Wednesday, 03.05.08
The Case for Obama-Clinton '08
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Obama and the OODA loop
05 March 2008
James Fallows admits that Clinton could still win, but not win well.
Take two
November 2006
Joshua Green reports on how Clinton transformed herself into a consummate Washington player.
Consider the unheralded virtues of an Obama-Clinton ticket. First, politics. Both durable, distinct factions of the Democratic party — united, and working at full throttle. McCain's national-security edge — blunted overnight. Obama's domestic-policy edge — sharpened instantly. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico — suddenly, much less a worry for Democrats.
Now, governing. Obama, by the admissible evidence of his own career, is not an executive. A Vice President Clinton would be a prime minister, tending to Congress and health care reform and trade agreements while Obama travels and inspires and thinks. She would tarnish none of Obama's luster; the qualities he embodies — that make him so attractive to Democrats here and, well, in the rest of the world — would be undiminished by the brass-balls first minister he chooses to get things done.
And then there is the personal. Would Clinton survive the humiliation? Could Bill be contained? Is Obama humble enough? The reality is that Clinton has earned something. Her millions of votes, the states she has won, the demographics she commands — Obama can't dismiss these. At some point, he will make a gesture. Why not the ultimate gesture?
Plant and turnFrank James says accepting a mixed ticket would require Hillary Clinton to execute a pivot worthy of Michael Jordan. |
Race is onPolls show a party riven by black/white divides, with voters who say race matters breaking overwhelmingly for Hillary. |
Premature obituariesJames Wolcott enjoys watching Hillary stymie news anchors' attempts to bury her campaign while it still breathes. |
MaydayJohn Dickerson says the Clinton campaign is no roller-coaster: it's a near plane crash. |
(51)
I can't see him offering it to her unless he is forced to in order to save the party from her fighting tooth and nail all convention long. I don't see how she helps him that much and more importantly to him I'm sure he doesn't want a VP who will demand a lot of policy control, not to mention an ex-president constantly chiming in. I don't think I see her accepting it either unless she has no other choice to get back to the White House. She is 68 so her only real chance is to win this year or run in four years for president. She can't destroy the party or she won't be the nominee in 4 years, so perhaps she ends up being forced to take the VP slot if she has no other options...but I'm guessing she'd rather hope he loses and she can run in 2012.
As for her at the top of the ticket and him VP, I don't think he'd take it cause I think he wants the top seat and he is young and can run in the future.
So the only way I see this working is if all the other role players can force it on these two, and that is looking like more and more a possibility though I still think it is remote.
Marc, you make some very good points.
But I think a sad truth is there's a huge group of voters out there - even Democrats - who will never vote for a ticket with a black and a woman on it. They could kiss the white male vote goodbye.
John Wayne Brady, Why wouldn't Obama choose to be the VP choice for Hillary. Yes, he is young, and would be able to run once her term is over, putting him close to around 55 years old. I think he would accept her offer, and of course, I would like to see her on the top of the ticket. Shirley, MI
In a word: dumb.
"She would tarnish none of Obama's luster; the qualities he embodies ? that make him so attractive to Democrats here and, well, in the rest of the world ? would be undiminished by the brass-balls first minister he chooses to get things done."
Absolutely incorrect. Hillary is, and always has been, a purveyor of sleaze and a spiteful politician, whose only guiding principle is her own success. The idea that she (and her even sleazier husband) would sit in the Veep position and loyally work hard and well for Obama is patently absurd. Her service to a President Obama would only extend just as far as political expediency requires... and any action she might take to enhance her own position at his expense will not be set aside for the good of the country.
Additionally, putting her on the ticket, in either position, is a big, fat middle finger to the independent center, a statement that the Democratic party does not care about making sensible policy, only about ramming its ideology down everyone else's throat. She is not interested in dialogue with opponents! Only "winning" counts for her, where "winning" means humiliating the (obviously disloyal) opposition.
