Give Us the Dream Ticket, Barack

I am going to do another Democratic veep post. I'm sorry. The political junkie in me cannot help it. Today, I had a spirited e-mail discussion with a couple of friends Eric and Eli, and because there has been increased chatter on the Hillary-for-veep issue and I have been thinking about it all day, I wanted to make a short post on Hillary and the veepstakes. In fact, I will also paste up some of our exchange.

As I have noted in passing several times here, I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. While I was pretty bitter in the aftermath of Clinton's defeat, I have always been intent on voting for Senator Barack Obama in November. I still am. But up to this week, I have never entertained thoughts of there being a so-called "united" or "dream" ticket for a simple reason: the hatred between the candidates, and more broadly, the campaigns, is likely to still be very present, and as result, Obama's interest or willingness towards tapping Clinton as his running mate is probably non-existent.

As the veepstakes speculation has been churning furiously in the media -- as well as here in numerous posts -- I have changed my mind. I now feel differently, particularly with McCain going on the offensive in recent weeks. The polls have absolutely tightened, and, at least right now, McCain has all of the momentum and Obama is sputtering. This is unbeatable in my mind.

I am not panicking, nor I am overly nervous, though I am concerned. Perhaps most saliently, a core of the Democratic base is siding either with McCain or on the sidelines. This is untenable, and without your base, you cannot win an election. Obama needs to be bold, and he needs to show true leadership in picking his running mate to fix these problems.

Senator Obama should take Hillary Clinton for his Vice President.

I know, I know. It appears that I am being reactionary, that I am panicking in the face of some momentary polls, and worst of all, that I am making this contention because of my bias, bitterness, and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. That is a fair way to look at this just-espoused viewpoint, and maybe it is not entirely wrong. No matter. It is exactly how I feel. And I feel very strongly about it.

Generally, as just about every one of my posts plainly shows, I like to write out all of my thoughts on something in good detail. There's no question, as all my friends tell me, I write too much. Taking this in mind just this once, I am going to paste some of the e-mails my friends and I exchanged today on the Hillary-for-veep issue, because I think they speak for themselves and well speak for what I feel on the matter and why I think Obama needs to pick Hillary Clinton.

Because there were a lot of e-mails, I have done a couple things. First, I have deleted my friends' last names and e-mails for obvious reasons. I have not, however, really edited the comments. All grammar mistakes and misspellings are there in all their glory. Second, I have not included every e-mail, just the ones that get the point(s) across, as want to keep this post short. I think the e-mails pasted below speak for themselves, and more importantly for my views. If you are really strapped for time, just scroll down to the next-to-last e-mail, as I think it most captures what I would like to say here.


The exchange

From Eli
To Mark; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Subject: Dream ticket

Just curious what you make of the theory that since Obama has blown his lead and one in two Clinton supporters are not backing him and one in five Clinton supporters are even backing McCain, then he should pick Hillary as veep.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Mark
To Eli; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

Well, Eric strongly disagrees with me here and thinks I am a biased Clinton supporter, but I think that he absolutely should take her. There are several good reasons for this. With all the veep buildup, a name like Kaine is never going to live up to the hype. Picking Clinton would be enormous. It would dominate the news for weeks and McCain would cease to exist on TV. I really believe he would be up 10 within a week of taking her. Second, while you get all the baggage, you get two for the price of one: both Hillary and Bill as 24/7 campaign surrogates, and there is basically no one who could get the pub or has the credibility of either one of them. It would be a smart move. And yes, I know Bill is angry and does not like Obama BUT should HRC be on the ticket, that all goes away because now Bill has an incentive to work hard to get his wife elected, and he would do so.

He won't do it though. Not only that, I don't think he has even considered for an instant. But you can't tell me that would not scoop up a lot of chagrined women who are irritated (and especially if McCain shrewdly went with a woman (read Palin)), but Obama picked a running mate who finished 10th in the primaries before the one who finished second.

Again, I agree with Eric that in the end the veep does little, and maybe this is how it should be. But Hillary would do a LOT. Unless Obama thinks he has it in the bag, he should do it. One thing I will concede is that picking Billary would be harmful on downticket races. If you're Bobby Bright running in rural Alabama for Congress, McCain and every GOPer in America is going to call the pairing the "most liberal ticket in history", and it might stick. That would be problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket

I never thought I'd say this but the more I think about it, I like the HRC idea. In my mind, she virtually guarantees an Obama victory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eric
To Eli; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

Eli, when you say things like she "guarantees" an Obama victory, well, I'm just speechless.

