Is a Clinton-Obama/ Obama-Clinton ticket feasible?

I ask this question seriously: Is a Clinton-Obama ticket (or Obama-Clinton ticket) possible? feasible? desirable? Come the convention, will the primary season wounds inflicted be too deep to overcome?

From my quite isolated vantage point across the Atlantic, I see two strong candidates who together appeal to an astonishingly broad demographic, and I am hardly alone in hoping for unity (and the earlier the better).  

I also see the Republicans in the wings sharpening their racist, sexist, and "compassionately conservative" knives.

A Clinton-Obama//Obama-Clinton ticket?

[Disclosure: I ask this as an Edwards Democrat (I support his populist, anticorporate platform, and hope that the two main contenders will pay much more attention to the poor and disenfranchised of our nation).]

Would Hillary be willing to settle for Veep? Would Barack? Could either put aside her/his presidential aspirations for the sake of an unbeatably strong ticket?

Would such a ticket be a better defense against the inevitable Republican slime machine, or would it just give these unAmerican types a bigger target?  What seems certain to me is that they are going to go full-out to play to the ugliest fears and most fetid cesspools of the American psyche to try to inflict as much damage as they can.

Is there any way to minimize the primary-season bloodletting such that these two could be on the same ticket? Or would it be better to bring in someone else (Edwards?) as veep, regardless of who is nominated?

Is there anything that we can do now to ensure that the strongest ticket will remain possible despite the continuing contest for the nomination?

•  Tip jar for a very serious question. n/t

  by mofembot on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:10 AM PDT

  •  I'm an Obama guy.

    If he were not get the nomination then I don't want him to be Hillary's vp.  I don't want him to become Clintonized.  I would hope that he'd go back to the senate to lead on some important issue and run again when his time is right... or go for IL gov or something in the meantime.

    Being with Clinton will kill everything that he stands for and all the political capitol that he has created.

    by recusancy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:41 AM PDT

    •  I don't think she'd want to take

      back seat regardless.

      by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:06 AM PDT

      •  Yeah... I wouldn't want her as a VP for him

        She brings nothing that outweighs her baggage.  Plus hopefully the vp will go back to being a traditional vp and therefore have less power then Dick has right now.

        by recusancy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:56 AM PDT

        •  Bill Clinton back in the White House as a spouse

          of a Vice President. No.

          by jhutson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:39 AM PDT

          •  VP and spouse live in the Naval Observatory

            at One Observatory Circle, not the White House.

            by Bob Love on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:26 AM PDT

            •  Right. And they never ever visit the White House.

              /snark

              by jhutson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM PDT

      •  Whatever else one might say...

        The Clintons know how to play the game of politics.  If Obama is VP, that has the potential to drag along at least some of the new voters and moderates he's been attracting.  It might also diffuse some of the animosity towards her from the left from an Obama loss.  I can certainly see it happening.

        I don't know if he would accept though.  Hillary pretty much embodies the partisanship that Obama often rails against.

        by muffie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:00:57 AM PDT

        •  Yup

          It look's increasingly like she'll need Obama on the ticket.

          1. As you said to overcome any animosity/alienation of the newer voters Obama has attracted.

          2. Although she's a rockstar in her own right, she's a bit tarnished now. She'll need Obama's added wattage to take on McCain.

          3. (And I'm preparing myself to be flamed for this) She needs to show she's not vindictive or petty. That she's not afraid of being out-shown by her running mate.

          by Dunkerque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:48 AM PDT

          •  Don't think so

            She'll pick someone who is a better balance on the ticket and who won't compete with her for star power.

            But if she wins the nomination, he'll still bring his flock home to mama.

            by Free Spirit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:10:03 AM PDT

            •  No he won't...

              I think Obama would lose graciously and respectably, but A-As aren't necessarily going to "come home" just because Obama endorses her.

              Speaking as one, I won't be voting for Clinton in November.  The Clintons' behavior and that of their surrogates ensured that last December.  The only thing that could convince me to vote for her is if Obama is on the ticket.  Otherwise, no.

              by GeckoBlue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:02:21 AM PDT

              •  We'll see

                I supported Dean in 2004. After he quit, there were a lot of people who weren't going to support Kerry. Most of them changed their minds by November.

                But that wasn't really my point. Everyone seems to think that he could only campaign for her if he's on the ticket. That's not true, of course. He can campaign for her whether he's on the ticket or not. And he will.

                by Free Spirit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:18:25 AM PDT

                •  Not exactly an apt comparison

                  Kerry did nothing of the sort to Dean, that the Clintons and their surrogates did to Obama.  This is about dirty and divisive campaigning, and doing and saying anything to win -- exactly the reason I support Obama in the first place.

                  I won't prove the wisdom of their strategy by falling into line come November.  I won't reward that kind of politics - period.

