So let's say it's May or June and there's no clear winner of the Democratic nomination battle and Howard Dean steps in to make a deal. It's a plausible scenario. 

After all, Josh Marshall has done the delegate math and doesn't come away encouraged that a winner will be selected by the normal voting process alone. He writes:<blockquote>. And in thinking through our reporting -- post-Super Tuesday -- the big story to me really seems to be the fact that the conventional nomination process may well not generate a winner. That could certainly end up happening. But proportional allocation of delegates is going to make it difficult for one side or another to put his or her opponent away. And the margin of overall delegate 'victory' stands a good chance of being smaller than the number of uncommitted super delegates. That would mean a de facto old-style nomination process. </blockquote>

Second, DNC Chairman Howard Dean has said that he will be a deal-maker to avoid a messy fight at the Democratic party convention:
<blockquote>"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,” he said.

If there is no nominee selected by his predicted mid-spring date, or by Puerto Rico's June vote – the last presidential primary on the Democratic calendar – Dean said the party would likely bring both sides together to work out a deal.</blockquote>

But what sort of deal would make sense? There are rules in place that govern how the process works. The candidates have followed the rules. Why would either party agree to change the rules in mid-stream? If both Obama and Clinton finish the primary season without a clear margin of victory (i.e., a margin that cannot be overcome by the votes of the superdelegates), then why should either cede a fight that could give them the top of the ticket?

The likeliest deal would probably to run some sort of Democratic Unity ticket (Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton). Both candidates are liked by the base of the party (polls out of Super Tuesday showed that more than 70 percent of voters would be happy with either candidate.) But who would go on top?

I submit that there's one possible solution that might attract the support of both parties without overly disturbing their supporters or creating an overly contentious convention fight. Here's the scenario: <I>Dean gets both candidates to agree that (a) after all the votes are counted according to the previously agreed upon rules, the winner of the majority will become the presidential nominee, and (b) the second-place winner will become the vice-presidential nominee. </i>

Neither Clinton nor Obama would choose such a strange situation if they were left free to pursue their own self-interest. But giving John McCain all summer to attack the Democrats while Clinton and Obama tear away at each other isn't a recipie for success. So in the interest of party unity, I imagine that both candidates might be amenable to securing a deal that would allow them (a) the security of knowing they will definitely be on the ticket, and (b) the comfort of knowing that the final outcome will be determined not as a result of brokering or negotiating but according to the will of the delegates.

A same-ticket deal would be in the best interest of the party. From the time the deal is struck (probably in May or June), it would liberate both candidates to begin the fall campaign season knowing that they will be running on either a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. By working with the DNC to plan a convention schedule agreeable to both parties, they would prove that they could work together. And by campaigning together in June, July, and August, they would be able to shift gears to attacking the Republican nominee instead of each other. The enormous enthusiasm that has brought out legions of new Democratic voters would not only be maintained, but perhaps even augmented by the suspense of not knowing which candidate would wind up on the top of the ticket.

In such a deal, the convention would become great theater. Instead of the usual sort of coronation of two predetermined nominees, it would be a contest to see the order that each will run on the ticket. It would be a great humbling for either person to agree to take the second-place finish, but such humbling would be made easier by knowing that the other is also willing to make the same sacrifice.

Some folks would argue that Obama should agree to a vice presidential slot on the ticket because he's paid fewer dues in the party and is younger and therefore able to run again. However, Obama would be unlikely to agree to such a compromise. He would almost certainly view it as a betrayal of his supporters and his own message that he is uniquely capable of being able to effect change. Insisting that Obama play second fiddle would be insulting, and it would be disaster for his future career to agree to settle for anything less than a full fight.

Others might object to a same ticket deal by arguing that (a) Clinton is unlikely to agree to be a vice presidential nominee, or (b) Clinton would be a poor vice presidential choice for Obama because she's a polarizing figure. However, these arguments miss the point. Of course, an Obama/Clinton ticket would probably be nobody's first choice, not Obama's and certainly not Clinton's. But by agreeing that she will take the vice presidential spot if she's not the nominee, she could still make history ... and prove her willingness to subordinate her own aspirations for the good of the party as a whole.

A sideshow in the deal will also involve the fate of the Florida and Michigan votes. How and whether to acknowledge these votes will have to be determined according to party rules, probably at the DNC meeting in July. But a same-ticket deal could be engineered in advance, with neither Clinton nor Obama knowing exactly how these votes will be handled.

The bottom line: if both Clinton and Obama agree to run on the same ticket and let the delegates choose who goes on top, everyone could come out a winner.