As the Democrats look into the abyss and contemplate losing the presidential election in November, is it time for a Granita solution to Clinton-Obama imbroglio? The big question is whether a Blair-Brown style pact between the two politicians would be enforceable given the amount of bad blood between them.
The idea is being floated by writer Daniel Altman, a wunderkind economist, author and blogger who advised the British government in 2003 and 2004. He also has two impressive tomes to his name: Neoconomy: George W Bush's Revolutionary Gamble With America's Future and Connected: 24 Hours in the Global Economy. ["Clever... A revealing view from the trenches." - TIME, "Altman's book offers a Wall-Street-smart and yet deeply intellectual understanding of our amazingly complex and dynamic world economy." - Robert Shiller, author of Irrational Exuberance]
In the Huffington Post today Altman asks whether Hillary and Barack could make a deal like Blair and Brown. As we know Hillary somewhat rudely offered Obama the vice presidential slot at a time when she was running second. A better argument says Altman, is to alternate the presidency. Hillary, who is 60, would go first and Obama, 46, would then run unopposed in four years time. The Democrats would be escatic and logically, he says she should go first.
But the trust question hangs over everything: "How could Obama be sure that Clinton, if she won in 2008, wouldn't run again in 2012?" The answer, is what economists call a "commitment mechanism" he says, something that would attach a cost to non-compliance. The Obama camp would want more than a verbal promise and Altman suggests that alongside a public declaration, the sign a legally-binding document together.
Faced with the prospect of internecine warfare in the party and a hung convention maybe there is something to Altman's idea. A lot will depend on the outcome of Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. If Hillary does very well, a Granita-style pact may begin to look attractive to Obama. But let's see what the voters say first.
That Mr. Altman's books have received glowing reviews, are not reasons for assuming his prescriptions for resolving the impasse between Senators Obama and Clinton are accurate or well-considered.
Is it not true that Senator Clinton agreed not count the primary results in Michagan and in Florida? At present, however, is not equally true that Ms. Clinton is agitating for the votes to be counted?
Previous patterns of behavior are rather reliable predictors of future behavior. There are many precedents among the Clintons when decisions expediently made were implemented, regardless that the decorum or ethical basis vitiated by makind those decisions
Posted by: Charles | 05 May 2008 at 07:14 AM
I agree with most posters that a joint ticket with some kind of agreement would be a no no. Something similar was suggested by another US pundit a few months ago.
The bottom line is that obama needs to seal this with wins in Indiana and NC period. Anything less would mean either a joint ticket no catches - just a fight to see who leads.
Alternately, a 'civil war' between party members at the convention. I think 'civil war' is an apt term. Black voters are not the only ones that would feel disenfranchised by super delegates handing clinton the nomination. Young people and a significant part of the democartic party base, middle-class educated whites, and all men and women looking for change would desert the party.
Posted by: sweeetback | 04 May 2008 at 11:27 PM
Time for both parties to give up, independent parties are the future for Americans.
Posted by: danny | 04 May 2008 at 04:23 PM
Declared to be a fake by filmmaker Pennemaker, he says it has been altered. Dirty campaign tactics by Obama backers.
These kind of tactics are what is called the big lie and are how people like Adolf Hitler won. Don't sink that low Obama.
Previous poster said:
"Hillary Clinton advisor MICKEY KANTOR calling indiana voters shit"
Posted by: Kiki | 04 May 2008 at 03:10 PM
I can't think of a bigger guarantee of McCain winning than an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.
Hillary wants power, Obama wants to win.
Which one of them is going to sign up to going to state funerals and national disasters for four years? Although, I suppose, one or other could continue the Cheney style extra-constitutional VP style.
Anyway, there is no agreement needed. Hillary has lost. If she doesn't shut up soon, so will Obama.
Alas, no. She'll still be campaigning against Obama while McCain is being sworn in.
Parallels to Blair/Brown don't work in US presidential politics anyway. Blair had the Chancellor job (arguably the second most powerful ministry in the UK) to give away.
In presidential politics, all executive offices are a distant second to the office of President.
Obama can't offer the VP to Hillary and then promise to quit after 10 years. He's term limited.
And no President with any credibility is going to agree to quit after 4 years while the other budes their time in the wings.
As for the commitment mechanism, it's moot if the one who goes first has to cede power to the VP (who ins't the one waiting) or economic or security is widely different 4 years hence. Commitment Mechanism? Academic fiddle-faddle.
Add to that that such an agreement and process would be a venal breaching of the political process in the US and what does that leave us with?
Anyone who thinks this is a sound idea is too dumb to tie their own shoe laces.
An economist may actually believe it's possible.
The rest of us live in the real world, with velcro show ties.
Where economists are proving themselves spectacularly wrong about stuff they do supposedly have a clue about on every visit to Tesco.
Posted by: rustyschwinn | 04 May 2008 at 01:43 PM
This would only cost the Democrats the 2012 election. Obama has built his campaign on a promise of change and challenging the ways policy is made in Washington by the "old guard". If he agreed to such a deal he would loose too much credibility. If he stepped aside to let Clinton rule for four years, no one would believe him when he went into the 2012 elections on another promise of "change".
