Please, No Obama/Clinton Nightmare

Now that it is apparent to all, except perhaps Hillary Clinton and some of her die-hard supporters, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee, the drumbeat for a "dream" ticket [Obama/Clinton] is starting. But before this goes too far, we need to ask, whose "dream" are we talking about? Our Republican opponent's dream or ours?

John McCain is in deep trouble, and not just because of the legacy of George Bush. He is in trouble with much of the Republican base, particularly the religious Right, who never have trusted him. It is no accident that turnout in nearly all Republican primaries has been low, that McCain's fundraising has been dismal and that in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, nearly 25% of Republican voters voted against him, despite the fact that he clearly will be the Republican nominee.

While McCain was the strongest in a weak field of Republican candidates, his candidacy clearly is not galvanizing conservatives. There is only one candidate who can do that: Hillary Clinton. To the conservative base of the Republican Party, she is the Democratic demon and the candidate the Republicans' want to face. She is Rush Limbaugh's candidate of choice. She is the candidate who the Right would use to raise money and turn out volunteers. She is the only potential Democratic VP who would build Republican enthusiasm and inspire the grassroots Republican campaign.

She also is the candidate who consistently measures the highest "unfavorable" ratings of anyone who ever has run for the presidency. In an ABC News poll, Clinton polls 54 percent unfavorable; perhaps even worse, 58 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. Both Clintons stand out for the amount of voter antipathy they attract: Thirty-nine percent of voters have a "strongly unfavorable" opinion of Hillary Clinton; only 22 percent have a "strongly favorable" view. Thirty-four percent are strongly negative on Bill Clinton and 51 percent have an "unfavorable" opinion of him. And Hillary's low-road campaign has had an impact: 41 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters describe the tone of the Democratic campaign as "mostly negative," and by nearly a 4 to 1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent, blame Clinton. Is taking baggage like this into the general election anyone's "dream" but a Republican's?

Worse than Hillary's high unfavorables, a Obama/Clinton ticket would create a continuing crossfire -- not between McCain and Obama, but between Obama and Clinton. Every one of Clinton's interactions with the media would feature questions like, "Do you still think Barack Obama lacks experience to be Commander-in-Chief?" "Do you still think Obama is an elitist?" "That he doesn't understand the problems of the white working class?" "Do you still think his past association with Reverend Wright is very troublesome?" Obama would be asked, "During the primary campaign, your VP said your healthcare plan sucked? Was she right? Does it suck?" "Do you want to obliterate Iran, too, like your vice-president?" And, when the press wasn't asking these questions, John McCain would ask them. Or, maybe we all could be reminded of Bill's talk of a Clinton v. McCain contest, where we would have a campaign of "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," unlike Obama. Even worse than this scenario, Barack Obama would be cast in the position of having to defend his own VP's past attacks on himself. By doing so, he would not simply look like a hypocrite, he would, in fact, be a hypocrite -- thus putting into jeopardy his coin of the realm, his honesty and integrity. The general campaign wouldn't be about Obama v. McCain, it would be Act Two of a very bad marriage, with Obama sacrificing his integrity trying to explain away his own VPs past attacks on him. If you think her snarky, negative primary campaign was a thing of the past, think again because the Republicans and the press would offer us deja vu all over again. Lost in this dialogue of the past would be Obama's opportunity to explain how he wants to take America into a more productive future.

Those who "dream" of an Obama/Clinton ticket also fail to recognize something significant: Hillary has been a lousy candidate. I used to think that Al Gore and John Kerry ran the worst campaigns for president ever, but Hillary's ineptitude set new records. Five months ago, Hillary had a 20+ point lead in Democratic polling, the greatest name recognition of any candidate, the most money, support from a popular former Democratic president who was actively campaigning for her, nostalgia for the Clinton era of "peace and prosperity," a ton of endorsements, the aura of "inevitability" -- and she squandered it all with an inexorable series of misjudgments, abetted by her, Bill's and her campaign's unrelenting arrogance. By contrast, Obama ran down and exposed the dinosaur for what it was not simply with a brilliantly executed campaign, but with a core understanding that voters were tired of the type of old-style politics and old-style campaigning Bill and Hillary so ably represent. Why should he now forge an alliance with one of the most ineffective old-style campaigns ever, not to mention take on the Big Dog [Bill] as his new pal -- in this case, an uncontrollable pal who would try to run not only Hillary's campaign, but Obama's, as well? This is my definition of a Living and Breathing Nightmare -- one with plenty of 3 am calls from Bill! Even worse than sharing a campaign with Bill and Hill, allying with the Clintons would undermine the very essence of the Obama message -- that real change is needed in Washington. It would be seen as completely inauthentic, the worst type of marriage of convenience. And unlike the shotgun marriage JFK made with LBJ, Hillary brings nothing to the table; unlike LBJ, she can't bring a swing state into the Democratic column. Obama could win New York with Daffy Duck as his VP.

