411 Politics Fact or Fiction 01.29.08: Week 76

Posted by Brandon Crow on 01.29.2008

If Obama offers Hillary a VP spot, would she take it? Will both the Democratic and Republican nominees be settled by Super Tuesday? Does Mike Huckabee benefit most from Fred Thompson's departure? Does this recession in 2008 belong squarely to George W. Bush?

Welcome to Politics Fact or Fiction, Week 76. This week, we have two more "combatants" taking each other on in the most interactive column the Politics zone offers. Let's get to it as long-time reader and previous F or F participant Brad Millar takes on 411 Wrestling's resident smart-aleck, Bayani Domingo! Watch out, Politics, it's a Wrestling Zone-led INVASION!! And Bayani Domingo is wearing the Kurt Angle cowboy hat!

Ding, Ding!

1. If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, and subsequently makes the offer, Hillary Clinton will set her ego aside and accept the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket.

Bayani Domingo: FICTION. This seems like a "trap game" here as the question is in the context of Obama winning the nomination, which is no sure thing. Also I think this comes down to both Hillary swallowing her pride to be "2nd Banana," which she actually had a good deal of experience with already, as well as Obama swallowing his pride and actually asking her to be his VP in the interest of the party. So really this is a question of two very proud people putting aside their egos for the "common good." The question is which one will blink first?

I'm not sure which seems more likely to happen, but I'm going with, "neither." I'm actually of the thought that John Edwards would be more likely to be chosen by either candidate as a running partner than either Clinton or Obama. Then again maybe they want to stay away from the "jinx" that Kerry had. Once again I think the idea that the "runner up" is automatically chosen as the running partner for the winner of the nomination is not always set in stone, just because the last go around saw Kerry choose Edwards doesn't mean it will happen again and if I'm not mistaken, the instances of the 2nd place finisher being the winner's running mate is actually not all that good in the past few decades.

Although I truly believe that an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would blow anything the Republicans had out of the water, I somehow doubt that these two would be able to coexist for an entire campaign, let alone administration. The verbal bashing and character attacks that have characterized these primaries have gotten to the point that you really have to doubt any peace could be made between these two parties. If I were Obama and I won the party nomination, would I really want a former first lady and bitter rival AND her ex-Presidential hubby as "backseat drivers" during my term in office?

Although you have to admit that scenario where Obama is President, Hillary is the strong headed and ambitious VP, and Bill Clinton is roaming the White House with a box of Ho Ho's and no pants on would make for one hell of a sitcom.

Brad Millar: FACT. However, I don't think it'll come to that. National polls have shown that Hillary (when presented to the entire American people) does NOT do as well as Barack or Edwards against most Republican voters. So, I don't even think that Barack will offer it to her. I would bet more along the lines of Edwards or Richardson as a running mate. However, the question is IF Barack were to offer it, and in that case, I would say yes. I think she wants in the White House, and she wants to be the "first" on a ticket. At least if she's the VP, she can take another shot in 4-8 years, and have a major advantage at that time.

0 for 1. I love these conditional questions! It gets the respondents to really churn the scenarios.

2. As more and more "contenders" drop out of the race by the day, both the Democratic and Republican nomination pictures will be settled on Super Tuesday, February 5th.

Bayani Domingo: FICTION. So let's do the math here—we have 24 or so states holding their primaries on "Super Tuesday." That is a boat load of delegates; in fact this is the most "Super" of "Super Tuesdays" ever. It's the "Super Duper Fly Tuesday" of primaries. I think really this comes down to 4 candidates, two on each side. I'm going to go ahead and put on my prognostication hat and declare Edwards and Huckabee to be "pretenders" while Obama, Clinton, Romney, and McCain are all still "contenders."

I know that Huckabee isn't that far off McCain and he did start off strong with Iowa, but he has lost a bit of momentum and right now I just can't see him overtaking McCain. I also think at this point Edwards is running for "VP" rather than President. Although I think that "Super Tuesday" might have a huge effect on the outcome of the nominations, I don't really see it being the "end all be all" unless someone emerges from the pack with a huge majority win. I'm talkin' about a "Bill Bradley circa 2000" style beating in the polls. I think Obama and Clinton are actually going to battle it out till the bitter end. And while I see the Republican Party's picture clearing up by the time "Super Tuesday" is over, I still believe the Democratic race will end up going until the final bell.

While, I'm almost certain Hillary has New York (not that her running for Senate in NY was premeditated in any way towards her run for president just 8 years later…), Obama literally running away with South Carolina was a big wake up call to the Clinton campaign. Whoever takes Florida will have a decided advantage, but then again I think the big surprise may come from right here in California this year. I'm hearing more and more support recently for Obama in Cali and if he manages to take Florida AND California, then Illinois is a cake walk and he may be able to shut this down by the time Leno comes on next Tuesday night. Still there isn't a clear lead horse in this race and at the very least this battle will be a hell of a lot closer contest than the Super Bowl. I wonder if we'll see Hillary walking around in a boot this week?

Brad Millar: FACT. Although, people dropping out won't really do anything at this point. Fred Thompson? Duncan Hunter? Isn't Alan Keyes running with 1 staff member in Alabama or something? None of them dropping out will do anything up until then anyway, but I think that because this year's Super Tuesday is extra "super" that whoever comes out on top that day, will carry the nomination. Not everyone drops out right then and there; I think a few will hang on until the end. If it's still close in delegates with Hillary/Barack and Romney/Huckabee/McCain, I don't see any of them conceding. I remain hopeful that something happens, and Ron Paul can pull something off on Super Tuesday, but I get the feeling that he'll be out around that time too.

