Lately I've been hearing things about a possible dream ticket. Three out of four democratic voters in a USA Today/Gallup poll support either Obama/Clinton '08 or Clinton/Obama '08.* I've heard it touted as a compromise, the answer to everything, and a necessary evil. Am I imagining things or is the chatter getting louder? I might be the odd man out here, but I don't like it. Here I will say why I believe it's a mistake. Say why a Clinton/Obama ticket ought never to happen, even if it does, and why an Obama/Clinton ticket will never happen, even if it should. I've been over on Real Clear Politics and found something on this topic by Susan Page of USA today.** Page lays out the case for a dream ticket and raises some objections in order to put them to bed. I am not quite satisfied; in my view, more needs to be said, hence this diary. Page starts out with this:
Growing alarm among some Democrats that the rancor could squander what had seemed like a near-certain win in November makes them yearn for a ticket with both Obama and Clinton, in either order. A nomination contest that continues to the August convention could split the party in two just as the general election begins in earnest.
She then quotes some of the alarmed she has interviewed, tells us the result of polling with regard to a dream ticket, then moves to this:
As resentments swell, the imperative for a joint ticket could overwhelm other factors that nominees customarily consider in choosing a running mate — including tapping someone with whom the nominee has good relations. In 1980, despite frosty feelings, Ronald Reagan put primary rival George H.W. Bush on the ticket in a pragmatic political move.
Then she quotes Bill Clinton on the dream ticket and reminds us of the outrage some felt when the Clinton camp floated the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket, before saying this:
The idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket has its own hurdles — for one, whether the 60-year-old New York senator would be willing to accept the secondary spot to a rival 14 years her junior. For another, what complications might arise for a new president in having a former president as the vice president's spouse. "You have to wonder," University of Pennsylvania political scientist Richard Johnston says.
Still, neither candidate has flatly rejected a joint ticket, even as Obama's campaign questions Clinton's honesty and the Clinton camp portrays Obama as unready. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe and top Clinton strategist Mark Penn both refused to discuss the issue, calling it premature.
Page then cites examples from political history of people setting aside their acrimony, for the good of the party. She doesn't have a cut and dried conclusion, but leaves it up in the air, presumably to provoke thought in her readers. And she certainly provoked some in me.
In my view, the main problem, for both candidates, would be loss of both personal and political credibility, and so much credibility that I don't see very many voters, once they sit down and think about it, ever forgiving them. It might seem like the best chance of both ending this nomination contest, and reunifying the party. If it were just a personality clash or a slight difference in policy, or even both, it might be workable. But it is much more than that.
A Clinton/Obama ticket. The idea of this man, who stands for deep change of all kinds including how we do politics in this country, teaming up with a woman who does the kind he doesn't believe in and who is too advanced in years and in habit to change in that way, is strange. Even if Hillary wanted to do a new kind of politics, I doubt she could. The real generation gap here, is a political generation gap. A dream ticket like this one would mean Obama teaming up with someone whose political life makes a mockery of what he says he believes in. It doesn't matter that a president and a vice president hardly ever work together; this isn't about whether they could get along over a desk or at the coffee machine, or on a joint project. This is about personal principle. His credibility with many of his supporters, would nosedive. And as a consequence he would lose respect. There would be, if a Clinton/Obama ticket happened this month, seven months of Obama flying about the country gathering support for Hillary (that's what the other half of the ticket does if that other half is second on the ticket) Close your eyes for a moment and try to imagine Obama at a rally, singing Hillary's praises, in his famous eloquence. Even though you know he's doing it for the sake of party unity, it's almost unimaginable. He could not recommend her to the voters without destroying most of what he's been saying for over a year. Forget the charge of throwing granny and the pastor under the train; he would be charged with, and in this case would be, throwing his whole platform under the train, and, in a sense, all those who believed in that platform.
It's no good citing examples from political history of cases where Jones ends up asking Smith to be on the ticket, even though they were tearing each other's throats out the week before, and for months before. None of those cited by Page are Obama. This isn't about rancor, bred by hard words against each other on the campaign trail, or about mere dislike, both of which seem to have been the case in the examples cited by Page. Obama boxed himself in, at the onset, by being the candidate of hope and change; the minute he started down that road, there was no way back. Options open to others would never again be open to him. He isn't just young and new and exciting, as a candidate; he is attempting to change the ethic itself. Obama wants to bring in a new dawn. He may or may not succeed; the point is that that, in essence, is his message.
Some questions. Given all that, how would he ever recover, politically, should he agree to be VP to Hillary? Would he not be thought of, for years, as the guy who sold out his very platform? If you say, "Of course not; he'd be thought of as the man who sacrificed everything for the party, for party unity." Yes. Everything. And since when did a party demand of its members that they abandon their personal principles? Their ethics? Isn't that when a person changes parties? When they are asked to go against their core beliefs? Against the very message they are bringing to the voters?
Then there's Bill. We need to consider Bill only if the case made above is weak. Suppose it is. (It isn't!) The idea that, should Hillary be president, Bill's going to spend all his time golfing, speaking, watching tv and merrily writing books, is silly. Suppose that it will either be a co-presidency or he will be Hillary's rottweiler. Possibly both. The man was there for eight years, but even if he'd never been there, his personality is so consuming that I see him bossing people around, wagging that finger, intimidating Hillary's staff. Take someone who has been the boss, in this case the president, add to that a natural bossiness, and there is trouble and plenty of it. This isn't the strongest argument against a dream ticket, by any means; it's not as if the VP has constant access to the president and is always knocking on the oval office door. (Here's Bill, arms folded across his chest, legs far apart, teeth bared, blocking the entrance.) But I suppose it needs to be mentioned, and Page does. It must be addressed, especially if, as some suspect, Bill is jealous of Obama with the kind of jealousy you find in an alpha male in a monkey tribe.***
An Obama/Clinton ticket. Frankly. I can't see Hillary ever agreeing to such a thing under any circumstances. Not because of what Page suggests: being under the command of someone fourteen years her junior. Nowadays, that kind of age difference in the working place, is not uncommon; and Hillary seems pragmatic enough to be able to adapt to something like that. It's more to do with Hillary herself. Her nature---or that much of her nature that you and I have observed---and human nature in the main. It is one thing to lose the inevitability of being the nominee (whether it ever was inevitable, doesn't matter, all that matters is that she believed it was). It is something else, having lost that, to play second fiddle to the man who took it away. It would be humiliating. Beyond humiliating, I should think. And here we cannot say that she would endure the humiliation for the sake of the party. Why not? Some would answer, "What has she done lately, or ever, to suggest that the good of the party is her chief concern?" Some say she has never been devoted to the party. I myself, given some things she has done lately---crying up McCain and raining scorn on Obama---classify her as a rogue democrat. A political loner, in a sense. The loudest of the railings against her that I have heard from democrats, is that she doesn't care about the party. Suppose that's true. Then she would never face four years of humiliation, possibly eight, for party unity, would she?
There is more. How would it look if Hillary, who boiled Obama's experience down to a speech he made in 2002, went on the dream ticket as VP? It was bad enough when Bill suggested that Obama join a ticket as VP, seeing as how his experience was a single speech. A VP has to be ready---on day one!---in case the president drops dead or falls ill. But for Hillary to be VP to this ever so inexperienced person, would make the voter wonder if she is imbalanced in some way. Or she would be the laughing stock of this country and possibly the world: how the devil could she be VP to a man she claims isn't even ready to be president? That is, how could she, and retain even a crumb of her credibility?
Here's something, though. It's conceivable that Obama could be part of a dream ticket if he were first on the ticket, without facing those questions raised above with regard to selling out his principles. As top dog, he could say that he hopes to convert Hillary to his new kind of politics---and, even if he fails, he won't be in a subordinate position and therefore she won't be able to force her old kind of politics on him. He wouldn't, on an Obama/Clinton ticket, have to tow the line and, in doing so, sacrifice the platform that has brought him to where he is at present: beloved of the people.
Conceivable, but again, I can't see Hillary accepting this ticket. She is a Clinton, and Clintons don't do second fiddle, or humiliation, or four, possibly eight, years in an innocuous post---let's be honest, VP, in comparison to other jobs, is innocuous--- under the man who not only stomped all over the inevitability thing but who managed to win the adoration of millions, in the process. It would be too much to ask of anyone, let alone Hillary. Let alone Bill and Hillary!
I might seem idealistic to some. I know about expediency and practicality and compromise. And I'd be all right with all three, were Obama just another candidate. But he has presented himself to the voter as unique, his message makes him that. That's why I said he boxed himself in. He can't do what your average candidate can do, without weakening his message and even destroying it. If he dissembles, compromises too much, he will either be charged with being a pretender in the first place, which will ruin him, or he'll be charged with tossing principles he truly has, in the bin, on his way to powersharing with Hillary, which will ruin him. The only way he can avoid this bear trap is to stay true to himself. I hope he will. For power at any price is like peace at any price. Everything of value, goes.
*****************************
* Democrats Want The Dream Team
http://www.news.com.au/...
** Worried Democrats Wish For 'Dream Team Ticket' http://www.usatoday.com/...
*** A couple of months ago a political analyst on CNN said that Bill Clinton was the political alpha male and that he might be jealous of Obama's eloquence as a speaker, that Bill still thinks of that as his 'territory' and Obama was moving in. I didn't get the woman's name.