Then there are the revelations to come. Does anyone think that a man with a documented 30-year history of philandering with a long list of bowling alley queens has magically stopped playing the field, or that the Republicans will not exploit this? Does anyone think the Republicans will not exploit Bill's fundraising associations with some of the questionable people who have given him millions for his library and foundation in favor of his deal-making with oil oligarchs, or exploit his 11th hour pardons of some pretty disreputable characters, including two convicted bomb-carrying members of the Weather Underground? How much more baggage can Hillary sustain?

There are, of course, many strong Vice-presidential candidates for Obama to choose from. In light of Clinton's and McCain's challenging Obama's national security credentials, a VP such as General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb or Governor Bill Richardson would add substantial national security/foreign policy heft. General Clark is our last successful commanding general and a smart, attractive spokesperson. He comes from the Clinton camp, but is no hawk like Hillary; Clark understands not only the uses of military power, but also its limitations. He would fit well with the new direction in foreign policy we hope a President Obama would take the country, as well as add great credibility to new security initiatives. Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, has been perhaps the most out-spoken and effective critic of the War in Iraq and Bush/Cheney foreign policy belligerence. He won in Virginia, a swing state, against all odds and an incumbent Republican, and is a great campaigner. Governor Richardson has spent most of his adult life working in the foreign policy arena, he is a popular governor in a swing state and is a Hispanic to boot -- a near-perfect trifecta of qualifications. He also has an incisive sense-of-humor, which politics and political combat could use a bit more of. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is another VP possibility many have mentioned positively.

And, there are solid women VP candidates: Senator Claire McCaskill won her Senate seat in Missouri, a swing state in any Presidential election; she has a tough law and order background as a former Attorney General, and is smart and articulate. Kansas Governor Kathy Sibelious has proven to be an effective governor who works well with the opposition and knows how to win in a Republican state.

This short list certainly is missing many other potentially good candidates, but the point is simple: There is no dearth of qualified VP candidates for the Democrats and there is no reason to take on the baggage and negatives of the Clintons, let alone try to work closely and cooperatively with them for 4-8 years.

Hillary, Bill and surrogates like James Carville have graphically challenged Obama's toughness, even his "cojones." I recognize that Obama is a conciliator, but conciliation should not come at the cost of getting rolled by the Clintons. That first act of a Demcratic Presidential candidate would show strength to no one [including the Clintons] at a time when voters still need to be convinced that Obama not only is an inspiring leader, but a tough and strong leader, as well.

Comments

[LittleBrother]

Well stated! I agree with (most of) the commenters too.

I made the mistake of ridiculing the "Dream Ticket" idea when it was raised MONTHS ago on a website that attracts progressive Democrats. I made one of the points raised in the article: Obama's entire campaign is predicated on his being Not Like the Others; to enter into a marriage of convenience with an Old School Republican-Lite DLC-corrupted technocrat like Clinton(s) would fatally undermine this claim.

To my surprise, many seemingly-knowledgeable loyal Democrats on that site tore me a new one. But I still think it's a fatally wrongheaded choice.

[sassyg]

Obama/Clark -- now there's a dream ticket. Love Wes.

[bluevillage]

He was a lousy candidate!

[rpd123]

I'm inclined to think that Hillary's attacks on Obama will be exploited by the GOP no matter who the VP is. So, I don't that's the compelling knock against her.

The point about her being a bad candidate, however, is on the mark. She sqaundered every conceivable advantage, showing poor judgement and instincts. The fact that she seems constitutionally incapable of being honest doesn't exactly help matters.

[Janel]

Add the dimension of her husband to reasons "why not!"

I can't imagine President Obama having to deal with two Clinton's. With their huge ego's, there is no way a VP Clinton would stand for being relegated to attend state funerals, etc.

To add Clinton to the ticket would be a HUGE mistake. I suspect most strong Obama supporters feel the same. One of the reasons Senator Obama is such a compelling possibility as president is his vision and plan for "change." To add Clinton to the ticket would do great damage.

[530Rose]

If he did choose "them," it would be a constant fight to keep Bill from steamrolling right over him. The Vice President should have the President's back. If "they" are anywhere near the white house, he will have to be watching his. She is a war monger. I would rather see Chuck Hagel on the ticket. Republican or not, he is truly anti-war.

[ddharder]

This article is spot on. I've been repeating it until I'm blue in the face. Hillary on the ticket is the only hope that McCain has of solidifying the republican base in November. It would be a bigger mistake than Gore putting Lieberman on the ticket.

The Dems, under the idiotic Terry Mcauliffe seemed intent on shooting themselves in the foot (that Hillary put him on the staff just shows her poor decision-making skills). Obama seems to have a better sense of understanding when it comes to making an appeal to a larger audience, so hopefully he doesn't get pressured into a game ending decision like putting polarizing Clinton on his ticket.

[nsiah7]

Not McCain alone but all GOPs, Obama picks Hillary as VP at his own doom. I think he is smarter than that.

[TRYKER]

Thank you Guy, you covered it beautifully. When you think about having Hill and Bill in your nest messin around, it gets creepy. Obama's whole program would be crippled by these two.

