Obama Needs Clinton
Many people have been screaming at Senator Hillary Clinton to abandon her presidential bid. They argue that she is selfishly standing in the way of party unity and increasingly the likelihood that Senator John McCain will be the next president. The Hillary-must-go-now crowd should tread lightly. What many of these people don’t seem to understand is that Barack Obama cannot win the presidency without significant, sustained, and sincere support from Clinton. Consequently, he needs to be patient and give her whatever she wants – even if it means giving her the vice-presidential nomination.
There are four reasons why Obama needs Clinton. First, the Obamaniacs have yet to accept that, for all the money and notoriety his candidacy has generated, he may be weakest Democratic nominee since former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. I know that seems counterintuitive, given the enormous amount of money he has raised, the way he has energized new voters, and the way his message is resonating with voters all over the country. The reality is, however, that he has not dominated the nomination fight – indeed Clinton would already be the nominee if the Democrats allocated their delegates on a winner-take-all basis as the Republicans do in most states. Moreover, we don’t yet know the full extent of the racial and cultural roadblocks between Obama and the White House. My study of race and politics tells me that those roadblocks are mountainous and we are not yet in the general election. This puts a high premium on picking the right running mate.
Second, Hillary Clinton can be a better running mate than anyone else being mentioned. Who among us believes that Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or John Edwards can go into Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia and deliver those states to the Democrats? At one level or another, they represent some of the old style politics from which Obama promises to move the country. It’s also doubtful that Nunn, Biden, and Edwards for example, would be willing to go after their former colleague, McCain, as the running mate is expected to; Edwards’ unwillingness to do that in 2004 is seen as one of the reasons why John Kerry lost.
Third, the 41-point beating he took in West Virginia even though it’s widely accepted that he will be the party nominee underscores the serious problem he has in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Those realities can’t be overcome by just holding campaign rallies and talking about inclusion. Obama needs a running mate that has credibility with these voters and can vouch for him on all the areas where questions exist. Who better to do that than the woman who won, or is far ahead in the polls, in those states in the primaries?
Obama needs someone who can make him palatable to the voters that have, heretofore, remained cool to his presidential bid. Some have not taken to Obama because they, idiotically, believe that he is a closet Muslim (as if that means he’s disloyal to the country) devoutly dedicated to the teachings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or some of the other ridiculous notions being pushed by conservative talk radio. Even more don’t like him because he is Black. Obama seems unwilling or unable to confront racism for what it is, so he will need someone who can divert attention from race to something else. Clinton can do that too.
But would such a teaming work in November? I think it could, given where the Republicans are in the eyes of the country. Recently losses by the GOP in previously safe southern House seats, President Bush’s historic unpopularity, and questions about McCain’s longevity suggest a voter mood that is sure to keep the Democrats in the game, Obama’s weaknesses notwithstanding. An Obama-Clinton ticket may seem like a longshot but, upon further review, it may be the only way the Democrats can recapture the White House.
Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: www.MichaelFauntroy.com.
May 20, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
I do not worry about a black presidential candidate, but I will not vote for a closet muslim and don't tell me he is not one.
Posted by: Dr H Eratatus | Jun 11, 2008 10:42:17 PM
You are correct Obama needs Hillary. If the presidency were a CEO job (which it is )and these two candidates brought in their credentials, who would you hire?
Posted by: Joe | Jun 8, 2008 9:37:16 PM
Senator Clinton as V.P. would be a disaster, and Senator Obama is well aware of her assorted problems--lying, race baiting, and obliquely wishing him assassinated.
Mr. Obama must not bring this viper in as his running mate! If he is generous he can appoint her to practically any other position that she wants other than the vice presidency.
Posted by: Annie B. | May 29, 2008 9:54:02 AM
I can't believe we would even ponder for a second the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket! I, for one, would consider leaning towards McCain, who in this case would be the lesser of two evils. No matter how hard they try to paint him as a conservative, you can't hide the fact that McCain has had one of the most liberal voting records amongst the Republicans. The real issue is that Hillary not only lacks the experience that she so boldy pronounces Obama does not have, she also lacks character required to be a credible leader. Not to mention that she has no more credibility in the security/foreign policy arena than Obama. Truth be told, this combination would probably be to Obama's detriment and it would not aide him in getting closer to the White House. I have seen all of the ever-changing polls, and I really don't believe they are truly indicative of what will take place if Hillary does not make the ticket. It is all pure hype!
Posted by: Tina | May 27, 2008 6:25:46 PM
My Direct Lessons from 1988 direct my position of supporting Obama/Clinton in 2008 !!
As a former national staff member on Rev. Jesse L. Jackson's 1988 Presidential staff, and youngest member of his Illinois delegate slate, I watched many of Rev. Jackson's key national field staff and supporters withdraw their support of Dukakis and Democratic nominee after Jackson as the number two vote getter was not offered VP. In 2008, The Democrats cannot afford that same mistake in not having these two top vote getters in Obama/Clinton on this Dream Ticket.So based on my direct experience from 1988 is what shapes my opinion in 2008. Anything less that this Dream Ticket will be a nightmare for the Democratic ability to regain the WhiteHouse.
Posted by: Mark S. Allen | May 27, 2008 5:27:53 PM
Two candidates with no national security experience running against John Mccain makes no sense what so ever. I may be one of the few people who thinks that what Clinton brings to the ticket Obama can achieve with someone else. Lets start with the white voters. Once we weed out the ones who are voting against Obama and not for Clinton (lets not pretend that Clinton can hold all of those voters who voted against Obama especially considering many of them have indicated that they would go with McCain) Clintons lead is primarily among white women. Now considering that she is a white woman herself this does not come as a suprise to me. This is plain and simple identity politics. The same is true for Obama getting 90% of the black vote - identity politics. But voters have the luxury of engaging in identity poltics in a primary where there is so little difference between the two candidates that their have been long stretches of the campaigns where their has been very little discussion of policy. The primary election has been more about each candidates latest gaffe or association than any issues. This is because the differences between Clinton and Obama are largely form rather than substantive. Anyway, back to identity politics. I beleive this accounts for Clintons large advantage among white voters. But in the general election, these white women are not going to vote for John McCain. They may say this now because they beleive (with the help of Hillary Clinton) that there candidate is being railroaded but when the choice comes down between Obama and Mccain (who wants to overturn Roce v Wade) they will line up behind the Democrat. (By the way the same would have been true for African Americans if Clinton got the nomination). As for white men, no democrat in recent history has won a majority of the white male vote. And guess what? You dont need a majority of white males to win the presidency as a Democrat. Bill Clinton got less than 40%. In short, Obama does not need Clinton, he needs someone with real military or national security experience to deal with his weakness against Mccain.
Posted by: AngryMan | May 27, 2008 4:57:15 PM
I see Obama's supporters calling her -- and thus all women -- a whore and a bitch every day.
Pat: The above statement is the most ridiculous statement a rational person can make. Why are Clinton supporters lying? This woman tried to evoke her Whiteness in order to get the White vote. But, somehow these types of transgressions are lost on Clinton supporters.
Posted by: Cynthia | May 23, 2008 7:09:16 PM
I, for one, do not want her on the ticket. The sexist attacks have been relentless. I see Obama's supporters calling her -- and thus all women -- a whore and a bitch every day. You may be wrong that the women's vote is nothing. The Democratic party has lost a worker bee in my case.
Posted by: Pat | May 23, 2008 6:02:35 AM
I believe that you are absolutely INCORRECT. Obama does not need the Clinton's (remember Bill comes with Hillary). Each candidate comes with their own base of voters. Obama voters, the educated, wealthy, young, African Americans, (and they are also "hard working") do not want Hillary. If Hillary is on the ticket as VP, for sure Obama would lose many of his base voters. What advantage is there to Obama to gain Clintons base and loose his.
I believe that Obama can gain the support of her base voters. If Hillary was that great and powerful, why is she behind in all categories, including superdelegates? Also, why does she have problems raising money? Also, recent Zogby national polls show that Obama leads Hillary by double digits against McCain.
Posted by: Denise | May 22, 2008 3:40:26 PM
Please! If Clinton was that strong a candidate, she'd be the nominee already. Right now, the only demographic Hillary controls is white women 50 years old and older, which is not even a very threatening minority faction of voters. Worst, her outrageous campaign negatives and proven campaign incompetence will likely prove to be more damaging to Obama's hope for a Presidency than all the race and social tactics stated. Hillary really needs suspend her feckless campaign to be concentrate on keeping her seat in the Senate for New York. Albany is fickle, and Hillary is not a native New Yorker. Obama is already running very well against Grampers McCain, who has more politically exploitable rough edges than a New Orleans brothel during Mardi Gras. Grampers is already feeling as much heat from Obama as he is from Bob Barr and the GOP convention riot planned by the followers of the Ron Paul cult. The 2008 fight for the Presidency will be fierce, but Obama will still prevail, standing a much better chance of winning SANS BILLARY!
If Obama really wants to win the south, he can't afford to pad his ticket with cynical Hillary and her faithful Clintonistas. For one thing, that's too representative of the old Democratic guard those who support Obama are trying to end. Obama's potential inclusion of Hillary on his ticket consequently clashes with his message of hope and societal progression. Second, Team Hillary just should not be trusted by the ObamaNation. The Hillaryites have campaigned more ruthlessly against Obama than the GOP, just trying to win the nomination. Obama seriously needs a popular southern native to be his running mate. Jim Webb, a decorated Viet Nam veteran whose son is serving in Iraq, a man who has always been against our unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation that was no threat to America just for the oil, would carry the southern votes the way only a popular southern native can. Then he can pad his team with John Edwards for attorney general. Then, Bill Richardson will make an excellent secretary of state.
Posted by: rage | May 21, 2008 10:56:15 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that this country still doesn't get it. We are in need of a President a human President. I find it hard to believe that this man hasn't even gotten into office, and you guys are trying to tell him what to do. Most people would break under the scrutiny that has been imposed, on this man. If you mix dirt with water, can you still drink it and call it refreshing. I don't believe that Senator Obama needs Hillary, however I do believe that this article proves "We Need A Change".
Posted by: dee | May 20, 2008 5:27:08 PM
This is a strawman's argument. Why are Clinton supporters running from reality?
Posted by: cynthia | May 20, 2008 10:36:33 AM
I assume Obama would not and/or could not have Hillary on his ticket because he doesn’t want the Clintons' baggage overshadowing his message of change...or simply overshadowing him. Perhaps an Obama-Clinton ticket is more likely than not: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html
Posted by: harlemboy | May 20, 2008 8:06:21 AM



