Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Since we are all hovering over our cell phones, waiting for this text, here's a little exercise in Machiavellian politics, and how I think this is being played out.

I have seen a number of speculations, mostly from the "Clinton is VP or I walk" crowd, that Obama is more likely to pick Clinton only if he needs her.  So, the closer the polls, the more likely Clinton is the VP pick.

My take is the opposite and I think that is where we have in fact arrived.

I think the situation has come down, as Obama is not delivering the knockout blow in the polls (never thought he would btw) and, with Georgia maybe keeping Foreign Policy front and center, the Clintons may in fact have intentionally been sabotaging the VP deal, if it was ever to be made.  Why take a ride on a losing ticket, when, more and more, you believe, McCain will be there for you to run against in 2012?

My smoking gun for that strategy was "catharsis".  The Clinton folks had to know how that would play in the Obama camp; if the Obama team wanted healing, the last thing you call for is your `unrequited" followers to `take center stage', that their loss is more important then them pulling together for the party.

IF in fact, you want the deal to go through, you sell it as "a unity moment, a forging of an alliance", instead of making sure you call to highlight that your voters are STILL yours, and will always be.

It sends a message to the Obama camp, particularly those who are against the Dream Team, that their main argument is true. That, in the end, the Clintons will maneuver towards what in the long run is good for them. So, you kill the deal at the same time you seem to be keeping it open.

It's actually politically a good gamble. You make is so the Obama team can't in fact offer you the VP, which, again, rubs salt in the wounds of your unrequited supporters.

Then you can say, "it was never offered to us" rather then letting it leak, you turned it down, and the bitter goes up a notch.

A Clinton supporter made a statement on Political Slaves' great Dream Ticket thread, they were going to Denver either to "Unity up" if she is the VP, or "protest in the streets" if she is not.

I think the Clinton's are counting on that: lots of blood (symbolic of course) in the streets, something for CNN and the rest of the horde to focus on, and for Hannity and the crew to make the meme: "The Democrats are in Disarray!"

And, rather then the polls or the Georgian conflict, I think this in fact maybe what can sink Obama's chances.  

Rather then he and his VP emerging triumphant from the convention, the focus remains on "Why not Hillary?""How can he NOW heal the party""Why did he slight her and her supporters"...you get my drift.

Ok, flame away, I'm expecting to get hit from both sides, both for calling the Clintons Machiavellian, and from the Obama folks, for thinking the Pumas are going to have any real effect and sabotage the convention and cost Obama the election.

But, it at least kills the time till the text comes in....

Tags: blood in the streets!!!!, Denver, Dream Ticket (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Wow. You sure do have a knack for assuming the worst about the Clintons. Maybe you should have turned off your radio about 16 years ago before you polluted your brain with all of the Machiavellian paranoia.

But at least the title of your diary was accurate. You're certainly doing your best to sabotage the Dream Ticket.

by LakersFan 2008-08-15 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Lakersfan, you KNOW that's complete BS.

I will take my Clinton Bonafides against ANYONE here.

I worked as a committee cochair here in WA state for Bills first run, just like Obama, I saw him early, wanted to get on the fresh train.

I gave plenty to BOTH campaigns, time and money, and I literally had my Ex bring up how much money I gave to Move On in the Divorce papers, during the Monica wars.

If you can't comment on the diary, fine.

Attacking the messenger, I expect better of you.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:43AM | 0 recs
Clinton asked to be the VEEP

... before she stopped running for the top of the ticket.

This was COVERED - you know, in the papers?

Now, i don't think that her being VEEP would be in her long term interest -- but it would certainly have been in her backers interest!  Which was why it got suggested strongly.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-15 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton asked to be the VEEP

now, now you should know by now that facts about actual coverage and timing is of little interest in the Divide the Party No Matter What crowd...it's all about the rumors lies and innuendo's about White Water and the 90's

by zerosumgame 2008-08-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

I commented on exactly the content of the diary. You basically invited people to flame you for calling the Clintons Machiavellian, so I'm calling you out on it. I don't care about your Clinton bona fides -- once you've adopted the Machiavellian line, you're doing Karl Rove's dirty work.

