Historical Context of "Dream Ticket"

With all this talk about whether Sen. Barack Obama should pick Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running-mate, I thought I might provide some historical context on the subject.

Now, I am not saying whether or not Obama should pick Clinton--there are many, many positives and many, many negatives that come along with picking her--and I believe that she is his second best choice. But these two historical examples will demonstrate how picking Clinton might be an asset for Obama.

In the 1960 Democratic primaries, the two main contenders were Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Kennedy was dogged by Democratic party elders as being too young and inexperienced--much like Obama was--and that he should be a running-mate for a more experienced Democrat, such as Johnson, who had 24 years of experience and was a hotshot in the Senate--much like Clinton is today.

Anyway, the two competed hard against each others in the primaries, and clearly disliked each other--many suspect that Obama and Clinton are not fond of each other as well. But when Kennedy got the nomination, he surprised everyone by asking Johnson to be his running-mate.

Johnson turned out to be an excellent running-mate by campaigning vigorously for JFK and was instrumental in carrying states that Kennedy could not have carried otherwise, namely Texas. The pair went on to beat Richard Nixon in the general election.

Many believe that Clinton would campaign vigorously for Obama in the general election if she was chosen as his running-mate, and that she would make states like Ohio and Florida much more competitive-- states that he would have had a harder time carrying without her. In that respect, Clinton could help Obama in the electoral college in the same way that Johnson helped Kennedy.

The other example I want to share with you is about the 1964 Republican primaries. At that time, the Republican Party was deeply divided between its conservative base, and its more moderate faction.

Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona was the champion of the conservative base of the party, while Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York was the champion of the moderates. In a bitterly divided primary season that came down to California, Goldwater won by a small margin and became the presumptive nominee.

The 1964 Republican National Convention was extremely bitter, and both factions of the party openly expressed their contempt for each other. At the convention, Goldwater picked relatively unknown Rep. William Miller of New York as his running-mate. As a result, Rockefeller and other moderates refused to endorse Goldwater and did not campaign for him.

Some moderates even created a "Republicans for Johnson" organization. Goldwater should have picked Rockefeller for VP, who had a strong national following and could have united the party. Goldwater ended up losing to Johnson in a landslide in the general election.

This could be the nightmare scenario of the Democrats this year if Obama does not pick Clinton as his running-mate. Obama--who is seen as more liberal than Clinton--might need to pick Clinton--who is more moderate--to unite the two factions of the party.

Several "Democrats for McCain" organizations have already been created since Clinton dropped out last week. If this in-party fighting continues, the Democratic National Convention could be a disaster, like it was in '64. Clinton has a huge national following and millions of supporters--just like Rockefeller did, so the potential for a party rift is there.

Obama could learn from Goldwater's mistake and pick her to unite the party, so he won't lose in a landslide like Goldwater did.