It's not neat and linear. It's not like Obama + HRC = victory where HRC is an obvious net positive. She's just not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket

I acknowledge that there are some ENORMOUS potential downsides, but they are drastically outweighed by the ENORMOUS GIGANTIC GINORMOUS plus-sides that I believe would assure an Obama victory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

I acknowledge there are some very significant upsides to picking HRC, all of which you have mentioned. But for you to say that there are no downsides shows how blind you are to reality. I actually don't hate HRC or the Clintons. If I thought they could help Obama win, I would gladly endorse him picking her. And as I mentioned I think she would very effectively deliver the crushing blows to McCain that he so richly deserves but has thus far failed to receive, and I would relish that.

But Mark, you are letting your personal warm feelings for the Clintons trump your judgement. It's obvious. You're still bitter.

1. Who has Bill been sleeping with?

2. Not all media is good media. Just because it would generate huge coverage doesn't mean it would all be positive. Many in the media and in the public despise the Clintons and would immediately turn to McCain.

3. Who has Bill been sleeping with?

4. How does Obama credibly continue to assert himself as the change candidate -- his campaign's NUMBER ONE theme -- with a Clinton on the ticket? How can he honestly make that argument with a straight face? You know he can't.

5. How does Obama keep Bill disciplined on the stump? And combat arguments that he will keep him disciplined as the Veep's husband?

6. What does a Clinton on the ticket do to the energy and enthusiasm there is out there for Obama? Call that enthusiasm and energy naive -- I wouldn't necessarily disagree -- but it would damage it badly.

7. Who has Bill been sleeping with?

Mark, answer these questions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke. The guy is one of the best ever on the stump. If your worry is people mouthing off, then cross off Biden off the list and maybe Kaine too. For crying out loud, you are pulling at straws there.

And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary? Since the media loved Hillary so much, there's just no way they would have sat on that story, right?

And in terms of Obama's narrative -- what narrative? Right now he is being defined as the elitist. That change argument has basically disappeared over the last month. Does Obama want to show that he is able to govern from day one? If so, how does Tim Kaine or even Even Bayh fix that? Answer: not very much. And in terms of Biden, how does it help a change candidate to pick a man who has been in Congress for 36 years? Is that change? The point being that every single nominee has perils. But Barack can pivot and take Hillary and still run on change. Only an orator as talented as Barack can do that, and he can do it saying that it was time to unite the Party and America by taking his runner-up (and one-time bitter enemy) in the primary.

The positives outweigh the negatives. Realize now that we are sitting here debating which boring second-rate white guy Obama should take, when has a huge option sitting right there. And calling me bitter is foolish: I am going to vote for the guy. I am not the problem. The fact that you think Obama loyalists will be pissed is laughable. Let the huge liberal loyalists complain for a couple of days -- in the end they will vote for him and work for him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

"And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary?"

John Edwards was able to cover-up his little shenanigans for the duration of the primaries. Nobody in their right mind believes Billdoes not have his own transgressions since he left office. All it would take is one of them -- just ONE -- to become public, and therace is over.

"The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke."

I will spare us all from revisiting a litany of quotes from Bill on the stump during the primaries. Since his surgery, and since he begancampaigning on behalf of his wife and not himself, he has become partially unhinged, if not totally unhinged. Your failure toacknowledge this is a blindness to reality.

I will concede your points on the change narrative. What it comes down to is a cost/benefit analysis of the risks of each Veep. I think that given Obama is, at worst, even in the polls with McCain, an HRC pick, while it brings with it some huge benefits, is sufficiently risky that Obama should not pick her. You are too jittery about the polls. One of the things I truly love about Obama is his even-keeled temperament. Not only do I think it makes him a better candidate, more importantly I think it will make him a much better president once he wins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

What this debate comes down is a simple premise: you believe that while Hillary would bring great benefits, given the closeness of the race, she would bring too much potential baggage which could sink Obama, and that more importantly, Obama can win on his own.

I believe that the positives would heavily outweigh the negatives, that she is head-and-shoulders a more valuable potential pick than anyone else out there, and that given the closeness of the race Obama needs some more energy and way to shore up his base but good.

Let me concede three points to you, all of them important.

One, the Bill affair issue, I concur, is enormous, and if it got out late, it could deal incalculable damage. Great point. I cannot really defend this, and I agree that sadly, it is out there.

Two, Obama could pick a Biden, Bayh, Kaine et al., and still win. In fact, there is a good shot of this. A veep pick, in the end, really does not nor should not really matter. Here, it could do harm while with the others the potential for actually doing harm is much lower.

