Here we are; the endgame.
The primary Kabuki Theater is in full swing. On the surface, both candidates are being more-or-less gracious to their opponents. Clinton talks a good game about party unity, while Obama speaks highly of Clinton, talks about her candidacy as "groundbreaking," and says that she should feel free to stay in the race through the end. Best friends.
Below the surface, or behind the scenes, the campaigns and their surrogates are still fighting tooth and nail. For what? Well, it is little secret that Clinton wants to be the Vice President, and Obama doesn’t want her on the ticket. So Clinton and her surrogates are leaking stories, sending Bill out to talk about sexism and "disrespect," ginning up resentments amongst Floridians, white women, Appalachian voters, and whoever else seems like a potential "anti-Obama" constituency, and talking about how Obama "loses in November." They want to force Obama into a corner, and make it impossible for him to say no to Clinton as VP. Obama’s campaign, for its part, is parrying these thrusts, leaking their VP short-list, and sending surrogates out to tamp down speculation about Clinton as VP.
More after the jump.
I can tell you right now who is going to win this subterranean struggle. It is the candidate who is able to convince the public that his or her opponent is responsible for unifying the Party. Simple as that.
If Clinton, her surrogates, and her supporters in the media (such as Paul Krugman) are able to convince the public that Obama is responsible for unifying the Party, and that the Party won’t be unified unless Clinton and her supporters are placated, then Obama will find it quite difficult to pick someone other than Clinton for VP. Consider, in this regard, the conclusion of Krugman’s latest column:
Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.
But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.
One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes....
What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.
Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.
A few points:
First, Krugman is assuming that the nomination campaign is going to go until the convention. Otherwise, why would he say that Clinton should "campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over?" Why, "once the convention is over?" Why not, "once the voting is over," or "once the nomination is all but decided in early June?" He seems to believe that Clinton can "bow out gracefully" and yet not campaign for Obama until late August. Krugman’s apparent belief leaves me with the following question: what is she going to be doing during the months of June and July? Taking a vacation? Not talking to the media? Because, make no mistake about it: if Clinton is campaigning for the nomination up to the convention, she has not "bow[ed] out gracefully."
Second, what does Krugman imagine Clinton’s role at the convention will be? Defeated and deflated former opponent, or committed and compelling supporter of the nominee? There is a big difference between these two roles. Is she Kennedy in 1980, or Jackson in 1984? If she drops out of the race without rancor in June, she can position herself to give a rousing endorsement speech for Obama, that helps bring her former-supporters on-board the Change Train. If she takes her campaign to the convention, her speech is almost certainly going to be the opposite of rousing. It will be painful, for both her supporters and for Obama’s. If she takes her campaign to the convention, she will further divide the party. There is little question about it.
Finally, why does Krugman think Obama should offer the VP role to Clinton? Seriously. Why? He gives no substantive analysis here. He just wants his readers to get the following idea into their heads: Obama must select Clinton as VP if he wants to heal the party.
This, folks, is a line that we need to challenge. And, at risk of traversing well-covered ground, here are some possible arguments against this line:
- Obama is already bringing Clinton’s voters into his coalition.
- There is no reason to think that only Clinton as VP will bring in Clinton’s former supporters. Edwards could also do so, and more.
- There are tons of drawbacks to an Obama-Clinton ticket. The two biggest, in my mind, being: Clinton energizes conservatives, and picking Clinton would make Obama look weak.
- Clinton has a responsibility to ensure that her supporters will support Obama in the fall. She should do this regardless of whether she is given the VP slot.
But the larger, and more pernicious line that we need to challenge is the following one: "Obama is responsible for healing the Party."
Traditionally, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Think about 1984. Jesse Jackson had run a historic campaign, in which he mobilized the progressive wing of the Democratic Party under the umbrella of the "Rainbow Coalition." His supporters were quite disappointed that he lost. Feelings were raw on all sides. He had made a couple of major gaffes during the campaign – most notably his use of an anti-Semitic slur. On the other hand, he had been subjected to a range of double standards and slights throughout the campaign. It is not certain that, had Jackson not given a rousing "party unity" speech at the 84 convention, his voters would have worked for, and voted for, Mondale in the fall. But, at the 1984 convention, he gave what many consider to be the speech of his life. He didn’t just make it possible for his supporters to back the nominee; he made it hard for them not to do so. Consider these powerful lines:
Throughout this campaign, I've tried to offer leadership to the Democratic Party and the nation. If, in my high moments, I have done some good, offered some service, shed some light, healed some wounds, rekindled some hope, or stirred someone from apathy and indifference, or in any way along the way helped somebody, then this campaign has not been in vain.
For friends who loved and cared for me, and for a God who spared me, and for a family who understood, I am eternally grateful.
If, in my low moments, in word, deed or attitude, through some error of temper, taste, or tone, I have caused anyone discomfort, created pain, or revived someone's fears, that was not my truest self. If there were occasions when my grape turned into a raisin and my joy bell lost its resonance, please forgive me. Charge it to my head and not to my heart. My head -- so limited in its finitude; my heart, which is boundless in its love for the human family. I am not a perfect servant. I am a public servant doing my best against the odds. As I develop and serve, be patient: God is not finished with me yet.
This campaign has taught me much; that leaders must be tough enough to fight, tender enough to cry, human enough to make mistakes, humble enough to admit them, strong enough to absorb the pain, and resilient enough to bounce back and keep on moving.
For leaders, the pain is often intense. But you must smile through your tears and keep moving with the faith that there is a brighter side somewhere.
...
Our party is emerging from one of its most hard fought battles for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in our history. But our healthy competition should make us better, not bitter. We must use the insight, wisdom, and experience of the late Hubert Humphrey as a balm for the wounds in our Party, this nation, and the world. We must forgive each other, redeem each other, regroup, and move one. Our flag is red, white and blue, but our nation is a rainbow -- red, yellow, brown, black and white -- and we're all precious in God's sight.
America is not like a blanket -- one piece of unbroken cloth, the same color, the same texture, the same size. America is more like a quilt: many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all woven and held together by a common thread. The white, the Hispanic, the black, the Arab, the Jew, the woman, the native American, the small farmer, the businessperson, the environmentalist, the peace activist, the young, the old, the lesbian, the gay, and the disabled make up the American quilt.
Even in our fractured state, all of us count and fit somewhere. We have proven that we can survive without each other. But we have not proven that we can win and make progress without each other. We must come together (full text).
This is the model, folks. This is what a losing candidate does, when they give a speech at a national convention. This is how a Party is healed.
Obama won the nomination. Part of the prerogative that comes with that victory is the right to choose who he wants as his running mate. There is no precedent for a primary victor being forced into choosing a losing candidate for VP. The precedent is for the losing candidate to do all they can to make sure their voters stay within the Party fold in November.
That is what Clinton should do. It is her responsibility to unify the Party. Let’s not let anyone forget this basic truth.