Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama

[truthpusher]

Source: CBS News

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hinted at the possibility of a democratic "dream ticket" with Sen. Barack Obama.

Speaking on the Early Show on CBS, Clinton said "that may be where this is headed, but we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."

Clinton said the race between her and Obama remains "incredibly close," with just "smidgens of difference" between them.


Read more: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/clinton.obama.ticket.2.669799.html

[mattclearing]

1. It's actually nice of her to acknowledge that the top of the ticket is still in question,

considering she doesn't think like that and all. Maybe this won't be as divisive as I thought.

[tekisui]

4. And maybe all of the negativity was to nullify the pukes weapons.

[mattclearing]

15. Genius!!!!

:eyes:

[krkaufman]

76. That has been my "glass half full" thinking the last few days.

As the only other possibility is too demoralizing.

[tekisui]

2. I am thinking that may be the only way to settle it.

They have both received HUGE numbers of votes, generated a ton of excitement.

But, they better be nice to each other to make that work.


btw, nice avatar!

[eyeontheprize]

5. But who would be at the

top of the ticket? I don't see either of them stepping aside.

[tekisui]

12. I am for Obama, but in that scenario, I think is has to be Hillary.

I think Obama could run with someone else at veep and win. But, if they unify, Hillary would need to be at the top.

She couldn't win without Obama. She has the mantle of "experience", Obama would still bring the energy, and be very qualified in 2016. If Hillary was the Veep, she'd be a little old in 2016.

[mattclearing]

16. I don't see that. LBJ was Kennedy's running mate.

Even so, Hillary is a bad choice for running mate for Obama...she does nothing for his national security credentials. He needs Clark or Webb. The problem is that Hillary needs that too, but thanks to her possible alienation of the black community, she also needs Obama. Nice going.

[tekisui]

22. It's a little bit of a pickle.

They can pull it off though. If they could find a way to come together, they would bring their supporters on stage with them, including Clark.

[mattclearing]

24. They are running against a war hero. It's a giant fucking pickle. n/t

[ingac70]

39. Bob Dole was a war hero too. n/t

[mattclearing]

44. Yeah, but we weren't fighting a war. n/t

[ingac70]

45. I think everyone has figured out this "war" is a joke...

except the thirty three percenters.

[mattclearing]

98. And all the dead people. n/t

[Traction311]

83. So true

And although I take nothing away from McLame's service and status as a POW, Dole had far more front line experience than him, in a necessary war.

[nxylas]

48. Maybe we could hand out Purple Heart Band-Aids

Worked for the Repukes.

[NOLALady]

66. Kerry was a war hero.

Buhs was MIA.

[aquart]

74. And he will stab her in the back at the first opportunity.

We don't need another Dick Cheney running a separate shadow government.

[Zhade]

86. She's losing, why should she be at the top?

Losers don't get the winning spot.

[The Croquist]

35. This is a crock

The Presidential candidate will be the individual who can win the nomination. Right now Obama is winning.
The VP slot is a figurehead position and I can't see Hillary taking a figurehead position. If he won she would have to surrender her senate seat and wait 8 years before she can run again. If Obama runs and loses she can run again in 4 years, but being a failed VP candidate doesn't help her.
Obama on the other hand is is young. He has many political races ahead of him. Surrendering a Senate seat to sit around for 8 years does nothing for him and that is all he would do. Clinton will NOT give him any responsibility, even less then Bill Clinton, who gave Gore virtually nothing to do. After 8 years of sitting around doing nothing he won't have the same popularity.
If, in the unlikely event, he loses the nomination he will still emerge as a dominant (if not the dominant) democrat in the country. He can pick and choose his next move. In many ways he will be like Steven Douglas was in the 1850's. He only lost the presidency in 1860 because of the abject stupidity of the Southern states.

[C_U_L8R]

3. nice but that's a bit presumptive of her

given the fact that, by the numbers, she's still losing.

I smell Bush Cheney style reality-making hahaha : - )))

[City Lights]

10. Yes, but she's only losing by a "smidgen."

The difference in their pledged delegate totals is barely noticeable. :eyes:

[C_U_L8R]

14. A smidgen is the amount of delegates she won last night

at that rate. it's going to be some time before she's actually winning the race.
She's going to have to do a lot better than punt.

[City Lights]

21. She won't be able to win by picking up a smidgen here and there.

She's trying to elbow her way to the front of the line.

[MadBadger]

6. Looks more and more like Obama will be on the ticket

I cant say the same thing about Hillary though

[mattclearing]

18. LOL. n/t

[leftofcool]

7. Clinton/Obama 2008

Obama/his choice 2016

[lse7581011]

26. No Thanks! n/t

[Roland99]

47. I'll see your no thanks and raise it to a Hell No!

[Miss Chybil]

27. I've been saying that for months!

But, I'll take it either way. Obama/Clinton is fine, too.

[Zhade]

87. She's losing, so no. Doesn't work that way.

Now, if she wins, they're free to make a deal as they wish.

(But since she won't without cheating, they won't be on the same ticket.)

[madrchsod]

8. bill does`t have a job

and he has more experience than anyone i know of....

[Sara Bradi]

9. I like a woman on top, NOT talking about the ticket nt

[femmedem]

11. If Barack chooses her for VP, the Repubs will repeat her McCain experience comment

endlessly from now until November. Our ticket would become a laughingstock.

[CreekDog]

20. We shouldn't pick our VP based on what Republicans will/won't say about them

They will fling crap no matter who will choose. Furthermore, if they don't have any goods on our pick, they will make it up.

Thus, we should pick for both sides of the ticket, the candidates best for those spots, period. Don't let Republicans pick our candidates.

[Zhade]

88. "Don't let Republicans pick our candidates" They tried last night with Clinton.

Of course, she's still losing handily.

[pleah]

13. That would be the dream ticket!

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

[theredpen]

17. I thought she was going to be running with McCain

Since the only thing Obama's every done is give a speech in 2002 and McCain has the experience we need. :eyes:

[earthside]

28. She's Toxic

Her Lieberman-like comments in the past week have made her a general election spoiler.

And has everyone forgotten the scandal after scandal after scandal that came out of her eight years of "experience" as Bill Clinton's wife in the White House?

Top or bottom of any ticket ... does anyone think that the Repugs are not going to make America re-live every one of those scandals?

It makes me tired and depressed just thinking about it.

[paulk]

33. you mean all those Republican driven scandals?

The one's that didn't amount to anything? How nice of you to push those Republican talking points!

But, why not - since you're not a Democrat, I guess it doesn't matter how much shit you smear around against them.

You running on the Green ticket in CO 7 again this year, Dave? Maybe you can help get a Republican elected!

Again!

[earthside]

49. I like Obama

But, of course, you miss the point entirely.

YOU might say that those scandals didn't amount to anything, and I might agree with you on the substance, but you are nuts if you think that will stop the Republican-Rovian smear machine from using them. Just ask John Kerry about how a thirty year old lie about his Vietnam service didn't have an effect on his race for president.

Dismissing all of Hillary's scandals from the Clinton White House years as "Republican talking points" does not make them go away. Ignore them and nominate Clinton(s) anyway and we will end up with Joe Lieberman's best friend in the White House for sure.

[paulk]

62. I think people are inured to the Clinton scandals

everyone already knows that the Clinton's are, well - politicians, with every bad connotation that goes along with that. It's going to be very difficult to throw any new shit at Bill and Hillary and get it to stick. Especially the old scandals - no one cares about yesterday's news in our modern 24/7 news cycle.

Obama, on the other hand, has portrayed himself as some kind of knight in shining armor who's going to ride into DC and "change" things. He is wide open to be painted by the RNC. Even Hillary's attacks, which will pale in comparison to the right wings, have punctured his image. The "change" politician is revealed as just another Chicago pol, and it's business as usual.


Didn't Obama call Lieberman his mentor?

