings -- should be able to win a blue state primary?
Just because Clinton has the support of the governor and the mayors of the two largest cities? So what? This isn't about Ed Rendell.....
The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight's outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn't win by 25 points. I, for one, ain't buying it. (Jake Tapper; emphasis added).
"Why can't Obama just win it all?" looks like it's becoming the new media meme.
But it's really the wrong question. The right question is this: If neither can sew it up, isn't it a clear sign that neither is the party's choice and that they both need to run together?
If tonight's win proves anything, it proves that the two warring candidates --- now more than ever --- really do need each other. Neither has the support of enough of the party to be handed the crown without grave offense to the other half.
I'd say it's about time for them both to come to terms with it. The only question really ought to be which one should be at the top of the ticket. For experience and proven ability to understake a hard, uphill work, I'd say Hillary all the way with Obama taking his turn in the fullness of time.
But it's time for them to have a sit-down and time for the Hillary-and-Obama show to close down. This isn't about them; it's about all of us. The two of them need to start focusing on how they're going to win it all for the rest of us Democrats.
RELATED POSTINGS
Obama in Pennsylvania: More Stealth Attacks & Hypocrisy
Cutting Through the Nonsense: 10 Reasons to Vote for Hillary
America Likely to be the Loser in Pennsylvania Primary?
Hillary Picks Up 4 Super Delegates
The Media's Role in the Obama Phenomenon as a Sign of a Deeper Trend
Make it stop! I can't stand any more of this nightmare ticket talk. How does a manipulative old-school beltway insider from New York help an Obama ticket? How does an upbeat Illinois senator who would upstage the candidate herself help a Clinton ticket?
Either candidate should win Illinois and New York. When Kennedy picked Johnson it was because LBJ brought states Kennedy couldn't otherwise win.
The Democratic candidate needs to think strategically about a VP who will carry at least one key state that otherwise might have gone to McCain. Instead of looking inward as they love to do, Democrats need to focus on winning the election. Salving wounds within their own party is not as big a concern as winning swing voters in swing states.
Posted by: xensen | April 23, 2008 at 01:42 AM
I don't necessarily agree with xensen's descriptions of the candidates, but I agree with xensen's conclusion.
There's absolutely no question that whoever wins the nomination will need the enthusiastic support of the loser to win in November. But that doesn't necessarily mean the loser needs to take the VP slot. I do think that for party unity the loser needs to be OFFERED the VP slot, but I don't think Hillary would want it.
Obama's best strategic choices are Richardson or Jim Webb, with Sebilius and Hillary as fringe options. Hillary's main options are Obama, Wes Clark, or maybe governors Vilsack (Iowa) or Strickland (Ohio).
Posted by: Adam | April 23, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I don't agree with xensen's characterization of Clinton OR Obama. I think that the VP slot must go to one or the other. I think Xensen under-estimates the anger of Hillary's supporters.
If Obama chose Richardson, NO Hillary supporter would vote for him. Even I would balk. If he had any VP besides Hillary, it would have to be Edwards....or I'm sorry; I'm not voting for him.
Posted by: Damozel | April 23, 2008 at 03:47 PM
I don't agree with xensen's characterization of Clinton OR Obama. I think that the VP slot must go to one or the other. I think Xensen under-estimates the anger of Hillary's supporters.
If Obama chose Richardson, NO Hillary supporter would vote for him. Even I would balk. If he had any VP besides Hillary, it would have to be Edwards....or I'm sorry; I'm not voting for him.
Posted by: Damozel | April 23, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Damozel, would that be true even if Hillary publicly turned down the VP slot? Remember, I agree with you that it should be offered. I just don't think Hillary will want it.
Even if it isn't offered, I don't see how you can not vote for Obama over McCain. I suppose you're in a deep red state so it's a moot point anyway... but you know as well as anyone what a stark contrast there is between McCain and Obama. And it's not like there's anything horribly wrong with Richardson's politics. He was my original favorite, actually.
Posted by: Adam | April 23, 2008 at 03:59 PM