Across the pond

Hillary Clinton stopped short of conceding victory to Barack Obama on Tuesday night. It may prove to be her biggest mistake in her sixteen month campaign. Barack Obama won narrowly but fairly according to the rather arcane rules of the Democratic Party. There is none of the stink of corruption which beset the contested victory of George W Bush in 2003, when the decision hung on probably rigged voting in Florida. There is no suggestion that his victory has depended on the brute force of Party kingmakers. Contrast Jack Kennedy’s narrow win in 1959, which history suggests was due to the ability of bass Mayor Daly of Chicago to massage the vote. Yet some of the Clinton team are still trying to bargain publicly with the winner.

Of the thousands of words available this morning the best is the admirably succinct leader in The Financial Times of London. Here it is below in full:

An Obama-Clinton dream ticket?
The news that Barack Obama had crossed the finishing line, had secured the Democratic nomination, and was thus quite likely the next president of the United States was slow to reach Hillary Clinton. While Mr Obama was telling his ecstatic supporters that “this is the moment” – did he even promise to lower the oceans? – Mrs Clinton was thanking her troops for her own historic victory (in the popular vote, correctly measured), explaining how they had made it possible, and asking their advice on what to do next, since she had noticed confusion in some quarters about who the winner really was.
Predictably, therefore, as the Democrats chose for the first time a black man to run for the White House – a historic moment, indeed – Mrs Clinton contrived to make herself the main story. She has also become the biggest test so far of Mr Obama’s ability to lead. How he deals with his disappointed rival and her avid followers over the coming days is the most important decision he has to make between now and the general election.
Mrs Clinton, it is widely understood, wishes to share the ticket – as number two, for the moment, but who knows what might happen between now and November? Petitions are being got up to secure that slot; Mr Obama is being prevailed upon to be magnanimous. He is undoubtedly capable of it. His own victory speech was wisely generous to Mrs Clinton. To defeat John McCain, he needs her supporters in his camp. For many in the party, the arithmetic of combining her support with his points irresistibly to an electoral alliance.
One can see their point, but it would be a mistake. Mr Obama’s need is real and the voting arithmetic somewhat persuasive. More of Mrs Clinton’s supporters would come round if she were the running-mate. But his claim to represent a new kind of politics would be compromised – and nobody gets out the Republican vote like a Clinton.
The clincher, though, is that Mrs Clinton seems psychologically incapable of serving as Mr Obama’s deputy – before or after the election. Her conduct this week proves it. She could have made it difficult for Mr Obama to refuse her the VP slot by delivering a gracious, unifying concession speech. Instead she declared herself the moral victor and the stronger candidate, occluded Mr Obama’s success, and set about demanding the vice-presidential nomination as of right. Now, if Mr Obama takes her on to the ticket, he will look weak; if he does not, he will offend her supporters. The second is regrettable, but much the lesser evil.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008