Flip It Quick! Could Somebody Please Give Howard Dean A Coin?

We learned late yesterday that Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican race "for the good of the country." Romney noted that we are a "nation at war" and that Republicans need to "work together" to ensure victory in November. It sounds to me like a deal might be in the works between Romney and McCain.

This could be a really smart move. After all, "VP Romney" not only appeals to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, but also provides economic expertise to the McCain ticket.

At first blush it seems surprising that Romney would take such a deal. He even admitted yesterday that he "doesn't like to lose." And there was obvious animosity between McCain and Romney at the last Republican debate. But McCain is no spring chicken. If he wins in November, it is unlikely that he would seek a second term. This means Romney could run in 2012. In the mean time, McCain has a youthful, handsome, smart, rich running mate. Not bad.

So now let's check in with the Democrats. Obama and Clinton are breathlessly raising obscene amounts of money to pay for the battle they have laid out for themselves in the next nine months. The only problem is that their first "battle" is between brother and sister. It's in the family -- and that's not good. What's that old saying: the Republicans fall in line and the Democrats fall apart?

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post on the need for a unity ticket. I laid out all the key arguments then, and I won't repeat them here. But the recent Romney announcement demands that the unity ticket be undertaken NOW.

Look, I don't know who has the authority to sit the two candidates down and broker such an agreement. Many things would need to be discussed -- obviously, Bill Clinton's role would have to be spelled out. And who should be on the top of the ticket? Well, I would prefer Hillary, but given the urgency of the situation, either candidate should be acceptable.

A few more thoughts:

First, as of today, one of three people will be our next President -- John McCain, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton. All three are viscerally hated by people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. After 8 long years, that's something to feel good about. It's a stunning defeat for neo-con nonsense.

Second, some thoughts for the Hillary Haters--those who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, even a unity ticket:

1. Some of you are supporting Obama because Hillary is divisive. I find this ironic, given the fact that many Team Obama blog comments sound even more aggressive and nasty than many Republican comments. You should read your own words!

2. Some of you are supporting Obama because he was opposed to the war in Iraq. Yes, Hillary voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war. Yes, she was dead wrong. But the reality is that since Obama has been in the Senate, he has had virtually the same voting record on the war as Hillary. My view? If you fund it -- you support it. They now have similar timetables for the withdrawal of our troops. And, most important, compared with the "open-ended" Republican commitment to staying in Iraq for 100 years, any remaining differences between Obama and Clinton on this issue are marginal.

3. Some of you are supporting Obama because you fear a potential war with Iran. Newsflash: when it comes to Iran, Obama is just as much of a hawk as Hillary. Check out Obama's speech to AIPAC last spring. It is chilling. Furthermore, when the opportunity arose for Obama to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which advocated many of the positions he took in his AIPAC speech, Obama "no-showed" on the vote. Both Obama and Hillary's positions on Iran scare me, but at least Hillary is transparent about it.

4. Some of you are supporting Obama because he is anti-establishment. Well, if you think Barack Obama came from relative obscurity in the Chicago suburbs to speaking at the Democrat Convention in '04 to running for President in '08 by shear luck and on his own wings, then I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is that Barack Obama was hand-picked by the DLC. So please do not think that a vote for Barack is a vote against the Democratic establishment.

5. Some of you are supporting Obama because he represents change. It would seem to me that a true candidate of change would not choose Joe Lieberman to be his mentor in the Senate. Yet when Barack Obama arrived in the Senate, he did just that. Joe Lieberman does not represent "change." Ned Lamont represented change when he ran against Lieberman. Yet Obama chose to support "his mentor" in that election.

I mention these things simply to remind people that no candidate is perfect. They all have flaws -- heck, by definition, they are politicians. The most important point is that after eight long years of Republican rule, the Democrats MUST win back the White House.

That is why Obama and Hillary must come together now.

Anybody got a coin?

Comments

[Shozen]

IF both candidates keep to the high road, focus on the issues and the merits, avoid the the petty name calling, spinning, personal attacks, quickly call to the carpet supporters who get vicious, AND, together, FOCUS on the FAILURES of the Republicans, the eventual candidate will go into the general election with the strongest and most united Democratic base in history.

But if they get petty and trite the public will come to hate them both and the Republicans will win.

This idea that we need to have the Candidate selected quickly only has merit if one or both candidates are small. I feel both Clinton and Obama are bigger than that. Their supporters however.......

[mrJJ]

Ahhh the old magic two headed coin trick??

