“Dream ticket” a nightmare

There has been a lot of speculation both in the media and amongst us ordinary folk about the possibility of a “dream ticket” of Obama-Clinton. While I understand the rationale behind this idea, I think that the “dream” would prove to be a nightmare. Here are the three most common arguments for an Obama-Clinton ticket and why they aren’t strong enough to justify its existence.

Argument 1: Clinton’s supporters won’t vote for Obama. Therefore, she needs to be his running mate.

Why it doesn’t hold up: Clinton supporters are still democrats, and when the general election begins, democrats will see the clear contrast between John McC (aka GWB’s third term) and Barack Obama, and they will vote for the democrat. John McC is not a viable alternative to a democratic candidate. Those who say they’ll vote for him instead of Obama are short-sighted and unwilling to give up the dream for Clinton- and if they really will vote for John McC instead of Obama, then they’re idiots.

Argument 2: Hillary wins swing states that Obama can’t win.

Why it doesn’t hold up: First of all, Obama is redefining the electoral map. He is bringing in states for the democratic party that have been red states for some time. Secondly, does anybody really think Californians will vote for a pro-life Republican candidate over Obama?

Argument 3: There’s so much excitement and voter turnout for these two candidates that we risk losing the voter turnout if we don’t have a “dream ticket.”

Why it doesn’t hold up: As in my previous refutation, if Obama is the nominee, Hillary supporters will not flock in droves to John McC. It just won’t happen. However, if Hillary is the nominee, you can bet that many African American voters won’t vote. The ratio of African American Obama supporters to African American Hillary supporters is 9:1. If Hillary is nominated at this point, with the math against her, it will look like she stole the nomination from Obama. Which, in effect, is exactly what it would be. In order for her to win, (though even discussing this is far-fetched and I wouldn’t be discussing it at all if Obama’s and Clinton’s roles were reversed) Michigan and Florida would have to count. Neither of the “elections” in these states were true elections. Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan because they knew that the date set for the primary was outside party rules. Hillary, however, let her name remain on the ballot (because when has she actually cared about rules?) and picked up the votes. She even said in October that “Michigan won’t count for anything and everyone knows that.” In Florida, all candidates were forbidden from campaigning because the date set for the primary was likewise illegal according to democratic party rules. Now Hillary wants the vote to count. She wants two states that conducted their primaries illegally to essentially tip the popular vote scale in her favor. She wants illegal primaries to determine the outcome of the election, which in my mind equals a nomination theft.

Furthermore, all gramps would have to do is replay that clip of Hillary saying “John McCain and I both have a lifetime of experience” over and over again if she were Obama’s running mate.

We won’t lose voters sans-“dream ticket” because they will be energized by the general election- the contrast of old vs. new, progress vs. maintaining the status quo, inspiration vs. complete lack of vision- and they will unite behind Obama. He doesn’t need Clinton, but she needs him.

Also, Clinton seems to have an unnerving effect on Obama, and is, as the NYT called her, his “jane jinx.” He needs a running mate who likewise voted against the Iraq war (we need to have a distinct contrast with John McC on that topic) and who will fit in with Obama’s message of hope, inspiration, and a return to America’s greatness. HRC is not that candidate.

Coming soon: The real “dream ticket” and who’s on it.