Interesting results from a new Newsweek poll. In light of Hillary Clinton’s three-state surge last week, she’s once again in a dead heat with Barack Obama. The poll shows Obama ahead 45%-44%, which is a tie. Nor is there at present any significant difference as to who would run stronger against McCain:
In a test election, there Obama beat McCain 46 percent to 45 percent, and Clinton triumphed 48 percent to 46 percent.
Of much more interest to me is that a huge majority of Democrats — 69% — want to see both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket. Bill likes the idea too, speaking much more strongly in favor of it than even Hillary has so far. Obama and his surrogates remain largely mum on the topic, AFAIK.
I still like my idea of the candidates committing to it now, and using the rest of the process to sort out the order. With the process running for as long as it’s going to run — and really, there’s no end in sight, is there? — it’s going to be profoundly disappointing to the supporters of either candidate if that candidate is shut out of the race. And, since both candidates have about the same number of supporters, why go there? Why not keep them all engaged and energized?
UPDATE: It’s being widely reported that Obama has “ruled out” being the VP candidate on a unity ticket, because of these comments:
Q: … Could you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Senator Clinton?
A: Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate — you know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count — but you know, what I’m really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country.
Don’t worry about it. John Edwards made the same kinds of comments in 2004. Everything is still on the table.
and have been for it for some time. they both obviously appeal to hugely wide swaths of the electorate. of course, since they are so similar, neither can make up for what the other lacks in certain departments. national security is always the item that is mentioned here. but i wonder whether that matters since between them they draw all the dems, and obama in particular attracts many indies and some republicans. the only leftovers for mccranky are the segment of republicans who can stomach him. he may come up with a great VP candidate to make up for some of what he lacks, but i honestly can’t envision anyone he can team up with that will create such a huge swell of excitment for the gop that clinton and obama have for the dems.
Remember how happy everyone was when Kerry selected Edwards after all the “pressure” to do so? How did that work out?
<
p>This is not a workable idea. The country would be better off with the “loser” getting a top post in the Senate, because whoever is VP would do nothing.
<
p>Playing it out a bit more, let’s think if Barack were VP. We’d have 4 or 8 years of assumptions that he’d be waiting to run. If Hillary is VP, it’d be 4 or 8 years of background/off the record stories about how stifled the Obama people are making her feel.
<
p>It’s just not politically realistic.
If Barack gets top slot, it just engenders hostiltiy in every middle aged woman who has watched some bright young thing that SHE taught his job get promoted over her head as more ‘viable’, ‘in touch’…
<
p>If Hillary gets top slot, Barack wakes up to nightmares about how ‘waiting your turn’ and helping the party worked out for John Edwards.
<
p>’course, it’s OK with ME if you pursue this…
clinton will not agree to the vp slot unless the voters have left her no alternative. thus if she willingly agrees to take it, case closed.
<
p>as for your 2nd point, dick cheney has shown us how busy and effective on can be while “waiting your turn”. the post of vp need not be 4 years of marking time.
<
p>and finally, regarding edwards – he never was so popular in 2004 as are both clinton and obama now. there just is no valid comparison. and kerry was a suck-ass candidate, whereas both clinton and obama are fiery leaders. just no comparison.
<
p>hey PP, how about the rumor that mccain will choose sleepy-eyed fred thompson as his running mate to appease the fundies? i’d advise against it, but i support you completely if that is your choice.
In fact, I think there is almost no chance of that happening or it being offered. If you say you are ready from day one but you are standing behind the guy you said was not, seems a little silly.
<
p>It would only happen if Hillary convinces superdels to go with her and they beg Obama to join the ticket. It won’t happen the other way around and at this point Obama is ahead and will probably end up that way by end of primaries so he will not likely feel obliged to bow down unless he knows he is cooked in Denver.
<
p>I tend to think we will see where this wild race takes us through June and at that point this unity thing may become a pressing issue.
The Clintons are only using this “partnership” ruse – and it is just that – to persuade all those new voters who like Obama to come over to their side. Hillary would never accept VP position and she would not chose Obama as her VP. For his part, Obama would never be her VP and would be foolish to select her as his. He would be better off selecting an older man with military, legislative or diplomatic experience – Anthony Zinni, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Jim Webb or George Mitchell.
<
p>Clinton has already announced that Obama is “not ready” to be president. She might as well tell people that she will put McCain on the ticket. She seems to consider him more qualified than Obama for the office. This is pure politics on the Clintons’ part. It has nothing to do with reality.
I do not think Senator Clinton would take a VP position in the administration of a less qualified person. Why would she? She can do more a NY Senator.
<
p>But, I can see the value in publicly inferring that if she is Prez candidate, she would give first VP offer to Sen Obama. Whether he accepts it or not, it still lets his supporters know that she made the offer and was willing to take him on board. (ala Kennedy to Johnson)
…aside from being the nominee herself of course. Otherwise she will never again, I fear, be seen as the presumptive nominee. Kerry-Edwards is one example, but they came close and some argue should have contested Ohio. I was one of those pushing for that ticket in 2004, but I was hoping Edwards would continue to speak on the issues he spoke in his own campaign. I feel he was restrained by the Kerry side which is something I hope is not repeated this year. I prefer Clinton-Obama in that order, but if Obama is in second slot he needs to be free to speak with the same passion he has so far. Otherwise history will repeat itself. Of course Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan-Bush worked out quite nicely for those tickets.
<
p>As an aside, its interesting how since March 4th so many people are talking about this unity ticket. Before that I felt like I was the only one.
<
p>With all the Crashing Blimp celebrating going on consider this
<
p>With all due respect to others who have launched similar discussions at BMG this idea was obvious for a long time but since when did Politics and Sensibility ever come together when ambitious Egos get into the mix?
<
p>Yes, absolutely. I’m not sure how people are getting Obama “ruling out” being a VP in this comments. If he wanted to do that, he would have simply answered “no” to the question “could you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Senator Clinton?”. But he said instead that he’s not a VP candidate — no kidding. Who ever admits that they are running for VP. Besides, obviously he has at least as good a claim to the nomination as Clinton at this point, so why would he open the door to his being VP?
<
p>There’s no question that a unity ticket — either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton — became a lot more likely after March 4th.