The Triumph of Hope Over Experience?

I’d like to ask first and foremost that if anyone is going to threadjack, abuse troll ratings, insult, or otherwise be obnoxious, that you do it elsewhere.

I’m an Obama supporter.  Have been since the start of the primaries.  Voted for him proudly.  At times I’ve been very upset with Hillary.  Check out my somewhat gloating diary from just a few short weeks ago---“Goodbye to All That”---if you don’t believe me for some reason.

But I am troubled lately.  I don’t see the fire in the Obama campaign and the will to win.  I see him getting slapped around by Hillary and doing nothing much in return.  I see one of his advisers, an intelligent woman who has done great work, cast aside on the basis of a stupid but minor comment.  I see weakness.

I see him losing the expectations game over and over.  The man won 12 primaries and caucuses in a row, and has had at least two chances to put the nomination away.  But he hasn’t shown he can play hardball when it’s necessary.  

I see John McCain at risk of being completely broke between now and the general election, and Barack Obama looking like he’s two steps away from agreeing to handcuff himself as well.

I see the very real possibility that Hillary wins the popular vote tallies, Obama wins the pledged delegate count, and we go all the way to August without a nominee.  And then whoever gets the nod there limps into the general election with half the party angry at him or her.

I truly hope that Obama bounces back, and surprises me.  Yes his message is one of hope, and Hillary’s is a grating mantra of “experience.” But the idea of the “triumph of hope over experience” is supposed to be ironic, as in, a bad strategy.  (I am certain Hillary’s people have been counting on this turn of phrase.)  Hillary has retained some of the most conniving, twisted, unscrupulous people, and her campaign has been at each others’ throats for months.  There are times when I’ve told myself I’d vote for McCain over Hillary in the general election.

But I am intentionally not listing all of the things she’s done or said that have grated on me, because that’s not the point of this diary.  Right now I feel like the Democrats could very easily blow what should be the easiest presidential election win in modern times.

In my most practical speaking, cynical heart of hearts, I can envision Obama getting the nomination, and then being eaten alive in the general election.  And then were are we?  Four years of McCain being succeeded for eight years by someone like Vice President Rob Portman.

I’m not convinced of anything for sure, but I’m open to possibilities.  Frankly part of this is being boxed into a corner by the Hillary campaign.  I sincerely doubt she will quit fighting for the nomination no matter what, while I believe Obama might be willing to put the sake of the party and the nation about his own personal ambition.  Yes, this sucks, but in a way I’m buying into the most negative aspect of Hillary’s persona as an argument why we should be open to the idea of that actually coming true.

So here’s my idea, something I can barely believe I’m proposing.  And I’m not really proposing it, just putting it out there:  Clinton-Obama.  

Let him negotiate some extraordinary conditions.  Maybe he heads the search for Supreme Court justices.  Maybe he has veto power over all cabinet heads.  Maybe there’s something else.  Maybe they work out a private deal in which Hillary serves only one term, and then we get eight years of President Barack Obama from 2012 to 2020.

I know this diary is going to piss some people off.  It pisses me off, frankly.  But I look over at the Republican side and see them all coalescing around a guy who was not anybody’s first choice, and realizing that 60 percent of a loaf is better than none.  

So here’s the point:  It’s a trial balloon from an Obama supporter (albeit one with absolutely no connection to his campaign.)

Clinton-Obama 2008

??????????

•  Damn it hurt to write this.

  by William S Martin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM PDT

•  I felt like I should also add

  that I have no connection to anybody's campaign.

  I never even ran for student council.

  by William S Martin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:29 AM PDT

•  I've noticed that

  He's got to do something soon, before PA. Right now his campaign seems a little disoriented.

  by BoiseBlue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM PDT

•  I don't see the big problem for Obama but..

  I'm really confused about what the press are trying to do and how people, even Obama followers are falling for it.

  It's about the delegates right? He has an unsurmountable lead right? Obama was "down" after new Hampshire too. People "had enough of Obamamania" after New Hampshire too. Or so they said. But he still went on to win the majority of races.

  I can see him do that again. In fact im sure he will win a couple of more races. Then people can get worked up about the "expectation game" but when judgement day finally arrives, Obama will be the one laughing with a whole bunch more pledged delegates.

  And you know what, when that happens, even if he does lose the popular vote, I'm sure he will get enough support from superdelegates to win the nomination.

  After all, most pledged delegates are high-educated, high income. The ones that love Clinton already have chosen sides.

  I'm no expert, maybe I'm wrong. But if I was Obama I would stick to my message.

  by DarkOmnius on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM PDT

•  Ever thought that maybe this is why

  he is tending to his wounds now? Because his supporters are beginning to jump ship, promoting Clinton-Obama ticket over an Obama-Clinton ticket? I fully understand the need to see more of a FIGHT in Obama. I agree. He needs to come out swinging. I believe he is sitting back pondering over whether or not it will be feasible for him to "go negative". It's a hard decision and a hard battle against someone who is willing to kill her fellow dem.opponent while uplifting & praising the TRUE opponent (McCain).

  I understand your frustrations. But now is SOOO not the time to start faltering. If you've been with him through his ups, what kind of supporter would u be to ditch him during one of his setbacks?

  I have faith in him & this campaign. He will surface & take charge & wrap this thing up. But he cannot do it alone. We're either ALL in, or we're all out.

  by RemarkablyChanel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM PDT

  •  I know it's a little self-fulfilling

    But I guess overall I think:

    1.  I haven't seen evidence of a fighter in him.  I have seen strong evidence of a fighter in her.

    2.  I suppose at the end of this there will have to be a compromise.  And in most good compromises both sides are somewhat disappointed.

