Obama/Clinton? or Clinton/Obama?

[liberalcommontater]

It seems clear that the Democratic nominee has a better than average chance to win this November.

The primary campaign has been a tough one. What better way to ensure unity and victory than to bring the two leaders of our party together. Each has captured a portion of the electorate that has largely eluded the other. Together, they can emphasize what Hillary has called their overwhelming similarities on the issues and contrast them with McCain. The two of them teamed against McCain would be a sight to see.

Kennedy/Johnson was a hard fought race too.

[saltpoint]

1. It could happen. But I am hoping that Sen. Obama will consider

other names for his shortlist instead.

I think the person who should take Hillary Clinton out of consideration for the vice presidential nomination is Hillary Clinton.

[liberalcommontater]

I agree, if she does not want it.

[Cleita]

29. wrong post

[Faygo Kid]

2. Please. I pray not.

Hillary has no place as VP on a hope/change ticket.

And the other combo is a train that left the station a while ago.

Like Bay City, though.

[liberalcommontater]

8. Thanks, I like it too.

Her agenda for change is as strong as his and if he really is for a new kind of politics, what better way for Clinton supporters to get behind his agenda with her support.

[L0oniX]

3. Geeze ...dream on.

:crazy:

[LWolf]

4. Gore/Edwards.

Or Biden/Richardson.

Or Kucinich/Boxer. :D

Or McKinney.

[liberalcommontater]

9. Gore/Edwards is my dream ticket too.

[Zhade]

5. Obama is not stupid enough to let McLame prove his VP a liar by playing the Tuzla video.

clinton will not be on the ticket.

[liberalcommontater]

11. What is Obama in his wisdom thinks she is the best choice?

[Zhade]

12. Then he'd be walking into a trap, re: the Tuzla video and her endorsement of McLame.

I reiterate - I don't think he's that stupid.

[DJ13]

With Clinton trying to trash Obama, he can no longer afford to select...

......a VP nominee that has her own negatives hovering around 54%.

[yourguide]

6. Obama/Any dem but HRC n/t

[monmouth]

7. Dear God, the thought of that teaming makes me ill....n/t

[mamalone]

27. Pass me the kleenex and ibuprofen..

cuz it makes me ill too...


For the love of humanity, please no, no, a thousand times NO!

[HockeyMom]

10. No Hillary, No Way

[billyoc]

13. No. DLC. Ever. nt

[liberalcommontater]

16. But Hillary and her supporters will be inside the tent...

and Obama will be in charge of the agenda.

[mod mom]

65. EVER!

[greguganus]

14. No more Clintons in the White House, please. Ever again! n/t

[liberalcommontater]

24. But...

don't you think 90% of the Clinton fatigue of the 90's was generated by the Republicans?
Don't you think that the Clinton's have sway within the party that would be useful to Obama as President?
Don't you think supporters of both candidates would be able to take a step back, recalibrate for November and move forward together?

The key is winning in November, it is that important even if Hillary has to take the VP slot when so many of us want her to be President.

[sktmax]

15. obama/clinton

obama/clinton
i agree would be a good ticket..... strongest ticket to fight mccain

clinton/obama ticket...won't happen b/c she has already lost nomination to obama

it might seem weird.... but i would not have been for an clinton/obama ticket because she would have drowned his message.
with her as veep...she's fighting for him... and therefore has to support/campaign on his message.

people are voting for obama b/c of his message of hope, change, new kind of politics, etc.
a ticket with hillary on the would have killed the message b/c she's " dirty politics as usual"


just my take but obama is and would hve to be the nominee for such a ticket to work.

this way, i am all for it.

[liberalcommontater]

18. My thought exactly...

that his agenda is close to hers, but with him leading the public face of the administration and Hillary working FOR that agenda, we all win.

[FlaGranny]

17. NO, NO, NO.

UUUGGGGHHHH. Clinton would have to do something earthshaking to make me want her on the ticket.

