That's the Ticket! Clinton-Obama Unity after Super Tuesday

First, apologies to all the political strategists, pundits, consultants, and media personalities who will undoubtedly hurl tomatoes at this column since it threatens their lucrative empire that thrives on political drama and divisiveness.

Second, apologies to everyone else for my being so naïve and, dare I say it, hopeful.

Lately, it seems that the Democratic Party is falling back into its bad habits and foolish ways. Just walk down the streets of NYC and mention the words Hillary or Obama and you find good friends screaming at each other, family members sleeping on couches, and more divisiveness than unity. It is sad -- but apparently unavoidable. Just look at yesterday's nasty exchanges and today's New York Times headlines.

Reality: We are a nation arguably on the cusp of a third war (with Iran) and already in an economic recession (heck, even President Bush is starting to admit it). We are overdue for another domestic terrorist attack. We are disliked (if not outright hated) by much of the world. We have made little progress when it comes to global warming. Millions can't afford health care.

Given this situation, I am sick and tired of Democrats being disorganized, self-interested, and destructive to each other and to our country. It is high-time for LEADERSHIP and SACRIFICE, which should begin with our top two candidates for president.

If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton really want to be uniters and not dividers, then why don't they both do something so out-of-the-box and head turning that it would virtually guarantee the White House to the Democrats in 08? Namely: if Clinton is ahead in delegates after the 22 primaries and caucuses on February 5, Obama should stop running and join her in a national unity ticket. No divisive battles like the Reagan-Ford contest in 1976 or the Kennedy-Carter contest in 1980 -- struggles that probably doomed both Ford and Carter.

Democrats simply can't afford that in 2008, not after the disasters of Bush & Cheney.

Obviously, Obama won't withdraw now when he's still a possible presidential nominee. He wouldn't simply toss aside some 400,000 donors and millions of supporters who've been stirred by his words and promises.

But if Clinton takes a real lead on February 6, here are the benefits of a merger between these two titans.

First, it is the smartest long-term strategic move for the 46-year-old Obama. He spends eight years as VP, and then runs for President in 2016. Who could then criticize him for lacking "experience"? During Obama's eight years as VP he would be able to hone skills, gather experience, and produce good works. And if the Clinton-Obama administration is as good as I suspect it would be, it would assure Democrats 16 years of White House governance.

Second, for anyone who thinks this suggestion is an insult and/or demotion for Obama, I have two words for you: Dick Cheney. Not that Hillary would need a #2 to rely on as much as Bush did. But the state of our country right now really does call for a form of powerful, intelligent co-parenting. Truth be told, there is an awful lot of work to be done--too much work for one man or woman alone.

Of course, this arrangement would also require an amount of graciousness and sacrifice on behalf of Hillary Clinton. With Obama as her VP, she'd need to share the limelight with an eloquent, luminous star -- and she'd surrender the normal nominee's option of choosing a running mate only on the basis of politics and chemistry.

But just think about the message that this would send to the world. The two most popular and powerful Democrats would be putting aside their egos for the good of the post-Bush America, based on the theory that their whole is greater than merely the sum of their parts.

Sure it's hard to arrange such a result. But here's what's far worse: wasting tens of millions of dollars in the mutual destruction of our two best and brightest. Because the next few weeks have the potential to get ugly. The bickering. The name-calling. The fratricide. It is such a waste of time and money. And, frankly, we are better than that. Let's leave such antics to the Republicans.

Would this be viewed as an unseemly "deal," just the kind of thing that an untraditional Obama would scorn? If a similar arrangement worked for another Illinois legislator in 1846 -- when Abe Lincoln agreed to sit only one term in Congress and then defer to a rival to serve the next -- it should be okay for Obama. Surely Obama can frame it as surrendering his personal ambition for the larger good of the United States of America, to quote him.

Except for extreme partisans and crazed staff, the truth is that the differences between Obama and Hillary are insignificant compared with the risks of, in effect, handing the White House to the Bush Republicans for a third term.

Both Hillary and Barack are great people and they will both be great leaders. We deeply need their complementary styles, experience, personalities and vision to fix our ailing country.

