Unity Pledge

by emptypockets

Watching the Democratic debate, what strikes me most is how hard Clinton and Obama need to work to find a difference between them. And when they finally do differ, their views are more often complementary than dissonant -- they agree on the problems, and just have different ideas about how best to implement a solution. What's more, I feel like there's a genuine rapport between them that's developed over the campaign.

Compare that with the fire and the fury of the Republican debates, where from the first question candidates couldn't agree on as basic a question as whether Americans are better off now than they were 8 years ago, and often came to verbal blows personally. They're a mess.

The power of the Democratic ticket is clear not only in the debates, but in the fund-raising and turnout data for the campaigns and primaries so far. Americans are excited about getting rid of Bush/Cheney and getting one of these two into office. The point I'm building up to is that I'm wondering what the effect on the campaign would be if Obama and Clinton pledged to pick the runner-up as their vice-president.

Now, as I write this post, Blitzer just asked the same question, which is enough to make me think it's a terrible idea. And the candidates of course said they wouldn't rule it out (what else could they say?). But I still want to open it for discussion. Its effect on who would continue to vote in the primaries and who the eventual nominee is are one side of it. I'm more interested in how it will effect the tone of the remaining debates and the media messages in the months leading up to the convention.

If the two jointly announced a "Unity Pledge" before Super Tuesday -- a guarantee they will both be on the ticket in some order -- would they be more effective at distancing themselves as a pair from the other side? If they don't, will they necessarily devolve into more pettiness as the convention draws nearer (assuming their delegate counts stay neck-and-neck), or can the collegial tone they've (mostly) set so far survive on its own?

Comments

[Sara]

I really don't believe an O/C or an C/O ticket would work. If Obama comes out ahead, he will need a VP who brings compliments to the ticket, perhaps clear military and/or diplomatic experience, (particularly if McCain is the R) -- my suggestions would be Senator Webb or Wes Clark, and Hillary is going to need someone who stands out against Bill, and is willing to put that difference into play. Richardson maybe, but I don't know if he could show adequate bright difference from Bill.

Chris Matthews put out a good idea today, one that I have been entertaining, Make John Edwards Secretary of Labor, and let him use the perch to work on his poverty issues. From Mine Safety inforcement to making it easier to organize labor, he could lead big things, and hopefully do it semi-independent of WH Staff, and in full public view. I particularly like the notion of a Southerner at DOL.

But if it is Obama, I am particularly interested in putting Webb in the VP slot. It would put the border states in play, and maybe even Florida. Even Hillary could benefit with Webb -- and I doubt if he would play shy around Bill.

[emptypockets]

That's an interesting point of view. My reason for thinking they would work well together as a ticket is because they could present such a united front. But I see your thinking that their similarity could, in fact, be a weakness.

The underlying question is how effective it is to bring geographic or other diversity to a ticket. My instincts are that people are looking for a pair who seem to genuinely enjoy each other and play off each other's strengths, and issues of balance come second (or lower). A ticket that feels like Thelma and Louise, or Butch and Sundance, may resonate more in the public imagination than the Odd Couple.

But in the end it's a case-by-case question -- for a candidate like George W Bush, with glaring deficiencies in foreign policy and government (and so much else), he needed someone like Cheney, not another puppydog like Quayle, to give him balance and cover his (many) weak points. I don't see either Obama or Clinton having that kind of glaring deficiency, particularly on military issues, though on the other hand the right wing hasn't really begun to belittle them yet... and if they could generate the myth that Kerry was weak on defense, I'd be foolish to think Clinton or Obama were invincible.

[Carolyn in Baltimore]

I remember in West Wing, the admin had to watch out for a VP who had ambitions and would sabotage things at inopportune times. Could be bad,
That said, solidifying the ticket now and having both constituencies happy could make a lot of sense, in addition to saving a lot of powder and money for the general campaign to come.