Clinton and Obama: The Feel Good Hit of the Summer!

Note: This is a special joint post from Obama supporter Jason Chervokas and Clinton blogger Tom Watson.

From the time we met, as reporters and editors covering Bronx politics almost 15 years ago -  to this spring - Jason and I have spent countless elections bickering, bantering, observing, predicting, and generally arguing. It's been no different this election, with Jason backing Obama and me blogging for Clinton.

But for once in this cycle we agree about something: the Democratic party needs a fusion ticket and it needs to move towards one now.

Yeah, we know people are angry and bruised, but here's the simple truth: an enormous latent Democratic mandate is lurking in the electorate and a fusion ticket is the best way for the Democratic party to unlock it - putting aside the issue of who is at the top of the ticket for a moment.

Want evidence? The Republicans are talking about it, per right-winger William Kristol today in The New York Times: 

Another McCain staffer called my attention to this finding in the latest Fox News poll: McCain led Obama in the straight match-up, 46 to 43. Voters were then asked to choose between two tickets, McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Clinton. Obama-Clinton won 47 to 41.

It's simple really. The last few weeks of campaigning have hardened hearts on both sides of the Democratic divide:  40% of Clinton's voters in Pennsylvania said they would be dissatisfied Obama, and 33% of Obama supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. If even a fraction of those angry, disaffected Dems lick their wounds and return to the fold in November - and we suspect well more than a fraction of them will be back - there will be a big numbers advantage for whomever the Democrats nominate.  If both candidates are on the ticket then it's “everybody in the pool!” time.

More than that, the state-by-state campaigning by two strong candidates has left an entire ecosystem of new Democrats in its wake (Bucks County has gone blue for goodness' sake). And thanks to the quirky, proportional nature of the race,  the campaigns have built vast, nuts and bolt organizations across the country, congressional district by congressional district. Combining these operations would give Democrats an enormous tactical advantage on the ground, where the GOP has for years outsourced its organizing to the evangelical wing.

Further, the Clintons have been a Democratic fundraising machine for a generation, their supremacy challenged only by the young upstart from Chicago. Together: Ka-ching.

And only hardened partisans on each side can make the case with straight faces that an Obama/Sebelius ticket or a Clinton/Bayh ticket would be just as potent as Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

But a fusion ticket isn't just the best answer for the Dems, it may be the only answer to overturning a generation of near-hegemony for the GOP in presidential politics.

Obama needs Clinton. No other VP short-lister (with the possible exception of Senator James Webb, we both believe) strengthens Senator Obama more in the areas where he needs strengthening all in one feisty, battle-tested package - with seniors, with Hispanics, with Catholics, with Jews, with party regulars, with defense hawks, with labor union members. Perhaps no other short-lister gives him the backstopping experience he needs. Sure, some might suggest that she would be Dick Cheney to his George Bush, an ugly comparison morally, but perhaps electorally apt. And, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in yesterday's London Times, Clinton is the perfect street tough Jimmy Cagney to Obama's priestly Pat O'Brien:

By picking Clinton as a vice-president, he would be pulling a classic American manoeuvre — getting a surrogate to do the dirty pugilism of the campaign, while using his own extraordinary skills to provide a unifying and uplifting overall theme.

Clinton needs Obama. No other VP short-lister (again, with the possible exception of Jim Webb) stregthens her more with African-Americans, new Democrats, with independents, with young voters, and yes, with Republicans. Further, Obama clearly represents the future of the Democratic Party – one that changes the electoral map forver, opening the party to young evangelicals, moderates, and the formerly political dissaffected.

Each candidate would most likely become the other’s de facto successor – Obama would be only 55 in eight years; Hillary would by 69, still young enough by McCain-Reagan standards to seek the highest office. That built-in desire for the top spot usually keeps presidents and vice-presidents in the same camp. Further, a VP of the caliber of a Clinton or Obama would require a serious brief to handle, domestic or international.

Maybe 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. Even with Clinton below him on the ticket it's uncertain to us that Obama can win Florida. But with Clinton on his ticket he can certainly win Ohio, Pennsylvania and maybe still steal a state like Colorado or Nevada. Even with Obama below her on the ticket, Clinton may not be able to steal a real red state, but together they certainly can win Ohio and Pennsylvania and make a good run at Florida. And with both of them on the ticket, the prospect of a real landslide becomes far more than fantasy; and nothing could be better for every down-ticket race in the nation.

And for Democrats, a fusion ticket would be the feel good hit of the summer, a superstar tour bigger than a Led Zeppelin reunion. Can you imagine that convention? Sure feels better than the one featuring half the Democratic Party plus one lording it over the despondent other half of the Democratic Party minus one.

The problem for Dems, of course, is how to get to a fusion ticket. There's only one "elder statesman" in the Democratic party with the weight to broker a deal, and he happens to be married to one of the candidates. With both candidates so close to victory, there's no incentive for either to fold. That means another month of tough political warfare, driving up the negatives on both candidates. It may well mean a floor fight over Michigan and Florida.

Frankly, our hope for a fusion ticket probably requires the full run of the primaries and the last accounting before many prominent Democrats realize – all at once, perhaps – that there’s a happy and obvious solution to a potentially disastrous split. Both candidates have proven themselves to be realists, despite that many of their followers shout at each other. We think they’d take the deal, in order to guarantee victory. We also don’t buy two rampant themes among the bloggers – one, that Hillary is somehow posturing for 2012 by taking Obama down now, and secondly, that Barack would never accept “the Clintons” as partners in his presidency.

These are two extraordinary, big-time politicians with complementary talents and networks of supporters. Both have displayed determination, stamina, and guts. Beating John McCain in November is the primary goal of this primary season. A single path offers the greatest chance for victory.

So sign on for the fusion ticket – and please pass it on.

Comments

[Andre]

My only question is, why would Clinton want to take on Obama's 'still breaking' baggage. I am totally convinced that there's a video out there that will 'break the camel's back', and I do not see Clinton wanting to take on that potential. If not a video (though today there are videos of everything!), then what other problems has Obama got that we have not heard about? We know what we have with Clinton and what we have to deal with. Also, what we already know about Obama is going to be a problem that Clinton may not want to carry. What we already know is a task in handling.

[Judith]

OMG - Sullivan actually wrote that? That is hysterical! With friends like him who need MoDo?

Anyhoo, whatever. I think she would pick him if she thought she needed him because - well, why not? I think she is a pragmatist.

But I dont think he would pick her EXACTLY for the reason Sully states - which I believe was his unconscious attempt to pee on that particular flame anyway.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Ah, a return to reason. Emerson would be proud. Yes, we have no choice if we want to win in November and put a Dem in the White House for 2009. (Remember folks, it's about beating John McCain?) And nice to see Jim Webb being mentioned as possible VP if the unity ticket doesn't happen.

Now, I want to know what the heck Andre is talking about. A video of Obama saying something bad? Something off-color. I think the 'bitter' remark is as bad as it gets.

[Nancy]

sorry, but as of now, i think obama no longer adds much, if anything, of value to a presidential ticket. in fact, he's a huge potential liability. his numbers are falling and his support is soft and eroding.

she would be stronger than obama in the GE, not only in delegate-rich blue states like CA, PA, MI, and NJ, but also in swing states like OH, TN, NM, WV, NH, KY, AR, and NV. oh and then there's that biggie--FL. and what would obama bring to the table that she couldn't win by campaigning hard on her own? um, CO (maybe)? yeah. in short: not much. and now there's even evidence that he's actually a drag on down-ticket races--an extra bonus (yay)!

so remind me again why clinton would take the VP slot... would it be for the pleasure of providing obama on-the-job training--or would it be to do her boss's work for him? um, thanks, but no thanks. not only is the offer ridiculous, it's outright insulting. and considering the way he's run his campaign--one of the most dishonest and ethically disgusting i've ever seen in dem presidential politics--i don't even want him as VP. in fact, i'd like for him to leave the national political scene altogether--disappear, go back to chicago, whatever the hell he has to--so that i don't have to see or hear him anymore.

[Rain]

I'm sorry, I could accept Clinton at top of ticket, regardless of who her VP is. I would think she was taking a huge risk in choosing Obama as running mate, but if he was to be her choice, then I would accept it, despite my doubts as to the wisdom of it.

To me, its all a moot point anyway, Obama is the media darling and the Party's leadership choice, so no matter what happens in the remaining state contests, the Party will hand him the nomination. I can't see him agreeing to have Clinton as running-mate however, and I believe her skills would be better remaining in the Senate. I could see her campaigning hard for him though, because thats who she is, a loyal Dem Party activist for 35 years or so. I remember as a kid with my folks, seeing her in Texas campaigning for McGovern, and on the Dukakis trail.

I can't vote for Obama, but I'm in a solid blue state so it doesn't matter. I have volunteered in several campaigns since I first voted for Carter in 1976, but I can't do it for Obama. I am probably an outlier though, and most Dem voters will fall in behind Obama.

[riverdaughter]

Clinton as Obama's VP? No. Way.
She'd be just another woman doing her boss's job and getting no credit for it. Not only that, it's just insulting to put the better qualified candidate second.
I see this kind of stuff periodically from a lot of male bloggers, as if he'd be doing women a favor if he offered it to her. Believe me. He'd be doing us no favors. In fact it would be a humiliating set back. And I, for one, would lose all respect for her if she took it. My chances of voting for Obama do not improve under this scenario. She's better off in the senate where she can preserve her dignity.
She's either at the top of the ticket or no deal.

