Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

'Dream Ticket' Effort Evolves

An Internet petition drive designed to encourage the idea of a presidential ticket featuring Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) -- in that order -- is reorganizing itself to support the idea of either senator serving as the nominee.

"Vote Both" was founded by Adam Parkhomenko, a former aide to then Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, to drum up online support for a ticket led by Clinton. But, in recent days Parkhomenko has changed the name of the committee he filed with the Federal Election Commission, and is relaunching the site today to incorporate the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

"Originally my goal was to have a place for Clinton-Obama supporters (in that order) to organize," writes Parkhomenko in a letter expected to be posted on the site today explaining his decision. "But over the last few weeks, even as I have watched Hillary win most of the recent contests, I have talked with Obama supporters who talk about a Obama-Clinton ticket. And they're right too."

The new site, which is expected to go live later today, will allow supporters of the idea sign a petition and write to superdelegates to advocate for a joint ticket. The site will also accept contributions to fund the effort.

The grassroots movement Parkhomenko hopes to spearhead runs in direct contrast to some of the language about the so-called "Dream Ticket" being put out by Democratic party leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), for example, has been an outspoken opponent of Obama and Clinton sharing a ticket, although those close to her insist that her position is born of personal conviction not political positioning.

"I don't think it's a good idea," Pelosi told Larry King during an appearance on his show late last month. "I'm not one of those who thinks that that's a good ticket."

The longer the nomination fight extends, however, the more likely a shared ticket becomes. Recent primaries have suggested that Obama is struggling to convince blue-collar voters that he is the right choice, while Clinton continues to make almost no inroads at all among the black community. Both groups are substantial pillars of the Democratic base and the party will need each in order to win in the fall.

A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows significant majorities of Democratic voters would like to see a joint ticket. (Hat tip to Post polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta for digging up the numbers.)

Sixty five percent said that if Clinton won the nomination, they would like to see her name Obama as her vice president. Nearly eight in ten current Obama supporters back that concept, while 53 percent of current Clinton backers do.

When the ticket is switched, 59 percent of Democrats support the idea of Obama naming Clinton as his running mate. More than two-thirds of current Clinton backers endorse the idea, while 53 percent of Obama supporters would like to see Clinton as the veep pick.

The calculus of picking a vice president is mysterious and difficult to predict. For Clinton, at least offering the job to Obama would seem to be something close to a necessity -- a symbolic attempt to heal the party and ensure that the new voters he has brought to the process would stay involved.

Should Obama be the nominee, he is under less pressure to pick Clinton since it would seem to run counter to his fundamental "change" message.

As we have said many times, Clinton's campaign is premised on the idea that she can play the game better than he can; Obama makes the argument that the game is fundamentally flawed. Picking Clinton, given that underlying theme of his campaign, could be tough for Obama.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 5, 2008; 1:49 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Comment on Comments
Next: Gas Tax Fight Grows Hotter


Obama seems to have survived his association with a loud mouthed preacher.

Thousands went to that church.

How can McCain deny the influence of his Mafia felon father in law who financed his campaign and introduced him to Charles Keating?

Cindy Hensley McCain's dad was a mobster for

Boss Kemper Marley

Reporter Don Bolles did a story on Marley

And **died by a bomb** in his ignition.

McCain married into this family.

Bugsy Siegel...................Meyer Lansky

Posted by: Ray Clay | May 7, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

If anyone asked Clinton to be a VP, then the name Foster comes to mind, the ol'girl wants what she wants....

Posted by: John Hargis Sr | May 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Just like a child learns to walk, washington learned to spend, and now it is the norm. We do not have to spend tax revinue to give americans relief on things such as foreclosure and gas prices, we can have congress institure a law, that freezes and re-evaluates family income to provent foreclosure, with the gas prices, we helped many oil produceing nations with aid, those nations can be persuaded to give a reduced price for crude oil, then an increase of shipping tariffs to used to reduce the cost of refining and a lower gas price at the pump, there are so many answers and solutions if washington would look outside of the spending box and ignore lobbyists and special interest, or how about doing away with political parties and going back to one american, one vote.

Posted by: John Hargis Sr | May 7, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

This is a dream ticket - a nightmare! Why would we want to saddle Obama with Hillary and Bill Clinton? They would use every opportunity to undermine him and marginalize him so they could say "we told you so" and give Hillary another opportunity.

I used to think she could become a great senator but I no longer believe that. She's shown her true colors this primary season and it isn't pretty.

Posted by: Sandy | May 6, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

My 2 cents, I don't see a spot on Obama's team for HRC. If HRC was to squeek out the nomination she would need Obama to clean up the mess she made. I would hope that he has the self respect to walk away from that deal. I myself won't vote for a ticket with HRC on it. I can wait four years and try again for a better leader. Again it's my 2 cents and my vote as well, please don't flame me. I've really had enough of that from Repiglicans. Peace.

Posted by: Willy T Patriot | May 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

She ain't getting the nomination and he has no need for her. There are plenty of white and Hispanic candidates that will attract blue collar whites and others to the ticket. For every blind feminist who will go for McCain, and the death of Roe v Wade, there are two moderate repubs or Indies to take their place behind Obama/?

Posted by: Bill D. | May 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

You write about a poll of how many would want them on the ticket, but what is the number who absolutely oppose it? "Clinton as Veep" is awful. It keeps the Clintons at the top, when what the party needs more than anything is to move on.

Posted by: Mike | May 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

CC - "The longer the nomination fight extends, however, the more likely a shared ticket becomes."

How is it that we know this? The same problems for the fruition of this exist now, then and through the spring. I still say it can't be Obama/Clinton because it takes away Obama's one really good and winning theme - a new kind of politics. It is just not going to happen unless I have given Obama way to much credit for his political acumen. Clinton/Obama not only screws Obama for the rest of his life wrt his theme, but gives Republicans the best chance of winning. A Clinton at any position on the ticket brings out voters for McCain. This matchup would allow R's to say Obama's message of change was bunk (and they would be correct), fear the Clinton III presidency, and be able to legitimately argue that McCain is the candidate of change and the one that can bring about a spirit of bipartisanship.

As a conservative, I would LOVE for this to happen. I don't generally think Pelosi is too bright but at times she does know her politics. She is right on this.

Posted by: Dave! | May 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Don't do it Sen. Obama. You don't need her to win the presidency. SHE represents the type of politicians that we, your supporters, hate. She would be a burden on your ticket and your presidency. Plus, you would have to deal with the ego of Bill Clinton, who would attempt to undermine you at every opportunity.

Posted by: Janet | May 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

What are the sleazy Clinton's going to do to try & steal this primary from Obama? The delegate math is certainly in Obama's favor. The superdelegate math doesn't even add up for Clinton anymore. Yet, now the Clinton's are arguing that delegates aren't all that important and that actual "a vote" is. Well, Obama is beating Clinton in the popular vote too. So where is her leg left to stand on here? Can someone help me out?

Posted by: reason | May 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Clinton will just lose. The "dream ticket" is a sad attempt to make voters think that by voting for her, they can have their cake and eat it too. But Obama and Clinton are anathema to each other. If voters want Obama, they don't want Clinton.

I'd rather see an Obama/McCain ticket than an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Posted by: TH | May 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the previous commenter. No more of the Clintons, any time, anywhere.
It would be ridiculous for Obama to choose Clinton as a running mate. She contradicts everything he stands for. And lately, everything the Democratic Party stands for.

Posted by: ally | May 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

This unaffiliated voter who cast his vote for Obama in North Carolina this morning will not vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket in the general election.

I do not want a Clinton anywhere near the Oval Office ever again. If Obama picks up Hillary as his VP choice, he will lose both my respect (it would negate everything his campaign has stood for) and my vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

why do I have a feeling the democrats have already destroyed the Democratic Paty.With its leadership in congress...with the likes of Reid and Polosi and the rest.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Proud, thanks. IT looks to me as if what she was buying inot was the 1967 popular notion among blacks that before blacks could integrate into the mainstream they would have to form their own cohesive political community.

I think it was Moynihan who pointed out that by 1980 this had proven incorrect. The Civil Rights Laws of the 60s had the effect of allowing the 60% of the blacks in America who were easily upward mobile like Michele and Barack to move quickly out of their ghettoes and into the middle class. This left the remaining black community in the ghettoes without a leadership cadre - and the ministers gained in local clout.

I can tell you that when the black cops, teachers, firemen, engineers, and independent trades people moved out of east Austin into the newly integrated remainder of the city many of them went back to their old churches. But they were mainly keeping up community ties - their ministers were
not the focal point for them.

I suspect Austin integrated way faster than Chicago in terms of housing pattern segregation and that Michele may have gone off to Princeton without realizing that she was living proof that Carmichael and Hamilton had predicted incorrectly.

But I think her ultimate goal was an integrated America, as I read through her earnest, lengthy, and hand typed paper.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the country would be best served if he chooses Joe Biden as his veep.

If somehow Hillary catches the hail mary pass in the endzone, she has got to go with Obama. She won't have a choice. It'll either be go with Obama or split the Democratic Party and give Bush 4 more years. I mean, McCain.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

What strange poll figures are given above!!
For the Clinton / Obama ticket :-65% like the idea. Then they say 8 out of 10 [in my book that is 80%] of Obama supporters would like to see him as Veep. 53% of Clinton supporters find that good.
Then when it is an Obama / Clinton ticket- 59% of democrats like the idea.---Then they state more than 2/3 rds [ two thirds] [ 66.6 %]of Clinton's support the idea of her as VEEP while 53% of Obama supportes find it okay.
Personally I think that CBS/ Newyorktimes poll and poll expert are promoting a different agenda, and are trying to undermine both candidates in their individual hopes.One could take these figures and juggle them about and say that for the 65% of dems that want a CO ticket 53/65ths are Clinton supporters,12/65ths O
For OC ticket 53/59ths are Clinton supporters, 6/59th are Obama .
How can any poll combine fractions and percentages in one line and then repeat it in the opposite form in the next line?.
No wonder people are complaining about the basics in school these days.
[ Sorry I cant find my calculator and give you the 53/65ths and 53/59ths in percentage figures to confuse you even more.
Consequently from the replies above I think I can categorically state that 97 and 2/3rd% of readers think that this poll idea has that odour of being OFF. The lady who "dug up" the numbers should have left them where they were. I hope she has washed her hands?

Posted by: mathamaticaltwist | May 5, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

mark, the first quote I posted is from page 8.

I would not fault her for attempting to sound professorial; it is amusing but she comes across as more sophmoric than learned in the end.

Her attitudes have been informed by some very interesting characters, that's for sure.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 5, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Proud, not her conclusion about how black Princeton grads turn white, the funny one:

"The idea of creating separate social structures and cultural structures as suggested by the authors serves to clarify definitions of separationism/pluralism as they function in the dependent variable which tries to measure the respondents ideologies concerning political and economic relations between the Black and White communities."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Why is this even on here, If Hillary is the VP, what is Bill Clinton going to do???

Posted by: Why | May 5, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

To proudtobe...

There is nothing in that paper that in any way could be read as an endorsement of "black liberation philosophy." So are you a bigot or a fool? Please read the paper in its entirety, painful as it may be, before you make such an assertion.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter I am thinking strategically; Clinton would be a poor choice, for one thing her dishonesty and foolish pandering, would come back to bite them. I really think that Obama should pick either Wesley Clark or Jim Webb to silence his critics on the issue of Foreign Policy in general, Iraq in specific.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Mark, pg 139

She also seems a bit dispirited that her conclusion does not support her hypothesis, but i chalk that up to naivete. I am not convinced, as is scrivener, that she is rejecting the Black Liberation theological ideas at all here. Quite the contrary, imho.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 5, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Proud, I cannot find that quote - what page is it on?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. O is becoming a challenge for satirists. My radio pal Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his show of the putative First Lady identifying the real problem facing America:

"Like many young people coming out of college, with their MAs and BAs and PhDs and MPhs coming out so mired in debt that they have to forego the careers of their dreams, see, because when you're mired in debt, you can't afford to be a teacher or a nurse or social worker, or a pastor of a church, or to run a small non-profit organization, or to do research for a small community group, or to be a community organizer because the salaries that you'll earn in those jobs won't cover the cost of the degree that it took to get the job."

I'm not sure why Michelle would stick "pastor of a Church" in that list of downscale occupations: her pastor drives a Merc and lives in a gated community.

But, insofar as I understand Mrs. O, she feels that many Harvard and Princeton graduates have to give up their life's dream of being a minimum-wage "community organizer" (whatever that is) and are forced to become corporate lawyers, investment bankers, and multinational CEOs just to pay off their college loans. I'm sure the waitresses and checkout clerks nodded sympathetically.

Michelle Obama is a bizarre mix of condescension and grievance -- like Teresa Heinz Kerry with a chip on her shoulder.

But the common thread to her rhetoric is its antipathy to what she calls "corporate America." Perhaps for his next Gettysburg Address the senator will be saying, "I could no more disown my wife than I could disown my own pastor. Oh, wait..."

Whatever one thinks of Senators Clinton and McCain, they're as familiar as any public figures can be. Obama, on the other hand, is running explicitly on a transcendent "magic."

It doesn't help when the cute girl in spangled tights keeps whining about how awful everything is and the guy you sawed in half sticks himself together and starts rampaging around the stage. The magician has lost control of the show.

Posted by: Mark S | May 5, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Just completed a quick scan of Michelle's thesis.

Leaving aside the bad grammar and syntax, Michelle's conclusions should give comfort to Obama supporters. She places her humanity above race. She states that blacks should not be required to embrace stereotypes in the areas of arts and culture (having a liking for "black" music, for example) to have empathy toward the black community. She also states that it is understandable that a black person who grows up in a predominantly white community would embrace cultural tastes of the community at large -- and that such a cultural orientation does not mean that the individual rejects his/her background.

The paper is a tacit REJECTION to the philosophy of Rev. Wright. Anyone who reads this paper and concludes otherwise is either a bigot or a fool.

As someone who has graded papers of college students, I can attest that Michelle's poor grammar is by no means unique. But that was years ago. I've heard her speak, and her verbal syntax is pitch-perfect.

It was, however, a painful read. I would assume that Michelle has long since refined her writing skills. Who among us would be judged by the grammatical correctness of their college papers?

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, she was a 21-2 year old undergrad.

It reads like one of those bad sociology papers that make engineers glad they are engineers. But it is earnest.

The website that Proud reposted allows for the paper to be downloaded in pdf or word. That is a good idea for searching it, because it was obviously written on a typewriter late at night. You may remember those. Typewriters, I mean.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Four score and seven years ago... No, wait, my mistake. Two score and seven or eight days ago, Barack Obama gave the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address, or FDR's First Inaugural, or JFK's religion speech, or (if like Garry Wills in The New York Review of Books, you find those comparisons drearily obvious) Lincoln's Cooper Union speech of 1860.

And, of course, the Senator's speech does share one quality with Cooper Union, Gettysburg, the FDR Inaugural, Henry V at Agincourt, Socrates's Apology, etc: It's history.

He said, apropos the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, that "I could no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." But last week he did disown him. So, great-speech-wise, it's a bit like Churchill promising to fight them on the beaches and never surrender, and then surrendering a month and a half later, and on a beach he decided not to fight on.

It was never a great speech. It was a simulacrum of a great speech written to flatter gullible pundits into hailing it as the real deal.

It should be "required reading in classrooms," said Bob Herbert in the New York Times; it was "extraordinary" and "rhetorical magic," said Joe Klein in Time -- which gets closer to the truth: As with most "magic," it was merely a trick of redirection. Obama appeared to have made Jeremiah Wright vanish into thin air, but it turned out he was just under the heavily draped table waiting to pop up again.

The speech was designed to take a very specific problem -- the fact that Barack Obama, the Great Uniter, had sat in the pews of a neo-segregationist huckster for 20 years -- and generalize it into some grand meditation on race in America.

Senator Obama looked America in the face and said: Who ya gonna believe? My "rhetorical magic" or your lyin' eyes?

That's an easy choice for the swooning bobbysoxers of the media. With less impressionable types, such as voters, Senator Obama is having a tougher time.

The Philly speech is emblematic of his most pressing problem: the gap -- indeed, full-sized canyon -- that's opening up between the rhetorical magic and the reality.

Posted by: Mark S | May 5, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Rev. William Procanick, convicted of child molesting, was a pastor in Clinton, NY, not the pastor of Hillary Clinton. I'm an Obama supporter, but I will not stand by and let an obvious and malicious error go uncorrected. We can win honestly.

Posted by: Optimyst | May 5, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

This idea has been long ago rendered to cliche. Why would anyone wish to run with Senator Clinton, whom a majority of voters view negatively?

Posted by: Chris Brown | May 5, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Once it was just innocence,
Fresh ideas and insolence -
But you will never get away
with the things you say today.

But you can cry - if you want.
don't you get embarrassed
when you read the precious things you said
many many years ago, when life appeared rosy red...

don't you want to hide your face
when going through your teenage books
read that kind of crap you wrote
'bout 'ban the bomb' and city crooks!
Think about how long it took
to get over that sudden "Yuck!"
When in the mirror you did look.
Well now my son, you're well in [intelligible]

Cry if you Want.

- Pete Townsend, It's Hard, 'Cry if you Want' circa 1982ish

Posted by: bsimon | May 5, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I can think of no greater issue in this campaign than the 23-year-old graduate thesis of Barack Obama's wife.

Posted by: Blarg | May 5, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"She really gets what Rev Wright is preaching."

When was that written?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

mark, scrivener, Thanks to our fellow blogger and apparent Princeton alum MoreandBetterPolls, here's the link:

It is a painful read, but an interesting glimpse into her worldview, something that appears to be hard wired and unchanging. I take note of the conclusion, in particular, where she writes:

"Thus, the increased amount of time spent with Whites resulting from the respondents' occupational pursuits can account for the increased attachement to Whites during Post-Princeton. In essence, in order to advance their careers or post graduate studies, respondents realize they must be able to get along with their coworkers or classmates who are likely to be White, thereby identifying more with Whites."

"Getting along" = loss of black identity to Michelle Obama. Wow. She really gets what Rev Wright is preaching.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 5, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Where can I read the complete, unexpurgated Princeton thesis of Michelle Obama?

This is potent Swiftboat fuel, and not just the bad grammar and fractured syntax.

Perhaps having Obama on the ticket at all would be too much of a drag...

I withhold judgment until I read the entire thesis (which looks like it would be a laborious task...)

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

proud, how long did it take you to find that gem?

My son-in-law is a copy editor of academic texts [UK] and he is always sending me tidbits like that from psych and sociology texts written by PhDs in England, no less.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse


You are helping to deny the right and the responsibility of WHOMEVER is the nominee, to choose his or her own running mate, and thereby are helping to deny the country and the world the best presidential leadership and governance, which can flow only from this authentic choice.

If you wish to run for president, please do so. If you become the nominee, you can pick your own VP. Otherwise, please content yourself with being a journalist and stop trying to force this ticket, for the sake of a good story and more money for your paymasters.

Posted by: John Lumea | May 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Moreand Better writes "Hitchens is unnecessarily hypercritical of
Mrs. Obama when he writes:

"To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language."

Well, here's one excerpt from Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis:

"The idea of creating separate social structures and cultural structures as suggested by the authors serves to clarify definitions of separationism/pluralism as they function in the dependent variable which tries to measure the respondents ideologies concerning political and economic relations between the Black and White communities."

I think Hitchens hit the nail on the head, actually.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 5, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse



The only "dream ticket" that can almost certainly win. Gore's strength mitigates against Obama's inexperience and his pastor problems.


"I feel pretty" video diminishes his chances, but a much better shot at victory than...


A self-aggrandizing polarizer teamed with a naive amateur burdened by a heavy pastor problem. Great concept.


The surest loser in the fall, if only because its a pairing bereft of a scintilla of integrity OR political common sense.


"The third way" is the only way out of a primary race that has produced two seriously flawed candidates.

But at this stage, it's also apparent that Hillary stands a better chance of winning at the top of the ticket than does Obama.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Both Ds would be better served by having
Bob Graham or Ted Strickland on the ticket, for obvious reasons.

There are other better choices for each.
Assuming the Ds lose the Prez but carry the Senate and the House, HRC will likely be SMJ.

She will be stronger than Harry and without her campaign gurus to stand in her way she will do better at it than she has run her campaign. BHO will finally get to hold hearings in his subcommittee on European Affairs. This campaign has so interfered with that! Then he will run for Gov. of IL as JD suggests, and if the standard IL Gov. scandals for Rs and Ds do not swallow him he will eventually be Prez.

HRC and McC get along well personally and his Presidency will be a modest success compared with the failed GWB Admin.
Assuming BHO wins the Prez, and HRC is SMJ, will she work well with the WH?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 5, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his
sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to
tell the whole truth And nothing but the truth. But as the former
Clinton Pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for
Inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his Home last March, Judge
Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick Sacrificed his honesty the day he
Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor Has been convicted
of child molestation, will we see the Same furor directed at Hillary
that Obama has had to Endure these last few weeks?
Then you u need to email this article to everyone you Know. Here the
CLINTON'S Pastor is convicted of child Molestation. So, if Obama bears
the guilt for his pastor's comment; then Hillary has to be equally
tainted by this man's crimes.

Posted by: John | May 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If Obama survives the Rev Wright mess tomorrow he will not need Hillary, most dems will vote party ticket. The same can not be said of Hillary. She has many negs going into the race, her bashing Obama being the freshest. She has publically said she will offer the VP to him, the question is will he take it, knowing he will not only be second fiddle, third if you count Bill, and who doesn't?

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I agree. This would be a horrible ticket. They are both very astute but very arrogant. Neither would be second to the other. Neither would trust the top. Most Obama supporters can't stand the Clintons and most Clinton supporters don't trust Obama.

Posted by: Agreeing with Everyone | May 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The case for Clinton as Veep is simple. Classic attack dog role. Edwards and Lieberman failed in that regard. Clinton would come after McCain.

Also, the blue collar base is necessary. Ask Reagan (through a medium) how much party meant to Reagan Democrats.


Posted by: Fairlington Blade | May 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

If by some means Clinton should win.(Ewwwww) I think her best bet would be to have Obama on her ticket. I am for Obama and I will vote for him tomorrow in the Indiana Primary. If Clinton should take the Nom. I will not vote at all inless she has him with her...Go Obama

Posted by: Jenny Sprowl | May 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse


Hitchens is unnecessarily hypercritical of
Mrs. Obama when he writes:

"To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language."

MoreAndBetterPolls invites you to check for yourself.

Admission: Early in the thesis, Mrs. Obama cites Charles Hamilton, in whose political science class at Rutgers University MoreAndBetterPolls was about to be seated when the news of JFK's assassination spread across campus. Hamilton had once brought Malcolm X as a guest lecturer to our classroom. MoreAndBetterPolls was a well known capitalist warmonger at the time but one who nevertheless supported the Civil Rights movement. One could never be radical enough to please anyone else in 1963 on an east coast campus.

Malcolm X had begun to "moderate" right about that time but he was still not MoreAndBetterPolls' brand of civil rights leader. Hamilton was somewhere to the right of X, and to the left of King.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | May 5, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

HRC should make a deal. She can't win the nomination without destroy the Democratic party and probably her own chances in the process. For a future in the party, she should go to Obama and offer to be the VP, in return for dropping out and ending the blood-letting. Obama can make the case that her experience will be helpful in governing, not to mention that they largely share the same policy views. It would be a good ticket and help heal wounds.

Posted by: Babar1 | May 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"NC Voter... says
"You go to a church for 20 years, how come all of a sudden you don't believe in his views?"

You are conflating religious views with political views."

bsimon, Isn't it interesting how one person's perspective can be so different from another's. I seriously doubt whether Amanda in NC thinks she is conflating anything. She seems to have summed it up fairly easily; no need for clarifying statments and reframing for her. No siree.

She is the anti-elitist.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

You are conflating religious views with political views.
That is often the case when the two collide.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 5, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Hillary should have BO as her VP; he would hurt her in the General.

Posted by: Matt | May 5, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

NC Voter, apparently quoting the nat'l review, says
"You go to a church for 20 years, how come all of a sudden you don't believe in his views?"

You are conflating religious views with political views.

Posted by: bsimon | May 5, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

While of course there would be downsides to either an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket, there are some important positives as well. The past few months have only played to the detriment of the party as a whole. These two candidates have been forced to snipe at each other in order to highlight the few differences they have on policy. The major difference for them lies not in policy but in approach. And yes while it would seem hypocritical for Obama to pick Clinton as a running mate it would also infuse the ticket with experience and someone able to fight the tactics of the GOP.
The Democratic Party has a chance to set the tone, not only of this country, but the rest of the world. I believe that the biggest upside to the "Dream Ticket" will be a unification that could bring the Dems into a more stable majority in the country by bringing the working class whites together with African Americans. It can unite the academics with the blue-collar. This is a party that was created as a catch all in this two party system. The only way for the party to get both of these groups to the polls this November is to publicly and explicitly heal the wounds that have been opened.
In addition, I think it is important to point out just how historical this election can be. For the first time there will be either a woman or black man with the nomination-something that can only work to the benefit of the party in the long run.

Posted by: Evan | May 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This quote drives me crazy --

"Recent primaries have suggested that Obama is struggling to convince blue-collar voters that he is the right choice, while Clinton continues to make almost no inroads at all among the black community."

In any close primary, one would expect certain demographics to gravitate towards specific candidates. This does NOT mean that those demographics will defect in November... remember, they are registered DEMOCRATS. Obama does not "need" Clinton to shore up support with her base... she might help, but so might other candidates. And other candidates might do a better job of broadening his coalition. I will puke if Clinton is his VP, not because she is a bad person, but because she does not compliment his strengths and weaknesses very well.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"I've been a Democrat since I was 18," says Amanda in NC. She's voting for Hillary because "I don't like someone who puts down their minister."

Without mentioning either Barack Obama or Rev. Jeremiah Wright, she adds, "You go to a church for 20 years, how come all of a sudden you don't believe in his views?"

Posted by: NC voter | May 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Are We Getting Two for One? Is Michelle Obama responsible for the Jeremiah Wright fiasco?

I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."

To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.

Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.

I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too.

This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.

Posted by: Christopher H. | May 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

ccarter333 writes
"HRC already has the reputation as being a pragmatist who will turn like a sheet in the wind for politcal expediency, so the downside is not too steep for her"

Replace 'pragmatist' with 'opportunist' and you've got the gist of it.

Posted by: bsimon | May 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The so-called Dream Ticket has been analyzed and diced and long ago rejected by both candidates. Unofficially. But in actuality. After the two Clintons floated the idea that the voters can have a joint ticket, Obama told them, "Don't let them fool you, they're trying to hook-wink you, you have to CHOOSE in this election."

Laid out in his tone of voice was just how important that choice is.

Posted by: Rob | May 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

So much for talk of supporters of one refusing to vote for the other.

From a practical standpoint, I don't see how this ticket works out. The two candidates have so shelled the other's abilities that it would appear to be the height of hypocracy to join forces. HRC already has the reputation as being a pragmatist who will turn like a sheet in the wind for politcal expediency, so the downside is not too steep for her, but Obama cannot easily argue that he is the candidate for change when he shares the ticket with HRC, regardless of who gets top billing.

Posted by: ccarter333 | May 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

OK, let's look at this logically:

If Obama wins, what does HRC offer as VP, other than baggage/hatred as noted above. She will single handedly become the GOP's fundraising- and tournout- ace in the hole, probably sealing his fate.

If HRC wins, Obama's going to go back to Illinois to be Governor, wait for HRC to get trounced by McCain (which is nearly a lock because the Obama-maniacs will stay home after what they perceive as election theft), and run again in 2012. He'll then have the executive experience he'll need to bolster his resume, and with the additional experience, the guilt-by-association won't matter as much.

The reason why the Rev Wright stuff matters now is because the guy's got virtually no record to run on - if we want a view into what kind of prez he'd be, what options does America have, other than judging him by the friends he keeps?

Posted by: JD | May 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

For once I agree with Nancy, Obama should pick somebody who he is comfortable with and will help him govern. Adding Hillary just makes it harder to win and if you do, you got narcistic Bill always trying to inject himself in the nigtly news.

Posted by: bhoomes | May 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The concensus seems to be 'no' and I agree totally. I believe that the time to worry about damage control is long past. I would not want to see Obama lower himself to the #3 position in a Clinton administration, nor do I see how Hillary would benefit an Obama administration at all. She is too polarizing and I am totally Clinton-fatigued.

Posted by: Tess | May 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Vote Both? Idiotic. Particularly with Hillary Clinton at the head of the ticket. Obama is ahead in votes and delegates. Why should he settle for VP? After Hillary's scorched-earth campaign, why should she be rewarded? It wouldn't be a dream ticket by any stretch. If it were Obama/Clinton, I'd bet that Obama would be assassinated before the election by loyal Clinton white supremacists!

Posted by: Incredible | May 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Who do you predict will win the North Carolina & Indiana Democratic Presidential Primary?

North Carolina



Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | May 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

This is a bad idea for so many reasons. It would make both candidates look bad, no matter who's on top of the ticket. It offers no balance to the ticket; both candidates have similar weaknesses, and neither brings much to the table as the other's VP. And I'd be very surprised if either candidate actually accepted being VP.

The only possible benefit to the "Dream Ticket" is that fewer voters would be alienated. But I think the rabid anti-Obama voters would still reject an Obama/Clinton ticket. And the Obama supporters who are upset at him losing the nomination despite leading in pledged delegates won't want to support Clinton/Obama. This is just a terrible plan all around.

Posted by: Blarg | May 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I can only hope that the 'vote both' campaign fails miserably. What a terrible idea.

Posted by: bsimon | May 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton wants to horn in on this one as VP, Obama should make her go on national TV like Nixon and Checkers to catalog her multitude of sins, and then beg for forgiveness.

Then he should kick her to the curb.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Yeah...I agree JD. Any talk of a joint ticket with Obama and Hillary will not happen.

Politically it is convenient for Hillary and her surrogates to make such statements because they know that she can't catch Obama in pledged delegates.

The GOP needs Hillary to remain in the presidential race in some fashion either as a candidate or VP nominee. The GOP has accumulated a slew of mud to throw at Hillary from the 2008 presidential primary campaign season to 1992. Plus Hillary is very polarizing and will ignite the Republican base to be strongly against her, rather than for McCain.

As the economy and Iraq War worsen, ordinary Americans will not care about Rev. Wright. And the way the media is playing the Rev. Wright situation, the American public will have Wright-fatigue by the time October 2008 rolls around.

Posted by: AJ | May 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

either way, the dream ticket is a sure loser. Neither of them have much experience or usefulness. The veep pick was supposed to bone up economic or foreign policy heft on the ticket, but the dream ticket just plays to identity politics

Posted by: freeDom | May 5, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

It's getting harder and harder for me to see how HRC will manage to steal this nomination, so any discussion of an HRC-Obama ticket (in that order) is kind of silly.

PS heard on Chris Plante's show this morning: if HRC does manage to steal it (and make no mistake, it will be Grand Theft Nom if she gets it), then she'll be giving her acceptance speech on the closing day of the Dem Convention.... which is also the 45th anniversary of MLK's 'I Have A Dream' speech.


Posted by: JD | May 5, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd voter for Clinton/Obama.
Obama needs some seasoning. In the mean time, he can go around the world and speechify.
And take some lessons on how to speak when it's not a speech.

a dream ticket

Posted by: Cravel | May 5, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company