You want party unity? Here's the blueprint.

Rating: 4.3 after 3 votes

Posted by Eli Goldsmith on May 8, 2008 at 2:43pm

You want party unity?? Here's the blueprint. Allow this to play out for the next three weeks, get every Democrat in every state fired up to get to the polls while the Republicans slirp freedom-lax to the din of the "presumptive" Judge Wapner, let the system we have (delegates and super delegates) elect our nominee (likely Obama), and Hillary, putting the prospects of healing her country ahead of personal ambition, shall join as VP.

I know...everyone likes to say "they hate each other"...but where is the evidence of that? Compared to the personal attacks leveled against Max Cleland and Harold Ford Jr. and even John McCain over the last few years, this bickering has been PG. For the first time in a long time, Democrats don't feel like we're choosing the lesser of two evils, polls show we actually LIKE these two people. The unprecedented Democratic voter turnout suggests the same.

The thought of a black man and a white woman working together to rebuild a country virtually vaporized by 8 years of an embarassingly incompetent and unforgivably corrupt administration...that's an America that could unite us all.

8 Comments

Comment by Romain Levesque on May 8, 2008 at 3:18pm: Thanks for the different point of view on this subject. You know that could work, I havent thought about it that way. Awesome. I guess it could definitely be a good thing for this nation.

Comment by carol hamel on May 8, 2008 at 5:45pm: This would work from the Obama perspective as long as it's an Obama/Clinton ticket and not a Clinton/Obama ticket cause he won't sit in the back of the bus no more.

Comment by Eli Goldsmith on May 8, 2008 at 6:34pm: It's true. Being an Obama supporter myself, an Obama-led joint ticket would appear to be a much more digestible scenario than the converse. However, I'd like to think that if it were the other way around, and a clean, seemingly corruption-free primary election based on firm electoral rules had produced Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, I'd be just as optomistic about them joining forces. Either way, democracy wins, as would the Democratic Party...quite easily I'd project.

Comment by Katie on May 8, 2008 at 11:42pm: I've actually been vacillating on whether or not I think this "dream ticket" thing is a good idea. And for me, it's been teetering on each campaign "scandal" that goes down. Currently, Hillary is eliciting pity from those like myself who normally hate her but feel really bad that her life's ambition to be president is taking a nosedive. And so I think it might be an OK one. However, when Bill Clinton pulls that "well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" crap...not so much, I want to retire the Clintons into political oblivion. After all, Bill Clinton has completely squandered any notion we may have had of him as an elder statesman by getting down into the political dirt. I don't think that makes him worthy of returning to the White House in any capacity. Of course Hillary's not exempt from my wrath either. We'll see what I think tomorrow.

Comment by geoffrey on May 9, 2008 at 4:24pm: I doubt Obama would offer Clinton the VP and I doubt she would except it. He wouldn't want the meddlesome Clintons operating right on his heels, and she wouldn't want to play number 2 again. I find it more likely that she would go for Senate Majority Leader and wait for 2012 or 2016 to run again. Also, I don't think Obama needs her on the ticket. He could sow up support with white working class voters with any number of VP choices; most notably Joe Biden or Bill Richardson.

Comment by CPD on May 12, 2008 at 5:15pm: It is difficult for any of us to speculate on future decisions of any candidate, especially if we're talking about their decision to take the Vice Presidential place on the ticket. I think that it might be completely irrelevant whether they "get along" or not. It's been reported since 2004 that Edwards and Kerry weren't friendly at all. And certainly if you look further into the past, one would never have expected the older, more powerful Senate Majority Leader LBJ to join the younger, privileged Kennedy on the ticket. Political decisions such as this come down to more or maybe much much less than what is politically advantageous for each person involved. If Clinton jumps on as VP it might not be because she puts Party platform ahead of personal ambitions; it might happen because she thinks that she can be effective towards her own aims from the VP office and will still end up in a prominent, though constitutionally powerless, position, which will still make for a good section of her memoirs. Who knows? I am skeptical that Obama would want to choose her for VP or if he would need her for party unity, but I think it doesn't make sense to assume that young Eli is coming from some "extreme leftist" position on this. After all, we hear whispers that McCain would choose Romney or someone viewed as more conservative (whatever that means) to provide his candidacy with that branch of the Republican Party. Choosing a VP usually is about "balancing the ticket" and Eli might be right to suggest that Clinton as a VP candidate would accomplish this for Obama.

Comment by John S on May 15, 2008 at 10:32pm: I don't understand why everyone thinks the Democratic party is going to be divided. All you need for democratic party unity is for John McCain to really start campaigning. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is or who that nominee picks as VP, the Democratic party is going to be united come November. The person who is going to unite them is John McCain, not the VP candidate.

Personally, I think is would be a HUGE mistake for Obama to pick Billary as VP. I would be a constant power struggle between Obama, Hillary and don't forget Bill. She will think she is the president simply because she is in the whitehouse again.

Comment by Daniel Cuevas on June 4, 2008 at 4:52pm: Sorry Eli, but I have to agree with Billy Jack and John S. Hillary will not be a good choice as Obama's VP, nor do I think she would accept it. I honestly don't think Hillary has anything to offer except her gender; she's not that great a Senator and her failed meddling during her husband's administration shows that she is too eager to step on toes. If Obama really wants a female VP, he should pick someone less polarizing than Hillary, someone who will not scare independents away or worse, rally independents and conservatives to rush to vote for McCain. Besides, Hillary barely let her husband be the President when she was just the first lady. Can you imagine how domineering and pushy she's going to be as VP?

Democrats have to come together if they want to keep McCain (George W. Bush Part II) from winning the general election, so the party is likely to come together even if Hillary is not offered the Vice Presidency. I thought Bill Richardson would make a great VP or Secretary of State ever since her dropped out of the Presidential race, given his impressive and extensive diplomatic experience. This country needs more diplomatic relations, a much cheaper alternative to military ventures.