Hillbama Rises: How Democrats Can Avoid Civil War and Prevent Defeat

Easter has come early for the Democrats. On Tuesday night the party witnessed a miracle worthy of the Gospels: the inexorable Hillary resurrected her campaign from the dead, ensuring a near-interminable battle with Obama that could raze both candidates' chances for victory in November. Is it possible for Democrats to prevent this impending apocalypse? Can we protect our candidates from themselves while letting the nomination process run its course?

To save the Democratic Party from imploding into self-defeating and self-destructive civil war, Hillary and Obama should immediately pledge to appoint the other as their running-mate if nominated. The remaining months of the Democratic race would then determine who tops its ticket without playing straight into baleful Republican hands. The party would secure a united front against its nascent Republican threat and both candidates would avoid unnecessary and self-immolating attacks that undermine their viability in a national campaign.

The majority of the Democratic electorate has spoken, yet neither Obama nor Hillary seems to comprehend: Democrats want them both. Contrary to the specious assertions spun by spinsters from both sides, neither candidate will secure a majority of delegates or votes to truly claim an exclusive victory over the other. Hillary's second comeback is, like her first, not an index of "buyer's remorse," but an expression of a base excited with and committed to both of its choices. Even if one candidate manages to marginally eke out a diminutive delegate advantage, the fight will rage on over superdelegates and the Gordian knot that is Michigan and Florida. When a compromise is eventually brokered in Denver, Hillary and Obama may very well be forced to join a dream-ticket anyway -- why then prolong the inevitable, alienating each other's support while risking defeat, when a secure bulwark can be established today?

It is by now a truth universally acknowledged that, given the power and loyalty of Obama's national grass roots organization, his appeal to independents, and his conceptual opposition to the Iraq miasma, a Hillary nomination needs Obama to heal the wounds of a divisive primary and to secure victory. The benefits of an Obama courtship for Hillary are too obvious to be repeated. The reverse argument -- that any potential Obama nomination will be dependent on Hillary -- is less universally acknowledged, but certainly as true. Hillary's own grassroots loyalty (reflected in her own record-breaking fundraising abilities) has been underestimated by the media. Given the loyalty of Latinos, working-class and elderly women, Catholics, and Asian-Americans to Hillary, Obama (if nominated) would be working overtime to secure these essential votes while simultaneously battling John McCain. Obama must recognize that Hillary's ability to rebound after 12 straight losses reflects the Democratic electorate's deep commitment to her candidacy. Obama has already publicly attributed historic voter turnout to the strengths of both candidates; it is doubtful that any other choice but Hillary for VP (including John Edwards) could generate as much enthusiasm or draw out as many voters. Hillary, like Obama, is an unusual admixture of star-power (though we already know she cannot outshine him), intelligence, and experience; it is unlikely Obama will find another VP with stronger appeal.

With Hillary as a running-mate, Obama could capitalize on her strengths -- her health care plan, her global reputation, her foreign policy and economic expertise -- while minimizing her liabilities. True, Obama has marketed himself as a new kind of anti-establishment politician, but by embracing Hillary, Obama can demonstrate his ability to work through the establishment on his own terms, reaffirming his claims as a new kind of politician. After mocking Obama's rhetoric, Hillary's conversion to Obamaism would be a powerful symbolic gesture marking the strength of his candidacy.

Hillary and Obama would both find tactical boons by teaming up for the rest of the primary: Hillary, who must push to seat Michigan and Florida for any chance at winning the nomination, would protect herself from long-term resentment by Obama loyalists who will undoubtedly charge her with sabotage, betrayal, and theft. Obama could oppose readmitting Michigan and Florida without risk of losing these states to Republicans in a general election.

A unity-ticket would mitigate the gender/race divide slowly eating away at the Democratic Party by ensuring a historic victory for both constituencies. The rest of the primary might finally transcend identity politics and revolve around the substantive fulcrum of leadership and judgment (if not policy). Once a unity ticket is declared, Blacks might feel more comfortable voting for Hillary; women for Obama. Both candidates would repair relationships with vital constituencies.

I take it for granted that an upstart with little national experience like Obama would accept an offer for running-mate if necessary; but would Hillary settle for the same? By joining an Obama ticket, Hillary could finally redeem her reputation, cut through the phenomenon of Hillary-hatred once and for all, and rescue her name from the calumnious jaws of the Right. Hilary would demonstrate that she is truly committed to the well-being of our nation and is willing to do whatever it takes to change this country. This would make her a more influential, respected, and powerful national figure -- a true agent of change -- and might even situate her more comfortably for 2016.

