Have Clinton and Obama sniped at each other too much to allow for a joint ticket?

[BrainGlutton]

Seems to me a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket, in either case folding their campaign organizations and support bases together, would be unbeatable. Which should be obvious to both of them. But they've been deriding each other harshly during this primary campaign. Does that make a joint ticket out of the question? I'm tempted to say yes, but I recall that in 1980 Reagan offered the running-mate slot to George H.W. Bush, who had derided his polices as "voodoo economics," and Bush accepted it.

[Liberal]

The fighting is SOP. It will have no bearing on the ticket. But I'm not sure that such a ticket would be "unbeatable". I would hope Obama would select a less contentious and controversial running mate.

[9thFloor]

She'd probably feel forced to choose him. He probably wouldn't feel as strongly in the reverse case.

[Jas09]

Obama/Clinton is unworkable. His entire message is moving beyond the divisions of the 90s - how does adding her to the ticket help with that? She also doesn't substantively combat the inexperience charge he is sure to face against McCain.

Clinton/Obama is unlikely. I'm not convinced he would accept, and even less convinced she would offer it to him. He would likely outshine her on the trail and he doesn't seem the type to just keep the chair warm as VP. Still more likely than the first scenario, I suppose.

I think both of them would prefer a safe, midwestern governor (like Evan Bayh) or a defense-minded foreign affair expert (Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, etc.).

[lieu]

I suspect if elder Bush had criticized Nancy's role in his campaign that he and Reagan never would have paired. This has become personal and I imagine feelings have or soon will become bruised beyond the point at which they could ever be repaired in the future. Last night as we were watching the debate reruns, we commented that there's no way now they'll ever be ticket mates, this in addition to the fact there are better strategic partnerships anyway. Just can't see it happening.

[DanBlather]

My bet is on Bill Richardson for VP, regardless of who is the nominee. He'll attract Hispanic and south western voters who tend to be socially conservative.

[Jas09]

My bet is on Bill Richardson for VP, regardless of who is the nominee. He'll attract Hispanic and south western voters who tend to be socially conservative.
I would have agreed until two things happened. First, we saw how bad of a national campaigner Richardson is. He is good for at least a gaffe a week, something that is ill-afforded. Second, the Republic immigration demagoguery has so locked up the Hispanic vote (at least the non-Cuban vote) that it is not as essential that the Dems target this demographic.

[Marley23]

I thought a joint ticket was very unlikely anyway, so I don't think this makes much difference. Nobody would ever ask Hillary Clinton to be VP. The egos just would not work out. And if she gets the nomiantion, I think she is more likely to pick a governor and reward somebody who has supported her and Bill.

[Doctor Who]

Black man + White woman (or white woman + black man) = "unbeatable" presidential ticket?

I hate to be all pessimistic and cynical about this fine country of ours, but realistically I think that will be perceived as too much too fast for voters.

I look for either candidate to grab a nice rich white man as their VP candidate. I'm not talking smiley Edwards either (too much baggage from last go-around). Somebody like (the forgotten) Mark Warner. White, rich, Southern, decided not to run for president ... hell, you couldn't have scripted a better VP candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Wesley Clark is also an option, lending the white man + impressive military record.

[BrainGlutton]

Black man + White woman (or white woman + black man) = "unbeatable" presidential ticket?

I hate to be all pessimistic and cynical about this fine country of ours, but realistically I think that will be perceived as too much too fast for voters.

12% of whom are black, and 50+% of whom are women, and 50+% of whom are Democrats? Why?

[Bryan Ekers]

12% of whom are black, and 50+% of whom are women, and 50+% of whom are Democrats? Why?

Trouble is, that adds up to somewhat less than 112%.


Anyhoo, when it gets to the "voodoo economics" stage, let us know.

[Doctor Who]

12% of whom are black, and 50+% of whom are women, and 50+% of whom are Democrats? Why?
The Bradley Effect?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Get real, folks!

