Unity Ticket

I vote YES for a "unity ticket" between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Unambiguously yes.

As far as Obama supporters go, I know I'm in the minority on this one. Nonetheless, not only do I think a unity ticket is a good idea, but I will actually be disappointed in Obama if he does not pick Clinton as his vice-presidential candidate.

The numbers here are pretty clear: 51 percent of all Democrats want a unity ticket (or 59 percent, if you look at this poll), while 76 percent of Clinton supporters back the idea. All the polls vary, but these numbers are the general trend.

All that spells one thing: done deal. Regardless of who I'd personally prefer on the Obama ticket, just over half of all Democrats want Clinton. Just think about that for a second. This makes it mathematically impossible for any other candidate to get even close to half of the Democratic party's support. A lot of Obama folk want Jim Webb or Kathleen Sebelius or even Bill Richardson, but what percentage of potential Obama voters would prefer these individual candidates? 15 percent? 20?

Now, I know all the counter arguments. I'll try to address them, one by one:

1) Senator Clinton doesn't do so hot with independents and Republicans. Obviously, picking someone like Webb would be an effort to draw independents and Republicans to Obama. . But, I'd argue, in a Democratic year, you don't want to piss off the Democrats. Obama will likely lose some independents and Republicans by picking Clinton, but I greatly doubt that number would surpass the number of Democratic votes he'd lose by not picking her.

2) Picking Clinton would go against Obama's entire bipartisan message. To a certain extent, I agree. But I think there are two things to keep in mind here: 1) After Bush, the majority of America wants a Democratic president (not to mention Congress), and 2) Obama can offset picking a partisan Democrat by selecting Republicans in his cabinet and highlighting his Republican supporters. He's been on the verge of snagging endorsements from the likes of Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and Colin Powell for a while -- if he can get these, he'll have a strong argument to make for his bipartisan aims.

3) Hillary wouldn't "play second fiddle" to Obama (and Bill wouldn't play third, either). This is a pretty absurd argument. Senator Clinton isn't clinically insane, guys. As malicious a campaigner as she is, I'm pretty sure she knows what a vice-presidential candidate does and does not do. I don't think she'll be bogarting the mic like a crazy person. And, even if she does play a larger role than past vice-presidential candidates, will that be such a bad thing? In my view, this would signify the change of which Obama consistently speaks. In an Obama presidency, pluralism is favored over top-down, I'm-the-decider hegemony. This is a solid argument, so long as Obama balances his pluralistic approach with his own strong convictions. Obama could say that he will surround himself with a diverse set of voices, and his vice-president is no different.

4) Clinton fatigue. Well, obviously not, if over half of all Democrats want to see a Clinton as vice-president.

5) Most Obama supporters don't want Hillary. Obama supporters, in large, feel very strongly about seeing Barack in the White House. I'd argue very, very few of them would switch their votes for McCain (or not vote at all) because Obama didn't pick their ideal VP. And if they do, then that would be very childish. They/we should be very thankful that he has the nomination. Offering America's second-most popular Democrat the vice-presidency is a concession we should be willing to make. Prominent Obama supporters are doing a whole lot more harm than good by blasting this idea (I'm looking at you, Jimmy Carter).

There are other counter-arguments, I'm sure, but none are coming to me right now. In the end, I want an Obama/Clinton ticket because I think it would steamroll McCain. Plus, picking Hillary would erase the possibility of McCain and other Republicans to elevate Clinton to martyr status, in the indirect hope of courting disgruntled female voters. McCain and even the likes of Sean Hannity are doing it already -- praising Clinton for her "toughness" as a way of backhandedly blasting Obama and convincing Clinton supporters to go with McCain.

And, let's not forget, Obama/Clinton is a good narrative. It's a story of two former rivals teaming up to defeat a greater enemy. It's a storyline we've seen countless times: It's simple, effective, and exciting. The media rely on precisely this kind of familiar narrative to frame the news. Such a story betters McCain's POW-turned-president narrative, if for no other reason than because the entire country has watched it evolve before its eyes.

Bill and Hillary would virtually secure Pennsylvania and Ohio, while Obama would have a very good shot at taking Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and maybe even Virginia. Obama and Clinton on the same ticket, in Bill's words, would be "unstoppable" in this election year.

I finish with a plea to fellow Obama supporters: Please, please, please don't let your reactionary hatred of Hillary Clinton keep Barack from winning the presidency. Obama can win without Hillary, but it would be an ugly, uphill battle. Just pick the easier path. It's not that big of a sacrifice.

It'll be hard enough getting a black man elected in the first place. Why make it a black man who also snubbed half his own party?