Obama's Gamble

As Tuesday turned to Wednesday, Tim Russert declared the race for the Democratic presidential nomination over.  He called it firmly, but with a trace of melancholy, as if Barack Obama's defeat of Hillary Clinton represented a sort of metaphysical expiration.  As if we were all of us Romans at the Colosseum, witnessing the death of some noble beast after it had fought valiantly for our pleasure.  The rest of the crew -- Olbermann, Matthews, Brokaw --  were appropriately somber and respectful of the moment.  (Except for Norah O'Donnell.  Nothing seems to dampen her wide-eyed enthusiasm and continual amazement at the secrets uncovered by going "inside the numbers.")  We hate seeing a slugfest halted.  Americans, to quote David Halberstam, "liking competitions as much as the end results of them."

But, in the cold, hard light of day, there's nothing to be done about it; Obama has been pronounced the victor and the spoils must be collected.  The most obtrusive piece of spoilage is Hillary's carcass that's been kicked over there into the corner.  What's to be done with her (and her husband and their loyal band of minions)?

Conventional wisdom has it that Obama will have to at least offer her the vice presidency.  The argument is that she would shore up his weaknesses with the pickup-driving, beer-drinking, gun-toting, church-going Middle Americans . . . I'm just going to go ahead and call them poor, white Democrats.  While Obama is perceived as elitist, Clinton has become the man with the iron touch, able to connect on a visceral level with steel workers, short-order cooks and gun show aficionados.  (As long as they're white, that is.  Somewhere along the road, blue collar African Americans got kicked to the ditch, losing their status as "Regular Joes" and became, simply, Obama voters.  I wonder if Chris Matthews could pinpoint for the rest of us exactly when it was that white union members attained their monopoly as average working Americans.)  In addition, she would bring with her the Old Woman vote (as long as they're white, that is) that she has been collecting almost as decisively as Obama has been winning blacks.  As nearly 40% of these two Clinton constituencies have declared themselves prepared to vote for John McCain if Obama wins the nomination, the Clinton VP argument has obvious merit.  Also, her vaunted pugilistic tenacity is perfect for the role of vice presidential attack dog in the general election, allowing Obama to float above the fray which is where he does his best work.  As a bonus, Andrew Sullivan points out that a vice presidential olive branch would also neutralize the Clintons as political enemies, plotting offstage her 2012 presidential run while he tries to manage his way through a first term laden with land mines courtesy of eight years of George Bush.

An Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense on many levels.  I don't think he'll do it.

Obama has been running against the Clinton legacy of Washington-as-usual almost as hard as he's been beating on Bushes 41 & 43.  It's difficult to maintain your brand as the Change Candidate if you show up on the south lawn of the White House with the family who just left the joint eight years ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if Bill still has some keys that work in the West Wing.  

Obama will most likely remain true to his agent-of-change persona.  Somehow, over the past fifteen months, he has acquired the label of "soft," either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to wrest the nomination from Clinton.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  Obama has repeatedly chosen the more difficult political path when faced with a fork in the road towards Principle.  Unlike Hillary, he spoke out against authorizing the Iraq War, taking his political future in his hands in the face of overwhelming support (the Senate vote was 77-23 in favor of the authorization) for Bush's power play.  He responded to the Jeremiah Wright provocation by delivering the signature speech of his generation on race in America.  When Wright continued to stoke the flames of divisiveness, he finally distanced himself from his former pastor, denouncing the words while still declining to condemn the man himself.  He refuses to wear a flag pin in his lapel in the face of questions about his patriotism, believing the pin an empty symbol that has about as much to do with true patriotism as does wearing a red, white and blue name tag at a hotel convention.  And, unlike Clinton and McCain, he chose to call the gas tax holiday what it is, a not-even-particularly-clever piece of political pander that ultimately illustrates his two opponents' contempt for voters' intelligence.

These are not the choices of a weak politician.  In each case, he would have been better served initially, with the media as well as the electorate, to take the path of least resistance.  Stand with the majority in Congress, treat Wright as a black and white issue and cut him loose immediately, wear the damned pin and back the damned holiday.  

But his principles and, I suspect, his political instincts, wouldn't allow him to take the low road.  When asked by a reporter to name a hidden talent, he once said that he was, "a pretty good poker player."  This primary campaign has been a masterful illustration of his repeated willingness to go all in on crucial issues, while maintaining a poker face of zen-like calm.

I don't think he particularly likes the Clintons or the idea of sharing the West Wing with them for the next eight years.  And I think he's betting that he doesn't particularly need them.

He's won most of the chips so far with his principles-first strategy.  The pot keeps getting bigger.  How will he play his next hand?