Cue the Fat Lady

[sleigh]

Hopefully, the interminable nomination season is finally over...

Last night, Denise and I watched the three speeches. My, what a contrast. McCain appeared to be speaking to a bare handful of people somewhere near New Orleans. He spoke before a hideous green backdrop, looking cadaverous and unhealthy against the color (someone on his staff needs to be fired for that choice). His occasional smiles looked frozen and false, his body lurched awkwardly as he turned from side-to-side, and his delivery was wooden. Especially at first, he appeared nervous and uncertain, obviously reading from the teleprompters, though later he seemed to get a bit more comfortable. But it was not an example of good speechmaking: rather, it was a rambling leftover stew of stock talking-points and applause lines.

Then Clinton spoke before a large gathering of loyalists in NYC -- and she gave a speech designed for those loyalists. To her credit, at the beginning of the speech she talked of reunifying the party and coming together, but then she proceeded to defuse such hopes. There was no congratulation of Obama for becoming the putative nominee of the party; instead, there was more touting of the states she's won and her claim to have garnered the majority of the popular vote, and a statement that she intended everyone's vote to count (which started a chant of "Denver! Denver!" among her audience.) In the end, she said that she was emphatically not ending her campaign tonight. Her speech was more a final plea to the superdelegates to reconsider. It was, however, a very well-delivered speech, and she showed that she can rouse her followers, and it demonstrated the depths of loyalty among them.

And finally there was Obama. Oh, my... His speech was given to some 17,000 people in a stadium in St. Paul, with (according to CNN) some several thousand people outside. He began with a statement that he would be the Democratic nominee. Then followed a sequence of praise for his fellow campaigners, and long paean to Clinton for her campaign -- he was far more gracious to her than she had been toward him, though I suppose he could afford to be. Then he began to disassemble McCain's speech, tearing it apart point by point. He delineated what "change" meant to him, and he did so in a rousing, inspiring, and fiery speech that had the crowd literally howling by the end. The man can speak -- in fact, I can think of very few better-delivered speeches. He makes people want to believe him. I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate; the contrast in styles should be interesting...

So hopefully, it's over except for some final faint shouting. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Clinton will make the decision to give a concession speech rather than to pursue the incredibly divisive tactic of taking the ruling for Michigan and Florida to the credentials committee. I will say that I've heard some (few) Clinton supporters (and, for the record, both Denise and I voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary) say that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama... Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.

Now comes the important point: picking VP candidates. It's especially important, I would contend, for McCain, because given his health and age, there is a greater possibility that the veep might become the president, should McCain win the election.

So who do you think they're going to pick?

Comments

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.

J and I have wondered that, too. I suspect that racism is indeed involved in some cases, but I think there are also some people (or at least some women) who are so angry at a man defeating a woman that they will vote against him in protest. I guess if getting a woman elected president is more important to a person than anything else--than all the issues you mention, as well as having a person of color elected--that makes twisted sense. I don't know how someone could think that way, but I'm afraid some do.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"If I can't vote for a woman, then I'm going to vote for the old white man on the opposing side rather than the young man of color who would represent the same kind of sea-change in attitudes that electing a woman would represent."

Yeah. Makes no sense to me, either... *sigh*

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

That's how I read the sour grapes "I'll vote for McCain if I can't get Hillary!" from some democrats, too. I agree that it doesn't make sense.

The New York Times did a good breakdown of the question of whether Obama should pick Clinton as VP (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04assess.html?hp): Pros: it might heal the party, especially women, who wanted to see HER be the one to make history, "dream ticket," adds foreign policy credentials, etc. Cons (and I think this an important point): It'll undercut his message that he is the candicate for change. Plus, she clearly wants to be in charge.

I wonder: since she's seen as strong on foreign policy, wouldn't it be a much better idea to tap her as Secretary of State, picking someone else for the VP spot?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"...wouldn't it be a much better idea to tap her as Secretary of State..."

That's a good thought, but if I were Clinton, I'd be thinking that I might do better/be more visible/be more powerful if I were to stay in the Senate and become Majority Leader.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

This was under discussion on the Diane Rehm show yesterday. One caller said (and he sounded sincere) that we was a Clinton supporter who would vote for McCain because he thought the most important role of the president was to be a head of state (in the international scene was implied) and he hadn't seen evidence that Obama was prepared to do that well. Basically the experience question.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

So McCain had two terms as a representative and is in his fourth as a senator. This is experience for being "head of state" just how?

