A Clinton-Obama Deal?

Hillary Clinton's big win tonight in the West Virginia primary will probably, in restrospect, do little to increase her chances of winning the Democratic nomination for presidency (though I have no doubt, many spectators will disagree). Indeed, since Barack Obama's major win in North Carolina, coupled with his already significant lead in the popular votes and delegate count, most have been predicting that the general election will be a contest between Obama and John McCain. The two had even started planning their fall strategies.

However, if West Virginia demonstrates anything, it is that Clinton still has the capability of winning swing states and voters--much like her earlier victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama needs these to win against McCain in the fall, and many are beginning to suspect that he is likely to lose those that would have otherwise supported Clinton to a Republican vote.

The New York Times posed an interesting question today:

Mr. Obama needs her to help him win in the fall. Her devoted contingent of Democrats is nearly as large as his own, a point that will be underscored with her expected big win tonight in West Virginia. After a divisive primary season, he knows that winning over her supporters begins with winning over her.

So how about this: What if Mrs. Clinton asked Mr. Obama to adopt her plan for universal health care? He could put Mrs. Clinton in charge of achieving it, presumably but not necessarily from her perch inside the Senate. And he could begin by putting the goal of universal coverage as a plank in the party’s platform.

As the Times notes, this is purely speculative. However, it's still an interesting thought. Many might think that it is politically infeasible (which it probably is--I maintain my position that Obama will want nothing to do with Clinton if she drops from the race) or not particularly saavy on the part of Obama. I, however, think that such a "deal" might actually be a positive. In my view, Clinton's universal health plan--one which includes an individual mandate for the entire population--as opposed to Obama's, which only imposes one for children first, is a more efficient means towards an effective health care system. If Obama were to allow Clinton to run her health plan as part of his campaign in exchange for her voters' support, imagine the symbolic stimulus that the country could receive. Although there is an element of selfishness to it, the deal would still mark a cooperative agreement between Democrats--something that we have been lacking in the election so far. Imagine Democrats working together for the good of the nation. Plus, a higher propsect of beating out McCain in the fall.

I don't think this is so bad...

Good News For Obama?

John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani have officially backed out of the race for the presidency. It is pretty clear that McCain is leading in the Republican nomination and he is also likely to receive Giuliani's voters following his public endorsement. But, for the Democrats the benefactor is a little more ambiguous. Does Edwards' departure mean good news for Obama or Clinton?

Personally, I think it will be Obama. Edwards voters--or those who favored his brand of liberal populism--are more likely to be attracted to a candidate that is emblematic of change (Obama) rather than one who we've essentially already seen in the White House (Clinton). Will these votes be enough to land Obama the Democratic nomination? Time will tell, but I think not.

Meet the Clintons

Here's a good op-ed piece from today's New York Times that argues against the sort of "plural presidency" that is likely to occur if Hillary Clinton wins the election:

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

Garry Wills makes a pretty reasonable point here. He cites that one of the major problems of the Bush administration was that many members of the executive essentialy ran their own campaign, pointing specifically to Vice Presiden Dick Cheney heading his own intelligence and military operations. And we have already former President Clinton's appearance in the political scene, politicizing on the behalf of Hillary while simultaenously denouncing the Obama campaign (see earlier blog post here). It has pretty much become common knowledge that many Democrats favor Hillary Clinton because her presidency essentialy entails a package deal. If this is the kind of activity we can expect, then to say the least it would be quite an annoying four years.

The question remains, however, whether we should really expect this. Yes, a victory for Mrs. Clinton will mean that Bill will be poking his head around and influencing the political scene much more than he has been in recent years (recall how Mr. Clinton was actually seeking the nomination for UN Secretary General to follow Kofi Annan). But, I do not think that he will by any means running the sort of secret Cheney-like intelligence operations that Willis had in mind, nor do I think he would be undermining or polarizing the presidency. True, Mr. Clinton's resurgence has left me less-than-enthusiastic, which is not to say that I feel any better about Mrs. Clinton in the White House--but my point is that I do not think we have to worry about a "plural presidency" just yet.