0 for 2. Hooray for the "extra super" Super Tueday! And Brad, sorry to burst your bubble, but as much as I'd like to see Paul emerge as the Republican nominee, I think it's pretty much done for his campaign now. I wonder why he's withholding all of the money his campaign has raised. Perhaps an independent run?

Switch!

3. Fred Thompson dropping out of the Republican race will ultimately serve to help Mike Huckabee.

Brad Millar: FACT. From most of the town meetings and group discussions that I watched on MSNBC and other news channels, it seems like a lot of people from both of those candidates also liked the other. From what I've seen, most people that are for Romney or Giuliani are set in that way, and most people against them are the same. The only other person who MIGHT get a small boost would be McCain, but ultimately this helps Huckabee the most.

Bayani Domingo: FICTION. I'm not really sure where this mode of thinking that Mike "I Heart Huckabee" is going to benefit from Fred Thompson dropping out of the race. I haven't heard anyone really compare the politics of the two candidates before I wouldn't assume that the small group of Thompson backers would suddenly default to Huckabee as the next alternative. I wasn't even aware Thompson was still in the race until I saw it scroll across the TV screen while I was at the gym the other day. The man had no momentum going into the last round of primaries and it was pretty obvious that it was going to be Romney and McCain battling it out going into "Super Tuesday". If anything I would think Thompson would be backing his buddy McCain. He did back him just 8 years ago after all; I don't see what would have changed between then and now to sway him otherwise. Not that a ringing endorsement from Thompson is going to make a huge difference, unless of course "Law and Order" fans have more voting power than I thought. I mean, if Ric Flair backing you can't win you more than one state, then Fred Thompson's exit definitely won't. Whoooo!!

0 for 3. Oooo…is it possible? Is Crow finally headed for a F or F where nobody can agree? Could this be my first 0 for 4?

4. When George W. Bush was assuming office in early 2001, he blamed the slowing economy on Bill Clinton by calling it a recession, thereby shirking any responsibility for it. Now, in 2008, with most analysts stating there is another recession coming, there is no convenient scapegoat. This recession belongs to George W. Bush.

Brad Millar: FACT. It does. If you want to blame the slowing economy on an ex-President, then it sure as shit should fall on the shoulders of a SITTING President, who's been in office for the last 7 years. Let's look: a war that no majority supports, but we're still in; economic policies that allowed people to get in over their heads with the real estate industry; allowing too many cheap and crappy products being produced overseas, thus eliminating American jobs. It all links together. If you hold the person in charge accountable for the performance (in this case, the economy) then George W. Bush should be held accountable. And sending out a couple hundred bucks to people 6 months after a recession starts isn't going to do anything.

Bayani Domingo: FACT. Although I do think some of Clinton's accomplishments were a little bit exaggerated when it comes to his claim of a "surplus" at the end of his term in office, it is still widely believed that he led the way for one of the largest economic expansions in years. A "balanced budget" doesn't happen every day.

While 2000 did have the beginnings of an "economic slow down," I think you really have to look at what has happened in the last 7 years and wonder if any of Bush's accusations of a Clinton led downturn hold true. Really, there are two points of contention here as the term "recession" may or may not have applied depending on your definition of the term as well as the actual starting and ending date of the "economic slowdown/recession." Many people think the Bush administration purposely released reports pushing the "recession" start date back into the Clinton administration as part of a tactic to get reelected in '04. Not to say I believe those claims, but I don't NOT believe those claims. We could argue till the cows come home about whether it was a full blown "recession" and when it started or ended, but I think we can all agree that there is no way that whatever it was has just been milling around for the past 7 years and just happened to have resurfaced now through no fault of Bush's.

I think what we're seeing now is the beginning stages of an inevitable recession. This recession not only unequivocally belongs to Dubya, but he has a gift receipt and extended warranty for it.

Mmm….still has that "New Recession" smell doesn't it G-Dub?

While I'm all for getting a couple bills back from the government around the summer time, I don't think a rebate from the government is going to solve this problem either. I just can't see people opening up their mail box and pulling out a check for $600 or $1,200 and running down to Remax to buy a house.

To his credit, at least G-Dub isn't trying to spoon feed us the usual rhetoric about how "lower taxes and pro business bills" are going to be the cure-all tonic that fixes up the interest rates, and spark the housing market, and pep up the retail spending, and cure rickets. Well, he kind of is, but I don't believe he truly believes that's going to be all it takes.

While George Sr. had his infamous "Read my lips, no new taxes" slogan that he so famously failed to deliver upon in his 2nd term, I think G-Dubya now has an even catchier slogan in his own 2nd term; "Kiss my a**, No new recession".

Sorry G-Dub, but I know this recession belongs to you; it has your name sewn into the tag on the collar.

1 for 4. Oh, so close! I was one question away from total disagreement. Hey, at least we're all in agreement that the recession belongs to Dubya. And thanks to Bayani for the witty response! The man's got jokes!

Week 76 has been put to bed. Tune in next week for more F or F. Send me an email if you think you're wittier than Bayani!