Only a Dream Ticket Prevents Democratic Nightmare

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama might be stuck with each other -- not just for the long haul to the Democratic nominating convention, but well beyond. They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not.

The most likely scenario going forward is that unelected delegates, the so-called super delegates, will decide this thing -- and they might not make a choice in sufficient numbers to give either hopeful the nomination before the convention.

If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[republicans4obama]

Why would Obama need to be the one to play VP when HE is leading? And would Hillary WANT to be VP give her "35 years of experience"?

[serialcoma]

Because it is in the best interest of our nation?

Childish games and vanity should not get in the way of improving our nation and the lives of its citizens.

[racom]

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Cheney has shown us that the VP is the seat of power. I would expect, should they somehow run together, the fight would be 'who has to be pres and who gets to be VP'!

[Filinbills615]

No one who values their life should ever put HRC in the VP spot. There is nothing she wouldn't do to become president.

[ATLiberal]

Let's at least use some critical thinking on this. If I am Barack Obama and I am likely to have a 100+ delegate lead going into the convention, and Bill Clinton is going to be the REAL VP in a Clinton administration, and I know how Al Gore was treated by the first Clinton administration, why in the world would I consider for one millisecond accepting the VP post in a so called "dream ticket"?

Obama would be better off taking it to the convention, forcing a vote, turning down any VP offer if he lost, and go back to the Senate where he can be most effective. After that scenario, he can weigh his chances in the next election. How does Hillary win after pulling out a superdelegate coup in the Democratic Party?? I don't see it.

Regardless of how this shakes out in the end, the idea that Obama would accept the VP nod is obviously a non-starter.

That said, who here thinks Hillary accepts the VP slot with Obama??

[Jonny38103]

Why would Obama do it? Because he's only 46 and after 8 years of VP'ing, no one will question his experience any more. And we get 16 years of Dems in the White House. Smart move for himself, the party, and the country.

[serialcoma]

Yep.. but the Obamaphiles are too blinded by their hatred of Clinton to see it...

be a shame if the candidates did what's right for our nation wouldn't it?

[JacobSinger]

FYI: despite what anyone might glean from my posts here on this topic, I don't actively support either candidate; I was an Edwards supporter, and unless by some miracle Nader suddenly has a chance of winning, I will be voting for the dem nominee.

Try this one on for size:

Lets say that this goes all the way to the convention, and Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, and Clinton trails by less than 100--lets also say that she has, with the help of old school superdelegates, edged out Obama overall by 10 delegates.

You do realize that after the first vote, pledged delegates are free to vote for whomever they like? Given that whoever is leading [regardless of the margin] has a better chance of picking up additional delegates on subsequent votes [should they be required], doesn't it seem possible that Clinton--perhaps unexpectedly--could come out on top?

If that were the case, would Obama supporters be so arrogant as to reject Obama if he were to accept a VP slot under Clinton? Would Obama be so self-confident as to refuse such an offer?

Food for thought...­.

[SShaw490]

But you're looking at it in too narrow of a view. A process that winds up with Hillary getting beat and America having another lunatic war maven in charge for 4 more years is a bad outcome, even if it's sort of emotionally satisfying.

[BusGreg]

I would not call it a dream ticket, Craig. I think a lot of things will become more clear is when we know who Grandpa Munster will pick for his running mate. Will he pick Huckabee to appeal to the religious right? Will he pick Romney to gtoom him for a possible 2012 run or some other reason? Will he pick someone else? McCains running mate will tell much about where he wants to take the country and it might well need to be considered when talking about the Democratic ticket.

[Jsens3]

Okay, why isn't anybody thinking about what Obama has to be thinking about - what Hillary is always thinking about - his political career. Those of you old enough to remember will recall how Lyndon Johnson treated Hubert Humphrey. Remember Hubert on that horse down on the Johnson ranch while Johnson cracked jokes about who looked more uncomfortable, Hubert or the horse? That will be mild to the way Hillary and Bill would treat Obama as VP. Of course, smart people get sucked in, Remember how Lyndon got Tom Clark and Arthur Goldberg off the Supreme Court with relatively simply manuevers? Obama better watch out if Hillary gets the nod, or he will end up a footnote in history, and a small one at that.

