Tom Pauken plays it pretty straight in his selection of stories about the 2008 Presidential race on Dallas Blog. He has published critical articles about most of the Republican candidates, perhaps a sign of his forlorn hope that a "true" conservative, an heir of Saint Ronald, might yet emerge (can you say Newt?). And he has published critical articles of the Democratic candidates, natch.
This story, predicting a Clinton/Clark ticket, is both neutral in tone and ahead of the pack in predicting what does sound like a logical match-up. Up to now, I've been assuming a Clinton/Obama ticket is the natural pairing. The two leaders in the polls, one featuring experience, one featuring change, one a woman, one an African-American, what could be a better pairing?
Well, the 2008 campaign is going to be decided on the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Republicans don't draw a distinction between these. Democrats do. It's a given that the left is going to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter if it's a Senator Clinton who won't disavow her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. What Senator Clinton is going to have to do to win the general election is to convince the independents and the moderate Republicans that she isn't going to be soft on the War on Terror.
The best way she can do this is, not by picking an anti-war candidate like Senator Obama to share the ticket, but by picking a military leader to be her Vice Presidential candidate. Not a veteran like John Kerry, whose only military service decades ago was negated by his efforts to end the Vietnam War. No, Wesley Clark is a general, a West Point grad and NATO commander, someone who can point to Bosnia as an example of how to effectively project American military power. The Republicans will try to Swift Boat his reputation (see the Dallas Blog comments to this story), but it'll be harder to accomplish than with John Kerry. Mr Pauken may be on to something here. His prediction of a Clinton/Clark ticket may turn out to be just the ticket the Democrats need to win a campaign fought over who is best suited to carry on the War on Terror.
P.S. Tom Pauken's censorship continues to prevent me from posting these comments on Dallas Blog itself.
2 comments:
They haven't done so yet, but if the Democratic left wing challenges Clinton, perhaps even threatens to run a third party antiwar candidate, Clinton might have to protect her left flank more than her right flank in the general election. If so, perhaps Bill Richardson might make a more attractive Vice Presidential candidate. He would also be an asset in trying to win New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and maybe Arizona's electoral votes. Because no one is talking about Wesley Clark, I'm now inclined to predict a Clinton/Richardson ticket.
After what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, I'm back to thinking that a Clinton/Obama ticket might be needed to unify the Democratic Party for the general election.
Post a Comment