March 5, 2008


Clinton sees ticket with Obama (Mike Allen, Mar 5, 2008, Politico)

The morning after reviving her candidacy with two big primary wins, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hinted Wednesday that she and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) may wind up as ticket mates.

“That may, you know, be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who’s on the top of ticket,” Clinton said with a laugh on the CBS's “The Early Show.” “I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

Their best ticket is surely Clinton/Obama, but how do you get the leader in delegates to accept the second spot? Maybe by appealing to his unifier pose?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 5, 2008 9:09 AM

More important, how do you get Barak Obama to accept a second-banana spot (which would really be third-banana after Bill) behind the person who:

-- spread rumors that he's a closet Muslim

-- ran an ad blackening his face to make him look threatening, and

-- was the beneficiary (and probable instigator) of some anti-Obama shenanigans with absentee ballots in Texas?

Never mind that their state policy positions are within three decimal places of each other. The Clintons are the most ruthless, vicious, underhanded, dishonest, vindictive, and unsportsmanlike politicians in a party in which dishonesty, vindictiveness, and unsportsmanlike conduct are considered virtues. They'll beat Obama by any means available, and kick him when he's down for good measure. I can't imagine Obama--or any man with even minimal self-respect--gloming on to his abuser after that.

Posted by: Mike Morley at March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

It's not in either candidate's best interests to do this.

Obama is young enough that he could run in any of the next 5 or 6 presidential elections. How does becoming Clinton's VP help him (especially with her negatives and the Clinton's appetite for scandal)? He need only look at what they did to Gore.

Clinton has no interest in being the VP. If she loses the nomination now, she's still viable in 2012 (especially if the next term is a disaster for Obama or McCain), but not if she was the VP.

Posted by: mike m at March 5, 2008 11:34 AM

Well, that ticket would lose white males 75-25.

Posted by: Casey Abell at March 5, 2008 12:18 PM

Why wouldn't Obama run as a 3rd party candidate if he's shut out at the convention?

Posted by: Benny at March 5, 2008 1:37 PM

What do Democrats have to do with white males?

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2008 2:29 PM

VP would let Obama stay in the public eye without actually doing anything and noone will think anything of it; if he does that for another 8 years in the Senate people may start to wonder.

Posted by: Mike Earl at March 5, 2008 4:28 PM

Neither helps the other in any way. When Reagan chose Bush, it was a 'unifying' choice (and a re-assuring one as well).

When Kennedy chose LBJ, it was a balancing act (in more ways than one), despite their obvious dislike (which only grew later on).

But Casey is right - Hillary might get 46% by herself; with Obama, it would be a struggle to get 43% (maybe less). If Obama chooses Hillary, they would be lucky to get above about 41%.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 5, 2008 10:12 PM

Hillary needs to add Obama to heal his minions psychic pain. But she can't win. He needs Richardson.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2008 11:09 PM