By Zenitha Prince

Washington Bureau Chief

Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been touting the idea of a Clinton-Obama “dream team” But earlier this week, Obama made the strongest argument against such a proposed arrangement.

“I want everybody to be absolutely clear,” he told a cheering crowd in Columbus, Miss., “I’m not running for vice president, I’m running for president.”

He explained why he should be at the top of the ticket.

“I’ve won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, I’ve won more of the popular vote [and] I’ve won more delegates,” he said. “I don’t know how someone who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to someone who’s in first place.”

But that’s exactly what supporters of the so-called dream team idea are favoring.

“…she is trying to make herself look good by adopting the attitude of, ‘Poor little fella, I’m going to take him under my wing since he doesn’t have the experience that I have,’”

“I would argue that because of age, Clinton should be at the top but with a big giveback—to serve only one term,” Bonnie Erbe, host of a weekly TV program on PBS, wrote in her weekly syndicated column. “With that magic number of 2,025 (the Democratic delegates needed to clinch the nomination) still far off for either candidate, the last thing the party needs is a bruising, expensive, nasty fight between two candidates appealing to different segments of the party's coalition.”

In the parlance of a televised exchange between Obama and Clinton, the Illinois senator denounced and rejected Clinton’s offer to make him her vice president, saying it was an attempt to “bamboozle” and “hoodwink” voters.

Clinton brought up the idea of a Clinton-Obama “dream team” during her round of talk shows after her March 4 wins in Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio.

"Well, you know, that may be where this is headed," Clinton told CBS' morning anchor Harry Smith. "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

But, as Obama pointed out, voters in twice as many states believe it should be Obama.

Much has been made of Ohio being a bellwether state. However, Obama won Missouri, a bellwether state that has voted for the winning presidential candidate in the general election every year since 1904 except 1956, when it picked Adlai Stevenson from neighboring Illinois over Dwight D. Eisenhower.

U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., national co-chair of Obama campaign, said he thought Clinton was being presumptuous and “insulting” and that this was  another campaign ploy to vault ahead of the front-runner.

“I was trying to figure out what her angle was and it makes no sense except she is trying to make herself look good by adopting the attitude of, ‘Poor little fella, I’m going to take him under my wing since he doesn’t have the experience that I have,’” Cummings said.

 “She says he is not experienced to be president but she would make him vice president, which is a heartbeat away from being president? I mean, come on.”

Some African-Americans, torn between voting for Obama or Clinton, view the “dream ticket” as an ideal compromise.

“I think we’d be good—women would vote for Hillary and we ( Blacks) would vote for Obama –  it would be a good combination,” said Bernadine Baylor, 75, who voted for Clinton.

Joe Huggins, 31, an Obama supporter, said: “I think a lot of people would more likely vote for the two of them, even people who wouldn’t normally vote Democratic. They complement each other – she is divisive but he tends to bring people together,” he said.

The media, political analysts and even Fidel Castro have touted the idea of a brokered compromise as a plum deal for the Democrats, who are hungry for a win after eight years of a Republican White House. Clinton, potentially the first female president of the United States, with her coterie of women, Latino and low-income supporters, and Obama, the first African-American candidate with a realistic shot at the White House and his contingent of educated, Black and young voters will be a match made in heaven. If not heaven, Washington, D.C.

Additionally, such a union may go a long way towards healing the wounds inflicted in a race that has grown increasingly negative.

“Bill and Hillary Clinton have held this out as a plum to the Democratic Party, who faces a very difficult problem because whoever loses, their supporters could feel alienated,” said political analyst Ronald Walters. “And so they may see this as a way to go into the fall campaign united.”

The pairing of presidential rivals is nothing new. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did it. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson did it and even John Kerry and John Edwards.

Walters says he is “skittish” about a Clinton-Obama matchup, however, because it “challenges America’s race and gender biases at the same time.”

Walters question the wisdom of an Obama-Clinton ticket, with Obama at the top.

.

“Clinton is a liability because she has attracted the ire of many people, especially conservative Republicans,” Walters said. “She, more than anyone, would mobilize the Republican base. So if he wins, he would do much better by choosing someone less controversial.”

Josh Raysor, 23, is one voter who Democrats would chase away if Clinton appeared at the top of the ticket.

He said, “I would be fine with Obama-Clinton but not Clinton-Obama because she’s shown herself to be dishonest and if she’s at the top of the ticket, I’d probably vote for Ralph Nader instead.”