The Conventional Wisdom on the VP choice

The conventional wisdom of a brief poll of international bloggers seems to be that Sen. Obama will choose Sen. Clinton. Here is the Australian John Quiggin:

"My record tipping elections is not great, though I called the 2007 election for Labor ahead of most pundits. It remains to be seen whether I’ll get even a passing grade on my prediction, in January, of a relatively narrow win for an Obama-Clinton ticket over McCain-Lieberman for the Republicans. I’ve got the nominees right, and Hillary for VP seems like a no-brainer."

A Canadian Perspective on Obama's VP choice

The blogger Warren Kinsella:

"But she and Bill will be an even bigger handful if they are outside the tent. And the two of them give Obama - an Ivy League Yankee liberal - some much-needed Southland blue Democrat DNA. And her baggage is old news (whilst Obama's is still newsworthy, and is about to be wheeled out to the National Enquirer and Fox News, within days, just wait).

This insane war in Iraq needs to end, and the U.S. economy needs to get back to what it had been under Bill. America needs some hope again."

I'm dubious about windfall profits taxes

And so is Powerline. Here is John Hinderaker's excellent post on the Senate's blocking cloture vote of the WPT. Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain were all absent.

"Our oil companies control tiny amounts of petroleum (relative to the world's big players) because they are shackled by Congress, which prohibits them by law from accessing America's abundant petroleum reserves. If you want gasoline prices to come down, write, call and email your Congressman and Senators and tell them to allow the oil companies to do what only they can do: bring us more oil."

And from the Jerusalem Post...

Ministers of the Knesset (MK's) weigh in on Sen. Obama's clinching of the nomination. The Likud Party, not suprisingly, is the most upset, while the other parties' representatives all say, essentially, that 'both will be good but McCain will be better.'

-----

'Following US Sen. Barack Obama's victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton early Wednesday morning, MKs from across the political spectrum warned not to discount the newly-crowned Democratic candidate as a potential supporter of Israel.

"We must remember that no American president will act in the way that we fear the most - no matter which candidate, Israel is important to American non-Jews," said MK Benny Elon (NU/NRP), the leader of the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus.

"It is dangerous, incorrect and unhealthy to begin to get into all kinds of unproductive comments against Obama or to preemptively launch an anti-Obama campaign," he added. "I think it's a great mistake to begin to make him into Muhammad or to talk about him being photographed as an Arab. It is incorrect hysteria."

Elon did, however, acknowledge that so far, Republican candidate John McCain's voting record was solidly more "positive."'

Asahi Shimbun, on 'President Obama'

From the paper's 6 June edition:

'At long last, the race to name the Democratic candidate for U.S. president has been settled with the emergence of Sen. Barack Obama as the first African-American nominee. His candidacy dashes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's challenge to be the first woman to win the nomination. Obama, who was born to a Kenyan father and a white American mother, will go up against Republican Sen. John McCain in the Nov. 4 presidential election.

The sensation that Obama stirred from the outset of the primaries must have caught many readers by surprise. Can the United States really change that much and overcome racial prejudice against blacks? This is the question that has been on their minds.'

The rest.

Why Hilary Lost, according to Jonathan Schwarz

From This Modern World, via the New York Times -

-------------

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

The conventional wisdom

It seems that Sen. Obama has a great deal to gain electorally by adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket (for one thing, her popularity among hispanics increases his chances in Florida by a sizable margin), but a great deal to lose administratively - in that she will be unreliable because she's unlikely to accept 'orders' from him or will pursue her own agenda once they're elected.

It seems to me that Democrats ought to be all for it. They're adults; they can learn to work together. Aside from that, who else is there? The name recognition alone seems as thought it would be a boon; Clinton generates high negatives but probably mostly among Conservatives who have never voted Democratic in their lives. Looking to the future, given the pretty thin margin by which Obama won, for now it also appears to be the best chance of a third democratic term after Obama's two terms.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden endorses Sen. Obama

Otherwise unremarkable in a season of pronouncements of adulation and fealty, but I thought waiting until the final votes were cast was a classy move. To this day I don't understand the great rush to get Sen. Clinton out of the race; I never saw why she shouldn't go to the convention, had neither candidate secured the necessary delegates. If the DNC wants to build in some sort of 'when you're 200 behind we're calling the mercy rule,' that's fine, but until then that's the system - I've always felt playing hard until the final buzzer was a mark in somebody's favor (leaving aside, of course, the wretched campaign she has run).

Getting it done pre-convention is of course extremely advantageous to the Democrats, but if the party big-wigs don't want candidates exercising their right to go to the Convention, they ought to change the rules.

Sen. Obama still has five months to take on Sen. McCain, which is more than enough time for both of them. It's not as if McCain has built up any great lead because he finished his primaries early - the margins are still just about as razor-thin as they were when McCain was still slugging it out with Govs. Romney and Huckabee.

Sen. Obama's prophetic 'purple' speech

There are those who believe that margins of victory in 2008 are going to be a good deal narrower than they were in 2004, whomever turns out victorious. Via The Economist --

--------------

"If he (or, should a miracle occur, Mrs Clinton) stumbles, however, it may be because the electoral college has worked against the Democrats. With five months of campaigning still ahead, all predictions should be taken with a fistful of salt. Nonetheless, it is at least plausible that he (or she) might rack up pointlessly large majorities in liberal states while narrowly failing to carry enough swing states to win.

Geography, as so often in history, is key. The electoral map did not change much between the last two presidential elections. Only three states, all small, switched sides between 2000 and 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. But this year could be very different. John McCain is an unusual Republican, distrusted by the party's evangelical base but popular with independents. Mr Obama's prospects are even harder to discern, since no black American has ever come this close to the presidency and people may lie to pollsters about his candidacy."

--------------

Interesting that a British magazine echoes Alterman that the Democrats are geographically handicapped.