"the reality is that Clinton has earned something. Her millions of votes, the states she has won, the demographics she commands - Obama can't dismiss these. "
Yes, he can! Her 'millions of votes' come from her early anointment by the machine (in much the same manner as Dubya's millions of primary votes in 2000) and a sad willingness on the part of female voters to overlook her massive individual flaws in the name of gender solidarity. Obama needs to choose a veep who actually helps him. HRC turns off more people than she turns on.
On top of which, we're back to the Clinton entitlement schema again. Just because she wants the job and has been working for the party for a long time and is married to a former Prez, she's somehow "earned" more consideration than hundreds of other hard-working Democrats who have the same drive but haven't had the same opportunities. Please!
(If you've got this far, you're assuming now that I'm an Obamanaut or a Republican. Wrong again. I'm sitting smack dab in the middle of the American political spectrum, and I'm not in for any individual candidate at this point. I'm merely interested in, gasp, having presidential candidates with a modicum of integrity and a willingness to build coalitions rather than divide and conquer them.)
Hillary Clinton and her campaign have consistently misrepresented Obama's record on many issues: healthcare, his support of his initial anti-Iraq War speech, his stance on NAFTA, his religious background, his foreign policy judgment. Obama is not one to make these kinds of choices based on political expediency, and I think he will have major issues with the way she has conducted herself ever since the race became close.
Whenever her chances at the nomination have been threatened, Clinton has responded either by going on an all-out-attack on Senator Obama, or trying to disenfranchise (Nevada, Iowa's student vote) or discredit (every caucus state, and most of the small states that Obama won) voters. Obama has been pretty consistent with his message for the past 6 or 8 months, and two of his core principles are that he doesn't want to run a traditional "textbook" campaign, and that he does not like attack politics. I can more likely see him choosing someone like Jim Webb or even Bill Richardson, although Clinton can't be ruled out entirely.
RE: "They could kiss the white male vote goodbye."
Have you even seen any exit polls? A ton of white males vote for Obama, including myself.
Matt Cranky, this the Atlantic, now go back to your comic books please.
Grunthos, if you want a modicum of integrity, McCain's out and a little look under the table will take Obama down too...better stay at home my friend where you can continue to have your prejudices reinforced by a mendacious media. (PS I agree with Stanley Fish that 'independent' voters/ middle-of-the-roaders are the most awful of people politically; superior, ill-informed and unprincipled.)
Dave Carlosn, if you honestly think Clinton has been in all out attack mode you'd better pray that Obie loses the nomination as you won't be able to survive your outrage at the Repubicans tactics in the fall.
In my mind I see Clinton in the same ranks as Robert Mugabe - a corrupt power-warmonger. She would never get my vote no matter what ticket she is on. Run Obama/Clinton and I would vote 3rd party.
Hillary would Poison him. Literally dead. Don't put an assassin as your second in command.
Why not the other way around? Because the mostly male commentators here just can't imagine a woman at the top of the ticket?
I've always thought a Clinton/Obama ticket was ideal, for the candidates, the party and its long term prospects, and the country. The VP position would provide Obama with an opportunity to build a relationship with the American people. To build the necessary trust that it is difficult for someone of such newness on the national political scene to acquire in the course of just one national campaign.
But I've also always doubted that the party has that much courage -- to put both a woman and an African American on the ticket, no matter which one has the top spot. If Obama gets the nomination, they will be too afraid to put any woman, including any woman other than Clinton, on the ticket with him. There will be pressure on him to pick a middle-of-the-road to conservative white male with military and/or years of foreign policy credentials. If Clinton wins, they'l want the same thing.
Personally, I think this is the kind of thinking that makes Democrats losers. They do not have the courage of their supposed convictions -- which leads many to believe that they don't have many deeply felt and important convictions.
This is an awful suggestion. Barack Obama is a man of integrity. An old proverb reminds us, "when you lay down with dogs, you come up with fleas". Obama would be sullied and tarnished by any association with the Clintons: the most machiavellian, filthy, karl rovian family in American politics. If he ever agreed to that, i would hold my nose and vote for McCain.
An obama clinton ticket has republicans shivering in their boots. Clinton and Obama raised 85 million dollars in february alone. The democrats could take the south, the south west etc
I don't think so.