    3.  Hillary supporters get a good shot at much of what they want (i.e. President Hillary Clinton, only maybe she has to share more power then she would have if she'd run a more powerful campaign).  Obama supporters get a good shot at much of what they want (i.e. President Barack Obama, only 4 or 8 years from now).

    And perhaps together they greatly reduce the risk of getting neither option in No. 3.

    by William S Martin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM PDT

•  Obama/Clinton

  is bad enough, but why would anyone in his position agree to Clinton/Obama? Do you think she would unleash something so awfully horrible if she didn't get her way that there would be some point to it? And if you are thinking he's too weak now, are you suggesting that he's so weak, he'd agree to this?

  I've seen reports that Clinton has been pushing "we could run together" as a meme (which seems a bit odd combined with all the insults she's hurled at him lately), but there are two parts to that, I think.

  One, is that idea that "he's young, he can have a turn later" to get fence sitters who like him to feel better about voting for her.

  The other, oddly as it seems, is that I think she really really really wants a promotion from being senator. If president becomes utterly out of reach, she might settle for vice president. This does seem weird, but I guess you might consider--is her goal president over all else, or power over all else.

  If it were actually true that the ticket needed her as VP (ie it's the only way to put the party back together), I'd say Obama could consider it. If that's not the case, she should just accept her loss like a grown up.

  by JMS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM PDT

  •  I see the point, but

    if she wins the popular vote, and neither candidate has enough pledged delegates, how does she possibly "lose"?  She might not win, but neither does Obama.

    All of this goes out the window if he somehow picks up any one of the many club sat his feet and uses them effectively to win Pennsylvania.  Or at least to club the media into agreeing that places like Wyoming and Mississippi "count."

    So I guess I'm not saying he's too weak, but I'm hoping for him to show me that he isn't.

    by William S Martin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

•  william...have a drink

  and dont give up so damned easily....

  my gawd!  did u think this would be a coronation????

  by maxnyc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM PDT

  •  no, but i'm worried obama did

    by William S Martin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM PDT

•  A bunch of "ifs"

  and a VERY false dichotomy.  Only the caricature that is this race's narrative pits "Hope" versus "Experience," since in truth both candidates offer both attributes, and if we put "experience" as a decisive factor we're going to get absolutely creamed by a guy who's been in DC so long he remembers when the Rebs were just over the river.  That dichotomy is bad for the party, regardless of which candidate wins the nomination.

  Simply put, the stronger campaigner is the person who emerges as the nominee.  If that's Obama, have some faith in his ability to effectively market himself as a candidate.  If that's Clinton, have some faith in her ability to negatively frame McCain.

  We can (and should) object if we find the style of campaigning taking place to be beneath the Party, but the process is most likely going to produce a savvy campaigner with a strong plan for victory.

  Or I'm wrong and we're screwed either way, in which case the premise of the diary is still in doubt, because cutting a deal now shows weakness on both their parts, and makes Obama look comparatively weak come his turn at the top.

  I want this over, too, but I don't see the benefit in the candidate currently in the lead taking a backseat and letting them both off the short-term hook.  If this had ended Tuesday, we would have known the strategy Obama's team put in place was effective enough to take to the general election.  Now we can see how his team adjusts, and we can evaluate Clinton further.  It's not the end of the world, so long as the candidates don't cause the party to implode (which, at this point, is still easily avoidable).

  Deep breath--it's going to be okay.

  by JR on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM PDT

  •  Great comment, JR

    by mayan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM PDT

•  It strikes me as ironic...

  that folks who are wanting Obama to show "fight" are so willing to consider caving to a split ticket without more.

  While I agree that Obama and team have "stumbled" after a brutal week of being attacked on all sides, it seems to me that they are retooling.  Before I jump to any conclusions, I want to see what comes out of that process.  I would be very surprised to learn that Obama and team are anything like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore in this regard.  We'll see, of course, but it's just to soon...particularly given the history of this campaign and the relatively flawless way they have run it to this point.

  That said...I want more surrogates showing their faces.  And I want them now.

  by mayan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM PDT

•  Sorry, I'm going to have to pop your balloon...

  Everything sounded just fine until you got to the part about negotiating extraordinary conditions.  With all that I've seen from Clinton and her campaign this primary season, I have no faith in her ability to keep her negotiated promises if they do decide on something akin to what you've suggested.  When she becomes the President, she'll do whatever she wants, without a look over her shoulder at whomever she leaves in her dust.

  You make some nice suggestions, but I just don't see how Obama wins if he has, for example, veto power over cabinet heads and then Clinton goes on television and says, well I can't nominate this person to the cabinet because Obama doesn't want me to.  Nope, I don't think it works that way.

  Your diary isn't pissing me off... you make some good points.  However, I see no probability that Clinton would follow through on any kind of word she's made to Obama if your scenario were to come true.

  Frankly, I don't want Senator Clinton anywhere near the ticket.  She can be in the cabinet, that's fine.  But I don't want her near the top of the ticket.  I would be happy to have her help Senator Obama win over all those women and Latinos who have flocked to the Clinton campaign... I can't discount her pull and reach into those demographics, which, if they are convinced to vote Democratic this year may just stay with us for a generation.  But you know, when Obama is the head of the party and the standard bearer at the top of the ticket for the Presidency, he really shouldn't have to ask for that kind of help from Clinton -- yet I can see how Senator Clinton would ransom her help and ask for something in return.

  So, you see, Clinton has rubbed me all kinds of wrong ways.  But if she is the nominee I will vote for her.  If legions of Republicans can do the same for McCain, I can certainly do it for Clinton -- but my first choice is Obama.

  by BasharH on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM PDT