The personal considerations don't matter much when choosing a running mate. There have been many tickets where the candidates spent the first half fighting each other for the nomination (Reagan-Bush, for example) and even those where they heartily disliked each other (JFK-LBJ, for example). In politics, you often have to make deals with opponents to get legislation passed.

The main issues is as Jas09 suggested: how would this benefit the ticket? The answer is not much.

If Clinton wins, would Obama as VP gain her many black votes? No, not really. Most of them would already choose her over the Republican candidate. And she gains credibility in the black community thru Bill Clinton, who is greatly liked by black voters. Obama as VP might gain increased turnout by black voters, but most of that would come in large metro areas (which are already won by democrats) or in southern states (which lean so heavily republican that increased black vote won't be enough to flip them democratic). So Obama as VP doesn't add much to a Clinton ticket.

Same way, on an Obama ticket Clinton as VP won't add many women votes -- the women she attracts will already be voting democratic.

The VP candidate will be someone who can attract an additional group of voters to the ticket, especially a group that can swing certain winnable states to the democratic side. Richardson, who could attract Hispanic and Mountain states voters is one example. Florida & Ohio are close states, someone from them might be chosen (this assumes they fix their voting machines, otherwise they are lost to the democratic side no matter what, so not worth spending any effort on them).


Regarding "too much too fast for voters"; while I don't think a ticket with both Clinton & Obama is likely for the reasons given above, I still like the image it creates in my mind: an old, bigoted, white voter exclaiming in horror "a broad and a n*gger nominated for President!" as he clutches his chest from a heart attack, dropping dead months before election day, when he would have voted republican.

[Ocean Annie]

If Clinton wins, would Obama as VP gain her many black votes? No, not really. Most of them would already choose her over the Republican candidate. And she gains credibility in the black community thru Bill Clinton, who is greatly liked by black voters. Obama as VP might gain increased turnout by black voters, but most of that would come in large metro areas (which are already won by democrats) or in southern states (which lean so heavily republican that increased black vote won't be enough to flip them democratic). So Obama as VP doesn't add much to a Clinton ticket.



A southern democrat would be the best option for the democratic ticket. As far as Obama is concerned, he is attracting more than Black voters. He is attracting young and independent voters, so I think he will be an asset to any ticket.

Unfortunately, there is the reality of social perception and bigotry that a woman and black contender will have to face. They key to winning this election is getting the dems to the polls which seems to be happening in record numbers in the primaries. If the Christian right can carry an election, then why can’t women, youth, and minorities.


.

[AHunter3]

If Clinton wins, would Obama as VP gain her many black votes?

Has zilch to do with black votes. The people that Obama appeals to that Clinton does not are middle-left relatively young relatively idealistic folks who really detest "politics as usual" and anything that reeks of political machines, political machinations, phoniness and orchestrated sound bites, and cynically outmaneuvering opponents rather than working towards consensus.

(I myself am politically an anarchist, so I am not without strong sympathy for all that, except that I think all the answers are structural, rather than keyed to persons and personalities)

Having said that, I do not know if Obama would net Clinton a lot of those types of votes so much as he would taint himself in their eyes if he accepted a VP slot on her ticket.

[Jonathan Chance]

I look for either candidate to grab a nice rich white man as their VP candidate. I'm not talking smiley Edwards either (too much baggage from last go-around). Somebody like (the forgotten) Mark Warner. White, rich, Southern, decided not to run for president ... hell, you couldn't have scripted a better VP candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Wesley Clark is also an option, lending the white man + impressive military record.

While I agree with you in principle, Mark Warner will not be on the ticket. He's spending this election cycle bitch-smacking whomever the Republicans put forth for Senate in Virginia. Taking him out of that would place that Senate seat in play.

Also, and not a small consideration, having Warner run for Senate has a damn fine chance of solidifying Virginia's 13 electoral votes for whomever the democratic nominee ends up being. He's THAT popular in the Old Dominion and he'll have coattails.

[casieispretty]

She won't pick Obama... maybe stab him in an alleyway or something though. I could see her picking some likeable white Governor, like Ed Rendell, but maybe not him.

As for Obama, I have no idea whatsoever. Does he have any longtime political allies? Whoever it is would have to be perceived as someone who will inspire change and all that good stuff.

[E-Sabbath]

Obama also appeals to 'Republicans Pissed At Bush'. This is a non-trivial number of people. I may not agree with all of the man's stances, but I am aware they are principled and studied ones.

[MsRobyn]

She won't pick Obama... maybe stab him in an alleyway or something though. I could see her picking some likeable white Governor, like Ed Rendell, but maybe not him.

As for Obama, I have no idea whatsoever. Does he have any longtime political allies? Whoever it is would have to be perceived as someone who will inspire change and all that good stuff.

Rendell likes being a power broker too much to accept a VP nod. He's also apparently not interested in running for any kind of office. He has endorsed Clinton, however, so he's obviously her boy.

Robin

[lieu]

Obama also appeals to 'Republicans Pissed At Bush'.Agreed, but my read is that many in that contingent would not accept him paired with Hillary, either as the lead or in tow.

[casieispretty]

He's also apparently not interested in running for any kind of office.

I can't imagine he'll just finish out his term as Governor and fade away, especially after his little get together with Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg, though I suppose that's a lengthy topic for elsewhere.

[you with the face]

Clinton/Obama (or vice versa) is not a good combination. Obama's strength as a uniter is not strong enough to counteract Clinton's weakness as a polarizer.

I agree that they'll need a white male to bring it home. Clinton will need someone with a likeable, charismatic personality to balance out her cold, calculating image. Obama will need someone who can make the Reagan conservatives feel comfortable and safe. Joe Lieberman comes to mind, but I confess to not knowing a whole lot about how self-identified Republicans perceive him.

The thing is, I think Obama has a better shot at finding a VP who meets the needs of his candidancy. I don't know of anyone who has what it takes to offset Clinton's image problems. If Bill Clinton can't do it (and he can't), then who else could?

[guizot]

In terms of policy, Clinton and Obama have always voted the same way. The "sniping" has been blown out of proportion by the media, which are always scraping for conflict. However, if Obama gets the nomination, he might choose someone like Richardson to fill out his lack of foreign policy experience.

[smiling bandit]

The sniping has not in any way been "blown out of proportion." They're saying some very, very personal things out there. This is not normal campaign behavior. I think it really started when Clinton (unwisely) started whining about Obama's kindergarten essays. That's not only childish (ironically so, too :D ) but seriously WRONG. And Obama basically told her to 'stuff razor wire where the sun don't shine, you diseased hell-harpy.' I may have paraphrased a bit.

But yeah, I don't see this being "politics as usual." Yes, you can open up a little on your opponent. But this is serious, constant, and bitter. I've never actually seen anything like it in modern politics, which is pretty cold sterile. But I've heard of some similar things in the past, and it doesn't come to a safe conclusion.

[Marley23]

The sniping has not in any way been "blown out of proportion."
I'm going to cast another vote for "blown out of proportion." There's some bitter stuff, but it's not so horrible. It just makes for an interesting story - more interesting than the criticism between the Republicans, for some reason.

[gonzomax]

It is Edwards for either one of them.

[Spoke]

It is Edwards for either one of them.

Well, Edwards certainly seems to be gunning for the role of kingmaker. Don't know if he can accumulate enough delegates for that.

[Captain Carrot]

Obama will need someone who can make the Reagan conservatives feel comfortable and safe. Joe Lieberman comes to mind, but I confess to not knowing a whole lot about how self-identified Republicans perceive him.You're kidding, right? Joe Lieberman? You don't actually think any Democrat would pick him as a running mate after the last year and change, do you? The man endorsed McCain and Collins, for heaven's sake! No amount of making Republicans 'comfortable' is worth being associated with Lieberman in any way.

And yes, I realize that several Democrats campaigned for him in 2006, including Obama. I don't think that makes any difference by now.

[you with the face]

You're kidding, right? Joe Lieberman? You don't actually think any Democrat would pick him as a running mate after the last year and change, do you? The man endorsed McCain and Collins, for heaven's sake! No amount of making Republicans 'comfortable' is worth being associated with Lieberman in any way.

I know liberals aren't fond of Lieberman, but I'm thinking Obama wouldn't have to worry about alienating them. It's pulling in the moderates and conservatives.

I mean, it's not like an anti-Lieberman would rather vote for McCain, if their problem with Lieberman was that he endorsed McCain.

[smiling bandit]

I'm going to cast another vote for "blown out of proportion." There's some bitter stuff, but it's not so horrible. It just makes for an interesting story - more interesting than the criticism between the Republicans, for some reason.

It has to do with the depth of it. The Republican candidates may yell over policy, and laugh at Huckabee because he's an arse, but it's not personal. The Clinton-Obama issue is very, very personal. That's what's different about it.

[Marley23]

It has to do with the depth of it. The Republican candidates may yell over policy, and laugh at Huckabee because he's an arse, but it's not personal. The Clinton-Obama issue is very, very personal. That's what's different about it.
Some of it sounds pretty personal to me, and I think this story from today's New York Times has some examples that back me up. It quotes McCain comparing Romney to a pig; I'd say that's pretty personal. There's been some personal stuff from the Democrats, and there's some bad feelings over some of Bill Clinton's comments, for sure. The drug stuff, too. But it happens on both sides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24romney.html?ref=politics

[Elendil's Heir]

It does seem a bit more personal than usual, and Clinton is, I think, one to hold and nurse grudges. It seems very, very unlikely that she'd pick Obama as a running mate. And if she did, he'd probably be totally frozen out and marginalized once in office as VP, so what'd be the point? On the other hand, she's polarizing enough, and her ego is big enough, that I'd be amazed either if Obama picked her as his running mate or if she accepted.

I agree with Doctor Who and you with the face that either the first-ever Democratic female nominee, or the first-ever black nominee, is going to want a safe, uncontroversial but politically-helpful white guy as running mate. I like Mark Warner a lot, but he probably will want to run for, and almost certainly win, a Senate seat. Bill Richardson underwhelmed me. Joe Lieberman has practically become a DINO and did little to help Gore in '00. John Edwards is yesterday's news, did little to help Kerry in '04 and was perceived as disloyal, and has come across far too angry this season to take the VP nod again. Not gonna happen.

A week is an eternity in politics, let alone five months. Either Clinton or Obama are going to have to think hard as to who would be the best running mate when the time comes to choose.

[guizot]

The sniping has not in any way been "blown out of proportion." They're saying some very, very personal things out there. This is not normal campaign behavior. I think it really started when Clinton (unwisely) started whining about Obama's kindergarten essays. Yes, that was a pretty petty thing to say, but when the media repeat it over an over again, they're just blowing it out of proportion. That's because in terms of policy, there isn't much to distinguish the two.

I think that when that is the worst thing you can say about someone, you really aren't getting very personal. It's a "token" personal attack. She did say something about his being a lawyer for a slumlord; that's probably the most personal thing she's said about him, but it was to compare what she was doing at one point with what he was doing.

And what exactly has he said about her that is so personal?

Maybe she's said something worse, but I can't think anything. (One of her campaign workers said something about drugs, but he had to resign.)

If you think this is really personal, compare it to what Bush said about McCain in 2000.

[Wee Bairn]

I can't see either one "settling" for VP.

[Napier]

Politics makes for some strange bedfellows, and if you peek under the sheets you may see some very evil things indeed. If Hitler could team up with Japan to push his agenda of Aryan superiority, I don't see why Obama and Clinton couldn't team up.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Obama and Clinton will never share a ticket.

Phil Bredesen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen) for Veep '08!

No matter who gets the nom, Bredesen will fulfill everything the prez candidate needs:

White? Check.
Male? Check.
Executive experience? Check. (Governor, mayor, started a successful business)
Southern? Check.
Baby boomer? Check.
Moderate? Check.
Popular in his state? Check.
Not a filthy, stinkin' lawyer? Check.

[Elendil's Heir]

From a state the Dems would love to pick up this fall? Check.

[Tuckerfan]

I'm beginning to think that the Clinton/Obama spat is little more than a dog and pony show, carefully designed to shut Edwards out of the news, while allowing Clinton and Obama to shore up their support. I heard an extended portion of the last debate the other and both of them really seemed to be softballing one another.

Obama goes after Bill for saying things that "aren't factually correct." now, it seems to me that Obama's not the kind of guy to speak in euphamisms. If he was seriously bothered by them, then I'd think that he'd call them "lies" (but not necessarily call Bill a liar). Hillary get's to shoot back that she's the one running, not Bill. (While proving that Bill does give a damn about her, and thus that their marriage is not the sham, it was often claimed back when Bill was in office.)

Obama jabs Hillary that she used to work for Wal-Mart, while Hillary counters that Obama worked for a slumlord. When the commentators dissect these claims, what do we find? Obama did a couple hours worth of work on a public housing project which happened to involve the slumlord, and Obama gave back the contributions given to him by the slumlord when the slumlord ran into legal troubles. Hillary, OTOH, served on Wal-Mart's board of directors where she pushed for them to hire more women and minorities.

Now, I don't know about Obama, but we all know that if you want to fling dirt about Hillary, there's plenty of ammunition just laying around, and this is what he picks? :confused: Seems to me that if he really wanted to go after Hillary, he could pull something a little stronger out of his quarrel.

When I listened to the clip, I couldn't help but be reminded of the '92 VP debate, with Clinton and Obama taking Quayle and Gore's roles, and Edwards being forced into that of Stockdale. The rest of the week, the media talks about Obama and Clinton, while nary a word is said about Edwards. Awfully neat and tidy if you ask me.

[BrainGlutton]

According to this (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=278565) analysis, the relatively civilized tone of the 1/31/08 debate compared to previous ones may open the door to the possibility of a joint Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket just maybe possibly.

[Jophiel]

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be worthless in my opinion and certainly wouldn't be an acceptable "consolation prize" for Obama supporters. If Clinton is president, her "Two For The Price of One" co-president will be Bill Clinton. The only role Obama will have to play as VP in her administration is filling a Constitutionally mandated slot in case she chokes on a pretzel. For that, I'd much rather he remain in the Senate where he will at least have some power and influence.

[levdrakon]

I think a Clinton/Obama VP would be an excellent way for Obama to prove he's the man to take over in '12 or '16.

12-16 years of Democratic presidents. Oooh, someone pinch me.

[Jophiel]

Wouldn't be '12. Either Hillary would have to decline to run for another term (yeah, right) or else fuck things up so badly as to be inelectable, in which case her Vice-President sure isn't going to get elected to the job.

[Marley23]

I think a Clinton/Obama VP would be an excellent way for Obama to prove he's the man to take over in '12 or '16.
The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the top spot. If you exlude Presidents who died - and Gerald Ford - the following Veeps were elected on their own: Adams and Jefferson (and that was when the runner-up became VP), Van Buren, Nixon (who lost when he ran as the sitting VP), and George H. W. Bush.

If he wants to be President later, Obama would be better off staying in the Senate and being his own man.

[levdrakon]

The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the top spot. <snip>I'm afraid I don't understand. Didn't Gore win the popular vote, and come pretty close to becoming president?

[Marley23]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Didn't Gore win the popular vote, and come pretty close to becoming president?
Yes he did. Notice how many Vice Presidents actually made the jump, though? You need a President who gets re-elected and is still popular after eight years, you need people to think the country is in good shape and should keep going the way it's going, and you need the VP to somehow identify himself as an individual while claiming credit for things that were mostly done by someone else, and while defending any unpopular things the President did.
And in the case of a President Hillary Clinton, any VP would be competing with Bill for the second most powerful voice in the administration. Which is why I think they'll pick someone who's been loyal to them instead of a rival like Obama.

[cerberus]

Historically, the VP isn't an effective stepping stone, but more recent trends suggest that at worst, the effect is neutral. Nixon was VP for Eisenhower. Mondale was VP for Carter. GHW Bush was VP for Reagan. Gore was VP for WJ Clinton. Being VP is a mixed bag, with VPOTUSs attempting to succeed two-term POTUSs at a possible disadvantage.

And, per CONUS, the Electoral College decides the race for POTUS, with a deadlocked EC possibly yielding to the House of Representatives.

Recent trends reflect a poor record in getting Senators elected as POTUS - Governors are a better bet.

If the top nominee is a Senator, then it might be wise to go with a governor. Richardson has a number of things going for him, and he could balance a ticket.
.
Obama/Richardson might work, since it might allegedly coalesce the alleged Black and Hispanic voting blocks, to the extent that they actually exist into an effective superblock of votes. Political race commentators have suggested that Hispanic voters, given a choice between white and black candidates, tend to choose the white candidate more often. And you get a senator and a governor, with attention paid to the southwest US population. And Richardson arguably has practical experience in terms of foreign policy that Obama lacks.

Obama is not experienced enough as an elected executive official - if Obama had, say, a term or two as Governor of Illinois, he'd be more solid. HRC has been in bed with, and part of the Democratic Party establishment for decades - HRC is not a "change agent" - she's a US Senator "from" New York ( whose residency minimally precedes her Senate candidacy). And she's on her second term. And she has no, zero, experience as an elected executive official. She was married to a two-term governor of Arkansas, and to a two-term POTUS. One can argue that she has experience as a Senator, but her "experience" elsewhere is in serving as WJC's political consultant and one can view her access to WJC as a unique profile as a lobbyist.

Obama's an equally (in)experienced) legislator, with a similar lack of experience as an elected executive. But Obama and HRC are both idea/agenda people, which makes it even more imperative to have an experienced executive as VPOTUS. And it's nice to have former governors in the White House, in that they might be able to related to the governors with whom they'll work, and have an understanding of state governmental priorities.

We'll have viable female candidates for POTUS when we routinely see them as high-level (O-9,O-10) general/flag officers and as governors of US states. The first actually viable female POTUS candidate should have the same sort of profile as past POTUSs: generals like Eisenhower, governors like Carter or Reagan or WJC, VPOTUSs like Nixon or GHW Bush or Truman. If you can find a person with balanced experience as a governor with experience as a US Representative or Senator, even better. If that person has some judicial experience, great. But the value of successful experience as a state governor is that you get experience as the chief executive officer of a state government, as well as experience juggling the judicial and legislative aspects of state government. You might even gain some experience in terms of being CinC of your state's National Guard.

Having said all that, the incumbent POTUS and his party are in the position of facing lots of fatigue/blow-back from two terms of an agenda that, at best, is volatile and inconsistent in terms of voter support, and that has seen the implosion of the vaunted tech bubble, and that is seeing the beginnings of a real estate/loan bubble correction.

People are pissed of and sick of things, and they are, at best somewhat less pissed off at the current crop of DP leadership than they are at the corresponding GoP leadership.

[Marley23]

Recent trends reflect a poor record in getting Senators elected as POTUS - Governors are a better bet.
A Senator is going to get elected President this year. Unless you're a believer that Romney can pull off a comeback, which I am not. I agree that the Democratic nominee will probably balance the ticket with a Governor or ex-Governor, though.
We'll have viable female candidates for POTUS
Clinton is clearly a viable candidate. How is she not viable? She's got about a 50-50 chance of getting the Democratic nomination.
when we routinely see them as high-level (O-9,O-10) general/flag officers and as governors of US states.
There are eight female governors right now. Although they're not elected positions, in recent years there have been female Attorneys General and Secretaries of State. I'd say that's becoming fairly routine.

[newcrasher]

I want Obama.

If he joins with Hillary he will not get my vote.