[Radio_Lady]

19. Same idea I came up with last month. Now the rancor is so extreme, who knows what will happen?

See the post that I will leave up until it becomes clear that there are other Democrats in this race:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Radio_Lady

[divineorder]

20. Petition: Put Them On Notice

http://www.petitiononline.com/Hope1776/petition.html

[greguganus]

25. Weren't you leaving? n/t

[smoogatz]

21. Funny thing. It's always the Hillary supporters who think this is a good idea.

Obama people, not so much. As for Clinton/Obama, um, I'd like a little of whatever it is you're smoking. As for Kennedy/Johnson, we all know how well that one worked out for President Kennedy in the end, no?

On edit, my earlier post on this subject here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5926116

[liberalcommontater]

30. I was thinking of winning in November after a difficult primary season.

Not the other November.

I am of the opinion that the party should select the candidate it thinks can win in November now that it is down to the superdelegates. This looks to be Obama, but I assume you would agree that if something came out - video of Obama meeting with Mohammed Atta on Sept 10, 2001 and handing them the box cutters, that the superdelegates should then vote for Clinton.

Not smoking anything, and the above is just an extreme example to make the point that unless something similarly bad comes out, Obama will be the nominee and deserves our support. But, if something were to come out the purpose of superdelegates would be validated and they should then vote for Clinton.

Don't you think that if the situation were reversed that Obama might want the VP job and that Clinton would see this as advantageous? Don't you think Obama supporters would want him to be VP is she were the nominee?

[smoogatz]

37. Obama as box-cutter-wielding terrorist!

And there, folks, are the politics of your OP, worn proudly on his snot-smeared sleeve. Here, I'll quote the whole thing so he can't delete it:

"I am of the opinion that the party should select the candidate it thinks can win in November now that it is down to the superdelegates. This looks to be Obama, but I assume you would agree that if something came out - video of Obama meeting with Mohammed Atta on Sept 10, 2001 and handing them the box cutters, that the superdelegates should then vote for Clinton."

Jesus fucking Christ. Thank God this shit is almost over.

[liberalcommontater]

44. Hey, smoogatz

Look at the line following the quote of mine that you posted...

Not smoking anything, and the above is just an extreme example to make the point that unless something similarly bad comes out, Obama will be the nominee and deserves our support. But, if something were to come out the purpose of superdelegates would be validated and they should then vote for Clinton.

"extreme example" ...meaning unrealistic.

Jeez. Context, context, context.

[K Gardner]

22. Reality: She is NOT going back to the WH, even through the back door.

[saltpoint]

23. I don't have current, up-to-the-minute stats at hand, but I'd need to

see figures comparing the percentage of people who would be MORE inclined to vote for Obama if Hillary were his veep pick to the percentage of independents who would be LESS likely to support the ticket if she is on it.

We need to take a hefty chunk of indies away from John McCain.

I'm just not seeing how Hillary Clinton helps us do that.

[smoogatz]

28. Indies and/or Latinos.

Which says Webb or Richardson to me. Or Biden, maybe. But Hillary? Not so freaking much. Interesting, though, the chorus of Hillary-supporter voices pushing this idea.

[saltpoint]

32. Hi, smoogatz. I could live very happily with Webb, Richardson, or Biden,

and several others. I like Bill Bradley. Obama and Bradley could challenge McCain and Whoever-he-picks to a 2-on-2 pickup game of hoops.

Then they could go inside and Obama and Bradley would wipe the floor with them on issues, too.

[smoogatz]

40. I like Bradley, though having had his heart condition

I'm not sure he's physically up for the campaign. Maybe they've ablated him by now, though. Kos had an interesting run-down on VPs a few days ago: he likes Richardson, not surprisingly—thinks Webb is too alpha and might steal the show. But my feeling is that Webb might lend the ticket the aura of bad-ass it currently lacks. Any of the above would be fine with me, though.

[saltpoint]

43. I don't always read Kos, but I did catch that piece on the veeps. I liked it.

And agree on Webb, except Webb is awfully dear to me for defeating Cement-Head Allen in that cliffhanger in Virginia in 06.

God was that a lift!

Richardson brings the heavy-duty resume, the insight into energy policy, international negotiating talent and credibility, and appeal to Hispanic voters. He's obviously bilingual, commandingly so, as opposed to Dubya, who can't put a single sentence together in English.

Nancy Pelosi is a tough customer also and would address the rift with some disgruntled Clinton supporters. I could see her doing very well indeed against whatever hack McCain chooses in the veep debate.

[liberalcommontater]

45. Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

I am a Clinton supporter and will be until she wins (not), or drops out. More importantly though, I want the Dems to win in November, together.

[saltpoint]

50. I say thanks right back, and the goal for Novmber could not be

clearer fr all of us. McCain sounds ill to me -- that's not a partisan shot, just an observation -- and of course his voting record is an abomination over many years.

He's got to be defeated soundly so that a progressive community can regather and assert its vision of the country. It's been a dark, wearying 8 years.

[liberalcommontater]

56. Agreed

[liberalcommontater]

34. Good point....

but don't you think that the Clinton's have gotten a raw deal in many ways and part of confronting that and unifying the party would be for someone like Obama to stand up and say that the politics of personal destruction should be over and that putting his money where his mouth is would begin with the Clintons?

We have to stand up to the Republicans and stand up for each other to win and keep winning. Voters will respect this.

[saltpoint]

39. It's a fair consideration and a possible outcome.

But for me, we win with the larger % of indies in November, and we get the higher % without Hillary Clinton.

If Obama does not choose a female nominee, McCain could be ready to upend things on his side and pick Kay Bailey Hutchison, the loathsome Leni Riefenstahl of the Texas plains, vying for the independent-plus-disgruntled female voter thing. To try and outflank Obama.

Obama could pre-empt the move by nominating Govs. Sebelius or Napolitano, or Speaker Pelosi.

I don't believe Clinton-supporting female Democrats will flock to McCain, given his voting record on people issues.

So I think it's the indies we need to concentrate on.

[liberalcommontater]

46. A lot to consider...

[Triana]

26. None of the above. n/t

[lojasmo]

31. Yes/No, No/Yes. EOM

[liberalcommontater]

35. Clever.

[Cleita]

33. Neither!

It's more than apparent that Obama will be the nominee providing we still have a democracy and I hope he choses someone who can run successfully in 2016.

[liberalcommontater]

36. Good point.

I think Hillary will make a fine president or vice-president.

[SoCalDem]

38. Obama/HIS choice...Clinton-goes home

to DC, NY, PA, AR, WV..ANYWHERE but on MY tv..

[Asgaya Dihi]

41. Not a chance in hell

She brings nothing to the ticket, including most of those who claim they won't vote for Obama now. With one or two Supreme Court seats probably up next time and many issues ranging from Roe v Wade to torture to how we can handle prisoners hanging on the thin edge of a split court it's almost certain we lose some issues if McCain gets elected, maybe most. Then we've got the economy, war, and so on. I don't think most of her supporters are dumb enough to hand the repubs all of that just as an angry gesture, they'll be there when the time comes. The few who would allow a McCain Presidency likely weren't going to vote for us anyway, they were just a bit of chaos.

So she brings little or nothing to the ticket and is likely to drive away at least as many or more independents and crossover voters who like Obama for the change thing but who don't like her, we're probably at a loss or even at best before we even consider how she'll energize the voter turnout and fund raising for the right just by being on the ticket. If either of them alone might have energized them both are certain to and she's always been the better target than he is. If you think she's been "vetted" so couldn't hurt the ticket with scandal you might want to spend some time browsing through the following article. Obama hasn't even gone after her really, she got aggressive but he stayed pretty laid back. Press and some amateurs have gone after her. If this much is being asked already wait till the repubs start at it. http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Hillary39s-woes-take-their-toll.4071541.jp

She's a load stone, dead weight. She offers nothing to the ticket, ruins his change mandate, raises questions about herself and puts both of them in the position of answering her accusations against him in the primary. "Do you still think he's not fit for Commander in Chief?" "Do you still think you and McCain love your country but he doesn't?"
"Why would you run with someone you seem to think so little of?" If we ever did get a chance to talk about the future instead it would be pure luck.

That ticket is a Republican wet dream and it's so obviously and dangerously wrong for us that I wish dems would stop suggesting it so we can focus on the repubs and an election we can win instead.

[liberalcommontater]

48. I agree the most important thing is winning in November

because of the cost of 4 or 8 or more years of Republican misrule. I think she is a good enough campaigner that her notion that she and Obama have so much more in common on the issues than they do with McCain would cover many bases.

I am of the mind that Democrats need to stand up for their priorities and values, stand up for each other and stand up to the Republicans. If the primary season is in the past for Obama, together they could keep a disciplined message about the future.

[Asgaya Dihi]

54. The idea that she's "she is a good enough campaigner"

is more unearned reputation due to her finances, name recognition, and connections than it is true. She spent half the election telling us about how unfit and unprepared this new kid was and it never seemed to occur to her that if he's not ready but he's beating her hands down then how ready would that really make her? Took both of them down in the publics eyes and didn't help either in any way.

Most damage she took in this campaign has been self inflicted. I have no doubt that she's intelligent and capable when not personally involved with an issue but when it comes to looking at herself and adjusting she's blind or something pretty close to it. The argument that she's a solid campaigner didn't survive the primary because it isn't true, when she met a real challenge she fell apart and started showing a side of herself which drove away long time friends and supporters and it won't go away over the next few weeks, or months. I think that's the real her, it came out under pressure. If it didn't used to be then too many years exposed to repub slime removed her awareness of how and why its wrong and enabled her doing it to others, in either case she didn't turn out to be what she claimed in skill or in morals/judgment. Politics of personal destruction is good for her as long as she isn't the target, when she's the target it's wrong.

If she has a future in politics she can rebuild it in the Senate or maybe in a cabinet post if Obama wants to offer her that after he's elected. But she has no business anywhere near a campaign right now. She hasn't shown the skill, self awareness, or judgment to be trusted with it over recent months and needs to rebuild that trust and those skills first.

[liberalcommontater]

57. I see your point clearly, but don't agree with it.

For me this falls into the well laid out and logical argument, but not true catagory. imo Mistakes, yes? Incompetent, no.

[Asgaya Dihi]

61. Fair enough

And for what it's worth I don't see her as incompetent either. Just not very self aware. She's a decent wonk and might have made an ok President but she never would have made a great one because she's not self aware so doesn't adjust for or admit to mistakes. We just had several years of that and I think the refusal to adjust hurt her too, reminded people of what we're trying to get away from.

When you're right and you stick to your guns that's strength of character. When you're wrong and do it that's something else, and what we've seen here has been that something else. That doesn't mean she's not suited for a valuable job somewhere in the system. Just not best suited at the moment for a top position which depends on recognizing problems and adjusting and no help at the moment to a top ticket. And it is just at the moment, I'm not the person now I was 10 years ago and in a few years she might not be either. Depends on if she decides to learn from this or if she plays the victim, decides it's someone else's fault instead of looking inward.

[liberalcommontater]

64. I just posted this farther down, but would be interested in what you think...

I reallllly wanted Edwards. Now, I realllllly want Clinton. If Obama is really the agent of change and hope he says he is, he needs to begin within his own party. America did it with Germany and Japan after WWII. Kennedy did it with Johnson (though he was surprised Johnson accepted.) With her on the ticket, she could be the anvil against which his hammer of new politics pounds the Republicans. A prospect I can't wait to see.

Clinton gets attacked, Obama hammers them on the old politics charge, then talks about his issues. Hammer time!

[Asgaya Dihi]

67. I wasn't thrilled this year at all

If I had voted in the primary it would have been for Kucinich and as a gesture more than expectation, the elvish guy with the hot wife can't win the Presidency in this dysfunctional nation. I wish he could. I like the platform Edwards ran on a lot better than both of the two in the race still but I wasn't convinced he meant it or could carry it through and he wasn't there for my primary anyway. Some lingering doubts about the advice he gave Kerry in 04 added to that.

Obama and Clinton I saw very little difference between and they were the only two choices when the primaries rolled through here so I saw no choice worth making at the time, sat the primary out and didn't pick either. Neither talked much about the poor, both were drug warriors, neither actually promised to get us out of Iraq but to reduce it to a smaller peacekeeping force instead. What differences there were looked both minor and were in areas I don't care as much about. I'm more about the poor, the drug ar, the prison system, and the excessively militant response we have in everything from foreign relations to zero tolerance in schools.

The thing that brought me into the race was the way the Clinton campaign handled the Wright issue, the dishonesty I saw in the arguments about the two States while she also argued that pledged delegates could switch votes and supers could override us as well. She didn't care about anyone being disenfranchised, just who got the advantage, so her logic changed with every argument with the only consistent thread being that it was to her advantage. That's not something I want to see in office and that decided me.

I'm still not crazy about either but I've a fair idea on what direction the nation needs to go and between them it's more him than her now, that was based on her own campaign style and little else. She lost with me rather than him winning me over. Best I expect from him is maybe he'll raise the tone of debate a bit, more subject and less sound bite, and that in itself would be great. I don't expect miracles though and never have been the fan club type.

Change this election can't include Clinton because the politics and style she displayed in this election is what we need to change away from, there's a difference between reconciling with an opponent and taking the viper to your breast. It's an attractive argument but if we followed that logic Condi Rice might be an even better choice to bridge divides and attract crossover voters. That's a poor idea too. There has to be something in common between them and a chance they'll work together. Nothing in this campaign suggests Clinton will take a back seat to anyone so all I'd expect is a few years of us waiting for the eventual explosive conflict then living with the results of it.

[liberalcommontater]

68. I think as VP she would have to take a back seat...

not the position I want for her, but if it puts together a winning combination and an effective White House/congressional dynamic, I would be for it. I think this could very likely happen, the negatives in campaign style and argumentation you speak about will pale in comparison to what we will be up against in the general election and with the Republicans left in congress, if there are any ;)

I understand your suspicion about politicians, if that is the way to put it, but would argue that they are all politicians. Which will have the ability to engage the levers of power most effectively after the Bush tragedy?

I like Webb too, but I think Clinton is the best choice. We will see how it plays out.

Thanks for sharing your perspective so thoughtfully.

[Asgaya Dihi]

70. Thanks :)

Webb might be ok, Boxer is ok, a few others might offer something as well. If I thought Clinton would work I don't hold grudges much but I just don't see it working out.

Maybe one day we'll talk a bit about the drug war, it'll be easier to understand why I feel the way I do about politicians in general. I'll offer a quick peek though.

This data is a few years out of date, last I saw we stood at 2,258,983 for total prison/jail and 751 per 100k, but I liked the chart on the first page after the cover and it illustrates just how different the two parties are in this respect. Can you tell when the "good guys" were in charge? Not much changed between them.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparative_intl.pdf

And these are some of the results.

http://www.prisonsucks.com/
http://www.idpi.us/resources/factsheets/mm_factsheet.htm

Both parties need to get off the tough on crime bit and tough in general, we've been more than tough enough but not half smart enough.

Take care, it's been nice meeting and chatting a bit with you too :)

[hisownpetard]

42. Neither. But thanks anyway.

[curious one]

47. Are you insane? Her negatives will bring Obama down.

[liberalcommontater]

49. How many of her "negatives" are real and

how many are perception? Why did she do so well in the primaries? Why after all the bad press and being outspent could she do as well as she did? She is able to connect with voters in a way that, I think, we need in November.

[Nitrogenica]

51. I don't think she should even try.

[Cha]

52. What's Crystal Clear is that

hilary will be nowhere an Obama ticket this November and I couldn't be happier. Obama's too damn smart for hilary and too damn smart to pick her as a VP nominee when he needs someone who is synergystically in tune with him and our Campaign for Change.

hilary is last century and old style lee atwater, karl rove politics.

Obama is our Future and we don't want a glaring antithesis of that.

[liberalcommontater]

60. "our Campaign for Change"

I am a Democrat who wants to win in November. I think the greatest healing and unifying force for change would be a synthesis of the old (as you put it) and the new. Not coruption of the new, not a taint, but an alloy with superior properties.

"our" must include all democrats for "us" to win in November.

[Cha]

63. OUR CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE.

Obama includes us..we are a part of it and hilary is not.

[CakeGrrl]

53. Hell to the no - Clinton on the ticket is POISON

Obama is not stupid. Why in hell would he put the "anything can happen" crowd one step away from the presidency they're so desperate to try to attain by any divide and conquer, 'force-illegal-votes' means necessary?

She's a proven liar, panderer and race-baiter.

And Obama will probably have the full support of Nancy Pelosi, who said "no 'unity' ticket" weeks ago, if anyone tries to give him hell about it. Pelosi knew weeks ago that it was a bad idea, and the Clinton camp has only behaved worse in the interim.

[enid602]

55. obama/clinton

It only makes sense if Obama wants to win.

[quakerboy]

58. I do not like it

My take is that it will bring the instinctual Clinton hate from the Right, resulting in higher than expected turnout for the Pug candidate, but neutralizes much of the "inspiration, hope, new" crowd, thus depressing the expected turnout for the Dem. Not a good way to victory, I think.

I perceive them both backed into a corner on this. Obama, speaking of doing it the "new way", would look less than good bringing in exactly the seeming epitome of the old he struggles against. Hillary, under her "experience" banner, and given her recent comments, would look less than principled, less than the fighter she claims to be, signing on to it.

Not to say it cannot, will not, or should not happen, but the prospect does not fill me with joy, at all. Instead it sets off all of my pessimism doom alarms. Like walking into a movie theater when you know the only moving starting in the next 2 hours is the latest Rambo travesty. Things could work out well, but all signs point to "Run away"

[liberalcommontater]

62. Thanks for your thoughtful gut check...

I reallllly wanted Edwards. Now, I realllllly want Clinton. If Obama is really the agent of change and hope he says he is, he needs to begin within his own party. America did it with Germany and Japan after WWII. Kennedy did it with Johnson (though he was suprised Johnson accepted.) With her on the ticket, she could be the anvil against which his hammer of new politics pounds the Republicans. A prospect I can't wait to see.

Clinton gets attacked, Obama hammers them on the old politics charge, then talks about his issues. Hammer time!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Neither.

[Cieran]

66. He'd never put the Fox in the Henhouse

Obama is simply too smart to put her on as VP. That'd be like JFK picking LBJ. A death sentence in waiting.

[peaches2003]

69. And what about governing after Jan?

It'a always referred to as the 'Dream Ticket'. Ha! And then what if they win. Can you picture Hillary being happy watching Obama in charge of the most powerful position in the world while she is Pres of the Senate and Bill is at home watching tv? Of course not. It would be a nightmare of Hillary upstaging Obama at every turn while she and Bill are running an underground government of their own. Get real.

[Arugula Latte]

71. Enough of the Clintons.

Enough.

[Skidmore]

72. Neither.

Obama and his choice.

[TexasObserver]

73. No Hillary, No Way

[boppers]

74. So, we lose votes from the racists *and* the sexists?

Ouchies. :evilgrin:

[AZBlue]

75. Obama/Someone Other Than Clinton!

I posted two threads yesterday about this topic and I feel very very strongly about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5922436

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5922896

[HooptieWagon]

76. NO! PLZ GOD NO!

[bunnies]

77. If Obama choses Clinton, that means his entire platform has been a lie.

He would lose more supporters than she would bring him. Count on it.

[Lucky 13]

78. Obama/Anyone-but-Hillary '08