Bottom line? Its either Clinton-Obama next month or (yikes) the risk of McCain-Giuliani next year.

Comments

[Didi47]

Great post and it certainly would make for the most effective race in history.

The Republicans and their media machine are fighting hard and dirty (as usual) to get Obama the win so they can beat him handily in the election. They know they don't stand a chance against Hillary. The sad sad part is the general public are once again falling for the media hype, like little programmed puppets. Once again they've fallen for the divide and conquer method and have turned their hatred against the Clinton's and away from the Republican machine that's devastated America.

[getrealalready]

Kristin,
How can you choose Hillary after the South Carolina debate and all other examples of her self-professed uncontested "leadership" for the race to win the President's seat when her continuous off-the-cuff bully-like remarks aimed at cutting off Barack's balls do zero for "pressing for truth" and everything for perpetuating self-serving psychotic government? Do you really not see that as a false use of power all over again? Haven't you had enough of that in your life since 911?

[jade7243]

I'm sorry Kristen, but this is simply out of the question. Here's why:

Bill Clinton is, via his wife, seeking an unconstitutional third term in office. Hillary and Bill Clinton are agents of conspiracies -- vast right wing and others -- who look out solely for themselves. Agenst of change they are not. The Clintonian politics of divide and conquer -- which they started but Karl Rove elevated to an art form -- are not conducive to a unifying, change-oriented means of governing that Obama seeks.

They are tainted by all the sleaze and scandal of the 1990s. That is a stain that does not rub off or simply fade with time.

The Clintons see themselves as more as emperor and emperess, ruling by divine right, and not national consent.

In a third Clinton administration, ANYONE who takes on the role of Vice-President is relegated to being inconsequential and powerless.

It is far better for Obama to continue to remain a separate entity from the Clintons -- win or lose. Should Barack Obama become the party's nominee, he should look to new blood to move the country forward. Should Hillary become the nominee, he should decline any consideration of the second spot and leave the Clintons to have their behinds handed to them on a silver platter by the Republicans. If Michael Bloomberg mounts a serious third-party effort, Bloomeberg should consider Obama at the top of the ticket and take the Veep slot for himself. (But we know that won't happen.) Being Veep to Bloomberg is not a terrible thing, but a winning Bloomberg ticket in my opinion has Obama at the top.

So sadly, there is no rational way to put two polar opposites together. And there is no way to reconcile Bill Clinton and his hatred with Obama. It will just not work.

Leave the Clintons to fail on their own, and do not hold out hope that Barack Obama will rescue their sorry a**es.

[NABNYC]

Hillary Clinton is supporting George Bush in his threats to start a war against Iran. In fact, she has already said she will not withdraw U.S. combat troops from the middle east because she plans to leave them there to fight against Hezbollah and hamas. The problem is that the U.S. is not in a war with Hezbollah and Hamas. Apparently, Hillary plans to change that.

Whatever happens after 2/5, I will not make a truce with Hillary Clinton. And if Obama has any sense of dignity, neither will he. The Clintons have played the race card, and played it hard.

No, they haven't (yet) started plastering Obama headquarters withdrawings of nooses. But someone (hint hint) placed robo calls in Nevada to Democratic voters making ominous charges against Barack HUSSEIN Obama, repeating the HUSSEIN part four times in a 30-second message. It sounds to me like Bill Clinton never got rid of his old KKK guidebook.

The Clintons have been sleazy and despicable in this campaign. But of more importance, there is not one thing Hillary has in her platform which will benefit working Americans. She's going to privatize social security. She's not really going to end the war in Iraq (she'll withdraw a few, then stop) and she will start a war against Iran.

She's not going to provide any assistance to us to pay for healthcare, or health insurance, although she does plan to give millions of tax dollars to the health insurance industry for them to buy new software and computers. Really. She supports Rupert Murdoch in his quest to own all of the U.S. TV stations and newspapers. No problem to the Clintons.

I may write in somebody. But I don't plan to vote for Hillary and Bill Clinton. They've gone too far in their racist attacks on Obama. And they've gone too far right in her platform.

