(CNN) – The morning after primary wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton said she would consider being part of a Democratic “dream ticket” that would include both her and presidential rival Barack Obama.
"That may be where this is headed,” she told the CBS Early Show during a marathon set of appearances on the network morning news shows. “But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
The New York senator has made the claim before. Last month, in one of several interviews where she said the scenario was a possibility, she told a Vibe interviewer: “Of course there is (a chance of a joint ticket). Of course there is. Now neither of us will answer this question because we don’t want to look presumptuous and premature. But it is more than fair to say that — of course there is.”
While Clinton has said a joint ticket is possible, the Obama team has largely avoided making similar statements. Some of the Illinois senator’s campaign surrogates have said they believe the claims benefit Clinton because they may convince Democratic voters drawn to the Illinois senator that a vote for her is essentially a vote for both of them - or a vote for him to head the ballot in eight years, after she has had her two terms on top of the ticket.
Primary season rivals who have successfully shared a presidential ticket after tough nominating fights include Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
– CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
It is like I have said for years. Republicans are scary, and Democrats can't ever actually get anything done.
Maybe but only with Obama at the top and only with a serious understanding about what that means.
That said, I think Obama can do better than Hillary at VP. There are a number of progressive women who would actually fit much better.
If you support Obama, look at it this way. If he is VP with Hillary, he could potentially be in the Whitehouse for 16 years.
I'm young, college educated and NOT voting for Obama. If Hillary is willing to give him (and his ego) some much needed on the job training for 8 years, that all well and good. Obama is a talking suit. If Hillary is not on the ballot, my vote DOES NOT go to Obama. Election 101 folks, winning red states and states with few electoral college votes, does not win national elections. If you want the re-claim the white house, you must vote for the person who carries the states that win elections and that folks is Hillary Clinton. So if you want McCain as your next president, vote Obama.
What a dream it would be for our country to receive both of these brilliant politicians on the same ticket!! Hillary needs to avoid sniping at Obama, however, so that this can ultimately work. Nobody in this country is fooled or swayed by negative campaigning anymore. We don't want to see Rovian tactics employed by politicians. We want to hear what the candidates are going to do about Iraq, general foreign policy, the economy, rising prices on essential goods, education, health care, well, the list goes on. Many of us in Texas believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would mean a big win for the Democrats and get the Current Occupant and all of his cronies out of the White House! They just need to be a little nicer to each other to make that ticket believable.....
I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am, however, keenly interested in world affairs and a devotee of the American political system. Election nights for me - even primary election nights in other states - are Superbowls that require me to watch returns and analyses until the networks cease to report.
Something happened in Texas over the weekend that has me still in a state of disbelief. What I learned from the Clinton campaign's ads and verbal pronouncements is that, should Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee, one should cast their vote instead for John McCain because Obama is too inexperienced (John McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the White House, Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002), he is unethical (slum landlord friend Rezco) and is duplicitous (NAFTA-gate).
Interesting. Competitors within the same party generally have slapped at each other's records ("My resume is bigger than your resume") or highlighted gaffes. They realize the risks involved in destroying each other's political reputation. Apparently this year is different. Well, it is the year of change...
How does Hillary justify considering Obama as a VP when she just villified him?
And to "Goon": Obama is leading by ninety something delegates. This is not, as to say, "significant."
Joint ticket would mean, President Bill.......Vice President Hill (Clintons know they have unfinish business in the White House)
.........when that phone rings at 3 am, its Bill's babe on the side.
How are you going to stay focus on the issues at hand and keep an eye on Bill's new babe on the side?
I'm with the writer above who warns not to get ahead of ourselves. Hillary lost 12 in a row and won three in row last night. I counted Obama out after he didn't beat her in California and he rose to the occasion. I wouldn't write him off as VP yet...
And let us not forget, despite claims of favortism from some Clinton supporters, I think the press seems to be less favored to one candidate over another as they are to conflict and drama. I really expect them to attack whichever side will bring in the most ratings. Now that she's back on top, she's fair game again. Not sexism or favortism, just the realities of ratings. Believe it or not, there are some scandals (current, not under Bill) about Hillary floating around on other networks right now and I expect them to come to light as the race goes on.
As democrats, a dream ticket sounds great but I think we need to let the scandals and drama on both sides play out a bit before deciding the lead.
A dream ticket would be Obama/ Edwards. They would compliment each other immensely. there is no way Obama would work with Hilary, she is so depserate to win the White House, it seems she would do anything. I support Obama, and I will vote for him in November. If he is not on the ticket, forget it. I would sooner vote for McCain than give my vote to a she-devil like Clinton.
