The Dream Team is a Nightmare
You have to wonder when the Democrats will wake up. After Hillary Clinton’s primary wins in Texas and Ohio brought her and Barack Obama into a near tie in pledged delegates, the media pundits, party apparatchiks and the ever-blissful Democratic primary voters began to opine that the party would have no choice but to unite by supporting a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket. This idiotic idea has now been publicly endorsed by none other than former president Bill Clinton who termed the union of his wife and Barack Obama as being a potentially “unstoppable force.” Perhaps I am missing something, but this hare-brained scheme seems to suggest that a Democratic ticket without a running mate who possess strong enough national security credentials to match those of John McCain’s would somehow still spell success for the party in the general election.
Over the course of many months and during numerous debates, both Clinton and Obama have taken pains to underscore their qualifications in the area of national security; Hillary would have the country believe that her role as First Lady, her travels to 80 countries and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee would qualify her to be commander in chief in the eyes of the electorate; Senator Obama’s campaign stresses his calm demeanor, his sound judgment and his ability to “bring people together” as the compelling characteristics that would convince voters that he would be preferable in shaping the conduct of foreign affairs and homeland security.
It is clear that neither of these candidates will be able to match the perception in swing voters minds (mistaken or not) that John McCain is far more qualified in matters of national security. So, how could anyone believe that the best solution would be to put the two Democrats on the same ticket? Logic would seem to dictate that this would make it twice as unlikely that a Democrat would end up in the White House if we are to believe the proposition that national security issues are critical to the electorate. It is clear that the race to elect the first African-American or female president put rose-colored blinders on the eyes of Democratic voters; it is, perhaps, to be expected that those among the Party faithful who have promoted the idea of a marriage among front-runners would be unable to foresee the genetic complications such inter-party incest would ultimately engender. As they approached the Wyoming primary, voters were treated to a barrage from the Clinton camp that compared Barack Obama to former prosecutor Ken Starr; they heard about an assault from a Pulitzer Prize-winning supporter of Senator Obama that characterized Hillary Clinton as a “monster.” Indeed, within a few days, the idea of a Democratic Party Dream Team appeared to fall apart amidst the sordid squabbling, backbiting and personal attacks emanating from both campaigns.
Yet, the more fundamental question remains: Could Democrats be so out of touch as to truly believe that in spite of the obsessive security mindset that has pre-occupied the country since 9-11, American voters would consider national security a secondary issue in electing the next president? Of course voters remain concerned over the faltering national economy, the soaring gas prices and the mortgage fiasco. But the success that the Bush Administration has had in defeating legislation seeking to restrain the government from employing extra-legal methods to conduct surveillance on citizens, to interrogate and torture prisoners, to open dangerous cracks in interpreting key Constitutional rights can only mean one thing: Americans are willing to give the government their tacit permission to compromise our most fundamental civil liberties if it is done in the interests of national security.
After the humiliating string of electoral defeats at the hands of less qualified and presumably less intelligent Republicans over the last decade, one would think the Democrats would learn their lesson about the game of American politics and take that critical precept from the first page of Karl Rove’s (and Machiavelli’s) playbook: to defeat your opponent you must attack his strength, not his weakness.
This is no time for dreaming; it is time to wake up! Having openly embraced a discredited current president who has popularity ratings in the low 30's, having endorsed an open-ended promise to keep American troops in Iraq, John McCain is running neck and neck with either Obama or Clinton in the latest national polls! If the Democratic Party and its leadership cannot see the wisdom in putting a running mate such as Joe Biden or, Chris Dodd or Wesley Clark on the ticket, or anyone with similarly unimpeachable security and foreign policy credentials, then the dream of regaining the White House may turn into a nightmare for the country. The jackass will be back in the pasture, braying in the wind, rose-colored blinders and all.
You have to wonder when the Democrats will wake up. After Hillary Clinton’s primary wins in Texas and Ohio brought her and Barack Obama into a near tie in pledged delegates, the media pundits, party apparatchiks and the ever-blissful Democratic primary voters began to opine that the party would have no choice but to unite by supporting a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket. This idiotic idea has now been publicly endorsed by none other than former president Bill Clinton who termed the union of his wife and Barack Obama as being a potentially “unstoppable force.” Perhaps I am missing something, but this hare-brained scheme seems to suggest that a Democratic ticket without a running mate who possess strong enough national security credentials to match those of John McCain’s would somehow still spell success for the party in the general election.
Over the course of many months and during numerous debates, both Clinton and Obama have taken pains to underscore their qualifications in the area of national security; Hillary would have the country believe that her role as First Lady, her travels to 80 countries and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee would qualify her to be commander in chief in the eyes of the electorate; Senator Obama’s campaign stresses his calm demeanor, his sound judgment and his ability to “bring people together” as the compelling characteristics that would convince voters that he would be preferable in shaping the conduct of foreign affairs and homeland security.
It is clear that neither of these candidates will be able to match the perception in swing voters minds (mistaken or not) that John McCain is far more qualified in matters of national security. So, how could anyone believe that the best solution would be to put the two Democrats on the same ticket? Logic would seem to dictate that this would make it twice as unlikely that a Democrat would end up in the White House if we are to believe the proposition that national security issues are critical to the electorate. It is clear that the race to elect the first African-American or female president put rose-colored blinders on the eyes of Democratic voters; it is, perhaps, to be expected that those among the Party faithful who have promoted the idea of a marriage among front-runners would be unable to foresee the genetic complications such inter-party incest would ultimately engender. As they approached the Wyoming primary, voters were treated to a barrage from the Clinton camp that compared Barack Obama to former prosecutor Ken Starr; they heard about an assault from a Pulitzer Prize-winning supporter of Senator Obama that characterized Hillary Clinton as a “monster.” Indeed, within a few days, the idea of a Democratic Party Dream Team appeared to fall apart amidst the sordid squabbling, backbiting and personal attacks emanating from both campaigns.
Yet, the more fundamental question remains: Could Democrats be so out of touch as to truly believe that in spite of the obsessive security mindset that has pre-occupied the country since 9-11, American voters would consider national security a secondary issue in electing the next president? Of course voters remain concerned over the faltering national economy, the soaring gas prices and the mortgage fiasco. But the success that the Bush Administration has had in defeating legislation seeking to restrain the government from employing extra-legal methods to conduct surveillance on citizens, to interrogate and torture prisoners, to open dangerous cracks in interpreting key Constitutional rights can only mean one thing: Americans are willing to give the government their tacit permission to compromise our most fundamental civil liberties if it is done in the interests of national security.
After the humiliating string of electoral defeats at the hands of less qualified and presumably less intelligent Republicans over the last decade, one would think the Democrats would learn their lesson about the game of American politics and take that critical precept from the first page of Karl Rove’s (and Machiavelli’s) playbook: to defeat your opponent you must attack his strength, not his weakness.
This is no time for dreaming; it is time to wake up! Having openly embraced a discredited current president who has popularity ratings in the low 30's, having endorsed an open-ended promise to keep American troops in Iraq, John McCain is running neck and neck with either Obama or Clinton in the latest national polls! If the Democratic Party and its leadership cannot see the wisdom in putting a running mate such as Joe Biden or, Chris Dodd or Wesley Clark on the ticket, or anyone with similarly unimpeachable security and foreign policy credentials, then the dream of regaining the White House may turn into a nightmare for the country. The jackass will be back in the pasture, braying in the wind, rose-colored blinders and all.
Comments