[tdraicer]

Sorry, I can't do it. I think Hillary wins without Obama, and I think Obama's is a political career I would prefer to see stop in the Senate.

[Tom K]

Tom:

To the extent your post in technically neutral, it only states the obvious. The meaningful message it conveys is that you, as a prominent HRC supporter, are prepared to accept the no. 2 spot rather than see her do what is necessary to secure the nomination. (I know Jason's presence was supposed to change this, but the device failed. It's your blog, and written too much in your voice, if you ask me.)

You picked a bad time to join the pack of sexist male bloggers conspiring to put the little lady in her place. (And like it or not, that's how your post will be read -- see RiverDaughter, consigning you to the sexist pack you've been railing against -- and to some extent, how it reads.)

Let me remind you -- Clinton is going to win the nomination. Having stuck with her this far, you should be pushing harder, not pulling back.

Or are you, in your deep heart's core, as disgusted by her latest round of pandering (eg, the ludicrous "gas tax holiday") as I would have expected you to be, before your transformation into Clinton PR accessory sometime within the past year?

[Tony Alva]

That's the Tom K. we all know and love!!!

[Palomino]

No way.

[Tom W.]

In compromise, some will always cry capitulation - that's as may be, and I'm sorry if this is read as surrender. For my part, it's not - I'd certainly want Clinton to be at the top of ticket and would happily see it go to the convention to achieve that aim.

However, I do not dislike Senator Obama as intensely as some Clinton supporters - I just don't. I don't think he'd be nearly as strong a president as Hillary, but as I've said here many times, I'd take him in a heartbeat over McCain.

As for the "sexist male blogger" tweak (with Tom K. at the pry bar), I'll just let the record here speak for itself

[Jason Chervokas]

I gotta say guys, when we first took a pass at this piece last week, before it became a meme, it had nothing to do w/ Tom losing faith in Clinton or in her ability to be the best president. I'm sure it still feels the same way.

In the end we both believe that there's little policy substance seperating the two candidates, that it's crucially important for the Democrats to win the White House in November, and that the biggest obstacle to achieving the prize is our house divided.

I still believe Obama is the smartest guy running, the candidate mostly likely to turn our governance from the ideological to the practical, and the only candidate who actually understands what's going on w/ the credit markets (the core of our current economic crisis).

Tom still believes Clinton's the toughest-minded, most capable candidate in the race.

As Democrats we'll rally around either as nominee because we agree with the policy principles they stand for--getting out of the strategic disaster of Iraq, reforming how we pay for health care in this country, a new economic convenant with tax and regulatory policy to protect the middle class not just C-level execs and money managers.

Furthermore, as political observers we also believe it should be obvious on its face that whoever wins the nomination would be best served politically by having the other on the ticket. Any other VP candidate, w/the execption of Webb, has no juice. Wesley Clark, Kathleen Sieblius, Evan Bayh? Do any of these folks really help the ticket the way the other guy would help either Clinton or Obama?

[AndreN]

Tom, I agree with you. It's difficult for me to imagine a ticket without both, and realistically with Hillary on top of the ticket. No matter how nice both sides might make following the victory of one candidate, the shocking character assassinations and vile conduct among supporters displayed, I imagine is unbridgeable unless they forge one ticket..which I agree also may be sound ironic, but it's the on;y way i can see out of the mess.

[Tom K]

Jason, I don't doubt that Tom still feels she would be the best President, but I read the piece as accepting that she won't, in fact, lead the ticket.

I know it doesn't say that, exactly -- but it feels like it does and, practically, it kinda gets there. For one thing, the "either or" proposal is not as neutral as it sounds, since the idea of HRC accepting no. 2 status to BHO is much more radical than the other way around, given their ages, expectations and standing in the party. (I hesitate to use the term "experience", which HRC has loaded down with meanings beyond what I intend).

I think Clinton/Richardson or Obama/Webb would be strong tickets. Either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would feel awfully strange to a lot of folks, and I can't see HRC (or, perhaps especially, many of her supports) accepting it unless she's on top. The other way around is more likely, I think.

[Tom K]

Uhhh, the ending of my 11:31 post is muddled.

I meant to say that I think a ticket featuring both is reasonably possible (though not probable) if HRC prevails, but not if BHO prevails. Assuming no joint ticket, I think HRC/Richardson or BHO/Webb would be best.

Not that I plan on voting D anyway . . ..

[Judith]

Hey Tom W - nobody called you sexist other than the guy who needs reading glasses, so dont sweat it. You are not sexist - -anybody who reads you over time knows this.

I think the post is fine - BTD at Talkleft was talking about this ahwile ago (which you linked to recently) and I was not for it. Both you and Jason show both alternatives and why you think it works. Both candidates are super smart, well-educated people who know what is at risk here. Both know they have to choose a partner who helps them win if they are the Nominee.

If Obama is the nominee, which I doubt (ha!), I believe Clinton would accept an offer to be VP despite anybody's issues with how this "looks". This is why I want her to be President - she actually wants to dp the work! But I do not think he would pick her unless forced and I doubt that would happen. (cagney to his Obrien? hint hint - who was the star?)

I do think she would offer VP to Obama and she has alluded to this many times. I think it would be great for him.

[Ralph]

You Hillary supports who won't vote for Obama, or don't even want him on the ticket -- YOU ARE NUTS! OK, I said it. Anyone who would rather vote for McCain or thinks that staying home and not voting for Obama is justified, are just not real Democrats (same is true for Obama supporters who won't vote Hillary - NUTS). Are you independents? Are you conservatives? What in the hell are you? Do you care about the future of our country? Do you want McCain picking the next few Supreme Court judges? What exactly do you care about - just getting your way? What are you people, ten years old? Get a life! Are you gonna let the Republicans take control of the White House yet again because your candidate may not end up at the top of the ticket, or on the ticket at all? Tom and Jason are 100% correct -- but you don't want to hear the truth, you want what you want and screw everyone else. Pathetic!

[Slappy]

Ralph = Consistently the sanest voice in all this mess. If not the only sane voice.

[Ralph]

Slappy I can't help it. Die-hard Obama and Clinton supporters are ALL driving me insane! We should be more united then ever against the right-wing hate machine, and yet here we are -- fellow Dems whining that they won't vote for the other candidate because they didn't get their way. Waaahhh!! Well, I wanted Edwards because I just knew that having two firsts in the race (a woman and a black man) would distract everyone from the real issues in the campaign. And I was right. Edwards could have unified the party which is why the media ignored him. He had the most progressive message. But instead you are all foaming at the mouth and the Republicans (along with Rush Limbaugh) couldn't be more pleased. So go ahead you rabid supporters of Clinton and Obama -- tell us why the other candidate is the personification of evil, or totally unqualified, or too weak, blah blah blah. You all sound like fools to me.

[Slappy]

The ridiculous back and forth on the lefty blogs is maddening. There is a good chance however, like Tom W has said, that this long drawn out fight is actually good for the Dems. Certainly it has taken up most of the political coverage and muffled anything the GOP has been saying. It also has convinced many to register to vote, and most of them are new Dems. This looks like a disaster in waiting but in hindsight could be the best thing to happen to the Dems. since... when Bill met Hillary at the Waffle House in Arkansas?

Remember when we all hated Bush the most? Those were the days.

[Palomino]

@Jason: "I still believe Obama is the smartest guy running, the candidate mostly likely to turn our governance from the ideological to the practical, and the only candidate who actually understands what's going on w/ the credit markets (the core of our current economic crisis)."

Agree he's the smartest GUY running, but by no means the smartest CANDIDATE.

Why do you think he would "turn our governance from the ideological to the practical"? Your opinion is based on what, exactly? (Please don't say, "Postpartisan unity.")

And why on earth (sorry, my skepticism is showing) do you think he understands even the first thing about the credit markets? He seems irresponsibly wanting on that score, and on the economy in general, IMO. Truly clueless. (And, yes, I've gone to his website.)

[Nancy]

uh, ralph, obama is not a dem. here's what real dems do: http://www.correntewire.com/real_dems_a_wee_manifesto.

and here's what obama is: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-time-to-get-obama-skeptical.html.

and here's what i think: obama is an opportunistic INDEPENDENCE PARTY impostor leeching off of democratic goodwill. he has ZERO commitment to fundamental democratic principles, and he stands for NOTHING--except as pesky inconveniences to be tolerated in order to fuel his rise. he is the parasite that could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for democrats in november.

[Nancy]

p.s. here's another good one: http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-liberal-not-left.html.

obama is not left, not liberal, not progressive, and not a democrat. he's an opportunist. period.

[Tom K]

Nancy:

Anger is one thing, but epithets as destructive and ugly as "independent" should be used more sparingly.

[Slappy]

"...and he stands for NOTHING..."

Obama and Clinton have FAR more in common than not. That the candidate bashing is based on such trivial matters and is more often than not personal attacks proves this. i.e. "...he is a parasite..." Give me a break.

Imagine if you actually were successful in convincing an undecided voter that Obama was a parasite. Imagine Obama wins nomination. Congratulations on helping McCain.