Comments

[DRHoen]

What about the white male voters? Going from all white male candidates from time immemorial to a ticket with none is too much. The ones who survive their coronary bypass will vote Republican.

[tbone99]

How about she gets M-W-F and summer vacations and He gets T-TH and holidays?

[Cephas]

This is going to be interesting since neither will get enough delegates until the super delegates chip in. They must, reach some agreement, either with expensive re-voting or proportionately allowing the MI and FL delegates be counted.

[standforpeace]

If I were Obama I would be looking for Edwards (or someone like him) to balance out the ticket. If Obama has got any sense, he is somewhere sitting down with Edwards right now making (I hope sincere) assurances on his commitment to fight for working and lower class Americans and discussing ways they can work together to win over those voters in Pennslyvania and beyond that in November.

[vanessa04]

Having just read all of these responses to this point, I find it interesting, and enlightening, that not one single pro-Obama poster has come out in favor of "unity". If fact, they have all loudly, virulently, and unequivocially rejected "unity". All the while professing their disdain of divisive partisan politics.

If this is how Obama's inspirational qualities manifest themselves in his supporters, I can't wait to see how he's going to unite the country.

[DRHoen]

Funny. It's more likely that Obama would accept veep than Hillary. How does that fit into your thinking? And if you blame leaders for the actions and attitudes of their fringe supporters, are you being fair and blaming Clinton for the people spreading rumors that Obama is a muslim? This would be even more justifiable, given her equivocation on "60 minutes".

[JakeEasy]

Good idea. Let's take it further. Both candidates agree to run on the same ticket. They will support each other and campaign together against McSame. But no campaigning against each other. No money spent on Hillary campaign or Barack campaign. Just let the primaries go on without all the calling and rallies and filled mail boxes. All that money goes to defeating John McSame. Whoever gets the most votes or the most delegates (an issue to be worked out) heads the ticket. The process gets to continue with everything except Democrats attacking Democrats.

[JakeEasy]

Oh No! Not by the Huff on my PoPoPo.

We can't get along with Hillary. We will unite the Jews and Muslims, the republicans and Democrats, the neocons and the yellow dogs, dogs and cats. We can cooperate and get along with everyone, but not with Hillary. We must crush the Hillary. We hates it. We hates it.

I think all this hate on the HuffPo must go back to some fancy ball several years ago. Hillary must have worn the same dress that Arianna did. Well. That started it all.

[ChezMJ]

Wisely said, Solomon. I concur.

[LiamSherborn]

It's a terrible idea!

VP's don't do anything except go to funerals and pray for the really big one.

I can see why she would want it as she has not increased her base by a single vote since this began. And she would most certainly lose a general election against McCain.

But why would Obama want to work with her? All you have to do is listen to both of them for about five minutes and count how often she says "I" versus how often he says "we" to get an idea of who is a team player and who is a total narcissist.

He just has to be patient and keep his cool. She played the negative card and now the press and everyone has open season on bringing up the Clinton's past. If you think his momentum was blunted, wait till you see what happens to her now.

[tbone99]

Many therapists recommend using "I " as taking responsibility and ownership of one's thoughts and action. and that using "we" is an attempt to avoid facing accountability.In fact assuming everyone thinks as you do (we) is highly narcissitic.

[ESerafina42]

I remember someone saying to me once that what they liked about Reagan was that he said "we" a lot. Big fat hairy deal, as Garfield says.

And if you think all the VP does is go to funerals, you've obviously been in a hole for the past 16 years. We don't need another Cheney, but Al Gore was already redefining the role in the 90's. Just because something "has always" been that way," doesn't mean it always has to be. Isn't that one of the points of Obama's candidacy?

And while I'd like to see Hillary at the top of the ticket, I actually do think she'd make a better VP candidate, at least. That is the person who's supposed to be the "attack dog" while the main candidate stays above the fray. Obama, like Lieberman and Edwards before him, is too "nice" for the role, though of course now we know that Lieberman probably agreed with Cheney on way too much.

[lovethesinner]

You ignore the fact that Hillary has already made it impossible for her to pick Obama as vice-president by repeatingly stating that he's unfit for office. The worst case was when she said that she and McCain had the experience, and Obama had a speech. (I guarantee you, the general election McCain ad using that soundbite is already in the can.)

