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?