Is Hillary Willing Her Way Onto The Ticket?

Over at The Current, I make the outline of an argument for an Obama-Clinton Democratic ticket.

Many of my readers are rapid Obama or Clinton partisans, and so the very mention of the idea probably strikes them -- you -- as absurd. But if you can somehow separate your feelings of disgust from your brains just a bit and think it through, the premise not only holds, but the idea really does make sense. Go through the categories: politics, demographics, themes, governance -- it works. As my colleague Ron Brownstein has pointed out, they are enormously complimentary figures.

I deliberately do not address the thorny issues of, say, how Obama would surrender his ego to put Clinton on the ticket, or how Clinton would surrender her presidential ambition to join the ticket, or what Bill Clinton would do, or what closet he might have to be placed in order for this to work, but I have the feeling that smarter people than I will shortly be sorting these things out.

That's because the longer Hillary Clinton stays in this race, the more inevitable it is that she, by force of will, earns a spot on the ticket. Obama cannot ignore her demographic coalition, her breadth and depth of the support, the energy that she generates, just as Hillary surely cannot ignore -- would not ignore -- everything that Obama has come to stand for and has accomplished.

Anyway, evidence that Hillary Clinton is willing to consider this option is already available: she said as much this morning on CBS's The Early Show. Obama was asked to respond to the question, and here was his response, according to CBS News reporter Maria Gavrilovic:

"You know we are just focused on winning this nomination. That’s my focus. And you know I’ve said before I respect Senator Clinton as a public servant, ah - she’s a tenacious opponent. I think it is very premature to start talking about a joint ticket."

Comments

What about us slower Obama & Clinton partisans?

Posted by Duane | March 5, 2008 12:19 PM

QUESTION:

If Hillary honestly doesn't believe Obama should be answering the crisis phone at 3AM, and if she believes McCain has better experience than Obama, then how can she honestly hint at joining a ticket with him, let alone ask him to be on her ticket?

Hillary f-ed this option up by going so aggressively negative against an obviously worthy opponent who a great # of Democrats like and want to win.

The Clintons chose the low road. Let them walk it alone.

Posted by Joe Justice | March 5, 2008 12:20 PM

Ok...I tried to go through my "list" (list of what?) but got hung up on 'politics.' If you mean their politics are complimentary or similar, that is not the case. She's fights and divides," he reconciles and unites. Both approaches have a lot going for them, but they are certainly not similar. Nor are they complimentary. you can't do both at the same time, and you can't build a coherent national political strategy based around both. It could perhaps be politically functional, even advantageous, if Clinton were to lead the ticket with a "conciliator" VP - that is, if fighting and dividing were the dominant political strategy while Obama smooths things over with his own constituents (which would really be a reversal of the traditional Prez/VP campaign roles). but it clearly doesn't work if Obama heads the ticket and has to struggle to contain Clintonian peevishness from his flanks. I'm not saying they couldn't work politically, I'm just saying that by no conception does it make sense or represent sound strategizing.

Posted by Seth | March 5, 2008 12:21 PM

it is all about electability now....

Must read for those into American politics!!!!
I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Super Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=177, “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101

Check their “Political Analysis” and “Humor” sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.

Posted by Els | March 5, 2008 12:25 PM

The Clintons are loose cannons, they would undermine anything that a President can work for.

If Obama doesn't win in 2008, he still can win in 2012.

He has nothing to gain by joining with the Clintons.

Posted by Kim | March 5, 2008 12:28 PM

I don't think she was willing her way onto the VP slot. I think she was trying to say that *she* would be willing to put *him* on the ticket, and anyway that seems more like the way things will really go.

I understand the "math" doesn't work, but Clinton now has an incredibly powerful argument that math doesn't matter. It goes like this:

1. Obama built a delegate lead by spending and campaigning in states that Clinton didn't spend or campaign in.

2. Obama has lost almost every large, contested state. He lost CA, NJ, TX, and OH.

3. If Clinton wins PA and if FL and MI get the chance to revote, then she could come close on pledged delegates and probably win the popular vote, all on the backs of big states.

Superdelegates will pay attention to these arguments, and I think she wins these arguments.

Essentially -- and I say this as an Obama supporter -- this thing is going to end up a tie, but it's going to be a tie that favors Clinton. She knows this. There's no way she's conceding anything.

And it's also extremely smart to say, as she seemed to be, that she would be willing to have Obama in the VP slot: because if you're like a lot of dem voters and you like both of them, then your thought is, hey, if I vote for Clinton, I get two for the price of one.

So I think Marc gets the interpretation, and the argument, exactly wrong. And no one cares about delegate math right now.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 12:28 PM

I can't imagine why Obama would want anything to do with her. Or Bill.

Posted by C,Michol | March 5, 2008 12:30 PM

it is all about electability now....

Must read for those into American politics!!!!
I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Super Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=177, “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101

Check their “Political Analysis” and “Humor” sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.

Posted by Els | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM

It's interesting seeing this post... and then looking below it at the 3 AM ad.

I think we Obama supporters have to face the fact that Clinton's coalition isn't moving much - and I understand and respect a lot of their motives. She'd close the sale in OH and NM, while Obama at the top of the ticket would close the sale out west - NV, CO, IA. Clinton is a creature of political expediency, and surely she's figured out that there's virtually no way she can win the nomination without a lot of superdelegate help - a scenario that would completely alienate the A-A vote and probably a lot of independents and new voters too.

Posted by John M. | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Pretty smart analysis, Chris. But I think both Obama and the party will be better off if he saves himself for a re-run in 2012, if he can;t get the nomination. A ticket headed by Hillary cannot beat McCain, and Obama will do better avoiding that sinking ship.

Posted by jbd | March 5, 2008 12:33 PM

There are basically two competing theories about how to use your VP pick. One is the complementary theory, upon which you might be able to make a case for Obama picking Clinton (although I think you could make an equally good, and perhaps better, case for some other people). The other is the brand-reinforcing theory, and given that theory I think Obama would definitely not want to pick Clinton.

And the thing is, Obama is very much a brand politician. So that is why it is pretty hard for me to imagine him picking Clinton, unless it was literally forced on him. Rather, I think he is more likely to pick someone who has some of Clinton's positive complementary attributes, but who also would reinforce his brand strategy.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:34 PM

I agree that no one really cares about the delegate math. Yes if it was 500 even 300 delegates ahead, but 100? The longer Clinton stays in the more likely she will get the nomination. She can probably win FL with a re-do, split MI, and of course win PA, so it might even be 50 delegates dividing. I think the best thing for the party -- after all the main goal is to BEAT McSame -- is for them to go until PA which he will likely lose and then for him to accept VP slot.

I say this as a strong Obama supporter and an anti-dynasty Clinton disliker. . . I think they should just go on the same ticket. He is junior to his senior and should take the VP slot. My personal preference is the sooner the better. Otherwise what? She bludgeons her way to the nomination and completely alienates people like me (would I actually vote for McCain?), African American voters, etc.

The Clinton machinery is still too strong, there is too much racism, and bottom line, our country is still to retrograde.

My dream was a BHO blowout last night, and unfortunately that's not reality.

Posted by minna | March 5, 2008 12:35 PM

I don't deny that it makes sense from an electoral perspective, but in terms of actually governing, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, I don't see either candidate willing to agree to such an arrangement, Hillary's tease notwithstanding. I think she'd say anything at this point to win any small advantage.

Posted by Howard B. | March 5, 2008 12:35 PM

Some Obama partisans (like myself) need to be careful in projecting their Hillary-dislike onto Obama. (I personally like her just fine.) There's really no evidence that Obama doesn't like Clinton, and there's really no evidence that Obama thinks she would be a bad president; in fact, a recent New Yorker piece suggested Obama really viewed Clinton as the model for his own Senate career and presidential run until he realized that he had a good shot *now*.

I think Obama supporters should back away from the visceral dislike of Clinton, because it helps neither Obama nor the party. Clinton is very smart and very competent. She would be a very different kind of president with different priorities, and there is the danger of Bill Clinton runnning amok in the White House. But I don't see how a Clinton presidency is anything but better than a McCain presidency. I prefer the kind of president I think Obama would be, and think the ideal scenario -- one that almost certainly now will not happen -- would be Obama in the White House and Clinton as the Senate Majority Leader (she would be fantastic in that role). But Clinton is a great candidate with one glaring weakness: conservatives despise her like they despise no one else. If you're on the fence, this seems to be the central argument against her candidacy.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 12:36 PM

Just to follow up, Clinton-Obama doesn't make nearly as much sense for Obama as Obama-Clinton makes for Clinton. Clinton at the top of the ticket is back to Kerry+1. Obama at the bottom won't help in WI, MN, CO, NV, IA, etc. If she loses, as seems likely, Obama is damaged goods.

Posted by John M. | March 5, 2008 12:36 PM

Spot on. People don't fall for her rouse. How gullible people can be. She has no intention whatsoever of quitting even when she knows the maths don't add up. She is trying to take on this persona of the 'momma' the protector. She wants Obama to fall into the trap of being divisive if he doesn't accept. It's part of her strategy.
The issue is a non-starter.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Obama cannot ignore her demographic coalition, her breadth and depth of the support, the energy that she generates, just as Hillary surely cannot ignore -- would not ignore -- everything that Obama has come to stand for and has accomplished.

Wow, nice way of minimizing Obama's accomplishments. Hillary's got !!!HILLMENTUM!!! and Obama? Oh yeah, I guess he's done some stuff too.

So those factors of Hillary that we MUST NOT IGNORE (sayeth Marc), which are those? That energy -- is it the same energy that causes her numbers to decline the longer she campaigns? She lost 20 points in two weeks in Texas and 10 points in Ohio in that same period. Her recovery of her campaign over the past week was most certainly impressive (if not laudable, as I don't think it was in a primary election), but let's not forget where she was starting from. In the short run: 20 points ahead. In the long run: "inevitable," a long-standing front-runner, well financed, and married to the greatest campaigner ever.

But I guess, despite that, in the end we "can't ignore" Hillary the same way we "can't ignore" Al Gore's victory in the constitutionally meaningless popular vote. Don't get me wrong, I wanted to see President Gore as much as the next guy (true story: I flew cross-country to vote for him on election day because I had neglected to request my absentee ballot in time) but, hey, rules are rules.

And Marc -- this was perhaps your most condescending post yet. Given that many of your regular commenters are better informed, better analysts than you, you should probably stop talking down to them like this.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Sorry to wade thru the data so slowly.

HRC's big win last night was probably 10-12 delegates. She cant catch him.

No need to compromise with her.

Posted by Kim | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM

yes conservatives hate her but in the end likely they won't vote for Obama anyway, if both are on the ticket, turnout will be giga-normous and very very strong.

The Clintons aren't going away, that's the lesson of last night. The door was open for quite some time, and BHO almost escorted them out, but even if we hate her political tactics, she has strengths in terms of the electoral map (who shows up to vote always? partisans and white women).

Any Dem that becomes president will face the rants and raves of Rushbo & co, that's just the nature of the lovely American beast.

Posted by minna | March 5, 2008 12:42 PM

I slightly disagree with John M.'s comments.

First, a Clinton-Obama matchup doesn't make a lot of sense for Obama if, and only if, he is concerned about being tied to a Clinton. Gore suffered from Clinton-taint, and Obama could suffer the same fate. But, it does make sense if he wants to try to be a lock for 2012 if she loses or 2016 if she wins; there is no better antidote to the claim of inexperience than being a strong and active VP in the white house, and Obama 2.0 would not be an Al Gore 2000 redux.

Second, an Obama-Clinton matchup doesn't make sense for Clinton if she really had a shot at Senate Majority (or Minority) leader, which I think she really does. I don't think VP for Clinton is a smart political move; she can do more in the Senate.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 12:42 PM

I feel like the theoretical argument for this scenario is totally solid, but I just can't picture how it would play out. Hillary went too far with her statements about John McCain being ready, but Obama basing his whole campaign on a speech. And honestly, Obama's attacked her too hard on the issues to pick her as VP as well. As an endorser (which she'll have to be at some point), and giving her speech at the convention (which she'll certainly have a prime time slot for), she'll face a few embarrassing questions about her Obama turnabout. But as a vice presidential nominee, she'd be an albatross.

She makes sense as an old 1960-style "ticket balancing" choice. She makes no sense in the context of his message, and certainly not his message against John McCain.

Obama's clearly going to run hard on honesty, integrity, character type issues against McCain, in addition to tying him to Bush. Both of these arguments will be massively diminished if he's sharing a ticket with Hillary. And his message of having better judgment than McCain on Iraq, which he obviously intends to run hard on (since it's his only strong point as a potential commander in chief against McCain), would force him to take a stand against his potential successor, or else appear to not really mean what he says.

What's more, the case his campaign is making about his electability, and her baggage, would be null if she were the nominee. The Republicans could ignore him and run against her and Bill. That would be the whole race. Obama will have to defend the Clintons on a daily basis from the Republican attacks. And Obama would become more and more peripheral to the day-to-day race, reduced to the point of being microscopic by November.

I guess it depends on whether Obama thinks elections are won by cobbling together a bunch of separate groups, or trying to unify all the little pieces of the Democratic party with a single message. Obama clearly believes the latter, though whether he's right or not remains to be seen. But, the reality is, Obama is a message candidate. He lives and dies by his message. She's the opposite of his message. If he chucks his message, and runs the usual Democratic campaign, I believe he loses. I imagine his campaign feels the same way.

Posted by Joe Drymala | March 5, 2008 12:45 PM

Once again, "delegate math" is not an argument, but rather is an objective description of reality. Specifically, at the convention, the delegates will vote, and the person with the requisite number of votes will win the nomination. And if there is a person with a bunch of great arguments but not enough delegates to win, that person still loses. That is what the "delegate math" is about.

And no, the superdelegates are not somehow immune to mathematics. A person who is far ahead in pledged delegates will not need to win a majority of the superdelegates, just enough of them to get to the requisite winning number. Again, that is because in the end the math decides who wins.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:45 PM

I am a rapid pro-Obama supporter and don't think very highly of the clintons at all.

However, I think Marc is right.

The fact of the matter is that HIllary does have a large consituency that will be dispirited and gravitate to Mcain when she loses. I think Obama could still win, but with Hillary as his running mate, they will win in a landslide.

Hillary could probably deliver huge turnouts of latinos and downscale white women as VP and that would be huge.

