Check in here if you would be satisfied with either an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket

[ruggerson]

which I think is going to be the only way we win in the fall.

I'm not saying anyone is going to be overjoyed by this, but it is the sensible way to keep our party from fracturing and keep us focused on the prize.

My theory is that if Obama gets it, politically he has to at least offer it to Hillary, since she holds the allegiance of the entire other half of the party. If Hillary takes it, she has to offer it to Obama because she can't risk losing his voters.

They both need each other at this point. So, it's essentially a ticket born of pure political necessity.

(btw, don't bother to flame this thread if you hate one or the other candidate. There are plenty of other threads you can vent on.)

[FlyingSquirrel]

1. Checking in... in opposition.

Sorry. I think it's time for a clean break from the past, that's all.

[babylonsister]

3. Ditto=first of many, I imagine. nt

[ruggerson]

5. I guess you didn't take the time to read the OP

[scheming daemons]

7. I agree... Clinton on EITHER end of the ticket is electoral poison.... just say no to Clintons..

..

[ClayZ]

67. No to Clintons! K and R

[goclark]

87. No to King and Queen HCBC

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

95. no to a Clinton in the White House - end the dynasty, send the millionaires home!

Let them eat $109 Million (plus whatever they bagged in 2007) and cake.

[goclark]

111. Send them packing America ~ no Dynasty, no way!

[FARAFIELD]

9. no and no

I can see why she would want him, but why would he do it?
and there would be no point to having her (why would she do it?)
and personally either of those tickets suck
If Hill gets the nomination it will be BAYH anyone that has another idea is dreaming.
and OBAMA damn I dont know. Clark would be good *but he likes Hill, and WEBB would be good
but would he give up his seat to be VICE PREZ?

[earthlover]

77. Wes Clark makes more sense than Hillary for Obama's VP

Hillary really crossed the line when she endorsed McCain over Obama as commander in chief. It is now bizarr-o even pondering her being on the same ticket with a man she said was such....

Wes Clark, being a supporter of Hillary, would be a unity ticket. He would also shore Obama up on national defense.

Hillary would have benefited also from Wes Clark as VP for her. However, the way she thinks, she would probably go with a milque-toast like Bayh who unfortunately does not have foreign policy credentials.

Of course, Hillary may be campaigning to be McCain's VP. That I think is HER dream ticket. She likes McCain. Buddies. She loathes Obama personally, hard to imagine them working together.

[goclark]

90. I believe she would jump at the chance to be McCain's VP

He would let her run the Office from day one.

He would allow HCBC to be CO-Presidents behind the scenes.

He would sleep and look at old pictures with GW and get his hug around Birthday time.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. she might even endorse his gas tax holiday... oh wait, she just DID that

two peas in a pod.

and both want to bomb Iran!

[LVjinx]

100. I don't think I can vote for any ticket that has Obama on it, much as I love Hillary

[WeDidIt]

129. Agreed

Obama should keep himself as far away from Hillary as humanly possible.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. It would work for me.

I'm not real particular at this point.

[Auntie Bush]

12. I could reluctantly handle it.

[peace13]

4. No thank you, not today not ever. Sorry. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

6. Not happening here. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

8. Checking out

Way out...

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. I will vote for the nominee

I would prefer that our nominee promote Hillary's policy goals.

The nominee has the perogative to pick her/his own running-mate, but there are some pragmatic reasons to pick one whom the other 15 million voters support.

[LakeSamish706]

11. I guess you don't understand that we don't have a party with either Clinton still in it. n/t

[ruggerson]

14. I guess you don't understand there are a thousand other threads

you can push your garbage in.

[LakeSamish706]

15. And I guess you don't understand that you Clinton supporters are so out numbered here... n/t

[ruggerson]

18. So sheer numbers means you can behave like a petulant child?

[LakeSamish706]

22. Actually no, it means that the number supporting the Clinton's is dwindling big time on DU...

And that would be a big "Whew" for me...

[ruggerson]

29. go take a long drive on chuckanut

and get back to us when you are in a better mood.

[LakeSamish706]

37. Lol... So you know chuckanut Drive huh... Hey thats cool.. It actually is a nice drive.... n/t

[emilyg]

85. I don't care what DU does

it's a minuscule part of the voting population.

[WinkyDink]

46. AND YOUR POINT WOULD BE? Are you even in junior high?

[LakeSamish706]

57. WinkyDink... And your asking me that question.. hmmm Ok.. lol n/t

[WinkyDink]

58. "You're". Yes, I am. Who are you to declare what the make-up of DU is? Not everyone posts.

[LakeSamish706]

60. What the hell is a WinkyDink anyway? n/t

[emilyg]

84. So what - you're trying to bully us?

[musicblind]

114. Outnumbered on DU, but not by reality. Polls show at least 60% of dems

think that a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is a good idea. That's a clear majority.

[cyndensco]

135. But what kind of responses did you expect?

There have been numerous "unity ticket" questions here and the responses are increasingly against one. How do you expect someone to answer in the negative without mentioning WHY their candidate should not choose the other? Are you just looking for a yea or nay? (BTW - NAY to a unity ticket)

[WinkyDink]

44. Oh, can it. The Clinton---either one---hate here is a joy to behold---for Republicans.

[oberliner]

13. One of the few folks left who would be more than happy with either candidate

Or any combination of the two!

[musicblind]

115. I would be happy with any combination of the two

[pocoloco]

16. Why would you do that to Obama??

Why do you hate America?

[Kingofalldems]

17. Right here

I like both of them. I proudly support the Democratic party.

[NanceGreggs]

19. Thanks ...

... but no thanks.

When hoping to ascend to the presidency, you grab a kite, not an anchor.

Hillary on Obama's ticket would be an anchor at this point - and I don't feel badly about saying that, because I'm sure many Hillary supporters would feel the same way were she to have won the nomination, and offered the VP spot to Barack.

[ruggerson]

40. so 50% of the party

is an "anchor"?

I understand you loathe Hillary, but what you seem to forget is that in the real world, half the party thinks she's the best choice to be our standard bearer. In an effort to keep those people voting Dem, one would think a smart politician would want to embrace them.

[NanceGreggs]

73. First of all, I don't "loathe" Hillary ...

... secondly, I did not say that her supporters are the anchor, but that she herself would be.

I would have applauded the idea of a 'unity ticket' a few months ago, but there's just been too much blood under the bridge.

After Hill's comments about McCain having the experience to be C-in-C while Obama was dismissed as a "speech in 2002", the constant goalpost movement, the cries to have her MI votes counted while Obama wasn't on the ballot, and -- first and foremost - her Bosnia story, the negativity of her campain, etc., I don't want her anywhere near Obama's presidency.

By the same token, many Hillary supporters are equally vehement about not wanting Obama participating in her administration. And they have their reasons for feeling so.

I realize that at this point, Hillary's chances are pretty close to nil, and her only shot at the WH at all would be as Obama's VP. Had she wanted to leave that option open to herself as something viable, she should have conducted herself, and her campaign, quite differently than she has.

[ruggerson]

83. You used to write interesting missives

deriding people for perpetually tearing down the opposition, when they should be building the positive case for the candidate they support. Much of what you said, I agreed with, and much of it was interesting and provocative.

Then, Hillary crossed YOUR maginot line, I think with the commander in chief remark, and you violated your own previous dictums and started relentlessly attacking her.

Which, of course, is your prerogative. I still find much of your thoughts interesting and valuable.

What you keep forgetting is that half the Democrats in this country disagree with your very premise. Many of them think Obama has run the race baiting campaign, not Hillary. Many of them think Obama started the character attacks when in the very first debates he kept harping on the "she will say anything to get elected" meme - a Republican, rightwing smear that has been used on many of our Democratic candidates over the last few cycles. Many of them think he crossed the first personal line with his Walmart board crack in one of the debates and with his "you're likable enough" in another.

I don't think either candidate a monster or a bad Democrat. I think they're both politicians, fighting a very wearying, protracted battle. And if we want to win in November, I am seeking to discuss ways we can bring our party back together once this is all over and done with.

What I think is sad is that some here are so consumed with Hillary hatred, they can't see the forest for the trees any longer.

And their behaviour certainly isn't reflective of the kind of unifying things you used to write about when this primary season began.

[emilyg]

86. Fully agree.

Don't bother reading her rants anymore.

[BigBearJohn]

103. Sadly, I agree.

[NanceGreggs]

92. When this primary season started ...

... I came into it thinking (knowing) there would be some pot-shots taken by both candidates. And yes, I urged people to stay positive, and keep their real vitriol for the Republican nominee, not one of our own.

If you go back to my journal, you will see that although an Obama supporter from the beginning, I had glowing things to say about Hillary - a woman who I admired for years.

But, as they say, that was then, and this is now.

I never expected Hillary to point to the Republican nominee and praise his qualifications while dismissing those of a fellow Democrat. And in a million years, I NEVER expected that she would so blatantly lie about sniper-fire in Bosnia, that she would sign a pledge stating that FL and MI votes would not be counted - only to change her tune when she realized she desperately needed those votes to stay viable, etc.