[fitCTmom]

Your husband would be so proud of you. You are smart, intelligent and an incredibly strong woman. I agree with you in theory that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a good one (in fact, that is the only way I would vote for Hillary; if Obama is on the ticket). However, the issue isn't as black and white as that (pun, intended). The Hillary White House will have a problem no matter who she picks as an "official" running mate, because she already has a de facto running mate in Bill. He is already doing what a running mate is supposed to do: Be the attack dog for the opponents so that she can remain above the fray. That is why the Kerry/Edwards ticket did so badly. Edwards and Kerry didn't like each other and Edwards didn't do his "job" so to speak. Same with Gore/Leiberman for the same reasons. Whoever ends up Vice President in a Clinton Administration will likely be vice president in name only. There would be a lot of bitterness, infighting and wait...wasn't that the first Clinton administration?

[JMEB]

Sounds like a great idea in theory, but I think there's too much poison between the candidates right now for that to ever be pulled off. Remember, the worst thing that Kerry said about Edwards when they were running against each other was that he was too young.

[vsign]

I don't want to give Obama any power other than maybe a cabinet position or diplomatic position. He has already shown me that he is willing to just ride the wave. The wave is all of us so influenced by the sound of his voice - a voice of authority - that we will not criticize him enough to even know his character. It remainds me of how the germans behaved - supporting a leader they believed could WIN and the power given him helped determine a whole series of unintended consequences. We are to blame. We are giving Obama too much power now and the primaries are not even over. We need to think about the best person for the job, not all these media concerns about who can win. The times could easily propel Obama onto the world stage, untested, with too much power.

[forworldpeace]

Sound advice! The Republican party will quickly rally behind one or the other candidate while the democrats are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot with this race between Obama and Clinton that is getting nastier by the day and threatening to tear the party apart. Together they can accomplish a lot for the party, the country and the world. Together, they can motivate many to turn up on election day to vote.

[foreffectivegovernment]

You youngsters don't know this, but J.F.K. and his brother, R.F.K. hated L.B.J. because he was unrefined and crass and there had been some bad blood during the primary elections.

They knew they would need the southern states to get elected, and were smart enough to bury the hatchet for the good of the Democratic Party.

Kennedy won with a landslide and R.F.K. became Attorney General for his brother and L.B.J. became V.P.

There were true statesmen back in the day.

Oh Yeah it was revealed in later years that J.F.K. was a womanizer but the MSM didn't reveal it so the voters never cared. The President could actually have sex without being gossiped about and getting impeached!!!!

[foreffectivegovernment]

My idea of a "Democratic Dream Team" is, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and General Wesley Clark. Bill Clinton as Whitehouse Spouse would be O.K too because of the following information from Wikipedia.


I am a "Yellow Dog Democrat" and I am surely a dying breed. Ever since 1980 when a large number of the Democratic Party base succumbed to the "Great Communicator" and became "Reagan Democrats", I have been subjected to the policies of the Republican Party except for eight years, (1993 to 2001), when Bill Clinton was President. I am tired of being victimized by these policies. I managed to survive to retirement but the Bush Administration is the "Straw that Broke the Camel"s Back" for me. I am not making this shit up. The information is on the Internet. That is why I am spreading this message to every Blog I can find. After you read it, you may want to help me.


One of the most prominent items on Clinton's legislative agenda was a health care reform plan, the result of a taskforce headed by Hillary Clinton, aimed at achieving universal coverage via a national healthcare plan. Though initially well-received in political circles, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry.


In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes for 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints.

[foreffectivegovernment]

----------------------------------------- CONTINUED -----------------------------------------------

In contrast, this is what we can expect from the Republicans. Ronald Reagan was a saint, a commanding leader, the gold standard of principled conservatism against whom all current and future Republicans should be measured. This is the new mantra coming out of the Republican race for the presidency as the current crop of candidates scramble, quite understandably, to distance themselves from the walking disaster that is George W. Bush.



And let"s not forget the wages of "trickle down" economics and "Reaganomics," from which we have still not recovered. In 1982, the Congressional Budget Office found that taxpayers earning under $10,000 lost an average of $240 from Reagan"s 1981 tax cuts, while those earning more than $80,000 gained an average of $15,130. By that fall, the jobless rate hit 10.1 percent"the worst in 42 years, and a year later 11.9 million were out of work. In 1983, the country"s poverty rate rose to 15 percent, the highest level since the mid-"60s. In 1984, a congressional study reported that cuts in welfare had pushed more than 500,000 people"the majority of them children"into poverty. Then-Attorney General Ed Meese"s response was? "I don"t know of any authoritative figures that there are hungry children ¦ people go to soup kitchens because the food is free and that"s easier than paying for it."

Iran/Contra was next. Let"s just remember aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, whom Reagan likened to the Founding Fathers, and the revelation that the CIA had produced a manual that taught them, in part, how to kidnap and "neutralize" government officials. Iran-Contra"the secret and illegal selling of weapons to our sworn enemy, Iran, to then fund the Contras"was both a constitutional disaster and a foreign policy blunder about which we were asked to believe Reagan knew nothing. His administration was also thoroughly corrupt: Eight senior officials in his administration were indicted. Congress did not impeach him either and the voters elected his V.P. to the Office of President of the United States in 1989, President George H.W.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Fabrication, lying, cruel and counterproductive policies at home and abroad, bloating of the deficit, widening the gap between rich and poor: These are the Reagan legacy.


I ask you, does this sound familiar. Is it just George Bush who is at fault? There are still sitting Republican Congressmen who aided and abetted in these crimes. Democrats, we must unite behind one candidate now!!!!!!!!!!

[foreffectivegovernment]

Kristen:

You swiped my idea. Sad to say, you seem to be getting the same negative reaction I did.

Some comments are from known Republican thugs who just want to stir up things, but some are Democrats that appear to want all-or-nothing. Sounds suicidal to me.

[stephan1947]

As a Jew -- knowing full well that Iranianazis want a massive first-strike genocide against Eretz Yisroel -- then the only solution, the only preemptive diplomatic strike against Iran would be a Clinton/Obama unity defeat against the Republicanazis. I know this may sound trite, but I am quite serious: the present White House is littered with ideologues as dangerous as those in Iran (consider today's scene of Bush II cozying up to the Saudi governmental terrorist/racist 'royal family'). As a country of many peoples, we face incredible dangers, transcending the tiresome political battles now transpiring. I hope Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama read your words carefully.
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham

[politicoSwizzlestick]

This is not just a crazy idea, it is a hideously bad idea. You want to try and swing a bible or swing state with a woman AND a black man? America is not THAT progressive.

Additionally, this is an idea that pro-Hillary forces put out, but Hillary and Obama seem very resistant too. It is like a slowly approaching iceberg to them. Why? Because Hil Faithful don't understand that 50-60% of the hardcore dems and Indys don't want Hillary. Adding Obama to the ticket only lessens Obama's appeal. Hillary will still have a 40+% negative approval rating, but now you have reasons for another 5% or so of the voting population to vote against the Dems. Political suicide the level of replaceing a fire and brimstone go for the throat anti-war candidate --- the perfect anti-Bush candidate (Dean) with a soggy limp northern noodle.

If Hillary beats Obama, let it go. Bill will deliver the black vote. Hillary's optimal running mate is NM Governor Richardson. A latino VP is earthshattering enough to deliver the majority of Latino voters, but not divisive for less racially tolerant Americans.

Obama would likewise do far better with Edwards or Gen Wesley Clark than the lightning rod that is Hil Clinton.

Neither candidate should be saddled with the other. In fact, the DNC would be smart to stop lettign politically clueless Northerners drive the nomination process as well. While it makes perfect sense to let small states have the early primaries and a huge voice in giving candidates momentum ---as they really don't matter much in the final election --- have more southern representation in those small states. Let small(er) states Arkansas and Oklahoma move in prior to super duper tuesday and the DNC will see the rigid red and blue state election day divisions disappear. The North votes on Dem principles; the conservative leaning south can be swayed by Southern personalities.