In recent weeks, both candidates for the Democratic nomination have waded deeper and deeper into their war of words, and so have their supporters. But while the rank and file jump to conclusions: "Hillary is supporting McCain" and "She's sabotaging the party" and "Why won't [insert Democrat] stop this?", both candidates have chosen their attacks and assertions very carefully (as you'll see below the break).
So while you're slinging invective at the candidate and his or her supporters, keep something in mind: no matter what's said between now and Pennsylvania, you will vote for Hillary Clinton this November.
Words are important. While bloggers can get angry at one candidate or the other and go nuclear, mentioning obscure filing scandals and absent votes and blowing them up as a big deal, politicians have to be more careful with what they say - even when taking a stand on an issue, they leave themselves open to adjust to new political realities. Listening to Obama and the Clinton's rhetoric over the last couple weeks has convinced me there will be a joint ticket this year.
But it's not the joint ticket everyone's talking about. Follow me.
Here's the former President speaking on Senator Clinton's behalf a while back:
I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat.
And now look at this - Hillary herself is asked about a split ticket:
That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.
Which is a nice assertion to make, but it's been shown over and over again that the math just isn't there for a clean presidential win. Short of Obama being caught with a live boy or a dead girl, he'll have the lead in pledged delegates in Denver. Most of the people at DKos went into an uproar when hearing this news - she's gonna kneecap Obama and have the nerve to make him take a VP slot?
Take a look at the exact words of Obama's original response:
I respect Sen. Clinton. She has been a tenacious opponent. It is premature to talk about a joint ticket.
Keep in mind that he is (gasp!) a politician, and what he doesn't say is just as important as what he does say. Obama, as the members of this site are fond of pointing out, is winning. But he has to hedge between not supporting the idea of a joint ticket (because he doesn't want to lock himself into having her on the ticket or seem amicable to running as VP which could only give her more leverage), and categorically denying the joint ticket concept (because he can still be forced into it behind closed doors if the race is close).
See? There's a difference between rejecting and denouncing after all.
Now, many people pointed out (and rightly so) that this statement didn't rule out Obama riding the bottom of the ticket, and so:
You won't see me as a Vice Presidential candidate. I am running for President.
We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count. What I am really focused on is right now (because all that stuff is premature) is winning this nomination and changing the country, and I think that's what people here are concerned about.
Now, Obama's ruled out being Vice-President, but hasn't said no to a joint ticket. Both of the Clinton's have been throwing the joint idea around, I haven't heard that famous catchphrase of "not running for Vice President" from either of them, and Hillary hasn't rejected the idea of a Vice Presidential run (although plenty of people have made the unfounded assumption that she's too arrogant to accept that role). This is not a very complicated jigsaw puzzle to piece together.
She's running for second place.
Ah, but Hillary has said terrible, mean things about Barack Obama since Wisconsin! How could he ever stomach her on his ticket? How could she stomach him? With that in mind, look at those little gems:
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.
These quotes have been the subject of countless "I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CLINTON" diaries, but if the Clinton school of politics has taught us anything, it's that the ability to parse worse is essential (especially when you're trying to worm your way out of the definition of "is"). She never said McCain was a better choice for president, she merely said he'd "crossed the threshold" and was qualified for the office. That's not a wild assertion. In fact, she never went so far as to say Obama wasn't qualified for the office, she just said "you'll have to ask" him, which allows her to later say she merely "raised the question" later on. Doesn't it seem odd that someone who poo-poos the whole "power of words" thing veers off course in the middle of that sentence? Every word was carefully crafted to allow her to do the maximum damage possible now and give her the maximum ability to backtrack later.
Once she becomes the VP nominee, she's gonna get really effusive about Candidate Obama in very direct terms, and the impact of the primary fights will be negligible. In fact, if Romney or Huckabee is McCain's running mate, the issue will be off the table entirely. More importantly, McCain does not want to air or mention the appearance of Hillary Clinton's support for him as an attack and/or have the liberal credentials mentioned by his own primary opponents brought up as a rebuttal. Obama has the "experienced as Bill was" counter-meme. McCain has... his own record, which isn't great. It's a lose-lose argument.
Clinton's attacks on Obama have all been carrot and stick stuff. Given the VP nod, she'll go out every day on every TV show and stump, emphasize that Obama IS ready to hold the office, and those nasty quotes will go away. But made to go home, she and her surrogates will say nothing and let them hang in the air while Obama tries to win those disaffected voters. I don't think the Clinton campaign's goal has been to kneecap the frontrunner, get the vote overturned, and cripple her own chances of winning, so much as it is to make herself indispensable to the ticket. When you view her actions with the idea that she's instead trying to win the Presidential nomination, it leads to crazy, illogical ideas.
She's not going to run with McCain. It's silly for a million reasons, mostly that they'd alienate their own bases. Why would Republicans elect a senior citizen that could, to be cruelly blunt, die at any time during his presidency, with a liberal Democrat waiting in the wings who promises to "surrender" in Iraq given the chance? And why would Democrats vote for someone who abandoned their party and authorized war with Iran? Throw in the third party that would inevitably spring off in rebellion against McCain, and even an Obama / Ahmadinejad ticket could sweep in November.
Nor does she want to taste ash and failure in her mouth for four years and try her luck next time against an incumbent president during an inevitable war. This idea is madness borne of wild conspiracy theories. She's been in the Senate long enough to know the damage four years can do to a country. As far as her own career's concerned, the calculation she's making isn't "no power now against more power later", it's "some power now against more power later". If the math can't make her President, she'll fight for heir apparent - and the DNC is likely to give it to her.
Do you really think they'll take Hillary to the side and say: "Hey, you're practically undefeated against the right wing these last fifteen years, have broken fundraising records records, are hugely popular with Latinos and seniors (you know... that big haven of McCain support our frontrunner is having trouble with), you might have more popular votes, and are actually more popular with the base (not to mention how much you've energized women and could completely neutralize that pesky "security mom" voting bloc from the last go-round), but uh... you did a really mean commercial, so go home with nothing or we'll primary you"?
Equally, do you really think the SD's are going to take Obama to the side and say: "Well, we know you've broken fundraising records, have more delegates, give us a real chance to win in red states, help us down the ticket in ways Hillary never could, and you've probably got more popular votes, but... Hillary won California and it's her turn. Kindly go outside and tell those pissed off people to go home and vote for her"?
Of course not. This is not a political party of bold wills and iron absolutists, these are Democrats. We don't kick losers in the teeth and tell them to go to hell, we pat them on the back, give them crackers and a box of Juicy Juice and let 'em have another crack at it. Compromise between coalitions is practically the core tenet of liberalism! If this party didn't think almost merited one for consideration, there'd be a winner take all delegate system anyway, and Hillary would already be the nominee. She might rally conservatives against her, but considering the blocs that could be turned off by her absence at this stage, it may be a fair trade.
There's an almost perfect demographic overlap between these two. They can't win without the support of each other's core constituents, so there's little point in reaching out to a demographically correct choice - a governor of a swing state / a woman / an African-American / a progressive/ a moderate / a veteran (although honestly, if John Kerry at the top of your ticket doesn't rebut "weak on security" attacks, there's nothing that suggests Jim Webb at the bottom of the ticket would either). With a primary at this scale, I don't think Dems have the luxury of picking a state they'd like to swing with a hometown guy or girl. That logic's out the window. And thinking nationally, there's not a choice much better than this. The people supporting Obama aren't crazy cultists, and the people supporting Hillary are not inbred high-school dropouts. As much as both parties have been demonized, they both have a very enthusiastic and credible base of support, neither of which are guaranteed to the survivor.
Did I mention the media's pending infatuation with this ticket? When the pick a catchphrase, they are loathe to abandon it, even in the face of all facts and reason - we'll likely be hearing the phrase "Dream Ticket" from here to November. It'll suck the air out of whoever McCain picks in terms of starpower and story potential. Are they getting along? What's going on behind the scenes? Will Bill have a role in the campaign?
(No, he won't.)
Whether you love or hate those kinds of trivialities, they command more airtime than Clinton/Bayh or Obama/McCaskill does, that's for sure.
It's because Obama isn't tied to one or two specific issues that would make him a completely ineffective Vice Presidential candidate anyway. His entire stump speech centers on a transformative approach to politics and personal involvement in the process. Regardless of your feelings about either candidate, that speech is almost impossible to end with a pitch for Hillary Clinton as President. With Obama at the top of the ticket, he can go to his donors and claim a victory for grassroots, 50-state campaigning over Hillary's top-down method. Between that claim of victory and the clear implication that she'll be taking orders from him in the campaign and the White House, even the most die-hard Hillary-hater will grit their teeth and let it ride in order to put their man in the Oval Office.
She, on the other hand, has built a campaign based around political effectiveness and her ability to get legislation passed and put into action. How fortunate that, with the exception of health care and Iran/Iraq, she and Obama share almost the same set of issues and concerns. Her stump speech is no way harmed as Obama's #2. If she tells her supporters that if they put her in the White House, she'll continue to "get things done" on a national level... well, who says no to that?
Obama will promise to keep Hillary on a leash, Hillary will promise to keep the president's jammies clean while she gets bills passed, in that subtle, saying it but not really saying it way politicians are so great at. And after eight months of your guy/girl fighting arm in arm against the very, very mean things that will be said about them this summer, that silly little 3AM ad is gonna be a distant memory of a fonder time. Come November, when you're staring down the barrel of four more years of corruption, war, poverty, and plenty more unforeseen foulups, you won't have to hold your nose when you march into the ballot box.
You will vote for Hillary Clinton.
And you will like it.