No matter what the clinton people say, a reversed Clinton/Obama ticket would not work. I don't think Obama as VP would lead all those independents, many of whom don't like the clintons, to vote for Clinton/Obama. They'll still vote for Obama/Clinton because they will base their vote on the top of the ticket. But I don't see downscale white women or hispanics defecting to Mccain just because Hillary got the number 2 spot instead of the number one spot.

I think if Obama and Clinton got together and said in effect that he would be the CEO and she would be the COO, not only would they be unstoppable, but you might be looking at a landslide. Obama would no longer be vulnerable on experience and national security cred.

Look, I don't like the clintons as much as anybody, but it is clear in my mind this is the best move for the party with one big caveat: the clintons need to be on board 100%.

If they were smart, they would realize that this is probably Hillary's best move right now. If Obama/Clinton have a great 8 years and Hillary morphs herself into Obama's right hand woman, she would still be younger than john mccain is now in 2016.

If Obama is the left's Reagan, Hillary could the next George H.W. Bush of our party and she could be elected in 2016.

Think about it people, this may be the best way to resolve this situation. It's going to take dampening down of egos on all sides, however. Trust me, there is a part of me that wants Obama to destroy her once and for all and run her out of the party...but honestly, I think that this is everybody's best move right now.

Yes, Obama and Hillary have aired differences. But picking Hillary as his VP would cement his argument that he can reach out and build consensus with our enemies. If he can bring Hillary into the fold, and say in effect, "yes, we disagree on some things...but I want a running mate who will not be a 'yes man' but a strong, experienced person who won't be afraid to disagree with me."

But....the only way this can work is that Hillary needs to be on board 100%. They have to bury the hatchet, have a few apologies on both sides, and both feel like they can trust each other. I think Hillary and Obama liked each other just fine before the campaign...I think they can do this.

We all have to put aside some ego and the desire to demolish the other side if we want to actually achieve the agenda we all care about.

I think it is time to do this. They should announce a deal ASAP and start focusing on the general.

Posted by RKA | March 5, 2008 12:46 PM

Regarding some of Joe Drymala's comments, I don't think it's an issue when it comes to sharing a ticket whether candidate A said mean and nasty things about candidate B. All politicians are mercenaries to some extent; they also know that political rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As long as certain lines aren't crossed, it's really all within bounds. Unless you're John McCain, who has a reputation for taking everything personally and losing his cool about it, these attacks are water off a duck's back. Coalitions form out of political expediency and the past is soon forgotten in convenient. Unless there is real personal animosity between the two -- and I really don't think there is -- both camps will be willing to let what was said during the primary be part of the past, so long as it makes sense for their political future.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM

Two words on why it'll never happen Marc: Bill's zipper.

You can't write this stuff like a nominated Obama doesn't have better party unity options and a robed Obama could win the statehouse in Illinois by announcing. Your calculus seems to depend on him having neither a brain nor an ounce of self-respect.

Posted by Dirk | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM

Re DTM's comments: Delegate math is not an argument, it is an objective description of reality, but it is the grounding of two arguments Obama is making. The first argument that Obama is making is the argument you make: the will of the people = the number of pledged delegates, and you should go with the will of the people.

The second argument is about inevitability, one that Obama is also trying to make: I have an insurmountable delegate lead, supers, so you need to convice Clinton to drop out for the good of the party.

My point is that these arguments don't work because Clinton has extremely effective rebuttals that I've outlined above: 1) big contested states go for Clinton, and 2) if it's the will of the people you want, wait until the popular vote is over.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

I think this idea has the potential to do just as well as the Ford-Reagan ticket of 1976. Now there was a Co-Presidency to remember!

Posted by Bruce | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

I'm a foreigner who cannot vote yet spent 6 days knocking doors in Iowa at 5F over new years.

This accomodation of Obama-Hillary needs to happen now before PA. The response about Hillary's tax returns is anemic and too late. There's no way you can discount her 47% of the delegates. What Obama needs to swallow is that Hillary's support is not based on rationale. It cannot be won over by any rational argument. Not in the primary and perhaps not in the general.

Obama announcing a Sebelius VP slot would perhaps help, but what if Hillary comes back with a Hillary/Rendell ticket?

Why should the democrats spend $150M and fight each other for 6 months?

Posted by yiannis | March 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Can someone explain to me why we need to pick a nominee now? The general election is in November. There's lots of time.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 1:03 PM

I guess it's not surprising that a comment thread dominated by Democratic Party supporters would ignore the obvious weakness of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket: It would be a pure leftwing ticket. Though both candidates' supporters have convinced themselves that they represent the country's true center - just as many even on the far right are always certain that they're the true voices of the people - the candidates themselves are are probably a lot more realistic about where they lie on the American spectrum, and what they'll have to do if they're going to have a chance against McCain in the Fall. Each would much prefer to make a responsible "centrist" statement to the country, if possible. Unlike Bill Clinton, who was running as a relative moderate before a fractured electorate in '92, neither Obama or Hillary can expect a merely "amplifying" choice to help at all.

The current struggle in the D Party is likely to deny either candidate a new nominee's chance to introduce him- or herself a clear and simple, positive presentation to the populace. Instead, they'll be cooperating with McCain for the next couple of months in negatively defining each other. MI and FL controversies may also help to portray the party as a disorganized and ill-led rabble, even before a potential convention fight. If it goes to the lawyers, then the conversion from clear favorite to national laughingstock will be complete.

At that point, a unity ticket might become possible, but only the most deluded partisans and spinmeisters will see it as a sign of strength. It would be an act of desperation, an attempt to hold the party together and thus prevent the top-line problems from turning into a full-fledged catastrophe up and down the ballot.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM

To yiannis: No one's going to be talking about who their VP will be unless they want to be ridiculed by the press and their opponents.

And anyway, Sibelius has ruled out interest in the VP slot, but who knows if she would change her mind.

As for Rendell, way too many skeletons in the closet. He puts Bill Clinton to shame.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 1:05 PM

I'm a foreigner who cannot vote

Enough said. Kindly STFU (translate that however you like).

Posted by Juan | March 5, 2008 1:06 PM

I have now read all responses. The reality remains: You cannot discount her 47% of the delegates.

This idea that she can win NJ, MA, PA and OH in the general is important but she won't win ANYTHING without our young supporters our independents and our organization.

Chris, this is not a winner takes all primary. Her smaller leads in these states matter, but you cannot discount our enthusiasm gap.

Democrats have spoken loud and clear, they want an Obama/Hillary ticket and nothing else!

Posted by yiannis | March 5, 2008 1:10 PM

It's not disgust. It's reason.

Having Hillary on his ticket would negate the primary narrative of his campaign. And Obama signing on to be Clinton's VP condemns him in the future. Look at what happened to Al Gore, and he didn't even run on a narrative of "a new kind of politics".

If Obama wins the nomination, he needs to be aggressive in appealing to spurned women voters, for sure. But this may or may not mean a female running mate, and certainly doesn't justify Clinton as a choice. I doubt she would take the #2 spot anyway. Perhaps the ideal for him is to offer her the VP slot and for her to reject it.

If Clinton wins the nomination, its on to the Illinois governorship in 2010 for Obama and a run in 2012 or 2016.

Posted by TH | March 5, 2008 1:15 PM

I think CK makes a good point and one that should be obvious to the party. But I think the analysis is slightly off and a unity ticket of Clinton-Obama (but not Obama-Clinton!) would actually make sense against McCain for this reason:

If Clinton is the nominee, then a good chunk of the indies and Republicans who voted for Obama in the primaries will likely cut for McCain, and the new voters who signed up Dem in order to vote for Obama might not vote. Putting Obama on the ticket makes up for this, blunts the possibility that indies will cut for McCain, and possibly moves Republicans and new Dems to vote for the Clinton ticket.

