It's too early to say, but what if the Democrats stopped pulling their party in two equal directions (1136 - 1108 delegates) like a hungry man dividing a barbeque chicken with his fists?
What if they began to cooperate?
Let the excitement of the nomination race play out, of course, and squeeze it for all the media attention that can be had. But then, at a turning point in the next few months, --April Fool's Day?-- why not strike a deal and enter the election with a unified party capable of defeating the Republican front-runner, Mr. McCain? (A good man by all accounts and a wonderful default candidate if the Democrats are -as sometimes happens-- too wounded to organize a winning race).
Is this a recipe for having your cake and eating it too?
Maybe.
Imagine a presidency in which the Commander-in-Chief deliberately resigned from office in the third year. The Vice President would then become the incumbent President, a very difficult force for American voters to resist.
Or.
What if, in the sixth or seventh year of a successful presidency, the incumbent resigned in favor of the Vice President. In one presidency, America could have two 'firsts,' and a 12 year wall of democratic leadership.
What a legacy. What history.
Imagine two Presidents' faces -a white woman and a black man-- on the back of a large denomination bill. Tough guy movies would never be the same: 'it'll cost ya' two-presidents...'
This would take 20-20 vision and a bit of sacrifice, but with a satisfactory, combined-agenda two dynamic leaders could commit themselves and their party to getting a hell of a lot of work done in those dozen years.
There is a hell of a lot of work to do...
1. The war has got to end. Soon, of course.
2. America's economy needs to be restored if the country is to face the incipient climate crises with its coffers full and its generous heart pumping rich, red blood for all Americans: men, women and children; black, white and brown.
3. Leadership of the world must be reclaimed. The world requires leadership and America is still the best choice among an extremely limited field of candidates. Since the big stick is not working, we need someone, once again, to teach America to walk soft.
4. At last, the moment for universal healthcare has finally come. To express the bias of someone born in the cool, blue North, Americans have the same right as Canadians to be miserably unhappy with a badly managed, poorly funded, state-run healthcare system. --I'm guessing America can't possibly do any worse, and will probably do much better since unlike Poste Canada, the U.S. Mail still works, and it doesn't take 10 weeks for an American to get a valid passport.
Such a deal would require an enormous amount of trust and patience, the kind of patience born of Presidential ambitions, the kind that waits eight long years measuring each gesture, weighing each opportunity, collecting promises, establishing links, firing unsuccessful campaign managers...
Obama turns 47 in August and Hillary will be 61 come October. Both of them easily have 12 years left. Both of them will see 2020. Why not let the remaining uncommitted delegates decide who should go first, and then cooperate to achieve the meaningful changes we need in what will soon become our children's century?
--Okay now, chicken anyone?
Your legacy idea is ridiculous. You place too much importance on looks rather then actions. The fact that Hillary is a woman and Obama is black seems to matter only to liberals, when they are the ones who claim not to judge based on such things.
If you want the war to end, you're better off electing someone who knows more about war and how to end them. Re: McCain
Fix the problem of excessive government spending and unnecessary programs, and the economy will be fixed indirectly. It's much easier and within the balance of powers to do it that way. We need someone who won't spend excessively. Re: Not Obama or Hillary.
Leadership of the world is tricky, and we can set that aside for now. Reclaiming America's status as superpower will do that.
As for health care, aside from the fact that it will increase government spending and make the economy worse, is something that Hillary has tried and failed to do. And Obama just doesn't have it either, he just doesn't have enough what-to-do. Plus, he's in the pocket of big business, which people don't seem to like, unless, of course, there's something else to like about Obama. Like his skin color.
A lesson from a friend: Map out all of your positions before choosing a candidate, and pick the best fit based on your issues only. Picking the Democrats is counter-productive to your ideas, except, of course, for race and gender, which is not a good reason to elect a President.
My only point was that if you dislike the Iraq war, fine. If you want it to end, fine. But if you want it to end, pick the person who is most likely to end it properly, lest we have another Carter-esque problem.