The DNC Credentials Committee is made up of 3 people. Those 3 people ALL SERVED in the Cinton Administration


That leads us to the three co-chairs of the DNC Credentials Committee: Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr. and Aliseo Roques-Arroyo. All three of them served in the Clinton Administration. Okay, as far as we know they are all reputable, upstanding people, but if you were Hillary Clinton and these three people worked for you and your husband during the 8 presidential years Hillary includes on her "35 years of experience," wouldn't you feel like you might have some influence on the three co-chairs? After all, the decision of the DNC Credentials Committee will be political; this is not a judicial process.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/036

[TJS]

Kristen Breitweiser writes, "Look, I don't know who has the authority to sit the two candidates down and broker such an agreement." Here's your answer, Kristen. It's the voters!

Clearly, as a Hillary supporter, you find Obama's campaign inconvenient. You'd rather have one of the "backroom boys" (or girls) settle the thing and exclude the voters. Thankfully, Kristen, you aren't Howard Dean!

[microsrfr]

Bill CLinton has been recently quoted by Maureen Dowd and the press pool as stating That "Hillary and I have discussed every major decision since 1971". Therefore to understand how Billary will rule, we need to go back to their previous administration where the following events took place:

1. NAFTA was passed and none of the conditons that might have protected US workers were ever enforced.

2. Social Security was taxed for the first time.

3. The means of measuring the economy were redefined to lowball inflation and unemployment. People out of work more than a year are no longer considered unemployed. Most important, today's social security payments and salaries are 2/3 of what they would have been if inflation wasn't lowballed. This is because both increases are keyed off of government announced inflation figures.

Thanks to the Clintons, we are now reaping the economic disaster of putting lipstick on the economy while destroying middle class purchasing power.

[DietrichMoody]

Michigan and Florida delegates are not being counted, a penalty for unilaterally moving their elections up in the primary season against the party's wishes. Once Hillary Clinton, won both states, her campaign predictably began to argue that these delegates should be counted. This could force the Obama campaign into the unenviable position of looking like they are trying to block voters and a mess at the August, convention in Denver

The question is: what can be done to preempt this?The Nation magazine has a creative proposition.

Their proposal is that both Florida and Michigan be permitted to caucus later this spring. And as that thethe DNC, Governor Dean, state parties, and other prominent Democrats like Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Jesse Jackson, Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, etc. " all call for a fair contest with the candidates competing head-to-head " so that the Clintons would not put up a fight? They would move from looking like the defenders of Michigan and Florida voters (the niche they are currently attempting to carve out), to looking like they are once again attempting to "game" the system.
At the very least people need to be reminded that everyone agreed to the earlier decision to strip the states of their delegates " including the Clinton campaign, Clintons stop gaming the system and playing mind f*ck games

[Summerswing]

If anyone paid attention to the Florida Dem primary , they would see that Hillary beat both McCain and Obama. By a lot. Yet, the media never even whispered about it. Not a peep. Interesting that this was never reported, but yet the same drum beat about how Obama will beat McCain.

[kmbo]

Kristin, thank you for all you have done. I have been really impressed by how you stepped up under horrible circumstances. This post, though, is not admirable. On the war, your view, "If you fund it -- you support it," is dead wrong. Now that our people are there, now that so many have died, now that so many are grievously hurt, cutting the funding is quite a different vote than initially giving the green light to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their fondest dreams. It does make a difference to have had the judgment to have been opposed to a dumb war from the start. Everyone knew what it meant to vote for the authorization, every Democrat who did it, did it for political reasons. You may have found your peace with her votes, I never will.

[BamaRainbow]

Oh, so you make it soooooo very convenient to criticize Clinton for her votes while continuing to offer Obama an "out" for his.
How about asking yourself HONESTLY why Obama HASN'T voted to end the funding? If he's truly so opposed to the war, could he not have found a way to oppose continued funding without "harming the troops"? It's amazing how Obama has appeared to cave in to the BushCo war because "cutting the funding is quite a different vote". No, kmbo, IT'S NOT.
There ARE people who voted AGAINST the war in the first place, and who've actually voted AGAINST funding the war. Obama isn't one of them. He was safely OUT of the public eye in 2002--whether he supported or opposed the war then made no difference to his career in Illinois as state legislators aren't authorized to "declare war". What he's done (or, more accurately, NOT done) since entering the Senate is a more accurate measure.
If you're going to condemn Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing the war, then you MUST condemn Obama for his votes that have continued that war.

[Arleang]

At the beginning of this campaign I was happy with the idea of either Obama or Clinton as the nominee. However, South Carolina changed that for me.

