Why Obama-Clinton would be a disaster - and other US ruminations

One interesting common feature of the three likely candidates for US President is that they are all serving Senators. The last time the USA elected a serving Senator was in 1960.

Since then, being a state governor, or former state governor, has been a more reliable route to the presidency (i.e. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George W Bush). The exception to the rule was Michael Dukakis, serving state governor of Massachusetts, who bombed against George H W Bush in 1988. Indeed, being a senator has proved a reliable route to defeat in the Presidential election (i.e. Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater). Apart from being a governor, being Vice-President (in some cases preceded by Senatorial terms) has been the next most common route to the presidency in the last 48 years, having worked for Johnson, Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Equally, it didn't work for Gore (if you assume he "lost" anyway), Mondale and Humphrey .

In essence, since Senator Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, if you have wanted to be US President it has been best to be a former state governor and electoral poison to be a senator.

That makes it mildly fascinating that the USA will be (failing a remarkable miracle for former Governors Romney or Huckabee and the less miraculous prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy (the latter being possibly unlikely now McCain is in the frame)) faced with two Senators as their choice for President in November.

This historical trend over the last 48 years isn't just chance, of course. Governors run things. Senators don't run anything except, occasionally, their own bath.

Which brings me to the over-selling of Hilary Clinton's experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a sentimental old liberal. It would bring tears of joy to my eyes to see Hilary Clinton in a smart trouser suit striding across the White House lawn to get on her helicopter, being saluted by a marine. I think she would make a great President. It's just that I prefer Obama, even though I, of course, don't have any vote in this matter.

Hilary has continually emphasised her experience. What experience is that? OK, she has been a senator for six years more than Obama. That has brought her a wealth of experience of law making.

But the pitch seems to include her years in the White House. Hilary seems to be conflated with Bill - Billary, indeed - when it comes to CV-toting. But this rests on the assumption that Hilary was Co-President to Bill, or that Bill will be Co-President to Hilary - both implausible.

That said, Hillary has certainly learnt how to "sweat out" various crises, normally of her or her husband's making. But this is not the vast Oval-office-ready experience it is made out to be. Compare her experience with George H.W.Bush, for example. Now there was a presidential candidate who was ready for the Oval office, if ever there was one.

By the way, I am getting truly fed up of people saying that Barack Obama would be America's first Black President. When that is said on television, there should be a rule that they show a picture of Barack Obama with his mother, the late Ann Obama née Dunham, at the same time. Here's one I made earlier:

All this talk of Clinton v Obama is somewhat academic. McCain will be a mighty opponent for either of them. I wouldn't put money of Obama or Clinton to win.

Look at some of the reasons why right-wing shock jocks are opposing McCain:

They point in particular to (McCain's) vote against George Bush's initial tax cuts, his support for some degree of legalisation of undocumented immigrants, his sponsorship of legislation to control political campaign funding, his opposition to the use of torture against terror suspects and his call for action to stem global warming.

So, fine, those shock jocks will get their ratings up. But McCain will get the votes of independents and soft Democrat voters for the very reason that he is seen as a moderate by virtue of the positions outlined above.

So McCain will be very difficult to beat. He is well respected in the states as a veteran and bi-partisan operator who knows his own mind.

Finally, I have seen speculation of a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. A fellow from Clinton's campaign on Today this morning said "If it's 51% for Hilary and 49% for Barack at the Democrat convention, then that's your ticket".

I can quite see that. However, it would be a disaster for the Democrats. Michael Tomasky outlines the main reasons here. To have an Illinois and New York Senator on the same ticket would be an absolute disaster. The Democrats have to have a southern VP candidate such as Mark Warner or Bill Richardson. JFK only won because he had a Texan on the ticket with him. The last fifty years' history of the Democrats have been a constant struggle to win in the south - Ask Al Gore.