Congratulations, the GOP's got you right where they want you -- dissing the leaders of your own party. Good job.

by LakersFan 2008-08-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Funny thing is, the diary never actually called the Clintons Machiavellian. It called itself an exercise in Machiavellian politics, which is different.

Also, Machiavellian is not implicitly bad.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-15 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Thank you.

You beat me to my response.

I don't understand the purity assigned to the Clintons by their followers?

They were all "they are the ulimate never give an inch fighters that is who we want against the Repubs" but if somone suggests that do a politically motivated move, all of a sudden they act like I accussed them of pedophilia?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Yeah, if I'm headed into a political fight I want somebody on my side who's read their Machiavelli.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-15 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

You think it's Clinton supporters who are too into "purity"? That IS funny!!!

by LakersFan 2008-08-15 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

The diary didn't call the Clintons Machiavellian? Apparently, you didn't read it:

I think the Clinton's are counting on that: lots of blood (symbolic of course) in the streets, something for CNN and the rest of the horde to focus on, and for Hannity and the crew to make the meme: "The Democrats are in Disarray!"

And, rather then the polls or the Georgian conflict, I think this in fact maybe what can sink Obama's chances.  

Rather then he and his VP emerging triumphant from the convention, the focus remains on "Why not Hillary?" "How can he NOW heal the party" "Why did he slight her and her supporters"...you get my drift.

Ok, flame away, I'm expecting to get hit from both sides, both for calling the Clintons Machiavellian...

An exercise in Machiavelliain politics would be to say, "I'm counting on lots of blood in the streets". However, this diarist chose to project this Machiavellian scheme upon the Clintons. (And nice try diarist trying to deny it, but I'm not buying it for a second.)

by LakersFan 2008-08-15 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Apparently, you didn't read the section that you quoted. He said that other people will say he called the Clintons Machiavellian, never said it himself. The diarist is putting forth a theory, and as has been noted before, Machiavellian is not necessarily bad. No need to take these things so personally.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-15 01:41PM | 0 recs
Sen. Obama never pulled any punches!

So why should Clintons roll over and play dead? They both (Obama and Clinton) are right or wrong depending upon your point of view!

by indydem99 2008-08-15 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Sen. Obama never pulled any punches!

I never thought or said they WOULD roll over and play dead.

IF both sides were involved in the VP negotations, I expect both played strong and hard?

Maybe Obama so pissed them off, THEY felt they had to play it this way.

But, that is how I think it has been played.

You're all reading a bit too much in I hate the Clintons, I do not.

If they did this for political purposes, I make NO value judgement on the morality of it, Politics is not a game for the timid.

In fact, IF they forced Obama's teams hand, They won the day IMHO.

IF you don't want the offer, best to look like it was never offered to you.

Unless NONE of you think Senator Clinton would even consider a 2012 run if Obama loses?

Is that what you are all saying?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:58AM | 0 recs
Not me!

Clinton would run in a heart beat.

by indydem99 2008-08-15 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Not me!

Which proves my point.

If she is THINKING she would run in 2012, would she make smart decisions NOW?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 12:20PM | 0 recs
Those gosh darn Clintons!

What will they be into next?  

by Radiowalla 2008-08-15 10:40AM | 0 recs
C'mon WSB

HRC certainly delivered a stinger; but to question her motives seem unreasonable on your part (Big Dog is another story).

If you compare the number of appearances that she has made on Obama's behalf with Biden and Bayh, she comes up ahead in that category.  It's hard to spin that fact considering that all Obama has to do is ask her to appear in this state at this time and she has done it.  She'll be in NM for him this Sunday.

You are reading too much into this word "catharsis."  It was a love tap from an older sister; it stings momentarily but heals eventually.  Who knows what led her to make the statement, Obama may have been giving her the end-around?

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-15 10:40AM | 0 recs
WSB is obsessed with the word

"catharsis."  The sad thing is that Morris said the same thing you did today.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
Hillary said "catharsis" first.

by Glaurung 2008-08-15 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

What, there is mayb 60 PUMAs that is going to Denver.  LOL.

by Spanky 2008-08-15 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Hey, at least an Obama supporter spanking me the other way...

And, aptly named!

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Well, the usual folks have fixated on the Clinton hit, rather then the subject.

So be it, it's clear all you folks can do is defend the Clintons rather then debate a point.