Clinton's national security credentials are minimal. Granted, they got a lot of calls at 3 am, but their record was mediocre at best:
Mogadishu/Black Hawk down Srebrenica Rwanda Haiti WTC I Gays in the Military Operations Desert fizzle, Desert drizzle, etc. Yeltsin/Putin
The pattern is of tactical, politicized decision-making -- waffling heedlessly through crises. The Clintons' judgment has been tried and failed, partially because the incoming 3 am call was followed so closely by the outgoing call to their pollster.
Clinton's 'executive experience' is equally uninspiring.
The real danger to Clinton's recent comeback is that it make arguments for an inherently weak ticket seem plausible.
An Obama Clinton or Clinton Obama ticket just won't happen. Obama from and integrity stand point is night and day different from clinton and in a VP role he'd be at the tender mercies of BOTH clintons. On the other hand Clinton in a VP role from an ideological standpoint just isn't possible. She represent lobbyists something Obama is trying to get away from. And Obama doesn't need the headache of loose cannon Bill running around in the white house.
And most importantly if Clinton is anywhere on the ticket I refuse to put that kind of self serving evil back in the white house. I won't reward bad behavior. The way she's run her campaign and the tactics Hillary has used has forever tarnished her.
I would like to see an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. They share the same outlook for a non-partisan common sense politics.
Having Hillary and Bill on the ticket with Obama on the lead is wishful thinking. They will undermine his presidency and the country would not be better for it. Their styles are very different. However, I see Hillary as being more effective as the majority leader I the senate.
Obama will never accept to be the vice president of Hillary, he will never accept someone who is been playing a dirty politics game to be her lower manager, he rather stick his head in the sand after what she done to him labeled him as a lier. I do not think he will accept the off I don't wash it out but I believe he will not since he ran an all clean campaign.
Havn't ruled it out anything is possible in today's world but I believe from the person he is, he won't accept her offer but we'll see
While I would join the author in stating we are headed toward an Obama - Clinton ticket, I would have to disagree with his assessment that "Obama is not an executive."
What is an executive if it is not someone who puts forth a vision and inspires those around them to execute against it? For all intents and purposes the Obama campaign shouldn't be in the position it currently occupies. It would seem he manages the executive role quite effectively.
Mark, Lets think about this a little. Mr Obama has a track record in Chicago (Todd Spivac, Barak & Me, Houston Chronicle.com) that is less than stellar in reference to his own authorship of bills, his own judgement in the Rezko situation (which is going to hit the fan big time) and his judgement with reference to issues like the Jenna6, the $710,000 purchase of super delegates..so lets not go overboard with thinking 1. He is capable of handling the Presidency 2. Believing he would actually be committed to any idea other than his campaign theme. I would agree with the idea of a Clinton/ Obama ticket only to unite the party of Dems against the repubs. I do not think she needs him on the ticket. She could put a capable Hispanic like Richardson on the ticket and fare far better in terms of demographics across the country. She could put John Edwards on the ticket and attract the south as well. She has alternatives that are attractive. Mr Obama has been credited with energizing the dems. I think that a look at all substantive races you will see an identical popular turnout for Mrs Clinton, although different base of 'folks'. You heard Obama last night..its the delegates..I think that nods to my thought that they are equally as strong in reviving the dems..Obama may have a rhetorical passion-make no mistake- Hillary has a substantive passion. People are becoming more aware of their records so the stronger record of actual accomplishment will fare better with main stream Americans in November. Regardless of the outcome of these races last night where Obama sought to knock Clinton out by spending 3 to 1 and actually airing over 300,000 ads alone in Texas-he still fell. This is a big reality jolt for him, as the actual cash for him to run those ads was for the Clinton campaign. I feel sometimes you write these pieces to get all of us to think out of 'the box' and I am flattered that a smart guy like you can appeal to me..but in this case..I think you may have to think back in 'the box' of reality. PS Did you read Spivac on Barak?
Folks,
Let us be true to ourselves. Both Clinton and Obama are running very strong races. The Democratic Party will be committing political suicide if both candidates are put together - one way or another - as a team. The Republican Party sees this as their greatest threat. They will succeed with a divided Democratic Party. They know that if were a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, their chances of winning the White House would be grim! Let's unite the Democratic Party and join the forces of Clinton and Obama as team - one way or the other. It would be an UNSTOPPABLE team!!!
RE: "Have you even seen any exit polls? A ton of white males vote for Obama, including myself."
JP, I'm a white male hardcore Obama supporter, but you're missing my point. Primaries and caucuses are one thing. The general election is another. No Democratic nominee has won more than 38% of the white male vote since 1964. I don't see this ticket improving on that.
Just a detail....I don't see how anyone could give Obama a domestic policy "edge" over McCain. I liked Obama's idea of moving past the 60s in his rhetoric...I'm ready to go. But, then, most of Obama's ideas end up being re-cycled feel-good 60s type failures, which imply more inefficiency by interfering with markets, and ultimately resulting in fewer jobs (protectionism), lower quality health care (by blunting incentives to do better), worse schools (ditto) and so on.
I really wonder how he can claim he wants to work with other countries on the one hand and then push toward limiting trade on the other. The positions are inconsistent. Some day Obama and followers may have to face that. It may even be that they will be challenged before November by real questions of real substance. I guess we'll see.
"She is 68 so her only real chance is to win this year or run in four years for president." Totally wrong -- she is 60, even eight years from now she'll be five years younger than McCain is now.
I think an Obama/Clinton ticket is by far the best thing the Democratic party can come up with. Hilary is a strong debater and will make a superb attack dog in the VP slot. The party will be united and there will be a HUGE Dem. turnout in November.
Hillary Clinton is a poison pill for the Democratic Party. Nominating her as VP (jeebus, let alone as Prez) hands the GOP several states on a silver platter. She scares off independents who would be otherwise wary of voting for McCain, because they loathe Hillary; she fires up the conservative base like nothing else; and she continues the cancer of Clintonesque bloodsport politics and dominance over a backwards-looking party.
I don't hate HRC. I just have the good sense to look at an electoral map and recognize that she's a guaranteed loser as a national candidate. Anyone else on board for Clinton for Senate Majority Leader?
Strong words Thomas DC...but I completely agree. If HRC steals the nomination through her backroom deals, I'm voting for McCain.
Hillary Clinton's Dirty Dubai Money: http://salcostello.blogspot.com
What fighters of this idea are missing is that the democrats cannot win without both blocs.
Support for Obama by blacks is because of identity. It breaks for him 9-1
Support for Hillary by white women is because of identity. It breaks for her 6.5-3.5
And none will give in because this support is not rational support that can be won over.
Unite now or risk 4 years of a nationalist president heading into a depression and overturning every Supreme court decision with Ginsburg and Stevens about to retire.
I used to think the "dream ticket" was a great idea, but Clinton's campaign goons are really turning me off. (I'm an obama supporter, if you couldn't tell =) But, when I see her, and not Mark Penn and icky Harold Ickes, I like her more. That said, no way does Obama take the #2 spot to Clinton. He's closer to winning than she is. He'll erase her delegate gain from last night by next Tuesday. She cannot catch him. Why, when you are going to be the nominee, would anyone in their right mind choose to be second to a candidate you beat?
only under the condition that if Obama perished in office, Hillary would be compelled to perform suttee - - -
Todd Spivak, Houston Courier.com, "Barak & Me"-CORRECTION
The slant against Clinton is offensive. "Brass balls first minister." "Can Bill be contained?" Why not question whether Michelle Obama's rhetoric can be contained -- can she avoid embarrassing Obama and the rest of the country with her talk of being ashamed of the U.S.? Why not ask whether Oprah will end up being Obama's Secretary of State? When are you pundits going to examine your rabid biases against Clinton?
I refuse to choose a candidate based on gender or race. It's not important to me. I'm also able to distinguish the difference between words and actions. I will also admit that I have been an admirer of Obama since 2002 because I was so adamantly opposed to the war. There were so few who spoke out against the war.
Having said that, I still want the person who will do the best job for America, both globally and at home. So if Clinton was the most viable candidate, I would support her.