My belief is that HRC on the ticket gives ammunition to the neocons and loses the independents to McCain. So I don't want her as president or VP. And as much as I once admired Bill Clinton, he now looks more like a loose cannon.

There are too many anti-Clintonites who could cause us to lose the presidency. We desperately need a democratic president in addition to strong majorities in the house and senate. If we lose the presidency we lose the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices, which could return this country to the Dark Ages.

The selection of the presidential and vice presidential candidates is critically important to our future. We should think about it tactically, not emotionally. We must pick the candidate who will win back the White House.

[RealistDem]

Latest TIME poll, head to head matchups

OBAMA-48%
MCCAIN-41%

MCCAIN-46%
CLINTON-46%

Its obvious Obama pulls independents away from McCain. Cmon Democrats the time to get behind Obama is right now. Do you want to start the general election with a 7% advantage or not? And if you dont think even the 2 point difference is much ask John Kerry, 2004 Bush 51%-Kerry 49%. This election is too important, we must win this time. So please lets nominate our strongest candidate-OBAMA!

[PlanetK27]

Note to Hillary:

When you are speaking to these very many large audiences and the crowd cheers you on as they show their agreement and support... PLEASE do not continue to shout louder to (try in vain) to stay above the din and clamor of a crowd. Let them drown out your voice if it be thus. If they want to drown you out, let them. Better to be drowned out in admiration then to shout over thousands of voices, even if you have an amplified p.a. system. There is much to be said for occasional subtlety. When a crowd is so loud as to drown out anyone, rejoice in the moment, understand that we viewers, are smart enough to know what you are intending to say and I for one am patient enough to wait for the cheers of admiration to fade. In a nutshell, NEVER SHOUT OVER A CROWD!!! You can do it, I know you can. And if you need to know more just ask me... I have much more to say about this if you are interested.

Note to Kristen:
Your analysis is thought provoking and refreshing in making complex thoughts clear to us all. Please keep going.

Regards
k

[stoprollingover]

Kristen, you said: "Second, some thoughts for the Hillary Haters--those who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, even a unity ticket:"

So, Kristen, how about some thoughts for the Obama haters--those who would never vote for Obama under any circumstances, even a unity ticket." DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS FOR THOSE PEOPLE?

Talk about a one-sided view! Why don't you just go ahead and say that you are for Clinton and Obama should concede defeat even before the primaries are over!

[getrealalready]

Even though the flip of a coin is used metaphorically, it does illustrate how the Democratic party has more than one face. The United States of America has more than one face. I wouldn't leave the coin flip up to Dean. When he he ran for President, I asked him at a garden party, "what is the face of America that you see, Mr. Dean?" He answered with some routine campaign rhetoric with no spontaneity in sight. I like the excitement of this race. The flipping of a coin is democracy unfolding and requires no hands on healing to coerce an outcome.

[WilliePilgrim]

So delicious...really. Limbo, Hannity and Coulter really made their mark in villifiying the MSM...and now that they are the MSM? The MSM really deserves the hatefilled derision that the trio cited above applied to the MSM...ha aha ha. To the dust-bin of history with them and a steady eye of future for the rest of us.

[DRPike]

Once more we democrats are forming a circular fireing squad.

O8ama to break the cycle of Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Roses]

Hmmmm...this election is not going the way that Hillary planned...
Let's talk about "agressive and nasty". Seems to me the meme of many of the comments I have read over the past few weeks about the comments by pro-Hillary/anti-Obama blogs have been horrible and mean. However, Clinton supporters usually say how "agressive and nasty" they are, merely because they question Hillary's fitness to lead and praise Obama. To quote Ms. Breitweiser "read your own words!"
I am really, really tired of these comments.
Obama/Edwards'08

[DRPike]

How about:

Obama/Webb
Edwards - AG (not becasue he would be a bad VP but we need him to straighten out the w admin mess in the AG office)

Biden - Sec State (not becasue he would be a bad VP but we need him to straighten out the w admin mess in the the rest of the world)

[anotherbozo]

My thoughts exactly!

[unitron]

How 'bout we keep Webb and Biden and all the other Dems in the Senate (and House) and find some ineligible to run for another term Democratic governors to fill the Veep and State slots?

[knowhelpnow]

Amusing, I will vote for the winner, but I would prefer it to be Obama with Edwards as VP.
I don't think that Clinton will go nicy to the VP position. Edwards on the other hand was my pick from the beginning and I believe that he was media outed, but he is for the true DNC or should I say the true DNC should be Edwards. He left to soon but that is water under the bridge. Now we have to come together soon and make some tough decisions before it is to late.