Isn't a Clinton/Obama Ticket Almost Inevitable?

[kennetha]

Has there ever been a race like this in which two major challengers in either party, battled each other two almost a draw, when the loser wasn't at least offered the Vice Presidency?

Suppose Hillary does win in Ohio by, say, 5-10 pts, and squeaks out a narrow win in TX and a larger win in RI. Then clearly the race will go on. Suppose she wins in PA too, even if by a few points. Then with MI and FL she will be again within striking distance of catching up in delegates.

If that happens, and she somehow regains the momentum, then how could she possibly deny Barack first dibs at the VP slot?

On the other hand, suppose she wins Ohio and RI, narrowly loses in TX. She could soldier on and divide the party, but her argument would be less compelling. But she would still have case. Why would she abandon that fight when Barack would STILL not yet have the nomination sewed up? Because the superdelegate went en mass to Barack, I suppose. But that would leave bitterness on the party of legions of Hillary supporters. How to assuage that bitterness? Offer Hillary the VP slot.


Either way it's hard for me to see how the default ticket could fail to be either Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton.

Now whoever comes in second might well turn down the VP slot. But it seems to me it almost HAS to be offered and offered sincerely.

Or am I missing something here?

[loveangelc]

1. Hillary will not be Obama's VP

[kennetha]

3. Because?

It won't be offered or because it will be offered but not accepted?

It seems to me it almost has to be offered.

[blm]

7. Nope. That door closed last fall. Permanently.

.

[kennetha]

9. Please explain

I'm trying to get a discussion going here. If you've got more articulated thoughts, I'd love to hear them. No flames I promise.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. I think she's burned to many bridges.

She's called Obama a plagiarist and implied he supports terrorism.

So I don't think it'd be offered for that reason, and she'd be a drag, I think.

[kennetha]

19. Those would be juvenile reasons

Not adult, mature, politically astute reasons. And one thing I'll say for both of them is that they are grown-ups.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. They're juvenile accusations.

A VP pick shouldn't be so juvenile.

[blm]

48. Being a drag on the ticket is not juvenile reasoning - it's political reasoning.

TeamClinton has proven to be incapable of getting past a certain point with many voters and in fact, becoming LESS LIKED the more they are out there.

Why put a drag on the ticket?

[blm]

23. They sized each other up over the summer when it was still a possibility and

both camps grew into seriously disliking the other during the fall. Not just the candidates but many of their closest advisors.

[pocoloco]

22. How about a fucking 47% disapproval rating

before she even entered the race!

Talk about hanging an Albatross around Obama's neck.

[stahbrett]

25. She doesn't want to be VP, he doesn't want her to be his VP

Just my opinion, of course.

But Obama, no matter what you think of him, has made the correct strategic moves throughout the entire process, from how and where to campaign and spend money, to how to reply to attacks, etc. Because of that, I don't think he would want to pick another Senator (he'd be smarter to pick a candidate with executive experience), and a person with such high negatives with the general populace. His goal will not be to make a dream ticket for just Democrats, but a ticket that gets him elected in the general election.

[loveangelc]

46. Because she would drag down the ticket.

[babylonsister]

No. I'd be surprised if Obama picks Clinton. nt

[kennetha]

5. What's your reasoning?

I'm just trying to look at this objectively and historically. Unless the two standing contenders at the end can't stand it other, they usually think they need each other in situations like this. And even if they can't stand each other, they often still think that.

[babylonsister]

18. Obama is campaigning on looking towards the future, not the past.

Clinton represents the past. Also, her campaign has been playing some pretty underhanded games; I wouldn't be surprised if he's not too keen on her.

[kennetha]

31. Nonesense

IN what way does Clinton "represent the past." Obama and Clinton are nearly in lock-synch in their agenda's. How can one 'represent the past' while the other 'represents the future.'

That's just empty campaign rhetoric. Can't we get beyond that here?

[babylonsister]

33. Then don't ask for my reasoning. The Clinton name is from the

past and that's where he wants to leave it; I agree with him.

[kennetha]

34. He himself said

last night that he thought that Hillary Clinton would be a fine president. And he seemed quite sincere. Do you disagree with your own candidate?

[babylonsister]

35. He's a gracious man; what was he supposed to say? Also,

he is keeping the party and election in mind. It's not a great idea to make enemies of other Dems, a fact that seems to have gone right over Clinton's head.

So no, I don't disagree with Obama at all, but think his motives for saying that were quite different than what you're trying to read into it.

[WinkyDink]

2. Never. Gonna. Happen.

[LisaM]

4. I think Clinton would choose Obama but that Obama would not choose Clinton

close as the race has been, I think he would be willing to dump the millions who voted for her under the bus. Every single VP name I've heard his supporters float has been a male, and some of them (like Jim Webb) on the conservative side. Look, I admire Jim Webb, but he was in REAGAN'S cabinet, for God's sake.

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. That's not true

I've heard Kathleen Sebelius, Barbara Boxer and Janet Napolitano named. I've heard MANY Obama supporters suggest that he should choose a female governor.

[LisaM]

30. After Kathleen Sebelius' lame response to the State of the Union

I would certainly hope she WOULDN'T be on anyone's list, but if those names have been floated, then I was wrong. I have not heard those names floated here, but then I can't check all 10,000 threads in GD-P every other minute!

[FlyingSquirrel]

43. Response to SOTU is usually lame... Jim Webb was a big exception

I've been collecting names of people's VP ideas which is why I've heard them. So far though I've only heard those three female names suggested, (other than the governor of my state, Christine Gregoire who I think would be great.)

[LisaM]

44. I'm in Washington too and while I think Gregoire would DO a great job

She would be absolute campaign fodder for the Republicans if she ran. She is constantly voted one of the best governors in the country, but Republican hatred for her, here anyway, runs high.

[FlyingSquirrel]

50. Yeah 'cause she beat out Rossi ...

(when your guy loses by such asmall margin it makes you even more bitter I think) but that's only in Washington, in the national scene it's something else. I can't think of a single thing they could use against her but I'm sure they'd find something on anyone.

[LisaM]

57. A lot of Rossi's money comes from out of state

I want to say from the insurance and building industries. But I do like her; I think she's been a fantastic governor (except she needs to step in and stop the condo-mania going on in Seattle).

[Political Heretic]

6. I honestly don't know anymore.

It seems hard for me to fathom how you go from the divisiveness of the primaries to a "unified" ticket without seeming totally inauthentic. Plus, I get the impression that these guys really dislike each other. Could be wrong - maybe its just the heat of the race.

I kind of feel like Clinton eliminated any possibility of a joint ticket when she made the choice to go nuclear.

[susankh4]

62. One has only to take a look at the JFK/LBJ ticket to realize that it can....

and will happen.

[onehandle]

8. The winner of slightly more than 50% will brush off the winner of slightly less than 50%.

At least that's the impression I get observing DU.

The winner won't need the support of the "loser's" supporters.

:crazy:

[havocmom]

10. No, and not wise either

It would be a constant reminder of the hateful crap that has gone down. It would not be our strongest ticket to run in the GE. It would take two DEM Senators off the Hill instead of just one.

We need strong DEMS on the Hill too, or a DEM in the WH gets nothing accomplished.

[ray of light]

11. I don't believe Hillary wants to be VP. She has much better use in the Senate than in the VP.

[kennetha]

16. I tend to agree with this

So Hillary might turn down the VP slot if offered. Or she might make it clear that she doesn't want to be offered it in advance.

But we've got two super candidates here, with huge national followings. Don't you think a case could be made that for the sake of a truly historic opportunities they should be grown-ups and put aside the things said and done in the heat of the campign.

My mother in Ohio, who is voting for Obama, really, really wants a way to vote for both of them. She wants to see a Obama-Clinton ticket. I bet she isn't alone.

[susankh4]

63. Yes!

I agree. And I think, in the end, Hillary will do what is best for her party.

I hope Obama will, as well.

[still_one]

12. With all the ups and downs in this campaign, nothing would surprise me

I know many believe because the campaign was so intense it is not likely

There have been stranger things that have occurred in politics

It could happen, if for nothing else then to heal the wounds, and unite the party

[ORDem]

13. There's no electoral advantage to Obama and I'm sure Hillary's

talents would be wasted as V.P. V.P. is basically a thankless, low-profile, do-nothing job. Cheney's an aberration because Bush is just a talking head and Cheney likes low-profile.

Or were you thinking along the lines of succession of power? LOL!

:dem:

[Dawgs]

17. I think you need to redo your math.

Texas cancels out Ohio
North Carolina cancels out Pennsylvania
Vermont cancels out Rhode Island

which means..

Hillary will still be behind by 150+ delegates. FL and MI won't help.

She will be behind significantly in states, delegates, and popular vote. The super delegates are supposed to select the most electable. Obama leads in GE polls against McCain by a large difference when compared to Hillary.

She's done.

[question everything]

20. No. These are two strong individuals neither will be willing to take a second chair

Sometimes a young unknown is willing to view the VP as a stepping stone however papa Bush is the only siting VP who won, and for just one term.

Plus, either needs a strong military/national security person on the ticket. Wes Clark was mentioned for Hillary several times.

[verges]

58. Uh--

I'm sure you meant in living memory. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson immediately pop to mind. Granted, the selection process was very different then. But, they were sitting VP's who then went immediately into the Presidency.

[ieoeja]

65. Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State.

John Adams and George H.W. Bush were the only two sitting VPs elected directly to the Presidency.

[question everything]

67. Thank you. Yes, I was going to reply "in recent memory"

but your answer is, of course, the informed and correct one.

[Alexander]

70. Not true. So was Martin Van Buren.

I agree with your point, though. It's rare for VPs to win on their own.

[verges]

71. No...

Jefferson WAS VP under Adams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

[ieoeja]

72. I suck

Jefferson was SoS under Washington. He *was* a sitting VP when elected President while running against the sitting President. No wonder Adams hated him so much.

And I forgot about Van Buren whom Jackson helped into office leaving poor Van Buren to inherit Jackson's economic disaster.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why Cheney chose not to run. He doesn't want to be stuck with the mess they have created.

[griffi94]

24. i don't think it will ever happen

the obama supporters seem to hate hillary almost as much as the rw does. he can maybe compromise with the repubs but never with the clintons. also i would be really surprised if she would accept. however if she did accept i think that would go a really long way to repairing the current split in the party. imo we've probly already blown the election, too many raw feelings on both sides. it's funny it takes the repubs 15 years to splinter, the democrats do it over a weekend.

[cali]

26. I don't think so.

And not because they don't like each other or any nonsense like that. The odds of Clinton winning the nomination are now very slim. She's unlikely to win TX and even OH is in doubt. She's 155 pledged delegates behind. His pledged delegate count is likely to grow by at least 35 on mini Tuesday. So, odds are that Obama is the nominee.

I just don't see anything in it for Clinton. Why would she trade a powerful Senate seat for a VP position? If Obama won two terms, she'd be 68 by the time 2016 rolled around. And being a powerful Senator offers much more independence than being VP, where one is obligated to follow the policies of the president. In addition, I think Obama needs someone from a red or purple state. Two blue state senators is not a balanced ticket.

[kennetha]

29. First AA prez and first woman VP

I think that would throw red-blue out the window.

And of course it's better to be a powerful senator than a funeral going VP. But the last couple of VP's -- Cheney and Gore -- have been trusted and powerful power centers within Admin. Clinton would be a very consequential VP. ANd she would, I think, have a great deal of influence on Obama behind the scenes.

So I wouldn't be so sure that even if she were to NEVER run from president again, she would find being part of the Obama-Clinton admin a very enticing idea --when the heat of the campaign has died down.

And again, I don't think she's merely in this for personal ambition. I really don't.

[kennetha]

27. I'm a bit disappointed

By the shallowness of this discussion. So I think I'll just let it drop

[robbedvoter]

28. I used to think so - Florida, all those voters...but I stopped giving a damn as I am

an emotional woman who goes unhinged sometimes, whines and starts wars when the PMS strikes...:eyes:

[terrya]

32. No n/t

[berni_mccoy]

36. Obama would LOSE votes if he chose her as his V.P. HE needs a V.P. that comes with ADDED votes.

He nets nothing with Clinton.

[kennetha]

39. Don't agree

Look at their competing demographics. She is sort of a working class hero in this election. He's the candidate that inspires people who want their government to reflect their (progressive) values. She's the candidate of people who want the government to affect their lives in concrete and specific ways -- the reagan democrat types. I think together, they win every state that Al Gore/John Kerry won and maybe add Florida and Ohio to the mix.

[berni_mccoy]

52. He's not a working class hero?!? Wrong. He's won nearly every union endorsement, most recently

one of the largest: The Teamsters Union.

In the last 11 contests, he's won every demographic over Clinton.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. God I hope not.

Hillary would be a liability on the ticket, and Obama needs someone who will be an asset.

[milkyway]

38. Dream on.

[kennetha]

40. Astute political analysis from DU

[JeanGrey]

41. Your analogy is quite strange. She isn't going to get Texas,

probably not Ohio, and Florida and Michigan? LOL If she gives it to HIM? Oh my.

[Iggo]

42. It's almost impossible.

[nsd]

45. Obama's appeal is that he can bring a new politics.

I don't think a joint ticket would work because a lot of Obama's appeal rests on the idea that he can move America away from the bitter politics of recent years -- the idea that he represents the future, not the past. Whether fairly or unfairly, the Clinton name is linked in voters' minds with the past, just as surely as the Bush name is. Obama can't make the case that he represents a fresh start if he has Clinton on his ticket. That would just take us back to the past.

[knixphan]

47. agreed - new politics

It would be much safer for Barack to have a well-liked senator like Dodd...

[kennetha]

New doesn't have to mean

a complete break with the past. He's not leading a revolution. A new politics can take over the best of the past. But the idea that the first woman VP or Prez who has many future oriented policies and who is a gritty fighter somehow represents "the past" is not very credible, in my view. I know lots of repugs hate Hillary. But she is causing nearly as much excitement as Obama -- more among working class Reagan democrats and women at many different income levels.

How effective she is at mobilizing traditional democratic constituency is being severely masked by the fact that Obama has almost monolithic support among the AA community. The AA community traditionally votes on who can make concrete and specific changes in their lives and not out of identity politics or values symbolism. If not for Obama, Clinton would have overwhelming support among people who typically vote on pocket book sorts of issue.

So except for the liberal elites and the brigades of students I don't think the "old' vs "new" politics really has that much resonance.

And besides, that doesn't even need to be a leitmotif in a battle against McCain -- he of the 100 yrs war and the continuation of Bush's failed economic policies.

[scheming daemons]

49. The whole appeal of Obama's campaign is....

...a change in the culture in Washington.

THAT is what is enabling him to bring in MILLIONS of new voters.


Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is PART of that culture in Washington. Adding her to his ticket neutralizes his most powerful argument against McCain.


Obama will add a VP that has proven foreign policy creds, and also opens the possibility of turning a red state blue.

Obama will win NY and CA with or without Hillary. She doesn't help him electorally anywhere.


His VP choice will be either Bill Richardson (extremely high FP creds, latino, governor of a "purple" state) or Jim Webb (also extremely high FP creds, senator of a red state that is turner bluer every day).


Hillary is a bigger drag on him than a help. She won't be the VP choice. Not if Obama wants to win, anyway.

[backscatter712]

51. I don't want Clinton's campaign team working "for" Obama.

Sorry, but if Obama picked Clinton as a running mate, he'll get the entire package. People like Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and maybe everyone's favorite James Carville will all be in the back rooms, bringing their "special talents" into Obama's election strategies.

It'd like hiring Grima Wormtongue as a campaign advisor.

[flor de jasmim]

54. Excellent point, rarely made.

[caledesi]

53. Uh no. Hilliary does not help Obama! nt

[Fire_brand]

55. She wouldn't help him

And I don't think he wants to tie his legacy to the Clintons at this point.

I thought it was a tie after Feb. 5? How is it still a tie after Obama wins 11 in a row?

[AtomicKitten]

56. Hillary is the antithesis of Obama's campaign theme of change.

I doubt he would tether his campaign to the past.

[susankh4]

59. This is the most sane thing I have seen on this board in a long time

Yes. It will be a combined ticket.

They are merely vying for the top position.

[mtnsnake]

60. Let's hope Obama isn't as arrogant as most of his supporters or he'll get crushed

in any election, even if he runs with Jesus Christ on the same ticket as him.

Listening to the typical responses and arrogance of ObamaNation is enough to make anyone realize how far this party has sunk.

[HamdenRice]

61. NO -- Both Obama and Clinton would HAVE TO balance with a white male

So there is no chance of either of them being the other's running mate.

Moreover, there is little chance that Clinton will be the nominee. The only question now is who will be Obama's running mate.

[ailsagirl]

64. She'd go crazy with boredom being VP...

[knixphan]

66. no disrespect intended for Clinton

I just think strategically, you pick someone who's immune to republican venom.

Chris Dodd is one of those guys who you just can't spin negatively...

Man, if Dean wasn't the chair, he'd be the guy I want...

[BringBigDogBack]

68. No way.

Would I want that. And I don't care the order.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. yes