March 5th, 2008
11:45 AM ET
7 years ago

Clinton: This may be headed to a joint ticket

 Clinton said Wednesday the race may result in a joint ticket.
Clinton said Wednesday the race may result in a joint ticket.

(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

soundoff (916 Responses)
  1. Lou

    What is she dillusional. I congratulate the Clinton campaign for their wins last night but I think it is hardly a case for her being the top of the ticket when she can't win the most pledged delegates. She wants to let all the voters be heard, then let's do it but I think Axelrod made it pretty clear that if she continues with the character attacks that she can expect the same in return. Her negatives in the exit polls indicated that and she knows she can't win the general if she keeps that up.

    March 5, 2008 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  2. Tafoya A. Hubbard

    @Fav Obama is as much as an American as you and I. I am so glad to see Hillary finally acknowledge her supporters I guess yall only matter to her when she wins. Barack always thanks us win, lose or draw. Wow Hillary wins Ohio and is back to feeling entitled to being President. I DONT think so!!!

    YES WE CAN AND YES WE WILL!!!!!!!!!!

    March 5, 2008 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  3. Justin

    Obama-Mathematician '08

    A Ticket I can believe in.

    Clinton is still losing and it's almost impossible for her to win the pledged delegates over Obama.

    March 5, 2008 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  4. Lu

    Mr. BO's wife has a mean face and attitude. She can not represent this country as First Lady. For that, Mr. BO got to go!

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  5. randy

    Ah, the Clinton people make me giggle a little. Hilary can not win the nomination with out a deal with superdelegates, which if course she would make. That is her kind of poltics. I voted Obama in Virginia and will never vote a Clinton ticket.... if she plays her games my vote is going to be
    McCain 2008

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  6. Dan, NJ

    Clinton cannot win elected delegates.

    Clinton is funded by special interests (and possibly foreign interests... where are those tax returns?)

    Yesterday was a vicotry for Obama the same way Super Tuesday was. The media misreported that as they are misreporting this.

    Obama needs to stand up and announce this thing is over and he appreciates HRC's desire to be his VP but there are many capable candidates.

    AND THE PARTY LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO LEAD. PELOSI SAID THE WINNER OF ELECTED DELEGATES MUST WIN. THAT IS NOW APPARENT. TIME TO GET THE DEMS IN LINE BEFORE WE SELF DESTRUCT.

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  7. Chris

    ============
    "I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

    Ummm… yeah and the people of the last 12 states very clearly said that it should be Obama. Way to discount them!
    ============

    I'd be happy about either arrangement of a joint ticket, but her comment is legitimate. Ohio is one of the most prescient, bellwether states. No president since 1964 has been elected without winning Ohio.

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  8. "Keeping it real"

    Fav said thank God Hillary won. The truth is that God allowed this to happen. It's called "His permissive will". It works together to bring about His "perfect will". Even the devil is given his due. Be very careful what you ask God for. You just might "get it". Get it?!

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  9. ldmeyers55

    Also, Hillary states she has 35 years experience.........well she is only 60 did she start as soon as she left college?

    Obama campaign need to start examing what she says. And Americans need to start making her accountable for her statements.

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  10. NY

    Obama's supporters need to stop. If you look at the data, in every single state practically that Clinton has won and lost, she won a large amount of voters who called themselves, democrats.

    Obama usually wins because he gets a large chunch of independents and republicans.

    In the Ohio and Texas primaries, she cut into is independent lead.

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  11. Angel

    How can Senator Clinton make such a claim when she's run such a negative campaign against Senator Obama?

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  12. Sean

    The media is the biggest culprit in this event.The argument between HIllary and Obama has generated billions of dollars by adding: additonal talk shows,bringing on special guests, billions generated from different sponsors,sponsors who pay more because of the larger listening audiences is the cause of the conflict between Hillary and Obama.It was not in their finiacial interest for this to end.Hince the need to repeat undocumented facts ,untrue accusations and unproven communications.They knew this would result in a continue low financial gain because the uninformed would make the wrong decision.Let us refocus disappointment to the Hillary and the media.If she wins the nomination this is one democrat who will not be voting.

    March 5, 2008 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  13. tina

    clinton sure knows how to manipulate dems,you guys are so dumb,how can someone who is behind in delegate pick a vp.
    what a joke.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  14. Brian-Trinidad

    No way Jose! The Messiah's true nature is now being uncovered,it's clear that his ego is way too big to be on a ticket with a natural scene-stealer like Senator Clinton.If he's the nominee,he'll select a wax figurine of himself as the VP.Anyways, it's a foregone conclusion that he will get waxed by McCain.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  15. PS

    Being VP to Hillary would not be a popular position to anyone. I would not even want it!

    She's not very likeable.

    Clinton's highest winning margin is only 10 points. Obama's smallest margin is 17 points. Clinton one only won three in a row; Obama won 12 in a row. It looks like he does much better than she.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  16. David Solomon

    I am disguested with the media and Clintons the way they go negative on Obama! Tony Rizkois a supporter for Obama and for Cllintons as well. Why is the media consenterating only on Obama? and What did Clinton do in Walmart to help poor community? Ofcourse the media job is to keep the Clintons happy and to cover their taxes and scandels! This discourage me from politics for ever!

    It looks to me the media is a special interest for Clintons!

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  17. Mike O

    Would Obama want a VP 'Team'? Would Michelle Obama- with her excessive fears- want Hillary Clinton 'one heartbeat away' from the Presidency?

    Would Obama want to be VP for 8 years, then have to fight as the 'status quo' candidate, defending the continuence?

    Would both prefer to have an unencumbered shot in 4 years, since either alone stands a good chance of losing to the 'Maverick'? Making that determination would be putting personal ambition ahead of Party: The Clintons certainly have the history for it; Barack's capacitt for such is unknown.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  18. Maggie

    We saw Obama yesterday under fire from the press...8 questions...... and a minor melt down with the press asking him 8 questions?

    That is not a leader! If he can't handle the press now, what will he do "if he became the President?

    Do the right thing, VOTE HILLARY. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll turn to the "dark" side and vote for McCain. I am sad to say it, but Obama will DESTROY our country from the White House.

    WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!!

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  19. F.T.

    I would support an Obama /Clinton ticket. I think that they can compliment each others perceived deficiencies. The individual with the most delegates should be at the top of the ticket. Hillary should also revisit her negative attack strategy for this to be plausible.

    At this point in the game, I do think that they need each other. It will be too late if they continue into the convention to announce running mates and be competitive against the Republicans.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  20. Angelica11

    TO Dick Pittenger:

    YES. It is true if Hillary is not on ticket, John Mccain will have landslide victory.

    As per RASMUSSEN report s,
    IN NJ,

    MCCain VS OBama ; Mccain wins by 3%
    McCain vs. Clinton: Hillary wins by 11%.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  21. David Lauder

    Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island – thank you for raising your voices above the media. Hillary '08

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  22. Austin

    "Wisdom comes w/ age?" "Listen to your elders Obamnite children?"

    You're not serious are you? The reason we're in this mess is because the Baby Boomers sold the country for their own greed and ambitions. It's time for the old gaurd to step a side and give the younger ones a chance to correct your mistakes.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  23. George

    If Obama is not on top of the ticket, I will not vote for Clinton. I'm not the only one that feel this way. I might even vote for McCain.

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  24. Brenda Waters

    WHAT ARROGANCE!

    Also, as an Irish National I take strong issue with Senator Clinton claiming her participation in the Peace talks leading to peace in Northern Ireland – as she indicated in an interview shown on CNN this morning. I am FULLY au fait with all the talks – SHE PLAYED NO PART WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!.Does anyone really think she would sit down with terrorists, given her response to the question on meeting with leaders not aligned with the US?

    Further, when asked to indicate just one time she got "a 3am in the morning call requiring her to make a judgment" – she rabbitted on about Kosova, refugees in Africa, foreign Committee meetings, Northern Ireland!!!, and again her visits to 80 countries, etc, etc – she could not give a simple answer to a simple question?

    Also, as a former wife of a very high-level Government official, I too accompanied my husband to somewhat '80' countries, and can confirm – one is there to be seen and not heard. One follows a separate programme while your husband holds discussions with world leaders and high-Government officials. You are used for photo shoots and attend dinners. You cannot voice any personal opinion, show any emotion; just 'grin and bear it!

    GET A LIFE SENATOR RODHAM – AND GET OFF YOUR HUSBAND's COAT-TAILS – and stand alone, and then be counted as I did!

    Brenda Elizabeth Cowley-Waters (Maiden name)
    Paris/London/Dublin/EU

    March 5, 2008 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  25. Terry

    I see that a lot of people do not like the idea that Hillary went "negative" in order to win. First, I don't believe she went negative. If you want to see negative, go back and look at ads in the 60's (nuclear explosions included), then remember Walter Mondale's "Where's the beef" (truly a legitimate argument to pose to Obama as well), then look at the Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter primary–it was obvious that they hated each other.

    Pointing out Obama's lack of experience in crisis management is completely legitimate. Also, lack of foreign policy experience, lack of domestic economic experience, lack of any experience that would qualify him as a commander in chief are all completely legitimate distinctions. We're not electing "best friend" here, we're electing the POTUS.

    The woeful lack of all these experiences highlights the truth that Bill Clinton was right when he said that Obamas campaign is a fairy tale. He should never have entered the race when he only had 2 years of Senate experience.

    Hillary was put into the position of running against a man that is the sweetheart of the cable news channels–a couple of them literally became the Obama channels 24/7. If she is going to be unfairly up against both Obama and 2 cable channels, then she's got to put an edge to her tactics–it's the only way to even remotely level the playing field.

    March 5, 2008 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37