I'm looking forward to hearing more from Michelle Obama, she sounds like a lady that also knows what needs to be done and is willing to get in there and do it.
She won't be a wall flower like Laura, though I don't fault Laura for not coming out front to bear any of the brunt of her husband's misdeeds. She is probably lucky to make it from morn to night.

[t2rocks]

Hillary should have asked us not to drive, instead of proposing tax relief at the pump. It sends the wrong message to Americans -- our leaders should be encouraging conservation. Obama's plan is to create jobs in the green industry -- that makes much more sense. They would not be good running mates because they have different ideologies.

[jennyjen]

You are right - that is the best immediate solution - personal rationing, I don't know how old you are - but when Jimmy Carter asked us to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostats he was ridiculed. Then gas rationing started - along with that came waiting in line for gas for a few hours on your scheduled day to buy gas. They even lowered the speed limits on highways to save gas. Then suddenly gas was plentiful again and almost everyone returned to their bad habits.

I also think it would be a huge mistake to put Hillary on the ticket. The Clintons treated Gore so badly that part of me wishes she could experience some of the humiliation that was dumped on Gore. He was on crutches once and someone asked him how it was affecting his job. He said it took twice as long to walk socks - the Clinton's cat. That was funny but also sad and a waste - once again the Clintons showed us that their egos were more important than the furture of our countly.

I know politics is a dirty business - but if I were Obama I would not want the Clintons around after what they have said about him. I think they would continue to use the press and their elite Washington clique to undermine Obama every chance they got.

Big mistake Barack - please please look elsewhere,

[dreamcinema]

Does Gore want to be VP again?

[thegaygardener]

THANK YOU!
Seriously. You have summed up everything that is now & has been wrong with the Clintons
It has never ceased to amaze me how all Sen Clinton's supporters can forget or ignore all the facts you have laid out. Including the most salient one: that no candidate ever has run for national office with the extremely highly unfavorable & negative ratings that Sen.Clinton has. And also the fact that, as you say, she is the candidate of choice for the Republicans. they have been planning on running against her for over a decade.
She is the most polarizing figure of the past quarter century & I am much relieved that she is not the nominee

[burnt]

Thank you Guy!!!! I am simply floored at the quality of analysis being offered on HuffPo today. Your post cracks the Clinton nut (no... not Carville)... and fully displays that which sits within the shell.

In a Clinton nutshell, she IS such a huge part of the problem that faces this country, that any "contribution" on her part through an Obama/Clinton ticket, would be negative. UNERSTATEMENT. The title of you post sums it up perfectly. We must listen to Michelle Obama's advice on this national "nightmare" scenario.

All of us have waited too long... worked too hard, to set up the Democratic Party for dysfunction, subterfuge, sabotage and subversion by a pair of self-serving Vice Presidents.

[oafishcad]

I voted for Senator Clinton in the primary, and would do so again. Obama is winning, but not by a landslide, so saying Hillary's campaign was awful is just incorrect. On the other hand, I think it would be bad judgement for him to choose her as VP. I used to think the two of them would be a great ticket, no more. She'd have to eat too many of her own words to support Senator Obama. Wesley Clark or Senator Webb would be great, and help to lessen the WIMP factor the GOP will inevitably smear Obama with. The WIMP factor defeated Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern and Carter's second term. If they can say Cheerleader George was more manly than war hero Kerry, they can surely make Obama less assertive than war hero McCain.

[crossoverwriter]

Please no Hillary!
She would be a disaster as veep!
Obama needs a person who has lots of foreign policy experience (Richardson, for one) or someone who has military experience yet isn't a hawk.
Jim Webb could be good.
Forget about Hillary! Way too much baggage with little moral fiber.

[nsiah7]

Good, for the first time, I can hear from afar the drums of unity from a Clinton supporter. Bring it on. We need to win

[PADDYWHACK]

Many Republicans will vote for Obama if he runs as a moderate,but not if HRC is on the ticket.

[EinChicago]

fact: Obama is unelectable and cannot win a general. he could run against Reagan;'s exhumed toenail and he will still lose. Why would HRC saddle herslf to that when she is better just waiting for 2012?

[NorVaGal]

I agree that HRC should not saddle herself with Sen. Obama. He is vastly superior in every way and would only continue to show her up for the diminished person that she has insisted on becoming.

[funnyguy]

Obama is going to beat McCain by ten points, or more. You heard it here first.

[ddharder]

I think so to. Short of an October surprise attack on Iran or Syria, the Republicans don't have a chance at being competitive this round. McCain is a weak candidate and given the fact that 8 out of 10 people (according to an article posted in Huffpo today) feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, and given how strong a candidate O is, I'm with you in looking for a blowout in November.

[crossoverwriter]

Obama is much more electable than Hillary and could well win in swing states like Colorado, Missouri, Montana. With Bill Richardson stumping for him, he could also win in New Mexico. Virginia as well.
With his 50-state voter registration drive, he has many more potential voters in the general than Hillary would.

[JimR]

If cars ran on bitterness, Hillary supporters could solve our energy crisis.