[hrimcealde.livejournal.com]

I don't study politics, but I've been thinking about who Obama will choose. Granted, I don't know any of the power players in politics, or any of the up-and-coming big names. BUT. This is what I think.

Part of me thinks Obama will choose someone who will make him more "palatable" to the masses. He's not stupid; he knows the main reason people who would have voted for Clinton would not vote for him (although, in my experience, if a person is racist, they are far more likely to be sexist as well. Although this may be just my experience in the deep south). So I anticipate a youngish, older than him but by no means as old as McCain, white male. Since Washington abounds with those, that shouldn't be hard. He would want someone with some military experience, to effectively negate McCain's "authority" there. I don't know who it will be though.

Personally, I would love to see either John Edwards or Bill Richardson (which would potentially secure him some latino votes). I don't know how much of a reality either of those are.

As for McCain, he might try to find someone of a slightly darker skin color (or maybe just somebody really tan) to contrast with O, but I doubt it. It will probably be just another Dick, someone we're expected to forget about while he machinates behind the scenes. Or Jerry Falwell. Or BibleMan. Not sure. So many choices!

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Richardson would be a good choice, I think, though I find that I'm hoping Obama will choose a woman. I'm not certain that Hillary would be a good choice, however...

I've already said here that I thought McCain might tap Condi Rice -- having a woman of color might offset the Yet Another Old White Dude issue.

[hrimcealde.livejournal.com]

I would hope he would choose a woman, but frankly, I don't know if he can "risk" it. He's got support right now, but (at least among the people I live around) a lot of Democrats around here would rather see a black guy in office than a white woman--or any woman. I think having a white male candidate will strengthen him with the independents and the moderates.

As for McCain choosing Condi, well she's a known quantity. The Racists will make an exception for her because "she's on our team" and she and Bush are thisclose. But who knows what they'll do in the end. Just as one media storm ends on the primaries, we have to endure the endless VP speculation now until it's formally announced. Great.

[madtruk.livejournal.com]

Obama's best (read: politically expedient) choices would be Strickland or wassisname Rendell (?). the governor's of Ohio and Pennsylvania. My choice would be Richardson (experience, savvy, smart, funny...) but two minorities on the ticket will kill it (see: white HS diploma blue collar euphamisms...) So who?

Well, he's never done the politically expedient, but I'm thinking of a former Clinton supporter who has an incredible military background who also was a rather poor candidate for president 4 years ago.

Whaddya think of Wesley Clark? Sorta a smarter Dan Quayle...respected, bright, not very charismatic, definitely loyal. would command the respect of veterans groups and active military...oh and not currently in office (I think picking another Senator would be poison as well as risking the Dem majority).

That's my take for now. Disclosure in politics since voting age: Bush Senior, Clinton, Clinton, (Nader) Gore, (Edwards) Kerry, (Kucinich, Edwards) Obama.

[hrimcealde.livejournal.com]

That's my worry about Richardson, too. Especially with his stance on immigration. I agree with you about Clark on pretty much every point. As long as he doesn't try to spell anything.

I tell people I've been a democrat since WAY back, but I'm not actually old enough to have voted many times. I think my first vote cast for pres was for Nader. But when I was in second grade we had mock elections and I voted for Dukakis. HA. i was one of 7 out of 25 students. Everyone else voted for Bush, Sr.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Clark has the credentials (and he's far brighter than Dan Quayle), and he has the advantage of offsetting Obama's lack of 'military experience.' I know several people who supported him the last time around. But I don't know...

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

Clark or Strickland would both be decent choices. I've never seen Strickland campaign, so you'd have to tell me.

veepstakes

[jdonat.livejournal.com]

Clinton is a poor choice. She will bring ALL the negatives that the GOP really really wants to run against back into the race, with very few positives.
The Obama folks evidently have been told that "they'll be sorry if they chose ANY other woman other than Hillary for VP." You're also putting 2 very very strong people together, and they BOTH wanted to be the boss. Hillary will NOT be comfortable being the 2nd banana, especially if the VP in the Obama administration is closer to the 'traditional' role of VP, and not the Prime Minister role that Cheney has turned it into.

Bill Richardson, yes, Kathy Sebelius (KS gov) a much better choice for a female VP, and also helps with the Plains/Western states. There are a bunch of very strong folks available for the Dem VP..
Edwards would be wasted as VP. I want Edwards for Attorney General! That would put a fox among the chickens, for sure...

GOP VP? whoo! Condi Rice, someone else said she would tie McBush even tighter to the Bush administration. I agree. Bobby Jindal? Maybe....
Huckabee and Romney, by their actions/words after the primaries, I think, have disqualified themselves.

Re: veepstakes

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I think Sebelius would be brilliant.

Re: veepstakes

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

My thoughts:

Obama *should* ask Edwards first; SUSA polling is showing that he'd clean up with Edwards. If Edwards refuses that, offer him the Attorney General position and tell him to kick butts.

I've met Richardson, and I think that he's a nice guy, and means well, and is far less capable and gaffe-ridden than people realize, looking at his time as a Cabinet guy especially.

I like Sebelius, and all, but I don't see a strong Female Option this time.

The smartest McCain pick would be either Romney or Huckabee, in regard to settling some problems in the party. Both would not be that useful otherwise. All the others are non-entities of various sorts.

An intriguing McCain pick would be the Governor of Alaska...a reformer sort that is a decent campaigner. But I think he'll either go with Jindal or some raving Bushie.

[davidbcoe.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you said here. McCain's speech was terrible. Warmed my heart...

Veeps? I think McCain will go with someone safe, on the young side, and very conservative. Pawlenty, Gov. of Minn. is my best guess. Obama is a tougher call. I haven't made up my mind yet about whether Hillary helps more than she hurts. But he has so many other choices. Sebelius, Clark, Richardson, Strickland. There is so much talent on the Democratic side right now. Which also warms my heart

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I keep hearing Pawlenty's name mentioned, also...

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Off the top of my head I see:

For Obama Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia basically a good representative for those states Obama did not do well in versus Clinton, ston in areas Obama is not.

For McCain I thought about Colin Powell as being the most prominent black Republican, although his reasons for not running before are probably still valid.

Yes I am biased towards candidates with military service but remember Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower all served.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I think Colin Powell is too vulnerable: he's the one visibly linked with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" with his presentation to the U.N., and he has never really said "Hey, I was duped!"

Got it

[madtruk.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Kennedy

Clinton supporter, strong military background, slight political whack from being honest (oy the agony!), ground breaker, glass ceiling crusher.

Thoughts?

Re: Got it

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Definitely interesting! But how are her debating/speech-making skills? And, of course, is there anything in her past that precludes her...

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism:"

I don't attribute it to racism. I attribute it to petulance, or to "If I don't get to make the rules I'm going to take my ball and go home." I despise Senator Clinton for encouraging the canard that Senator Obama is somehow stealing the nomination from her. It is much too reminiscent of the Busheviks' tactics in Florida after the 2000 Election. As a Michigan voter, I'm especially resentful of her "every vote should count" schtick. If she believed that, she should have dissuadeed the decision-makers in the Michigan Democratic Party -- Clinton supporters, all of them -- from breaking party rules when they scheduled the primary. She's trying to benefit from gaming the system while accusing Obama of doing that: which is also a very Republican tactic.

Should Clinton be Obama's running mate? Hell to the no! She's just demonstrated, by publicly saying "she's willing to consider" accepting his offer to be VP that she doesn't respect his prerogative to make that decision himself, and that she's willing to maneuver him into an untenable position in order to make him do what she wants. President Obama does NOT need a vice president who thinks she'll be making him do her will.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

You don't hold any strong opinions about this, do you? :-)

I'd support an Obama/Clinton ticket, but on the whole, I have to say that I think she's not the choice Obama should make.

[jdonat.livejournal.com]

She thinks that she's going to be the Dick Cheney to his GWB. The Economist magazine dubbed the current sitting VP to be the "prime minister" rather than VP. Feh. Sen. Clinton's supporters have morphed from "every vote should count" to "Hillary should be VP, or else".
There are other fish in the sea. She has such incredibly high negatives, and the GOP is hoping against hope that she is the VP candidate. Just on that, she's out.
Michelle Obama evidently despises her.
Bye, Sen. Clinton!