Clinton starts pushing idea of ticket with Obama more seriously
Given the circumstances, once is an accident. Twice is a trend.
Hillary Clinton gets asked about the possibility of a ticket with Barack Obama with some regularity, and has, for many months now, ably dodged the questions. On Wednesday, she raised eyebrows, however, by straying from the script — asked on CBS about running with Obama, Clinton said, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
It was possible that Clinton just spoke her mind without any real forethought. This strikes me as highly unlikely — Clinton is probably the most disciplined presidential candidate I’ve ever seen — but it was early in the morning and maybe she slipped.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Sen. Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.
Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week’s primary, Clinton said, “I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”
It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions.
You’ll notice, of course, that Wednesday’s comment came in response to a specific question. This morning’s comment, if the AP report is accurate, was unprompted — meaning Clinton specifically wanted to raise this point for emphasis.
I think understand the strategy, but it’s a little convoluted.
Clinton, especially campaigning in a state in which she’s the underdog, subtly seems to be arguing, “You may like Obama, but if you vote for me, you can get Obama anyway — he’ll be on my ticket.” Indeed, a month ago, longtime Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe floated the same idea, rather explicitly. If you like Clinton and Obama, the argument went, the only way to get them both is to vote for Clinton (because she’s more likely to tap him as a running mate than the other way around).
But there’s also the broader context to all of this, which makes Clinton’s comments rather … confusing.
Just over the past four days, Clinton has publicly suggested that John McCain’s experience is preferable to Obama’s, and McCain meets the “Commander in Chief threshold” that Obama does not. They were, at least to me, some of the most disappointing attacks Clinton has made in this entire campaign process.
And yet, interspersed with these criticisms, Clinton is also publicly raising the notion that she’d strongly consider Obama for her ticket. Isn’t there a disconnect here? Obama, Clinton tells us, isn’t prepared for national office, and at the same time, Obama is also vice presidential material?
Based on this morning’s remarks, my sense is that Clinton is pushing this notion of a “dream ticket,” will continue to do so. But in order for this to make any sense at all, she’s going to have to dramatically scale back her attacks and her suggestions that she prefers the Republican nominee to her Democratic rival.
I had the same disconnect as you. Do you think that she can sometimes become tone deaf to her own messages? Like you said, she is a disciplined campaigner so there is certainly intent. It just seems like a schizophrenic way of flirting to me.
She can’t say McCain is a better choice and that Obama is a terrorist sympathizing weak neophyte and then say she would be proud to share a ticket with him, whether she was president or vice president. It’s too late. The only people she’s playing with that line are the superdelegates and the voters. Obama surely knows she’s full of it.
I’m not sure Hillary is getting the hints. How about Obama-Kerry? That settles the foreign policy issue and the war experience argument.
This is a dangeous ploy. Very dangerous. Obama needs to kill it in his next speech.
There is NOT going to be a joint ticket. She is doing this cause she wants she to be seen as a ‘unifer’ and not a divider. Trash talk.
She’s trying to cover every single base. “I have the experience, he does not. But if you really like him, then I’ll take him under my wing and make him the V.P.” She has to co-opt Obama’s supporters to make it possible for her to get the nomination, and this is the sneakiest way to do it. Meanwhile, she’ll continue to trivialize him, and allow her campaign people to demonize him and his tactics. Every single base is covered. I know it’s politics as usual, but it makes me want to puke.
It also makes me anxious to see what Obama’s strategy is to combat this. Because if he doesn’t start speaking up and fast, she will have spun her way to the nomination.
I agree. Obama needs to kill this in his next speech. I find it absolute chutzpah (nerve) on her party to assume that SHE should be on the top of the ticket when she is behind in the delegate count and could not beat John McCain if her life depended on it.
Also, is she going to ask Wolfson to resign for the “Ken Starr” remark? That was as nasty as it comes. She has lost my vote if she manages to get the supers to award her the nomination.
It’s like she’s saying “This is awful, here taste it,” when that’s not what we ordered anyway. “No, thanks,” I say, I’ll just eat what I ordered.
Not the “Driving Miss Daisy” unity ticket again, please. Obama ought to nip that one in the bud.
BTW, if Samantha Powell has to resign for calling Clinton a “monster”, Clinton should have to drop out of the race for claiming that a Republican is a better candidate than any Dem.
“That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
’scuse me, ma’am, but the voters of a whole bunch of other states would prefer to see Obama at the top of the ticket. The voters of Ohio shouldn’t be overrepresented any more than those of Iowa or New Hampshire. I’ll vote for the Democrat whoever it is because McCain is such a nasty piece of work, but jeez, she’s ticking me off, and all the more so given that the delegate count is still decidedly against her.
She had done the math.
Obviously she can’t win.
She wants to president.
Going back to the Senate won’t cut it.
She’s got no chance of getting on the Court.
So she is playing the extortion card:
I will attack you until I am a dead unless you call me and make me your Vice.
Yes, it really is that simple.
umm, I really thought she was asking to be his VP.
I’ve been thinking about this. Despite all the reasons Barack and Hillary wouldn’t be excited about being the other person’s second fiddle, the race almost can’t help but get nastier and the nastier it gets the more important it is for them to kiss and make up at the convention via a unity ticket.
At the moment, their race is close to a draw. Each one has a key part of the winning coalition that the other one needs in order to get elected. If either one is chosen by backroom deals among superdelegates, they are likely to lose a huge group of the other’s supporters (women would be upset if Hillary got “slighted”, and African-Americans would be outraged if Obama got passed over). Worse, there is no easy answer regarding Florida and Michigan.
However, there is one easy way out. Perhaps after Pennsylvania voters have a say, if things still look tied, Barack and Hillary could get together, note the many good things they have in common with each other and the many more disagreements they have regarding the Republican debacle of the last two decades, and flip a coin, with the winner getting the top of the ticket, and the loser getting the VP slot. A fair toss makes almost all the rancor go away, and starts the general election with a focus against McCain.
Clinton, especially campaigning in a state in which she’s the underdog, subtly seems to be arguing, “You may like Obama, but if you vote for me, you can get Obama anyway — he’ll be on my ticket.”
No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong. She’s not really talking to the voters - she’s trash-talking Obama, just like the Powers thing.
She’s hoping to provoke him into saying something he’ll regret. If he dismisses the idea, he’s not a team player. If he says he’ll consider making him her Veep, she’ll call him sexist. And so on.
