Obama vs Clinton
I haven't been that interested in politics for a while but then an article in The Economist struck me. I like the magazine since it reflects an educated economics perspective and when they discuss US politics they offer an informed but non-US view. The comments online about the article reveal a lot about the various supporters (and non supporters).
The Obama supporters seem to have some difficulty articulating why anyone but a sycophant should vote for him.
Clinton supporters seem to have better reasoning for supporting their candidate.
For months it seem obvious that McCain is going to win unless Clinton and Obama team up. Now I really do not favor any of these candidates but McCain has the fewest delusions about the power of the office and the role of government. I believe that a Clinton and Obama ticket would prevail under certain circumstances regardless how unlikely:
Hillary and Obama form a partnership where she takes the primary role of president but must consult and gain acceptance by Obama on each non-trivial decision. After four years they would agree to switch positions (when campaigning). This would have quite a few benefits - they would need to reach a moderated position on many issues; Obama would gain some real experience; the role of vice president would become elevated to a near peer role that would ensure better succession; they would demonstrate team work as is more common in our culture today (two heads can really be better than one). I doubt either has enough humility to consider such a proposal.
Of course there are a number of variants that are even more appealing. Let's say Obama gets the Democratic nomination - then Hillary could run as VP under McCain; and better yet a McCain/Obama ticket would be very appealing.










































































Recent Comments