The facts, Ma'am, just the facts.
Senate bills: Obama and Clinton
See http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/senate-record-comparison-obama.php
Or
http://thomas.loc.gov/ if you want to research it yourself.
�Inexperience�
http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/03/barack-obamas-inexperience.html (skip to the table for just the facts)
Clinton brief biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Obama brief biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
For me, it is Obama all the way.
If only Hillary's ego would allow her to recognize that America's benefit is more important than "Hillary and the Clintons' legacy", the real benefit of this compromise assures that the infamous Democratic superdelegates do not act undemocratically. Based on decades of evidence, however, it seems highly unlikely that the good of the country could trump the good of Hillary, as perceived by Hillary.
That Clinton is suggesting Obama could be on the ticket shows what a liar she is. Who would want an empty suit, a person who doesn't work hard, a person whose only contribution is a speech in 2002, a person who she wants investigated and grilled because he must have skeletons in his closet. If these were sincere criticisms, she would not want him on her ticket. This woman plays the lying game so easily and I hope people aren't buying it.
I agree, this is a dumb idea. It will not work. It will be chaos at the White House. We've seen what happens when you have a Cheney-like dual presidency undermining official authority. Bill and Hill will not be restrainable.
"Why not the other way around? Because the mostly male commentators here just can't imagine a woman at the top of the ticket?"
Because she can't win mathematically. It's over. Hillary is just dragging this out. That's why. the winner of the votes gets to pick the VP. The remaining races have 600 delegates and he will probably win 310 of those. I don't see superdelegates overcoming a 100 point differential.
But she may drag it out enough that the DNC forces him to pick her as VP. At least he might have to offer her the spot. Will she accept? The VP is a weak position, and I can't see her accepting.
I think she will go for Senate Majority Leader and hope for 2012, after trying to torpedo his chances against McCain.
In other words, she actually will want Obama to LOSE to McCain. This gives her the opening in 2012. If Obama wins, she can't run in 2012.
You have made a mistake in your news piece and misquoted Senator Obama. He NEVER said that he wasn't an executive. He said that he wasn't good with paper; meaning that he needs a secretary. I think Hillary would do a great job taking care of his paper. As for Mr. Obama, I can see no other leader that has the executive leadership skills that he obviously possesses. So, take it back now or I'll arm wrestle ya! In other words, correct your mistake, because as a journalist, it is not good to make stuff up 'cause you feel like it's a great addition to your story.
The second Democrat debate showed how well they work together. Their differences are small. Would people put aside their differences and vote for them? Obama's supporters believe he brings everyone together, so they would. Hillary's supporters trust her judgment and if she selects him, then they would too.
I hope folks out there will stop sniping and griping and focus on what's at stake (4 more years of Bush) vs change.
So interesting that there's all this uproar about the independents not liking Hillary. As an independent myself, I LOVE Hillary.
The more that people look past the flash and sparkle of campaign speeches and delve into the issues and the candidates' history, the more support Hillary will gain.
Hillary will continue to recruit independents.
Independents aren't so easily swayed by a pretty speech; they are focused on the issues. As the race continues to focus on actions, Hillary's lifelong history of activism and political service only shines out more and more.
I think this is the only way to avoid a very acrimonious 7 weeks or more that would do damage to Dem's chances in Nov. Neither candidate is great, and I worry that their weaknesses would be exposed against McCain. Add the bruising in the primary, and their chances look dim. But they complement each other very well in terms of demographic and political strengths (he inspires, she details; he wins young voters, she wins old voters). Of course, he would need to be on top due to his delegate lead. If I'm an unpledged superdelegate, this is the argument I start making. And Obama should float the idea, which would make him look like a uniter and blunt her momentum.
I'm on board. Here's why this works for Obama (and I'm a longtime Obama supporter):
Ticket of Rivals
Although Barack Obama is dismissing talk of a unity ticket as "premature," there are good reasons to think that now is the time such a ticket would have the maximum impact for putting Obama in the White House. Further, an Obama-Clinton ticket could be framed as the first example of how Obama intends to govern the country.
In interviews, Barack Obama has often mentioned Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals as influential for how he intends to put together an administration.
The book focuses on Abraham Lincoln's choice, as president, to place his previous rivals for the Republican nomination in the positions of highest authority in the Lincoln administration. In that nomination battle, harsh attacks had been exchanged, including demeaning personal insults of Lincoln. Yet in the crisis of the nascent Civil War, Lincoln set aside any hard feelings and brought the most talented politicians in his party into his administration. And so ambitious Republicans like William Seward, Salmon Chase, Edwin Stanton, and Edward Bates -- each regarding himself as more qualified than Lincoln to be president -- became the key members of Lincoln's war cabinet.
When applying Lincoln's approach to his own prospective administration, Obama has focused on his intention to invite moderate Republicans into his administration. Names like Richard Luger, Chuck Hagel, and Colin Powell have been floated as possible members of an Obama cabinet. Whatever the value of a bi-partisan administration, that wasn't quite Lincoln's approach. Lincoln built an administration out of the rivals within his own party. He, the upstart nominee, asked his more experienced rivals to run the Civil War under his leadership.
In that vein, I suggest that Obama seriously consider taking that approach immediately by enlisting Hillary Clinton as his running mate. A "team of rivals" would move from being an aspiration to a real thing in front of voters.
Because of her March 4th primary victories, the campaign is likely to drag on at least into June. Yet because of her deficit in pledged delegates, she'll have to win by unrealistically large margins in the remaining states to catch him. Her only path to the nomination is to go so negative on Obama that she disqualifies him from the presidency in the eyes of most super delegates, whom she will be asking to go against the majority of delegates selected by voters.
The almost certain outcome is that Obama will still be the nominee, but with both him and Clinton diminished by the ferocity of coming attacks.
Further, at the moment, the Democrats have a huge financial advantage over the Republicans. McCain's campaign has little money in the bank, is involved in a messy situation with the FEC over whether spending much more money would be legal, and is still trying to calm down unhappy conservatives. By directing their massive expenditures away from each other and onto McCain, they could get an important head start in defining the terms of the general election campaign.
For Obama, the gain is obvious. He immediately becomes the de facto Democratic nominee and puts a stop to negative attacks from the ferocious Clinton campaign. He also unites the party and directs the considerable talent in Clinton's campaign -- especially Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves -- toward their common opponent with enthusiasm. Such a Borg-like absorption of her campaign into his would also be a vivid symbol of Obama's bring-us-together approach to political leadership.
One can imagine him saying something like, "One thing I learned Tuesday night is that there are a lot of Democratic voters out there committed to Hillary Clinton. I take seriously that desire to see Senator Clinton involved in our country's next steps, and I look forward to taking those steps with her. I'll admit that I've also learned that Senator Clinton is a tenacious campaigner. And I'm looking forward to having her commitment to winning working for me rather than directed at me."
The only negative for Obama is that he wouldn't be able to choose a running mate who shores up his national security credentials. As Bush's choice of Cheney did so effectively in 2000, Obama could have blunted the "inexperience" charge by choosing a seasoned national figure like Wes Clark or Sam Nunn. Alternatively, he could have gone the traditional route of choosing a running mate who would help put him over the top in a swing state.
For Obama, the plusses far outweigh the negatives.
As they do for Clinton. Probably many readers are thinking that there's little chance Clinton would, at this point, agree to join forces with Obama as his running mate. Her goal, after all, is the presidency, not the vice-presidency.
Yet, despite her public rhetoric, Clinton is as aware as any pundit of the implications of her delegate deficit. She knows that, even if she wins Ohio-size margins in all remaining states, her chances of taking the nomination from Obama are very small. Part of what keeps her in the race, it seems, is the commitment of her most fervent supporters -- especially women of her generation and older. She doesn't want to let them down.
Agreeing to run with Obama could be accurately spun as a joining of forces. And if an Obama-Clinton ticket wins in November, Clinton, as the first female vice president, would become the trailblazing woman with a remembered place in history that so many of her supporters hoped she would be. In addition, assuming two Obama terms, in 2016, she would be only 69, two years younger than John McCain is now. Depending on the political climate, after eight years as vice president, she would be in a position to run more credibly on an "experience" platform, plus able to benefit from (rather the current struggle of running against) whatever glow Obama has at that point.
Alternatively, if she loses the nomination to Obama after fighting him to the bitter end, she'll be in no better long-term political shape than past second place Democratic figures like John Edwards, Paul Tsongas, Richard Gephardt, and Gary Hart -- none of whom was later nominated. Plus, she'll have the future baggage of whatever hostility the rising young Obama supporters retain for her. Recall that Hubert Humphrey, once the leading American liberal, never did recover politically from the way he got the nomination in 1968. He was ever after the establishment hack in the eyes of the emerging generation.
In addition, with her political talents, one could expect Obama to give Clinton a substantive vice presidency, with important responsibilities and a genuine advisory role. She would be in an important position to influence the next eight years of American history rather than playing a very limited role in the Senate.
Clinton would also understand that Obama would be unlikely to ask her to be his running mate in late summer. By then, other factors would favor different VP prospects. The main benefit to him would be in combining forces with her now. If she said no, she'd be choosing a lost cause likely to hurt the party over a better than 50% chance of being the next vice president.
The time for this team of rivals is now. Over the next couple months, Democrats can either wring their hands as these two strong candidates rip each other apart or celebrate them joining forces. Given the delegate situation, joining forces now on an Obama-Clinton ticket is a win for both candidates -- and for the party.
No way. He doesn't need her, but she would definitely need him. But, not to worry, she's not going to win the nomination anyway.
Clinton/Obama
1. She will tarnish his good name and reputation
2. she will isolate him - he will be completely disempowered
3. If she wins the WH and stays two terms, the country will be so sick of dems by 2016 that it will be time to move back to GOP leadership - best bet BHO gets another shot in 8-16 years
4. If he looses he sould go shoot for gov in Ill. He's young, he doesnt need her witchy a$$...
Obama/Clinton 1. If he wins the nom he may offer it to her but she will NEVER do it - to embarrassing- not worth discussing
If BHO wins the nom - my golden ticket would be Obama/Biden. Biden dropped out so early so I am not sure if thats even a consideration. Webb or Richardson would be good picks as well
If HRC wins nom - I'm thinking of going for Mack. I want to see Macks REAl voting record on abortion issues (there is a diff bwtn being personally opposed and being an activist about it). Beyond that issue, I am as comfortable with him as I am with her - which isnt saying much but hey beggars cant be a$$holes
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Dear Madam, and Sir,
A Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama ticket is what we want. And that is what we need to take back the Whitehouse. We want a smart, tough, idealistic, seasoned veteran of many battles fighting for the American people (Hillary Clinton). With a young, passionate, smart, open-minded, hard-working idealist fighting for the American people (Barrack Obama). The DREAM TEAM!
You are both fabulous candidates. And we, the American people are very fortunate to have each of you. Taking back the Whitehouse is critical for the American people, and the world at this time. And I think the American people have been saying loudly, and clearly that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket is the best way to do this.
I think the American people have made it very clear that they feel Hillary Clinton is the one best able to lead the ticket against John McCain at this critical, and desperate time in America, and around the world. These dramatic comebacks are testament to Hillary Clinton's skill, and experience as a fighter for the American people. They are also a testament to the strong desire of the American people to have both of you fighting for the American people at this time of midnight in America.
Typical of the Clinton's is an uncanny ability to see and understand what the American people want. And then to try and get it for them. Even if they have to go through three political near death experiences to try and get it for the American people. This is classic Clinton's. They are the best I have ever seen.
We are desperate out here. Millions of us are suffering greatly. And tens of thousands of us are dying needlessly every year. Men, women, children, and babies. We need help! As Hillary Clinton said "It's not a game". We need the two of you together on our side fighting for us, and for the American dream for all. Not fighting against each other anymore.
It's time for you Senator Obama to join forces with Hillary Clinton as her running mate so that we can all focus our energies, and resources on taking back America for the American people.