                  And it's not about whether Obama will endorse or campaign for her.  I don't care about that.  He'll HAVE to fall into line if he ever wants to run for president again -- VP or not.  So that's to be expected though I don't doubt his endorsement would be sincere given the choice in November.  Anyway, my choice is primarily about the Clintons and whether I want to reward their kind of politcs.  I lean more in their favor if Obama is on the ticket, but otherwise it's really not dependent on what Obama says or whether he campaigns for them in the fall.

                  by GeckoBlue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:49:00 AM PDT

      •  That's what they said about

        a Kennedy/Johnson ticket, but it was the magic ticket as it's pretty sure Kennedy wouldn't have carried Texas without it, and perhaps other southern states as well.

        That's not a bad comparison either, the young, fresh-faced upstart brimming with hope and change, and the grizzled power-broker who'd been in the deepest trenches of political infighting since the dawn of the millenium...Hell, I'd like to see it just for the peanuts and popcorn.

        by PBJ Diddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:25 AM PDT

        •  But Johnson

          brought with him states that Kennedy could not win. Obama is right about being able to win those states that Clinton won. Does anyone seriously think that Massachusetss is going to vote Republican in November?

          by Night Runner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:17:19 AM PDT

  •  Eric Schmeltzer, who is in the know,

    answered this question on Sunday.

    by Brandon Friedman on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:51:53 AM PDT

  •  Obama-other

    Hillary brings Obama nothing he needs as his VP that he can't get another way. She brings no states he can't get on his own. I suppose her "experience" (and I dispute the experience argument, Barack is plenty experienced to anyone that cares to objectively look) helps balance the ticket but anyone can fill that role.

    What she does bring is Clinton fatigue, scandal, energized Republicans, and Bill. As Mitt said, do you really want Bill roaming the White House with nothing to do? I wouldn't want him in any way tied to my administration if I was Obama.

    Clinton-Obama... meh, why? I think she needs his help certainly but what's in it for him? Look at what happened to Gore as Bill's VP. He was marginalized for 8 years, didn't get to work on his issues, and when it came time for him to run there was a ton of scandal and he had to run away from Bill's record. (It may be tinfoil of me but does anyone else wonder if the Clinton's intentionally didn't help him as much as they could in order to set up Hillary in 08?) He might be convinced to do it in a for the good of the party sort of way but he would be better off finishing his term and running for Governor before he tried again.

    I've been saying Napolitano would be a good VP for Obama. Purple state governor, term limited, very talented, has executive experience, helps put AZ in play, plus she's only 50 and so would be perfectly set up to go for it in 2016.

    To those who want Obama-Edwards... why? So he can try again in 2016? I dunno... he's tried twice now and can't seem to make it happen. I have more respect for the guy then to see him rot as VP. I'd like to see him as AG or Labor.

    by Obama Independant on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:30:10 AM PDT

    •  Obama/Sebelius

      I think Kathleen Sebelius would be ideal.  She's Catholic and she's a woman who can win in a deep Red State. She also endorsed Obama.

      BTW - anyone see this from Kristof in the NY Times? It's got to make Rove, Inc. sweat at night!

      Mr. Obama does surprisingly well among evangelical Christians, an important constituency in swing states. For example, Relevant magazine, which caters to young evangelicals, asked its readers: "Who would Jesus vote for?" Mr. Obama was the winner and came out 27 percentage points ahead of Mrs. Clinton.

      by Dont Just Stand There on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:28 AM PDT

      •  Agree with the comment above yours...

        Obama Independent has it right, though I don't know about Napolitano.  Hillary needs the black vote so she'd certainly offer VP to Obama.  Or maybe she'd choose another African-American like Harold Ford, who is a good campaigner in his own right and also a DLC democrat.

        Obama would NOT offer VP to Hillary since it would certainly go against everything he's campaigned against --  Iraq, curbing lobbyists, turning the page, etc. -- while still motivating Republicans in the fall.

        Sebelius looks good on paper, but boy, is she BORING.  I need to see more of her.  Also agree that Edwards adds little to the electoral calculus.

        I prefer a more unconventional choice for Obama -- someone like Max Cleland would be a great balance.  He can speak to foreign policy and military matters with authority.

        by GeckoBlue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:54:05 AM PDT

        •  Oh, I forgot...

          The reason Obama would accept a VP offer from Clinton if she were to lock it up, is because he would be the front-runner in 2016 if she won the election (which is likely), or in 2012 if she lost.

          Does he really want to do this all over again, against a sitting VP (or past VP candidate) such as Evan Bayh?  Obama can't run another insurgent campaign...and he can't sit on the sidelines for 4 or 8 years while someone else makes headlines.

          An alternative of course would be to run for Gov. of Illinois, but he could still do that if a Clinton-Obama ticket lost in November.

          by GeckoBlue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:58:25 AM PDT

      •  She'd be...

        Sebelius would be going on 68 when she started her run. Getting on in age by that point. Napolitano is 10 years younger.

        by Obama Independant on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:49:33 PM PDT

•  If Clinton wins the nomination....