Not surprising....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:45AM | 0 recs
Are you talking about me?

I thought I presented a counterargument in my previous post.  HRC is a smart woman but Obama is too; he wouldn't allow himself to be played this badly if HRC is indeed trying to play him.

Now, Big Dog is another issue.  The drama surrounding his speech will be ridiculous; it's sad because he delivered an absolute steamwinder (and a better speech that even Obama's) for dems and Kerry in 2004.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-15 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you talking about me?

And, I complimented you argument, it's a good one.

But, if this in FACT has been a back and forth discussion, you would expect each side to be jocking for position.

Am I saying Barack is Mother Teresa and the Clintons are Mao?

Heck know, they BOTH are full out power players.

Anyone think the jockeying between LBJ and JFK was friendly?

Just, I sense, the Clintons closed the door, that's what I am saying.

Maybe it was part of the process, something broke down, but, I just felt a cold chill go between the campaigns in the last two weeks.

And, sure, if you don't think politicians choose a word like catharsis out of nowhere...

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:54AM | 0 recs
perhaps because

your "Clinton hit" is the entire basis of your diary? You ascribe motives to her straight from Limpball's then treat those projected motives on her. Not very logical and of course it invites (and you acting as if you are surprised is just a lie) people "defending" her by presenting facts as opposed to your suppositions and FAUX-like smears.

by zerosumgame 2008-08-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps because

Again WHY IS THIS SUCH A SMEAR?

You folks all expect her to run in 2012, cause you think McCain will win...

You think she is the toughest son of a gun ever, and they  are the smartest politicians around?

So, have ANYTHING I SUGGEST imply they are evil folks selling out the country?

Heck, YOU believe McCain is going to win, so why is what what I am saying such a bad thing....

Some of you are going to be those people in the streets in Denver I suspect?

If you think this is so EVIL, don't go?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps because

Who are these "you folks" exactly. Seriously, I don't understand your borderline obsession with the Clintons. As much as you complain about Pumas, you sure like to stir up the pot.

by Dari 2008-08-15 01:38PM | 0 recs
It won't take that many PUMA's...

...to sabotage the convention.  The media is going to make a bee line for any "controversy" that happens in Denver because it is a narrative they have been playing up for months.  If a handful of PUMA's make like Harriet Christiansen then expect their antics to be played over and over again by the EmmEssEmm.

This convention should be a historical moment.  It should be something we will all be proud to say we lived through.  Instead, my guess is, it will be an embarrassment to our party.  Time will tell.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-15 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: It won't take that many PUMA's...

Yup, that is my fear as well.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 10:50AM | 0 recs
Don't worry the media would never fault Obama!

And that is good. Sounds like you want Democrats to become like the rethugs! Democrats are quite used to Cuss and discuss. You would know it unless you are a newbie.

by indydem99 2008-08-15 11:24AM | 0 recs
"Cuss and discuss"?

This ain't the old days pops.  The media runs with what gives them ratings.  A bunch of Clinton deadenders acting like kooks will play well on the 24 hour news.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
Yeah dissent is great

for lazy Saturday Starbucks Political discussions.

Not so great when we're trying to win once in a while. No wonder the country rarely trusts us for National Defense, we don't even defend our OWN interests.

by Neef 2008-08-15 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

even machiavelli can't pull that off

by lori 2008-08-15 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't return Bill Clinton's calls

You have access to their phone records?

by Glaurung 2008-08-15 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't return Bill Clinton's calls

There's only one explanation: gatopescado actually IS Bill Clinton.

Dun Dun Dun....

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-15 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't return Bill Clinton's calls

That must be why cat is also so offended about that dinner snub.

by Glaurung 2008-08-15 11:57AM | 0 recs
clinton would be in a better position in 2012

if she were his vp pick and he still lost. then she would theoretically have won back the support of black voters, young voters, and everyone else who likes obama by showing she was a team player. then if he does lose in november (not gonna happen by the way) she would be able to show she did everything in her power to help him. your whole argument is flawed and i say that as someone who doesn't think incredibly highly of the clintons. they are smarter than your little theory. the best thing for them to do is cooperate, which is why i think the convention will be a love-fest and protest very small and meaningless.

by Lolis 2008-08-15 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: clinton would be in a better position in 2012

That would certainly blow my arguement to pieces.

