(HOST) There has been much talk this week about a so-called dream ticket – Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama – to represent the Democrats in this year’s Presidential election. This morning commentator Barrie Dunsmore, who covered American politics as well as foreign affairs for ABC news for more than thirty years, offers his analysis.
(DUNSMORE) Both Senators Obama and Clinton have, for now, poured cold water on the rampant speculation earlier this week that they might join together on a single ticket – with the top of that ticket to be determined. Actually, Obama very nearly slammed the door shut on such a notion because he saw it as a Clinton ploy to relegate him to the vice-presidency. Considering the fact that he leads her in states won, pledged delegates and the popular vote, Obama and his supporters are offended by what they consider Clinton’s arrogance and condescension. Frankly, I don’t blame them. However, I also don’t blame Clinton for trying – because her chances for the nomination would seem to depend on it.
After more than forty primaries and caucuses this year, one thing has been firmly established: the Democratic Party is now roughly evenly divided between Obama and Clinton supporters. Better educated, higher income whites and the vast majority of blacks and young people have consistently voted for Obama. Working class whites, older women and Hispanics have mainly voted for Clinton. Barring an unforeseen event, that trend can be expected to continue in the remaining primaries. If so, neither candidate will be able to attain the 2025 delegates needed for the nomination. That means the approximately 300 superdelegates who have not yet committed will end up deciding who gets the nomination.
There is nothing wrong with that. The whole idea of having superdelegates, who are elected officials and party leaders, was to enable them to offer a mature political judgment as to which candidate gives the Democratic Party the best chance to win in November. But, given that so many of Obama’s supporters are young, new to politics and highly committed to his inspirational message, they are the ones most likely to feel cheated if superdelegates make Clinton the nominee. That said, the party pros don’t want to make a decision that will alienate Obama’s supporters and risk losing their enthusiasm and perhaps even their votes.
It was to counter this kind of thinking that Clinton began to broadly hint that the problem of keeping Obama’s supporters on board could be resolved by making him her running mate. It is highly impertinent, but in the end it’s probably be the only way she can wrest the nomination from him.
Clinton’s fortunes aside, a dream ticket, with either candidate on top, actually makes a good deal of political sense for the Democrats. Whatever their personal animosities, having both Obama and Clinton on the ticket would cement a coalition of voters that could be unbeatable in November. So I suspect that in the long weeks ahead, as the primary season rolls on and on, the dream ticket subject will not go away.
There are few historical precedents for such a marriage of convenience, but it’s too early to rule it out completely. In a year when either an African-American or a woman will be the Democratic Party’s nominee, precedents don’t count for much.