So Hillary throws mud, and people vote for her. Then they criticize her for throwing mud. I don't get it.
She has won like 14 states, and Obama has won around 27. He leads in POPULAR and DELEGATE counts. These two wins SHOULD have gone to her. Texas, which is mostly dominated by latino voters, and Ohio which is mostly dominated by Blue Collar.
This is going to sound very insensitive but has anyone else noticed that the people voting for Hillary tend to be not as educated as those who vote for Obama. What exactly does that say? People are voting for Hillary for her name. There is nothing else that gives her credit. She is a hollow politician going off the reputation of her husband.
It's sickening really.
If Hillary is on the ticket they lose; Obama is better off without her – she's got too much baggage from the Clinton era. He'd basically be repudiating everything he has been saying about change. If Obama picks a decent running mate, I'm voting for him; if he picks Hillary I'm voting for McCain.
The people of Ohio spoke clearly? But the people of Ohio are only one part of the democratic process. The top candidate would be chosen by who the entire nation chooses. I want to see her prove that she obeys the will of the people more than Bush does.
Unfortunately, she needs him on her ticket ... The reverse not so much!
I like many others prefer a shred of decency and honor in my president and on that Hillary fails miserably. I choose hope over fear and cerebral over genital and visceral.
Shame on you, Tonya Harding Clinton. I would never vote for you, ever.
Hillary would definately be the top ticket holder! Go Hillary!!!
I believe that either way that would be the nightmare ticket!
The only person who would consider Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton a "dream ticket" are the terrorists around the world. If you want terrorists to strike our nation,an increase in government entitlement programs like we have never seen before and follow that with income tax increases then put your "dream ticket" in the white house and let them ruin our economy and security.
Obama / Clinton is the best choice. He is a lot more stable and experiece. Although I am sick of Clintons. Just to get this over with.
Hillary's ads against Obama weren't that bad. So what, she called his experience on national security issues into question. Anybody running against Obama especially McCain will do the same thing and probably more aggressively. Every candidate has their weakness and Obama's is in experience. I hope they run together.
I personally think that'd be amazing. McCain would definitely lose, Obama could finally get over the "experience" argument, and we could have 16 years of awesome presidents.
Go Clinton and Obama!
Everyone posting seems to think that Obama has won big with his states. The states he has won are less populated therefore they carry less delegates and are not crucial to the general election. What voters need to look at our big blue and purple states? These are what the party will be looking at. Hillary Clinton has now won these states that are required to win in the general election.
Face it negativity has gone both ways. So let's put our emotions aside. Politics is politics. Obama needs experience and if running as VP gets him that experience to run again in 8 years than we all benefit. This way we have 16 years in the White House.
Hillary is truly a Machiavelian politician. She says Barack could be her vice presidential choice, yet contends he is not qualified to be commander in chief and lacks experience to be president. Barack would be a fool to accept the vice-presidential nomination. He would be marginalized, having to support the domestic and foreign policies of the Clintons. Since 1952 the same party has won three presidency three elections in a row only once. He could hardly be the candidate of change after being a meaningless vice-president to the Clintons for eight years.
There is no way Hillary should take second chair. She will never be President if that happens. She will be old news, (and too old) in eight years to be a viable candidate. If she isn't at the top of the ticket she shouldn't accept it. Obama will likely loose the general election now that some of his bling has been tarnished. Stay the course and if she doesn't get Florida and Michigan in her corner, then wait for another four years in the Senate and try again.
That would be a big mistake for Obama. There are too many people who despise Hillary. Winning in November will be all about winning the independent voters, and they will run screaming from Hillary and head toward McCain. That's just the facts.
Obama is strong enough to win the presidency on his own. Our country is ready for positive change and Obama's ready to deliver it. He is a uniter, Hillary is a divider. In terms of readiness, Obama admits he plans to work with top advisors (don't all presidents?). Hillary would never admit she needs to work with anybody, reminding us of her failed first attempt at "Hillarycare".
Let Hillary take her grumpy, stubborn politics back to Arkansas. I'd support an Obama/Clinton ticket, but only if it was Bill.
A joint ticket would be great. I'd take it either way but I do worry about how Obama will handle the upcoming scrutiny he's finally slated for. The media is already saying how uncomfortable he is taking the hard questions. They're even saying they've been soft on him!! At least with Hillary you already know what the baggage is.
Hillary for pres. Obama VP