I keep hearing from very worried Democrats this constant refrain. The loser of the Democratic presidential contest – whether it’s Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton – will have an incredibly important role in determining whether a Democrat sits in the Oval Office next year or John McCain. It depends, they say, on how the loser loses.
Their thinking is shaped in part by the 1968 and 1980 Democratic presidential campaigns.
In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey faced a very stiff challenge from Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota. He had mobilized a lot of young people. It was a bitter contest that Humphrey eventually won. Many of McCarthy’s anti-Vietnam War supporters were depressed and never really jumped aboard the Humphrey bandwagon. Richard Nixon, the Republican, won the election that November.
In 1980, the incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, faced a tough challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy for the party’s nomination. It, too, was a bitter contest that Carter eventually won. Many of Kennedy’s supporters could never warm up to Carter. There apparently had been too much bad blood. Ronald Reagan, the Republican challenger, won the election that November.
With that historic context, many Democratic leaders now are desperate that the current loser quickly moves on and winds up enthusiastically endorsing and working for the winning candidate. Will that happen? One way of guaranteeing that it will, of course, would be if the losing candidate winds up being the vice presidential running mate.
That is the proposal put forward by former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Will that happen? My sense is that it will happen only if the winning candidate determines that that is the best of uniting the party and winning the election in November.
From CNN Politics
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help | CNN Newsource | License Footage
Blizer,
The media help to scare Obama. You are part of that media, how can anyone heel from your scars.
the media and Clintons are perpetuating this sense of non-support. The media is also playing a major role in keeping the Clinton campaign alive. This thing was technically over in February and this conversation would not be happening if the candidate were any one other then a Clinton.
By reading some of the comments in the past on this blog, I'd say the loser's supporters seem to favor voting for McCain or someone other than the opponent.
Surely Obama is he winner! There is no magical means by which Hillary can be the winner! If the super-delegates want to destroy the democratic party they an go ahead. The whole world is watching events closely and it will be disgraceful to rob Obama.
"That is the proposal put forward by former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Will that happen? My sense is that it will happen only if the winning candidate determines that that is the best of uniting the party and winning the election in November."
That is it in a nutshell, doing what has to be done for the good of the party.
Personally, I'll take a Clinton/Obama ticket, or a Obama/Clinton ticket.
Either one works for me.
Sen. Clinton as repeatedly said that she would do everything she could to help the nominee to attain the white house she also repeatedly said she would advise her followers to do the same many of her endorsers such as carvel ect vow to do the same Sen Obama on the other hand says very little regarding this and as been evasive at times so do a little research and see who is the real team player is
CNN will be the Loser. This primaries have uncovered your bias reporting. It is like you guys endorsed Hillary.
it does not only depend on what the losing candidate does. It depends enormously on the loisng candidate's supporters. From the comments I see posted on this website, it seems to me that the Obama supporters are very divisive (anyone who doesn't vote Obama is an uneducated white old racist, is wrong, McCain=Clinton=Bush, voting Obama=moral high-ground) and disrespectful. They shouldn't forget Obama would need Clinton's supporters to win in November.
I would not vote for Obama regardless of who is on the ticket with him. If Obama is the dems choice for president, McCain is my choice and I am switching to independent. As a resident of Chicago and Illinois, I can tell you first hand that Obama is a sham.Sad day for the loyal democrats (not the first and last time voting Obama democrats). I have sent my hard earned money to the democrats for 26 years. What a waste. I am currently working on an email to the DNC about this but everytime I proof read it, it seems "bitter". I guess it took Obama to make me bitter.
Hillary is doing her very best to help McCain become the next president.
I wonder how much $$$ the Clintons received in personal earnings, for their ridiculous library, from some of the same people backing McCain.
Please . . .ANYBODY BUT HILLARY IN 2008!!!
Wolf,
Time to go old man,........
If Clinton loses to Obama, she's not going to stop "fighting." She doesn't care about the Democratic party, or the people. She cares about getting herself elected, and that is what she is really fighting for.
If Obama loses to Clinton, he would do all he could to heal both the party and his supporters. Because that's what he's all about: integrity, character, and doing the *right* thing.
if obama win
Mr Mccain will be our president.
by the way if obama win here's his list for V>P
obama/flaver flav
obama/oj
obama/ don king only in america
Clinton and Bill has baggage out there that you guys seem to not want to bring up, but the republicans will. Why would he want her on his ticket?
Wolf you are so bias and should be ashamed. The Dems already have a looser and that is Clinton. She has not stepped aside because of folks like you who keep pushing a lie to the public that she can somehow steal the nomination from Senator Obama. The Dems leaders have said it is the pledged delegates stupid!
Hillary's role as loser will be to shut up. She has been so aggressive and negative in her effort to win at all costs that any support she gives Obama will be obviously fake and only hurt him. True Democrats who have supported Clinton wil support Obama and rascist insecure liars who supported Clinton will support McCain. People who crave the truth and some degree of honesty and integrity will vote Obama no matter what political affiliation they had in the past.
I think we have had our share of adulterers and liars in the Whitehouse. Lets try something else!
I thought reporters were suppose to be unbiased....Wolf you've obviously already voted for Hillary...it's so obvious.
obama isnt even good enough to sweep the floors of the white house.
It amazes me how dumb america is to be voting for obama in such large numbers, but that explains why infomericals work.
Mr. Blitzer,
Let me make one thing perfectly clear, if Barack Obama does not become the Democratic nominee if he ends the primary with the most pledged votes, I will make it my mission over the following months to encourage every African-American to show up at the polls on Nov. 4 and cast a vote for every race and issue except President. One party, the Republicans, hardly acknowledges our exsistence and the other party, the Democrats, have taken our vote for granted for far too long. Enough is enough.
Watch for a systematic, dedicated, organized movement, the likes of one not seen in American politics by one demographic, to make a statement this fall that "enough is enough."
HILLARY THE OTHER REPUBLICAN OWES US AN APOLOGY,
DUE US SINCE THEIR LAST ESCAPADE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
WE HONESTLY THINK SHE SHOULD USE OF HER
LAST OPPORTUNITY TO BE OF SOME USE TO US, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. HER MILITARY SERVICE IN BOSNIA, JUST
WASN'T ENOUGH, CONSIDERING SHE & HER FAMILY HAS
LIVED OF THE AMERICAN VOTER THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
BREAKING NEWS: HILLARY, YOU LOST!!
--when she steals the nomination , Sen. Obama should run as independent.-–
i would never ever vote for that wicked witch!
wolf we all know that you are pro-clinton.
i love jack.
go away with ur biased reporting
and u better show this
Party leaders and the uber-liberal wing of the party need to wake up and acknowledge that BO has no chance of winning. Nominate BO and we will lose 45-49 states just like 1952 and 1956 (stevenson), 1980 (Carter – a sitting president), 1984 (mondale) and 1988 (Dukakis). No way the American people are going to allow BO's radical cronies anywhere near the White house.
I'm a Republican crossover that voted for Obama because of the sanity and level-headed approach he brings to the table. If he doesn't get the nomination I don't know what I'll do