Maybe it’s McCain’s VP she’s shooting for.
The superdelegates system is possibly the worst voter disenfranchisement I’ve seen.
Another sign of desperation from the Clintons. They know the math, and they know the supers aren’t going to help her blow up the party, so they know they are the walking dead. They have one shot at the whitehouse, and that’s the VP slot. She will keep pushing for the top slot, and then she’ll be “magnanimous” and offer to “unify the party” by taking VP. But this is ONLY because she knows that she’s not going to be the nominee.
I have one thing to say: Screw you, Hillary.
You’ve proven that you’re all about the old politics, and that’s the opposite of what Barak is about. You chiseled out your own political tombstone.
Re: #10 and #11,
What made you think she was angling for the VP slot? I don’t agree or disagree at this point, I’m just curious.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - McCain will murder Clinton in the general. She was buoyed to her “comeback” with significant support from Republican spoilers who want her to stay in the fight - and win the nomination - but will evaporate when the general comes around, and a good deal of the black vote would sit it out if she were the nominee. At least, that’s the way I see it.
I totally agree with the assessment of the above strategy, however; vote for Hillary, get Hillary and Barack (and BILL, although that is best left to implication rather than saying it aloud). There’s little doubt that a significant voting bloc will fall for it, unless Obama does something to short-circuit it.
Obama would be crazy to accept the second-banana role, because Bill would fill the position anyway - there’d be nothing for the Veep to do but attend funerals from Iraq and Afghanistan, make a few speeches and fill other social obligation the President didn’t want to do. After a term of a Hillary presidency, the electorate would probably be ready for a swing back to the Republicans, and Obama would have nothing but joe-jobs to claim for experience.
HILLARY FOR V.P.
On the repugnican ticket with McCrap who she appears to have endorsed…
Many others have pointed this out, but if Hillary was VP, she would be a powerful anti-assasination tool, at least among the wingnuts, who would probably take a bullet for Obama rather than let her become president.
I still think it would be a bad idea, but there is some merit to it.
Clinton is basically suggesting, with a wink, ‘vote for me and I might give you a cookie.’ If people are stupid enough to fall for this, the party is screwed. Personalities aside, she is spending day and night trying to beat Obama into the ground and challenging his qualifications — but she might pick him for a VP because he’s qualified? Gimme an ef’ing break.
From his perspective, how could he possibly accept VP? And why in the hell would he pick her for his VP? She is everything he’s running against!
HRC is selling another fairy tale, and thinks we’re too stupid to know it. I hope, after four years of Bush treating the public the same way, we’ve wised up.
A Clinton-Obama ticket? Why would Obama take the second spot when he is winning?
An Obama-Clinton ticket?
No. Obama should pick a running mate who has the judgment to be president, or the judgment to take those 3 a.m. calls, should anything ever happen to him. That would exclude Clinton.
umm, I really thought she was asking to be his VP.
I don’t think so. That wouldn’t get her any more votes in any future primary now would it? It would be a blatant admission of defeat. Looky, this much is true: She’s got NO CHANCE of winning. NO CHANCE whatsoever. And she’s only got a few weeks left to sell herself as Veep.
Here’s why all this is true: The Barack Obama thing is getting reading to regain momentum and kick itself into high gear again. This negative stuff has a got a short half-life. Especially if he stays on his message. And he has. He is rock solid that way. Rock solid.
Tomorrow: Wyoming. Tuesday a romp in Mississippi. This is really about Hillary trying to carve out a future for herself. She has done the math, even if many of her innumerate supporters on these threads can’t. She wants to be Veep badly. It is all she has left.
Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week’s primary, Clinton said, “I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”
There is no way in hell she would choose Obama as her VP, it isn’t even a “might”, Hillary is blatantly lying to convince Obama voters that he will have his turn after her. I know people I respect like Digby keep saying this campaign hasn’t been dirty, but I have never been as disgusted with a Democrat as I have been the last 9 weeks with Hillary Clinton.
Hillary has completely blown it for me and many others. All she has told potential voters is that there will be more nastiness if they vote for her. Perhaps she should join the republic-thugs since she seems to think like them.
Oops, td @ 11: I read your quote wrong. I thought you had written:
umm, I really thought she was asking him to be her VP.
My whole post goes astray otherwise.
I was trying to answer that… not what you really wrote.
Just wait.
Tomorrow she’ll call Obama a war criminal, the next day she’ll nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
So Hillary’s experience and judgment leads her to believe that the Dems now have a surplus of senators?
I think that far too many Obama supporters are reading way to much into this.
First I believe that someone has gotten into both their ears and basically told them that this is how it is going to come out no matter what. So if you take it all the way to the convention and if either of you do that you may not like the results.
Re: Clinton supposedly angling to be Obama’s VP this way. No. Why would she use that argument to get somebody to vote for her in Mississippi? If she is willing to be VP, I bet $10 she could contact Obama’s campaign right now about dropping out in exchange for being his choice. He wouldn’t necessarily want her, but I bet he would take her just so this process would finally be over and he could look forward to facing McCain.
Hillary VP? I can see why she likes it. You aren’t part of the executive or the legislative bodies. You get to make all the decisions while the Prez does photo ops. It doesn’t matter if your poll numbers drop to the teens. You never have to answer questions. Quail, anyone?
Obama does not want to be Hillary’s veep. Hillary knows that.
Hillary doesn’t want Obama to be her veep. But she can safely suggest a Clinton/Obama ticket because she knows there’s no way Obama would agree to it.
She’s making an offer that she doesn’t want the offeree to accept. She’s making the offer not because she wants to consummate the deal she is suggesting, but for other reasons. She wants to be seen as a team player, a uniter, a can’t-we-all-just-get-along?-type person.
Her campaign doesn’t care about being inconsistent. It doesn’t care about sending mixed messages. It doesn’t care about creating cognitive dissonance. It’s rather desperately throwing out whatever messages it thinks might help her, figuring that potential voters will latch onto those messages they like and disregard those they don’t like.
I’m going to wait and see what happens for a while, but there are definitely scarier possibilities out there than a unity ticket with Hillary and Barack.
Not to put too fine an edge on it, but our fragile democracy is at serious risk and has been for some time. The Bush administration has revealed how quickly our rights and the very foundation of constitutional law can be wiped out by anyone amoral and criminal enough to take advantage of certain loopholes. And John McCain has shown that he is quite agreeable to continuing the same pattern if he somehow manages to take office next January.