To say I have been "relentlessly attacking her" is an incredible stretch.

Of course I realize that many Democratic voters are devoted to Hillary, as they have every right to be. And some hate Obama - as they, too, have every right to hold that opinion.

I had intended to stay out of the 'fray' this primary season, but when Obama supporters were being called kool-aid drinking cultists who had been mesmerized into stupidity, it was time to weigh-in - just the same as every other DUer has the right to do.

I have never questioned a single Hillary supporter as to their intelligence in choosing to support her, nor opined that anyone who would support her must be a kool-aid drinker, an ill-informed idiot, a cultist, or someone easily swayed by meaningless speeches. I have always assumed that any Hillary supporter came to that desire to support her through educating themselves and making a choice founded in sound reasoning.

Unfortunately, I was not offered the same courtesy. That is why I decided to speak up.

My dislike of Hillary as a nominee is based on statements and positions I feel to be important to me - I have steered clear of what I perceive to be utter nonsense, such as "as far I know" moments, etc.

"What I think is sad is that some here are so consumed with Hillary hatred, they can't see the forest for the trees any longer."

I agree - and I would say the same of those so consumed with Obama hatred, they, too, have lost sight of the all-important forest.

All of this to say that for these reasons, and many others, I believe a 'unity ticket' will not work at this point. There is too much bad blood - and which side is responsible for the majority of that bad blood is no longer of any consequence. It's just the way things are.

[samdogmom]

110. Nance...I love your rants! As a faithful reader, I stand behind your present essay.

Thanks for discussing your "issues" regarding Hillary's current candidacy in a kind and informational way. I don't think the posters responding to you are ready to abandon ship quite yet. SIGH!

Unfortunately for them (the Hillary supporters/posters) their boat has already sunk! These Democrats need to immediately start swimming to shore or grab on to one of Obama's life boats floating around in the water out there!

[Thickasabrick]

20. Only if Obama is on top and asks Clinton to be VP - I just don't think

she will accept it though.

[ruggerson]

27. that's the question

my impression of both of them is that they are very ambitious people. So, I imagine they both would want to be in the Veep holding pattern, waiting for 2016.

[goclark]

112. Please don't let THEM accept VP

We only need one person in that position and imagine what would happen. :scared:

[Carrieyazel]

21. No, that ticket is a sure-fire loser against McCain.

If we want to lose, than that's the way to go.

[K Gardner]

23. Pitiful, really, that after smearing Obama senseless, HRC people now want us to climb

on board and throw her a lifeline for VP.

Not. Ever. She is poison, toxic, the Past.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Agreed.

A VP spot, if offered by Obama, is her only chance now. Unfortunately, she should have considered that before running her campaign the way she has - but then, she never did think it through, what with being 'inevitable' and all.

[Exilednight]

24. I will not vote for her on a train, I will not vote for her in the rain.....

I will not vote for Hill.
I will not vote for her if she ran with Bill.
I will not vote for her on the sand.
I will not vote for her Sam I am.

GOBAMA!

[shadowknows69]

25. No thanks. Sorry Hill fans. Maybe if she wasn't, what's the word I'm looking for, evil?

[Mz Pip]

26. Fine by me.

THey are politicians who want to win. If a joint ticket looks to be the key to winning the White House then that's fine by me.

Political necessity is the name of the game. THere have been plenty of times in history when the Pres/VP nominees didn't care much for each other. They'll do what they have to do to make it work.

[ruggerson]

35. Exactly

Kennedy and Johnson hated each other far more than these two do.

[goclark]

131. LBJ and JFK ticket was different

They were both committed to saying and doing what fit with the ideals of the Democratic party.
Now, if THEY(HCBC=1 President)are the nominee, we will have two people parading as ONE who are way too cozy with the Republican party at the expense of our Democratic Party ideals.

And, we'll have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton Dynasty that seem to value the same things -- POWER and politics as usual.

Common Value is "Win At Any Cost."

That is too dangerous.

[Ravy]

28. That is the clearest path to victory I see in November. nt

[Divernan]

132. OP well knows that a unity ticket is a surefire loser in November & that's why he pushes it.

OP wants to sabotage Obama's chances so that HRC can run in 2012 - not 2016.
HRC has had strong-negative approval ratings in the high 40 percentiles for decades and her presence in the VP slot would be a poison pill. Poison pills are what legislators call amendments added to bills which kill any chance of passage. Her name on a ballot would generate mega boosts to McCain's fund-raising and motivate many conservative Republicans who don't like McCain to vote for McCain just to defeat Clinton.

OP is in bed with the neocons on this one. We all know that's why Limbaugh and Scaife support HRC in the Dem primary. They know her name on the ticket greatly helps McCain.

The issue is moot, because Obama is far too intelligent to even consider HRC for the VP slot.

[PseudoIntellect]

30. I'd vote for it, also reluctantly.

..Just to keep a McBush out of office. ANYTHING but a GOPer in 2008. Wake up, America. It's the 21st century, and we haven't put a Democrat in the WH yet.

[scheming daemons]

31. To quote NanceGreggs: "Why attach yourself to an anchor, when so many kites are available?"

Hillary is an anchor. A 500-ton anchor.

[ima_sinnic]

32. never in a million years--she can go pound sand--she is a disaster

there is no need to "pacify" Hillary -- she has proved she is a fucking traitor, she has proved she is a backstabbing shit. That's all Obama would need, someone constantly plotting against him. With so many good people to choose from, why the fuck would he choose HER?

May she enjoy the fruits of her own treachery. Good riddance!!

[madeline_con]

59. what you said n/t

[Yael]

33. Nope, not at all

Just saying hello

:hi:

[Windy]

34. absolutely not...and if by some stretch H gets the nod, why would O want vp.. he'd be competing

with BILL.

Talk about a nothing position...VP to HRC with Bill still alive and kicking...

I hope he would say thanks but no thanks!

[Captain Hilts]

36. I like both, but neither is Veep material. nt

[JohnnyLib2]

38. If they decide to join -- I'm all for it.

If one trusts a candidate's judgment, why wouldn't the trust extend to his/her decision about forming a joint ticket? All the opposition makes me wonder ???

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Any political scientist could tell you aren't. It has nothing to do with anomosity. It

has everything to do with admitting publicly to being a liar.

John McCain would be 24/7 with - "Hillary said Obama wasn't qualified. Yet she puts him a heartbeat away from the presidency?" Liar liar liar liar liar. And the problem would be, of course, he would be right. And the voters would see that he was right. So would the media. And the whole campaign would be about the Dem Pres. Candidate being an obvious liar

Or he could say- "Obama said he was for change and a new direction. And yet he chooses miss Washington insider as his running mate?" Liar liar lair lair liar. And the problem would be, of course, he would be right. And the voters would see that he was right. So would the media. And the whole campaign would be about the Dem Pres. Candidate being an obvious liar.

Don't worry, both candidates are much too smart and understand far to much about politics to blow their own chances by "joining on the same ticket."


I'm first and foremost opposed to John McCain winning in November. So wonder about that.

[JohnnyLib2]

70. No political scientist here. I'm leaving it up to their judgment.

Either way, I'll be voting for the Dem.

Many seem to rule out the joint ticket, as you do. I'm not so sure.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. I would vote for Hill with a different running mate, or Obama with a different running mate.

It wouldn't do any good if they ran together no matter who was at the top because it would be a blatant advertisement that the candidates were complete and total liars. Do you think a majority of Americans will vote for an admitted complete and total liar?

So, are you saying Hill was lying when she said Obama isn't qualified?

Are you saying Obama just made up all that stuff about change and new directions?

Sorry to post in your thread asking for people to agree with you, but I can't let this go. This has zero to do with "lets all just get along" and everything to do with declaring publicly that the Dems are liars.

Fortunately, both candidates know way more about politics than you do, and neither is going to publicly admit to intentionally lying to the voters in order to win the nomination. This is why you aren't employed in politics. It's not your area of expertise or experience. You can pretend you know what would work, but you don't. I assure you, it won't work for either candidate to publicly declare that they are a liar. If you don't believe me, call a political scientist at your local university and run it past them. Do it. See what they say about your theory.

[ruggerson]

47. Well since

you don't know what my background is nor what I do or don't have "expertise" or schooling in, your post is not really grounded in anything.

And you apparently don't understand American history, as far stranger tickets have been born in the last 60 years. Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan/Bush being two prime examples.

Remember who coined the term "Voodoo economics" about Reagan's policies during the primaries? George HW Bush. And they won in a landslide in 1980.

This has nothing to do with "let's get along" and everything to do with winning the election.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. You still don't get it. Attacking the opponent isn't the problem (as with voodoo economics.)

The fact that Kennedy and Johnson hated each others guts has nothing to do with it.

For one thing, Kennedy didn't say that Johnson wasn't qualified for the office, and then choose him as his running mate
Neither did Reagan say that bush wasn't qualified for the office. and then choose him as his running mate

Kennedy didn't run on changing the whole politics of Washington and against Johnson as the embodiment of old politics and then choose him as his running mate

Neither did Reagan run on bringing a new politics and direction and against bush as the embodiment of old politics and old directions. and then choose him as his running mate

You know the gas tax holiday issue? Obama is against it hill is for it? No problem. That wouldn't, in itself, preclude a unity ticket. Just having a different opinion on an issue and attacking the other for their position isn't what I'm talking about here.

I don't have to know the particulars about you to know for certain that you aren't a political scientist. But why don't you try it and take me up on my suggestion? Call up a political scientist and ask them. Just to check it out. Run it by them. You might learn something.

[ruggerson]

72. Johnson said Kennedy had Addison's disease

and was too unhealthy to be President. Kennedy ran as the "new generation" candidate and Johnson was the old voice of the South, the embodiment of old politics.

You are 100% wrong.

Including whatever bizarre misconceptions you have come up with about my background.

[John Q. Citizen]

127. My point exactly. It doesn't matter that the VP said that about the top of the ticket

What matters is that Kennedy's message wasn't trampled on by his choosing Johnson.

Also, in this case, Johnson brought along Texas and could help the ticket in the South.

In the case of Hill and Obama, that's not the case. No one predicts that Hill couldn't win Il, HI, without Obama for instance, or that Obama couldn't win New York or CA without Clinton. So there is really no up side but there is a lot of down side.


Also to go back to Reagan/bush, bush didn't stay in it until the bitter end. bush dropped out relatively early.


Most political scientists predict that if our current race is over fairly quickly, the vast majority of long time voting Democrats are going to vote Democratic in the fall. Your basic premise that long time Democratic voters aren't going to support the nominee in November is wrong. I suspect it's influenced by your own personal attachment to your candidate.

It's the swing voters and the new voters who are most likely to sit it out if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. I know you can point to polls, but humans are mostly and overwhelmingly creatures of habit. People in the habit of voting Democratic will vote Democratic in the fall, even if they say right now in the heat of the race that they won't. Ask a political scientist. If you are a political scientist, I'm surprised we are even debating this point. Of course, the longer this goes on, (like if it went to the convention) that could do some damage in that regard. But if we can wrap this up by June (which I predict we will) then the vast majority of long time Democratic voters will be voting Democratic in the fall.

[emilyg]

89. It's called doing what's best for the Party.

[andym]

41. From the point of view of campaigning they're complementary

Obama has the grass roots organization and the overarching vision

Clinton has the traditional political machines, the best attack team (better than the R's), and has great nuts and bolts policy experience

These seem very complementary if they don't cancel each other out.

[ima_sinnic]

42. operation chaos is desperate to get Hillary as a candidate, so the Dems will lose

The ONLY people pushing this dumbass idea are Hillary "supporters" who want McCain to win.

Her.time.is.up. You will not be able to pull out all her scandals and other crap, you will not have your three-ring media circus around Bill's penis. You will not have Bill sucking the life out of Obama's presidency with 24/7 coverage of his latest bullshit.

As the Amway people would say, why scratch with the turkeys when you can soar with the eagles?

[TexanDem]

43. NO NO NO NO NO - It would be a disaster!

[scheming daemons]

45. Anybody who thinks Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is a winning ticket doesn't understand electoral

...politics.


Neither would be a good choice for the other.... they don't bring a red or purple state into play.... they aren't subservient to the other, and would NOT be.


Obama's "movement" would be killed if he was VP. Clinton's extreme ambition wouldn't be satisfied as VP, and she would spend the next 4 years undermining Obama's presidency behind the scenes in order to "take over".



It would be BAD all around....

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Obama's movement would be killed if he went back on his word for a new direction, a

new politics and put her on his ticket. It would completely obliterate his message. His message (without destroying it) will work extremely well against McCain.

And of course Clinton would be putting (according to her message) a completely inexperienced and unqualified person a heartbeat away from the presidency. That wouldn't make her look very experienced, now would it? Wouldn't it also call into question her judgment?

I don't fully buy into the subservient thing. Johnson may have been stuck out of the way, but nobody thought of him as subservient ever. just out of the way.

[sushi]

48. Clinton-Obama

is the ideal ticket!

[scheming daemons]

52. Clinton on either end of the ticket is a nightmare scenario for Democrats and the country......

...

[cyndensco]

137. Clinton-Obama

:puke:

[grantcart]

49. After Senator has so effectively burned this bridge by

undermining public confidence in Obama's readiness to be Commander in Chief, to name a single objectionable point, I find it difficult to understand how Clinton supporters now want to re-build that bridge.

You are right in that Hillary has damaged the body politic of the party so completely that Obama will have to factor that in consideration of the VP. Unfortunately she has signalled absotlutely no ability to be a team player during the campaign so it would be impossible to believe that she could ever countenance a back seat relationship.

A unity ticket will be arranged and some consideration will have to be given to appointing a high profile Clinton surrogate either as VP or Secretary of Defense or State.

Senator Clinton has made it impossible to trust her in any significant position to put the President's interests and opinions before her own. By continuing the campaign into Huckabee land she has undermined her reputation as a team player. If you have evidence that she can be a team player with anyone other than her husband I would be interested in seeing it.

[ruggerson]

64. "Voodoo Economics"

in the primaries, and then together they won in a landslide.

Whispering campaign: "He has Addison's disease. He's not physically able to be President."

And they won, too.

[grantcart]

65. Yes but he didn't say that Reagan practiced Voodoo

Now do you get it. She crossed a line. Not that his policies were wrong but that there was something deeply flawed with him.


Not that his economics didn't add up but that he wasn't fit to give orders to generals.


Not that his policy was in error but that his closest associates were crazed pastors, anti war terrorists and slumlord crooks.


You made my point for me and now I hope that you will see for the first time why there is such enmity against her for the


way that she ran her campaign. Thank you for replying.

[ruggerson]

69. "He has Addison's disease. He's not healthy enough to be President"

Then they won. Together.

Game, set, match.

[grantcart]

76. It was a whispering campaign not during the debate

I really am not interested in a long debate on the subject - you can see the reception to the idea on the thread.


George didn't have Barbara going door to door attacking Ron. Hillary and Bill have launched an unparalleled relentless

personal attack on Obama.



But here is the clincher - the time involved. If Hillary had made a move after Texas where she had a very modest Republican assisted win and gained no delegates after Bill said it was an absolute must win she could have left on a high note. She banked on the possibility that if she then ran the board winning big then she might have the chance. She is not winning big and she is not running the board. And now when there is little doubt, even re Carville, she has gotten more aggresively personal.


Reagan and Bush - didn't last long

Reagan swept the South, and although he lost five more primaries to Bush, including one where he came in third behind John Anderson, the former governor had a lock on the nomination very early in the season

BTW there is no evidence that she even wants it.

[ruggerson]

80. I disagree wholeheartedly

with your erroneous premise that mortal enemies (far worse than these two, btw) cannot effectively join to create a successful ticket. Voters are not stupid, they understand alliances.

I agree she may not want it, if he wins. My gut tells me both of them would rather be Veep than Senator, but I might be wrong.

In any case, the other half of the party is going to have to be reached out to, in one form or another. Especially because, as you note, this has gone on so long.

[Solon]

50. Satisfied is a strong word, resigned is more like it. n/t

[ruggerson]

55. Resigned is probably a better choice of words

[Solon]

66. I'm used to the feeling, I was resigned to the fact that either candidate will end up as the nominee

it sucks. x(

[splat]

51. No; if public opinion says Obama is unelectable, he must remove himself from the race

...for the good of the party.

Sorry if this sounds confrontational, I just mean it as one possibility.

[scheming daemons]

54. Hillary: 58% say she is untrustworthy. That's electoral poison.

[splat]

78. Which doesn't mean they won't vote for her, for other, more practical reasons

Expediency rules when the home budget is breaking.

You can have an opinion about some qualities but not think that affect the ability to govern and kick butt on a do-nothing Congress.

[TheDoorbellRang]

53. I don't think either can afford the other as a running mate

Being purely pragmatic here, I think we push people far enough out of their comfort zones having an African American or a woman at the head of the ticket. Americans are going to be able to pull the lever this fall a little easier for our democratic ticket if there's a white male in the VP slot. Easing them into the 21st century, so to speak.

[davidpdx]

61. No

And I've stated why in other threads. I very much doubt Clinton would except the VP nomination to play second fiddle to Obama. There are plenty of other ways to get a "unity ticket" including putting some of Clinton's stronger supporters on the ticket. A few examples would be Wes Clark or Evan Bayh.

The only thing I've seen mentioned in these supposed "unity" threads is mention of a Clinton/Obama ticket, never Obama/Clinton ticket. The truth is Clinton supporters believe (and I've seen this posted countless times) that Obama should give up the nomination for VP. So I personally don't buy into this unity nonsense.

[kwenu]

62. Hell no.

[chknltl]

63. Nope, not interested in this and I am in disagreement with premise

This particular match up is old vs new. This election is about throwing the bums out. Senator Clinton is perceived by FAR TOO MANY of the electorate as being a member of the old guard or one of the bums. We The People WANT CHANGE. No flames here but if Senator Obama wins the nomination he can do far FAR better in gaining votes for us Dems AGAINST mCcaine by NOT asking Senator Clinton to be his running mate. Having an Obama/Clinton ticket will gain us very little actually in the way of votes because the vast majority of those votes are coming from voters who would have voted for EITHER nominee anyway.

OTOH a Senator Clinton nominee would have aided mCcaine by energizing the anti-Clinton Republicans who have chosen to sit this one out because they don't care for Senator mCcain. Many of these anti-mCcain types are now backing Obama but likely would NOT if Sen. Clinton was on the ticket. Their numbers, (the anti mCcain/anti Clinton-Republican's) are I suspect, NOT insignificant!

Putting Senator Clinton on Nominee Obama's ticket will likely hurt Senator Obama come November as opposed to helping him in another way: The mCcain campaign would have an utter field day with the things Senator Clinton did with her kitchen stink campaign. "So which is it Senator Clinton, are you saying that Senator Obama is: ("fill in the blank from kitchen stink") or not these days?" Doesn't that make you a flip-flopper??? By NOT asking Senator Clinton to join in his bid, Senator Obama politely rejects and denounces those items from Senator Clinton's kitchen stink campaign be used against him yet again.

Overall, Nominee Obama does not need Senator Clinton help in order to win the White House. IMO he will do so without her help in what will likely be landslide. She needs to climb aboard his coat-tails soon if she wants to keep her political career viable as she is plummeting rapidly when it comes to public opinion. She has little to offer Senator Obama and her recent campaign against him has made her utterly undeserving of such a team-up as is proposed here.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Fine with me.

[RichardRay]

74. Offer, but expect refusal, then pick a surrogate....

that's one of the reasons I think Clark would be a good pick for the VP slot on an Obama ticket. I'd hope that Senator Clinton could find someone similar from the Obama camp, alhtough I suspect Richardson would be a little too much to hope for :-).

[Beacool]

79. That would be the only way some of us would vote for Obama.

No other way would induce me to vote for him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Most decidedly against it.

I don't favour the idea of Hillary on top of the ticket, because she hasn't actually won the right to be there. She has failed to secure a lead in delegates through nominating contests, and has run a horrible campaign. And I don't favour the idea of her in the second spot on the ticket because over half of the country can't stand her, and over 60% think she's a liar and untrustworthy. This does not translate to electability; her presence on any Democratic ticket would be a detriment. She is a tremendous negative with independent voters who have no party affiliation. And in case you've forgotten, those are the people we need to win.

[jab105]

82. No.

GOBAMA!
Look what I just got!!

[anonymous171]

88. Checking in!

:toast:

[Harry Monroe]

91. No, No, No. A thousand times no!!!!

"They both need each other..."?? Doubt it. Obama doesn't need Hillary at all!! She'd be a drag and an anchor on his campaign in the GE. It would be a complete disaster.

[fadedrose]

93. Make that a million...nt

[BlooInBloo]

107. Billion.

[Bluebear]

94. "Check in if you would be satisfied" - So folks just HAD to come in & post their opposition.

Because there is no place else in GDP to express those feelings.

Good gravy.

[gauguin57]

97. Obama will never pick Hillary. If you were POTUS, would you want Bill Clinton hanging around?

Trying to run the country from the Second Gentleman slot?

Besides, since I am 100 percent convinced that Hillary and Bill will do ANYTHING to get into the White House again, President Obama and his Secret Service agents would always be looking over their shoulder. You think I'm kidding?

[goclark]

109. It's crystal clear that HCBC would be a disaster in the WH

again. THEIR 3rd Term -- there should be a law against that, get the visual Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/CLINTONS?/clintons? ( not one but two?...)

It is as if America is asleep if they don't realize how that will look.

Especially when Bush I and BC are BFF - friends enough to make Bill look like a fool when he boldly announced, "When HC becomes "President(s)" GHWB will go around the world and be Good Will Ambbasors... remember that big mistake?

They are one and the same folks ~ a blended family with Uncle Karl and Uncle James and Auntie Mary Matalin Carville.

[DeepModem Mom]

98. ...

[flowomo]

99. fine by me.....

I like them both -- each has flaws and virtues but would make a powerful team.

[Spiffarino]

101. I don't think it'll matter

Dem wins if the votes are counted, loses if they aren't.

That said, I'd take it either way at this point. I just want a Democrat in the White House next January whatever it takes.

[Triana]

102. NO! n/t

[donheld]

104. No

There seem to be a thousand reasons posted in this thread. They're all good.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

106. I could deal with either one.... I'm not a hater.

n/t

[chill_wind]

108. No. Nope. Turn the page. n/t

[anigbrowl]

113. Won't work

Not because I hate Hillary Clinton or so, but for the simple reason that whoever wins the nom is going to have been through a lot of struggle and conflict to get there. So the first thing they have to do after winning the nomination is pick a VP, and make a decision that tells voters something about themselves. If Barack (or Hillary) is in a situation of having to pick the other as their running mate, it's a forced move straight out of the gate, which the GOP will use to attack them - saying the Dems ended up with 2 1/2 candidates instead of one strong one who can make their own decisions.

In short, the nominee has to have a truly free hand to make their own choice, not be forced into one by circumstances. For one o pick the other would be a fatal strategic mistake.

[Awsi Dooger]

116. Obama can't afford the comparison so it won't happen

Hillary and Bill would overshadow him and dominate on issue specifics vs. a Republican ticket, or versus GOP mindset in general. There will be at least one VP debate and Hillary's effort there would trounce anything Obama could manage in the three presidential debates. It's guaranteed Chris Matthews and others would laser focus on that in cynical delight, the apparent flip flopped caliber of the Democratic ticket.

Obama by nature is a smart and calculating guy, highly opportunistic. He knows damn well he had twistable variables in the primary, running against Hillary and her Iraq vote with the media shoveling distractive PR, and fluffy speeches such highly valued contrast to Bush. But once she's pointed in the same direction in an issue-oriented fall campaign, it's more of a direct unfiltered viewing, and that's not a race Obama is willing to run.

[The Doctor.]

117. "They both need each-other at this point." ????? Perhaps not in so many words,

but you are saying that she needs him to ask her to be VP.

I know, you don't think that's what you're saying, but Obama would benefit tremendously with nearly anyone on his ticket.

Obama/Edwards, Obama/Richardson, Obama/Kermit the Frog would be far better than an Obama/Clinton ticket.

[goletian]

118. obama choosing hillary as vp would be a death wish. literally. - nt

[VotesForWomen]

119. O supporters: "I'm a uniter, not a divider... in true W style. gee, whatever happened to "Change?"

[Prophet 451]

120. Don't see it happening

The irony is that, to my mind, if this bloody primary had been settled months ago like it normally is, either of them could have rolled over McCain without breaking a sweat. Now, I think Obama would probably win narrowly and Clinton would probably lose narrowly.

As for a unity ticket, it's a nice idea but I really don't see it happening. Logically, whoever goes into the convention with the most delegates (probably Obama at this stage) would have to head the ticket and I really can't see Hillary being willing to take the VP slot (unless she's offered the Dick Cheney "president in all but name" deal).

[MJJP21]

121. NO

No on both choices of either B/H H/B. For me it has to be Barack and someone else.

[lojasmo]

122. No more Clintons.

Well, maybe Chelsea 2016

[paulk]

123. that will be the ticket

I would bet money on it, and I have no problem with it.

[mmonk]

124. I would accept it as long as the candidate with the most pledged delegates

is at top of the ticket. For appearances sake, I think it should be that way.

[NorthCarolina]

125. OPPOSED...I won't vote for a DLC member

sorry Hillary, but you have to GO.

[Vinca]

126. I could live - not happily, mind you - with Obama/Clinton.

But, under no circumstances, should the person with the winning numbers be #2. I would prefer Obama and someone else.

[iamthebandfanman]

128. not now

if you had asked 2-3 months ago i woulda said heck yeah!

[Amimnoch]

130. I'd happily vote either ticket.

[Control-Z]

133. If they decide to share the ticket,

I will be behind them all the way, of course.

[spooky3]

134. I will support our nominee and whoever s/he chooses as a running mate.

I would prefer that that running mate be John Edwards or Al Gore. But if Clinton chooses Obama or vice versa, they are still light years ahead of the Republicans.

[Seabiscuit]

136. At the end of the day, will vote for democrat we sure can't have another Repub. administration.

Can you imagine what another Repub. administration will do to this country? We all know how tough things are, I can't imagine another 4 years of Mini-Bush (McCain) in office.