Quote:
erik_kosberg said
Why would Obama want to take the VP post? I can't imagine he'd have any interest in accepting it.
But if it gets down to a near-tie and a brokered convention, of course there will be a back-room deal among the superdelegates. That's what they're there for. |
Obama is newer to politics and younger and would be a better fit for the VP post than Hillary. If he is slightly ahead in delegates but the superdelegate/party leaders put Hillary ahead, his supporters would be rightly angry. He would be talked into taking the VP spot 'so as not to divide the party'. It would keep him in the public eye, make him the heir apparent, so I don't see the downside for him.
Hillary on the other hand wouldn't take the VP spot. She would not be looked at as "President in training". She'd be 68 (assuming an 8 year Obama presidency). And as the candidate who had been looked at as the party leader it would be humiliating to be in the VP spot.
The back room deal scenario would split the Democratic Party. Since there's not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates on policy, the voting is coming down to demographics. Hillary wins women and Hispanics. Obama wins blacks and young people. Which demographic can the party least afford to piss off? Women are 55% of the Democratic base. No other group comes close.
If it comes down to back room deals, Hillary will win. Of course this only plays into the meme that the Clintons play dirty politics. How many of the FBI files of the superdelegates did the Clintons read?
It will be an interesting situation. And if it's close there will be a fight as to whether to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates that Hillary 'won'. More back room dealing and scheming.