Which Dream Ticket?

Clinton/Obama 08?  Or Obama/Clinton 08?

The argument for the so-called "Dream Ticket" isn't a new one, but for the first time one of the campaigns is actually talking about it. Hillary Clinton, of late, has been hinting that it'd be OK with her if both her name and Barack Obama's are on the ballot this fall. Of course, out of the two possible arrangements of these names, it's probably a safe bet as to which Senator Clinton would prefer to be on top.

Senator Obama, so far, has been keeping the idea at arm's length. He has demurred from commenting on it, except to say that it's way too early to start thinking about. And that he (of course) would also prefer not to be the vice presidential candidate.

But the idea deserves a serious look. I certainly wasn't the first one to come up with the Dream Ticket idea, but I did write about it last month, from the perspective that it would be a good move for Obama to offer the VP slot to Clinton. I wrote at the time that I didn't expect Clinton to be the first one to make such a move, but now that she has it's worth revisiting the issue.

First, a whopping big caveat: there are many reasons why a Dream Ticket may not happen, no matter who becomes the eventual nominee. First and foremost is the candidates themselves may not want to offer the second spot to an opponent who has been campaigning against them for such a long and brutal road to the nomination.

But there's a serious argument to be made for such a ticket. Both Obama and Clinton have built up constituencies within the party that have strongly invested their support toward their candidate. Barack has brought in millions of young voters to the process, as well as his overwhelming support from African-Americans. Hillary has likewise brought in older women, Hispanics, and blue-collar voters in great numbers. The question is -- whichever of them wins the nomination -- will their supporters continue to support the Democratic nominee in such large numbers if their preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination? Will the Obamamaniacs get disillusioned with Clinton if she wins, and just stay home in November? Will the Hillaryphiles likewise turn out to vote for Obama, or will they go to McCain?

Or, with the party pretty evenly divided between the two candidates' camps, will the best winning ticket to field this fall be one with both their names on it? Will that bring in enough of their respective supporters to assure a sweeping electoral victory for Democrats?

Hillary may be forced into such a position (which is probably why she's already talking about it). She may prefer some other VP candidate, but she may have no choice but to offer it to Obama. This is because no matter how you count delegates, Obama will likely be in the lead for pledged delegates at the convention. Hillary's only path to victory may be through gaining enough superdelegate support to counter his lead. Since this would be seen as unfair by many Obama supporters, the only chance she will have to stave off a complete fracturing of the party's base is to offer a Dream Ticket, with her at the top. This might be marginally acceptable to enough of Obama's supporters to work. Then again, it might not.

Barack likely won't get backed into such a corner, because he'll likely have the pledged delegate lead at the convention. But he may take a look at the division within the party (especially if gaining working-class Democrats support is still eluding him), and decide that the strongest hand to play in November is one with Hillary on the ticket as well.

If either version of the Dream Ticket does indeed happen the question becomes: which Dream Team would be better against John McCain? Of course, this will depend in large part on who McCain chooses as his running mate, which is still in the Rumsfeldian category of "known unknowns." But for now, we do know McCain's name will be on the top of the GOP ticket, so let's examine both possibilities for a Democratic Dream Ticket.

 

Clinton/Obama

We'll take Clinton/Obama first, since she was the first one to bring it up. Hillary as standard-bearer, with Barack as her sidekick. A good argument for this ticket is that Hillary is older, therefore Barack will have plenty of time to be president on his own in 2016 (after Hillary's second term). Unfortunately, it's usually Republicans who make the "It's my turn, dammit!" argument (see: Bob Dole, John McCain) within their party. But the tantalizing thought of sixteen uninterrupted years of Clinton and Obama may be enough to corral his troops into her corner.

On the campaign trail, Clinton has definitely shown herself to be a fighter. And maybe we'll need that knife-wielding toughness against not just John McCain, but the whole right wing attack machine. She certainly does have experience dealing with such on the campaign trail, both on her own and from watching what they did to her husband. So "I'm a better campaigner, and I'm not afraid to hit below the belt" may be what Democrats need to secure victory this November.

Barack would be in the "surrogate" position, and would help to soften the edge of the campaign, continuing to dispense hope by the truckload wherever he speaks. Voters would see the experienced Hillary at the top of the ticket, the idealistic Barack as gaining the knowledge he'll need to run on his own in eight years.

So Clinton/Obama could work, in the general election, if the fractures in the party from such an alliance don't get too deep between now and when the balloons are swept up from the convention floor. It would be the exact opposite of a "conventional wisdom" ticket, but maybe in this topsy-turvy political season it could be a success.

 

Obama/Clinton

Which leads us to the second possibility -- Obama/Clinton. This would be the smart way to go, if you buy into the conventional wisdom of how to balance personalities on the ticket. If you compare Hillary's campaign style (especially in the past few weeks) to Barack's style, it's almost a textbook example of how to run for vice president and president in a general election.

Because once the ticket's formed, the presidential candidate is supposed to be uplifting, with soaring rhetoric designed to make everybody feel good about voting such an optimist into the Oval Office. The vice presidential candidate, on the other hand, is supposed to be the attack dog. All the negative, scathing comments directed at the other team are supposed to originate from the number two candidate on the ticket. This allows the leader of the ticket to distance himself from the political fracas a bit, but also keeps the pressure on the Republican candidate as much as possible. These are the traditional roles in any presidential campaign. Now, who does each of these roles actually sound like this year? If you were casting this for Broadway, whom would you pick for each role?

Barack has already been running on the hope-and-optimism theme. And Hillary has shown she knows how to throw a punch when necessary. Just going on their campaign personalities alone, this seems to be the Mother Of All Dream Tickets. Barack on a debate stage next to McCain -- a man who exudes youth, vitality, hope, newness, and fresh ideas... versus the crustiest of old white men possible. Waiting in the wings is Hillary, as a junkyard attack dog on a choke chain, ready to be unleashed upon whoever McCain chooses for a running mate.

Now that could be interesting. It's ironic that the ticket that might work best (at least according to conventional wisdom) is the less likely of the two combinations -- since Obama probably won't be backed into the corner of accepting such a Dream Ticket, whereas Clinton may indeed be forced to accept it in order to win the nomination. But conventional wisdom has been so wrong so many times in this campaign already, that it's impossible to count on.

So, for the sake of conversation, if you had to accept either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton (one or the other, no other choices in this quiz) -- which do you think would be the most effective against McCain in November? Which one is more likely to help Democrats regain the White House?

 

Quick primary pick for Mississippi

Because we've got another primary tomorrow, I will close with a quick pick here. Mississippi's Democrats vote tomorrow, and I predict Obama will win big here. He'll take the state with a whopping fifteen to twenty point margin. Which will begin the long, long hiatus until Pennsylvania votes on April 22.

That's my pick, what's yours?

 

Total correct Democratic picks so far: 33 for 49.
Total correct 2008 Republican picks: 37 for 50.
Total overall correct picks: 70 for 99 -- 71%.

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[AK] [AL] [AR] [AZ] [CA] [CO] [CT] [DE] [FL (R)] [GA] [HI (D)] [IA] [ID (D)] [IL] [KS (D)] [KS (R)] [LA] [MA] [MD] [ME (D)] [MI (R)] [MN] [MO] [MT (R)] [ND] [NE (D)] [NH] [NJ] [NM (D)] [NV] [NY] [OH] [OK] [RI] [SC (D)] [SC (R)] [TN] [TX] [UT] [VA] [VT] [WA] [WI] [WV (R)] [WY (D)] [Washington, D.C.] [Virgin Islands (D)]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[efranklin]

The common wisdom abounding is that Clinton would need to put Obama on the ticket by necessity, while Obama could choose from any number of "experienced" people in the field. Obama is the rare quantity in this equation. "Experience" is a dime a dozen, but the kind of inspiration and charisma that Barack Obama brings to the table is not something that can be simply scooped out of the existing pool of governors and senators.

[ghettoimp]

Clinton as VP might undermine Obama's message of new politics.

[Thatcher]

HuffPost's Pick

I didn't really finish up my idea of why a "youthful" ticket would be best. McCain cannot choose someone who looks "too young" as his running mate. He has to stay above the 55 year mark (or an older looking 50 - white hair or balding) for a running mate. Otherwise whenever McCain and his VP are seen together - McCain will look even older than his septuagenarian age belies.

A "youthful" ticket will continue the comparisons of JFK/RFK/MLK for Obama. And that ticket when visually compared to an older ticket on the Republican side ("old, cranky white guys") ... I think it would continue to give Obama the edge.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thatcher -

Crist has some awfully white hair....

-CW

[Thatcher]

Yeah, he does ... and he is 52. and Governor of Florida (takes that state out of play). Here are some other ideas:

GA Gov Sonny Perdue (61) - endorsed McCain - but didn't deliver.

AL Gov Bob Riley (64) - skipping because with the issues over Siegelman trial, though not involved - it's going to be haunting. Again, endorsed McCain - but didn't deliver.

IN Gov Mitch Daniels (58) - endorsed McCain. Is he a possibility?

NE Gov Dave Heineman (60) - but endorsed Romney.

And why isn't there more talk about former FL Gov Jeb Bush (55)? He was always seen as the stronger of the 2 oldest sons for the Presidency until 1998. It strengthens McCain in the conservative side of the party with a Bush on the ticket and Jeb is not George - which kind of cools down the more moderate side and independents. (yeah, I know I think I've floated this one before - but dang - I think we should not forget Jeb).

Another interesting point - McCain is 5'7" ... almost anyone he selects will be taller than he - which will give him the frail, cranky "ol Granddad" image along with the puffy cheek and scars. Clinton is 5'6" - so maybe this is another reason why the RNC wants her to win the nomination - McCain wouldn't look short when they are debating. (BTW, Jeb is 6'3")

[Thatcher]

HuffPost's Pick

The "Dream Ticket" - won't happen.

Clinton won't accept even if asked to be VP. And, I know people are saying they think Obama needs to balance out the "experience" question. But she doesn't do it. If you are going to go with Experience - there are more people to choose from that have deeper and broader.

Obama should seek someone that can do a little balance - I know Sebelius keeps getting tossed out there - but I think in order to REALLY create a strong ticket and one that is a ticket showing the future of the nation and of the party - he needs to search for a VP that is more in his age-bracket. Sebelius will be 60 this year. A "youthful" ticket will be perceived better as a stronger contrast ticket. He has several choices there: Gov Janet Napolitano (51), Gov Bill Ritter (52), Gov Brad Henry (45), Gov Tim Kaine (50). These are all experienced, "younger" Governors and if you notice, 2 are Western and 2 are Southern.

Also, Clinton would be a polarizing figure either at the top or the bottom of the ticket. Clinton's name on the ballot will draw out as many against her as for her. She still has a 50-50 love/hate problem in the country.

And, as Chris points out - if Clinton gets the nod, the VP would be a 3rd wheel. With Bill in the picture - we know who the de facto VP would be. Accepting a VP position in a Hillary Clinton administration should be viewed as tantamount to political suicide. Should she get the nom, should she get elected to 1 or 2 terms - they are going to be so excluded and devalued in the political spectrum because of the 3rd wheel status.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thatcher -

I'm fascinated by the prospect of Sibelius (not knowing all that much about her) because maybe with the double-barrelled "favorite son" (well, grandson, anyway) and a "favorite daughter," maybe... just maybe... the Dems could take Kansas this year.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

"I think Kansas just turned blue, Toto."

Heh heh.

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

I think I'm spelling that wrong. Sebelius. I'll get it yet... sorry...

[SamThornton]

Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton. Two versions of a nightmare choice. The opportunities for Republican lampooning are endless. Would be good for The Daily Show, Letterman, or any standup comedian worth their salt, however.

[hhkeller]

Deval Patrick would be a better choice for Clinton.
He's authentic and has some experience.

Obama would back channel foreign governments and undermine the administration.
Obama would be a horrible choice. A bit unAmerican and definately anti union.

[Plank46]

While Obama is definitely NOT Bush...Hillary could easily be the same type of VP as Cheney...except for the fact that she'll actively try to usurp Obama every step of the way.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Plank46 -

That's interesting, I hadn't really thought the whole thing through, post-inauguration. But it's not that pretty a picture the other way, either. If Clinton is the nominee, WHOEVER is her VP is going to be playing third fiddle to Bill.

-CW

[Doofus]

'Obama /Clinton would be the only answer.'

There'd be no harm at all in Obama offering the

VP position to Clinton. He should definitely do

so. Let her turn *him* down. Let's get that out

of the way, as soon as possible.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Doofus -

Read my previous article (first link in above story). I suggested that a month ago, but since she went first, I don't know if he's going to do it or not.

-CW

[mtuckey]

Not a chance of either happening. Super delegates have only two options: override the will of the people and cast their votes for Clinton, or go with the front runner and vote for Obama. I think this talk from Clinton is just a desperate attempt to try to find some way to package the situation that might mask the fact that what she really needs is for the will of the voters to be denied.

I agree with your analysis though, it wouldn't hurt Obama to have Clinton on his team-- but I don't think he needs her to win. And in fact there might be others who are better qualified.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

mtuckey -

I'm keeping an eye on Gov. Sibelius from Kansas. Her response to this year's State of the Union read a lot like an Obama speech... coincidence? He could also have a woman on the ticket this way as well, albeit not one with the initials HRC. Well, we'll see... we'll see....

-CW

[shortgirl]

Easy answer after the last 2 weeks. Obama/Anybody but Hillary. She's blown it in my book.

[TheWinch]

Neither of these is a dream ticket.

The VP is not that important. There are plenty of other candidates, who would love to be VP and who the nominee would love to be their VP, and the general public will be fine with.

This whole "dream ticket" notion is only something that matters to the tiny minority of naive political junkies... the same people who frequently post on internet message boards.

[philistine]

To quote John Nance Garner, the vice presidency "ain't worth a bucket of warm piss." I'm certain that neither Clinton or Obama will accept the position of VP willingly.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

philistine -

I thought it was "warm bucket of spit" ... oh, wait, I'm reading the bowdlerized history book... let me check... yep, you were right!

The Winch -

Hey, wait a minute! I resemble that remark!!

:-)

Thanks to both of you for writing.

-CW

[PhoebeFay]

I can't see it happening. I can see no reason why Obama would take the VP slot, except perhaps to try to stem the anger that would come with any scenario by which Hillary takes the nomination. But I just don't see it happening.

Nor can I see any reason why he would choose her for VP (assuming she would even take it). Their styles are radically different, and she comes with a lot of baggage. It would be a great advantage to have a woman as VP, but there are better choices out there. If Obama has the nomination, Clinton would be a better asset staying in the Senate.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

PhoebeFay -

You may be right. I still think the chances of a Dream Ticket are a lot less than the media is portraying it. I've publicly called for WHOEVER loses this race to immediately begin canvassing for support to become Senate Majority Leader, as I think either one of them would do a better job than Reid at this point.

Thanks for writing.

-CW

[westwind]

Hillary Clinton's campaign has turned so nasty and mean-spirited since Super Tuesday, that the only way a shared ticket would work would be with Barack Obama at the top. As vital as this election is for the future of the Supreme Court, I can see many Obama supporters deciding that they'd rather stay home than support someone who is attempting to destroy someone in her own party because of her desperation to be president.

They might be able to rationalize a vote for Obama if Clinton was VP, but I fear that with Clinton at the top, the margin of victory over McCain would be within the range of election theft, a craft that Republicans are perfecting.

[Googleplex]

I'm still "hoping" for Obama/Edwards.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Googleplex -

It could happen, don't give up hope yet!

-CW

[nypoet22]

after your previous article on the issue, i figured this one was probably coming down the pike. i had thought exactly what you wrote about an obama-clinton ticket, that she's perfectly suited for winning the bitter partisan battles behind the scenes while he plays frontman on the big stage. your explanation of clinton-obama is better than any other way i've heard it stated; that from a big-picture standpoint it could mean 16 straight years of dems in the white house.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

nypoet22 -

Well, you will notice that I got it spectacularly backwards in my previous article. Maybe writing this one was a kind of mea culpa, I dunno. I was watching the weekend talking heads salivate over the Dream Ticket prospect, so I felt I had to address it again because the MSM was mostly ignoring the conventional setup of a ticket -- nice at the top, knife-fight at the bottom. I started thinking about that, and it soon became obvious which way I would cast the roles, if I was in charge of the smokeless (it is the 21st century) back rooms. The "16 years" came from a conversation I had with a friend who is an ardent Hillaryphile -- "let her have her chance, he's young enough to wait." It was an interesting perspective from an average voter, so I thought I'd throw it out there to see what the blogocommentosphere thought about it.

Thanks for writing!

-CW