You Saw the Democratic Ticket at the Debate Last Night

[TomClash]

Face it, folks, the two of them make a team difficult to beat: Obama-Clinton - both did an excellent job and compliment each other well. For all her faults, Hillary knows a lot at a time when we don't need any more policy amateurs. Their policies dovetail nicely for the most part. She adds experience to his judgment. The graciousness shown by both candidates at the end make running together a distinct possibility. This combination unites the party instantly and focuses everyone on beating the Repukes.

Here negatives are obvious and the Big Dog may have to be locked in the doghouse. She mobilizes conservatives. And this may wither the change meme.

But who's better for Barack? Who brings more to the table? Barack will probably pick a smart policy woman or a strong "national security" white guy.

1. Gore would never take it and who could blame him?
2. Edwards doesn't want it and, for whatever reason, didn't help Kerry much in 2004.
3. While politically strong on security issues, Jim Webb is probably too conservative and not necessarily a team player.
4. Bloomberg? We nominate Democrats and Barack should have plenty of cash.
5. Sibelius, Napolitano, Gregoire - while I like all three, if you are going for women's votes, Hillary is simply a better draw.
6. Wes Clark - too weak and didn't do much of a job campaigning for Hillary
7. Claudia Kennedy or some other general - unknown, not used to the glare of a national media campaign, etc.
8. Others - actors, talk show hosts, business people, etc. - no thanks, no rookies. We playing a sharp position here and we need the best.

Don't flame me - I'm open to a better choice. But what I saw on stage last night was electric, strong and vibrant.

Besides, wouldn't it be kick-ass to elect the first African-American President and first woman Vice President? Nothing like signaling to the world that the new and real America has arrived after years in the Bush-Cheney wilderness.

[Independent-Voter]

1. There is no way in hell that HRC is on the ticket this fall

[ShortnFiery]

26. True, The Clintons have left only "scorched earth" - I'm still working on forgiving them.

I know that we're all democrats and we must try to bridge our divides, but NOT this way. :(

[Beacool]

30. Forgiving them?????

They have nothing to apologize for as far as I'm concerned. I'm still working on looking at Obama on my TV without switching the channel like I do when Bush is on it.

[jasmine621]

32. What is the scortched earth? Obama has left much more scorched earth.

Just look at what his supporters say about Hillary...and these are supposed to be Dems. He smears the Clintons worse than the opposition. No one has talked more negatively about the only Dem President to win two terms since FDR than Obama and his surrogates.

[busymom]

2. It would be awesome....

I really could get excited about it!

[busymom]

8. Contact the DNC

and let them know if this is something exciting to you! I just did.

http://www.democrats.org

[ossman]

3. General Tony Zinni

His only job... get us the fuck out of Iraq.

Go to funerals.

[Justyce]

4. IMO, they wouldn't make a good ticket together because

they BOTH need a very strong VP on the ticket.

[RichGirl]

12. They are both very strong.

In fact...anyone else would look weak.

1) All the so-called anger, nastiness, etc...between Hillary and Barack is an illusion created by overzealous supporters and a media that loves conflict. I'm sure the two of them like and respect each other and know that this stuff is necessary in a campaign. Even Obama knew he wasn't running for student council.

2) The nom doesn't have to like the VP and doesn't even pick him/her. The party decides what's best for the party. Reagan did not like Bush Sr. and never even invited him to the white house. Kerry did not want Edwards...it was Bill Clinton who encouraged him and they (Kerry/Edwards) never really liked each other.

3) Their positions are practically indentical. Yes, Hillary voted for IWR, but since then they have both voted to finance the war. Except for subtle differences the only difference is in words, change vs experience. Even that is the same since Obama does have experience and Hillary does want change. Having a woman president will be just as big of a change than having an African American.

4) Doesn't Obama believe in the will of the people? He didn't get 100%, he's gotten just a little over half. So, the will of the people is divided. He is claiming that he'll unite the partys. Shouldn't he first unite the democratic party?

