Submitted by Andy, Feb 8, 2008 15:03

Contrary to some of the comments above, I've not heard the media mention an Obama/Clinton ticket in the last few months. I thought "what if" on my own and hit the Internet to see what was about there. Seems that bloggers are the only ones speculating, so I don't think the media is fabricating anything on this.

Also, of course candidates currently running for president are going to hedge when asked whether they'd accept a VP nomination. Ironically, in this country, admitting that you've even considered the possibility that things won't work out in your favor is viewed as an admission that you don't think they should work out. So, rather than "read between the lines" to divine what someone I don't know is subjectively thinking about his/her own future, I am choose not to read to much in what a person currently running for president says about his/her willingness to be second-bannana on a ticket. The real question is what will he/she say when the declared nominee asks him/her to be VP and when he/she is no longer "currently running."

As for the rest, the possibility is just too intriguing. Of course, there are political obstacles to putting two current adversaries under the same banner, but the PARTY is not as divided as some would believe. Of all the polls about how white-women-over-65 and black-men-under-30 are voting, there was one interesting number that came out of Super Tuesdays coverage that received virtually no attention. The Democtratic party is split about 50/50 on either Obama or Clinton, BUT about 70%+ of the Democratic voters in each camp would be satisfied if their candidate didn't win. That tells me that, contrary to what the pundits are saying, the PARTY and its voters will unite behind either Obama or Clinton. They certainly would unite behind BOTH. The advantages of a ticket are just too many to list, and if both of them were as smart as I think they are, they will have to look long and hard at their personal reasons for dismissing what would be a great opportunity for both of them.

Since Hillary is in the lead right now, let's talk about the advantages for Obama that would come with being on a Clinton/Obama ticket. The man one is that he's a young man taking a very early swing at the presidency. It's a helluva swing, don't get me wrong, but he's got plenty of chances. Also, the ONLY real criticism that anyone can levy against Obama is his lack of experience. They can't touch his character. He's probably one of the best speakers I've ever heard. The ONLY thing that's holding him back is the experience issue. But-for that, he'd be way ahead of Hillary in delegates I think. Eight years as VP would kill any such criticism, and it would be eight years in an administration whose policies are virtually identical to him. Come 2016, Obama would be untouchable. Of course, an 8-year Clinton presidency could hurt Obama if we see the same kind of scandal-ridden-presidency-under-the-microscope-of-the-right-wing that we had with BIll. In the end, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, he'd be foolish to reject a VP spot. My only hope is that Hillary will be smart enough to ask.

As for Hillary as VP assuming Obama wins, that's a little different. First, he doesn't need her as much as she needs him. In fact, a good argument could be made that she would hurt him. Nonetheless, she's got a lot of support from the dems and polls still show her beating the Republican candidates. So, the reality is that she will help more than hurt. When it comes to whether she'd accept, I think she'd be far more stubborn about it. Hillary's ego is far too big for her to put personal feelings aside and accept second-prize, which is unfortunate.

Point is. It is a possibility. The "there's NO way because I've read between the lines" argument is not persuasive, especially when one looks at the very real and very substantial benefits of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. In any event, if either candidate is so stubborn to not even consider the possibility once his/her race is run and done, then he/she will be a victim of his/her own foolish pride. Either ticket would be historic (even above and beyond its current significance), and both could go down in history as pioneers. Would you really give up a place in history and a chance to do good for your country simply because you wouldn't like your boss personally (even if that is true)?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.