Clinton / Richardson, Not Clinton / Obama

Funny, I was thinking about this topic yesterday and believe the dynamics point to a Clinton/Richardson ticket, not Clinton/Obama as Gingrich suggests. I also think Clinton, the clear primary leader, is picking fights with Obama a front-runner normally wouldn't, in part, to take him down a bit so she isn't saddled with him, should he be that strong going into the convention. Finally, I also think the dynamics at play point directly to Richardson as a likely choice.

For starters, Obama can outshine Hillary on the stump. And Hillary is not really established enough as a centrist to be able to afford to choose a VP all that far Left. And, lastly, though the PC pundits might not want to admit it, I don't think she wants to try and break two glass ceilings at once by running as a women with a Black VP. And that's where Richardson comes in mighty handy.

His Hispanic background makes him a minority. But really I don't think people think of him as such. And he's far more experienced than is Obama. But, if Hillary freezes Obama out without good reason, she becomes open to charges of discrimination. Ah, but not if she selects an Hispanic for her VP. It's far more win win for Hillary to go with Richardson, than it is to select Obama.

And the liberal Black political establishment residing under the Democrat tent will take it on the chin once again and let it happen, just as they always do. But Obama will be back in 2012 if she loses the General election, or wins and seriously screws up in office.

Comments

[JoeCitizen]

Nah, you dont understand the real calculations here.

She will wait till the convention, then assess who it is on her short list who is hated the most by the Right, then choose that person.

She needs to do what Bush did. Make herself immune to impeachment by choosing the one person that the right would want in office less than her.

[CK MacLeod]

Have any of the candidates since Reagan selected a significant competitor from the nomination process? I don't think there've been any.

The conventions are still more than a year away, and, if, as everyone expects, the nominations are pretty much wrapped up by February 5, there will be almost eight months between the time we know who the candidates are, and the time they pick their running mates. You almost wonder if they'll be tempted to pre-empt the conventions - perhaps by making the VP and cabinet selection processes more public than in other years - and, if not, how they're going to handle the greater than half a year they'll have on their hands. It could be very strange. Think about how much can change in the country and the world over the course of eight months.

Anyway, what appears to make sense for Hillary now may not make any sense at all by the end of August 2008. At that point, she could be 25 points up in the polls, and feel the luxury to pick whoever she feels like. She could be tied, and feel the need to make a tactical choice based on electoral considerations. She could be behind and feel she needs to swing for the fences.

If she's the candidate (I presume it, but they still have to play out the game...).

[Justin]

absolutely agree. For Hillary to win, she must carry every state Kerry won, plus one. Bush won New Mexico in 2004. Richardson is a qualified, western, moderate with ties to her husband, who can also deliver the hispanic vote. He'll play ball. Expect a Clinton/Richardson ticket in 2008.

[Steve Beste]

Hmmmmmmm.