Unlike many of you...I don't claim to know who they will or won't pick or whether the other will accept. I do hope that whoever wins, chooses the other because that would truly be the will of the people. Except for extremists on this and similiar boards. Most people out there like them both.

[Angela Shelley]

5. Rachel Maddow

She´s honest, educated, willing and able to find out the truth, and does extremely well in interviews.

[rox63]

7. He needs a VP with a strong national-security & foreign-relations backround

And I want Rachel to stay on the air and report the truth to us. I think she's more useful in that role.

[Angela Shelley]

19. Thanks for saying nice things about her,

she rocks!

[MonkeyFunk]

Yeah

a 34-year old lesbian radio talk-show host - that's the winning ticket!

[Angela Shelley]

36. Did you read the part about "finding the truth"?

[rox63]

6. I can't see this happening

I don't think Hillary would accept the VP spot. And I think having her on the ticket would damage Obama's change message. And it would draw all of the Hillary-haters out to the polls to vote against her, even though she wouldn't be at the top of the ticket.

[TomClash]

23. Maybe

I think she would jump at the VP spot. I think the conservatives and nutcases come out for McCain anyway. But you are right that her presence could damage his change message. But she received a lot of votes and she would work hard for the ticket - I think on balance she helps more than she hurts.

I want to win badly - McCain means a nuclear war - you can take it to the bank. The man is insane and everyone knows it.

[Araxen]

9. Never happen

42% negative rating and we don't need to give the Repubs any more excuses to rally around McCain.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. That doesn't seem

like an exceptionally high negative rating.

You're not gonna get >58% of the vote anyway. And ANY candidate will have negatives at least that high by the time of the election.

[texas_indy]

10. You mean 1/2 of the ticket. We don't know yet who Obama will pick for VP, but never Hillary! (nt)

[calico1]

11. He won't ask her and she wouldn't accept if he did. n/t

[guruoo]

13. They're sending signals to the affirmative, IMO.

[sabbat hunter]

14. bloomberg

if you look at bloomberg's track record, he is probably more liberal than many other choices. That being said I don't think he will take the VP slot if offered as he would never want to play second fiddle.


Other possible VP choices
1) Evan Bayh of Indiana. Lots of experience at the State level and at the federal level. Would most likely help carry Indiana for the Democratic party. That would be huge.
2)Sam Nunn. Older, (69) but would bring the foreign policy and defense experience to the WH that both candidates are weaker on. Would bring Georgia into play.
3) Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf. Who better than the "hero" of the first gulf war to help BO or HRC formulate a plan to extract us from Iraq?
4) Robert F Kennedy Jr. Brings that Kennedy mystique to the ticket, lots of passion. May have trouble debating though due to his voice issues.
5) Chuck Schumer of NY. Only valid if BO is the nominee. Strong policy experience, would help with the Jewish vote (some of whom are nervous about BO because of the fact that a pastor in his church praised Farrakkan in a magazine.) That would be very key in NY and Florida.
6)Joe Kernan, former Governor of Indiana. would also bring Indiana into play for the democrats. Much like McCain was shot down in VietNam and held as a POW. Would counterbalance the McCain war hero factor.
7) Joe Biden. strong foreign policy background.
8)Ted Strickland, governor Ohio. Would virtually guarantee state for Dems.
9)Bob Krueger former senator from Texas. may not guarantee us Texas, but would make the republicans spend money there, they would not have otherwise done. Former Ambassador under Bill Clinton to two different African nations. brings the foreign policy experience.

[TomClash]

18. Bloomberg won't ge the votes at the convention - he's not a Dem

And he brings little to the table to help Barack.

Bayh and Nunn are as exciting as watching grass grow. Schwartzkopf is a dyed in the wool Repuke. Bobby Kennedy has never run for office - that's because he's a mediocre campaigner. Schumer - we will win NY anyway and we probably won't win FLA anyway - he looking to be majority leader anyway. Kernan couldn't get elected Indiana Governor. Biden is a loose cannon who can't get votes. We're going to win Ohio so we don't need Strickland and he brings nothing else to the table. Krueger I don't know anything about.

Hillary brings over 8 million primary votes to the table.

[sabbat hunter]

25. dont be so sure

about Ohio. There are a lot of republican strongholds there that will vote for McCain.

We don't need someone exciting as VP. Was Gore exciting? Was Truman? Was Mondale?

No to all the above. We need a VP that is popular in his/her home state Bayh fits that description to a T.

HRC would not necessarily help us win any states unfortunately.

And I believe that Florida is in play. With its large Jewish population who are shaky on BO, someone like Schumer can bring it to the D column.

[TomClash]

28. We will win Ohio

barring some catastrophe. McCain = Bush and that state's economy is a disaster. Barack could get 4 million votes.

FDR had already won Missouri 3 times before Truman replaced Garner. Clinton would probably have won Tenn without Gore and Carter probably didn't need Mondale to win Minn in '76. FLA is a problem and I don't think we take that state under any circumstances (though I hope I'm wrong).

HRC brings party unity, votes, experience and women. Barack needs these a lot more than a smattering of Broward County votes.

[Yael]

15. Bad choice

We need to move past the divisiveness.

[TomClash]

17. What better way to end it? nt

[Eurobabe]

16. No way.

Obama doesn't need to drag around the Clinton ball and chain.

[Angela Shelley]

20. Which one is the ball, which one is the chain?

[Eurobabe]

33. Oh tough call, but at this point I like Hillary more than Bill

so I would say Bill is the ball and Hillary is the chain. :hi:

[Egnever]

21. Not going to happen

[K Gardner]

22. Never happen. For so many reasons.

[closeupready]

27. I think she would do it, because it leaves her poised to take over in 2016.

n/t

[sabbat hunter]

41. I doubt it

she would be 69 in 2016.

[Exilednight]

29. Hillary will not be VP, and here is why...

1. Obama is going to need to win swing states, and there is no guarantee that Hillary can deliver those states.

2. The campaign staff infighting will be to much to get anything done.

3. She has strengths, but she also has high negatives.

4. She's good at national policy, but is no better prepared than Barack on foreign policy.

[TomClash]

34. But . . .

. . . she attracts the type of voters he needs to win: women, latinos, older white working class voters. There are a lot of those voters in swing states.

Her campaign staff will shrink and her media people will be gone. It's Barack's show and Hillary will understand get that. I can tell you Maggie and Mandy stay, the Penn and Teller people go.

She knows a lot about domestic and foreign policy - especially compared to most of the other uninspiring suggestions. Watch what happens if you put a blow dry candidate like Evan Bayh out there. Ugh.

This is his first major Presidential decision, his first chance to unify. If he picks some moderate white guy who brings nothing to the table it will be a major disappointment. Hell, half his advisers are old Clinton people anyway.

[Exilednight]

35. But... But...

Obama has proven that he can cut into her demographic. The last set of primaries have shown that the only demographics Hillary has left is people making under 30k a year and women over the age of 50.

I honestly believe that after 8 years of cheney running roughshod over executive power that the American people want a more subdued VP. I don't want another VP from either party that has a "a different understanding".

[TomClash]

37. But . . . but . . . but .. . :-)

These are important constituencies and I think there are many potential voters who are not sold on him and she helps with that. Latinos aren't sold on him either.

Subdued means boring and inexperienced and white male and moderate. I see the ex-Reagan Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb. So much for change and unity.

[Exilednight]

39. but...but... but...but...

I can see him picking Richardson who can deliver the Hispanic vote and most of the South-West where he is very popular. If Obama can win NV, NM, and AZ that's around 20 electorals.

The problem with the Democratic party is that it is very short sighted. These are states that all went for Bill Clinton, but our party didn't take the long view and look for ways to keep them under the tent.

[donheld]

31. You're dreaming

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. ********

[book_worm]

40. I can see Clinton/Obama but not Obama/Clinton

[ORDem]

42. No, no, no! HRC needs to help us in the Senate, or

maybe in a cabinet position, but not as VP!

Besides, we don't need a favorite "son" from NY or AR. Those are in the bag already.

Let's have Jim Webb as VP and turn Virginia dark blue!!

:dem: