First off, a disclosure: I’m leaning Obama (I vote in RI now, so I haven’t voted yet), but like both candidates.
My guess is that Clinton closes the fundraising gap somewhat, but that is not crucial to my scenario. What is crucial (and, I think, likely to occur) is that Obama has a very good next couple of weeks, perhaps sweeping everything, right up to the March 4th primaries, when Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont all vote. Given the lack of any candidate to build true, sustained momentum to this point, and the fact that the demographics of these states favor Clinton, I think she wins at least a couple states, including either TX and OH. She probably wins both. If that happens, Clinton erases any slight delegate lead Obama might build up in the next couple weeks.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. A point not being stressed enough is that after March 4th, there’s only a couple minor contests (WY and MS) all the way until April 22nd(!) when PA votes. It won’t go that far, and here’s why.
After March 4th, the Clinton camp will reach out to the Obama campaign, and they will agree to talk, without conditions, given the length of time between March 4th and April 22nd. This meeting will consist only of the candidates, perhaps Bill Clinton, and only the highest level staff. The Clinton campaign will acknowledge that they are asking a huge sacrifice from Obama, but they will ask him to drop his campaign and join a Clinton/Obama ticket. He will accept, for these reasons:
(1) He will have the leverage to make heavy demands. First, he will be the VP, of course. But he will also get assurances that he will play a major role in the administration, and that the Clintons will campaign all-out for him after 8 years. He will also demand certain appointments be made and people be hired. There are likely to be other demands, which Clinton will accept.
(2) But why would Obama agree to negotiate this in the first place, especially since they are tied? Here’s why: both campaigns will recognize that the major (perhaps only) way the Democrats don’t win the White House this year is if they go to a brokered convention, or the superdelegates make the decision, or there’s a credentials fight involving FL and MI, all of which will be inevitable without a deal and hugely damaging to both. Given that Clinton is both the “establishment” candidate and (if she wins OH) has shown the most strength in the big Democratic “base” and swing states, she will make the case that if it comes to any of those three things mentioned above, she has the advantage.
(3) Also, Obama is still young, with the clear possibility of running in the future. If he gets to the convention and loses, it’s possible he gets nothing, including the VP, and gets partial blame for the impending Presidency of John McCain. Even if he “wins” at the convention and becomes the nominee, the chances of unifying the party in time for November are severely damaged, and he very well could lose the general. Either way, he will be politically scarred for life. On the other hand, if he accepts he likely becomes VP when the ticket wins in November — unthinkable for him even 8 years ago (when Hillary essentially began running for President). Even in the unlikely situation Clinton/Obama loses, he will not be damaged enough that can’t run in the future (like Edwards did this year). He thus guarantees setting himself up well for the future no matter what happens.
I believe that this scenario will happen — indeed, it is nearly inevitable at this point — and that it will be the only way that the party does not slowly get destroyed over the course of the summer. This will be the only way to unify the party in time for November, and (assuming Obama extracts enough benefit in the negotiations) is in the ultimate interest of both candidates.
I do not claim that this scenario hasn’t been thought about by anyone else (though I haven’t seen anyone spell it out in detail yet). However, I don’t think it’s being talked about enough given the likelihood of it occuring.
I’d be interested in your thoughts, or what realistic alternatives you think are out there that I’m missing.
Update: I didn’t see sabutai’s excellent post before I posted, which discusses the delegate math going forward. Highly recommended, and I think his analysis helps show why the above scenario is inevitable.
Last I heard, the regulations to get on the Rhode Island ballot were so restrictive that it wasn’t clear all the candidates would be listed.
<
p>I find myself in agreement with your analysis, adding that the last selection event of the season is tailor-made for Hillary Clinton…a closed caucus in Puerto Rico.
RI has a weird system for getting on the ballot, but he’s on it (along with Edwards, still). I know there were some issues about a month ago on that score, but they just determined the ballot order by lottery (“Uncommitted” won the top spot on the ballot!).
the possibility that in the event of post-March 4 victories for Clinton (OH & TX), Howard Dean and others will reach out to Obama and convince him to give it up.
<
p>Maybe the comprimise will be Obama as VP, but I have a feeling the Clintons will resist this.
but the main reason I think the above scenario will occur, as opposed to the Dean pressure scenario you mention, is because Dean and “the party” (whatever that means) don’t really have any power over Clinton, Obama, or individual superdelegates. I don’t know what Dean can offer that will convince one of the two candidates, both in a virtual tie, to budge.