Three, one big drawback is that an Obama-Clinton ticket would really hurt downballot candidates -- Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Gary Trauner in Wyoming and other Dems who have a great shot to win GOP seats -- by being labeled the "most liberal ticket in history" and thereby turning off conservative voters who might have considered voting for Dems downballot.

All three are huge concerns, I agree. On the flip side, you should agree that:

One, a big segment of the base is unhappy. Let's not whine about why this is so, or that these people who are upset are being bitter or illogical. Let's instead look for a solution. Only one candidate would be assured of uniting the base. This is clear. And the argument that ultra liberals would be pissed holds no water with me. They've all been invested in Obama like he is their son for the last year. These voters ain't flipping. In fact, I would contend that some of them, while still not loving HRC, have softened their hard stances of a few months ago. Some prominent blogs over the last couple days prove this.

Two, this campaign is getting pummeled right now. Maybe it is something that will dissipate as we move forward, but right now we need an infusion of energy. Badly.

Three, Obama is not an adept attack dog. That's fine, he is a talented orator. But I fear Obama is not skilled enough, or really nasty enough to go on the offensive. There is no better attack dog -- that also has vital credibility -- than Hillary. Plus, as I keep saying, we get Bill, and here is where Bill's talents matter when we can dispatch him across rural America. Someone like Tim Pawlenty or Joe Lieberman can't hold a candle to that tandem. On this albeit narrow, but major issue, Billary's positives outweigh the potential negatives.

So we both have good points. I guess the bottom line is that the option of Hillary should definitely not have been pushed aside as quickly as it was. And it would say a LOT about Obama that he was willing to swallow his own ego to take Hillary. A heckuva lot. Am I wrong?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I completely agree with absolutely every word of this email.

This was a dialectic ancient Greece would have been proud of.

END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------END

Closing thoughts

Ok, I admit I added the last one to give myself a pat on the back. I too was pleased with what I perceived to be the clarity and succinctness of my key argument e-mail. I think I may have swayed Eli a little, I do not think I convinced Eric; I just think he agreed with how I stated our two stances on the issue.

In all seriousness, though, I stand by strongly what I argued. Do I think it will happen? Well, I believe that regular readers here know that I am a glass-90 percent-empty kind of guy, so the answer to that is "no". I simply believe that right or wrong, Obama, and of equal importance, his inner circle has never seriously considered the HRC-veep option out of anger, sore winnerness (I just made up a word, sorry), pride, ego, a belief that it is too risky, a feeling that the veep should never "do wrong", and a fear of what Bill might do or what he has done already that might come out and sink both halves of an Obama-Clinton ticket as well as Democrats' chances to win.

What makes this unfortunate is that I am certain that Obama's top advisors -- Axelrod, Plouffe, Holder, Michelle -- share his views and dislike of the Clintons. And I don't completely blame them! The primary was intensely vicious, nasty, and draining. It is understandable they would feel this way, even today. Consequently, if Obama does not want to tap Clinton, and everyone who communicates with him on an hourly basis at the top of his inner circle repeatedly echoes his views, when is he ever going to hear the merits of tapping Hillary? When you are surrounded by yes-men (and I do not mean this in a pejorative sense, but merely to state what it means on its face), your views on a topic will not change.

For these reasons, I view the chances of Obama-Clinton at being no better than zero to ten percent at the absolute highest. But if Obama wants to infuse energy into his campaign, if he wants the two best political prizefighters and bulldogs of the last 50 years on his side tearing into his opponent, if he wants to guarantee his base, and if he wants to win, he should pick Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a risk, but is is a risk that should be taken.

I concede completely that if Bill has engaged in or is engaging in "extracurricular activities" and they get out over the course of the general campaign, it could single-handedly destroy the ticket and elect John McCain. That is a terrifying prospect. In terms of hurting the downballot House and Senate campaigns being waged in places like Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, and elsewhere, Obama-Clinton would not be helpful, but it also would not be fatal in my humble opinion. Furthermore, it certainly would not be a deal-breaker in the vast majority of close races, even those in red-leaning states and districts. So, I think that the positives do outweight the negatives (with a potential "bimbo eruption" being a BIG possible minus).

Am I wrong? Think about it.

And in the very, very, very off-chance that any one of influence in the Obama campaign or Obama inner circle or maybe Obama himself (hey, a political junkie writer/blogger can dream) has read this:

Give Democrats the Dream Ticket. It's risky, yes, but it is right, and it will get Democrats to the White House in January.