It seems the most interesting issue coming out of Thursday night's democratic debate is not the definition of universal health care or whether a mandate is necessary or would work.  The Iraq war differences got mild buzz, but the entire Iraq issue seems on the back burner for our friends in the media.  The biggest buzz seems to be over the "Dream Ticket."  Political media critics will find this predictable and probably saw it coming when the question was asked in the first place.

Obviously, this is a rather silly question at this point in the campaign and it gets people away from the substance that can only be found within the Obama website or after people have left early from the Clinton question and answer period of her town hall meetings.  That said, since the media puts it center stage, it is likely to highlight some VP issues that exist for both campaigns.

For Obama, the dream ticket talk does not help his case that he is needed now.  The "he should wait his turn" or "we love what he say, but are not sure he is ready" crowds could find comfort in the dream ticket and it could be a coffee/barber/beauty shop buzz winner for Clinton.  There is a sense that many people, not obsessed with this campaign, like Clinton and Obama.  The dream ticket could be the best way to get 2 for 1.  With her being older and slightly ahead, the dream ticket talk today really means Obama as #2.

For Clinton, the dream ticket helps in the ways mentioned above, but raises some new issues.  First, the conventional wisdom is that Obama would never pick her if he is the nominee because she only motivates republicans to vote against her.  The more talk that gets, the more likely people start to ask if that is also true of her if she is the nominee and the electability issue comes up.  Second, if she does win, the conventional wisdom is that she has to pick Obama.  She will already have to unite a party and will be stuck with a forced choice or making her job uniting the party that much harder by passing on Obama.

The final issue the dream ticket conversation raises (I am sure there are more, but this is all I have) is that it highlights how hard it will be for Clinton to pick a vice president with her husband around.  The VP should be the second most powerful voice in the party during the general election campaign, but is it possible for anyone other than Obama to fulfill that roll for her?  Would he even want the trouble?   Am I the only person who thinks the image of the FPOTUS/Richardson Super Bowl gathering as the exact reason most people with a political future would want to avoid being her VP candidate.  When things are not going right, she calls in the enforcer to tell Richardson, a possible VP candidate, what he should do.  Would her VP be allowed to talk with her without him knowing or being involved?  I think there is a part of the party establishment that likes her more than him, but will a VP need to see him as her proxy at all times.  The co-presidency issue is not a winner for the Clintons.

On the whole, I think the dream ticket issue helps Clinton in the short term, but the more it helps now, the more likely she is set up with even greater disadvantages for the general election and with selecting an actual VP if she is the nominee.

If Super Tuesday is the virtual tie everyone thinks it will be, does the dream ticket talk go on for weeks to come?  Does the dream ticket talk become the new narrative the media grabs onto?  I hope not, but it looks possible and could have real implications for both candidates in determining who is the nominee and how that person moves forward in the general election.