<
p>Clinton exchanging several concessions to Obama in return for the presidential nomination, on the other hand, does involve the only realistic bargaining situation I see.
<
p>In other words, I see only Obama and Clinton holding any leverage power here, not Dean or the “party” generally.
edwards could hardly eek a vote from anyone when up against them. together they would bring out a huge swath of voters. i can;t imagine any other vp candidate that could motivate the votes either clinton or obama can.
by a day with the concept, but I did not expound on the idea to the depth that you have. It’s about time that Dems do what will win. I’m there with you.
I hadn’t seen sabutai’s post and yours before I posted. I suspect that quite a few people must be thinking the same thing, though I admit it is a bit early to discuss negotiation (it is possible that if Obama sweeps before March 4th and than goes ahead and wins everything on that day, the superdelegates will go his way, but I just don’t see it happening).
<
p>Obviously there would be a number of Obama supporters that would not be happy with this scenario, but if done correctly, I think it would be the best (perhaps only) way to unify the party, even if it’s not truly an ideal solution (which would be if one candidate emerged as the clear leader through the relatively democratic primary process).
I don’t think most politicians, after fighting this long and this hard, with a dead heat at this point in a primary, will concede to become VP. Obama’s camp may give the same offer to Hillary as Hillary would to Obama. Why would either one choose the other’s offer?
<
p>It would be nice if it DID happen, I’m just not buying in quite yet.
But the reason I think it’s far more likely that Clinton’s offer to Obama makes more sense is because of one overriding factor — she has more to lose not being the nominee. This is because of two reasons:
<
p>(1) she has been running for President longer than Obama, with a higher baseline for success (Presidential nominee or nothing), whereas Obama’s campaign has been shorter and with a lower baseline (since his rise has been meteoric);
<
p>(2) mainly because of age factors, this is Clinton’s last realistic chance of running for President, whereas Obama has the potential to run down the line.
<
p>The fact that she has more to lose, along with the argument that she will be able to make to the convention superdelegates that she is the “safe choice” and has already shown the most strength in the big state primaries, tilts the balance in her favor (or at least she will plausibly argue).
<
p>Plus, Obama being on Clinton’s ticket likely helps her more in the general election than it would help Obama if she was on his.
In fact, it makes a ton of sense for Obama to be the VP.
<
p>However, Obama, like most running for POTUS, has a Presidential-sized ego. That’s why I say that, no matter how much sense it would make, he’s not going to concede unless something drastic changes the situation (like if he plummetted in the polls for some unknown reason).
Pundits are always coming up with reasons two rivals cannot form a ticket, usually on the theme that there is too much bad blood or a running mate’s primary cycle critiques of the nominee can be used against the ticket. We have seen it done before however, as recently as last cycle with Kerry-Edwards and they came close. Successful examples of this kind of pairing include Reagan-Bush in 1980 and Kennedy-Johnson in 1960.
I’m trying to say it’s not going to happen soon, not as long as one side has a reasonable shot of winning.
is the one thing that may get in the way of us winning the election. That’s what the DNC is going to be arguing. I agree with Hoyapaul that Clinton has already proven this will be a draw (and please I do not want to be told that 10 delegates is a big difference, etc., that just isn’t gonna cut it). The supers are going to lean more towards Clinton based upon all indicators, but they don’t want to be the decision makers. Enough already. It’s obvious this could get in the way of Dem unity and a WIN. Every time a poll comes out that shows Barack beating McCain and Clinton losing or vice versa, I want to slap people silly. That only happens if there isn’t unity and said egos can’t do what’s right for the country. Polls should not be the basis for making a decision that will benefit the entire population (and for that matter, the world). There is just too much at stake right now for egos. Barack has a long future in politics. He should think about it and his supporters right now. Do the smart thing and put the ego aside. The Kerry ego bought us four additional years of Bush. His pres ambitions are now toast. Barack needs to think about that.
…this made fascinating reading, and I can see it possibly happening. I think it would be the best of all possible worlds if it did…I think Clinton/Obama would be a dream ticket, and I think they would win in November.
<
p>I’d love to see your scenario come true and I hope it does. But I’m not sure it will…I am afraid that egos on both sides (Clinton and Obama) might get in the way.