I agree an Obama-Clinton ticket makes less political sense for some of the reasons CK mentions; I also think practically that Clinton blunts Obama's lead among indies given indies visceral reaction against Clinton.

Dems need to remember that McCain is absolutely the strongest Republican that could have been nominated, will be a credible Republican moderate, probably wins the national security issue, and is loved by the press. He is going to be very hard to beat (unless there's a long and painful recession).

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 1:15 PM

Just switch it around to Clinton/Obama, and I think this makes perfect sense.

Posted by dk | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM

CK MacLeod,

You are forgetting the following detail. Clinton ran against HW and Perrot following 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of HW.

The country is ready for change and McCain is a weak and old candidate who does not understand anything other than war and bombs.

Obama/Hillary would easily trounce McCain. The argument that Hillary made about the 3am ad is pathetic and would be overwhelmed everytime we proclaim these two names together Bush/McCain.

Posted by yiannis | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM

This post reminds me of Don Corleone's aphorism about "keeping your friends close but your enemies closer." That is, until reality sets in.

There is NO WAY this happens. "Serious" political commenters truly underestimate how much Obama supporters have come to loathe the Clintons and their obnoxious, dishonest surrogates. They can't get off the public stage soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

Those of us who held our noses and voted for Bill in the 90s, only to watch he and Hillary completely capitulate to the Republicans on practically every major policy issue, are remembering quite clearly why we were embarrassed to admit publicly that we voted for them... why we were unable to make an affirmative case for Bill in discussions with friends beyond "he's not as bad as the other guy."

Perhaps Marc is right and we will all see his argument after we calm down. Right now I'm so disgusted it's hard to think clearly.

With every passing day that Hillary stays in the race through smears, lies, and deceitful campaign tactics, she makes it more likely that McCain wins, no matter who the Dem candidate may be. And you know why? Not because of frothing at the mouth anger or sadness, but because this bullshit deadens the mind. That's always been the purpose of negative campaigning, not to swing votes but to depress them... to make potential voters tune out, to remind them of why they thought politics wasn't worth their time to begin with.

In other words, Hillary is doing the job that traditionally Republicans have taken on in presidential elections - of depressing turnout for Democrats.

Scoff if you like, but this will be a big topic in November... particularly if she is the candidate.

BB

Posted by BillB | March 5, 2008 1:25 PM

This post reminds me of Don Corleone's aphorism about "keeping your friends close but your enemies closer." That is, until reality sets in.

There is NO WAY this happens. "Serious" political commenters truly underestimate how much Obama supporters have come to loathe the Clintons and their obnoxious, dishonest surrogates. They can't get off the public stage soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

Those of us who held our noses and voted for Bill in the 90s, only to watch he and Hillary completely capitulate to the Republicans on practically every major policy issue, are remembering quite clearly why we were embarrassed to admit publicly that we voted for them... why we were unable to make an affirmative case for Bill in discussions with friends beyond "he's not as bad as the other guy."

Perhaps Marc is right and we will all see his argument after we calm down. Right now I'm so disgusted it's hard to think clearly.

With every passing day that Hillary stays in the race through smears, lies, and deceitful campaign tactics, she makes it more likely that McCain wins, no matter who the Dem candidate may be. And you know why? Not because of frothing at the mouth anger or sadness, but because this bullshit deadens the mind. That's always been the purpose of negative campaigning, not to swing votes but to depress them... to make potential voters tune out, to remind them of why they thought politics wasn't worth their time to begin with.

In other words, Hillary is doing the job that traditionally Republicans have taken on in presidential elections - of depressing turnout for Democrats.

Scoff if you like, but this will be a big topic in November... particularly if she is the candidate.

BB

Posted by BillB | March 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Chris,

For what it is worth, I am not making either of those two arguments, nor really any normative arguments at all. So, for example, I personally think the superdelegates are free to decide for themselves what criteria they want to use in casting their votes (e.g., democratic principles, electability, party-building, downticket considerations, and so on). I also think Clinton is entitled to keep campaigning as long as she chooses (although that doesn't mean I would endorse any particular campaign tactics she might choose).

Rather, my "delegate math" argument is purely descriptive. Given the current delegate counts (pledged and super), it is simply not possible at this point for Clinton to win the nomination without a radical change in the dynamics of the contest. And although people frequently suggest this contest has been full of twists and turns, in fact the dynamics which have emerged have actually been relatively stable, including through last night.

So, Clinton just doesn't have a plausible path to the nomination, absent a radical change in the dynamic (which we have no reason to expect will happen). Again, though, I'm not trying to draw any normative conclusions from that analysis. It is just where things stand.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 1:32 PM

I'm a huge Obama guy and two weeks ago I would have said no way in hell I want Hillary on the ticket. But I'm warming to the idea that there is a case to be made for an Obama/Clinton campaign.

(And before I continue - yes, it has to be Obama for president. Let's not be silly here...he is still the one with a lead that she can't not catch through legitimate means. She is still a Clinton, who would surely be a lightning rod and rallying point for conservatives at the top of the ticket.)

I think she'd do a fine job as head policy wonk and attack dog in the VP role. The Clintons obviously have a formidable machine. And as VP, she isn't quite as visible and thus less likely to stir up conservatives as she would by her mere presence as the presidential candidate.

The question to me is - and I'm dead serious here - can Obama trust the Clintons? Would they give this campaign everything they have if she's not heading up the ticket, or would they discretely undermine it in hopes of him losing and to position her for a run in 2012?

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 1:33 PM

Marc:

Not going to wade into the merits or demerits of this, but unless you meant to imply that the partisans are especially, um, swift and quick, I think you meant "rabid" instead of rapid in this dispatch.

I suppose the likes of Jeff Larson, as one example, are both rapid and rabid but ... Nevermind.

Denny

Posted by Denny Crane | March 5, 2008 1:34 PM

I really hate to verbalize this because I have been thinking it for a while, I'll just throw it out.

My sense is that Clinton wants on the ticket because she bets that Obama will be assassinated. He's the first President who would be willing to take on the Big Drug Companies, the Big Insurance Companies, the profits of Haliburton, and the Big Oil Company. I really fear for his well-being.

Posted by Ann | March 5, 2008 1:35 PM

Duane -- I got it.

Posted by JTS | March 5, 2008 1:36 PM

Folks who are suggesting that the math doesn't matter, that the superdelegates are going to be swayed by the argument that only the big states matter, please take a deep breath.

There was a point in our recent history when the math was declared not to matter, and the popular vote was superceded by brute legal force.

Think about how that felt, and think about which particular voting bloc in the Democratic party felt the brunt of it the most.

Think about how that voting bloc may or may not feel if that were to happen again, with a candidate that these particular voters feel far more personally connected to than they did Al Gore. Think further about how much the Democratic nominee must rely on this voting bloc to win the White House.

Think further about the story from the convention if that happens. Think about the protests that will escalate in anticipation of it happening. Things aren't as crazy in America as they were in 1968, but the convention will be covered as if it were 1968 all over again, with any hint of aggression by the protesters treated like the storming of the Bastille, or the Rodney King riots. The national media would be only too happy to amplify this one aspect of the convetion and ignore everything else. If I were the chief executive of CNN, I would be praying for exacty this outcome.

