From the column: Analysis of a potential Obama-Clinton ticket

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: May 25, 2008

Although both camps denied it, talk surfaced over the last part of the week that Barack Obama’s people were reaching out to Hillary Clinton’s people about the potential for her to run as his No. 2. Bill Clinton is even lobbying hard for his wife.

Of course, that was all before Friday, when Hillary reminded everyone that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968.

So if the question had been whether Obama and Clinton could work together because of the acrimony that has sometimes characterized their contest, the question now is whether the two could work together because one off-handedly suggested that the other might be murdered.

Um ... awkward!

Anyway, the good folks at Politico.com have drawn a thumbnail sketch for us of “Why the Obama-Clinton ticket is nuts ... and why it isn’t nuts.“

So, here’s why Politico says the alliance is crazy:

1. Obama is too cool.  Clinton “would undercut the most fundamental appeal of Barack Obama’s candidacy: freshness, change, transformation,“ and Obama possesses “a kind of sublime self-confidence” that keeps him from being “bullied” into the pick, Politico says.

2. Clinton is too proud. Clinton still has a bright political future beyond the August Democratic National Convention. “Why would she diminish herself by taking a position that is, by constitutional design and practical reality, all about subordination and taking hits for the team?“ Politico wonders.

3. They would lose. An Obama-Clinton ticket “would combine two polarizing figures who reinforce each other’s vulnerabilities,“ Politico says; Republicans would pick up both anti-Clinton and anti-Jeremiah Wright voters.

4. They would win. The specter of the I-used-to-be president and the I-wanted-to-be president roaming the West Wing and the EEOB, constantly looking over Obama’s shoulder, should be enough to convince him to look elsewhere for a VP. But Politico has another—ahem, creative—reason; click on the link for more.

5. “Too much rainbow,“ as Politico says: “In some ways, the coverage of the Democratic race and the way Obama and Clinton both quickly raced to the front of the pack have dulled people to just how much both the candidacies of a black man and white woman will challenge old prejudices among many voters,“ it says. Obama will be “looking to reassure people who can accept some change but not too much.“

But, as Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast, my friend!“ Five reasons Politico says the skeptics may be wrong:

1. It’s not his choice. More than 16 million people have voted for Clinton in primary contests—including many from demographics where Obama’s support base has been less than stellar. “There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans,“ Politico says.

2. It’s a character test for him. Obama may not like Clinton, but unfriendly politicians forging alliances for political gain is hardly unprecendented. “Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is,“ Politico says.

3. The Sicilian hug. Enough said.

4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. An Obama-Clinton merger would join nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party and support them with the most potent fundraising operation in history, Politico says, and that’s not all: With regard to campaign infrastructure, like county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., “Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.“

5. She’d take the job — and be good at it. Clinton’s self-described “responsibility gene” means “she’d work hard and do well,“ Politico notes; she would be both an on-message partner in the fall and a “smart and effective adviser” thereafter.

What do you think? Do the pros of picking Clinton outweigh the cons for Obama, or vice versa?

And if it isn’t Clinton, whom should Obama choose, and why?