A week ago, at the Democrats’ debate in Los Angeles, moderator Wolf Blitzer’s very last question to both candidates was this: “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.
The candidates employed artfully-worded dodges to steer clear of making any news with their answers, but it appears some top Clinton allies are subtly making the case that if Dems really want this “dream ticket,” they ought to vote for Hillary. Longtime Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis argued:
[The] reality is that it is highly unlikely — I would say virtually impossible — for the ticket to be Obama-Clinton; but it is at least possible that it could be Clinton-Obama. I say this not because of any bias towards Sen. Clinton. It is just a simple reality. Sen. Clinton would not likely want to be vice president — she is now holding the U.S. Senate seat of the revered Sen. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and she hardly would enthusiastically give up that Senate seat to go back to the White House, even as vice president.
Moreover, it is very likely Sen. Obama might feel having Sen. Clinton as his vice president would be very difficult since, given her fame and political influence, it would create the appearance (if not the reality) of a co-presidency.
On the other hand, a Clinton-Obama ticket would fit into the aspirations and goals of many supporters of both candidates: Most Clinton supporters like Sen. Obama and believe he could make a good president, just not yet; and most Obama supporters would love to see him as president but might see the wisdom of waiting eight years so when he runs for president as vice president, the issue of experience and political maturity will not be a factor.
So, if you like Sen. Obama but want the dream ticket, vote for Sen. Clinton!
And then, coincidentally, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe floated a similar argument, raising questions about a coordinated message.
Whether coordinated or not, this strikes me as far-fetched.
There are plenty of good reasons to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries, but hoping to achieve a “dream ticket” seems a little convoluted. Indeed, Davis’ argument seems rather silly — Clinton wouldn’t want to be the VP in 2008 because Bobby Kennedy held her Senate seat in 1968. That’s relevant, how?
More substantively, I find it hard to imagine Clinton tapping Obama as a running mate, given that she’s spent the last several months — and she’s likely to spend several more — arguing that Obama isn’t ready for the perils of national leadership. Sure, it’s campaign rhetoric, but Clinton really seems to mean it. Then, all of a sudden, she’s going to turn around and insist that Obama should be one heartbeat from the presidency? I kind of doubt it.
That said, Davis’ other point — a Clinton-Obama ticket seems more likely than an Obama-Clinton ticket — sounds about right. It’s a pretty common discussion in Democratic conversations: could these two team up? The question, at least for me, is what Clinton would bring to Obama’s ticket. Davis argues that Clinton’s stature and greatness runs the risk of overshadowing the Illinois senator. As a Clinton backer, that’s pretty much what he’s supposed to say.
But I look at it as a more practical matter: nominees 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 give Obama, which is why the pairing seems so unlikely.
What do you guys think?