Think further about the aftermath of this "delegates-don't-matter" nomination convention, and imagine if the Republican party were able to have the opportunity to run against Bill and Hillary as racists who destroyed this nice black man that everyone in America really likes. They would be the most pro-Obama voices you've ever heard, if Hillary were the nominee.

The above scenario is total suicide. It is. There's no other way to describe it. It's also totally predictable, if Hillary loses the delegate count and popular vote count and still somehow wins the nomination. Hell, if I were working for the Republican party, I would utterly commit myself to making this scenario a reality. Some Republicans are already doing just that.

Now, think about who the superdelegates are, and where their loyalties lie. Think about how many superdelegates rely on the votes of that crucial voting bloc in their own districts. Think further about the remaining unelected superdelegates, the DNC members, and why they have withheld their endorsement of either candidate, even when Hillary Clinton was all-but-unbeatable in September and careerist Democrats were jumping on board in huge numbers. They are not low-information voters. They will not go one way or the other because they just saw a blacked-up anti-Obama ad two days after it occurred to them that there was an election in the near future.

The spin, at this point, is affecting only the top-level coverage of the race. There is a much different conversation going on in those dreaded smoke-filled rooms. These are people who see the cold, hard realities of the coming election.

Posted by Joe Drymala | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM

It surprises me when people say Obama has a better shot against McCain than Hillary. I think she beats him handily. Regardless of who the nominee on either side is, it's the usual blue state/red state layout. Dems win New York, California, etc. Republiscums win the South, etc. The swing states will be the usual suspects; Ohio, Florida, Penn, etc. She has a better chance of winning those. McCain has major strikes against him: he's old, he's lost his temper on camera many times, he told an ABOMINABLE joke about Chelsea Clinton at a Republiscum fundraiser in 1998, he does not have the support of money conservatives OR the religious right. He's also vulnerable because of his George W ties. We're hearing this already - the "McCain will just be a third Bush term" twaddle. A lot of this will stick. Also, while Hillary has been the target of the right wing slime machine for twenty years, they're about out of ammo when it comes to her. The scandals, et al are old news. With Obama, they're just getting warmed up. The Rezco thing is only the beginning. Wait till they REALLY start scrutinizing that Muslim upbringing of his. They will spin that to death, and believe me it will get ugly. When people accuse Hillary of "going negative" against Barack, I don't know if I should laugh or puke. Are Democrats really that oblivious? Does anyone remember what the Bushies did to McCain in 2000 at the South Carolina primaries? Does anyone remember the way the "swiftboat" campaign managed to tarnish john Kerry's military record - even though he's a decorated and legitimate war hero while his rival George W was a draft dodging, beer drinking, coke snorting imbecile??? Lastly, regarding the potential Hillary-Obama ticket, I don't get the sense he wants that, but it may well be "forced" on him as was suggested. They may yet strike a deal out of neccesity. I think Hillary would love to have him on her ticket - mainly because she's smarter and more savvy than he is. She knows it will help them win. He seems to be taking it all personally. And he really shouldn't be. For one, despite his calm, pleasant demeanor, he's played the game too. Among other things, his constant attacks on her Iraq War vote are disingenuous. It's political theater and he knows it. He wasn't a senator when the vote came down. He had no skin in the game. Plus, deep down he knows Hillary Clinton wouldn't have taken us into Iraq had she been president at the time. Her position on Iraq is a nuanced one. And he knows and BENEFITS from the fact that Americans have no interest in political nuance. It's smear, spin, and sound bite. He's just learning the ropes, but he's no novice. Number two, there's great logic in him being HER VP: He's only 46. Using John McCain's nomination as a measuring stick, that would make Obama a viable candidate for another 26 years! If he were her VP, the beautiful scenario of democrats contolling American politics long enough to actually fix things - ala FDR - seems quite possible. Hey, I can dream can't I?

Posted by Zack | March 5, 2008 1:47 PM

"ah, she's a tenacious opponent."

Haha. That pause was clearly a moment to arrive at a friendly/political phrasing.

Posted by TH | March 5, 2008 1:50 PM

The "dream ticket" doesn't make sense for Obama either way you go. It DOES make sense for Hillary Clinton. I don't believe she's being genuine with her comments about the possibility, though.

Clinton has everything to gain by having Obama on her ticket because she'll be able to rely on his ability to enthuse younger audiences and African Americans, and because she puts him out of commission to run against her in 2012 if the ticket is successful. She likewise benefits if she's on his ticket -- or at least she has nothing to lose by being on his ticket (particularly if he loses the general).

For Obama, though, either rendition would be disastrous. First, can you even imagine what it would be like for him to be her VP candidate? Who in their right mind would want to be VP to Hillary with Bill around? Obama wouldn't gain a lick of this vaunted and necessary "experience" being Hillary's VP.

Also, if he is the nominee and Clinton is on the ticket as VP, he will be going against the entire premise of his campaign, i.e., to get away from the "old politics" of nastiness and division. It would make him look like "just another politician."

(And on a more tongue-in-cheek level, if Hillary were his VP, I'd be somewhat afraid for Obama's life, given the Clintons' raging ambition . . .)

Posted by Amy | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM

"just as Hillary surely cannot ignore -- would not ignore -- everything that Obama has come to stand for and has accomplished."

Where is the evidence for this sentiment? Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton cares one iota about Obama's base, or independents, or anyone who doesn't toe the line on her policy views? In her own campaign's words, those voters "do not matter." Where is the evidence she would give any respect in policy negotiations to those who do not agree with her, as Obama proposes to do? I'm sure she'd be thrilled to consign him to the vice president's office, where under her presidency he would make Hannibal Hamlin look prominent by comparison, but where is the incentive for Obama to submit to such a humiliation?

As far as an Obama/Clinton ticket... Obama has his problems and issues. He will have to grow further if he wants to get into, and succeed in, the Oval Office. Frankly, the last thing he needs is her dead weight around his neck.

Posted by Grunthos | March 5, 2008 1:57 PM

Zack,

One glaring flaw in your sort of analysis is that Kerry barely won several states, including NH, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Clinton could well win Ohio and lose the election to McCain by losing states like those.

A second glaring flaw is that Ohio and Florida are not the only, or even most promising, possible additions. For example, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, and Colorado are all potentially promising, and perhaps more states as well.

In short, a Kerry+1 strategy is not a particularly smart way to go, because the nominee may well end up getting the +1 and losing a couple others. A much better strategy is to consider who could both (A) hold onto the close Kerry states, and (B) put as many other states in play as possible.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 1:58 PM

Come to think of it, Obama's response to this question was basically "no". He can't say as much, but he wouldn't be dodging with this "it's premature" response if the answer was yes.

Posted by TH | March 5, 2008 2:01 PM

Also, if he is the nominee and Clinton is on the ticket as VP, he will be going against the entire premise of his campaign, i.e., to get away from the "old politics" of nastiness and division. It would make him look like "just another politician."

Amy: I used to think that way, but I'm coming around to the idea that Obama could make a legitimate argument that Clinton is a compelling enough candidate that they could put their disagreements aside and he could add her to his ticket.