<
p>But, boy, this is fun to think about…this is a ticket that could get a lot of folks very excited!
Dean is fundamentally concerned with what’s best for the party. At this stage (and this may change), the polling shows Clinton and McCain essentially tied in a general election matchup, while Obama wins handily. Red state democrats know that having Clinton on the ballot will mobilize the republican base. I’m not suggesting they’ll lie down for Obama, just that the Clinton name has substantially more baggage than cachet in certain parts of the country. Then there are the new voters (and donors) Obama has brought to the table. Will they rally behind a Clinton/Obama ticket? Maybe, maybe not. All of these things have to be swirling around in Dean’s head.
<
p>Then there’s Obama. Would he take VP with promises of power and the ability to appoint key cabinet positions? I sincerely doubt it. Serving as VP makes him the heir to the Clinton legacy, whatever that may be (noting that 8 years of peace and prosperity didn’t get Al Gore elected). Furthermore, the “fierce urgency of now” would be lost.
<
p>I can’t see Dean pressing for this, and I can’t see Obama accepting it. I don’t know what the resolution will be.
Clinton’s success in Florida, to me, outweighs any parts of the country where she has more baggage than Obama. First, Obama’s going to get his name drenched in yellow water by the msm and partisan operatives by the time all is said and done… so either candidate is going to have baggage. Second, these states where Clinton’s baggage may matter are states we aren’t likely to win this election cycle regardless. So I think it’s good to consider the candidate who has the best shot at winning some of the extra, big prizes and has cemented popularity in the bread-and-butter, Democratic organizing and fundraising states of NY, California, Massachusetts, etc.
Nobody has a bigger ego than a presidential candidate and at this point both camps openly despise the other. Clinton sees the audacity (no pun intended) of Obama’s insurgency as an affront against her birthright. Obama sees Clinton’s campaign as unbecoming of the DEMOCRATIC party when nepotism trumps everything else in giving her the advantages. So I do not see this ticket occurring sorry folks.
<
p>That said to break up this stalemate it might become the only option, and I would argue it would put Obama in a no win position.
<
p>1)Hillary will lose
<
p>No doubt about it Hillary on the ticket unites the Republican base behind McCain like lightning and the evangelicals and everyone else will come out due to their irrational hatred and fear of the former first lady. This WILL happen.
<
p>2)Obama will get blamed either way
<
p>If Obama leads in delegates slightly refuses VP, ugly floor fight ensues, he gets blamed for the defeat by keeping the party united
<
p>OR
<
p>If Obama is behind, agrees to the VP, he will still get blamed like Edwards did for overshadowing the nominee and running his next campaign for president while running for VP. Either way he will get blamed even though point 1 shows its not his fault
<
p>3)Obama can’t run afterward
<
p>Getting blamed, and the Clintons would get the MSM to blame him, would kill any chances he has of running in the future. Also even if she loses and he doesn’t get blamed he will come in the frontrunner in 2008 and early frontrunner almost always never win the nomination. Much like McCain in 2000 he is running as an outsider insurgent candidate running against a nepotist candidate who considers the nomination his/her birthright. And like McCain showed in 2006-2007 he could not run as a frontrunner and succeed. McCain was tremendously lucky by becoming an insurgent candidate again but Obama might not be so lucky.
<
p>And anymore Senate votes and he becomes a Washington commodity instead of an authentic voice for change.
<
p>He ran knowing 2008 would be his last best shot for the White House and he is in it to win.
and tired of the “baggage” argument. Anyone who believes that the Republicans (and especially the “base”) aren’t going to be equal opportunity bashers, whether it’s Clinton or Barack, needs to have their head examined. Since the polls were so accurate last time around, why again is it that Kerry lost (remember his resounding leads)? Can you tell me again with certainty who wins and who loses based on the polls? You sure about that? At least on the Clinton side, there is very little naivety left.
<
p>I’m also equally tired of the Barack excitement spin. As someone who doesn’t care for either candidate, I’m betting that 90% of the excitement has more to do with wanting the last eight years of nightmares to go away. I’ll bet if everyone could just let go of their attachment to any candidate, take a giant step back and look at this season from a non-committed perspective, you’d probably see my point.
<
p>2. Encourage civil discourse – no personal attacks.
<
p>3. Make clear that my enthusiasm left the Presidential Primary when John Edwards suspended his campaign.
