If You Will It, It Is No Dream: In Defense of an Obama-Clinton Ticket

After millions of wasted dollars and endless amounts of pyrrhic pugilism, philistine pandering and pro-gun posturing, the Pennsylvania primary did not change anything. Hillary won, but she won modestly: the tide is not turning.

The candidate of realism needs a reality check, while the candidate of hope needs to stop getting his hopes up. Neither Hillary nor Obama is capable of closing the deal. Hillary will continue to fight an uphill battle all the way to Denver while doing little to mitigate her negatives. Though only diminutively behind in delegates, popular votes, and states won (she makes up in electoral math what she lacks in actual numbers), it is hard to see how Hillary could survive a superdelegate insurrection against the so-called frontrunner. Obama, however, cannot hope his way to the nomination. He has not, and presumably cannot, offer Hillary a final debilitating blow. His lead is real, but marginal and unconvincing. Why should she exit the race, Hillary correctly reminds him, when Obama gives no compelling reason for her to go?

Unless Hillary loses big in Indiana (and there is no indication that she will), when all is said and done, neither candidate will secure a convincing victory over the other. Both candidates have weaknesses, but both have managed to survive the vetting of the other. Both have generated impressive amounts of voter support, but both have failed to make significant inroads into the other's base. In short, both have plateaued.

Superdelegates should take note: whether our candidates like it or not, Democrats want them both. In Pennsylvania, the Democratic electorate has told us more of the same: Democrats are unwilling to definitively decide between them. Since Obama and Hillary are unwilling to join a unity ticket before inflicting further damage on the party, superdelegates should act for them. To end the Hillary-Obama stalemate, to protect our candidates from themselves, and to avoid a confrontational convention, superdelegates should follow the will of the electorate and force a unity-ticket (regardless of who is chosen to lead it).

Described as unfeasible by some and pooh-poohed as naive by others, the dream of an Obama-Hillary ticket, as Patrick Healy of the NY Times writes, remains potent and widespread . Most conspicuously, a former Clinton aide has recently started an online petition for a unity ticket, which has already attracted the support of thousands. Because the Democratic electorate wills it, the unity-ticket is no dream.

Not only a favorite of voters, a shared ticket was promoted by former governor Mario Cuomo in a recent well-argued op-ed. Cuomo, like myself, has called for both candidates to pledge a unity ticket to forestall Democratic civil war. Unfortunately, Cuomo's very good idea was trivialized by Charlie Gibson in last week's notoriously puerile and pathetic ABC debate; and more significantly, both candidates skirted the opportunity. But superdelegates would be wise to reconsider Cuomo's proposal and force this compromise regardless.

The benefits of a unity ticket are discussed in both our respective pieces (see links above). But since more skepticism has been generated (mostly from Obama supporters) around the issue, let me address some oft repeated questions:

If Barack Obama took Hillary as a running mate, wouldn't he undermine the ideological premise of his campaign, which calls for change and a new kind of politics?

First, while Obam-acolytes rush to preserve the purity of his message, they should keep in mind that Obama has never rejected the idea of asking Hillary to serve as VP. He consistently praises her record and asserts that she would make an excellent president (though, of course, he would make a better one). Obama has even playfully suggested the possibility of unity--as long as he topped the ticket.

Second, Obama's new kind of politics calls for consensus building, including outreach and reconciliation with potential swing Republicans and "those on the other side." What could be more demonstrative of Obama's new politics, than reaching out to opposition within his own party?

Finally, it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama's new kind of politics is only skin deep. His gloves have come off: like Clinton, Obama is now willing to resort to old-political style negativity and ad hominem attack.

How could Hillary help an Obama general election campaign?

In many ways, but let me list three:

Constituencies: As the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin put it: "Obama and Clinton do fit in a jigsaw-puzzle way. She brings women, older voters, blue-collar workers, Hispanics, and he brings elites, liberals, the young and the crucially necessary black vote."

Historicity: A unity-ticket would guarantee historic victories to both African-Americans and women and help mitigate lingering primary animosities.

Energy: Both campaigns have generated tremendous excitement and voter turnout. Why sacrifice even a fraction of Hillary's base of support who will not vote for Obama if she loses? Could Wes Clark reclaim these voters for Obama or generate as large of a voter turnout as Hillary? The 2008 Democratic primary has been the stuff of the greatest political drama. Until the most recent negative turn, Americans enjoyed watching both candidates side by side during debates (recall the sparks flying in the Kodak Theater): so why end it?

Wouldn't Bill and Hillary get in Obama's way during the presidency?

The potential for friction exists independent of Obama's choice for VP. Even if the Clintons wanted to settle scores, they certainly would not need the vice presidency to get even.

Isn't it too late? Haven't they gone too negative?

Again, as Goodwin put it: "All of the arguments about how rivals don't like each other would fall away if either thinks the other could help them win."

Necessity is the mother of reconciliation.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results

Comments

[Beachrunner]

The thing is, if it's an Obama-Clinton ticket and they win . . . Obama will have the life expectancy of a fruit-fly.

[Yansher]

This is why I have a problem with the so called unity ticket idea. "Authorized & Paid For By Clinton/Obama 08" This dog won't hunt when Obama is leading in this nominating contest.
It should be Obama/Clinton 08, then may be it is worth discussing.

[LBKN]

why would obama selet a neo-con?

[WorkingClass]

What do the polls say about the dream ticket?

[LiberTLover]

When Pat Buchanan suggested it, one of them asked if he was going to be Obama's food taster!

[PioneerKing]

Shaun:

You're delusional. Dude if Obama and Clinton are paired up it would undermine the appeal and credibility of Obama to actually change anything in Washington.
The Clintons would be too close to power and would undermine the Obama administration in back room deals. Imagine Bill trying to be president and Hillary trying to be president. Hillary and Obama's staff would spend all of their time watching their backs.
Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry about the underhanded ways the Clintons behave.
Dude the best thing for Obama to do is see this to the end and then concede to Hillary in Denver and let her get her ass kicked by McCain and if by some stroke of luck she beats McCain then let her and Bill try to explain why they don't accomplish anything.
Obama will be more appealing with the Clintons once again darkening the halls of the White House.
If Obama teams up with Clinton folks should abandon him and support RALPH NADER 2008

[WillMontgomery]

Ha. Ha. Ha.

And by the way, the Democratic Primary has nothing to do with the electoral college in the GE. Maybe you should ask the DNC to change the rules in 4 years, but until then save it.

[Caolas]

Here's why this "Dream Ticket" doesn't work...How do you decide who gets the top billing?

If you pick Obama, it will be a "sexist" decision because the Man with less "experience" is getting the nod of the Woman.

If you decide Clinton, it will be "racist" because the White is getting the nod over the Black who is actually winning by the rules of the game.

And this is just among Democrats. Wait till the real Sexists and Racists have their say in November; they're already refusing to vote against Clinton because she's a Clinton, and Obama because of his "Muslim" name. This whole "Dream Ticket" is a dream of the ratings hungry, gaffe driven, "if it bleeds, it leads", media.

[Yansher]

The argument will be that Clinton should be at the top of the ticket because it her turn to be POTUS. Obama is still young and can wait 8 years to become POTUS. I have heard this before and I am still not impressed. I don't where it written that it is Hillary's turn to be president. I can see it if she is half ass trying to win without twisting the rules. She has done everything to try and destroy Obama's chances and she does not deserve to be rewarded.

[katefranklin]

Nancy Pelosi already shot this idea down. The running mate needs to be a fresh face, regardless of who's on the top of the ticket. There's no evidence that Clinton's and Obama's negatives don't both combine, instead of cancel (and I cite the recent poll showing McCain/Rice beating Obama/Clinton in New York of all states). I'm unsure this country can blast through two glass ceilings at the same time. Moreover, I'm not sure these two candidates can work together, given the water that's passed under the bridge.

[erykah]

Sahun--You need to wake up.

[philafella]

Obama can't win without her.
This WILL happen.
"Necessity is the mother of reconciliation." - exactly

[Yansher]

Bull crap. Obama does not need Hillary to win the GE.

[Syco]

HE can't win with her. It will be used against him

[Bullyness]

I believe Kathleen Sebelius to be a better choice for President or Vice President than Hillary Clinton.

[vbond]

This will never, nor should it ever, happen.

Obama will have a tough enough time against McCain, after the Clinton's ravaging of him... the last thing he additionally needs is to also inherit her negatives.

This is not a dream ticket... it is a nightmare.

To choose to run with Clinton would be the poorest decision ever, by far, for Obama.

And the superdelegates will not "force" him to do this... they are not remotely as nihilistic as the Clintons.

Let... this.. go.

[jvarga]

How could Senator Clinton serve under someone whose only qualification, in her words, is " a speech he gave"? How could she serve under someone who isn't ready to answer the phone call at 3 am? How could she server under someone she said was less qualified than the republican candidate?

Not only that, imagine the reactions of people such as Taylor Marsh and Erica Jong if Senator Obama offered Senator Clinton the VP slot? We'd hear nothing but gigantic amounts of outrage over the patriarchy or some crap like that.

[Syco]

Exactly.
I think he could give her another job but not that one

[OverIt]

She would not be a good VP. She would try to undermine him any way she could and would probably not be above framing him or otherwise setting him up for impeachment in order to get herself in the Oval Office. They say keep your enemies close but not in this case. Obama should trust her as far as he can throw her.

[Yansher]

And I could not have said it any better. Thank you!

[jpcline004]

As much as it kills me to say this, it has gotten to the point where I feel that we can not win in November any other way.

[vbond]

It may kill you to say it... it would kill them to do it.

Forget this.