A Breath Of Sanity - Maybe

There is a nasty rumor going around regarding the possibility of a Hillary-Michelle 'Dream Ticket' for the 2016 presidential race.

...reports indicate a buzz growing for a potential Democratic “dream” ticket featuring Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

There are already bumper stickers in the marketplace with messages such as “2016-Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama,” and “Hillary-Michelle 2016 First First Lady Ticket For President,” and Cafe Press reports a 60% hike in sales of the Hillary-Michelle sticker from December to March, with the largest jump in March.

Well, if bumper sticker sales are up I guess that makes it official.

“Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children, so dealing with Congress would be a snap!”

My wife is a proven effective leader -- she was quite successful in the corporate world before stepping down to, yes, you guessed it, raise children -- so she also should be able to deal with congress with little or no problem. After all, she has many years of experience in dealing with strong-willed, opinionated males (at least one...). So that makes her as qualified as either one of those two hags.

Some have suggested putting Mrs. Obama at the top of the ticket and having Mrs. Clinton run for VP, especially after Michelle announced the Best Picture Oscar at this year’s Academy Awards.

Oh my achin' butt. Since when does announcing the Best Picture award make a person suitable for one the two highest offices in the U.S. of A? Last year Tom Cruise made the presentation. How many of you would feel comfortable with Tom "Church of Scientology" Cruise in the Oval Office?

Sadly, voters in this country have began giving more credence to celebrity status than qualifications. The first significant instance of that was when a heretofore unknown junior senator from Illinois gave the keynote speech at the 2004 democrat national convention. I didn't get what all the fuss was about back then, but the media damn sure fell in love with him at that point.

Anyway, back to the so-called dream ticket.

While libs, dems, and other assorted brain-dead fools are drooling all over themselves at the possibility of those two harridans running hand-in-hand for prez and veep, at least some folks out there are having second thoughts. All snark aside, there are a few of significant obstacles to a Hillary run in 2016.

The first is her age. She'll be 69 (*snort - that's more appropriate for Bill*) in 2016. That doesn't necessarily disqualify her. After all, Ronald Reagan was only 9 months older than her when he was elected. But it will undoubtedly be an issue raised during the campaign.

Then there's her health. She has a history of blood clots and concussions, which will again undoubtedly be a campaign issue.

And of course, given that she's a Clinton, a dem, and a lib, there are various ethical questions.

One particular quarrel that a Hillary Clinton nomination would bring forward is the quarrel over the ethical standards of the Clinton White House -- and, maybe even more, of the Clintons' post-White House careers. Relying on Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure reports, CNN reported last year that former President Bill Clinton had earned $89 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House in 2001. Many of these earnings came from foreign sources. In 2011 alone, the former president earned $6.1 million from 16 speeches in 11 foreign countries.

Is it an ethical problem for the husband of the person charged with the foreign affairs of the United States to earn so much foreign-sourced income? Let's rephrase that question: How much time do Democrats wish to spend arguing the ethics of Bill Clinton's foreign earnings over the 2016 political cycle?

Not to mention assorted Whitewater and Lewinsky-gate issues...

There's also an interesting political slant.

Yet the biggest risk to Democrats from a Hillary Clinton nomination is not that it would be generationally backward-looking -- or that it would reopen embarrassing ethical disputes -- but that it would short-circuit the necessary work of party renewal.

After eight years in the White House, a party requires a self-appraisal and a debate over its way forward. Bill Clinton offered Democrats just such a debate in 1992 with his "New Democrat" ideas. Barack Obama offered another in 2008 with his careful but unmistakable criticism of Clinton-era domestic policies and Hillary Clinton's Iraq war vote. But if Hillary Clinton glides into the nomination in 2016 on the strength of money, name recognition, and a generalized feeling of "It's her turn," then Democrats will forgo this necessary renewal.

That's the republican model - the idea that the party's nomination should go to the "next person in line." See Dole, Bob; McCain, John; and Romney, Mitt. We all know how well that's worked out for them.

Finally, there's the perception issue.

Pollster John Zogby, however, questions if the ticket would sell. "Hillary and Michelle are both very popular and accomplished, but this smacks of too much celebrity and is a tad too dynastic for American voters," he said. "An interesting reality show, yes. A ticket, no."

Which brings us back full circle to the question of whether today's low-information voters make their choices based on celebrity status or qualifications.

Given the bozo currently wasting oxygen in the White House, I'm not optimistic...