Posted by: Andreas | 04 May 2008 at 07:19 AM
DEMOCRATS WANT OBAMA TO DROP OUT NOW! They are not going to give this Presidency to Obama because hes black and if we don’t hand it to him, blacks will riot and stay home, so what? American is ready to elect a black man not this black man who recently revealed a major character flaw and again calls into question his judgment and truthfulness of the candidate whose entire appeal has been based on character or his lack there of and not solutions.
More than half the voters will not vote for obama!: 56% who heard speech less likely to vote for Obama, his unfavorable rating among registered voters up 37 percent!! Clinton leads McCain 48 to 41 percent among all registered voters, while Obama and McCain are tied. National lead dropped 10pts now tied with Senator Clinton and he is now losing in IN too. Once 25 pts ahead in NC now just 5pts-
Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost too little, too late. The Wright controversy had revealed a major character flaw and calls into question his judgment once again and truthfulness of the candidate whose entire appeal has been based on character. Wright is like an uncle you love and respect As imperfect as he may be, he has been family to me for so many years, I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community” "I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother." a woman who once confessed her fear of black men after a black man had tried to shake her down for money. She gave him some, but he kept demanding more. "If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head," Obama says she told him. Rev Wright was right! Obama speech is ONLY for political purposes after the severe drop in polls!
Obama is now declaring himself shocked and disappointed at Wright's unrepentantly racist and anti-American views? Obamas obviously support his feelings of anti-America and white hatred that the church endorses to stay for 20 years and raise young daughters in that atmosphere Obama can no longer plausibly claim innocence in this matter, because he is the one who has encouraged Wright by trying to excuse and explain his views. All of this is why it is no use for Obama to backpedal from his association with Reverend Wright, or to denounce him now, six weeks too late. It was Obama who sought to provide the Reverend Wright with immunity from criticism--and he can't complain when the reverend tries to take full advantage of that immunity. This is the final collapse of the noble promise of the Obama campaign. The man who had once put himself forward as the candidate who would transcend racial politics once and for all has ended up legitimizing a Christian equivalent of Louis Farrakhan--and injecting him into the American political debate. Wright “Calls for Justice and Repair,” followed a statement in which he declared that “The Biblical principle of true repentance is that the offended party is given compensation to make up for that which has been stolen from them, the losses that have been inflicted upon them and their families.” A reparations plan for blacks could extract several trillion dollars from American taxpayers’ pockets. http://www.dontvoteobama.net
Posted by: Grace | 03 May 2008 at 02:14 PM
It hardly worked well for Gordon...
Posted by: Theresa Mallinson | 03 May 2008 at 01:17 PM
Such an agreement would shine a clear light into the power-grabbing machinations of the democratic party operatives, which would have the blissful effects of sending them scuttling for cover like the cockroaches they are. Unfortunately, it would probably also be blatantly unconstitutional.
A legal agreement against running for public office? Come on!
Posted by: Sem0l1na | 03 May 2008 at 11:34 AM
Is "Granita" some kind of Kool-Aid?
Because the idea that the candidate who is LEADING would cede his position to the candidate who is BEHIND makes me think the whole idea was cooked up by a friend of Bill and Hillary.
Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | 03 May 2008 at 07:56 AM
One has to wonder why Mr Altman would suggest such an immature appeasement in view of the odd circumstances in which the Primaries are being played out. On the one hand we have the wife of a former president thrusting herself into this critical election race like an American Idol Contestant who cusses out the judges and on the other a person who dares to respectfully suggest that the United States will see better days only when we put our house in order. The world is moving away from democracy. Our neighbors in Latin America are now coming to their senses ( move over Columbia )and the best we can do is face up to it. "Civilization" never comes about over handshakes, it is always forced. We can ill afford to fool around for four years to elect an idiot and we can no longer afford to pick the wrong friends.
Posted by: James | 03 May 2008 at 04:07 AM
Hillary's still running second. The winner is chosen by number of delegates, not a daily poll.
Posted by: Dave | 03 May 2008 at 03:20 AM
Hillary Clinton advisor MICKEY KANTOR calling indiana voters shit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fFZaVlUKzM
Posted by: Justin | 03 May 2008 at 02:42 AM
Any such agreement requires that Hillary Clinton be trusted to keep her word. You've got to be kidding.
Posted by: Jim Murray | 03 May 2008 at 02:05 AM
And it wouldn't serve the country in any case. If a president's policies are deemed successful after 3.5 years, the incumbent should have the opportunity to perpetuate them for a further four, for the good of country. If they suck, the country generally wants to boot the party as well. So this makes no sense. And turning this into a playroom fight over a toy, who gets to play first and all that, is kind of pathetic.
What I would rather see is a truce between HRC and BHO, where they simply say "These are my best ideas, traits, and promises. You decide." I know it's a fantasy, but a man can dream...
PS your article says "...when Hillary was in second..." uh, she still is...
Posted by: Paul Griffith | 03 May 2008 at 12:01 AM
Clever. Cute. But not a chance. Both Obama and Clinton have too much invested in the race. They have built up large organizations and massive war chests. With so much ill feeling between the two, it is highly unlikely that either candidate would pick the other to be his/ her Vice President.
Whatever promise is made, it seems inconceivable that Hillary would not try for a second term in office. And as Gordon Brown discovered the Granita Pact was not worth a pitcher of warm spit!
Posted by: Richard Davies | 02 May 2008 at 09:39 PM