[JNelson6563]

19. If this is true

then she had better tone down her traitorous remarks.

[mikeytherat]

23. There's only one way for the two of them to settle this: Thunderdome!

mikey_the_rat

[4dsc]

25. Damn I suggested that last week!!

I wonder If they are watching this forum closely??

[8 track mind]

29. now were talkin'!!!

I hope this comes to pass. if it doesn't I'm afraid the party will be split apart and our chances will be slim come November. Just my $.02

However i was shocked to see the amount of people that turned out last night for the Caucus in my suburban Ft. Worth town. It made me believe in America once again and the possibility that maybe, just maybe people have become motivated to put this nation back on track. I think great times are ahead!

[Demeter]

30. I May Vomit

Hillary would need Obama to win.

Obama sure as hell wouldn't need Hillary. And given only even 10% of the native intelligence he's demonstrated so far, he wouldn't pick her as a running mate, either. She's the boat anchor.

[WyldRogue]

31. And still...

...you kids are playing partisan games.

She wasn't the vile woman you guys are calling her UNTIL she ran against Obama for the Nom. Time for some of you to grow up and stop being divisive.

Funny that an Independent can see how divisive some of you really are to your OWN party. What's next? Have a sit out and not vote if Hillary gets the Nom?? Absolutely childish and goes against Obama's hope of UNITY.

[Demeter]

36. Sorry, She Was Vile Before, And Just Gotten Moreso

Think healthcare. That was a campaign designed to fail and to taint the discussion fro a generation. Think about timesheets mysteriously appearing in the middle of the night on a White House table. Too damn much of unnecesary nonsense.

[humbled_opinion]

41. How will that work exactly? Hillary is anti-unity and Obama is Unity..

The Media will have a field day and will give he said she said a whole new perspective...:bounce:

[sybylla]

65. No Kidding!

It's a lose-lose ticket. Not only will the media be calling them hypocrites, but McBush will have a field day with the flip-flopping and political avarice such a ticket will resemble.

[NOLALady]

68. NAFTA, IWR = Vile

[Zhade]

89. She was pretty vile to me way before that. And I don't support Obama.

I do oppose her, however, because anyone who suggests they get to pick their presidential powers (from ones illegally accumulated by b*s*/cheney) is not fit for office.

I'm an independent here in CA myself, and I will NOT vote for anyone who thinks such a violation of the separation of powers is acceptable (or legal - it isn't).

[Baby Snooks]

32. Obama is her second choice...

She only has offered it to Obama because it would be a little embarrassing to offer it to McCain who lest we forget she made clear she preferred to Obama although that isn't the only problem in her "offer" which is curious in itself given that she doesn't have the nomination nailed down even though she apparently believes she does.

She went on 60 Minutes and implied that Obama may be a Muslim although she takes his word for it that he's not but of course he may be and we all know we cannot have a Muslim in the White House. Unless of course the Muslim is serving under her.

She won two key states, although by delegates she sort of managed a draw, by pitting one group against another. In Ohio she pitted whites against blacks. In Texas she pitted browns against blacks. She certainly is the rainbow candidate, isn't she?

She is appalling. As are those who continue to support her. In the end, she may do what the Republicans would like to do but can't - destroy the Democratic Party. A house divided falls. So does a party.

[Demeter]

37. She Won With Limbaugh's Support!

How does that make her a viable Democratic candidate?

[Zhade]

90. Yep - a rainbow of race-baiting.

NT!

[Phoonzang]

34. Right about now I say yes...do it.

Just to save us from 3 more months of vicious infighting. Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton...whatever. Just end it. Please.

[MilesColtrane]

38. Hillary's vice president, whoever that would be, would be more useless than teats...

...on a boar.

Bill Clinton will be the de facto Vice President. He'll be shaping policy just as Hillary was in his White House.

Obama will not be on a Clinton ticket. A candidate should never have a #2 that is more charismatic than they are.

[andrewv1]

40. Dream Team? No a LOSS by a Landslide!

Clinton/Obama? Obama/Clinton?