But frankly I think he would look emasculated if he signed on as her VP - not because she's a woman, but because he had every compelling argument for the nomination (delegates, popular votes, money) and caved in.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 2:02 PM

Regarding some of Joe Drymala's comments, I don't think it's an issue when it comes to sharing a ticket whether candidate A said mean and nasty things about candidate B. All politicians are mercenaries to some extent; they also know that political rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As long as certain lines aren't crossed, it's really all within bounds.

Yes, in this day and age, how on earth would anyone have their political career affected by statements they made on camera in the past? I can't even imagine.

Posted by Joe Drymala | March 5, 2008 2:09 PM

Full disclosure: I dislike Hillary Clinton intensely.

But having said that, I would go for an Obama-Clinton ticket. It brings the party together, and would insure massive turnout at the polls in November. That translates into a lot of down-ticket wins for Democrats (Congressional races, Governorships, State and Municipal contests, etc...)

It also avoids the potential fracturing of the Democratic Party that we risk should Hillary win the nomination by getting the superdelegates to vote for her even though Obama held the lead in earned delegates. I think we are at grave risk of a terrible rupture within the Party if that happens, and putting the two of them on the ticket is the surest way to avoid that outcome.

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 5, 2008 2:13 PM

The internet is not the real world nor an accurate reflection of it; it's just it's own odd corner of the real world.

In the real world, Obama/Clinton would be a might strong ticket; invincible, I would say.

That despite the fact that most people on the internets don't seem to like it.

I also believe that Hillary Clinton is the natural heir to Dick Cheney.

Posted by lampwick | March 5, 2008 2:23 PM

I can see Obama promising Hillary something, but not a VP slot. On the flip side, as an Obama fan, I would hope that he'd have the dignity to refuse a VP slot offered by her. After all, she represents the political strategies he hates most. She's not accused of being a Democrat Rove for no reason. Obama is STILL vowing not to go negative on her -- his pushing for the tax returns hardly counts when there are so many juicier targets the Clintons offer.

Posted by JMW | March 5, 2008 2:30 PM

Talk about the worst idea in history. The absolute antithesis of everything he stands for, she drags him down into the dirt frantically clinging to her nomination chances, and divides and chops at his messsage. And he gives her VP!?!?!? He would look like and BE a total hypocrite.

Not to mention...WHY on earth would you put someone as radioactive as Clinton on your ticket? SHe has 47 % unfavorables for god's sake! Since when is vp logic: pick a highly divisive political liability who will mobilize your opponent??

jesus. every time I hear this i wanna vomit

Posted by jware | March 5, 2008 2:38 PM

Obama shouldn't have a big problem putting Hillary on the ticket. He can push the changes he wants while sending her off to foreign funerals. She's got a lot of experience with that.

The big problem is that neither one gets much by taking the VEEP slot. I'd be amazed if that job would satisfy Hillary.

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Marc,

This sounds more like fantasy sports, where the focus is exclusively on stats. In theory, the combined demographic strengths of a Dream ticket are strong. It just doesn't make any sense on the field, and particularly, for the two players.

The first question is who gets the top position on the ticket. As an Obama supporter, I might be biased, but I don't see Obama agreeing to be VP if he ends up (as projected) with more delegates, and I can't see the supers or FL/MI do-overs changing that.

So that leaves Hillary as potential VP. And that seems even less palatable, both for Omama and for her.

For Obama, having Hillary on the ticket undermines his main argument for "turning the page". And, as he is about to argue, she really doesn't have much experience (esp compared to McCain). Hillary brings far more of her negatives (scandals, fatigue, Bill meddling, etc) than her positives...and she does have some positives.

For Hillary, a shot at VP would make sense if she were her own woman: as a 1.5 term senator, it would be a promotion. But her campaign is about "them", and they have been a 2 term president. Anything less would be a demotion. Their goal is the presidency this year, or in 4 years.

The lone effect of the long primary will be the increasing animosity of rival supporters....this is already happening. The large number of Obama/Hillary supporters who had favorable views of of the rival candidate has turned into small but growing numbers who claim they will sit out or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. This will only grow worse as Obama begins to fight back, or if supers or rule changes appear to "steal" the nomination unfairly for either candidate.

My prediction: Hillary loses the nomination, but cripples Obama in the process. Obama then loses to McCain, which positions Hillary for 2012. The presidency is their only goal, and they are smart enough to know this is their most plausible path.

Posted by jw | March 5, 2008 2:59 PM

an inverse GWB/Cheney ticket... scary good....

Posted by reeegan | March 5, 2008 5:17 PM

Does anyone remember Michael Dukakis?
We Dems sure do have a short memory don't we.
Credit to the Republicans they are much more strategic.

Well Michael Dukakis won all the 'big states; when he defeated Al Gore, JJ. He won Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey and lots more… And then look at the Electoral College map of the 1988 November election result. The record speaks for itself.

Posted by Sonny L. | March 5, 2008 5:18 PM

Clinton/Obama: Here's yet another Hillary scheme; this time to appeal to those female voters who want to use Hillary as a proxy to lord it over the overly ambitious and talented male office clerk. She should realize by now that Obama isn't dumb enough to fall for this trick, which she's tried before. He has absolutely nothing to gain by being VP; the Clintons would sabotage him every step of the way(hello, Gore). He'd be VP in name only; Bill would be the true Cheney successor.

Obama, on the other hand, has sensible non-Hillary options for VP. I would advise his campaign to start whispering much more loudly the potential for a female VP slot going to Sibelius(or some other non-Hillary female). Really, they need to INTRODUCE someone other than Hillary as a potential female President ASAP because the average older woman does not even know there's another woman that exists that could become president before they die. And she needs to start attending his rallies regularly so people start the association and get comfortable with her. And if Obama doesn't do it first, then I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain picking Rice to take the edge off the gender/race battle. That match-up could get very interesting!

Posted by kristi | March 5, 2008 5:36 PM

Excellent post Kristi.

It is time for Obama to take action on two fronts.

1) Attack her at the heart of her argument – she is not ready to be commander-in-chief. It’s simple really, and he has started it.
“Hillary Clinton claims that her experience makes her the one you want in the White House when a crisis comes up. But that moment will require decisions to be made, and for all her alleged experience, she has been terrible at making decisions on issues of war and peace. In 2002, she voted with John McCain and George Bush to authorize the war in Iraq – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. In 2007, she voted for Iran an resolution backed by George Bush and John McCain, a vote Joe Biden described as ‘stupid’ – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. Like John McCain, Hillary Clinton has experience, but like McCain, her lack of judgment makes her a dangerous choice for commander-in-chief.”

2) Clinton has been making the rounds of the morning shows talking up the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. This will be a key part of her strategy, since she know that a brokered convention, which she will need to get the nomination, will need to get Obama and Obama’s supporters on board before they can give Clinton the nomination. It is imperative that Obama eliminates that possibility and makes it an either-or choice. Here is what he should say to his supporters:
“Hillary Clinton has been going around talking about the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Let me be absolutely clear about this – I will not accept the vice presidential nomination under any conditions. To do so would betray the principles of change this campaign has been built on. I have no intention of being the third wheel on Bill and Hillary Clinton ticket. We – you and I – have come too far in this journey to end up in the back of the Clinton bus”

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 5, 2008 5:55 PM

I think she was trying to say that *she* would be willing to put *him* on the ticket, and anyway that seems more like the way things will really go.