[cartopple]

This morning I had entertained the idea that the only way for Democrats to win is to have the dream team, although I would probably call it the Lemonade Team. I have been an adamant Obama supporter, but seeing how the voters are played by the media and the spin again makes me want to tune out. Seeing how this made me feel was the rationale that first made me realize that a HRC+BHO is the only one that will keep the overt war supporters out of office. Because of the continued rancor, I do not believe that this is plausible. What other solution is there?

[MsLiz]

HuffPost's Pick

You are so right. For our part, we can put a damper on the acrimony here on Huff Post. Negatively reinforce name calling by either side. Encourage civil debate. State facts upon which conclusions are based, not just conclusions.

How can we convey this to the candidates?

I have supported both Hillary and Obama here, but selected Obama after the Nevada debate. Maybe I am listening selectively, but I don't hear him or his surrogates disrespecting Hillary Clinton. It is fair for Obama to mention her tax returns and her Iraq war vote. It is fair for her to mention his short time in DC. It is wrong to suggest that Obama is Moslem, or to allow release on you tube an image that distorts his features. Am I deaf to similar tactics by the Obama side?

Can we email the campaigns with our boos and hisses when they don't play fair?

[MsLiz]

Oooo, I am so flattered to be a Huffington Post pick. Can I apply for a job now?

[samanthasmom]

Call Belltone for a hearing check. You're deaf. But I like the idea of emailing the campaigns.

[SShaw490]

Obama and Hillary in a nuclear conflict for two months basically hands the White House to McCain. The first rule in politics is to make the other guy beat you, don't beat yourself.

They need an arrangement. What makes the most sense is a Clinton/Obama ticket in '08 with an agreement that Hillary won't run again unless it's on an Obama/Clinton ticket in '012. At the end of that term (Obama's first), Hillary will be 68 years old and Obama can pick another up and comer for his running mate, and it's possible that the Democrats could occupy the White House for a very, very long time.

Obama is beating her - that's a simple fact. And he can keep beating her but only by going negative, and that's going to just beat both of them.

Like Michaeld Douglas said in "The American President" - "Make the deal."

[ATLiberal]

Let me get this straight. She goes negative, it works in TX and OH. So now instead of him going negative with a lead, he should capitulate to reward her for going negative? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[SShaw490]

I'm saying the party should prevent it. He has not choice but to go negative, and that's ultimately going to be bad for the party. Negative campaigning does work temporarily, but it's like two people drowning in quicksand - you can push yourself up by pushing the other one down, but then the other one just pulls you down too.

[WintonyMay]

Mr. Crawford:Anyone who thinks that Clinton may even consider accepting the VP spot must be in denial. Not after she did the number on Obama of publicly characterizing him, alone, as wholly being unqualified to be C-in-C, compared to herself or McCain. What cajones! And, after that, should Obama consider a VP spot would be an affront to his very character.­  In this connection, the DNC has a number of serious challenges to select the Party nominee. Its proposed solutions may well determine the viability of the Democratic Party, itself, for years to come. WintonyMay.

[Bulbul]

She should not be a VP, she is a very good Senator and She will continue to be for years to come...
On the other scenario, Barack would be a very good VP and then President in 2016.

[Moose49]

A good idea in principle that's impossible to imagine in reality.

Since Obama will almost assuredly have more delegates heading into the Convention, if they team up it should be Obama/Clinton. But can you imagine for one moment that Hillary would actually agree to be number two to Obama's number one? Not in a million years! For her, it's all or nothing. And she has already attacked Obama's character and qualifications so viciously, it just couldn't work.

Similarly, I can't imagine Obama agreeing to be Hillary's running mate, not because I don't think he thinks he's too good to settle for VP under the right circumstances but because Hillary's VP -- whoever it is -- would be number three in the pecking order at best. It would be even worse than it was for Al Gore. Plus, I think Hillary's too insecure to agree to a running mate who would upstage her in every appearance.

So, yes, it's the obvious bloodbath-avoidance scenario but I don't see any way it can happen.

[serialcoma]

It would be shame and disgrace for either of them to place their egos above the needs of our nation. Anyone who wants to see the United States put back on a road to decency will vote for the democratic candidate whether it's Clinton, Obama or both on a shared ticket.

[Moose49]

"It would be shame and disgrace for either of them to place their egos above the needs of our nation."

I agree with you on this. But I also believe this is exactly what Hillary's all about -- ego over nation.

[Lemeritus]

Like I said earlier, serialcoma, you're WAAAY too rational. Pleas turn your HuffPo card in at the door. It goes without saying that I agree with you 100% -- "Anyone who wants to see the United States put back on a road to decency will vote for the democratic candidate.­"

[ATLiberal]

The person who lost 11 straight and then couldn't win big enough to make a difference in TX and OH has already shown she sees her ego as all important. She cannot win, short of a superdelegate coup or breaking the agreed upon rules re: Mich and FL.

Shame and disgrace have never been something that the Clintons acknowledge exists in their world. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doncha know?

[JacktheBlogger]

I think a "Yes, we can" VP (Obama) with a "Yes, we will" President (Clinton) would do wonders for the Democratic Party ticket.

I am pleased to note that Clinton supporters at last night's victory rally picked up on the phrase "Yes, she will" - which I coined last Friday in my response to Kristin Breitweiser's post "This One's for the Girls."

YES, SHE WILL!

[treadway123]

Have you lost your mind or what jacktheblogger? I DON'T WANT TO PUT MY CHILDREN TO BED WITH BOMBS IN THIER BEDROOMS AND THIER DREAMS FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. CLINTOKN WON OHIO AND TEXAS BY HER FEAR MONGRIEL TACTICS. THE SAME FACE WE'VE SHOWEN TO THE WORLD FOR YEARS NOW. It's no wonder the world hates us. Clinton can't win unless she puts the fear of a nuclear holacust in our homes and our childrens dreams night after night. WE WANT TO SHOW THE WORLD A NEW FACE------------A NEW WAY TO SEATTLE DISAGREEME­NTS-------­----WE WANT TO PUT SOME ONE WITH GOOD FAMILY MORALS INTHE WHITE HOUSE. WE DON'T WANT SOME ONE WHO SAYS VOTE FOR ME OR GET BLOWN UP WHILE YOU SLEEP CRAP. HILLARY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF FOR USEING GEORGE BUSH'S FEAR TACTICS TO WIN VOTES. The people are sick of this junk! We don't want another president who threatens us and the world at every turn to get his own way! That's all Clinton had to win those states with. THE FACE OF OUR NATION HAS STOOD FOR HATE, FEAR AND IMMORAL BEHAVIORS AROUND THE WORLD FOR TOO MANY YEARSs! this is all Clinton has to give us! SHE COULDN'T WIN VOTES IN OHIO AN TEXAS WITH CLEAN TACTICS AND HONESTY---­----BECAUS­E SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT IS! THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY IS RIGHT-----­---------T­HEY WILL NEVER HAVER A DREAM TO REACH FOR-----------ONLY FEAR AND HATE IF CLINTON BECOMES PRESIDENT. EVERY CHILD CAN GO TO BED WONDERING WHEN SHE WILL START ANOTHER WAR AT THREE A.M IF SHE'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO ANS. THAT PHONE. i WANT TO SHOW THE WORLD WERE NOT ALL HATE AND FEAR! THAT WE RESPECT THIER DECISIONS NOT TO BE LIKE US-------BUT HAVE TO PLAY FAIR, HAVE HUMANITY IN THIER COUNTRIES, TREAT THIER CITITIZENS WITH RESPECT---­----------­----------­--------BU­T HOW CAN WE DO THAT WHEN WE SHOW THEM THE FACE OF FEAR AND HATE THAT HILLARY CLINTON NOT ONLY SHOWS THEM BUT BRINGS INTO OUR HOMES AND OUR CHILDRENS OWN BEDS-------JUST SO SHE CAN BE A WINNER?

[JakeEasy]

Just a little note. All caps indicates shouting. A whole incoherent post in Caps indicates a ravening screamer. It is neither polite nor effective. You only serve to notify the readers that you are inconsiderate and over the top nuts. Do yourself a favor (and us). Use facts and reasoning to make your point.

[D2D2]

Yeah, uh, who would be POTUS and who would be the Vice?

[EspressoAtNoon]

If Obama would form ANY kind of ticket with that lying, distorting, triangulating bitch I'd lose all respect for him and would vote for McCain.

If I were Obama I'd do what he's gonna do, go completely negative on Clinton (the way she's been throwing the kitchen sink at him for the last two weeks). I'd do such a great job of exposing that she has NO EXPERIENCE to speak of and bring up selling pardons to Marc Rich, her husband's business dealings with Eastern European countries, their refusal to release the Clinton Administration records that show what Hillary did or didn't do, their refusal to release their tax records. I'd make it so freaking nasty that she loses her next run for the NY Senatorship.

[nunzia]

expresso - another babe in the woods who thinks that Hillary has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama.
Clearly someone who is completely unprepared for what the rethugs will do.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Exactly. If the naive Obamaniacs think for a moment they've seen the worst, they are in for the rudest possible awakenings.

I don't want either Clinton or Obama as the nominee, but whoever I'm stuck holding my nose and voting for in November, I'm under no illusion about the firestorm they will get from the neoconservative slime machine that will go to only lengths to hold onto even the crumbs of power under McCain.

[EspressoAtNoon]

How would you define Hillary saying "John McCain and I have a lifetime of experience to be President of the United States, while Barack Obama has a single speech he gave in 2002".

This is a "scorched earth" strategy. It is impossible for Hillary to win in earned delegates and so she's ensuring that if she can't be President, then no Democrat will be President. She's literally setting fire to everything around her.

Everyone expects tough shots from the Repubs, but when a candidate CANNOT win the delegate vote and therefore stays in just to destroy the Democratic party. This is entirely different. She can only win if she takes this to the convention and destroys the Democratic Party by disenfranchising the electorate. That's her ONLY chance, and yet she stays in and makes statements like the one above.

[sabrinaqedesha]

Riiiiight, because John McCain is such an honest, principled, straightforward, stand-up guy who would never lie, distort, or triangulate.

[JakeEasy]

At last we hear from the uniters. What was that about reaching out and cooperating? Oh yeah, that was just the same kind of campaign posturing as an assault on NAFTA.

Try to read a book or at least something besides HuffPo and YouTube. Get a grasp on reality and a perspective. Clinton and Obama are very much alike. Always have been. People who have been paying attention to politics and government before the media decided to turn the on for a while know how this stuff works. If you say that you support Obama's positions and goals then say you will vote for McCain, you are exposed as a sycophant and hypocrite.

[EspressoAtNoon]

How would you define Hillary saying "John McCain and I have a lifetime of experience to be President of the United States, while Barack Obama has a single speech he gave in 2002".

This is a "scorched earth" strategy. It is impossible for Hillary to win in earned delegates and so she's ensuring that if she can't be President, then no Democrat will be President. She's literally setting fire to everything around her.

Everyone expects tough shots from the Repubs, but when a candidate CANNOT win the delegate vote and therefore stays in just to destroy the Democratic party. This is entirely different. She can only win if she takes this to the convention and destroys the Democratic Party by disenfranchising the electorate. That's her ONLY chance, and yet she stays in and makes statements like the one above.

[JacobSinger]

One thing is clear, judging from Obama supporter comments--Obama supporters are either naive or in denial about the goals of the DNC and role superdelegates will play in selecting the dem nominee.

Throwing a fit and taking your ball home will not change anything; if this thing doesn't break clear for Obama, you can look for a Clinton/Obama ticket, and you can also look for all of the harsh rhetoric between them to disappear, and for each candidate to advocate party unity from their supporters.

The majority of Obama supporters commenting here seem to be divorcing themselves from reality.

[derekw007]

Reality? More with this reality.

It's people like you - the ones with more cynism in their bones than conviction - it's you who has created this "reality" of which you speak.

Lyndon Johnson told MLK to wait until he took care of Vietnam - then he'd send up the Voting Rights Act. LBJ told him to be patient - that everything wil come in time. LBJ spoke of the political "reality" of the situation.

MLK marched and called Lyndon out.

Lyndon went to Congress and introduced the bill. And the rest is history.

If we would have listened to your "reality" of the political situation back then, where would we be now?

You and your "politics" of reality have created the world in which we live today. The canididacy of John Kerry was the culmination of the politics of "reality".­..nice going.

[JacobSinger]

Oh, I see, you're just projecting your anger at me...ah well, nothing I can do about that.

This REALITY has nothing to do with me--I didn't create it, support it, and certainly wouldn't promote it--but to assert that it belongs to me simply because I have enough common sense to see it as it exists is simple-minded on your part, and suggests that delusion is more to your liking than the facts.

[serialcoma]

I have to agree with you on that .... I will vote for which ever is the candidate in November. Condemning our nation and the world to another republican war profits machine is sheer lunacy.

republicans are a threat to our nation.

[dianel430]

I voted for Hillary in the Virginia Democratic Primary. I am an independent. But since Ms Hillary has made the statement that she and John McCain have all the experience. I think I shall make a donation to the Obama campaign. Ms Hillary also said that she has won in all the states that matter. Since the state of VA is not important to her,she does not need my measly vote. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee,I will vote for Nader.

[realitycheck7]

what about the reality that Hillary supporters don't want to look at, that is, the fact that Obama can beat McCain, but Hillary will most surely lose

[editrix66]

I don't think so. I understand reality just fine. Hillary Clinton has decided to endorse McCain (how does that work in the general election, btw?); engage in a whispering campaign about Obama's religion, race, and patriotism; play the victim card once again, and then think she can play nice. She thinks the only states that matter are Texas and Ohio, so she can win the general without all of the Obama supporters, the smaller states, the young people, the Independents, the African Americans, etc. I don't count Obama out, but if Clinton wins the nom, good luck because she is going to need it. I expect that if Clinton does win the nom, McCain will be focusing on his old "bipartisanship" message. And he actually has a record to back it up, unlike Hillary.

[JacobSinger]

Hey, I'm not spinning anything here, nor am I looking for a specific outcome; if Obama can get the nomination without bartering at the convention, then more power to him.

But Hillary's pledged delegates + superdelegates could be a big obstacle to that, so when I make the statement that many Obama supporters are dodging reality, that's what I'm referring to. We can spout our opinions and postions all we like, but if the dems go to the convention with essentially a tie, then it will come down to the superdelegates, and it is rather silly to think that rabid Obama supporters will have an all-powerful sway on the superdelegates behind closed doors.

[Cathexis]

I have to agree with Mr Crawford's assessment. The level of vitriol and negativity from both sides has reached high enough levels, IMO, so as to undercut whomever *does* end up as the nominee, Too many folks on the Dem side have gotten SO "all-or-nothing" in attitude that we risk a pyrrhic Dem nomination victory as a result.

The best course, IMO, is as Mr Crawford outlines: Plunk 'em both on the same ticket, with whomever having the most delegates on initial count as the ticket lead. Then supporters on both sides should hold their nose and support the combo, even if "that detested person" shares the ticket.

(Plus, all of them should get some perspective. After 8 years of the disaster that is Bush, I am not ABOUT to endure another term of GOP rule just because one subset of Dems or the other gets in a snit. Grow the **** up and get some perspective, you people! I'm not even a Dem -- just an Independant who sees the Radical Right for what it is!)

[sabrinaqedesha]

I agree... i can't really see Clinton and Obama agreeing to run together either, but it may be the best option for the Democrats at this point. I'll bet the super-delegates are hammering away at this, to figure out a deal that will make it worth it to both of them, in their smoke-filled room as we speak.

[WindRiver1]

I think the combination with Hillary as President depends on whether Obama supporters will vote for Hillary without him. If they won't then he is needed to hold together the party vote, but it may reduce the crossover votes she gets. No different than if a moderate Republican picked somebody from the religious right. Hell that may cause votes to cross over from the Republican side now that I think about it.

[dolphingirl]

Not this Obama supporter. The ONLY way Clinton would get my vote, in any way, is if she runs as Obama's VP!

[serialcoma]

So you prefer a republican in the White House for another four years?

Do you think Obama prefers McCain over Clinton should he fail to secure the nomination? Ego and vanity are blinding too many voters to the threat posed by the bush-hugging McCain.

[craziescrazies]

The exact same goes for Clinton supporters, and there are polls showing that a good percentage of Clinton supporters will switch parties if she doesn't make it.