An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Independents in Play

Maine Democratic Caucus Results coming in »

One Scenario for a Clinton/Obama Standoff

Posted by PAUL SILVER in At TMV.
Feb 10th, 2008 | Comments

Blair-Brown deal

The Blair-Brown deal, also known as the Granita Pact, is a shorthand term for a widely-held belief in British politics that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made a gentlemen’s agreement after the death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994.[1]

According to several authors,[2][3] Gordon Brown agreed not to stand in the Labour Party leadership election, effectively giving Blair a clear run, and letting him lead the Labour Party in the 1997 general election. In return, Brown would be allowed wide powers over domestic policy. This was apparently confirmed by a copy of a note published in The Guardian in June 2003. The note mentions Blair’s commitment to a “fairness agenda” consisting of “social justice, employment opportunities and skills” under a Labour government. [4]

According to a widely-held (but unconfirmed) view, Blair also agreed that if he acceeded to the position of Prime Minister, he would stay in the job for an agreed period of time. He would then resign and hand the job over to Brown.[5]

It is commonly believed that the ‘deal’ was agreed at the now-defunct Granita restaurant in Islington, London.[6][2][3].

This was the focus of a fun little movie called “The Deal”

How this could play out for the Democrats is both fascinating and a practical exercise. One could agree to be Vice President with an extraordinary portfolio such as foreign affairs, global warming, and energy independence. If Clinton and Obama were able to get past their competition they could merge their considerable wide range of talents, skills and connections to create a bi-partisan dream team of national leadership.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

cosmoetica

It would hardly be a Dream Team since about half the country won't consider voting for Hill, no matter what.

PaulSilver

That may be true but she also may be able to win as President or as a Vice President.
And while her favorables and unfavorables may be about equal it seems to me that she does have extraordinary talents for communicating, persuading, understanding policy, raising money and support, collaborating with colleagues and other capabilities that would be an asset in an administration.

DLS

Is Obama willing to step aside, and what would Obama voters do if he did?

(Many would vote for McCain, that's what many Obama voters would do.)

StockBoySF

That's an intriguing thought. If it got to that point and Clinton/Obama were open to it I'd love to hear their thoughts. It's a neat hypothetical exercise.

And with so many issues pulling the president in today's complicated world it makes sense to divide the "portfolio." I guess essentially they'd be co-Presidents, even though I suppose the President would have the ultimate say over all issues. Of course the irony would be that if this becomes a reality we have Cheney and Bush to thank for expanding the powers of the Vice Presidency. I guess that could be their legacy.

But where does Bill fit in? Whatever arrangement there may be, Bill will get in the way.

cosmoetica

'she does have extraordinary talents for communicating, persuading, understanding policy, raising money and support, collaborating with colleagues'

There are 6 separate qualities here, and she is very hit and miss:

1) communication: one need only watch C-Span to see how little she has in commun. skills vis-a-vos Bill or Obama. People look bored when she speaks, even in her Bush-like selected coteries. Obama excites and Bil can even rapt an audience with minutia. Hillary lacks charisma.

2) persuasion- see above. Not a strong suit at all. Also, see Healthcare '93.

3) understanding policy- yes.

4) raising money- not sure, since much of this is Bill's effort, and the Clinton. She lags behind Obama, and if she ran as Rodham, there'd be little, I think.

5) raising support- see raising money.

6) collaboration- mixed record in the Senate, and mixed as a policy wonk beforehand.

One of the probs with supporters is they often lay out their candidates as ideal in all categories. Of the 6 mentioned, I'd give 1 yes, 3 so-sos, and 2 nadas.

StockBoySF

DLS: well, I don't know what Obama supporters would do as a whole, but being one I'd need to know more details about the arrangement if Obama were to step aside. But in theory it would be great. Having said that, power sharing arrangements among powerful people tend not to last too long. But Obama may have the personality to be the VP in such an arrangement. I would never vote for HIllary, but I would vote for such an arrangement (if Obama were VP) because it's not just a vote for Hillary as VP. It would be a vote for Hillary and Obama (dividing up the responsibilities and if Hillary were President i such an arrangement, I could probably live with that.

As far as Obama supporters voting for McCain, if Obama were not on the ticket- I'm sure many of his supporters would vote for McCain. I've already said I won't for Hillary (but a power-sharing or similar arrangement with Obama opens up that question for me), but I won't for for McCain. Period.

DLS

"I'd need to know more details about the arrangement if Obama were to step aside. But in theory it would be great."

A Clinton-Obama ticket? On the theory of record vote totals, perhaps. That could even be true even without Bush's history in recent years.

Be aware that this is certainly possible. Of the two parties, the Dems by far would be the party that would have stage-managed a fake "battle" up to the nomination at the convention to boost turnout, with Clinton-Obama being planned months ago. (My own view is that this conflict is real, not fake and stage-managed.)

"As far as Obama supporters voting for McCain, if Obama were not on the ticket- I'm sure many of his supporters would vote for McCain. "

I believe many would. McCain has often been a Democrat Lite. (The other times when he has defined his fellow Republicans it has been for self-serving reasons.)

StockBoySF

DLS, yeah, I agree with you. This isn't a fake "battle". Clinton is fighting hard and dirty while loaning herself money to stay afloat. Also there is no reason for the Dems to boost turnout- too many people (including Reps) hate Bush and want his policies decimated, so folks are voting for the Dems.

Which leads to another thought I've had recently. What about all those soccer moms (or was it security moms) from 2004? Rove got them to vote for Bush on security issues, will they vote for McCain this time around? Or do they, too, feel that the Iraq war has gone on long enough and that the (potentially failing) economy really is more important?

blog comments powered by Disqus