I am absolutely boggled that Marc Ambinder would think it was any other way. His post was quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen posted here, except maybe the following comments by people who didn't say "Yo, clueless, you have it backwards."

Unreal. Hillary was offering Obama the veep. Full stop.

So I think Marc gets the interpretation, and the argument, exactly wrong. And no one cares about delegate math right now.

Yes and yes. The only people who don't realize that delegates don't matter are media pundits.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

Others serve the same purpose as Hillary and don't come with the scandal. The tax return--when it ever gets released--will doom her candidacy. And it'd be a led weight around the neck of the presumptive nominee.

If Obama feels like he needs to placate the boomer, union, health care crowd, hello Obama/Sebelius. If Obama ignores everything and makes the best choice for an election against John McCain, hello Obama/Webb.

If Clinton gets the nomination, why would Obama accept the VP slot? There's no reason for it--it aligns him with the old 50/50 politics, and forever creates a negative impression of him in the minds of independents and Republicans. Additionally, why would a politician of Obama's stature--the leader of a grass roots movement unlike anything we've seen recently--want to play third banana to Hillary and Bill Clinton? Attending funerals and ribbon cuttings is so appealing.

What Clinton is trying to do with this talk is fool people--apparently like Marc himself--into believing a Clinton/Obama ticket is likely. That way they can vote for her without rejecting the guy they love so much. And in the end, as she always does because she is an untrustworthy scumbag, she'll pull a bait and switch and put Harold Ford Jr on the ticket. And she'll lose. That's ok, I'm looking forward to it. By the end of this campaign she may do enough illegal things to land her in jail--a place she should've been a long, long time ago.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | March 5, 2008 8:08 PM

Both from northern states, both with fairly short records in elected office, both pretty liberal....I'm not seeing the balancing act. For one thing, I think the number of "I like A, but B would be good/at least tolerable" people has been shrinking steadily, and polls bear that out. And the veephood is not a consolation prize--it should be about finding a person who balances the ticket and can be entrusted with some tasks of governing, e.g. tackling economic issues while the pres works on health care. (OK, I'm partisan and admit I can't see who would want to be Clinton's veep, cause that last part isn't happening.)

Against C-O: The only way this happens is to tell the man who played by the rules and won the votes that he's going to the back of the line behind the Clintons since they want a do-over on the presidency. This would be hard against Biden; against a talented black man it will lose a flood of voters, even if he is on the ticket--that's still moving him behind the Clintons. And given that she's praised his oratory and proclaimed him otherwise unqualified, none of his supporters will expect any of the pluses we get with him--end of torture and Guantanamo, progressive diplomacy to repair our image and make us safer, sound judgment on that phone line. Even if he makes a really good speech saying otherwise. We aren't voting for his speechmaking, and that's all we'd get. A difference of a few votes would be problematic, and we seem to be talking 100-200.

Against O-C: Clinton anywhere on the ticket now alienates Republicans (motivates them too), independents (Clinton says we shouldn't count), and a large bloc of Democrats. He can do better.

Short version: Obama as veep doesn't help Clinton much. Clinton as veep harms Obama. And they don't balance demographics in a way otherwise unattainable. (e.g Obama-Napolitano)

Posted by Deborah | March 5, 2008 8:26 PM

The only problem with the Obama/Clinton ticket is that Obama would needs a VP who has strong foreign policy experience. Clinton does not, so it would not help against McCain.

Posted by Robyn | March 5, 2008 8:32 PM

The only problem with the Obama/Clinton ticket is that Obama would needs a VP who has strong foreign policy experience. Clinton does not, so it would not help against McCain.

Posted by Robyn | March 5, 2008 8:32 PM

Senator Clinton's responses today to the question, I think, shows she has now accepted that that is the only way she will be on the ballot. And that is her "brockering point". I thought it was a done deal earlier and it would have been grand if she hasn't shot herself in the foot with the negative campaigning.

Senator McCain clearly gets that the majority of the voters are so fed up with it they will probably dump the candidate that does it.

But those last minute attacks, without time to adequately refute, still work and will be used by the candidate who is behind.

Posted by Lemuel C Bray | March 5, 2008 8:51 PM

2. Obama has lost almost every large, contested state. He lost CA, NJ, TX, and OH.

Obama won TX. He won MO. He won GA. He won IL. He won WA. He won WI.

Those were large and contested.

He won CT and ME, Clinton states.

He was never expected to win NJ.

Clinton locked up CA mainly on early voting, during Feb. 5th. Obama didn't campaign much there.

There are 50 states in the Union. Obama has won most of them. That is unlikely to change.

If you think your argument, mathematical, political, or moral, would persuade a superdelegate, then you have to explain why uncommitteds haven't broken for Clinton.

The answer is obvious.

Posted by Reality Man | March 5, 2008 9:02 PM

Hillary's behavior in this election process and the behavior of her campaign has been an embarrassment to women, to my state, to the party and to the nation. It would not be in Obama's best interests to align himself with her in a national race. She's become just as repellent as GW. I would hope that the party would know better than to reward someone who has operated with her own self interests ahead of everyone else's at whatever cost it takes. Please do not give her ambitions credence by writing about this as a possibility let a lone a certitude.

Posted by Kelly | March 5, 2008 9:07 PM

Ticket of Rivals

Although Barack Obama is dismissing talk of a unity ticket as "premature," there are good reasons to think that now is the time such a ticket would have the maximum impact for putting Obama in the White House. Further, an Obama-Clinton ticket could be framed as the first example of how Obama intends to govern the country.

In interviews, Barack Obama has often mentioned Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals as influential for how he intends to put together an administration.

The book focuses on Abraham Lincoln's choice, as president, to place his previous rivals for the Republican nomination in the positions of highest authority in the Lincoln administration. In that nomination battle, harsh attacks had been exchanged, including demeaning personal insults of Lincoln. Yet in the crisis of the nascent Civil War, Lincoln set aside any hard feelings and brought the most talented politicians in his party into his administration. And so ambitious Republicans like William Seward, Salmon Chase, Edwin Stanton, and Edward Bates -- each regarding himself as more qualified than Lincoln to be president -- became the key members of Lincoln's war cabinet.

When applying Lincoln's approach to his own prospective administration, Obama has focused on his intention to invite moderate Republicans into his administration. Names like Richard Luger, Chuck Hagel, and Colin Powell have been floated as possible members of an Obama cabinet. Whatever the value of a bi-partisan administration, that wasn't quite Lincoln's approach. Lincoln built an administration out of the rivals within his own party. He, the upstart nominee, asked his more experienced rivals to run the Civil War under his leadership.

In that vein, I suggest that Obama seriously consider taking that approach immediately by enlisting Hillary Clinton as his running mate. A "team of rivals" would move from being an aspiration to a real thing in front of voters.

Because of her March 4th primary victories, the campaign is likely to drag on at least into June. Yet because of her deficit in pledged delegates, she'll have to win by unrealistically large margins in the remaining states to catch him. Her only path to the nomination is to go so negative on Obama that she disqualifies him from the presidency in the eyes of most super delegates, whom she will be asking to go against the majority of delegates selected by voters.

The almost certain outcome is that Obama will still be the nominee, but with both him and Clinton diminished by the ferocity of coming attacks.

Further, at the moment, the Democrats have a huge financial advantage over the Republicans. McCain's campaign has little money in the bank, is involved in a messy situation with the FEC over whether spending much more money would be legal, and is still trying to calm down unhappy conservatives. By directing their massive expenditures away from each other and onto McCain, they could get an important head start in defining the terms of the general election campaign.