  ...I see no other choice for her... she has to heal the wounds of her Rovian attacks on him...

  If it's Obama, he's not going to want her baggage.

  Thanks,

  Mike

  by LordMike on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM PDT

  •  Obama, I think, has to offer it

    to Hillary, and Hillary has to reject it.  

    by Bob Love on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:35:14 AM PDT

•  If Obama looses because of the Super Delegates...

  Hell with the Democrats. Let them loose for the Clinton and I will still vote for him if he runs independent.

  Obama/Dean or Obama/Anyone on independent Ticket.

  by RedMask on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:34 AM PDT

  •  I already said

    that I plan on raising hell if that happens.  I think I'm not alone either.

    by recusancy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:41 AM PDT

  •  Wow.

    Dean is the party chair.  Why in the hell would he abandon us?

    by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:33:14 AM PDT

    •  Moreover

      Dean and the Clintons are not friends.

      by Jaiwithani on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:59:49 AM PDT

    •  Highly Unlikely

      On the other hand, CW is that if HRC wins the nomination, he won't be party chair any longer.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:27 AM PDT

      •  HRC Gets the Nomination...

        ...McCain wins the presidency.

        It's that simple.  We'll work as hard as ever, and it won't be enough.  The people's minds are made up about her and the vast majority of the new Obama voters WILL stay away in the general.  AND a lot of us will leave the Democratic Party, too.

        If it isn't out with the old and in with the new for Democrats, it will be out with the new way forward and back to the same old problems under another Republican.

        by Soundpolitic on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:04:29 AM PDT

        •  We'll see

          Heard this all before.

          by Free Spirit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:12:08 AM PDT

  •  Do you have any understanding of

    how unlikely that is?  It's not worth the time it takes to type.  Seriously.

    by Bob Love on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM PDT

    •  I think it's unlikely for just that reason

      It would tear the party apart at a time when our unity, popularity, and fundraising ability is destroying Republicans.

      by chicagovigilante on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:43:45 AM PDT

      •  It's also unlikely because

        third parties don't grow on trees.  It takes time and money to get on the ballot in all fifty states.  I doubt Obama could accomplish it in a few months time.  With all his billions, Bloomberg would have difficulty accomplishing it even if he started today.

        I guarantee neither HRC nor Obama will run on a 3rd party ticket.

        by Bob Love on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:50:48 AM PDT

        •  I was talking more about superdelegates deciding

          the outcome. But I also agree with your statement. When the dust settles, Obama or Clinton will respect the winner.

          by chicagovigilante on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:52:50 AM PDT

        •  not on trees

          but often out of rifts within existing parties. not that i think either obama or hillary would do so.

          by wu ming on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:11:56 AM PDT

      •  Who need the Bush enablers...

        They don't act democrats anyways. They have abondoned us for the last 8 years.

        Flash them out, we the grass roots are the true DEMOCRATS!!!

        by RedMask on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:38 AM PDT

  •  Obama will not run as an Independent.

    Nor will Dean.

    The end.

    by begone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:37:46 AM PDT

•  I don't think Obama would accept

  Whomever HRC selects as VP, this person will have no influence on policy, because Bill will be the de facto VP. So Obama would gain nothing.

  And he won't select her because she's too much a polarizing figure for the right-wing. The Republicans WANT to run against Hillary.

  by ClaudeB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM PDT

•  Hillary will pick a loyalist.

  Someone she can trust, and is roughly the same on the issues, and has endorsed her.

  by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:41 AM PDT

  •  How do you figure?

    Hillary would have no interest in picking a loyalist. VPs are selected for their ability to pick up votes (and hopefully states) in areas the President is weak. That would be the raison d'etre of a likely McCain/Huckabee ticket.

    Obama would help Clinton quite a bit in red states, where he did great on Super-Tuesday. Clinton would help Obama with Hispanics and women. Both would be great political tickets.

    by yodafone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:06:44 AM PDT

    •  How do I figure?

      She's a hyperpartisan, and an ideologue.  Like me.  And it's the sort of thing I would do.

      by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM PDT

      •  What does "ideologue" have to do with loyalists

        If she wins the nomination, she'll want to put together a ticket that can win the general election. That will entail picking a Vice President who can help her win, not being blinded by some weird sense of loyalty.

        by yodafone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:20:18 AM PDT

        •  No.

          By putting them on her ticket, she is empowering them, and she will want to make sure that she can control them, or that they'd do what she'd want without her control.  It has to do with ideology because she wants someone she can trust ideologically.  She's much more ideological than her husband, from what I've read, much less willing to compromise, but even he picked someone very similar to him- Gore was a young, Southern white male from the DLC wing just like Bill.  Hillary wil pick someone like Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Ted Strickland, etc.- someone who is similar ideologically, who may help her get a state or two, and who supports her.  As I said, I'd do the same thing.  You can't just give someone power if you don't know if you can trust them.

          by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:39 AM PDT

          •  Stop fearmongering

            Nobody would even think about picking Evan Bayh.

            That would be like Obama picking Ben Nelson.

            by jxg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM PDT

•  Not unless their hands are forced

  Obama shouldn't want Clinton.  What's the point of avoiding a Clinton on the ticket if you end up with a Clinton on the ticket anyway?  

  Clinton might want Obama, but he would be a fool to take it.  Obama wouldn't have anything to do in a Clinton II Administration.

  Besides, if Clinton wins, I don't think the anti-war voters and Obama supporters will be placated with a veep spot.  Besides, for both of them, a ticket of a black and a female is probably too much.

  The only way I think it's possible is if we get a brokered convention, after a nasty battle, and party leaders - such as they are - essentially order the pair to run as a ticket for the sake of party unity and a fear that the loser's backers will stay hom in November.  But these aren't the old days of backroom deals and power brokers.  Somebody's going to win, and that person will be the one calling the shots.

  by bear88 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:36:02 AM PDT

  •  Anti-War Voters

    Should prefer Hillary to McCain. For everything you might say about her, Hillary has an interest in getting lots of troops out of Iraq fairly quickly. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

    Don't let the heat of the battle let you forget that Clinton and Obama, in terms of future Iraq policy, are fairly close, and miles away from McCain.

    by yodafone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:09:02 AM PDT

    •  "Voted For It Before You Voted Against It"

      It will be the same line as it was in 2004 with Bush v. Kerry.  And with the evangelicals out in force; with the Obama movement crushed from a Hillary nomination; with the news media constantly spinning that "the surge worked" and Iran is growing; with the Republicans united to stop their percieved she-devil and us Democrats divided after  a near tie...that will be the line that frames the entire debate about Iraq in 2008 as it did in 2004.  And we'll lose another race for the White House.

      Keep working hard for Obama, those of you who have the means.  He is our Party's only hope for survival now.  Stop Hillary before the Republicans do!

      by Soundpolitic on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:09:39 AM PDT

  •  The exception to this rule . . .

    is Kansas Governor Katherine Sebellius.  I think having her on an Obama ticket will net a lot of states in the mid-west including Iowa, Kansas (maybe), and the Dakotas.  Sebellius as VP might also help shore up some the women's vote.  

    by NotGeorgeWill on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:59 AM PDT

    •  Why would she help in Iowa or the Dakotas?

      by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:19:17 AM PDT

      •  State political officials . . .

        usually have name ID in neighboring states.

        This is probably part of the reason that Obama did as well as he did in Iowa.  My recollection is that Sebelius also campaigned with him in the state.

        by NotGeorgeWill on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM PDT

•  Don't think it's tenable either way.

  I'd expect a Hillary presidency might make Obama more valuable in VP than vice versa, but I doubt either would go to the mat to recruit the other. More importantly, I can't see either settling for veep.

  by The Derider on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:37:29 AM PDT

•  i dont see obama-clinton

  i just do not see what she would bring to the ticket with Obama on top. Can she bring home a 60-40 latino vote in a ge? plus it minimizes his change message and probably brings the clinton baggage with him. It just does not make sense. Are women going to abandon the democratic party if Hil is not the nominee? i really see obama with a southern military guy as vp ala jim webb.

  Clinton at the top i think she asks publicly to try to pressure him into taking the vp to assuage the african americans and the youth plus his massive fundraising machine i am sure she covets. he might have to accept to protect the people who endorsed him. alot of high profile people have put their reps on the line with him and if he fades back to the senate Clinton might look to even some scores. Clinton does value loyalty.

  by Liberal Youth on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:37:51 AM PDT

  •  Want Your Life Between Clintons & White House?

    Personally I'd sleep in different bedrooms every night and have all my food tested.

    by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:06 AM PDT

    •  (Only Humour Intended)

      Pointed humour at both the ridiculous situation of a VP to two Clintons and their obvious craving for power.

      by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:45:54 AM PDT

  •  I see BHO

    with Webb too, that ticket seems unbeatable to me.

    by emperor nobody on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:07 AM PDT

•  It would be to her advantage to take Obama

  But I actually think that she might decrease his chances of a strong win.  

  It really isn't necessary for him to court her supporters by asking her to be on the ticket.

  by OwlMonkey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:38:31 AM PDT

•  I would prefer, if Obama is the candidate,

  that he pick someone with international policy and possibly military related experience.  
  Hillary is not a bad candidate, but she is not Obama's perfect compliment as far as VP goes.

  by jbdigriz on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Gore would be perfect....

    ....but that would be a dream.  He wouldn't go back.  I know.  Just dreaming.

    Wesley Clark?  Hillary supporter, but he is impressive.

    Bill Richardson?  Great credentials, terrible candidate.

    Joe Lieberman?  Hehehe.

    by ramsfan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:45:03 AM PDT

    •  Obama-Gore

      Oh, man.  If I'm lucky, that'll feature in my dreams tonight.

      Not that I see it actually happening, but I wonder if it would lend Gore enough official political power to implement some real change.  Though, he has a lot of power remaining fairly independent as he has so far.

      by jbdigriz on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM PDT

      •  Richardson vs. Gore

        I might be mistaken, but I don't remember Gore being all that strong a campaigner either.

        I seem to remember heavy sighs, v-neck, earthtoned sweaters and orange stage makeup.

        by Dunkerque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:16:42 AM PDT

        •  Ahh, you got your "infotainment" from GloboCorp

          Media back in 2000.  (sigh)

          Silly Dunkerque, stay here on the tubes.  ;)

          by JVolvo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:18 AM PDT

          •  Lol

            No, unfortunately that’s a first person response to Gore’s cringe inducing debate performances.

            by Dunkerque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

    •  feingold

      a midwesterner like obama, incorruptable and unimpeachable character ("look, no skeletons!"), knowledge of how DC works, sits on both intelligence and foreign relations committees, has a pretty damn good voting record, and has already shown himself to be a bulldog for obama re. edwards' senate record.

      by wu ming on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:20:45 AM PDT

      •  Which is why...

        in the event of a very close Hillary win, he might make a terrific VP choice to try and soothe the likes of us. Certainly someone I'd like to see a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I'm not looking forward to or expecting her winning, but if she does, him in the VP slate and a solid promise that John Edwards would be either the Attorney General or something equally important would make me a feel a lot better.

        by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:42:31 AM PDT

        •  "Russ- live in the real world!"

          No way she picks him.

          by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:03:48 AM PDT

  •  Obama/Dodd?

    Obama/Dodd would make for a nice ticket. Dodd is a bit dull, but he's very strong on foreign policy, and has enough gravitas to make up for Obama's perceived lack of experience.

    by yodafone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:10:33 AM PDT

    •  I want Dodd in the Cabinet or in the Senate

      Dodd is a great advocate for "our" issues, and I'd much rather see him stay in the Senate to be that advocate, or play a role in the Cabinet actually doing something. I don't think he's a strategic choice for Veep.

      by ESkog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:42:43 AM PDT

•  The Key to This Question Is the String "Fem"

  The answer to the question is "no."

  Neither one wants nor gains from having the other on board.

  Bill is a seriously complicating factor.

  by Gooserock on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM PDT

•  You Mean Clinton/Clinton/Obama ?

  VP's not a great job to begin with.

  I think O's sacrificed enough for the USA without taking that humiliation.

  by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:52 AM PDT

•  Clinton on the ticket? 1st or 2nd-no way.

  I'll move on down to the rest of my ballot.

  Fortunately, I'm in Montana where I can get away with that tactic.

  by MTmofo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:29 AM PDT

•  If Kennedy could tap Johnson

  either of our candidates can try tapping the other.

  Kennedy's supporters were furious.  Until, that is, Johnson carried Texas by a half million votes and carried JFK into the White House.

  by Bob Love on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:51 AM PDT

  •  Must... resist

    "... tap that" reference.

    by The Derider on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:47:04 AM PDT

•  Almost Certain- Clinton/Bayh or Obama/Webb

  Probably 100 to 1 odds against any other combination.

  No, I'm not taking bets tho.

  by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:46:02 AM PDT

  •  Problem with Clinton/Bayh ticket

    is all the smear bumperstickers from McCain that will read:

    Clinton:Bye
    Vote McCain

    by RickWn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:37 AM PDT

    •  That will happen anyway

      No matter who her running mate is.

      The second we breath in and nominate Hillary, then no sooner will we exhale than our chances at winning the White House move on to 2012.

      by Soundpolitic on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:13:17 AM PDT

•  Doubtful.

  I think Clinton might go with someone like Strickland or Evan Bayh.

  Obama probably goes Sebellius or perhaps Tim Kaine from Virginia.

  Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton is very unlikely.

  I don't think Obama would opt for the VP slot because he realizes he can do a lot more as a Senator.  Perhaps he might even run as Governor.  Clinton would go with someone like Strickland in an attempt to put Ohio into the "D" column.  I think it would probably work too.

  On Obama's side I don't think he would want Clinton's negatives (very high with the GOP and independents).  Sebellius could put Kansas in play (as hard as that might be to believe).  Kaine would help with Virginia -- although I don't think Obama would really need a Virginian on the ticket to swing this state in his direction in November.

  by NotGeorgeWill on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:01:19 AM PDT

  •  What about Obama/Biden?

    What gop vp candidate could stand a chance in the debates?

    by Number5 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:08 AM PDT

    •  Biden would be a great choice . . .

      in terms of the debates.  He also might shore up some of the working class Dem vote.  As far as helping to carry states though, I think Biden's impact is less than other options might provide.  Odds are Obama wins Delaware in the general election without Biden's support -- he also wins neighboring states without Biden's name on the ticket.

      My best guess is that Obama will be looking for the backing from a state pol who can give him the boost in a state/region that he might not win otherwise (Clinton/Gore was in part about securing the vote in Tennessee).

      Based on this past weeks vote I don't think that's Napolitano (her backing probably helped in AZ, but it still didn't put him over the top).  In Kansas he received huge margins.  Part of this was state organization, which is key for a caucus, part of it though was probably Sebelius's early backing.  It's my understanding that Sebelius is well known in the region and has pretty favorable ratings overall.

      First Obama needs to win the nomination, but my read is that Sebelius is probably one of his top options.  Biden might be considered as well -- like you say he would tear apart someone like Huckabee in the debates.  He's an ideal VP in terms of having an attack-dog who can rip into the opposition.  He doesn't have any huge negatives.  The big question though is: Is there someone else who will provide an even bigger boost?  After the nomination process too, Obama might want to bring someone like Sebelius on board to temper some of the anger that will come about within the part if he wins out over the first truly viable female presidential candidate.

      by NotGeorgeWill on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

•  Were Hillary to get elected

  Bill would be the real VP; the VP in name only would have to be someone who wouldn't mind playing third fiddle.

  by Libertaria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:05:17 AM PDT

•  Ideal

  The ideal ticket for me would be Obama-Edwards with Clinton as Senate Majority Leader (a job which, in my opinion, she's much better suited for).  Can we agree Clinton would never agree to be VP?  If Clinton won the nomination making Obama her VP would solve some problems (knit the party back together) but possibly create some others.  I don't think a grand compromise where Obama drops out and becomes VP before the convention is likely or desirable.  What should happen if the convention becomes truly deadlocked?  Give it to Gore.  

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:08:02 AM PDT

•  I watched the last debate with some rabid...

  ...right-wingers. All of them said that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable. I couldn't believe it!

  by Psychotronicman on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:12:00 AM PDT

•  Hillary will pick a conservative white male

  a non-threatening "moderate" to "balance the ticket".  Think Evan Bayh, or Bob Kerrey.

  Obama will probably try for Sebelius or Napolitano.

  Needless to say, I'm much more excited to see who Obama would pick than Hillary.

  by Skaje on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:14 AM PDT

  •  Kerrey's neither moderate nor nonthreatening

    nor, for that matter, conservative.

    Evan Bayh seems to be the favored Obama talking point on this issue, for whatever reason; perhaps Dump Terry McAuliffe simply doled it out often enough that it's stuck. In any case it's laughable.

    The man's about as charismatic as, well, Kathleen Sebelius - and half as credentialed.

    I'm chuckling at the idea that Obama would choose a woman, though.

    by jxg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:48:28 AM PDT

    •  Half as credentialed?

      She's been governor.  He's been governor and senator.  Both are really popular in their states.

      by cjallen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:04:57 AM PDT

      •  She's been somewhat successful at it

        in more than the "win elections" sense.

        Bayh's an embarrassment to his daddy's name.

        by jxg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM PDT

  •  Someone with fundraising skills

    would be the ideal candidate for Hillary right now, someone like Joe Biden or John Edwards.  Obama doesn't have money problems and could offer the spot to McCaskill.

    by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:52:50 AM PDT

•  not a chance with either

  their styles, strengths and weaknesses are so disparate that neither would jive well with the other.

  and bill's going to be the real veep anyways.

  by wu ming on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:22:48 AM PDT

•  both have white guys ready

  Obama a seasoned veteran, Hillary a young buck.

  by Number5 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:25:51 AM PDT

•  not so sure i want hillary as the vp

  bill and hill have been planning their presidential dreams from college... at that point its only a short breath seperating her from those glorious visions of dynastic power.

  by soros on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:26:24 AM PDT

•  No Way Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton

  Clinton/Obama: impossible, if after running as the candidate for Change Obama were willing to be the sidekick to Hillary's back to the 90s he'd become a figure of ridicule.
  Obama/Clinton: impossible, Hillary's in this one for all or nothing...
  I suspect if Hillary is the nominee she'll pick a white comparatively non-political male - probably Wesley Clark.
  If Obama is the nominee, I have no idea.

  by Lepanto on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:32:56 AM PDT

•  Feasible? Maybe

  Reasonable? No. Obama could offer Clinton very, very little in the way of help winning the election, and she could help him even less.

  Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, or the ever-popular swing state governor would be much more prudent for either of them.

  by jxg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:39:44 AM PDT

•  No.

  Two senators?

  It doesn't look like a good idea. There's no "executive experience"-- which seems to have been prized in most modern elections-- and neither Obama no Clinton will really deliver anything in terms of a regional vote. I'd look for a southerner or a western governor-- Bill Richardson would be a good choice, demographically speaking, or Kathleen Sebelius. Mark Warner or even Jim Webb would deliver VA, but at the cost of a senate seat pickup, and I wouldn't expect it to be worth the risk.

  Actually, following this logic, Ohio's Ted Strickland might be a good choice. Given the modern swing-state breakdown, if you can start out with Ohio essentially in your corner, you're halfway home.

  Me, I'm holding out for Obama/Feingold 08, but it ain't gonna happen.

  by ADamiani on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:46:57 AM PDT

•  my disclosure would be the same as yours

  and I say, if Clinton is defeated in the primaries, she  should not be considered for VP.  Cabinet post maybe, but not VP.  For all the reasons we know, but especially the virulence and traction of the Republican Clinton hate machine.

  Richardson and Edwards had good support with few negatives in the primary battle.  Both should be on short list for VP with Obama.  If there can be found a strong Western state candidate, possibly Hispanic, he or she should be considered also.

  One other possibility:  a Texan.  Remember JFK/LBJ?  It worked.

  by leftinmontana on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:20:20 AM PDT

  •  Clinton

    WOULd be good at one thing but its something she will never do. After all that time in the back seat she finally got to drive and she wont give it up. She'd make a fantastic chief of staff for any dem.

    The american good ol whatevers political network is a travesty. We need people like Edwards back in the senate or in a Governorship. Clinton would make a good ark gov as we unfortunately have to accept centrists in right wing states until the party gets back its working class roots (pro working class candidats can win in centrist/red states. The robocandidates we present them cant). We have a system that selects prosecutors, lawyers and 'businessmen' ie the upper class from local communities, hands them money and machinery to get into office regardless of whether they have anything to offer, then moves them up the ladder. And kicks them off if they fail at the top rung. We lose a lot of great people that way and even more never get the opportunity because they arent of the right social/political/economic/ideological class.

    by cdreid on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM PDT

•  What's the point of that?

  Let's put out a ticket that can compete in every state:

  Obama, Richardson.

  by Paul Goodman on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:33:27 AM PDT

•  They apparently

  actually cant stand each other.

  Pretty understandable considering Hillarys' racist attacks and Obamas flat out lies about her and Edwards.

  Imho Edwards would be his smartest bet. But likely he'll pick some centrist 'dem' to 'appeal to the gop'. Right out of the BC handbook (re his secdef) none of us really give a damn about. Obamas from Ill so probably from a large southern state to appease the "strategists" who keep losing elections for us. They'll be white. Male. Probably from Florida, texas, georgia. And we'll all want to barf. But same goes for Hillary if she won as well (which she wont thank god).

  by cdreid on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:44:29 AM PDT

•  Clinton-Obama, maybe. Obama-Clinton, doubtful.

  The VP role would be too much of a comedown for Hillary, and "husband of the VP" would be too much of a comedown for Bill, after all of the past year in which she was viewed as the front-runner.

  I can't see her accepting the VP role under Obama, and I can't see him offering it to her.

  I can see Hillary offering the VP role to Obama though, under duress (in part from public pressure).  He would probably reject it but you never know.  I'd think he would want to ensure (a) a real portfolio as VP that would enable him to represent change on at least two issues central to his campaign, and (b) clarity on how Bill Clinton will and won't be playing a behind the scenes role in Hillary's administration.

  by Torta on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:05 AM PDT

  •  I think it's Obama that

    would never accept. It would be too much of a step down for him, and her persona/tactics represent the very things he's been against since he entered the political arena (years before this campaign). Clinton wouldn't want him anyhow, as his charisma overshadows hers.

    by mind space on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:11:51 AM PDT

•  no to either

  contrary to what many think, Obama/Clinton might make some sense as one of her talent is that she does know something about many issues and could become a resource.

  Also, Obama wouldn't be threatened by a strong presence  on his ticket.

  But there would probably be better choices (think: Obama/Biden).

  If HRC wins, she would probably choose someone who has no chance to outshine her but could still be effective behind the scenes (say, HRC/Richardson).

  Whoever she'd choose would have to put up with Bill and be willing to stay in the background.

  by onanyes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:33:46 AM PDT

•  If, as they both say, Clinton and Obama

  really want what is best for the country, there will be such a ticket. They have complementing skills and would be a tough ticket to beat.

  If, as is possible in politics, they are both lying when they say they want what is best for the country, there won't be a combined ticket. Which would show them both for who they really are and would be a loss for all of us.

  by Greythund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:53:48 AM PDT

•  Obama/Richardson is best

  The one concern I have in the general is the latino vote.  And Richardson has executive experience and foreign policy experience.

  by DrJK on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:05:24 AM PDT

  •  Obama/ABWBRIII

    Translation: Obama/Anybody But William Blaine Richardson III.
    
    
    `````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:58:44 AM PDT

•  VP choices

  I like: Obama/Biden or Richardson or Clark or Dodd or Webb or one of the women mentioned upstream (Sebelius/Napolitano). I think he's better off with a VP like Richardson who can bring in Hispanic vote and balance with lots of foreign policy experience...an elder stateman to bring balance, like Dodd or Biden is good. And a military person like Webb or Clark.

  Hillary: Strickland or Clark or Webb. Not sure who else. She needs some kind of balance, not sure what would be ideal balance for her. Maybe Edwards, but I don't know if he'd accept.

  I can't see either of them accepting VP for the other.

  On a related subject, my dream cabinet: Gore head of EPA, Clinton head of HHS, Biden or Richardson head of State and Dennis Kucinick head of the newly formed Department of Peace...Lieberman for dog catcher (tee hee)

  by hopeful on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:44 AM PDT

•  chocolate covered prunes are possiable

  that doesn't mean anyone would want them

  by VelvetElvis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:27:25 AM PDT

  •  Depends on how they're packaged

    Having had chocolate-covered a whole lot of different kinds of dried fruit here in Europe, I expect this wouldn't taste too bad, actually (and I've probably already eaten it). All you'd need is to call it something better: "pruneaux secs au chocolate"--dried plum bits in chocolate, anyone?

    So if the packaging and marketing were done right, perhaps even the most unpalatable-seeming combination could sell. (Done wrong, à la calling a rose a "noxious stinkweed," even the best combo might be off-putting.)

    Selling people or food present similar challenges. FWIW.

    by mofembot on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:54:17 AM PDT

•  Obama would never agree to be on...

  a Clinton ticket, whether as VP or P. Why? His campaign has been about what he stands for: character, judgment, integrity. It would go against these characteristics to team up with someone like Clinton who seems to have a "different" set of values--I'll leave this for speculation. More, Obama like ALL politicians is ambitious. IF he truly ever wants to be president, he'd never be VP to Clinton...he knows her administration would be doomed (if the Repubs can help it) from the beginning. His name would likely be smeared before he could ever run again. So, NOPE...let it go. Obama would never agree to it. Now, Clinton might seek him as VP if it came to that, but then again she knows his personal and charisma overshadow hers, and she's not one to be upstaged, unless of course it leads to political gain.

  by mind space on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:07:02 AM PDT

•  Obama Lieberman for the historic irony.

  Clinton Gore also works for me.

  by the fan man on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:44 AM PDT

•  If you look at the Super Tuesday...

  results county by county...it is clear they need each other.

  Excluding home states (IL, NY & AR)

  Hillary won by racking up majorities in rural and surburban locations where there are lots of Democrats/Independents that support her.  She also won districts with large portions of Hispanics.  Hillary lost the large cities and the college towns big.  But interestingly enough if you look at MO as an example:

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...

  Hillary won almost every county except for Kansas City and St Louis and Columbia (College Town).  Those rural and surburban counties will be crucial to be competitive in the GE for a swing state like MO.

  A similar result in TN another potential swing state:
  http://politics.nytimes.com/...
  Hillary won all of the counties outside of the large cities with big African American populations and college students.

  Barack won by racking up huge majorities in cities with large portions of African American and College Town voters.  But the hispanic voters in the swing states in the SW (NM, AZ) are not voting for him and it is unclear who those voters would support in the GE.

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...

  In NJ which is not recently a swing state but could be with McCain as the nominee because of its unusually high number of independent voters (around 35%) could put it in play.  Barack could not win the counties outside of the traditional large cities of (except for Hunterdon by 2%)

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...

  So the evidence suggests that despite the wonderful campaign of inclusion that Barack Obama is running his appeal is not moving much past the traditional Democratic strongholds of large cities, rural areas in the south with large African American populations and College Towns.

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...

  The evidence suggests actually that Hillary is attracting moderate swing Democratic voters from rural and surburban districts that are crucial to a Democratic victory in the GE.

  The bottom line is that they need each other...Hillary has an important constituency and demographic that is supporting her and Barack has another important constituency and demographic supporting him...we need both to ensure victory in November.

  California which could be said is somewhat a small version of the US with large cities (some more African American and some more Hispanic), surburbs, college towns, rural areas.  The evidence suggests that the split was exactly to their particular strengths.

  http://politics.nytimes.com/...
  Outside of the blogasphere and the hyper-partisan supporters...there is more and more evidence that neither candidate has a lock on the GE without the other candidates support.

  Go Democrats ...

  by dvogel001 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:24:04 AM PDT

  •  Obama/woman or Clinton/black

    This may come across as crass, but the dynamics of the primaries have pushed the party into a mixed ticket direction.  Whether either of the candidates responds to the wishes of the diverse wings of the party is yet to be seen.  Unity is key (without the entry of a third-party conservative candidate) to victory in November.  Remember Bill Clinton only won a plurality of voters in 1992 and 1996 to capture the White House.  A winning Democratic team will probably have to include either Obama with a woman VP (Sebelius, Napolitano or McCaskill) or Clinton with a black VP (Harold Ford of Tennessee, for example).  I doubt Clinton and Obama would run on a single ticket.

    by The Totalizer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM PDT