Here and There

John Edwards says now that he will consider VP or Cabinet offers from Obama. Way to go, John. Attorney general was made for you.

In no particular order:

• Bill Richardson
• John Edwards
• Chuck Hagel
• Michael Bloomberg
• Janet Napolitano
• Jim Webb
• Brian Schweitzer

Isn’t it nice not having to worry that the ticket will be too white? I know, I know, if Hillary had won, we wouldn’t have to worry about its being to male. Still, I’m just saying.

Update: The New Hampshire delegates are in fact supers.

Original post: Obama gains two more, these from pledged delegates to John Edwards in New Hampshire.

59.

I have a hard time keeping up, but I don’t recall any other NH Edwards dels going to Obama. By CNN’s count, Obama wins the state on delegates over Clinton, 10-9. Not sure if it’s 12-9 now.

Out of respect for the former senator, I’m sure.

126.5.

Update: Sullivan weighs in against the idea.

Original post: Saw this headline and felt the need to comment: John Edwards: Open To Vice President, Interested In Attorney General.

While I certainly wouldn’t not vote for an Obama-Edwards ticket, there’s something that doesn’t quite sit well with me having John Edwards as a VP candidate again. And I think the answer is tied up in the very idea of again.

There are many reasons to want Edwards on the ticket. He has Southern appeal, Caucasian appeal, lawyerly appeal. He’s known on the national stage already. He’s served as senator from a potential battleground state.

And perhaps he should be exonerated for the Kerry-Edwards ‘04 disaster of a campaign.

But when you look at what Obama really needs in a candidate, before looking at potential matches, Edwards falls short.

Obama needs someone with executive experience. Someone with foreign policy experience (the more, the better). He needs someone who didn’t vote for the war in Iraq. He needs someone already known to Americans, but perhaps not as fresh as Edwards, who largely came onto the scene in 2003, shortly before Obama emerged as a prominent pol.

I for one think Edwards would be an amazing vice president. But I’m a socialist, Left Coast, fringe-dwelling freak. What I think only matters insofar as to point toward what kind of candidate might play well “out there” in America.

Like I’ve said (and the abovelinked article suggests), Edwards for AG, not VP.

Richardson endorsement — check
Superdelegate lead — check
Turn toward general election strategy/campaigning — check
Edwards endorsement — check
Concession by Clinton — …

(This post in no way anticipates nor expects Hillary Clinton to concede. Ever. It merely wishes to illustrate the obvious — that the Democratic Party has a nominee, despite the disbelief/refusual to admit as much by one or two of its members.)

I’m just sayin’.

According to Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic, John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama in Michigan tonight.

CNN shows Clinton getting 67 percent to Obama’s 26. (John Edwards picked up around 7 percent. Not bad.)

In delegates, CNN estimates 20 for Clinton, and 8 for Obama. So Clinton wins the night by 12 delegates, and Obama is 8 closer to clinching the nomination.

When we’ve got nearly his entire campaign staff. Bonior jumps ship today.

In light of Mark Penn’s quitting as the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist, I’ve decided to lay out some arguments for anyone reading this who may still be a Hillary supporter.

I really want to look at this logically, and if you’re reading this and see any faults, please let me know. By asking for comments, I’m in no way trying to indicate that I think my logic is sound. I of course feel that it is, otherwise I wouldn’t put it forward as my argument.

Okay, let’s play a little game of question-and-answer:

Q: Given the near impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s achieving a lead in pledged delegates going into the DNC convention in August, and the almost total impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s being able to surpass Barack Obama in popular votes, why is she refusing to bow out?

A: She’s either a) hoping that by beating Obama to a bloody pulp over the Wright story, which can be done only by exploiting the racism of whites, Asians, and Latinos, she’ll be able to convince people in the 10 remaining states and territories that haven’t voted yet, by a margin of 4-1, that Obama is a terrible, terrible Manchurian-candidate type of candidate; b) she is the Manchurian Republican candidate, in the race to lure unsuspecting “Democrats” into supporting her, thereby thwarting public will; c) there’s a secret deal among the Democratic leadership and the two candidates that whoever ends up with the nomination, the other will “automatically” be the VP nominee, thereby uniting the party; d) she enjoys the humiliation of losing for a long time, versus graciously bowing out now and helping Obama take on John McCain, who, she has said repeatedly, would make a better president than Obama; e) she’s going to loan her campaign the $95 million Obama raised in February and March in order to catch up with him (hey, the Clintons have been involved in sketchy, stupid investments before; this would in no way break precedent).

Responses, one-by-one:

a) It has been admitted by top Clinton aides and strategists that a major (if not the main) part of their talks with superdelegates involves discussion of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This is widely reported in liberal blogs. Not sure if the mainstream news runs it, because, frankly, I quit my NYT addiction after March 4. So, in a sense, this is what the campaign is doing: exploiting fear and racism.

But as a strategy, how exactly is this good for Clinton? How is it good for the party, when Clinton has beaten Obama so badly that, as the nominee, the Republicans only have to finish him off?

b) As much as I love reading and hearing about them, I don’t really believe in conspiracy theories. And that’s mostly because I know firsthand how difficult it is to organize any group of people larger than one. So, for there to be some kind of conspiracy of masquerading candidates, to me, is ludicrous.

c) I let myself think about this as a real possibility for about 12 seconds today, especially after Harry Reid’s recent declaration that, as early as July, the party would be united behind its nominee. But then, going back to the nearly impossible math presupposition, why would Clinton drag it out? Why would she have her aides engage in the type of attacks on Obama (see argument a), above) they have been?

I don’t know what exactly is behind Reid’s assertion, but I really don’t see any way that these two will be on the same ticket together, and well they shouldn’t. It’s my firm belief that Obama will be the nominee, and as formidable as some may believe her to be, Clinton is simply not a good choice for second fiddle.

d) This could be true. She entertained many years of humiliation as the wife of a cheating male politician. “Stand by your man” doesn’t mix well with a youth of feminism. Maybe she’s a glutton for punishment?

e) Stranger things have happened, but there’s no proof whatsoever that more money spent by Clinton would lead to her overcoming Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and popular votes.

Oh, and Obama’s catching up to her on superdelegates, too.

PLEASE, for the love of god, if you or someone you know knows of a reason Clinton is staying in the race (and I don’t want to hear “so that the voices of the voters in the remaining states can be heard. Some of those voices will vote for John Edwards, or Chris Dodd, for chrissakes), I want to know. Comment here. Please.

From AP, following a meeting with Democratic Party leaders, Hillary Clinton has agreed to withdraw from the race and endorse Senator Barack Obama. Clinton will campaign for Obama and other Democrats around the country in exchange for being named Senate Majority leader in the 111th Congress next January.

“I really don’t know what came over me these last six weeks. I think I became an even nastier version of Bill. Anyway, sorry?”

Senator Obama, reached by telegraph in the middle of Pennsylvania’s Amish country, said that even as a noncandidate, Clinton would be a formidable opponent, and he wished she’d just go away already.

In other news, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards announced his endorsement of Clinton.

My god, the campaigning has reached new lows. From The New York Times digging for gold dirt and finding only pyrite, at best, to Hillary Clinton flying off the handle, sounding like an angry friend’s mom yelling at you for putting dishes in the dishwasher the wrong way, we’ve reached a phase where the Republicans have their presumptive, eventual nominee and a challenger with no mathematical possibility refusing to cede, and Democrats tugging away at a rope that seems to keep growing.

It’s funny that the media has been hatching elegiac stories about Clinton since the end of last Thursday’s debate. Her comment (plagiarized almost directly from John Edwards, or was it he who picked it up from Bill Clinton?) about the candidates being fine no matter what happens in the nomination battle struck me as … pandering. Not capitulation — not to Obama, or to the voters. But the press went ape shit and stories followed of sober moods inside Camp Clinton.

Obama’s response to Hillary’s tantrum Saturday was … Obama-esque. No comment.

It all feels desperate to me. Desperate on the part of the candidates (Clinton and Huckabee, namely) and desperate on the part of the media. From what I’ve read, there’s no “there” there to any of these narratives. Just fillin’ inches …

That said, I’ve been posting sparingly and (get this!!!) living my life a little in the eternal two-week vacation until March 4. Nothing election-related has really interested me enough these last four days. That could all change by lunch, of course.

From Monday’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

The New York Times top story at the moment covers the trend of big-name Democrats’ refusal to endorse, and speculates that this phenomenon is due to party leaders not wanting mayhem at the convention.

I have to disagree with the premise here.

Now, given how things have played out so far, I put nothing past chance. But I really don’t see people like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barbara Boxer (and there are plenty of others) all splitting their votes. Were they to endorse, even now, it may just tip the scales one way or the other, thereby reducing the importance and need for superdelegates.

I’ve posted in recent days growing disgust with Clinton’s campaign tactics, but the truth is I would still prefer her to McCain. The Democrats need a candidate, not a tooth-and-nail, beat ‘em up fight to the finish.