For Obama, the gain is obvious. He immediately becomes the de facto Democratic nominee and puts a stop to negative attacks from the ferocious Clinton campaign. He also unites the party and directs the considerable talent in Clinton's campaign -- especially Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves -- toward their common opponent with enthusiasm. Such a Borg-like absorption of her campaign into his would also be a vivid symbol of Obama's bring-us-together approach to political leadership.

One can imagine him saying something like, "One thing I learned Tuesday night is that there are a lot of Democratic voters out there committed to Hillary Clinton. I take seriously that desire to see Senator Clinton involved in our country's next steps, and I look forward to taking those steps with her. I'll admit that I've also learned that Senator Clinton is a tenacious campaigner. And I'm looking forward to having her commitment to winning working for me rather than directed at me."

The only negative for Obama is that he wouldn't be able to choose a running mate who shores up his national security credentials. As Bush's choice of Cheney did so effectively in 2000, Obama could have blunted the "inexperience" charge by choosing a seasoned national figure like Wes Clark or Sam Nunn. Alternatively, he could have gone the traditional route of choosing a running mate who would help put him over the top in a swing state.

For Obama, the plusses far outweigh the negatives.

As they do for Clinton. Probably many readers are thinking that there's little chance Clinton would, at this point, agree to join forces with Obama as his running mate. Her goal, after all, is the presidency, not the vice-presidency.

Yet, despite her public rhetoric, Clinton is as aware as any pundit of the implications of her delegate deficit. She knows that, even if she wins Ohio-size margins in all remaining states, her chances of taking the nomination from Obama are very small. Part of what keeps her in the race, it seems, is the commitment of her most fervent supporters -- especially women of her generation and older. She doesn't want to let them down.

Agreeing to run with Obama could be accurately spun as a joining of forces. And if an Obama-Clinton ticket wins in November, Clinton, as the first female vice president, would become the trailblazing woman with a remembered place in history that so many of her supporters hoped she would be. In addition, assuming two Obama terms, in 2016, she would be only 69, two years younger than John McCain is now. Depending on the political climate, after eight years as vice president, she would be in a position to run more credibly on an "experience" platform, plus able to benefit from (rather the current struggle of running against) whatever glow Obama has at that point.

Alternatively, if she loses the nomination to Obama after fighting him to the bitter end, she'll be in no better long-term political shape than past second place Democratic figures like John Edwards, Paul Tsongas, Richard Gephardt, and Gary Hart -- none of whom was later nominated. Plus, she'll have the future baggage of whatever hostility the rising young Obama supporters retain for her. Recall that Hubert Humphrey, once the leading American liberal, never did recover politically from the way he got the nomination in 1968. He was ever after the establishment hack in the eyes of the emerging generation.

In addition, with her political talents, one could expect Obama to give Clinton a substantive vice presidency, with important responsibilities and a genuine advisory role. She would be in an important position to influence the next eight years of American history rather than playing a very limited role in the Senate.

Clinton would also understand that Obama would be unlikely to ask her to be his running mate in late summer. By then, other factors would favor different VP prospects. The main benefit to him would be in combining forces with her now. If she said no, she'd be choosing a lost cause likely to hurt the party over a better than 50% chance of being the next vice president.

The time for this team of rivals is now. Over the next couple months, Democrats can either wring their hands as these two strong candidates rip each other apart or celebrate them joining forces. Given the delegate situation, joining forces now on an Obama-Clinton ticket is a win for both candidates -- and for the party.

Posted by John Z. | March 5, 2008 9:14 PM

If Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean try to game her onto an Obama ticket (or if they try to force him into her VP spot), I hope Obama takes a walk and runs as an Independent with Michael Bloomberg as his Veep. It would serve the party right.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2008 9:45 PM

I, too, am a "rapid" Obama supporter. And I have to say, I don't foresee a joint ticket.

If -- and I really stress the "if" -- there is a joint ticket, it would have to be with Clinton in the VP spot. Obama as her Veep is as a bad as not being on the ticket at all. Do not rule out the affect and influence of one "Bill Clinton" in a Clinton 2.0 White House. Obama -- frankly, anyone else who would take the job -- is not number 2, but more like number 2002. There is no power there, and any decision-making that should include the VP will not because Bill will be functioning in that role. Trust that he will have the East Wing office that is closest to the West Wing. And a personal "Hillary only" hotline.

The ideal situation for Obama -- the current delegate math holding, and conventional wisdom that the superdelegates will not overturn the "will of the people -- is to offer Clinton a high-powered cabinet position. She wouldn't be the first female Secretary of State -- and this run for the White House appears for her to be about either breaking glass celings or proving to Bill that she can do anything he can do better (I have no other real rationale for her candidacy)-- so offering her Defense (and putting her self-proclaimed "expertise" to work) might be appealing enought to strike a deal, and keep Hillary "in the cooler" for at least 4 years. It would be much harder for Bill to interfere in the White House operations, and Obama can fire Hillary from her "appointment," if necessary. (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)

"Dream" ticket, though? Not in mine.

Posted by Jade7243 Hussein | March 5, 2008 9:46 PM

If agreeing to it were the price of stopping the bloodletting and giving McCain free rein, I guess he would have to consider it....... but would his life be safe?

Posted by Elizabeth | March 5, 2008 9:54 PM

Clinton should join mcCain on his ticket--two old timers. They can then bomb bomb bomb bomb the world away.

Posted by Ralph | March 5, 2008 10:31 PM

On an Obama-Clinton ticket, the Clintons would undermine Obama's Presidency. On a Clinton-Obama ticket, Obama would be little more than the Clinton's black man-servant. Believe it or not, I liked the Clinton's until December. They disgust me now because of their willingness to feed off racism and I will never forgive them. If Obama manages to lose I will not vote.

Posted by Joseph | March 6, 2008 12:03 AM

In very few times has the VP job amounted to anything at all.

So ask yourself why Clinton would want it, rather than Harry Reid's job.

Posted by Tom J | March 6, 2008 5:06 AM

mrs. clinton is certainly better suited for harry reid's job. but once he finally gets out of the way, dick durbin will be a difficult person to leapfrog...

what does clinton bring to obama's ticket? nada. she offers no military or economic experience to speak of that would diminish those criticisms against him. she compromises his brand as an independent minded visionary determined to shake up d.c. and she offers no electoral advantages. there is not a single state that she would move into the democratic column. in fact, she would ignite the tenaciousness of the republican base and diminish obama's appeal to independents and republicans - singularly because of his association with her.

i could think of dozens of democrats that would be preferable VP choices for the junior senator from illinois.

Posted by lincoln | March 6, 2008 9:42 AM

SHE is not doing anything more than APPEARING TO be open to the question with the asumption being- she would the president. This might make those sympathtic women think she is human...do not be fooled.
THe rumour is that Obama has 50 superdelegates pledged to him and ready to announce. That is why Wolfsen screamed ---- Ken Starr[ stupid- it brings to mind all the scandals of the clintons]and she is trying to freeze the super delegates...The math/and votes are not in her favor. It is also the reason for the push to seat MI and Fl.
Slime/no character and has friends like- Norman Hsu- Ron Paul- C. Tryie, and all the busboys and dishwashers in NYC.

Posted by BINK1 | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM