Monday, February 4, 2008

Clinton Campaign Chair: Obama would make a good veep

In an interview, Terry McAuliffe says Obama would be considered for the vice presidential slot of a Clinton ticket:

McAuliffe: “But clearly Barack Obama has shown that he can excite people. She needs to make sure the next, whoever the Vice President is, could take over if anything happened to her. But it’s early for us to be talking about Vice President. But let me tell you this, I sat in that Kodak Theater the other day, I was there in Los Angeles. I flew out with Hillary, I went to the event, I sat in that audience, and Dominic to sit there and look at that stage - the two finalists, African-American and a woman of the Democratic Party - I think that was exciting. I think that’s exciting for the Party for our country, and I think it’s exciting for the world.”

Carter: “So it might be a good idea to put him on the ticket?”

McAuliffe: “Sure it would be, absolutely. How could you deny consideration of someone who has excited so many people?”

Lanny Davis: Obama-Clinton won't happen

On Huffington Post, Clinton supporter Lanny Davis makes the case: if you want to see both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, then you should vote for Clinton:

If You Want the "Dream Ticket" Then Vote for Hillary

I admit my bias towards Senator Clinton because I believe so strongly she is more experienced and ready to be president than Senator Obama, although I am not bashful to say I hold Senator Obama in great respect and admire the way he has energized younger voters.

Watching both of them in last Friday night's debate debating the issues civilly and virtually embracing after the debate was over, I was proud to be a Democrat and to have two such outstanding candidates. However, the final question by Wolf Blitzer as to whether they would consider the other on the ticket begged the following reality. (To repeat: This is entirely my opinion, not reflecting anyone's view from the Clinton campaign or anyone connected to the campaign.)

That reality is that it is highly unlikely -- I would say virtually impossible -- for the ticket to be Obama-Clinton; but it is at least possible that it could be Clinton-Obama. I say this not because of any bias towards Senator Clinton. It is just a simple reality. Senator Clinton would not likely want to be Vice President -- she is now holding the U.S. Senate seat of the revered Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; and she hardly would enthusiastically give up that Senate seat to go back to the White House, even as Vice President.

Moreover, it is very likely Senator Obama might feel having Senator Clinton as his Vice President would be very difficult since given her fame and political influence, it would create the appearance if not the reality of a co-presidency.

On the other hand, a Clinton-Obama ticket would fit into the aspirations and goals of many supporters of both candidates: Most Clinton supporters like Senator Obama and believe he could make a good president, but just not yet; and most Obama supporters would love to see him as president but might see the wisdom of waiting eight years so when he runs for president as Vice President, the issue of experience and political maturity will not be a factor.

So, if you like Senator Obama but want the dream ticket, vote for Senator Clinton! And be patient -- eight years from now, he could be President Obama.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Michigan Governor: hoping for Clinton Obama dream ticket

From "Granholm likes a Clinton-Obama ticket":

The Democratic Party has such “an abundance of riches,” in the presidential race this year that Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Thursday she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama run as a team — regardless who wins the nomination.

“I would love to see her ask him to run as her vice president,” Granholm, a supporter of Clinton’s candidacy told the Free Press editorial board. “And if he gets it, I would hope that he would do the same.”

ABC News: Clinton-Obama ticket is "talk of the town"

In the latest Democratic debate, both Clinton and Obama kept the door open to the possibility of sharing the same ticket.

Last night, when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked, "Would you consider an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket going down the road," neither candidate denied the possibility.

"Well, there's a difference between those two," Obama laughed. "But her service to this country has been extraordinary. And I'm glad that we've been walking on this road together." Clinton dittoed it.

"Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said."

Now, the possibility is the talk of the town.

Monday, January 28, 2008

DailyKos poll: Will you support a Clinton/Obama ticket?

Diarist Yashua says:

Personally, I hope that Senators Obama and Clinton run together (I don't care in which order). Now that would be a historic White House. That would be way for us to be inspired.

Here's the poll and reader comments.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Clinton supporter: Clinton-Obama ticket is possible

Joel Ferguson, a Michigan cochair for the Clinton campaign, said:

It’s possible, said Joel Ferguson, a cochair for Hillary Clinton’s Michigan campaign.

Ferguson said Clinton’s Democratic rival Barack Obama has appeal among young voters – especially young African Americans – that would make him a potent vote-getter as a vice presidential running mate.

“There’s a shot at that happening,” he said after taping public television’s weekly show, “Off the Record.”

Right Matters: how likely is a Clinton-Obama ticket?

Conservatives weigh in on this question:

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will she have to make Barack Obama her running mate?

Presumably enough harsh words have been spoken that she won't offer the vice-presidential nomination to him unless she has to. But it may be that so many harsh words have been spoken that she will have to do it in the interests of party unity--particularly given how racially divided the party is likely to be by the end of these primaries.

Whether it would be in Obama's interest to accept is another question. If the ticket wins, he may figure he will effectively be the number three official in the White House, behind both the president and her husband. If the ticket loses, he has the examples of the last two losing Democratic vice-presidential nominees as a cautionary tale. Joe Lieberman went nowhere in 2004, and John Edwards has gone nowhere this year.

So how likely is a Clinton-Obama ticket? And how strong would it be?

Read the discussion here.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Poll: 3 out of 5 Democratic voters want Clinton and Obama on same ticket

According to Bloomberg:

Clinton leads Obama, 42 percent to 33 percent, down from the 24-point advantage she held in early December. Three out of five supporters of each candidate say they would like Clinton or Obama, if nominated, to choose the other as a running mate...

The survey finds that 62 percent of Democrats would like Clinton to pick Obama as her running mate if she is the nominee; 60 percent say they would want Obama to pick Clinton.

``You need to have complementary people,'' says Marian Dondero, 53, an elementary school administrator in the Philadelphia suburb of Wyncote, Pennsylvania, who plans to vote for Clinton. ``She's really intelligent and straightforward and she's a good problem solver. He lifts your imagination.''

Recent clashes between the candidates may dim the possibility of a shared ticket. During a Jan. 21 debate in South Carolina, the two battled over their past actions as lawyers, their votes as lawmakers and what they described as misrepresentations of their views by the other's campaign.

For all the talk on Internet discussion boards of Obama supporters who say adamantly that they will not support Hillary Clinton if she's the party's nominee, there seems to be little evidence of this in the national poll: 60 percent of Obama supporters want Clinton as vice president. That's only 2 percent less than the number of Clinton supporters who want Obama as veep. There's a lot more party unity out there than one would imagine based on the blogosphere rants.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Cognitive Dissonance: 7 reasons for a Clinton/Obama ticket

The Cognitive Dissonance blog advances 7 reasons to support a ticket of Obama and Clinton...

1. Experience AND Change: Some voters think with their hearts and some think with their head. It’s difficult to predict which way the wind blows on this issue and even worse, it’s always subject to change...

2. Clinton/Obama could equal a Democratic White House for the next 16 years...

3. The Democrat/Independent/Young voter alliance : Without a doubt one of the main draws about Obama are the indepedent voters he draws. It’s good to have bi-partisian support, but at the end of the day Obama will need democratic voters AND the democratic machine behind him to win...

4. The Campaign Machine: One of the reason’s why Obama has benefited and Clinton has been harmed during the primary season is because primary elections and general elections require a completely different type of campaign...

5. Attacking from a Defensive position: I’m making this point descriptively and not normatively. Republicans will have to watch their step when going after an African American/Female candidate...

6. the Huckabee factor: I think it’s becoming increasingly likely that Huckabee will become the Vice President for whoever is the nominee, unless he is the nominee in which this point is even stronger. A lot of people like Mike Huckabee..

7. The Downticket races: Many democrats argue that if Clinton is the nominee, downticket races will be harmed. I don’t think that’s true but address it in a later piece. But even if that were true, people overlook the campaign structure that is necessary to win a state...

Read the whole post.

Big Sven makes the case for Clinton/Obama

Here's what one very articulate netizen has to say:


Hi, yourself. The contest between Clinton and Obama will be all about "ideas or issues". In fact, you've hit it squarely on the head.

One of the reasons that Obama and Clinton supporters often seem to be speaking a different language is because they are. They have a diametrically opposed view of what their candidates should be about.

Clinton looks at political power, and tends to collect supporters (such as myself) who also look at political power, through the prism of specific policies and actions- what bills will we propose today, what policies will we put forward today. It's a pragmatic, checklist-based view of leadership. FDR, for all his eloquence, had this style.

Obama looks at the process it terms of what ideas and long term goals get you up in the morning, and what are the goals of the people supporting you. He thinks that if you have the right vision, the details will work themselves out. Churchill had this style.

But it's why he's ultimately not really excited talking about policy details. And she hates the touchy feely stuff that he's good at. It's also why, when she had her "emotional moment" it manifested itself in the statement that "Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't really thought that through enough." Because for her, that is the essential characteristic of a leader.

I totally understand why some people chose Obama's ideological (note: not partisan) style over Clinton's more pragmatic approach. Pragmatism isn't exciting, and it's often not motivating. But for some of us (a plurality in NH yesterday), the comfort of knowing that Ms. Clinton already has her "to do" list for day one is what we *love* about her.

So you're right- people will be voting on ideas or issues over the next couple of months. And their will determine who we have representing us in the fall.

One final point- the difference in their leadership style makes me think they would make a *great* Prez/Veep team. There's probably already too much blood spilt, but one can always hope.

What do Seattlites think of Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?

See what the discussion looks like on the Slog.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

AllHipHop discussion: Clinton and Obama getting friendlier?

Says one forum poster on AllHipHop:

I was watching the debate last night and I noticed a few things that have changed in the last couple months between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Like if you mentioned a Clinton/Obama ticket a few months ago, there'd be no way. They really did not like each other... but they seemed to be more friendly now, and willing to side with each other to change the regime in the United States.

Ellen Goodman: Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton?

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman has a dream ... dream ticket, that is. She wants to see both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, in either order (though she says it's harder to imagine Clinton taking the vice presidential spot). Here's her column:

Up to now, you will notice, I haven't said who would be at the top of the ticket. Which is where my little attack of idealism may stumble.

In America, as Hillary noted in the debate, we put "the head of state and the head of government together in one person." Frankly, I think of Hillary as prime minister and Obama as royal philosopher. If Hillary wins, it's easier to imagine the younger candidate taking the second spot. If Obama wins, it's harder to see her settling for Number One Observatory Circle after eight years in the White House. But at the same time, she has had a whole lot of experience partnering with a president.

This game plan depends, I am fully aware, on Super Tuesday. It also depends on whether the country is, in fact, eager for something different, in a "post-polarization" frame of mind.

But Obama said, "I run so that a year from today there's a chance that the world will look at America differently and that America will look at itself differently." And Clinton told Tyra Banks which reality show she'd choose: "I think it would have to be 'Dancing with the Stars,' especially if I could have one of those really good partners."

Against the low, incessant, chant for change, do I hear a T-E-A-M? Or only a dream?

Read the whole thing here.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

A worry for Obama: are too many of his supporters Hillary haters?

On Marc Ambinder today there's a most insightful comment from Michael C. He writes:

Obama has a serious problem in that some of his major support is from hillary and bill haters: whether it is andrew sullivan or chris matthews or David geffin or the folks who blog here the negativity has begun to seriously overshadow the idea of his being a uniter. He says loud and clear on the debate last night that some of his supporters are over-zealous and this morning they still spout this tired clinton bashing. How does he run a positive campaign if the folks on the front line blogisphere can't reign in the hate? Remember they are the same party, the same wing of the party and nearly identical voting records. Hillary's supporters aren't here everyday saying they won't vote obama if he prevails but obama's people here are ready to vote pro-war republican or stay home. I have 16 years of love for Hillary but will be proud to vote dem for obama if she does not prevail. I hope the hatred doesn't ruin your health.

Making mean-spirited (and often unfair) personal attacks against Hillary Clinton is a favorite sport, of course, for many political pundits on the left and right. Obama's supporters are not the only ones to dwell on Clinton's alleged flaws. However, too many of them have failed to note the tension between (a) their own supposed support for a candidate whose message is to bring people together and overcome polarization, and (b) their hateful rhetoric based on leftover animosity from the 1990s, an entirely different era.

It's to Obama's considerable credit that he seems able to attract supporters from independents and the Republican party. Unfortunately, Obama seems to have attracted many supporters who back his candidacy primarily as an "anyone but Hillary" stand. Those supporters don't so much believe in Obama's message as they want to relish in one more angry, bitter attack on the Clinton family. They turn support for Obama into a tool for venting their partisanship or ideological warfare. Or, in the case of Andrew Sullivan, support for Obama is a way of punishing Republicans for not being conservative enough. Sullivan writes:

On the role of government, I'm far to his [Obama's] right. But after the GOP in the Bush years, I don't feel like punishing the Democrats for being big government. I feel like punishing the Republicans. They're the ones who've committed treason against conservatism, not the Democrats.

A successful Obama candidacy alone might not overcome polarized politics if it is won only by the support of Hillary haters, crypto Republicans, and anti-Bush conservatives. An Obama victory won by smearing the Clintons would taint the message that he represents a genuine way of moving beyond polarization: core Democrats would suspect that he really represents a repudiation of their values while Obama's newly won Republican supporters would not move an inch to help Obama actually attain his policy agenda.

However, if Obama were to share a ticket for the presidency with Clinton (either on the top or bottom half of a united ticket), then a vote for Obama would send a powerful signal that it is time for the country to move beyond polarization and move forward to help create a better, stronger, safer America. True, some Clinton haters would never vote for a ticket with the Clinton name attached because they are unwilling to let go of their vast reservoirs of anger and resentment. But for all those independents and Republicans who are inspired by Obama's speeches to come together and who are healed enough from the 1990s to look forward to the future, then a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket could be exactly the agent of change our country needs.

Clinton and Obama: complementary archetypes

On Huffington Post, Susan Faludi writes one of the most enlightening articles on the politics of Clinton's gender that I've ever read. Here's part:

The greatest show of nurturance those women could possibly evince was steeling themselves to stand in that line all over again and make that hectoring phone call to yet another doctor, even if they were perceived as a "bitch" by the receptionist on the other end.

In their appraisals of Hillary Clinton, the pollsters and pundits who have not gotten beyond that mommy/ball-buster teeter-totter narrative of American womanhood also have not begun to diagnose gender dynamics beyond the perspective of the little boy and his mom. A lot of female voters, however, may be factoring in a whole other kind of female archetype, whose wet eyes do not signal weakness and whose flashes of anger do not signal coldness, only pragmatic perseverance.

If pundits ever tried to understand what some female voters know about the complexity of women's lives, they might begin to comprehend the appeal of a female candidate whose ethic of caring and whose posture of femininity derive from responsibilities beyond the maternal. And then they might begin to understand the affection of women in New Hampshire who put her over the top.

If Clinton draws from the archetype of feminine pragmatic perseverance, then it's appropriate for her campaign's message that she is a "hands on" manager, a believer in action as well as words, a doer more than a speech-giver, etc.

Obama's emphasis is on inspiration, vision, optimism, speech as a bringer of action, and bringing people together to recognize common unity. His strength complements Clinton's, and would help to provide balance for a working government coalition. He draws on the archetype of masculine prophetic wisdom.

This primary season, many Democrats are finding themselves faced with a difficult choice because they see both Clinton's and Obama's strengths as important for government leadership. Together they make a stronger team than separate.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Anne Rice: Clinton-Obama is my dream ticket

Popular novelist Anne Rice endorses Clinton, declaring that she's "ecstatic" about Clinton's win in New Hampshire primary. She says she's hoping for a "Clinton/Obama" ticket.

Mark Daniels: Clinton should pick Colin Powell as vice president

Blogger Mark Daniels thinks Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic party's nominee. But he's offering some advice to Hillary Clinton anyways: pick Colin Powell.

The attraction of Powell for Clinton is obvious. Given her recent gaffe over Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and race, she will likely want a high profile African-American on her ticket. From a Democratic perspective, at least within the counsels of the White House, Powell was “right” on the war in Iraq, even though the former secretary of State argued forcefully in favor of war at the United Nations. His military credentials are unimpeachable: service in Vietnam, national security adviser to the President, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who oversaw victory in Iraq in 1991, and author of the Powell Doctrine.

But Powell might also be attracted to being on a Democratic ticket. He has always adhered to a few political positions outside of the mainstream of conservative Republican orthodoxy–he favors affirmative action in hiring and he can’t really be described as “pro-life,” for example. In addition, service as vice president, helping with the gradual withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under a Democratic president may, in some sense, feel like vindication to Powell.

Of course, age may work against Powell. He turns 71 in April. But that makes him roughly the same age as John McCain and after all, seventy is the new forty, something for which this 54-year old is exceedingly grateful. In the end, however, I don’t think that Powell would accept a place on the Democratic ticket, which will present Clinton with huge problems should she be the nominee for president.

Much could be said about the advantages and disadvantages of picking Powell. If McCain is the Republican nominee, Powell's strong military and diplomatic background could help, and Powell would also be an historically significant pick. On the other hand, Powell is a Republican who disagrees with many of the policy issues of importance to Democrats.

If Clinton is the presidential nominee, there are a few clear reasons for prefering Obama as for No. 2: First, Clinton and Obama agree on most policy considerations. Second, Obama is a more experienced and seasoned candidate who is "ready from Day One" to wage a winning campaign for the White House. Third, nobody doubts Obama's willingness and talent in making clear to voters the need for change and differences from the Republican alternative. In a year when voters say they want change, picking a candidate like Powell who seems a lot like the guy on the top of the other party's ticket (if it's McCain, that is) would be a misreading of the electorate's mood. Obama, not Powell, would be the best choice.

Monday, January 14, 2008

I'm not confused. I really like them both.

For many months, I've been faced with a tough choice of having to vote for one of two candidates for president that I feel are both great choices. I've hemmed and hawed. I've sat on the fence.

Now I know that I don't have to be torn. I can affirm my heart's desire: to see the Democrats nominate both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the leadership of our country. While no candidate is perfect, in my opinion both Obama and Clinton are the best leaders for this party, this country, now. It really is their time.

Of course, eventually I will need to cast a primary vote for one candidate. I live in Washington state and will be voting after Super Tuesday. I intend to vote for the candidate--Clinton or Obama--who I believe would be most likely to make my dream of a united ticket come true. Which candidate that will be should be clear within the next month.

In the meantime, I've decided to start a new blog on the 2008 US presidential election in order to promote the viability of a "democratic unity ticket": that is, the selection of Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. This blog will include news links of interest to voters who yearn to see these two worthy candidates join together in '08 as well as commentary intended to advocate on behalf of a combination ticket.

Although there are plenty of voters who might want to see both of these candidates together on one ticket, there is currently no other blog that I know which (a) is premised on the notion that either Clinton or Obama are almost certain to become the Democratic nominee, and (b) that the winning candidate should select the other.

To some, a ticket marrying these two candidates is too fanciful to imagine (or too dreadful). I respect their disagreement, and welcome them to make the case against this combination. In the meantime, my quixotic quest for a dream ticket begins...

Go Obama '08! Go Clinton '08!

Jame Hamsher: we need Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order

Jane Hamsher, a progressive blogger at firedoglake, writes "Clinton, Obama, and our Narcissistic Press" today on Huffington Post:

Both Clinton and Obama have issued statements calling for an end to the pie fight, which is a good thing. The responsible thing to do is to refuse to let people like Bai egg them on. We'll see if it's all rhetoric or if their actions back it up. But barring an Edwards resurgence, I frankly don't see how we win the next election without both Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order. If the antagonism we see online is any evidence, coming together again as a party without it is going to be awfully difficult.

If no decisive victor emerges before the convention, the superdelegates could force both Clinton and Obama onto a ticket. While I'm sure neither would be happy with that situation, it may be the best thing for the party as a whole. It certainly would be an unbeatable and historic combination, ushering in an era where we can hopefully begin to talk about these things. And after the damage that their mutual mud slinging contest has done to any kind of future coalition, the onus may be on them to suck it up for the good of the country.

Joel Hirschhorn: Clinton/Obama is the "smart ticket"

At (December 12 2007), Joel Hirschhorn argues that Clinton-Obama could pave the way for 16 years of a Democratic presidency.

Clinton/Obama would be an unbeatable ticket. She has the experience as both a senator and she knows the foreign nations as her work as First Lady, remember Bill’s campaign slogan “Two for the price of one.” with Bill back in the White House, her as Pres, could surely let Obama earn his stripes and after 8 years will become what could be America’s first black president.

I too would love to see a Hillary-Obama ticket. I believe Obama would settle for a VP position because he is young, has served only 2 years as a US senator, and has a long career ahead of him.

If the Dems are smart, and I hope they are, the ticket will be Clinton-Obama and it will be unbeatable in 2008 and again in 2012. Then in 2016 and 20020 Obama will be top dog on the ticket thus providing sixteen years of a Democratic presidency.

Hey, Clinton/Obama is pretty powerful sounding! I’m all for it! You folks who have been programmed to hate Hillary need to get over it already. She is one smart woman who has more than enough experience in the white house and she will make one hell of a prez! Obama will learn a lot from president Clinton and will be ready to lead our great nation in 2016 or 17!

Read the post here.

My personal New Year's Eve prediction

Here's my original New Year's Eve prediction for the outcome of the 2008 US presidential contest: Clinton-Obama victorious. On what do I base this prognostication? Uh, nothing really. Just a wild guess with a modest amount of political intuition and more than a bit of wishful thinking.

Boston Globe reporter: all presidential candidates put up a "front" that they would reject vice-presidential nod

In the October 2007 interview "Globe reporter Scott Helman chatted about Campaign '08" , there's this reminder that candidates who say they would not be VP cannot necessarily be believed...

Dana: I don't understand why some of these presidential candidates resist so much to the idea of being vice presidents. Obama was on the radio today saying he wasn't in this to be a VP. But being a VP, in my opinion, would really increase his chances in the next election. And it would really negate the "lack of experience" card that people play against him now. Why not be a VP if you can't be P?

Scott Helman: Well, remember that part of this is the front they have to put up. Everyone has to say they only want to be president, because if they say they are open to the VP job, they look like weak self-doubters unsure they can win the big one. I would actually be pretty surprised if any of the also-rans on the Democratic side end up on the ticket. I just don't see it. Maybe I am wrong. But when you look at the characters, the personalities, the states they hail from, etc., it just doesn't seem likely to me. What would your dream ticket be?

Fidel Castro shares his thoughts on US politics

Old news (August '07), but for what it's worth: Castro says a Clinton-Obama ticket would be "apparently unbeatable".

Richard Sammon explores potential and pitfalls of Clinton-Obama ticket

In an August 2007 essay (now obviously dated), Richard Sammon speculates about the potentential benefits of combining Clinton and Obama. Here's his analysis:

The possibility of a Clinton-Obama presidential ticket is growing. Yes, it is still early and much can and will change in this marathon presidential campaign. But Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are way ahead of the pack and showing sustained strength. Unless one of them stumbles unexpectedly, it will be a two-person race. And Clinton leads by 20 percentage points or more in many polls, a lead that will prove hard for Obama to overtake.

If Clinton gets the nod, she may well ask Obama to be her vice presidential nominee, making the 2008 election historic -- with the first woman at the head of a major party ticket and the first African-American candidate for vice president.

Obama would probably agree. The barbs the two are trading now, as the campaign heats up, won't have a long-lasting effect on their relations. And at 46, Obama has plenty of time for a future bid. Being vice president would only help win over voters who aren't sure he has enough experience for the top job.

Read the whole piece.

Newt Gingrich predicts Clinton-Obama ticket

In a July 2007 interview with the AP, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket:

Democrats will nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008 and Barack Obama will be her running mate, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicts.

In Iowa, some voters hope for Clinton and Obama together

In "Dreamers see Clinton-Obama ticket" (July 2007), the Rocky Mountain News lets voters express their frustration at having to choose between Clinton and Obama. One voter:

"I'm really torn between Obama and Hillary," said John Christenson, 70, a retired library director who caught Clinton's midday rally at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. "I've heard both of them talk, and I haven't disagreed with a thing anyone said."

"I'd rather see some collaboration," said Ryan O'Leary, 30, of -Iowa City. "I do care, because I think both of them have the ability to inspire people."

And another voter:

Why not put them on the same ticket, said Evelyn Buddin, 87, of -Iowa City,sitting in the shade as the Clinton event was clearing out.

Buddin was born in 1920, the same year women were able to vote in national elections for the first time. She has been hoping for a female president since the 1950s. She's rooting for Clinton. But she doesn't see why she and Obama couldn't be on the same ticket.

"Each one would have to give a little," Buddin said. "I think they can work it out."

David Letterman: Clinton and Obama together would be "powerful ticket"

On April 9, 2007, Barack Obama fielded a question from David Letterman on "Late Night" as follows.

It’s not uncommon, at least in some Democratic circles, to ponder the possibilities of a joint presidential ticket of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. And in most conversations, the names are listed in precisely that order.

But when that question is raised on tonight’s Late Show with David Letterman, Senator Obama asks for a bit of clarity.

“That would be a powerful ticket,” Mr. Letterman says of the two senators. "Undeniably that would be a powerful ticket.”

Mr. Obama replies: “Which order are we talking about?”

US News: GOP Fears Clinton-Obama Ticket

"Clinton-Obama Ticket Stirs Fear in GOP", a December 2006 report in US News: some GOP strategists fear a Clinton-Obama ticket, whereas unnamed Democratic strategists contacted were skeptical.

The possibility that a potential Democratic presidential primary matchup between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama could lead to a Clinton-Obama ticket is raising concerns in GOP circles that it might be unbeatable.

While Democratic strategists are more skeptical of the success of a ticket composed of two minorities, some Republican advisers to the White House and leading 2008 hopefuls Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani see the ticket as an easy winner built on the enthusiasm it would generate in Democratic circles.

Their theory is that Clinton would stand a good chance to pick up the states that Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. While not enough to win the election on her own, the addition of Obama would help push closely divided states like Ohio over into the Democratic column, thereby giving the Clinton-Obama ticket the White House.