Would Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama agree to be on the same ticket?

[pacific breeze]

Here's a different take on the subject from der Spiegel that I found interesting, well-written and well-argued. Frankly, I can't see why Hillary would want to be vice-president for a whole host of reasons I've already gone into on another thread, but what do you think? And would Obama want to be vice-president to Hillary's president?

US Campaign Analysis: Clinton or Obama? Why Not Both? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Clinton or Obama? Why Not Both?

By Peter Ross Range in Washington
Conventional wisdom says that candidates for the White House should choose their opposite as a running mate. But with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama generating excitement among Democrats, why not put them on the same ticket?

REUTERS

Do we really have to choose between the two?


This week's nasty debate in South Carolina between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seemed to prove one thing: The two candidates are so hostile to one another that they could never run together on a single ticket, Clinton for president and Obama for vice-president. Or could they? True, Clinton and Obama seem to have hit bottom in personal terms. The taste of early victory, as well as of defeat, is driving each of them to personal extremes. Clinton accused Obama of selling out to a "slum landlord," though he worked only five hours in his life on that man's account (before it was known that he might be criminally indicted). Obama accused Clinton of selling out American jobs when she served on the board of mega-retailer Wal-Mart. But that was in the 1980s before Clinton became First Lady in an administration that helped create 20 million new jobs in the 1990s.
Tuesday night's debate was not a pretty sight. But in politics, as the Americans say, a week is a lifetime. Obama will probably win this Saturday's vote in South Carolina, creating a 2-2 tie with Clinton in primaries won. That will leave the Democrats in the happy position of still not knowing who their presidential front-runner is, and leave plenty of time for the candidates to kiss and make up if, as many expect, the nomination remains undecided even after the mega-primaries on Feb. 5 when 22 states vote on who they want to be the Democratic nominee for president.

REPRINTS


Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article in your publication.


The hostility is, however, only one factor making many observers doubt the plausibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Conventional wisdom requires that a presidential candidate choose a running mate who is his (or her) diametric opposite. In 1960, John F. Kennedy, the Northern liberal, chose Lyndon B. Johnson, the Southern conservative. In 1976, Southerner Jimmy Carter chose Midwestern liberal Walter Mondale. In 1980, the rough-hewn Californian Ronald Reagan, chose smooth New England gentry George H. W. Bush, the current president's father. Reinforcing Prejudices
The other chief argument against the Clinton-Obama ticket is that it asks American voters to do the unthinkable: elect the first woman president and the first black vice-president in a single vote. Their ticket would pit two minorities-- women being seen as minorities in political discourse -- against a majority ticket. Having a woman and a black on a national ticket, goes the thinking, would simply reinforce prejudices against both, dooming the pair.



Outweigh the Drag of Bigotry As for Obama, a great deal of the country has gotten beyond race and racial politics -- though not all of it. The question is whether the obvious enthusiasm for him among young voters -- turn-outs of those under-30 in Iowa and New Hampshire were unprecedentedly high -- can outweigh the drag of voters who simply will not vote for a ticket that includes a black man. So far, the Obama groundswell is impressive and growing, a replay of the online enthusiasm for Howard Dean four years ago. Driven by the passionately committed -- and well-financed -- support of the sophisticated and influential blogosphere, Obama's White House run (even as number two on the ticket) ensures continued involvement of the party's left wing even if their less-than-favorite candidate Hillary Clinton leads the way.
As for Hillary and Barack hating each other too much to form a joint ticket, there is a precedent for that, too. When the office is dangled, few refuse to grasp it. More than a few bitter primary enemies -- consider Kennedy and Johnson, or John Kerry and John Edwards -- found ways to bury their differences in huzzahs of unity when it came down to final choices. Joining forces "for the good of the party" is as common as leaving a high-ranking job to spend more time with one's family -- an elegant rationalization. And, in truth, Hillary and Barack have much more in common than not -- on Iraq, on health care, on rebuilding middle class incomes.

THE CANDIDATES AND FOREIGN POLICY



The big plus in the Hillary-Barack idea is its dual appeal, both to the practical and the utopian sides of the great American experiment. Middle- and low-income voters struggling with mortgages, jobs, schools, and health care will gravitate to Clinton's competence, track record, and promise of everyday help with everyday problems. With the economy increasingly the number one issue, Clinton looks like the savior. Poetry and Prose
But the young, the educated affluent, the cultural and intellectual elites will find Obama's rhetoric and his future as a grand American healer in the Martin Luther King tradition irresistible. He also carries the anti-war banner higher than does Clinton. Barack's presence guarantees an historic African-American turnout; Hillary's does the same for women.
But it's more than that. Together, Hillary and Barack would offer a bigger package than the mere sum of its parts. The broad enthusiasm they would generate is the critical mass that could scoop up independent voters, just as Clinton and Gore did in 1992 and 1996.




This ticket could only work one way. Hillary, 60, would never accept the vice-presidential slot behind the 46-year-old Obama. And four or eight years in the vice-presidency is the perfect apprenticeship for Obama, who suffers from a lack of experience. Nobody could say that about him in 2016. Rarely have Democrats had two candidates of such quality fighting it out at such a high level of political visibility. It is almost as if they were already running mates, or even White House mates. There is an intimacy to their enmity, calling each other by their first names, even as they chide one another for perceived slights or shadings of the record.
It's pretty simple really. Why settle for one of the best candidates in memory when you can have two of them, and thus steamroll the Republicans? Consider the poor woman who e-mailed a question last week to the televised Democratic debate in Nevada. She resented "being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African-American candidate." For her, and millions of other well-meaning Democrats torn between their civil rights experience and their feminist inclinations, the Clinton-Obama solution is elegance itself -- both poetry and prose, to paraphrase the both of them.

[kingcap72]

This ticket could only work one way. Hillary, 60, would never accept the vice-presidential slot behind the 46-year-old Obama. And four or eight years in the vice-presidency is the perfect apprenticeship for Obama, who suffers from a lack of experience.

I agree with pretty much everything written, except the part quoted above. Why do people seem to believe that Hillary has this wealth of experience, especially when Obama has actually held political office longer than she has? I know people like to forget the fact that he was actually a state senator/legislator for 7 years prior to coming to the U.S. Senate, which actually made him MORE qualified to be a senator than Hillary was when she got elected.

Hillary has only been a true politician for about 6 or 7 years, the time she's been in the Senate. Prior to that she was the First Lady of both Arkansas and the U.S. for almost 20 years, which DOES NOT count as experience. And, yet, for all of her 'experience' she still voted for a bullshit war, that she refuses to admit was a mistake, but she wants us to keep permanent bases in a country we illegally invaded. But she's the more experienced one. Whatever.

[pacific breeze]

Well, what about the part that she is 60 to his 46? Why would she want to wait it out until he's finished to try again? I mean, she'd still be younger than McCain, lol, but I doubt that's her game plan if she loses. Makes no sense at all.

[kingcap72]

So, because Hillary's older that means she should get a shot first? Well, if age was a factor then George Bush Sr. should have gotten a second term since Bill Clinton was younger than him.

Age is just a number, and does not imply wisdom. Hell, look at McCain, who I think is too old to be running. Or better yet, the late, and not so great, Strom Thurmond, who could have become president back in 2000 if the Bush/Gore mess had dragged on.

[pacific breeze]

^^That isn't what I meant at all. It was an observation, sheesh. I in no way implied that Hillary should go first because of her age, or that age implied wisdom -- it didn't even occur to me. Give me a little credit.

I meant that given her age, why would she want to be vice-president, knowing she'd probably never have a shot at the presidency again? That doesn't add up for me.

[kingcap72]

But why wouldn't Hillary have another shot at the presidency? She's 60, which means she'd be 64 the next time she could run. She'd still be younger than McCain is now.

[pacific breeze]

^^ I dunno, but my gut tells me she won't want to wait. She could also be waiting 8 years IF Obama wins and is re-elected, or the Repugs get in again. Given some of the harsh sexist jibes she's taken about being "an aging woman" already, I kind of doubt she'd want to put herself through that at 68. She's no Golda Meir, lol. But who really knows? It's all speculation. I just don't see it happening tho.

[kingcap72]

^^I doubt Hillary, or Bill's, ego would allow her to settle for second fiddle, either. But, who knows. Stranger things have happened.

[pacific breeze]

You say it as though having an ego is unique to the Clintons. Anybody who gets into politics, including Barack Obama, has a healthy ego or they would never put themselves through the process. It's pretty gruelling and soul destroying for a lot of people. Perhaps his ego wouldn't allow it either, who knows? But why should either one of them have to play second fiddle if they choose not to?

I frankly don't see why they'd want to work together given the differences that so many think they have between them. Why would an Obama supporter think that Hillary will meekly take her place behind him on the podium just because she MIGHT lose the nomination any more than a Clinton supporter would expect him to do the same?

[kingcap72]

Why did I know you were going to bring Obama's ego into it when I wrote that. Of course, Obama, just like all politicians, has an ego. Except some politicians, like the Clintons and Bush's, have bigger egos than most.

And nobody said either Hillary or Obama HAD to play second fiddle if they don't choose to, so I don't know where you got that from? And Obama and Hillary aren't really that different, as far as the issues go, which is why the race for the nomination has been such a dogfight. The big difference is in their personalities. Back in the beginning, I would've thought they would have been perfect together. But with some of the tactics that the Clintons have used, there's probably just too much bad blood between them now to make it work.

[pacific breeze]

I got the second fiddle idea from numerous threads and posts suggesting that one or both should share the ticket. Just as I got the idea that people were clamouring for Hillary to step down before the Ohio primary from threads and posts calling for her to do that.

And you left yourself wide open for the Obama ego remark, but really, his ego is pretty big as far as I can tell. So what? It goes with the territory. Why snark on Hillary for it when it's not exactly unheard of for the loser of ANY campaign/party, male or female, NOT to want to smile sweetly and carry water for the person they lost to.

And I don't think ALL the negative tactics were on Clinton's side either. Both slung mud around, and that's the way these things always go. I realize you have an extremely low opinion of Hillary from everything you've written about her for the past couple of months, but I don't share it.

She's made some blunders, but she's hardly alone in that. Nobody has ever run a perfect campaign yet, not even Obama. Nor do I think Obama is a bad candidate, he's head and shoulders above any Repug, but he just doesn't inspire confidence in me. But I'm not attacking him personally the way Hillary seems to get attacked personally all the time. It's like her detractors can't say one positive thing about her, which weakens their position, IMO. She's not all bad, nor is he all good. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

If she fails to carry the vote, then I'm sure the vultures among the Dems and the Repugs will move in for the kill and all we'll hear about for weeks/months is how a woman couldn't win, how that woman especially couldn't win, what an uncharismatic cold bitch she is, how she got what she deserved, how Bill and her got their comeuppance, ad nauseum. In fact, we've heard a lot of it already. And of course, Obama will be annointed as a saint who overcame the evil empire of Hillary and Bill.

But IF he wins, he will have an even bigger hurdle to overcome in November, and the Repugs are a damn sight nastier than anything he's been up against with Clinton. He'll have to learn a few new dirty tricks to play with the big boys. It should be interesting to watch, no matter who wins tomorrow.

[LynnieD]

This unfortunately will never happen, but I sure as hell wish it would.

These two together would kick some serious ass.

[Grimmlok]

Hillbot will never be vice pres. She won't swallow her pride that much. She'll opt out before coming in second.