Let me be very clear, I want Barack Obama to be the next president and I despise the tactics Hillary Clinton is resorting to more every day. But above all we have to stop the Republicans from keeping the White House by any means necessary and if that means a unity ticket to keep the Democratic party from tearing itself apart in the process, I’ll stand up and support it if and when it becomes necessary.
I may have to hold my nose real tight, but I’ll do it for the sake of the nation.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Ref #29 lets see if Sen Clinton did that and Sen Obama excepted then Sen Clinton would be a shoe in in 2016 beings how she’d be only 68 yo. That could work for me. 16 years of great government.
I think that far too many Obama supporters are reading way to much into this.
I don’t know, I’m just reading her statement. It’s pretty straightforward. She’s dangling the possibility — but first, you must vote for her.
LOL! This is the best ploy Hillary can use. I hope she would flat out commit to it. Hillary is clearly saying that while she thinks she is the better candidate, Obama is also a great candidate. How do all the Obama supporters respond? By being pissed off that Hillary would think to offer Obama the VP slot!!! Talking about showing off your bitterness and lack of perspective.
People in New York get to vote for both of them. I really think that’s all she’s saying.
I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day…if you move to New York. You can vote for Obama for President, and me for Senator.
Isn’t this sort of a straw man argument, too? Who the hell is saying to her ‘I wish I could vote for both of you?’ I’d bet no one, because he bubble won’t let any but the devout in to begin with. This all just smacks of Bush, to me.
Speaking of the upcoming primaries, I will now channel Mark Penn with a prediction for the future: If Obama doesn’t win the Mississippi primary with at least 86% of the votes, it’s a clear victory for Clinton.
That out of the way, this strategy on Hillary’s part seems extremely incoherent, so I’m curious if there’s an underlying strategy to it, if only to have so many different messages out there of their own that Obama will inevitably contradict himself at some contradicting her own self-contradictory statements (that hurt my brain). The big risk of course seems to be that it’ll even confuse the hell out of some of her supporters. Guess it’s the whole point of the kitchen sink strategy, though, consistency not being one its strong points.
How do all the Obama supporters respond? By being pissed off that Hillary would think to offer Obama the VP slot!!! -Dennis_D
Seriously? The losing team offers a consolation prize to the winning team and their fans should be happy? No thanks, we’ll not be falling for this ploy.
Hillary’s just trying to pretend she’s not losing. Clearly she has some of you fooled, but really, I think it’s herself she’s trying to convince.
I may have to hold my nose real tight, but I’ll do it for the sake of the nation. -Curmudgeon
I honestly gave up on holding my nose when she stared denigrating Obama and praising McCain in the same breath.
Now I’m just looking from pig to woman, woman to pig and trying to see if I can still tell a difference. I can’t.
What do the Obama supporters say if Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama has the most delegates after June7?
Anyone want to take a shot at that?
#11 and #16:
The first time she mentioned it, I also felt she was asking to be his VP. It was an ambiguous statement:
Clinton:
“That may, you know, be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who’s on the top of ticket”
She then claims Ohioans want her as president. But in my opinion, she opened the door to her being VP also.
There’s a simple reason she’s talking about this — it makes her seem like the frontrunner.
Hillary is clearly saying that while she thinks she is the better candidate, Obama is also a great candidate.
… a candidate who should be ashamed of himself for an Ohio flyer accurately stating her support of NAFTA, and who should be denounced for talking to Canadian officials about NAFTA (when it was really her own campaign doing so), and who plagiarizes speeches, and who has nothing but empty-headed rhetoric, and who is a closet Reagan worshiper, and who is sexist, and who has clearly not passed the threshold to be commander-in-chief, and who might be a Muslim.
But, yes, a great candidate.
Clinton is suggesting that she be the top of the ticket. Obama will have a chance to run as her successor, which makes sense since he is the younger candidate. By extending an olive branch to Obama, she appears to be the more reasonable candidate, the one most open to compromise, the one trying to find a way to resolve the impasse. It puts Obama in the position of insisting on all or nothing, since he is unwilling to similarly offer the VP position to Clinton.
Clinton has the big states and the Democratic credibility. Obama needs that since he cannot win without the big states and solid Democrat support, which he does not currently have and will not get by default. He does not have sufficient experience to counteract McCain’s 25 years in the Senate and McCain’s foreign policy experience. Obama will need to strengthen his ticket by adding someone with the same strengths that Clinton already has. Clinton has shown herself to be the strongest contender among Democrats, so picking any of the other failed Democrats in the race would just look churlish. Obama may need to bow to the inevitable here. If he cannot win outright (and he can no more do that than Clinton can), then there must be a compromise. Clinton has put him in the position of being the one who is drawing out the race and “damaging the party,” because she has been willing to negotiate where he will not. It makes him look bad.
I would never vote for Obama for President, but I would vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket with Obama for VP. My preference would be for a Clinton/Gore ticket or even better, a Gore/Clinton ticket, but that isn’t going to happen. Obama needs to swallow his pride and take the opportunity to acquire the experience he currently lacks, especially by travelling as VP and meeting world leaders. he would be stupid to throw that away by insisting on everything now, when it isn’t his turn yet.
I have been reading this blog for a while. I have one comment: you people are sick.
Both are very good candidates. The hatred for Clinton from Obama supporters is incredible.
Save the venom for the Republicans.
You know, Impartial, many of these “Obama supporters” you decry are really just Clinton detractors.
BTW, why would Obama need more experience to fill the role of “superfluous excellency?”
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.
Sincerely
Jacksmith…
Anyone want to take a shot at that? -Comeback Bill
Oh, come now, like Hillary, I won’t address hypotheticals, especially far fetched ones.
First you go figure out how that would happen, and take a guess at the odds of that happening.
Then play the lottery, since you’d have a better chance of hitting that.
Obama will have a chance to run as her successor, which makes sense since he is the younger candidate. -Mary
But he’s more experienced and has better judgment. He’s more qualified to be President than she is.
Clinton has the big states and the Democratic credibility. -Mary
Obama has more votes and more delegates and the Democratic credibility.
Clinton has shown herself to be the strongest contender among Democrats… -Mary
No she hasn’t. See above fact concerning votes and delegates.
I would never vote for Obama for President, but I would vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket with Obama for VP. -Mary
Is it because he hasn’t done his tax return yet? You know he has until April 15th to get that done, right? Give the guy a chance, Mary! Won’t you think of the children! Won’t somebody think of the children!
The hatred for Clinton from Obama supporters is incredible.
Save the venom for the Republicans. -Impartial
Impartial my ass. Clinton is the only candidate praising McCain while denigration a fellow Democrat. Hell yeah, that pisses us off. Maybe you should tell her to save the venom for the Republicans, since you’re impartial.
I think she’s trying to engender some unity between the Obama and HRC camps.
Obama’s followers aren’t taking it well because they want him to win. Can’t blame them. Seems some have an irrational hatred for HRC that it very off-putting.
HRC supporters want her to win, but really like Obama too, so this sounds like a dream ticket to us.
#45 Well said
And it is nearly a statistical tie between them, with no primaries down the road that can make it clear who dems want to run in the top slot.
We have spoken and about half want HRC and the other half Obama.
Her campaign doesn’t care about being inconsistent. It doesn’t care about sending mixed messages. It doesn’t care about creating cognitive dissonance. It’s rather desperately throwing out whatever messages it thinks might help her, figuring that potential voters will latch onto those messages they like and disregard those they don’t like
The inconsistency isn’t a small flaw in the message, and it isn’t as desperate as some people think. It’s the whole point of the message. Her campaign staff are out there on various media outlets flinging mud at Obama, while she’s holding out that bright shiny object the media loves to call the “Dreamticket”.
Hillary is talking up cooperation in the hopes that the audience doesn’t associate her campaign’s mud-slinging with her.
Recently it sounds more like she’s pushing to be McCain’s running mate.
There’s a simple reason she’s talking about this — it makes her seem like the frontrunner. -TR
I think it runs even deeper than that: it’s the campaign and their feckless supporters coming to realization that they can’t win it. They don’t have the delegates’, super delegates’, or voters’ backing.
So they’re trying to look magnanimous and offer a consolation prize to the true front runner, when really, it’s just more desperation rearing it’s ugly head.
Now you’ve got all these crackpots calling for Obama to capitulate and be her running mate, which is just absurd. How on earth they rationalize the winner of the race doing such a thing is beyond me.
Honestly, it would be like asking McCain to be Huckabee’s running mate? See how ridiculous that sounds, Clinton supporters? Yeah, that’s what you sound like to us.
doubtful, about half of the Democratic party wants Hillary to be the nominee and about half wants Obama to be the nominee. My guess is that Hillary will come out and say that she respects the half that supports Obama, will give Obama the first chance at the VP slot if she is the nominee and that she will campaign for Obama if she isn’t the nominee or VP candidate. How is Obama going to respond to this? His supporters seem to be responding by dismissing the pro-Hillary half of the party. “We’re winning! Hillary is pure evil!”
doubtful, how you think that is unreasonable is betond me. Obama is 600,000 votes ahead right now and with PA coming Clinton could very eaisly surpass him. your entitled to your own opinion but your not entitled to your own facts.
And it is nearly a statistical tie between them, with no primaries down the road that can make it clear who dems want to run in the top slot. -Nell
That’s just not true. It’s loser talk, actually, trying to perpetuate the myth that she’s not that far out of the race.
There is absolutely no way within any realistic measurement that she can catch up to him in delegates, even with a FL and MI revote.
Granted he cannot win without the supers, but neither can she, and she will enter the contest for the supers in solid second.
Clinton has the big states and the Democratic credibility. Obama needs that since he cannot win without the big states and solid Democrat support, which he does not currently have and will not get by default.
Mary, you can spout this pathetic nonsense all day long and it still won’t be true. If you actually think the big blue states won’t stay blue in the general election if Obama is the nominee, you’re beyond arguing with. You think California or New York would go Republican? Really???
Take a look at these:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374
According to the best polling we have, Obama would beat McCain by a wider EC margin *and* by stronger margins in key states.
He does not have sufficient experience to counteract McCain’s 25 years in the Senate and McCain’s foreign policy experience.
Neither does Hillary! And yet she is insisting that experience is the main criterion here. Obama isn’t. So he can make an argument against McCain that Hillary can’t.
Clinton has shown herself to be the strongest contender among Democrats
In your opinion, maybe. She’s won fewer votes and fewer states. She’s doing worse than Obama in the vast majority of general election polls vs. McCain.
Clinton has put him in the position of being the one who is drawing out the race and “damaging the party,” because she has been willing to negotiate where he will not. It makes him look bad.
Only to a deranged nut like you.
I would never vote for Obama for President,
Yes, because you’re not a Democrat. You’re a Clinton Cultist, and if the object of your stalker-like obsession does not get the nomination, you’d rather see the party and the entire country go to hell.
Bravo, you petulant and ignorant child. Brav-o.
I seee Mary’s back. That’s okay.
Her posts serve as fascinating case studies into the inner mind of a brainwashed cult member.
Doubtful:
I am impartial. Your response is exactly what I’m referring to.
#16-
because it makes no sense the other way around. Obama’s got the total delegates, pledged count, huge momentum on the SD count, the popular vote, fund raising, enthusiasm, a 50 state strategy, judgement and character. The first 5 things alone are why he’s going to win (those are just numbers. You can’t spin them). So HRCs only chance at the WH this cycle is as VP.
Personally, I’d rather see him tap Webb.
Anyone notice who all the hate spewers are on here. One hint Obama supporters.
…about half of the Democratic party wants Hillary to be the nominee and about half wants Obama to be the nominee… -Dennis_D
About half the country wanted Kerry and a little more than half wanted Bush. They didn’t get to be co-Presidents. Bush got to be President. That’s the way elections work.
I would’ve figured as much as Hillary was running a Rovian campaign, she’d understand the merits of 50+1.
My guess is that Hillary will come out and say that she respects the half that supports Obama… -Dennis_D
When will she say that? After she says all he’s got is a speech and an empty suit? After she says McCain has a lifetime of experience and has passed the CIC tests?
…with PA coming Clinton could very eaisly surpass him… -Comeback Bill
How? What about the contests in between PA and now? And what about the fact that she didn’t slate a full set of delegates in PA? Obama will pick up any ground he lost in Ohio before it even gets the PA, and how much ground can she realistically make up in PA?
Seriously, I’d like to know how you rationally think Clinton can make up the ground, because I don’t see it happening in any logical way.
Nell @ 49. HRC is not engendering unity between camps — she’s trying to beat Obama into a pulp using everything at her disposal. Where have you been?
Obama’s “followers?” Nice touch. Obama’s supporters have a rational distaste for Republicans and slimy tactics, with good reason, as well as with many Democrats who have failed in their responsibilities to stand up to Republicans. HRC has adopted those tactics — and stood with Republicans — but holding her accountable is irrational, hateful and off-putting? You have got to be kidding. What do you think is the purpose of an opposition party?
HRCs supporters like Obama, huh? Then why do you put up with her kitchen sink tactics?
It is not a “statistical” tie. It is close, but Obama is ahead in delegates by all calculations, which is the only measure by which this game is played. Is a 50 delegate lead a tie? 100? 200? 500?
Obviously, cognitive dissonance is not limited to Republicans.
I agree with #32 except I’m not sure I would vote for Hillary. What could the county survive the easiest, 8 yrs. of Hillary or 4 years of McCain? I’m thinking 4 years of McCain, and Obama goes at it again.
Why, time after time, does the Democratic Party see a light at the end of the tunnel and then turn it into a train.
I am impartial. Your response is exactly what I’m referring to. -Impartial
No, you weren’t you came in picking on Obama supporters after claiming to have read for a long time. Clearly you would’ve seen just as many venomous Clinton supporters if in fact that were true.
I’m certainly not claiming to be venom-free. I’m one of the most, uh, passionate commenters here. Trust me, I often have to edit my posts. I know; I know I can be over the top.
But singling out Obama supporters when there have been plenty of passionate Clinton supporters is the very opposite of impartial.
So no, you weren’t impartial anymore than Truthsqad was telling the truth yesterday.
And if you’re one of the obtuse who see this offer from Clinton as a good faith gesture then you’re as naive as you are biased.
Anyone notice who all the hate spewers are on here. One hint Obama supporters. -Comeback Bill
No offense, but it’s the same level of venom we typically reserve for Republicans. I guess most of us just never thought we’d have to level it against ‘fellow’ Democrats.
Just another one of those sly games she plays. As of late, I don’t believe anything she says. Like her comment, “the people of Ohio has said they think it should be me on the top of the ticket.” What was all those people saying in the eleven wins Obama had before the people in Ohio spoke? Come on hillary! You are becoming more and more transparent. And the last time I looked, Obama was ahead in delegates. Has something changed and we just haven’t been told yet?
Watch out Mississippi. It’s all a game.
And it is nearly a statistical tie between them, with no primaries down the road that can make it clear who dems want to run in the top slot.
Did you fail middle school math?
Or do you not know what a delegate is?
Or did you not hear he won Texas?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/11339/50182/559/471347
Guess Limbaugh’s republicans couldn’t be bothered to do the caucus thing for Hillary.
No offense, but it’s the same level of venom we typically reserve for Republicans. I guess most of us just never thought we’d have to level it against ‘fellow’ Democrats.
Agreed.
I always have and always will delivered my scorn and ridicule to candidates who engage in campaigns of fear-mongering (the “3 am” ad), dark innuendo (”Is he a Muslim?” “Does this picture look too dark?”), name-calling (Obama is Bush, Rove and Starr all rolled into one), and double talk (”Obama should be denounced for the NAFTA comments that we actually made”).
Don’t get mad at us because Hillary is starting to sound like a typical Republican and we respond in kind.
I love people who claim to be impartial or independent when they are clearly not. I had someone send me another anti-Gore email the other day and told me he was an independent while deriding me for an anti-Bush comment because “he can’t do anything right with you people”. Heeelllllooo, it looks like Gore can’t do anything right with people who are STILL sending anti-Gore emails. Impartial/independent, heh!
As for the Hillary/Obama VP thing, she is talking for the benefit of the super delegates. She is arguing that after she is done trashing him he won’t be a viable candidate and then she is showing how magnanimous she can be by offering to let Obama be VP (if he wants to) - a great way to let them off the hook from making a tough decision. She’s looking strong, he’s trashed, but hey, it won’t tick the voters off if I make him my VP, so it will be easy for you to vote for me…
I swear I remember people talking about how great it would be if more states counted in the nominating process. The DNC even tried to spread out the process and stop front loading (MI & FL). And now you all want it to end?
Get a life folks.
Clinton - Obama ‘08
The dream team.. ahhh… I’ve been saying that all along
Before you Obamaniacs get too bent out of shape saying how much more electable your candidate is, you may need a lesson in how politics really works..
here’s some good reading to get you started
Hillary and the media haven’t figured out that Obama is the Democratic nominee. All the lies, hypocrisy and drama coming out of Hillary’s pie-hole is all for not.
Obama’s elected delegate lead is insurmountable and the supers know that they would send half the voters to Ralph Nader if they overrule the collective results of the primaries and caucuses. In fact, Obama’s picked up about 11 more supers this week, essentially erasing any gains that Hillary attained in Ohio and Texas.
She’s done. Now if only she and the media could learn to add and subtract.
The link didn’t seem to show up properly using the href tag, here’s the URL:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html
Read this, then decide if I’m full of shit for saying that HRC is actually better off than Obama…
Read this, then decide if I’m full of shit for saying that HRC is actually better off than Obama…
You know, Greg, when the people you’re trying to win over are grumbling that Hillary is sounding like a Republican these days, it probably doesn’t make much strategic sense to use an article from a right-wing website like Real Clear Politics site to make your case. (Maybe you can find an article from Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg to convince us?)
If you want to read what (1) independent pollsters and (2) Democratic strategists have to say about the electoral math — as opposed to the internet version of Faux News — then go read the links I posted up in comment #56.
I’ll take actual polling and number crunching over the opinion of a conservative shill.
From Greg’s article: “Clinton’s stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama’s argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters — and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November — look like an awfully simplistic calculus.”
“Stunning” performance in Ohio? 10 points is stunning when just two weeks prior she led by 20 points in the polls? 10 points in a single state is stunning, when Obama had a string of wins in which he won by 25 to 35 points? “Stunning” is an opinion…not supported by the facts.
Obama’s argument that the supers should automatically back the will of the voters may be “simplistic”, but it also happens to be exactly what the supers will do, as evidence by the continual shift in his direction (since Tuesday night).
She won’t do it, but it’s time for Hillary to shut it down.
essentially erasing any gains that Hillary attained in Ohio and Texas.
She didn’t even gain any ground in Texas. With the caucus delegates added, Obama is going to be the net winner there.
Yes, I know, Mark Penn, caucus votes don’t count.
TR, that site is pretty much right down the middle, unlike the far left progressive blogs being cited in your post (#56).
I think it’s pathetic to say that any analysis that doesn’t agree with your short sighted view of politics must be from a conservative site, I might not agree with every negative analysis of Clinton, but at least I don’t call them right wing or conservative for disagreeing with me.. sheesh.
FYI
Read this, then decide if I’m full of shit for saying that HRC is actually better off than Obama… -Greg
That article makes the case that Obama is not viable in November because the states he’s won only account for 193 electoral college votes and that his clear loss in Ohio spells doom for him. Sorry, I just don’t buy it. He’ll win California and New York and the solid Democratic states.
How is Obama polling against McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania? That’s a better judge of how he’s shaping up to do in November than how he did against Clinton. It does not logically follow that because she won in Ohio, he can’t possibly beat McCain.
…And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” she said.
That’s just silly talk. Most recent primaries were well wrapped up by the time Ohio voted, so of course the nominee won Ohio. No Senator has won the Presidency since Kennedy, either, so maybe this is the year for breaking trends.
For that matter no woman has ever won the Presidency. Doom! Doom is upon us.
So, by virtue of your challenge, yeah, you are full of shit.
Maybe you would agree with Krugman, or do you believe he is secretly republican as well?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/more-electability/
Obama is going to be the net winner there. -TR
Correction, he is the net winner there, 98 to 95 delegates.
Texas is in Obama’s win column, but it doesn’t count because it’s an insignificant red state.
Maybe you would agree with Krugman, or do you believe he is secretly republican as well? -Greg
He’s not secretly Republican, he’s adamantly opposed to Obama. He wears his bias on his sleeve.
Obama cannot win Florida, and most likely won’t win most of the other battleground states.. Why might you ask? For much the same fucking reason he won’t win the fucking RED states in the general election, because moderates and conservatives are afraid that he will fuck everything up.
PS: They call them RED states for a reason, they haven’t turned blue in over 50 years, and no amount of speeches could change that after the Republican fear campaign begins, and the superdelegates know this.
After Pennsylvania, and FL & MI re-vote, I bet the supers start coming out for HRC in huge numbers.
Greg, it’s a flawed line of reasoning that because Clinton won in Ohio, Obama can’t. There will be a small minority of Dem’s who won’t vote for either Clinton or Obama, but once the Republican machine starts up, the vast majority of Dems will rally behind either candidate. And so it’s really up to the independents and the moderate Republicans. Obama wins in those two important categories.
“He would be stupid to throw that away by insisting on everything now, when it isn’t his turn yet.”
Senator Clinton is no more entitled to the office than Martin Sheen!! But thanks for the laugh.
One More 4 “Mary”
Doesn’t anyone question the maturity of a foreign affairs specialist who would refer to someone of her own party as a “monster?” To say someone who has less experience has less experience is worse than this? Just asking
He’s not secretly Republican, he’s adamantly opposed to Obama. He wears his bias on his sleeve. - doubtful
I tend to agree with him, Obama cannot beat McCain, regardless of what the polls say.. the republican smear machine will make minced meat of Obama, and many of his supporters will be disheartened, and fall like dominoes.
Clinton - Obama ‘08 is the only hope for democrats in November.
Maybe you would agree with Krugman, or do you believe he is secretly republican as well?
No, Krugman is a die-hard Clinton supporter. Have you read his columns for the past two months?Why don’t you just quote Mark Penn?
I have offered analysis from an independent polling agency to support my claims. See if you can do the same.
Whether Greg/Krugman/RCP is right or wrong is irrelevant.
Fred Rutherford is correct. The supers will not, under any circumstances, overturn the results of a long, contentious and expensive primary and caucus process. They’d alienate African-American voters for a generation, not to mention the millions of young voters who donated to and worked on the Obama campaign. To the victor (he with the most elected delegates) go the spoils (the supers). We’ll see more supers come out publicly in support of Obama immediately after Mississippi.
As Rutherford said, game over.
In a rare case of accurate naming thesd days, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton is referred to as a “dream ticket.” A dream, indeed (sound of rudely awakening alarm clock).
I agree with Rutherford too.
What the supers are likely to consider is that not only is Hillary destroying our Democratic nominee for the general election (i.e. Obama), but in the event of a miracle and she were to become the nominee, she’s beating herself with those 3:00 AM ads. McCain loves that shit.
As James said, if the supers are smart, they’ll let Hillary wallow in her ignorance for a few more days, and then break for Obama after Mississippi. She’s damaging the Dems for November, and they have to know it.
Would you Obama-nuts stop with the ‘destroying’ comments?
Either Obama is a weak candidate - which you seem to be implying - or he’s not, which seems to be your wish. Either he can stand up to scrutiny from the press or not, it doesn’t matter if it’s Clinton or whoever on the far side of the podium.
How could this even possibly be damaging, you haven’t bothered to say, but you keep saying it.
I wouldn’t mind a Clinton/Obama ticket. In fact, it’s my preference, given the choices.
I’d like to make a small point concerning the line of reasoning that i hear from Clinton supporters on a regular basis: Clinton is winning among “Democrats”.
Pure Democrats make up just a hair over 30% of the US population. Republicans make up roughly 25%. (I’m talking about true believer, card carrying member types.) 15% of the population just doesn’t give a damn. And 30% of the population are considered “independents”; they may lean left or right, but they don’t adhere to either party.
Maybe the Democrats biggest problem since 1994 is that they aren’t very good at math and think that they can win elections with 30%. That 30% will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what (at least the vast majority of them), because they are Democrats.
What you need to win elections - especially presidential elections - is the independents, at least a chunk of them. Now ask yourself…can Sen Clinton get independents to vote for her?
“Would you Obama-nuts stop with the ‘destroying’ comments? Either Obama is a weak candidate - which you seem to be implying - or he’s not…”
Crissa equates honesty with weakness and dishonesty with strength. Hillary’s constant lies about Obama and hypocrisy on issue after issue don’t seem to bother her.
This progressive values the truth, and therefore, could never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.
(note to Crissa: There will be no Clinton/Obama ticket because Clinton has already lost.)
Have you guys never watched a convention on TV? The delegates are pledged for the first ballot. If there is not a sufficient number of votes to nominate on the first ballot, as there will not be this time, then the pledged delegates are released. At that point, the delegates can vote for the other candidate or for someone entirely new (Gore?) or for the same candidate as on the first ballot. The balloting goes on until one candidate has sufficient votes to win the nomination. There is considerable negotiating among the delegations to get them to shift their votes to accomplish a majority. That is the process — not the same as a “smoke filled room” in which party bosses decide who the nominee will be and then force that upon everyone else. Unless someone drops out, this will surely go to the convention and there will be this kind of balloting until a nominee is picked.
Some have suggested that Obama has put forth the idea that whoever leads in terms of delegates represents the “will of the people” and thus should be the nominee. That is a subversion of the convention process in which the party picks the nominee based on the voting by the delegates. In the past, California voted for Adlai Stevenson and there was a scandel when the pledged delegates went for JFK instead, on the first round. They clearly did not represent the “will of the people” in California but their actions were legal and were permitted, despite the outcry of the Stevenson supporters.
It has been a while since we’ve had an interesting convention. Obama may be too young to have seen one himself. That doesn’t mean he gets to rewrite the nomination process to suit his own ambitions.
“…their actions were legal and were permitted…”
I don’t know about others, but it always bothers me when somebody supports his or her argument by saying “it’s perfectly legal”. It’s as if such a person can’t rely on his or her own conscience, and instead, needs a law or a written rule to discern the difference between right and wrong.
Rutherford and others nailed it. African-Americans, young voters and others will walk if the results of the primary/caucus system are not honored at the convention…legal or not.
…And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” she said.
Another falsehood from Clinton, unless recent limits this to very few elections:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2998
Excellent point by GtF! Put another way, laws and rules are products of our values and ethics, not the other way around.
The purpose of the convention is to come to a consensus behind an electable candidate and, historically, this has not always been the front runner or the person who has most on the first ballot. This is not dishonest or illegal; it’s the way conventions work.
There is no way H.C. will allow Obama on the ticket, for one simple reason: She will not be overshadowed. Just like Bill, she wants all of the limelight. Her ego will simply not allow it. You can also forget about Obama picking Hillary. He has got to be smarter than putting her just one heartbeat (his own heartbeat) away from the presidency.
I want to weigh in on this “Clinton/Obama ticket” ridiculousness.
Obviously, Clinton is attempting to display an air of inevitability. Unfortunately for her, it’s too late.
But what about an Obama/Clinton ticket? Not likely either. Why not?
It’s very true. Many Obama supporters are also Hillary-haters (myself included). But Clinton supporters think this enmity arises out of our attraction to Obama’s candidacy. They’re wrong.
I can’t speak for all my Hillary-hating compadres, but if others are like myself, then our disgust for the loathsome Hillary comes from the fact that we value truth, honesty and integrity and despise lies and hypocrisy. In other words, we hate Hillary for the same reason we respect Obama.
If one accepts that lies and hypocrisy are an acceptable component of the rough and tumble of politics, then Hillary is your horse. Me? I’m not going to sell my soul to a political party. If I wanted to do that, I’d become a Republican.
I’m supporting a person…and that person is Barak Obama.
N.Wells said:
However, there is one easy way out. Perhaps after Pennsylvania voters have a say, if things still look tied, Barack and Hillary could get together, note the many good things they have in common with each other and the many more disagreements they have regarding the Republican debacle of the last two decades, and flip a coin, with the winner getting the top of the ticket, and the loser getting the VP slot.
Flip a coin my ass! If there is a unity ticket Obama should lead it. He’s leading this thing by every objective measure: the most pledged delgates; won the most states; and leads in the popular vote. However, after Clinton’s recent comments suggesting that McCain is more qualified than a fellow democrat, If I were Obama, I would not choose her to be on the ticket. There a lot of other democrats he can choose.
“Seriously, I’d like to know how you rationally think Clinton can make up the ground, because I don’t see it happening in any logical way.”
You know what? The longer I listen to the blog-talk, the more it seems that Clinton’s supporters, if not the candidate herself, believe that she is running in the Republican primary instead of the Democratic one.
Everything I hear people say, about her having the momentum and being able to come from behind, would all be true if this were the Republican nomination and the remaining contests were winner take all. If there were two Republicans still in the race with exactly equal numbers of delegates, one of them could still blow the other out of the water by winning every remaining race.
In the Democratic contest, that’s not gonna happen. If the vote splits 50-50 the rest of the way out, and there are about 500 delegates remaining, neither candidate can count on gaining more than 5 or 10 delegates on the other.
Obama has won. He needs the superdelegates to make it official, and they could still legitimately give the nomination to Clinton, but as he said long ago, it would be “problematic” if they undercut the results of the primary process by defeating the candidate with the most pledged delegates.
“Problematic” is putting it mildly. What Obama was saying was that if the Democrats decide to do something stupid at the convention, he accepts John McCain’s invitation to be his VP and the two of them squash the Democrats like a bug in November.
Prediction: after much hand-wringing, the superdelegates will see things Obama’s way.
I like Shopa’s comments. Hillary supporters like Obama, but can’t understand Hillary-haters. “We like their candidate. Why do these obnoxious Obama-nuts hate our candidate so much?”
It’s not complicated. People who don’t mind the dishonesty coming out of the Clinton campaign certainly are not going to get upset with the positive approach that Obama has attempted to maintain.
On the other hand, people who are attracted to the Obama campaign because of his positive message and honest demeanor, are naturally going to put off by Hillary’s methods.
It’s no surprise that Hillary supporters respect Obama and Obama supporters despise Hillary. The Obama supporters set the bar higher than Hillary supporters…much higher.
This is a tough one. I do not like Hillary, but she and Bill are absolute masters at this political crap, and Barack, whom I way prefer, is really untested at this dogfight electoral process.
I don’t think Bill would ever concede to Hillary being a veep candidate, which I would love to see, so what is the problem with Barack taking second seat? If he could be as strong an influence on the direction of the administration as (ugh!) Cheney has been, the pair might be able to get something done in a really significant way…
Am I nuts? (Sometimes I wonder)
Barry @105, heck yes, you’re nuts (said in the most respectful way possible, of course
1) I don’t want Bill in office again. I don’t want spouses to run for president because dynasties are sooooo medieval.
2) HRC keeps saying she’s running for pres, not Bill (but I think you’re right)
3) If HRC really and truly wants to accomplish anything but gratify her own ego, she should cut a deal with Dean taking the Senate Leadership position. THAT’S where we need someone who can’t figure out how to negotiate and where her brand of partisan insanity would actually get something done.
There’s not going to be a unity ticket no matter what the starry-eyed dreamers say. Its clear that Obama is going to pick a Westerner to reinforce the strengths he has there.
Maybe I’m just confused, but I thought the fact that Obama lacked “experience” in the eye-gouging, ear-chewing world of gutter politics was precisely what attracted his following in the first place. It’s pretty fucking sad, if you’ll forgive the profanity, if what decides the leading candidate now is how well they can weather abuse rather than how they stack up as a leader. It isn’t up to Obama to get negative to drag Hillary down, it’s up to YOU to make it clear that negative sand-throwing isn’t what’s wanted!! It isn’t up to John Sidney McCain to highlight that Hillary’s low blows are turning people off, it’s up to YOU to let everyone know that kind of behavior isn’t appreciated!! If you want to send the best leader up against JSM in the general, stop turning the Primary Bowl into the Coliseum, and Clinton and Obama into gladiators.
The eventual president and foreign leaders are not going to hurl abuse at each other until one of them bursts into tears and quits - he or she is going to have to negotiate, respectfully and politely, in the endless minuet of diplomacy. The eventual president is not going to solve the country’s economic woes by dropping sly innuendos about trade policies and insinuating that the ministers of foreign affairs of partner nations are in bed with organized crime - he or she is going to have to hammer out policies that are not blatantly one-sided, and try to consider the retention of good jobs in both countries while doing so. Stop encouraging the contenders to stomp one another, and quit cheering every punch, or expressing your loathing for your favourite’s opponent as if they were less than human.
If this keeps on the way it’s heading, you’re going to end up with a president who knows how to fight political enemies, but who will have time or inclination for fuck-all else. If that’s what you want, just keep it up with the drama.
I took awhile for th Clintonatonic to show up here. They must not be paying attention Clinton can’t beat McCain, so she might as well join him.
Since one has to vote for President and Vice President separately on most ballots I have ever seen (same party, but separate votes) wouldn’t it be a scream if The Empress managed to con Obama into doing such a thing and then ended up with fewer votes than he got????
Being Hillary’s veep would be the worst job ever created in the history of the world? Why would anyone take that job, Obama would be better off and accomplish more going back to the Senate. In Hillary’s White House, Bill will get any good assignments the Veep would normally get. Heck Her Veep might not even have access to the oval office. You’d be stuck doing tea and cookie assignments in third world countries usually carried out by the first lady. You’d be so far down the chain you’d be having lunch with the cleaning staff. the best you could hope for is Vice-Vice President but you’d probably be below Hillary, Bill, Maggie Willaims, Ickes and a host of others, you wouldn’t be a part of the inner circle, you wouldn’t even be in the outer circle. They wouldn’t even give you a pass to get into the White House.
Now why would she accept being his veep? well it would make her President Pro Temp of the Senate, but unless they change the rules or she changes how the Senate works it is better to be a senator if you want to write and pass bills.
Being above Hillary on the totem pole may be the most dangerous job in the world, not a very healthy position to be in.
There is one way the nominee might not totally PO half the party. If no one wins the nomination on the first ballot the delegates are free to vote for anyone. The one being mentioned is Al Gore. maybe then placate Obama with the Veep and Hillary with senate leadership and maybe later nomination to the Court.
111. george said
Uhhh…no, the VP is the President of the Senate. The President Pro Tempore is an honorary position bestowed upon the oldest member of the U.S. Senate. If you’re going to whip out obscure civics trivia, please check Wikipedia first so you get it right.
An Obama/Billary dream ticket? I don’t believe Obama would want 2 vice presidents; that would be a nightmare!
60.On March 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, Comeback Bill said:
Anyone notice who all the hate spewers are on here. One hint Obama supporters.
Anyone notice which candidate’s supporters aren’t even willing to acknowledge much less defend all the twisted lies that come out of the mouths of their campaign spokespeople? Your mileage obviously varies, but I see good reason to hate people like Penn, Wolfson and Ickes after all the insulting shit they have spewed in the last month. And I see no reason that hate shouldn’t extend to the candidate who tells them what to say.
Then again, what does it matter what I think? I live in Alabama so I’m one of those millions of Democrats who doesn’t count.
this is an excellent idea. Hillary for Pres. and Obama for V.P. This way Obama will have years to gain the experience to be the President. Today, if Hillary is out and Obama is the presidentail canidate, I will not vote for him. He has minimal experience. If Obama runs in several years after gaining experience, I will vote for him. It is not about being black, it is about experience.
something I heard on T.V. today was very insulting> it was stated that the blacks would riot in the streets if Obama is not made the Democratic presidential nominee….threats don’t work with me….
I’ll put my bias upfront. Obama supporter, not quite Hillary hater (but pretty close after the pro John McCain comment over Obama the other day).
That said. I do try to be impartial, but Im sure no matter how hard I try some bias will come through. But since my general temperament is unemotional I will try and summarize my thoughts on this issue.
I do believe this is a sales ploy by Hillary to the votes of MS and the super delegates. I hope no one bites. OK, now on to what I really wanted to say.
I would like to point out about what this says about where these candidates supporters really stand in these hyper partisan blog comments.
Hillary backers seems thrilled with this idea (when it is Hillary at the head of the ticket). All of a sudden Barack becomes a ‘great’ VP and would be great on the ticket. Just season him up under Hillary and he’ll be the next JFK……in 8 years. So all the Hillary backers care about is Hillary winning. They really dont dislike Obama, they just really want Clinton. So, to me it shows that much of the negativity to Obama is very shallow and only part of the game of supporting one candidate over another and not ‘real’ negatives. Nothing wrong with that.
The Obama backers on the other hand almost resoundingly decry the notion of the inverse (having Hillary as his VP) because the distaste of Hillary is so high. Not only do they prefer their candidate but the they also really dislike the other candidate.. And that dislike is not shallow, its quite deep. They actually see a problem with Clinton and feel