Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama Ticket Unavoidable?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 15:12


We might be getting to the point where political considerations of party unity might force both Clinton and Obama onto the ticket for the fall. In fact, as was often suggested by her campaign before Obama's string of February victories, Clinton suggests that by voting for her, Democrats can get Obama, too:

Asked on CBS's The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket."

To a certain extent, this feels like an attempt at placating Obama supporters. However, it also seems more apparent that neither Clinton nor Obama currently have a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind them, and both might need the other to unite the party. Then again, after both candidates have decried the other's judgment and / or ability to handle national emergencies and major foreign policy decisions, does an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket make sense anymore? For a candidate to imply that his or her opponent would not be a good President, and then turn around and put that opponent in a position to become President is a little difficult to swallow.

This is a bit of a mess. One thing I will say is if Clinton wants to imply that she will pick Obama to be Vice-President, she should stop implying that Obama couldn't handle a national emergency. That is just disingenuous, since usually vice-Presidents become presidents in the case of a national emergency. If Clinton really wants Obama to be her VP, then she stop offering reasons why he would not be a good VP.

Chris Bowers :: Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama Ticket Unavoidable?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama Ticket Unavoidable? | 58 comments
Think of the attacks. (4.00 / 2)
Maybe a unified ticket would garner enough Democratic voters, but indepdendents would be turned off by Clinton on the ticket.

McCain would attack asking if they don't trust each other how do we all trust them together?  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

Pretty typical Clinton doublespeak. (0.00 / 0)
Somehow nothing she says seems to make sense against the other things she says. It will be interesting to see if Obama decides to call her on that and risk appearing ungracious, as well as torpedoing his VP chances.

As far as being able to paper over the differences though, this is just standard procedure. Most VPs were primary opponents, and most were viciously attacked by the winner at some point. McCain, unfortunately, probably won't have that problem.

I think it's becoming highly likely (0.00 / 0)
I too find it hard to imagine how a joint ticket would work, especially after the recent surge in negative campaigning, but I also don't really see how you successfully unify the party without one. As time goes by, more and more of the dedicated supporters of each candidate may well defect to McCain or just sit out the general if their chosen candidate doesn't get the nomination.

Ideally, a joint pledge to pick the other as running mate would be ideal. That would lock it in as either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton and provide a major incentive to both to pull back from the more vicious attacks and instead focus on their own strengths. It would probably go a long way towards calming the ire between activists on both sides even well before the general election rolls around. I doubt this will actually happen though; I wouldn't want to be the staffer to suggest it and I don't see how the campaigns would go about negotiating it.

Unify The Party? (0.00 / 0)
I think we are taking ourselves way too seriously with all this inside baseball stuff.  The party will mostly unify itself.  The enthusiasm the candidates are generating, it seems to me, is driven greatly by the desire to end the long Bush nightmare, and to end it with our chosen candidate.  This huge voter interest will survive the Clinton/Obama struggle.  There are not many among the millions (have we reached 25 or 30 million yet?) of those who have voted for a Democrat these last three months who come November will vote for a Republican, and less than one percent are aware of all the inside baseball stuff that fascinates us.

That is why this talk about winning big v. little or blue v. red states is off the mark.  There are few, if any, states that will go blue for one candidate but not the other.  With only a little state variation, either will have about the same chance -- good -- to build an electoral college majority.

[ Parent ]
A "joint pledge" would be a terrible idea (0.00 / 0)
"Ideally, a joint pledge to pick the other as running mate would be ideal."

Strategically, this would be an appalling move for the Obama campaign.  If he was foolish enough to agree to a joint ticket at this stage, it would effectively hand Clinton thousands of votes.

The vast majority of low-information Democrats would choose a Clinton-Obama ticket over an Obama-Clinton one, simply because of hardwired notions of age and experience.  It just seems neater and more orderly to have the younger candidate as Vice-President, ready to run in 2016.

A joint pledge would therefore result in thousands of people voting for Clinton in order to get both on the ticket.

If anything, Obama should strongly imply that he will not choose Clinton as his running mate, and thereby force voters to make the decision they're supposed to be making.  This is not a referendum on Vice-Presidents.

[ Parent ]
I think its highly possible they could run a unity ticket (0.00 / 0)
simple because this is a bubble reality online, and when you talk to people who are voting they don't seem to hate the two candidates. Only here to we get this exagerated b/s as typified by the comments above this one.

I don't see practically speaking when you look at your own numbers how its avoidable- do you?

Party unity (0.00 / 0)
Party unity does seem like a very understandable consideration when forming a ticket after a drawn-out primary season.

The question that hangs in the air for me is, "What kind of role would President Clinton play if he were the 'second gentleman?'"  Would the combined luminescence of that most powerful couple outshine a young President, especially if he acted in ways that one or both Clintons openly opposed during the primaries (esp. with regards to foreign policy)?

It seems to me that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be necessary.  An Obama-Clinton ticket has extra considerations.

Either way, I fear the selection or non-selection of both candidates on the ticket will be a huge story that bleeds into several news cycles.

Clinton can "pledge" to put Obama on the ticket (4.00 / 1)
...and that pledge will be worth about as much as her husband's pledge not to support NAFTA back in 1992.

If there's one thing this campaign season has verified, it's Hillary Clinton's willingness to say whatever she feels will get her an advantage, regardless or content, decency, or veracity.

It'll be an Obama-Clinton ticket, if anything (0.00 / 0)
Hillary may be willing to be his veep, but no way does Obama take the #2 spot to Clinton. He's closer to winning than she is. He'll erase her delegate gain from last night by next Tuesday. Delegate wise, she cannot catch him. Why, when you are going to be the nominee, would anyone in their right mind choose to be second to a candidate you beat?

Also, I don't know if I want Obama to be 'mentored' by Clinton. I don't really like what her campaign is selling. I'll buy it if I have to, but going #2 on her ticket will destroy the point of his run.

P.S. if you hear McCain talking about how great NAFTA is, and how we should have more treaties like it, I'm thinking Ohio might be fine.

There is NO WAQY that will happen (0.00 / 0)
She practically endorsed McShame again 2 times in different interviews today. Did you see Obama's face lastnight?...he is over her....
AND...the vetting has begun;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

A friend of mine works at the NY Post and it has their reporters on this story.
As I said...her comes the bumpy ride. fasten those seatbelts!

No thanks (4.00 / 4)
Having Clinton on the ticket will simply be an albatross.

Obama would have to be nuts to take the #3 seat on the ticket behind Hillary and Bill.

Besides--she wants Evan Bayh (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't trust Hillary to choose Obama (0.00 / 0)
Hillary would only choose Obama if it were forced on her by the party.  The only reason she is insinuating it now, is to get the votes of the undecided.  If Obama were to lose Pennsylvania and if she were to convince the superdelegates to put her over the top, I believe she'll dump Obama at the convention, if she can get away with it.

Obama should ridicule Clinton's pandering and her using his name for votes. Heh.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

[ Parent ]
Then shes stupid... (0.00 / 0)
Evan Bayh, besides being a big douche, is a wasted pick.  He can't bring Indiana to Clinton and she isn't winning it on her own.  he brings NOTHING to the ticket.
[ Parent ]
Then shes stupid... (4.00 / 1)
Evan Bayh, besides being a big douche, is a wasted pick.  He can't bring Indiana to Clinton and she isn't winning it on her own.  he brings NOTHING to the ticket.
[ Parent ]
57% (0.00 / 0)
About six months back I saw some polling that said Evan Bayh on the ticket brings a generic Democratic nominee up from the 40s in Indiana to mid- to high-50s.  There is nothing that says that advantage will last if the nominee is damaged through an ugly primary, or that the people of Indiana wouldn't warm to McCain in a way they wouldn't for Giuliani (the presumptive Republican nominee at the time), but it is possible.  (Don't forget that Democratic nominees won a few House seats in southern Indiana in 2006.)

Indiana has as many electoral votes as Missouri, and if the strategy is only to win 20 or 21 states (with 15 or so pretty much in the bag), this is worthy of consideration.

I'm not saying he should or will be the running mate, but he's in the discussion for a reason.

I think the Clinton camp is much more likely to choose Obama, or someone like Clark, who can complement her in areas where she is not strong.

[ Parent ]
The rhetoric (4.00 / 2)
I can see a lot of hurdles to a joint ticket, but honestly I don't see that the campaign rhetoric has yet reached a level that it counts as one of them. I think voters know what primaries are like, and they won't give the candidates' attacks on each other too much weight. The most notorious example of a VP's attack being used against the nominee was Bush's voodoo economics quote, and while it provided some fodder to their opponents, they survived it okay. It's hard for me at least to think of too many other cases of a rival-turned-running-mate's words being used to seriously damage the nominee.
President/VP isn't a two-headed monster (4.00 / 2)
The ticket doesn't become more fearsome by having two formidable candidates if they're not working on the same page. There is zero chance that a general election strategy run by Obama would be the same strategy run by Clinton and vice-versa so what you get is a ticket paralyzed by infighting, not by strengthed by addition. The compromise tickets should be Obama/Sebelius or Clinton/Deval Patrick or Clinton/John Lewis. Not Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

The unity is with the voting bloc represented by the candidate, not the candidate him/herself.

John McCain

Obama-Clark would be the best compromise (0.00 / 0)
Obama could "unify the party" in one move by appointing Wes Clark as his running mate.

This would have the added advantage of undermining McCain's so called advantage over matters of national security and the military.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I like Clark but he's clearly a Clintonista and he does nothing to address the demographic fact that Clinton's voters are overwhelmingly Democratic women. I'm not seeing how having a white guy as VP addresses that issue any more than Clinton picking Dick Durbin as VP addresses Obama's constituency.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
Democratic women won't vote for McCain (4.00 / 1)
So I don't foresee a problem in this regard.

However, I do think that choosing a woman who is not Hillary Clinton would be problematic.  So many voters have bought into the idea of an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket", that choosing another woman as his running mate would be perceived as a personal slight against Hillary by low-information voters.

Whatever the merits of candidates like Napolitano or Sebelius, their name-recognition is currently so low on a national level that the selection of either would be met with a "we wanted Hillary" response by a huge number of Democratic voters.

Since the presence of Clinton herself on the ticket would greatly stimulate Republican turnout, I do think a white male VP is more likely to maximize a Democratic victory.

[ Parent ]
If Clinton is losing how is it assumed that she is in the position to (4.00 / 4)
pick anyone?  Lets just let this discussion rest for now, it is premature.
no, no, no (4.00 / 2)
this is just Clinton spin... hoping pacify fears of a superdelegate override... sending out a dog-whistle saying "don't vote for Obama, I'll keep him around as VP anyway"
no thanks (4.00 / 5)
She killed any desire I had to see her as veep when she implied John McCain is preferable to Obama. I'd still favor him selecting a woman veep but not her. There's too much animosity and baggage there and she doesn't reinforce any of his main themes. Plus I dislike the way our politics is becoming aristocratic with a Bush or Clinton in the White House as President or Veep every year since 1981.
Past Campaigns Say Something Different (0.00 / 0)
"Then again, after both candidates have decried the other's judgment and / or ability to handle national emergencies and major foreign policy decisions, does an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket make sense anymore? It is a little hard to swallow for a candidate to imply that someone would not be a good President, and then turn around and put that person in a position to become President."

During the 1980 campaign, George HW Bush called Reagan's economic policies "vodoo economics" yet Reagan choose him for VP.

Similarly, the July 17, 1988 NY Times had this to say about the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket:

"This is only one of a dozen or so important political issues on which the Massachusetts Governor disagrees with the Texan he tapped last week to be his running mate. Mr. Dukakis, for instance, supports stiff gun control, involuntary busing to desegregate schools and the use of highway funds for mass transit. Mr. Bentsen opposes them all. Mr. Bentsen has voted for the Star Wars missile defense system, production of the MX missile, capital punishment, a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget and a tax on imported oil. Mr. Dukakis opposes them all."

I do not think it is correct to say that Obama and Clinton cannot beat up on one another and not be able, in the end, to run together. While I don't think it is going to happen for other reasons, it is not going to because they criticize one another too harshly.

Yes and no (0.00 / 0)
Plenty of tickets have been crafted by party necessity.  Nixon begged Nelson Rockefeller to be his running mate in 1960 for similar reasons.  A better analogy might be 1976, when Ford dropped Rockefeller from the ticket to run with Bob Dole.  Hell, even Kerry-Edwards is staring us in the face.

Nixon-Lodge (would-be Rockefeller)
Ford-Dole
Reagan-Bush
Dukakis-Bentson
Kerry-Edwards

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that all of these tickets, except the 1980 pairing who ran against the Iran Hostage Crisis, lost.  (I'd count Reagan-Bush running as incumbents not as a ticket made by party necessity, as they would only need to be unmade by party necessity.)

I like Bowers' observation that a VP nominee should complement the strengths of the Presidential nominee (a la Clinton-Gore rather than, say, both 1960 pairings).  Sometimes preventing alienation of a section of the base (which is distinguishable from the model of geographic or experiential diversity in a running mate) is more important for the goal of winning the election.

It's not that the candidates could run well together, but that they must.

And, of course, beyond the campaigning together comes the governing together.  There aren't a lot of models for that, especially with an ex-President in the mix.  But since when are electoral politics far-sighted?

[ Parent ]
electoral college (0.00 / 0)
Hillary has been running a GE campaign in the primaries. If she carries the same states in the GE, including Florida and Michigan, she would have 263 EVs. Penn will put her over the top.

With Obama's 25 states, and if you give him Michigan and Florida, he would only have 227 EVs right now.

Who is more likely to win the same states in the GE? Obama is not likely to win those upper midwest caucus states, plus the number of EVs are tiny in the those states.

Pappy Bush once derided Reagan's economics plan as voodoo economics, and he ended up on the same ticket. The Hillary/Obama campaign hasn't been that nasty, where neither candidate would refuse to be on the bottom half, imo.

Winning state in the primary != winning in the general (4.00 / 3)
So you think Obama would lose New York or California? Get real. Who won what primary means nothing about the general election. Otoh the fact that Obama isn't detested by a large percentage of Republicans and Independents does give him a better shot in swing states like Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire.
[ Parent ]
Get real (0.00 / 0)
The voters in those big blue states are less likely to abandon her in the GE. Can you say the same thing about Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Ohio, or any Southern state for Barack?
[ Parent ]
Are you out of your mind? (4.00 / 1)
There is no way that Obama will not win California, New York, Massachusetts and so on.  Democratic voters will not "abandon" him in the General Election.

Furthermore, Obama has much more potential to win states such as Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Virginia.  Of the states you mention, I think either Democrat will take Ohio, and yes, I think Obama has the potential to make some real movement in the South.

For a start, it certainly helps that he hasn't told these states they don't matter.

[ Parent ]
Who said Obama would not win Calif., NY or Mass. (0.00 / 0)
I didn't. She beat him in those states where a Democrat can't lose, and strong in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Missouri. The question is: will the voters in the red states, where he won in the primaries, vote for him in GE?
[ Parent ]
Care to place that bet... (4.00 / 2)
You think she's gonna carry Arizona and Texas?  I'll bet you a  $1,000,000 dollars she can't take either.
[ Parent ]
she won't win Texas or Ariz against McCain (0.00 / 0)
but she will win Ill., Mo., Conn.  
[ Parent ]
So will Obama (0.00 / 0)
What's your point?

Obama's 50-state strategy and crossover appeal to independents and Republicans give him a far better chance of winning the purple states and indeed a handful of red states.

The only state Clinton has a better chance of winning in the General Election is Arkansas.

[ Parent ]
Primaries wins DO NOT Equal general wins. (0.00 / 0)
Obama will win NY and CA, thus putting him over the top. As I said earlier, if McCain keeps up his free trade kick, Obama has a shot at Ohio. You cant compare two democrats competing against each other with how either of them will match up with a republican.

Two of the "big states" Clinton has won (NY and CA) will go for the Democrat. They voted for Kerry and Gore, and as much as I like Gore now (I never really cared for Kerry, though I voted for him) they were much weaker candidates than Obama will be.

You are advocating the weakest argument I've heard on this point.

yeah (0.00 / 0)
and they both better be careful with the attacks for I don't see any other way they unify the party without having this ticket and this fight to be just who is on the top of it.

This divided, that's the only appeasement I see.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Have a Cigar (0.00 / 0)
You hit the nail on the head.  

Frankly, I'd like to see them cut a deal... kill the negative attacks and whomever has the PD lead at the end is the top of the ticket, of course working in FL and MI somehow.

[ Parent ]
yes it is (0.00 / 0)
It's necessary, and it's smart. It would be a real shame to waste half the passion that this extraordinary primary has generated among Democrats. This thing is likely to be a virtual tie going into the convention, and a unity ticket would provide a burst of momentum going into fall. Plus, I think it's basically unbeatable (think of Democratic turnout numbers so far), as the coalition just becomes too broad for McCain to counter.
Not gonna happen (4.00 / 1)
Hillary says this because her only interest is engineering a narrow win in the general election, not in actually governing. If you heard her speech last night, it was all about the various ways she thinks she can win. Obama's speech was all about what he will do if he wins. It's a huge difference.

Consider the central themes of Obama's campaign: throwing out the old, having a fresh start, larger ideas, having a bigger vision. He can't do any of that as Hillary's #2 (or #3, really) sitting in the shadows. Nor can he do it with Hillary as his VP, representing Old Washington while he runs as the "new beginning" candidate.

As much as Hillary would like to exploit his popular support for her own, it's not just about engineering victory; it's about actually running the country for 4-8 years. Hillary either doesn't get this or she doesn't care. Obama does.

I love this ..... (0.00 / 0)
Thanks - this is wonderful.....

Hillary says this because her only interest is engineering a narrow win in the general election, not in actually governing. If you heard her speech last night, it was all about the various ways she thinks she can win. Obama's speech was all about what he will do if he wins. It's a huge difference.

This sums up the Clintons' style perfectly - that's why I can't sit and listen to her anymore.

[ Parent ]
Ironic Irony (0.00 / 0)
Yet, it is Obama that is percieved as having less substance and Clinton that is percieved as getting the more negative media attention.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
Assuming Hillary gets the nomination (and that's a pretty big IF right there), why would Obama accept a VP slot? He certainly wouldn't need it to preserve viability for the next run. She needs him more than he needs her.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would want the VP slot, given that Bill will probably be hanging around the West Wing like the House Guest Who Wouldn't Leave.

When is "the next run?" (0.00 / 0)
If the Democratic ticket wins in 2008 and Obama isn't on it, then 2012 would be a pretty impossible nomination to grab (even the unelected Gerald Ford won renomination; this isn't the 1840's).  Whether the 2008 winning ticket wins or loses in 2012, the 2016 nomination would have a 54 year-old Obama (still a Senator? Governor? What's he been doing with himself?) challenging a [sitting/former] VP (and others?).

Even if the Democratic ticket loses in 2008 and Obama isn't on it, the 2012 nomination is no mortal lock, especially if someone else is elevated.  Ask Mario Cuomo.  Sometimes you have a moment, and it passes.

[ Parent ]
yes it is (0.00 / 0)
It's necessary, and it's smart. It would be a real shame to waste half the passion that this extraordinary primary has generated among Democrats. This thing is likely to be a virtual tie going into the convention, and a unity ticket would provide a burst of momentum going into fall. Plus, I think it's basically unbeatable (think of Democratic turnout numbers so far), as the coalition just becomes too broad for McCain to counter.
The "dream ticket" is a myth (0.00 / 0)
As Matt Stoller has pointed out several times, many Democratic voters simply like both Clinton and Obama.  This is why the idea of a  "dream ticket" has appeal to a certain kind of voter.

However, there is a clear asymmetry between an Obama-Clinton ticket and a Clinton-Obama ticket.  At this point, if Hillary Clinton is able (through some kind of destructive abuse of democracy) to secure the nomination, she would HAVE to ask Obama to be her VP.  She would desperately need to heal the enormous harm her candidacy is now likely to cause, not to mention make use of Obama's network of grassroots support.  It is not controversial to acknowledge that the prospect of being Hillary's VP, with Bill strolling the corridors, ranks extremely low on Obama's wish list.

However, if Obama wins the nomination (which still appears highly likely), there is no way in hell he will ask Clinton to be his VP.  The reasons for this are obvious.

Clinton knows this.  She also knows that most Democratic voters think highly of both of them.  She knows that large numbers of voters think that a vote for her is a vote for both of them, and she is now seeking to actively encourage that belief.

The prospect of a joint ticket is extremely unappealing.  The presence of Clinton anywhere on the ballot will energize huge numbers of Republican voters and blunt Obama's massive crossover appeal.

If I was Obama, I would be tempted to state unequivocally that I will not run on a joint ticket with Hillary Clinton.  However, I am also aware of the political fallout that would ensue from such a declaration.  This sucks.

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)
You pretty much nailed it -

I'd say its just another Clinton ploy to win at all cost but that would suggest I hope its true and I really, really don't!

There are so many issues here I can't start to go over them all, See my "Stepin Fetchit" post below, so perhaps its best to just say it ain't gonna happen.

Right now I'm just wanting Obama to totally and utterly trash the Clintons.  The Clintons mad lust for power has already broken the party - McCain will win so all we can do now is save the Party from the Clinton's evil grasp and even a weakened Obama run would be better for down ticket Candidates than a Hillary run.

Now its all down to damage control.  And yes this sucks!

[ Parent ]
She will NEVER play second fiddle (0.00 / 0)
I have been saying this for a long time, but I do not believe that Hillary will EVER accept a VP slot to Obama.  She doesn't want to be VP.  I just can't see her doing the job of the country's official ribbon-cutter.  She took the role as FLOTUS to a never before seen place and parlayed it into a U.S. Senate seat.  Why would she want to go back to that type of role?  I just don't see it happening.

leftygirl
Except (0.00 / 0)
She has publicly said she'd consider it and do it.  Ok, it wasn't straight out like that BUT, she alluded to it in one of the debates and her talk this morning alludes to it as well.  I think SHE is more likely than Obama.  

Frankly Obama shoudl be on the top of the ticket.  I am biased of course, but there is logic.

His is a movement candidacy, hers is a policy one.  He is working to get people involved and caring about Government again.  His message is why he is in this position...  Let's be honest here... If Obama was a Governor, this nomination would be over by now.

So he has the movement presidency, working to pass policies and building our coalitions.  Then Hillary follows it up with her policy oriented candidacy and continues to make changes.  

[ Parent ]
How can Cllinton pick Obama if she believes he is unift to command? (0.00 / 0)
No President can assume that the Vice President will not have to take or exercise power--that is why we have a Vice President--it's not just to sit during the State of the Union.  It is one thing to claim that a person of dubious qualifications is fit, but quite another thing to have run a campaign based on suggesting that that person should not be trusted as commander in chief.
Your name is ironic I am guessing (0.00 / 0)
As someone reminds us above- Bush the Father called Reagan's economic plans in 1980 Voodoo economics. So , how can they do this? because unlike you their supporters, they understand the way politics is.
[ Parent ]
Favor consideration of a Joint Ticket, C for Prez, O for VP (0.00 / 0)
First -- be historical about this.  Lincoln switched VP's in 1864 because he knew the Civil War was soon to end, and he wanted a Moderate but Loyal Southerner as VP.  Terrible President, but Andrew Johnson of Tennessee met his criteria.

FDR did not have the then necessary 2/3rds support at the Chicago Convention in 1932 after 3 ballots, so he swapped the VP slot for Texan James Garner (they hated each other) for Texas and California delegate support, making his 4th ballot nomination a reality.  

TR got billed with McKinley as a way to provide a patina of Progressive Politics to the ticket, and to shut up the demands of reformers for regulation of markets and capital.  TR didn't shut up, but an Anarchist made him President.  

Truman wanted a progressive New Dealer for the 1948 ticket, but in the interests of appealing to the Segregationist South was pressed to take Segregation Lite Albin Barkley for VP.  

Kennedy fully understood his Catholic New Englandness would not be understood in the South of 1960.  Controversial as it was, he went to LBJ.  LBJ brought in much of the South including Texas, and when he succeeded Kennedy, proved to be a far less compromising anti-Segregationist than Kennedy ever was.  And LBJ had much deeper knowledge of DC and its ways than Kennedy ever would.  

Carter went to Mondale -- more Liberal/Progressive than himself, and much more a creature of Capitol Hill.  

Others have mentioned Reagan/BushI.  But Eisenhower picked Nixon as a favor to Earl Warren, who sponsored the anti-Taft delegation from California (Floor Credentials Fight in 1952), and in addition, Warren was promised the first Supreme Court opening.  Surprise, the first opening was the Chief's job, and Warren was anything but an old line conservative Republican.  Sadly, Nixon hung around for a few years after he balanced the ticket in 1952.  

LBJ actually conducted a little contest between his two top choices in 1964.  They were, Gene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota.  The contest was who could solve the problem of the Freedom Democratic Party demands for Convention Credentials, and make Fanny Lou Hammer happy.  Hubert won.  

So the operative question in the case of C & O is can one see a creative deal where the assets of each are enhanced and merged in a campaign, and as a governing team in a way that produces a mandate next November?  Remember, no change of nuttin if you can't get the ticket elected, and enhance the margins in Congress.  So unless they kill each other first (and the hope of our party) I have been looking at what a deal would look like.  Who gives up what, who gets what?  Deals are compromises in service to a higher goal, and getting elected is the goal.  

The Clintons have a fairly long standing dislike of the populist style, stemming from a number of stumbles in their early political careers.  They worked their hearts out on an anti-war Candidacy, Joe Duffey, who ultimately served as Bill's VOA director. It was an early version of the Lamont-Lieberman race, Lowell Weicker won, but Tom Dodd split the Democratic vote.  Then of course two years later there was the McGovern Campaign, and Bill and Hillary were deep into it.  Then there was Bill's loss of the Arkansas Governorship after just one term, largely because he misjudged how much Reform Arkansas could swallow in two years.  But these are different times -- and for a "merger" to work, Clinton would have to accept Obama's less top down style, and celebrate all the young people turned on.  The Campaign would have to be fully inclusive,a lot less of Hillary's long time loyal supporters, a good deal more of some of the outsiders Obama has around him.  There are some ancient hatreds on their teams -- Zig has no lost love for the team of Albright/Holbrooke for instance.  Maybe they could all be sent on investigative missions to lower Slabovia.  

They would need to make clear how they would govern as a team effort -- and one way to do this is to crusade against Dick Cheney's notion of the 4th (secret) Branch of Government.  Talk about one National Security Council, one common set of domestic advisors, One CIA, One Justice Department -- all operating in the open, with all advisors working with both of them.  With Obama in the 2nd seat, Hillary would need to make clear that he would spend considerable time traveling the country talking policy with State and Local party people, State Legislators, Governors, and other constituency groups.  Likewise she would also need to make clear he had a listening job -- that he could identify problems and work toward solutions.  The role would have to be more public than Gore's role which involved chairing too many commissions that were ignored.  In fact, negotiating something like this would be similar to a pre-nuptual agreement.  (Who takes out the trash, who does the laundry.) They might need a pre-agreement on a marriage counselor.  

I suspect such a merger could capture virtually all of the support both now have, and possibly then some.  I suspect both have the capacity to laugh a little at their odd- fellow team, but also have a little fun with it, something I suspect would get them votes.  I also think it would take some attention away from Bill and Michelle, and I think for the campaign's duration that would be a plus.  

While the pure delegate count at this juncture favors Obama, once you subtract from his total the delegates from States Democrats are highly unlikely to win, (Georgia, Idaho, Utah, etc.) he really isn't ahead at all.  And while we all don't like the "states that don't count" phrase, looking ahead at the General Election, that is just reality.  And yes, I favor a 50 state campaign, one fully coordinated with increasing congressional margins.  


Nice historical perspective (0.00 / 0)
Lots of good stuff in your comment. I appreciate the info on compromise tickets.

I liked your version of how things could play out well with Obama as veep. It made me curious about how VP Hillary & Pres O. could work as a team. You may have some more thoughts, but my first reaction is to think that Clinton would be very effective working the halls of Congress.

I think your "throw out some states" paragraph is a little disingenuous and very much about finding a way to put Hillary at the top of the ticket. Perhaps a better approach is to take a clean look at which states really are in play in the GE and project possible electoral counts for O/C and C/O. There won't be a world of difference, but perhaps there will be enough to make a nice case for Hillary.

I have no strong preference. I will say that one reason to give some thought to O on top is that his primary campaign seems much better organized, deeper, and more well funded. If, on the other hand, C is the choice, I hope against hope that Mark Penn is dropped before the the general election campaigning gets going. I bet our prospects improve immediately thereafter.  

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Obama's greatest skill set (0.00 / 0)
I think Obama's greatest talent is his community organizer role -- and to get the reforms we will need in another administration, we are going to have to beat the lobby lock on the process in DC.  I believe the best tools for doing this are just what Obama has -- Community Organizer.  

I would see Obama as the "outside man" -- working to create or enhance citizens groups, and yes the state parties -- to take on the backroom lobby system through the weight of what can now be done using the network tools we have, and the ones likely to be developed -- and essentially force congress to deal with the agenda in an up front and transparent fashion. So rather than having a VP who chairs useless commissions and goes to funerals, I see an Obama VP as community organizer -- both listening, and guiding scaled up citizens groups to reclaim some of the turf that now is owned by the well paid lobbyies.  

The problems the next President will confront are huge -- all the economic issues, the need to fundamentally rebuild our military after the Iraq disaster, a whole lot of international trust rebuilding, uncovering and rectifying the many sins of the Bush Administration -- it could take four years just to get the EPA rules sorted out properly.  I simply think Hillary has a greater range of experience with all these diverse matters, the historical knowledge of things that date back to her days as First Lady in Arkansas, and she is just pragmatic in finding solutions to things.  Much of this is something like inside baseball, it is essentially administrative, and I think Hillary's temperment is more of this sort.  

But it has to be projected as very much a team effort -- a realization that together they do many things a little differently than they would alone.  That's why I think they need a pre-agreement on a marriage counselor.  

[ Parent ]
I will be truned-off by Obama on ticked in any role (0.00 / 0)

Barack's not Hillary's "Stepin Fetchit"! (0.00 / 0)
Its just amazing that you are buying this line -

I posted this at:
http://nobhillobserver.blogspo...


So, this AM Hillary is saying that there could be a Clinton - Obama ticket.

I just want to heave - guess she thinks they might need a good butler!

Looks like the Clintons are calculating again - they figure a "step and fetch it" might be handy to deal with those they throw under the bus. He could do a bit of "shuck n jive" and tell them that the nice white lady doesn't really doesn't mean it after all!

Please give me a break.

Anybody stupid enough to become a second to the HillBill show is walking into a trap. Vice Presidents and the Democratic Party have never fared well under the Clintons' reign.

Above all things Obama understands images and he knows he doesn't want to play the role of Stepin Fetchit in a Clinton Campaign. Just Imagine what the Republicans could/would do with that image!

n00b (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes when I read things like this I just chuckle and am reminded how either an ignorance of the past by our young or amnesia by our older folks has set in badly in this election.

But Chris Bowers is supposed to be this lion of the blogosphere.  Someone important in the Democratic Party -- someone who obviously either wasn't paying attention or hasn't read about older campaigns.

A famous example is LBJ spreading rumors about JFK's diseases around the convention floor before... becoming his running mate.  Hell, even Kerry and Edwards were having a helluva go at each other before they teamed up.

Can you seriously think that the breech between these two candidates is, by historical standards, so wide that it cannot be repaired?  

Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama Ticket Unavoidable? | 58 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox