After the completely useless results of Super Tuesday: Redux (ok, Hillary gained about 30 delegates, but seriously...), Sen. Clinton suddenly responded to a [presumptively blindsiding] reporter's request for a Clinton / Obama or Obama / Clinton "dream ticket."
I know this has been beaten into the ground, and the candidates (well, Hillary at least) have been consistently denying or affirming the idea of his or her opponent as potential running mate. Rather like Eddie Izzard singing the U.S. National Anthem.
Senator Clinton said "that may be where this is headed . . . but of course we have to decide who is on the top of this ticket."
So Hillary's open to the idea (again), after the Ohio and Texas wins proved only symbolic of the fact that Obama is not the avalanche we may have hoped for. Mudslinging aside, it's clear that the American People are pretty much split down the middle on who should get the Democratic Nomination. But where Republicans were fractured on which issues should dominate the next presidency (ironically, John McCain is clearly the dead center of the Big Red Bullseye), the Democrats have been nit-picking about the little stuff. What you really have is a race of Clinton's experience versus Obama's idealism. And hey, don't we want both?
I still don't trust Mrs. Senator Rodham-Clinton, Esq. She strikes me as a person whose ambition overrides her considerations for what is best for the nation. Her recent campaign tactics have shown a stance I believe she has held for years: if it's not my way, it's the wrong way. I question whether Hillary is more interested in the best needs of the American People than she is in the best needs of Hillary Clinton and her immediate constituency. See New York City versus New York State...
Conversely, I have no great confidence that Barack Obama can a) handle the kind of shit that is bound to come flying off of the Soon-to-be Former President Bush's proverbial fan, and b) that he can withstand the kind of fear-mongering and hatred that is sure to come screaming out of the McCampaign (complete with denials and repudiations) about his race, ethnicity, religious background, and poor choice of traditional dress. It doesn't matter that the RNC disavows any accusations that Barack Obama is a Muslim Terrorist in disguise. It will be all over the place if he gets the nomination, and, sad as I am to admit it, the American People have bought, are buying, and will continue to buy these pathetic assertions. I guess guys named Adolf don't have much of a future in politics either.
Yes, the average American voter can be that thick. See Swiftboat (which, to some degree, I bought).
The truth is that the left-of-center voting pool is out in force in a way that they never have been in my lifetime. These are the voters that generally take whatever is handed to them; those who are disenfranchised by the system as a whole, who couldn't see Kerry or Gore as any better than Bush, those who, until the last few months, seemed not to give a damn. I say those when I should say we, as I am certainly part of that demographic.
What does this group want? The results of the primaries say that we want something other than the Republican Party. The statistical tie says that we want both Clinton's experience and Obama's idealism. Could we get the kind of change we want if we had these two different perspectives working together? Isn't that what we really want?
There has been some severe bloodletting on both sides, but in truth, experience versus change is the real, driving factor of this primary season. Two things we want, represented by two opposing sides. One of my law professors calls this the "puppies are better than kittens" theory of persuasive argument. Both are good, which do we want more?
Or can we have our cake and eat it too?
As much as I prefer Obama on the sheer basis that I strongly dislike Senator Clinton (her recent campaign tactics have only emboldened that notion), I must conceded that, given how well we know both candidates, the combination of the two, with their joint policy platforms, is going to appeal to every single democratic voter in the primary. It's hard to imagine that, were there a "dream" ticket, any democratic voter would be considering McCain or Ralph Nader as an alternative.
The math is pretty telling. Democrat voters have come out in force in the primary season, putting the Republican party to statistical shame. Combine Obama's primary votes with Clinton's, and you're already looking at close to the number of votes either candidate received in the 2000 and 2004 general elections. And more vote in the general than in the primary elections.
Hillary wants the Democratic party to take control of the White House while Congress is still dangling slightly to the left. An policy reforms that are going to happen have to happen before November 2010. Obama wants to begin uniting both sides of the aisle in the hopes of promoting real progress in the nation instead of short-term, administration based goals that get trashed by the next executive. Both of their platforms are better for the Dems; the notion of a government that functions for the better of the nation instead of for the better of the party is clearly good for anyone. No, really.
If both camps end up getting what they want (potentially for 16 years, assuming they don't completely screw up the nation*), how can we possibly go wrong? As unseemly as this campaign has become, it's the best of all possible worlds, especially where people are starting to be worried that extending this adversarial campaign between two favorable platforms is hurting the Democrats' chances against the now unified McCain Republican Express. If we keep splintering on the left, the newly un-fractured right will come out on top. So join up, unify the fronts, and give us the numerical advantage we need.
A caveat to Mrs. Clinton: Her entertaining the notion of Obama (or herself) as VP may be a subtle way to swing a couple of those unsure remaining primary and superdelegate voters her way. If it works, bully for her, but keep in mind that a failure to put the rock star junior Senator on her ticket would be a betrayal to those who prefer but are unsure about a President Obama. And then we're back to the whole split party concept. If you say it, you'd better mean it.
My suggestion to Mr. Obama: you might start suggesting the same thing.
*Jury's still out.
-Ian Richetti
(Ian Richetti's blog is called Gratuitous Musings)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment