"If you put two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

Senator Clinton;

Is your husband serious?

It hardly seems the appropriate context in which to prognosticate and proffer such solutions; yet, the notion that you might concede to carrying Sen Obama as your undercard has been ubiquitously promulgated by your campaign. And, in the swooning days subsequent to the primaries of 4 March, the force and frequency of speculations has surged.

Alas, I now fear that there begins to emerge a faintly discernible understructure: the appearance, of concerted strategic program being implemented by your campaign. The outline: to force this collaborative issue continuously into the media conversation, hoping to engender in potential Obama voters the notion that a vote for Clinton is a vote for both candidates.

And – while the message of collaboration is not only noble, but a significant buttress of Sen Obama's campaign – it was upon hearing these words regarding a "dream ticket" that the message began to take on the tenor of machination:

By veiling this assertion of supremacy or broadcast of your blue-chip status in the Buckeye State in the palliative fabric of conjoined candidacy, how can I see your intent as anything other than conflicting? Simultaneously, you (a) extend to Sen Obama the superficial olive-branch of a mutual enterprise against Sen McCain and (b) contend to everyone else that only you and Sen McCain are viably qualified for the Presidential Office:

Obviously, by elevating the "experience" of yourself and Sen McCain, and likewise discounting that of Sen Obama as simply "one speech he made in 2002," you purpose to consolidate your support amongst undecided voters with an eye towards the international security of the US. But, couching this self-advocacy in the advertised consideration of a sharing of position on the November ballot, you impel me towards a question: Is your actual hope to de-energize some component of his support, softening the resolve of some of the less-committed potential Obama voters by distracting them with this idea of a joint ticket?

From my perspective, this is an unfortunate instance of your campaign attempting to manipulate the perceptions of voters through distortion and distraction, as opposed to focusing on the "specifics" you so often invoke – but, recently, so rarely elaborate. And, while you note the "voters of Ohio" in your self-justification of Democratic supremacy, concerns remains – in my mind – for those other states which may not conform perfectly to the eighteenth state. Moreover, it is perfidy to suggest that the states you've won are states only you can win come November; in fact, you might find that the option of voting for Sen Obama as President puts a panoply of "problem" states in play for the Democratic party, even the selfsame Ohio on which your claim rests.

I guess – even if you'd prefer to eschew the current delegate-mathematics, or to haggle over potential delegate-mathematics – I'd only like for you to consider the overall discursive context in which your political operation is localized. Is it at all possible that, at some point, your competitive strategies may not only undermine the position of your current opponent, but subvert your own position with respect to the final opponent in November? Just as Sen Obama's words matter, so too do yours; indeed, whatever past "experience" pervades your résumé, the essential element to this process of candidate selection is the electoral experience of the voter.

Perhaps, then, it would be best for you to refrain from offering the position of Vice-President to Sen Obama — at least until you no longer feel the need to compare him to George W Bush or exalt the credentials of Sen McCain whilst disparaging his as inconsequential or immaterial.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content