Don't make me hurt you. :-)
Sincerely
Jacksmith...
I am sorry I cannot vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket or the reverse. John McCain will be a one term president I can wait another four-years and besides with Clintons Rovian type politics I don't know how it would be any different with her in the White House, just politics as usual. She is only doing this because she knows she will lose. She claims the people of Ohio want her on the top of the ticket, but what about the other 27 states that says Obama should be on top of the ticket. I am sorry but this does not sit well with me. And besides she doesn't want my delusional naiive vote anyway.
OBAMA 08'
im scarred of hillary
Hilarious discussion between Hillary and obama. Must watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7150u9sfCo
I don't think such a ticket would work. First, Obama would want a VP who appeases those who worry about his youth and "inexperience", and appeals to independents and reasonable Republicans (yes there are some still out there). Also, where is it written that Hillary would be willing to settle for "second place"?
Hillary's hinting that she would ask Obama to be her running mate. The reason is obvious. She think he'll bring all of his supporters with him, and that would give her enough votes to get her over the top, but I don't see that happening. I don't think there are too many who would hold their nose and pull that lever, even if it meant Obama getting "experience" for a run in 2012. And while having Obama on her ticket might lift her up, it would simultaneously drag Obama down.
Obama is anything but stupid. He knows how polarizing she is. Remember in 2006 the fit Republicans were having at the thought of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House? Can you imagine the outrage at the thought of Hillary being one bullet from the presidency?
Obama is too smart to sabotage his own campaign.
Retarded
No one with half a brain would tie his future to the Clinton's.
You really need to climb out of the Clinton bag Marc.
In 1975, lawyerHillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim:
"I found this story about a case where Hillary used her knowledge of child abuse to get a man off of rape charges to be very sad and disturbing. Of course, it was her job as a lawyer to provide a competent defense, but it seems like she may have crossed a line by aggressively attacking the 12-year-old girl"s character.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story
She seems to have carried that tactic with her when she actively participated in smear campaigns against the credibility of the victims of her husband"s harassment, even after he was caught lying under oath in a court of law. Making women terrified to report sexual harassment out of fear of being publicly humiliated and having their careers destroyed is a terrible role model for women, as is attacking the character of 12-year-old rape victims.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280
I have voted for a Democrat not only in every presidential election since 1980, but for every significant state and local election as well. This year, however, if Hillary becomes the Dem nominee, I will vote for McCain. Why? Hillary's negative attacks have shown her to be such desperate and vicious political demon, that I believe she has no morals outside of her personal ambition to win at all costs. I have lost all good will toward both Clintons and now understand the Republicans' hatred of the Clintons. If she steals the nomination like Bush stole the presidency, then I am no longer a Democrat. I don't want the responsibility of screwing up the next four years with her presidency. If Obama is not the nominee, he is perfectly situated to start a third party, spelling the death of the Democratic party. I vote for "Pragmatic Idealist Party".
Im tried of the media bias and sexism. Im tired of hearing Obama owns the word race and anyone critical of him is racist. After hearing Mrs. Obama and now the spirital advisor Rev. Wright, I can firmly say I have a very hard time believing in Mr Obama or anything he says. Yes he makes nice speeches and once I supported him, but now I know actions speak louder than words.
Actions include yes baiting by the Obama campaign, whining all the time, lies in debates (RESKO was not 5 hours of legal work for a church but included a personal relationship and a questionable property purchase whichs smells foul no matter how you try to pretend and nice speeches about inclusiveness by a man whose church is hardly inclusive but rather separatist. Mr Obama never left this church in 20 years. Now he didnt know???? I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, would anyone buy that too?
Mr Obama is kidding himself if he thinks he can win over all the Clinton voters after all that has been said and done. If the dems were smart they would probably draft Al Gore.
This democrat may well end up independent. I though the party stood for more than denying votes, not counting votes, and hate mongering.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
Well for one thing Obama would most likely not live to see the end of his first term. Hilary's lust for The Office knows no bounds. Kind of like JFK/LBJ. Remember that one?
Posted by Matt Cranky | March 5, 2008 10:04 AM