Putting The Dream Ticket To Bed

The next ten primaries will be a most uncivil war. The Hillary Clinton Industrial Complex will not be restrained by intellectual honesty, logic, or basic decency. But even a scorched earth campaign faces pressures to appear conciliatory. With Hillary Clinton gaining ground in national polls and head-to-head projections, yet hopelessly behind in the delegate count, she has every reason to again raise the possibility of a "Dream Ticket" as an olive branch to unite the party.

If the Clinton campaign appears to be gaining momentum while being magnanimous, how should Senator Obama respond to suggestions of a joint ticket? Last time, while ahead in every metric, he deftly used humor to dismiss the suggestion of a joint ticket. He hinted at her arrogance and absurdity, but even in doing so, he used a soft touch.

Subsequently, Obama has faced unrelenting attacks: a uniquely Clintonian confluence of shamelessness and mendacity. Senator Clinton's only plausible path to the nomination centers around doing anything and everything possible to ensure McCain would beat Obama. After four more months of "kitchen sink" style attacks, if she fails to convince the Superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters, Clinton may weaken Obama sufficiently that she will hand the GOP four more years, indefinitely extending the war in Iraq. The polls are showing that the GOP-Clinton tag-team is starting to land body blows. The time has come for the Fabian Obama to remember what he learned growing up playing pickup basketball: sometimes you've got to throw an elbow.

Putting the "Dream Ticket" to bed

Sometimes democracy commands tough choices. Democrats are by nature open minded and pluralistic, but we don't always like choosing. Faced with two good options, many of us will repeatedly change our minds, and some among us may still want it both ways. If the Clinton campaign again touts the merits of a joint ticket, how does he reject the notion without disappointing the majority of Democrats who support a "Dream Team"? How does he avoid the appearance of putting himself above the party?

The Obama campaign should remind voters that they are choosing between more than just two individuals. Voters are choosing between two entirely different visions - two distinct philosophies of what it will take to change Washington.

Senator Obama's philosophy of governance is grounded in a duty to speak truth to the people: "Poll-tested positions and calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome them; it's not how you inspire our nation to come together behind a common purpose." The Clintons have an entirely different vision: "truth" is born out of calculation and triangulation, and repeated until the folks start believing.

Senator Obama's vision for change relies on building consensus through open negotiation and transparency. How could any Vice President restore transparency to government while serving one of the most secretive Presidents in history?

Senator Obama is running for President because he believes "that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done." How could any Vice President eliminate partisan division while serving a President who is among the most divisive political figures in history?

Perhaps most importantly, Senator Obama would restore America's standing in the world by ending the war in Iraq and changing the mindset that took us to war. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, she agreed to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, and she embraces the failed Bush-Cheney policy of refusing to talk to certain foreign leaders. As Obama observes, "that doesn't make us look strong, it makes us look arrogant....I don't just want to end this war in Iraq, I want to end the mindset that got us into war. It is time to turn the page." How could any Vice President turn the page on the mindset that got us into Iraq while serving under one of the most hawkish Democrats in recent history?

The reflexive irrationality that Clinton would head a joint ticket

There is a curious, reflexive assumption that a joint ticket would be headed by Senator Clinton. This assumption, like a gag reflex, kicks in without objective thought. Never mind who would be the best leader. Forget about his huge lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. Who cares about electability. For most, the assumption that Hillary would head a joint ticket is a combination of the following factors:

• Age: Hillary Clinton is running out of time, Barack Obama has time to run again.
• Experience: She said it so many times, it must be true!
• Reverence for President Clinton: Folks support Hillary mostly based on their love of Bill. They can see Bill Clinton as Co-president, but what would a Co-VP even do?
• The Tracy Flick Factor: She seems to want it more. As Larry David briefly thought, "I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares....She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness."

Who needs who?

When Senator Obama is asked if he would ask Hillary to be his running mate, he says "answering would be premature," and that it would be "presumptuous to comment." He then compliments her and hints that she might be on his short list. This is a polite and pragmatic approach, and it will continue. But does it make sense for Obama to ultimately ask Clinton to be his running mate?

The core of Hillary Clinton's base is older women who have voted in every election for twenty years. They will show up to vote. And they will vote Democrat.

Senator Obama locks down voters who are anything but reliable. He pulls in first time voters. It's easy for them to continue not voting. He inspires Independents and moderate Republicans who would never vote for Hillary. And he's a walking turn out machine for African Americans. If Hillary steals the nomination, none of these groups will come out to vote for her. If Clinton wins the nomination, she is unlikely to win the election without offering Obama the Vice Presidency.

A simple truth remains: Obama needs Clinton off his ticket almost as much as Clinton needs Obama on hers. Hillary Clinton on the ticket would create a ceiling on Barack Obama's movement. Her negatives are too high: almost fifty percent of Americans would never vote for her. Obama can compete in states like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. He cannot carry an albatross of a Vice President who limits his ability to court Independents and moderate Republicans.

She shortens his coattails

The visceral reaction many Americans have to Hillary Clinton would damage Democrats down ticket. In 2008, thirty Democratic House Members will be defending seats they won from Republicans in 2006. Blue Dog Democrats will be scratching and biting to hold their seats. Meanwhile, Democrats have an unparalleled moment of opportunity to stretch close to sixty seats in the Senate.

Obama cannot give Clinton the Vice Presidency based on her winning a few big states. Quelling her outrage and appeasing her entitlement is not worth the risk. Far too much is at stake.

Comments

[Joshua Roman - Huffpost Blogger]

Trustedcommenter: There was a poll prior to the Rev. Wright scandal that found over 2/3 of Democrats supported a joint ticket. The continued bloodletting could lead more Democrats to urge a joint ticket as a means of avoiding the continual strengthening of McCain's hand.

[lbrillante]

I am an OBAMA supporter but could NOT support a joint ticket. I will not vote to put the Clintons back in the white house. I am sure it woud be a wasted vote because if the Clintons are on the ticket in any way shape or form it will unite the republican party and all of their historical and new issues that have yet to be examined will be slammed consistently to prevent any chance of them returning to the white house. There is NOTHING DREAMY ABOUT HAVING CLINTON ON THE TICKET.

[trustedcommenter]

For some reason, I haven't read anything on this subject that gets into poll numbers: how many would vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket or vice versa? As a Democrat, I know I wouldn't.