This was perhaps the best testement to her monumental lack of judgement in closing off her best chance at winning the general election. (although, it's hard to beat having your campaign claim "Mission Accomplished" for months before you get trounced in the first primary, or, insulting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on MLK day, topping it off with your husband playing the race card as he's leaving South Carolina, or...)

It would also be foolish for Obama to be her running mate because he would only have to wait four to eight years to run again, and he would have a better chance at that point if he ran without being associated with Hillary's term.

But, the idea that Obama would pick Hillary is even more worthy of ridicule. Besides all the afformentioned affronts to his character, why would he want to carry all that baggage that comes with Bill and Hillary Clinton. He can't get rid of the attack ad that Hillary's already made for John McCain, but he can certainly separate himself from the "right-wing conspiracy" that lays in wait for her, as we speak.

Obama would do best to pick a running-mate that can best fullfil the requirements of the office, who exceeds criteria in areas that he is percieved to be weak in, and who draws support from an area that will win seats for congress down ticket, like: Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, Janet Napolitano, Claire McKaskill, Colin Powell (although, he's my pick for Sec. of Defense) or John Edwards, (here again, I'd rather he was our Attorney General).

Obama in '08

[westview]

Wow, unfit for office? She has said he is not experienced enough yet for office not unfit. A VP postition would put him in a position to gain experience and then be ready for a later run. As to the divide emerging between women and blacks, I have heard other women say they like him and would have been very willing to vote for him in a few more years after he established a real working record, but he is not ready now and Hillary is. I have heard a lot of African American voters say he is not really experienced enough too. The difference is the black voters say he is may not be ready but this is his/their only chance. Why? Because they think in a year where he would be up against a white male candidate in the primary races and possibly a strong republican he would not be able to win, either because of his race or inexperience. I don't think that is true but that is the current truism they are following.

[atp2007]

I agree with all your points about Hillary, but add that she has managed so insult the Demos of all the states that Obama won, using one whine after another. Either they were too small, or they had caucuses (like they haven't done it that way for ages!), or they allowed voting at the worksite, or the voting was at night and people who worked at night couldn't get off work, or they were states that usually voted republican or they had too many blacks and ot enouh Hispanics, yadda, yadda, yadda...all code words for 'they are dumb, they didn't vote for me'. The "Insult 40 state campaign" as one reporter called it. We won't forget come November, if she didn't think our votes counted for the Demo nomination, then we won't bother counting them for her agains McCain. The only Demo whose going to come out ahead this November is John Kerry as her lose will dwarf his in a year the Demos couldn't lose.

[ESerafina42]

Yeah, and the Obama supporters dismiss every state that she's won, so I guesss they're even. (whine)NH was stolen, in CA the ballots were screwy and messed it up, NY is the state she represents so it doesn't mean anything.Texas an Ohio, oh, she was just so MEAN to him and he didn't have time to fight back, and anyway, it was all the R's following Rush's instructions. Whine, whine, whine.

[lovethesinner]

",,, but by [Obama] embracing Hillary..."

These constant references to Mandingo are insulting.

Obama/ Webb, Napolitano, McKaskill, Gore, Richardson, Edwards, Powell, (yes, you read that right, Colin Powell) in '08

[hhkeller]

Obama is a great sound bite.
His platitudes about being clairvoyant and a MLK reincarnate are reassuring.

[jhamm1]

Sorry, but this proposal clearly isn't going to work, for the fact remains that, far from your assertion that "Democrats want them both", the respective Obama and Hillary camps would prefer one and not the other. Despite their agreements on domestic issues, the respective contrasts upon which each candidate seek to govern America's foreign policy could hardly be greater, thus eluding the prospect of reconcilliation.

[UNR]

Democrats were also clamoring for Kerry and Edwards to be on the same ticket, but that didn't work out so well did it?

[KiwisCanFly]

I actually like the calibre of people Obama has on his side, most were against the war, unlike Hillary's. Samantha Power is with Obama, I wouldn't want her to be replaced. What would happen? An amalgamation of the two groups and would there be a lot of interferance between the two groups. There is much to consider.

[parisblues]

It's hard to see what would be in it for Obama, since it seems fairly obvious that the REAL Vice-President in a Hillary Clinton administration would be...Bill Clinton.

Just ask Al Gore about what it's like to be treated like window dressing.