Posted on 03/05/2008 6:46:48 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Clinton: ‘Be careful what you wish for, Rush’ By Klaus Marre Posted: 03/05/08 09:30 AM [ET]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), buoyed by important victories in the Democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, on Wednesday offered some words of warning to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who had urged Republicans to vote for her as the presumptively easier Democrat to beat.
“Be careful what you wish for, Rush,” Clinton said on Fox News.
For the second time during this campaign season, the former first lady survived what many viewed as a potential knockout punch from frontrunning Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). While Obama maintains a significant delegate lead, he was unable to seal the nominations Tuesday night, having to concede another two populous states to Clinton.
“By getting the most delegates, by having won twice as many states, by having a lead in the popular vote we feel as if we are on pace to get the nomination,” Obama said Wednesday morning in an appearance on the same network. “And it will take a little longer than would be true if we weren’t running against a Clinton, but we’re still going to end up getting it.”
However, instead of being able to focus on Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the newly crowned Republican nominee, Obama must now continue to expend his considerable resources on the Democratic primary.
The Clinton campaign is seeking to use the breathing room the former first lady was given in polling places in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island to map out its “path to the presidency,” as a memo from strategists Harold Ickes and Mark Penn was labeled.
In the document, the Clinton team says it is “time for a second look” on the race and the candidates and argued that the “momentum has swung
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The sooner Hillary is defeated the better.
It’s foolish to play footsie with a rattlesnake . . . No, you kill it, cut it’s head off, and fling the carcass off to the side of the road.
That’s how you deal with rattlesnakes.
I don’t think in politics you can EVER say for sure what is going to happen or what would have happened.
Without that, your argument that Rush definitely had no effect cannot stand.
I agree with you that it may have had little effect. My view, however, is that, regardless of its actual effect, it was too risky and therefore stupid.
You don’t think this would happen with Obama?
Exactly!
The legit way is to use the Rats’ superdelegate structure to her advantage. This is the purpose of superdelegates-—to allow the party elites to control the nomination-—indeed, the TICKET as a whole-—in cases where they think the electorate is handing them a goose egg (such as one named McGovern, et al.).
The closer the race is, the more legitimate it is for each candidate to make various arguments that the superdelegates ought to support them.
Since there are arguments on both sides, and since each candidate appeals to certain voter blocs, it’s likely the superdelegates will say “let’s have a compromise ticket with BOTH candidates on the ticket” and make that a condition for each candidate to get the other candidate’s superdelegates.
“Yes, but party bosses WILL pressure them to team up. That will be the price they each pay for getting the superdelegates to line up.”
That I see as the only fly in the ointment. Neither of them will willingly join up with the other. That scenario could only happen at the convention and can you imagine what a mess it will be?
No, the supers put the winner at the ballot box in the top slot and then force that candidate to field the other as VP.
This is the new two-fer.
Actually it would be a three-for!
Hildabeast, Obama and Bubba, in no particular order.
Amen.
If it becomes a battle of the superdelegates, you get ‘em BOTH on the ticket.
That’s not helpful.
Absolutley. Formidable enemies should be defeated at the first opportunity. This was an opportunity we conservatives and Republicans have long been waiting for, and we blew it, helping to cause our own demise.
It will be a mess, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen and it won’t result in a Hildy/Obama or Obama/Hildy ticket.
Historically, many who fought bitterly during primaries went on to be on the ticket together. I see this as being even more likely because it’s a way for the superdelegates to get out of their Hobson’s choice.
There’s nothing quite like a pol confronted with being between a rock and a hard place and then realizing there is an easy way out-—CHOOSE BOTH.
Then easy sell all your constituents on how this is the best of both worlds, a dream ticket, etc. And that would indeed be an easy sell-—both candidates are acceptable to the base on policy.
Plus they would get Bubba as a bonus! So this would be the first threesome in the Oval Office.
I couldn’t agree more. All those conservatives and Republicans who participated in this “strategery”, are going to rue the day.
“All in all-—despite your excellent points, which I appreciate-—I continue to conclude that the Rush strategy was ill-advised on a number of fundamental levels.”
I guess we’ll have to see how it turns out. There is just so many possibilities and you could end up being right. They could unify and be an unstoppable force. In a way its kind of exciting no matter what happens for political junkies like us. This is the most constested race since Ford/Reagan. That one did get ugly. People always talk about Reagans commandment of Thou shalt not speak ill of other republicans. However, he wasn’t exactly following that in 1976. He and Ford were pretty bitter political rivals.
People always talk about Johnson and Kennedy kissing and making up to run on the same ticket. However, they were not the bitter enemies everyone makes them out to be. It was more Robert Kennedy and Johnson that were at odds with one another and Johnson only challenged Kennedy at the convention, not during the primary. Ford and Reagan had a long contested primary battle just like Hillary and Obama and Ford never thought about putting Reagan on the ticket.
Be interesting to hear some of the deals proposed.
Drunken Ted will have a sit down with Obama and try to “smooth” things over. I can’t see Mrs. Clinton playing second fiddle. But who knows, Clinton’s back-up plan of corruption probably goes up to z territory.
It won’t happen. Too much bitterness that could be exploited.
Neither will take second because each feel they won the will of the people. They always say party first when it comes to the primary and general but it’s really a “me” first.
OTOH, I think Obama will resist putting Hill on his ticket because the Clintons are so darn good at this game they will refuse to be marginalized and he would essentially be buying a co-Presidency with Hill and Bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.