Good post, Mojo'ed

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 11:02AM | 0 recs
You're thinking too much

It's a cliche of politics that six months might as well be a lifetime.  I don't think Hillary Clinton is trying to game the VP slot or this election.  She's been around and knows that politics has its equivalent of the butterfly effect.

There's simply no way for her to know at this point whether her chances of being president one day (which, I agree, is still her goal) would be enhanced by Obama's winning or losing, her being on the ticket or not being on the ticket, etc.

And because that's true, I suspect she's concentrating on getting the greatest amount of respect and affirmation for what she rightly sees as her historical run, she'll then support Obama, and then que sera sera.

Clinton's disgruntled supporters are clinging to this scenario that if Obama goes down in flames the party will nominate her in 2012 by acclamation.  What they're hoping for, essentially, is some outcome which would reverse the results of the last race.

Hillary Clinton, I suspect, understands that politics is more volatile than that.  If McCain wins who knows if he'll finish out his term?  The advantages of an incumbent president aren't small.  If Obama loses this year that, by itself, won't unite the Democratic party behind her.

Remember all of the people in 2000 who thought that Gore, after being, well, gored by the Supreme Court, would run again?   Never happened.  In 2004 the GOP was at the height of its power.  Politics isn't a game where thinking fifty moves ahead usually gets one to where he or she wants to go (and Hillary Clinton, I suspect, understands this better than most).

So nope, not buying it.  Think everyone will be surprised at just how effusive both Clintons are towards Obama during the convention.  Politically it's the smart move.  She's going to want the Dems who backed Obama this year to support her in the future.

What is Obama doing with his VP pick?  My guess, he made his pick several weeks ago, and what we've seen seeing lately is the parade of also rans (ie. it's not going to be anyone who was floated during the past month).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-15 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: You're thinking too much

I figured someone smarter then me would blow this all to hell....

Great answer, I am buying it (for the most part!)

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Wow, this made the Rec list?  

I figured it was headed for oblivion in a hurry.

And, Catfish, you rec'd? Didn't see that coming

Was that a shame rec, or do you agree with me?

Or, do want me ripped to shreds as "A Clinton Hater?"

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 11:04AM | 0 recs
Why is it the Dream Ticket?

For me it's a nightmare.

I hate her voice, smile, stupid little stiff-arm clapping, intonation, oratory style and basically everything about her.

I'm hoping Obama runs as far from her as he can.

Did I mention that I do NOT like Hillary Clinton?  Or Bill for that matter.

by teknofyl 2008-08-15 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it the Dream Ticket?

You are either very young and dumb, or a Republic.

They come in the old flavor as well....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 11:15AM | 0 recs
Well I'm definately not a Republican

I don't dislike Clinton because she's 'too libral' that's for damn sure.

AS to the 'young and dumb' part, I guess that depends on yor definition of young.

As to my personal disgust at the Clintons... well I feel more strongly about the Shrub obviously, but it is something deep and it is definately there for me.

I will never like the Clintons, no matter how many peoplehere claim that the 90s were awesome (sorry - I was poor througout the 90s, much of it due to my own poor decisions), etc.

NAFTA pised me off then an it pisses me off now.  All the triangulation and GOP-lite crap, and just the whole attitude in the Democratic party durng the 90s after health care reform crashed that teh GOp was right and government in general was bad -- just seems like the sold out the ideal that government should solve problems.

And some of it is just ersonal disgust at the way she campaigns.  The finger-jab, and the stifff arm clapping... just looks stupid.  Sorry.

Anyway, if that makes me dumb then so be it.  I guess mindessly embracing the Clintons is the new IQ test.  If so, I'll be happy to fail.

by teknofyl 2008-08-18 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it the Dream Ticket?

You know, just because you think something doesn't mean you have to say it.

by vcalzone 2008-08-15 11:21AM | 0 recs
you ought to look at kos

who, despite not liking clinton's politics, is quite able to objectively talk about how warm and friendly she is, in person.

Besides, have you seen Cindy??

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it the Dream Ticket?

do you like green eggs and ham, horten?

by swissffun 2008-08-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
Fortunately, most of the US disagrees with you

For openers, I'm sorry you feel compelled to use the word "hate".

But since you dislike both President Clinton as well as Senator Clinton, what is it that you "hate" most about the '90's? The peace, or the prosperity?

It's very hard to comprehend the antipathy toward the first Democrat to win two terms since FDR.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-08-15 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Another paranoid Clinton hater. Tim Kaine just won the veepstakes: Bayh and Biden just got speaking slots, event planned in VA next week.

by bsavage 2008-08-15 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

The schedule can be changed, don't think this leaves those guys out.

My money is on Biden, still hoping for a last minute Wes or Hillary pick (yes, in spite of this diary, I like the dream ticket....)

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Sabotaging the Dream Ticket

Seriously. This obsession with the schedule is stupid. If Jon Stewart is hosting the Emmy awards, does that mean he won't be nominated? You plan for one thing, prepare for another. It's called a contingency plan, and there's ALWAYS one in place. Just as there would be if (god forbid) something happened to one of the planned speakers that left them unable to attend. There wouldn't be silence for that half hour, they'd get someone to speak in their place.

by vcalzone 2008-08-15 11:24AM | 0 recs
What purpose does this serve? Unrec it.

At best, this diary does nothing to prevent or counteract your crackpot diabolical theory if it is by some strange fluke right. At worst, you stoke the internet flame war and promote disunity when real efforts towards unity are in fact being made.

Unrec this folks, honestly.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose does this serve? Unrec it.

I never thought it would be rec'ed, though I think it is an interesting discussion, and, not sure exactly HOW it sowes discord.

The people objecting to it are NOT on the team anyway, for the most part.

They are also the folks who insist the Clintons are the roughest toughest cats around, but if I claim they are playing this to their advantage, I am a Clinton hater?

But, I think Ergo shoot my argument to hell anyway......

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose does this serve? Unrec it.

Just because one is politically savvy does not mean they are ruthless. You seem to ascribe the latter to the Clintons, which imo, is pretty much inviting criticism. I would assume the same if you were saying the same thing about Obama.

by Dari 2008-08-15 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose does this serve? Unrec it.

Sure, if Obama was doing it, sure.

Again, I think politics is played full out, between pros?

I still don't get WHAT I said the Clintons were capable of (no proof) is some great inherient evil?

Of course, I would prefer criticism like ERGO did, which was why my logic was incorrect, and he did a damn good job of it.

Instead, I get "you're a Clinton hater" and mostly from people who I promise you, hate Obama much more then I do the Clintons.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 01:52PM | 0 recs
I think Obama just got fleeced

Just whose convention is this anyway???

I'm half expecting that before we're done, a special time for Chelsea to address the convention will be scheduled.

There will be a special tribute/movie by Harry and Linda Thomases, the address by Hillary, the address by President Clinton, and then the roll call vote. Up until the point when Obama accepts the nomination at Invesco Field, this will be a Clinton Convention. Keep in mind that with the curtailed network coverage of conventions, the only portions which will get significant coverage prior to Thursday will be the President and Senator Clinton.

Obama's weakness when confronted with the Clintons' demands makes me wonder how tough he would be as a negotiator or Commander-in-Chief.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-08-15 12:01PM | 0 recs
Oh WTF

Now that he's showing "respect" he's too weak? OMFG.

by Neef 2008-08-15 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh WTF

Right..But I'm a ROVIAN Clinton hater for suggesting they are shoving elbows about the VP pick.

The cognative dissonance from the (new) Clinton supporters is strange...By new, I mean, If you watch how they played this when Bill was the Nom, how they manuevered the convention HOW is any of this a surprise.

And, again, Cause they are smart and strong politicians, that's a smear?

Sheesh?

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-15 12:31PM | 0 recs
Wow.

Another "I have pro Clinton bonafides, but I'll diss them incessantly at every opportunity" hit diary from WSB.

All because Senator Clinton used the word 'catharsis'.

What a crock of crap.

And it makes the 'wrecked' list, simply because it disses the Clintons.

It uses the 'some people say' or 'I won't call them so and so but others will say that' tactic to subliminially ascribe a derrogatory name to the Clintons and then deny doing it.

POS.

by emsprater 2008-08-15 02:22PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads