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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In my opinion, this is the Dream Ticket:
Hillary/Obama
Obama/Hillary
Either way.
Clinton-Obama?
Sounds good to me!
I have thought Clinton-Obama was the strongest ticket for months. I worry about a sustained US military presence in Iraq if Clinton were to get the top spot. The cost of the idiotic adventure is putting national security at risk.
Interesting that you never mention an Obama/Clinton ticket? Hmm.
Your scenario will never happen. HRC hates Obama and would never peg him as her second in command - and we know she would never willingly accept the second slot.
Yeah, that'll happen. Actually, I think either one of them would rather chew their own leg off.
Nice way to think Kristen. Now duck as the Obama supporters start attacking. It's not about the country or the world. It's about ego and blind worship of the latest hot thing. Obama is actually a much better person than his supporters will let him be. Being the political Paris Hilton is a heavy burden.
Because you suggest an alternative to Elvis as president, you will now be condemned as an apostate.
Did I mention I would not vote for the old dog and pony show called HillBilly Clintons? I'll pull the Republicans lever. Let the damn boat sink. That will be the new world order, one stinking sinking boat.
Does anyone remember that scene in Braveheart? Where the Scots are asked by the British to put down their weapons and make peace. I think we all know how that turned out.
You seem to be blaming the candidates, when it is the system that is broken. The negative climate in which the candidates must operate insures that they will be manipulated into ridiculous combat with each other.
1) The election takes too long. The media and the GOP pundits have nothing to do all year but raise hell to keep people glued to the tv. The so-called news people are nothing but ticket sellers.
2) No election reform happened because the GOP blocked it. So the media has an obscene money machine and the candidates have to raise all kinds of loot to feed it. They are tired and on the edge if financial ruin every 15 minutes.
3)Partisans care more money and power than the United States of America, and they exploit, spin, and create red herrings to confuse and manipulate people. This is nothing more than a Roman Gladiator Circus. This is on par with the WWW or the Jerry Springer Show.
If you want the candidates to be nicer to each other, we ought to be nicer to them.
There is no way in hell I'm going to vote for Clinton. It ain't gonna happen.
I have to live with this suggestion before I endorse it, but it is certainly food for thought.
My congrats to Arianna for having so many positive/neutral articles on Hillary today.
A few things wrong with your theory. The both deeply despise one another. Neither in a million years would ever kowtow to the other. Kerry endorsed BO for one reason and one reason only. To exploit his inexperience, incompetence and ignorance in order to become
the next VP-C. Just as everyone else is jumping on the exact same bandwagon. They will
put Bush's cronyism to shame when all is said and done. Like W, Barrak doesn't have a clue
and needs to surround himself with people that do. All he wants is the limelight, constant
hand waving always knowing exactly where the camera'a are just like Bush. Secondly, in my personal opinion HRC will chose Joe Biden as her VP. This solidifies her being the best suited candidate with the most experience for the job. Lastly, not only did the democratic party put the entire Country at risk allowing these two to run they've put the democratic party at risk as well. The odds are not favorable American is ready to elect an African American and or a female president. Putting the two together would be double jeopardy. The only reason why either have a chance is because the republican party is so weak, at the moment. It has always been my believe they should've let Kerry run, supported him, been in his cabinet and then moved into office after both having proved themselves to all. You would never see anyone ever question Condi Rice for being female AND black after all her accomplishments.
"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."
Precisely the reason to distrust Hillary and to discard your "can't we all just get along" speech as wildly impractical.
This is no longer the type of conflict where one can simply set aside our differences, particularly for those of us like myself who perceive Hillary Clinton, in terms of foreign policy issues, as every bit as Republican as the Republicans themselves.
"Obama as VP to Hillary clinton", eh? Hmmm...doe
I say, "Let the animosity continue!"
Have you learned nothing from your experience with Washington politics as usual that you would support two candidates that are the choice of so many corporate Washington politicians and lobbyists?
Sad.
Obama should never hitch his wagon to Hillary's "star." It will doom him. Besides, he has said there is no point in running for second place. I don't blame him. I don't see him wanting to sit by for 4 or 8 years and have to deal with all of the crap that's going to come Hillary's way if she became president. Then, he'd have HER baggage if he ever wanted to run again. And I have to agree with the poster that wondered if Hillary would ever be OBAMA'S VP??? Why is the assumption that he won't win???
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
