As I understand it, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are regularly asked about whether they’d consider running together on the Democratic ticket. Both have become quite adept at giving non-committal answers.
It’s why Clinton raised a few eyebrows this morning on CBS’s “The Early Show” when she gave an answer that was outside the norm.
Asked about running with Obama, Clinton said, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
The Politico asked Obama the same question, and he was far more reluctant to stray from the usual message: “We are just focused on winning the nomination. That is my focus. I respect Sen. Clinton. She has been a tenacious opponent. It is premature to talk about a joint ticket.”
Of course, in light of Clinton’s surprising comment, it’s may not be “premature” anymore.
The last time this came up in earnest was at the Dems’ Los Angeles debate, when moderator Wolf Blitzer’s asked both candidates: “The more I speak to Democrats out there, not only to Democrats here at the Kodak Theater but all over the country, they take a look at the two of you and they see potentially a ‘dream ticket,’ a dream ticket for the White House. There may have been some nasty words exchanged, or angry words or whatever. But the question is this. Would you consider an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket going down the road?”
The audience not only applauded the idea enthusiastically, a fair amount of the spectators literally gave the question a standing ovation. It didn’t matter — the candidates employed artfully-worded dodges to steer clear of making any news with their answers
But now that Clinton has helped put the issue back on the table, it’s probably worth considering again. Mike Allen sees Clinton-Obama as more likely than the other way around.
Democratic strategists say Clinton would be more likely to pick Obama than vice versa, for two big reasons:
Obama has attracted tens of thousands of young supporters who are loyal to him, not to the Democratic Party. Clinton, on the other hand, has strong support among party regulars.
So if Clinton became the nominee, inviting Obama aboard her ticket would help keep that support. Obama might be reluctant to join, figuring that if Clinton lost, he’d be able to run for the top job four years later. But he might accept her invitation at the behest of the party.
Obama would have much less reason to pick Clinton. He has made his campaign about the future, and her presence on the ticket would complicate that message. And she has not brought in voters he would automatically have trouble attracting.
That sounds about right to me, though I still find it hard to believe these two will pair up.
Allen argued that Clinton is more likely to tap Obama than the other way around, but wouldn’t it be a little awkward? Clinton has based much of her campaign on the argument that Obama isn’t ready to lead, can’t offer solutions, is of questionable ethics, can’t be relied upon in the event of a crisis, and isn’t even as strong as the Republican candidate when it comes to experience. Then, all of a sudden, she’s going to turn around and insist that Obama should be one heartbeat from the presidency?
I also have trouble how this pitch would go to Obama at the convention: “Barack, congratulations. You won more delegates, more states, more votes, and raised more money. You now get to be the #2 person on the ticket.” Hmm.
As for the inverse — an Obama/Clinton ticket — nominees tend to look for running mates who bring something important to the table: a regional balance, an ideological balance, a key constituency, etc. I’m not sure what Clinton would bring to Obama’s ticket.
When Clinton said this morning that teaming her and Obama up “may be where this is headed,” I suspect she meant that it’d be the logical conclusion given that they’re the last two Democrats standing, and neither one is going away anytime soon. Still, I just don’t see it.