<
p>4. Make clear I do NOT want John McCain for president, nor the continuation of a Republican White House.
<
p>5. Hope that that the continuation of a primary battle all the way to the Convention, and a “brokered” convention does not cause the “Democratic base”, the rank and file Democrats that is, to tune out.
I am not saying Obama will not be swift-boated, any of the Dem nominees will, and arguably Hillary has been tested before so maybe she is the better mudslinger and mudtaker of the two.
<
p>But what I did mean was that Clinton will make the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs of the world, and the idiots that listen to them, vote for McCain because they despise her so much. The GOP base is dispirited, divided, and disillusioned and that will all end the second they have a target painted on Clinton that they can all aim at. That kind of unity is something we do not want to encourage.
<
p>Also remember that Obama is black, so any question of inexperience, etc. could easily be interpreted as a racial attack, certainly untrue, but something the media and the party can distort to their advantage and against the GOP.
Nominate Obama because the Republicans did such a great smear job on Hillary Clinton, and he’s the other choice? Talk about surrender….
know that Limberger and Coulter are going to vote for Clinton over McCain. Can’t wait for that love fest.
<
p>You just hit on my third level of disgust. Race. If you think that it is OK for you, or the media or the party to distort that to any advantage against the GOP, I have nothing but contempt for you and anybody who would consider it. When Deval ran for gov, I would walk away when anyone started talking about race (and I had to do so frequently in the beginning) because I have nothing but contempt for those who would use that card one way or another. Deval’s campaign was never about race and should never have been. The same is true for Barack.
I may be wrong, but I predict a turn of narrative events where Hillary overcomes the media. It’s already happening due to Chris Matthews and David Shuster. Bill Clinton is speaking on it now.
<
p>The idiots who listen to those idiots will not vote for Hillary. These guys are losing ratings and market share. I can see them becoming a meme that leads to some media introspection.
<
p>Besides, the GOP base is not important. Independents are.
<
p>Mark
Which are more important? Neither.
<
p>Look, both sides are going to fight to gobble up as many indies as possible publicly, and work hard quietly to move farther to the extremes to get those on the fringes.
<
p>A vote is a vote is a vote. If McCain gains indies but loses solid base, what has he gained in terms of votes?
Who executes the ground game for McCain if the base that worked so hard for W doesn’t?
<
p>A vote is a vote, but a vote that is also a volunteer is… priceless.
Unless you lived in a red state during the Clinton administration, I don’t think you have any idea at all of the palpable distaste that exists for the Clintons, particularly Hillary. I’m not talking about equal-opportunity “let’s hate the democratic candidate, whoever that may be” stuff here. It’s an irrational hatred that will bring out the republican base in droves. The republicans I know in the deep south are either positive or ambivalent about Obama. They still, however, loathe Hillary, and will vote for McCain or Huckabee to keep her out of office.
<
p>
Catering to irrational hatred may be a sound electoral strategy, but its morally nauseous.
And Hillary just can’t and besides she would make only a mediocre President while Obama shows he can actually bring the country together and get things done.
<
p>I find it extremely nauseauting that so many liberal Democrats relish putting a conservative Democrat like Hillary into the White House, a shameless Republican lite Democrat who will vote on issues to make her loom more conservative from Iraq to Iran to compromises like DOMA and DADT from her husbands administration. Yet since the “right wing conspiracy” attacked them liberals love them almost as much as Republicans rallied around Bush when he was attacked for being a bad president. This partisan loyalty is dangerous for the country and makes absolutely no sense.
<
p>First of all check their voting records, Obama is far mroe liberal and progressive down the line than Clinton, he has shown a willingness to compromise but never on his principles. The Clintons threw poor people under the rail with Welfare, civilians under the rail with poll driven wars against Kosovo and Iraq, and gays under the rail with DOMA and DADT and honestly they will throw the country under the rail to win elections.
<
p>So for those two reasons a)The GOP hates her and will actually vote this election to defeat her and b)they were bad for the country and for our party and c)they will continue to put their own interests over the country and the party.
<
p>Those are the most powerful reasons to vote for Obama and honestly anyone supporting the Clinton smear machine just cause Republicans hate them is acting pretty irrational and is forgetting history. The reason so much mud stuck is cause half of it was true.
been there done that. Some of those “rubes” ain’t gonna buy the Clinton crap anymore (and I know quite a few who now question the spin having lived a bit of my life in the south). The rest will believe that Jesus has been having personal conversations with Huck on a daily basis, in which case, they ain’t gonna be real open to anything but Jesus, so your point is?
I’ve heard a few people suggest that the only way that this ends is if Dean or “the party” forces one candidate to do this or the other thing.
<
p>The only problem is: what is meant by “the party” doing something? Of course, there is no centralized mechanism to use to control things like this like there is in many parliamentary systems. Even the superdelegates are only a very loose form of party control, since they can really do what they want to do.
<
p>Dean has no real control over the process, so the only way I see this ending without a disasterous fight at the convention is a negotiated settlement between the only two parties with any leverage — the candidates themselves.
<
p>Also, I see what people are saying about egos, but examples from the past abound where one candidate was willing to make concessions to boost the party’s chances AND help their own ambition (i.e. as someone else mentioned above, Lyndon Johnson had a legendary ego and hated JFK to boot, yet settled into the VP spot). If people are correct that Obama sees 2008 as his ONLY chance for the Presidency, then they are quite possibly correct that he will never accept a negotation. But I’m not sure he sees it that way (only he knows for sure, of course!).
Party leaders could organize a move to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, to give Clinton a first-ballot victory. Or threaten to do that, or to refrain from it, as a carrot and stick for the two candidates to come to terms.
<
p>I think that’s unlikely, and I’m sure the leadership would prefer not to. But that’s how this scenario would play out were it going to.
a redo of both Florida and Michigan. Why? Because the situation is reaching levels of absurdity.
Far more interested in establishing the start date of post-industrial feudalism and it’s associated survivalist possibilities.
<
p>Is a remote off the grid Amish style farm/homestead in the near future or have the Brownshirts already pre-empted that remote possibility.
bunker would be best. Make sure you stock up on beer and chips beforehand.
After all, there is truly “nothing new under the sun.”
Unless Obama is definitively losing, if he takes a dive and snuggles up to Clinton as her #2 it’ll be a thumb in the eye of most people who voted for him.
<
p>I’ll vote for Clinton if she beats Obama fair and square, but not if it feels like I’ve been played. And there’s a lot of others like me.
<
p>Obama, recognizing this, won’t do it.
<
p>And speaking as one who knows people in Pennsylvania, the last time I checked they’re Americans too. What the hell is wrong with letting them vote?
Unless things radically change in the next month, Obama will beat Hillary on the votes of officials and functionaries. Or, Hillary will beat Obama on the votes of officials and functionaries. Is that fair?
<
p>And how is that an improvement over gracefully ceding this contest for the sake of putting a Democrat in the White House?
I rest my case. If your candidate can’t persuade you that a Dem victory is more critical this year than his or her ego, we might as well give it all up. This primary season needs to end now for the obvious reasons displayed above. Since when did Pennsylvania ever have a say? For that matter, when has MA ever had a say? All of a sudden, the system as it has worked for how many years I don’t know is disenfranchising people? Were you screaming about that in the last twenty or so election cycles? If so, I don’t remember hearing you.
You’re saying if it appears Obama takes a dive and snuggles up you’ll stay home in November and not vote OR you’ll vote for the Republican?
<
p>
End the primary season now?
<
p>Dem’s losing in November?
<
p>Please. A pretzel could come out the winner of a brokered convention in Denver and I will assure you teh pretzel will beat the Republican in November.
<
p>Have any of you read about people waiting four hours to get INSIDE the Kansas Democratic caucus last week. 4 HOURS. Wintertime. PEOPLE are done with Republicans.
<
p>I voted for Clinton. Quite frankly I could have flipped a coin and been happy with either of them. As can most of you.
<
p>To say you’ll NOT vote if YOU’RE candidate isn’t the chosen one – stop lying.
<
p>It does not matter who it is or WHEN it is decided who it will be. Republicans are dead meat but they’ll do everything they can to make you think otherwise.
The theory is intersting.
The situation is extremely volatile because of the obvious passion of the supporters of the two candidates. There is real danger for severe lasting damage if either side feels itself to have been “cheated” or treated unfairly.
<
p>There are complications both way with a dream ticket approach:
Would HRC ever agree to run as Vice President?
Would BHO ever agree to run as Vice President?
<
p>Leaving aside the question of which candidate is ahead (which is not so easy to determine given conflicting delegate counts) or which candidate is more electable, the role of Bill Clinton raises real problems. Would Obama agree to serve as VP if Bill has a central role as a kind of defacto VP? Would Obama or anyone else for that matter end up as a kind of Vice Vice President in an HRC presidency?
<
p>For more on this question see an interesting article from the Guardian: “Hug Keeps Dream Tickt Hopes Alive” http://www.guardian.co.uk/usel…
Bill Clinton presided over historical peace and prosperity.
<
p>Michelle Obama has attacked Hillary Clinton’s marriage and is ambivalent about supporting her as nominee.
<
p>Yet it’s always Bill Clinton that’s the problem.
CNN was periodically drowning out Hillary’s speech with split coverage with some remarks Bill Clinton was making somewhere.
<
p>As long as the media regards Hillary as a talking-horse for her husband, she doesn’t stand a chance.
but my nightmare is Obama is beaten or takes this deal, and angry, frustrated blacks stay home election day. I hear the Clintons are popular in the black community, so I could be way off base here. I just don’t have a feel for the Clintons. Republicans are then united and energized in their hatred of Hillary and come out in droves, and McCain wins. (Let’s face it, it took a Bush-Cheney team to unite the Democrats.) Or maybe the 527’s go so over the top a huge sympathy vote turns out for her. Or something else.
<
p>The other way works a little better, I think. An Obama/Clinton ticket works better in my mind because I don’t see women staying home come November like I imagine blacks might.
<
p>Just a gut feeling I’m throwing out there. I’ve absolutely no data or anecdotal evidence to back this up, but for some time, I’ve been running every bit of news I hear against this notion.
do you think they’re that stupid? yes, i think you are way off base there, verging on something bias-like.
<
p>since you don’t think women would act like miffed lemmings, but you suppose blacks might, what will black women do? walk half way to the polls then turn around and go home?
I’ve absolutely nothing to base that on. Just a gut feeling.
<
p>Bias? Could be, but I’m thinking more in terms of community anger. I see black anger bubbling closer to the surface than women’s anger. That’s just a matter of degree.
<
p>As for my being a racist, sure I’m a racist. Though I try and wear it as lightly as possible. I am who I am, and, respectfully, I don’t apologize for who I am. Which doesn’t mean I don’t feel inclusivity (I doubt that’s a real word, my apologies for that) for blacks and women isn’t central to my political beliefs. It doesn’t mean that I feel violence against women or the lack of equal opportunity for anyone isn’t criminal.
<
p>Gotta run to work now, and wondering how this’ll go over. I’ll catch the fireworks tonight.
The only real reason for for Obama to accept this arrangement is because he is younger and will have a chance at the nomination in 2012 or 2016. Hillary can’t take the fall because this might be her last chance.
There are two significant problems with this thinking:
1. This would radically change Obamas image from agent of change to water carrier for the establishment candidate.
2. This perpetuates the anti-democratic sense of entitlement that pervades the entrenched political class – “after you, it’s my turn”. So far Obama has rejected that mentality. Good for him. I, for one, hope he doesn’t sell out.
if the arrangement does happen, it could be explained as Obama realizing that both candidates bringing it all the way to the convention would result in no change — a Republican will remain in the White House. And their demographic arguments would still have plenty of vitality — after all, the first woman/African-American ticket would be huge change in itself. I think both candidates are talented enough to make the case that the “agent of change” argument will not disappear because they are both on the same ticket.
<
p>Obviously there would be a number of hard-core supporters disappointed with this occuring (to say the least), especially assuming that both are tied at this point. However, the key point is that they would have several months to convince their supporters that this is the best arrangement. Otherwise, it will be August and the task of unifying the party will be a lot more difficult, particularly if one of them loses the nomination on the vagaries of the process (MI, FL, superdelegates, etc.).
I love how easily the left adopts Republican code words. This “sense of entitlement” is more accurately the idea that somebody has learned enough and has become familiar enough with government to be ready to take on a tough job.
<
p>Republicans who sneer at government service adopted the “entitlement” frame to get around the idea that you should be familiar with government before striking for a big role. That way, morons like Bush and Romney can speak of “entitlement” when somebody points out their miserable incompetence. This is the lexicon of a group that hates government.
and one that resonates well with voters on both sides, particularly when it comes to politicians embracing the agendas of the powerful and monied interests that support them to the detriment of their constituents.
If your history is correct, maybe it’s time the left reclaimed the word.