Forget it....Even if they did "kiss and makeup" it won't happen.

Don't let the Mainstream Media put an "Air Pump up your Ass" folks.

As I have previously said....This is future "Republican Roadkill" however you look at it.

The author below leads one of the most respected conservative media outlets in the country....
Whether you agree with him or not, he wrote this article a couple of weeks ago and it's starting to make sense, especially after last night.

The Man on the White Stallion
Al Gore is inevitable.

By John Derbyshire Editor, National Review

From America’s Newspaper of Record, Feb. 19: “Likely GOP presidential nominee John McCain is within single-digit striking distance of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in heavily Democratic New York state, and leads both in the suburbs and upstate, according to a new poll released yesterday. The Siena College Survey found Clinton and Obama just 7 points ahead of McCain — 49 to 42 percent and 47 to 40 percent, respectively — largely because of overwhelming support from heavily Democratic New York City voters … in the suburbs, McCain led Clinton, 53 to 38 percent, and Obama, 55 to 32 percent. McCain was ahead of the New York senator upstate, 49 to 41 percent, and the Illinois senator by a mere, 42 to 41 percent.”
New York State has voted Republican in only four of the last twelve presidential elections. The last time was 1984. The last Republican president New York City voted for was, I think, Calvin Coolidge.



Memo to the DNC: You are fielding two lackluster candidates here. What’s more, they will get weaker, as the Clinton-Obama scrapping knocks coats of paint from off both of them between now and August. No doubt John McCain will trip over his tongue a time or two, but he won’t be doing any scrapping. Doesn’t need to. Within his party, he’s a winner. Everybody likes a winner. Are you guys worried yet? You should be.

For a sample of the weaknesses, just a sample, let’s look at the résumé issue.


Hillary: U.S. Senator (7 yrs). Wife of president (8 yrs). Wife of state governor (12 yrs). Amateur, but sensationally successful, trader/investor (2 yrs). Wife of state attorney general (2 yrs). “Rainmaker” lawyer (on and off). Law school, lawyering.

Obama: U.S. senator (3 yrs). State senator (8 yrs). Lawyer on behalf of community groups and discrimination claims (4 yrs). Part-time lecturing (12 yrs). Community organizing (2-3 yrs). Office work (2 yrs). Law school, lawyering.

Compare:

John McCain U.S. senator (21 yrs). U.S. congressman (4 yrs). Businessman (2½ yrs). U.S. Navy (22 yrs, including 5½ yrs as a prisoner of war).

What’s to be done? Lawyering, wife-ing, and “community” stuff is all very worthy in its own way, no doubt, but it all looks a little lightweight against McCain. And this is with things as they are. What if, heaven forbid, there is another national-security crisis between now and August? Do people really want a “community organizer” or an education-health-care wonk (who never actually accomplished much in either zone) as commander-in-chief when suicide bombers are blowing themselves up in shopping malls or the Russian army is marching into Kosovo?

On the historical evidence, in fact, people voting for president don’t even much care for U.S. senators as a species. The last time a senator got elected to the presidency was 1960. Since Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all U.S. senators, there isn’t much to be done about this; but at least the voters are going to be more favorably disposed towards a candidate who’s done something substantial other than senator-ing. Which would be … McCain.

I assume that the folk at the DNC, who are not fools, have thought things through to this point. What comes next?

What do you think? I’ve been telling you for months, but you just won’t listen. I told you right here back in May last year.

Some weeks before that I had told attendees at a private lecture the same thing. The organizers of that event had asked me to give a talk on the 2008 field of candidates, which was at that point very large. At the end of my talk, they said, I should offer my opinion as to who would actually be the next president. Preparing my talk, I mulled over the matter carefully. At the very end of the lecture, after 40 minutes of surveying the entire field, both parties, I said “Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States,” pressed the key (it was a PowerPoint presentation), and up on the screen came Al Gore. There was a chorus of boos and jeers — it was a conservative crowd. Derb: “Look, this is not my guy. I’m anti-Gore, and have a paper trail to prove it (see here, here, and here). But as an analyst, it’s my job dispassioantely to weigh the probabilities. I weighed them. This is what they told me.”

It’s still what they tell me. And if this has occurred to me, it has sure as heck occurred to the Democratic-party bosses, and those who influence them. Eleanor Clift, for example: “Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama …” Hey, it never looked preposterous to me, Eleanor … but then, I didn’t need to have several Hillary Clinton tattoos surgically removed before I could think straight.



“Plausible”? Try “inevitable.” It’s August in Denver. You have a convention hall full of party activists, nervous and weary from months of watching the party’s two candidates clawing and scratching at each other. Both those candidates are looking pretty tattered. Bill Clinton’s mistress has spilled the beans on O’Reilly, and Michelle Obama’s senior sociology thesis has come to light — the one where she let loose on the “ineradicable racism of white Americans” and called the U.S.A. “a nation founded in crime and hatred.” McCain is looking stronger than ever. The Turks are advancing on Kirkuk. Iran has lobbed a ballistic test missile far out over the Indian Ocean. The Chinese are mad as hell following the collapse of the summer Olympics the week before, as athletes refused to compete in gritty smog, and are making new threats against Taiwan. It’s a dangerous world out there, and community organizing and ed-biz wonkery are being marked down as presidential qualifications.

What to do? What to do? The party bosses are slumped in their seats, staring blankly into space, or doing job searches on their Blackberries. All is gloom and despondency.

Then … A fanfare of trumpets! A shaft of light! Into the hall rides a man on a white stallion! Stirred from their lethargy, the delegates begin rising from their seats. They start cheering and applauding. The rider reaches the podium, dismounts, and strides to the dais. The applause is deafening now. Cheers ring round the hall! Women are weeping; men are hugging each other.

Broad-shouldered and confident, his sternocleidomastoid muscle flexing and rippling, the Rescuer sweeps his powerful gaze around the hall. A hush falls. He begins to speak. As he speaks, the same though settles on every listener simultaneously: This is the one. He has always been the one. What fools we have been!

Don’t think it couldn’t happen. Don’t, in fact, think it isn’t going to happen. The Democratic party has two lame candidates, without a dime’s worth of executive experience between them. Competing on the campaign trail, by August each will have thoroughly alienated the other’s supporters, and turned off the voting public. Meanwhile, in the wings, there is this guy who was vice president for eight years, who ran a campaign for the presidency and actually won it! (well, according to party lore). He looks presidential, with a fine strapping physique and a big square jaw. You’re hankering after moral authority? How about a Nobel Peace Prize, for crying out loud!!

But … does he want it? Does Al Gore want to be the president of the United States?

Are you kidding me?

[humbled_opinion]

43. By August this campaign will have cost half a billion...

and you think Hillary or Obama would just stand aside and let Al Gore step up... If this was gonna happen it would have already.... No sense in waiting until August it should have been in NOV 07. It sounds like Repug wishful thinking that the ghost of Raygun will rise up and take their convention by storm instead of librulll McStain...

[Tansy_Gold]

51. "it should have been in NOV 07"

No, it should have been NOV '00.

Gore didn't want it bad enough then. He's been out of the presidential picture for seven miserable years.

But you're correct -- Neither Clinton nor Obama would step aside and let Gore walk away with it, and they'd be justified. No one wants -- and the world sure as fucking hell doesn't need -- a reluctant POTUS.

Gore could, however, play king- or queen-maker, by resolving the whole dilemma in a way that keeps the party from self-destructing. He has stayed out of the conflict, as has Edwards, as has Howard Dean. They've done it far more quietly than Bill Richardson, who seems to think he has some clout. Bill Clinton probably has more clout than all of them, but he's got to recuse himself. That leaves Edwards, Gore, and Dean -- and if those nice white boys would like to save the party, the country, and the world from McNasty, they probably could do so.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

The only way I see McCain winning in November is if the Dem party fractures completely, and that is a real possibility. McCain's record is atrocious; he's got more flip-flops than Cape May in August, and they'll be used against him. But if enough Dems continue on this "COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I'D VOTE FOR HIM/HER!!!!" anger, then we'll be inaugurating McCain in 09.

Grow up, indeed. Remember that boooosh was only able to prevail in Florida in 00 because it was close, because Nader and Buchanan and our own lack of unity kept it close. The President in 09 is going to be one of two people, either the Dem nominee or McCain, so take your pick. Don't give me crap about "voting my conscience" for Nader or staying home because you just can't stand the nominee. You're gonna get one or the other, so even if it's the lesser of two great evils, make your choice and live with it.

Rhetorical "you," of course.


Tansy Gold

[Uncle Joe]

78. It was close because

Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped up in spite of being under a Republican/media microscope and then had to compound that by lying to the nation about it, instead of telling the truth or keeping his mouth shut, thereby giving the integrity issue to the Republicans on a silver platter.

It was close because the corporate media trashed and slandered "white boy" Al Gore for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000, beginning in March of 99, in large part because he empowered you to post your wisdom for all the world to see when he championed opening up the Internet for the people. I believe they were after Al Gore from the beginning because he was the primary political champion for the Internet and they knew he wouldn't support illegally wire tapping the American People, just as Bush would do shortly after obtaining power and before 9/11. They didn't want a strong advocate for the people in the White House and Bill Clinton only aided this endeavor, and today the same corporate media can't do enough to make him our nation's very first "First Gentlemen", and the coup comes full circle.

Frankly I pity any Vice-President serving under the Clintons after the way they treated Al Gore.

[MilesColtrane]

67. Nice dream.

Unfortunately you'll have to wake up after the convention when that doesn't happen.

[earthlover]

77. Excellent post/article

Yes, it could happen this way. Neither Hillary nor Obama can clinch the nomination without the super delegates.

It is entirely possible, and maybe probable, that Obama and Hillary will severely damage each other by an increasingly negative campaign. McCain's poll numbers against either Hillary or Obama at this point could very well be devestating.

So the super delegates could....if they wanted to....simply vote for a favorite son candidate, wouldn't even have to be Gore. Just not Obama or Hillary. So on the first ballot nobody wins.

So it goes to the 2nd ballot. Now comes Gore on a horse (not necessarily white....) to the podium. A movement has been afoot, with enough supporters for Gore on the 2nd ballot....as the unity ticket. Gore offers both a job in his administration up front, and nominates someone like Wes Clark as his VP.

Ah the dream is interesting. Don't dismiss it out of hand. It is quite feasible that this may be our party's only hope of salvaging unity out of a totally frayed party at Denver.

I pray that somehow we can unify at Denver, however I am not holding much hope of that. I don't see Hillary coming off her kitchen sink mud slinging of Obama, and it is even possible Obama will join her in the gutter of negative politics in revenge. We could very easily see many frustrated Hillary supporters or Obama supporters either sitting this election out or even switching to McCain. If this happens, we may need Gore to save the day.

[underpants]

42. In a word-Rovian

run out and declare victory

[sybylla]

46. Wouldn't work no matter who's on top

After the hatchet job they've done on each other, it would be used against them in nearly every McCain ad - with good rights. All McCain has to say is that HRC doesn't believe in her own running mate's ability, why should the rest of the country? If she at the top of the ticket, it casts serious doubts about her ability to choose competent people to staff her administration. And she looks greedy and calculating no matter where she ends up on the ticket - because now no matter what Clinton could say in defense, it looks like she's just in this to achieve the Whitehouse, not to find the best person for the job. And this doesn't even begin to address what could said about Obama if he agreed to share the ticket with her.

She can't take her words back and neither can he. Win at all costs will never lead to a winning "unity" ticket even if unity within the party can be achieved. It's not possible.

[leQ]

50. i disagree with you

i think a HRC/BO ticket would be just what the party needs to get over this nasty primary season. and to hell with what mccain would say in his ads. he'd say things no matter who was on the ticket. i think a HRC/BO ticket is genius (i've been saying this for months now).

[sybylla]

63. C'est la guerre

As someone who's been deeply involved in several campaigns in my state, I can tell you that getting attacked with your own words is impossible to combat. The candidate looks like a flip-flopper, an opportunist, and, quite frankly, a sleazy politician simply for saying one thing and then saying (or doing) another.

No one crosses party lines to vote for someone they don't trust. Hillary can't have it both ways. Barak can't have it both ways. The minute they started attacking each other's credibility, they made the possibility of a unity ticket between them a losing ticket.

That doesn't mean either of them will have the good sense to avoid it. Many a candidate has gone down that road before.

You may just get your "genius" ticket after all.

[Red1]

52. Mckain

will lose to either clinton or the dreamer man,

check out the last election, shrub barely won...considering the ohio debacle.

voters want out of iraq...mckain likes war
voters want a better economy....mckain told the auto workers, jobs lost overseas was just too bad, can't turn that around...
mickey mouse could beat mckain

[Irishonly]

53. I Don't See How

Of course, I am not a politician and have much too thin skin for it. I say this as a person who doesn't have a horse in this race now and will vote for the nominee. All of the negativity from both sides has disgusted me. Supporters from both sides have caused me grief. There are times you would swear you are on a freeper site and I am not just talking about one set of supporters. Both Clinton and Obama are light years better than McCain and I think democrats need to remember the country is at stake and what a McCain presidency would mean. After the convention egos need to go behind a closed door.

As a non politician I would ask with all of the negativity going on wouldn't it look fraudulent if they ran together? If going by what you read here it would look as phony as a three dollar bill. I realize the rest of the country isn't a passionate as people posting in groups or blogs but wouldn't the MSM exploit it to the max? I remember 68 and whe Regan won I was so mad at democrats I voted and campaigned for Anderson. I never have made that mistake again.

My last question is what happens if one wins the popular vote and the other has the most state wins? I realize there is about as much of a chance of that happening as me winning the lottery ten times in a row but with all of the blustering going on by both camps it made me curious. Obama may be too far ahead in the popular vote now but as weird as this primary has been anything can happen. I really do not want to see a brokered convention.

[WillTheGoober]

54. Hillary Clinton Talks about Dream Ticket

Source: News Day

BY KEITH HERBERT | [e-mail]
10:33 AM EST, March 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton was up early Wednesday morning, making appearances on morning television shows after winning three primary contests yesterday, and suggested that she and her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, might share the Democratic ticket.

"That may be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said it should be me."

Clinton said that Democratic voters have begun to focus on who would be the best commander-in-chief.

Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/mobile/ny-ushill0306,0,5682114.story

---

This is great!

[C_U_L8R]

55. Yay. Hillary for VP !!!

Great idea to join up with the winning team : - )))

[Fredda Weinberg]

56. She's framing the debate n/t

[tedoll78]

59. Smart.

According to Gallup, she and Obama are essentially tied. The party is pretty much divided down the line.

We'll see if there's any movemment in the polls in the coming days, but this seems like a clear situation for a unity ticket of either order.

[WillTheGoober]

61. Agreed.

If they come together, and they embrace each other's politics, utilizing strengths of both ... they're unstoppable.

[enid602]

57. on top

Seems it's always about who's on top.

[NC_Nurse]

58. So Ohio counts more than other states?

:eyes: :puke:

[JackORoses]

60. Fuck her! She gets nothing for acting like a spoiled brat.

[JVS]

69. wise words.

[Red1]

71. Spoiled Brat?

Who? You?

gonna vote for dreamer man?

ahahahahaha,

[sybylla]

64. Good Goddess, I hope not

I'm crossing my fingers that BO has enough sense to avoid that debacle.

[Orsino]

70. They would be unstoppable...

...despite the barbs that have gone back and forth. McCain /anybody-you-want wouldn't stand a chance.

[dpbrown]

72. Hillary should top the ticket. Obama will make a great President in eight years.

He's not ready now.

[newfie11]

73. I totally agree

[goforit]

81. Hilary will keep Washington status quo, Obama will clean it up! OBAMA as prez.

[dpbrown]

95. This country needs a Democratic President, not a rock star - Obama is Jesse Ventura

And just as Jesse Ventura couldn't get anything done, so will Obama stumble through inexperience.

[Zhade]

91. Um, HE'S winning, not her.

So... why would she be at the top, again?

[dpbrown]

94. He's a black Jimmy Carter waiting to happen

Sound bites and cult appeal do not a President make.

[Zhade]

96. Hey, I don't support the guy. But the fact remains she's still losing.

If she were winning, it would make sense for her to "offer" this. But she's in no position to do so.

[earthlover]

75. Some suggestions for a Unity Ticket....

I really wish it had not come to this.I support Obama and I have been appalled at the way Hillary has conducted herself during the campaign, especially the past 2-3 weeks.

This is not fair to Obama, but Clinton does have the power to prevent him from becoming president. She probably cannot stop him from being the nominee, but she CAN prevent either of them from winning against McCain. All she has to do is continue the kitchen sink character assassination campaign. If we have 2-3 more months of this, both sides are going to be mortally wounded, in my view. It will 100% guarantee a McCain presidency. Which, I believe, Hillary won't be that upset about because she can angle for president again in 2012.

I believe that Obama has earned to be at the top of a unity ticket. However, this is not going to happen. For one thing, Obama could never trust Hillary as VP to support his programs or even not to stab him in the back. She would not be a team player. He also has brought about a lot of the excitement into the race, has expanded the base to young voters and independents, has won in more states, has more pledged delegates....we all know the drill. He is more eloquent and more positive and can lead America into the future instead of being mired in our past.

However, Hillary does hold a card....I won't call it a wild card, maybe a joker....that would prevent any of that happening is she continued the kitchen sink.

It is too bad that the voters of TX and OH fell for the 3AM ad. It is too bad also that 20% of OH voters made race an issue and 85% of them voted for Hillary. It is too bad that even as the Bush Administration winds down, voters still respond to a message of fear when the chips are down, at least faced with a slick commercial right out of the Republican play book.

It is also true that OH and TX may be just two more states, and we shouldn't base everything on these two states, which were overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary from the start.

However, consider the result of this ad, and perhaps other new ones drumming this message of fear about Obama for 3 months going into the convention. Does anyone here NOT feel uneasy about what this could do to Obama's chances of winning in November if he were to be the nominee? Is this right? Hell no! Is Hillary ruthless enough to do it? As far as I know....

Maybe Obama should call Hillary's bluff. Get together in secret. That means we don't even find out. And here is what Obama tells Hillary: Let's let the remaining primaries decide who will be VP and Pres. On the conditions that: 1) no negative campaigning or commercials by either side, 2) Hillary publically apologize for her saying MCCain has a lifetime of experience while Obama just has a speech, 3) Hillary and Obama bothpublicly state that each other would both be a good commander in chief, and in Hillary's case clarify that she has faith tbat Obama would respond at 3AM in presidential way, 4) both Obama and Clinton urge their supporters (includign on DU) not to be negative either 5) if either side does not follow each of these conditions to a T, the deal is off.

I would say offer Clinton some sort of deal, but I believe she has to show by her actions that she can be trusted to follow through on her promises. If she can do this up until the convention, she will have demonstrated that she can be trusted.

Of course, a side benefit of my plan would be that no matter who becomes the nominee this circular firing squad within the party is over, and the campaign gets positive, and we start going after McCain instead of each other.

And it is only logical that running mates would not be at each other's throats, nor would it be particularly believable if up until the convention they were dissing each other and all of a sudden be partners.

So I say put an end to the bickering and let the voters decide.

[Zhade]

93. Her lies, fearmongering, and attempts to cheat point to one thing: she's power-hungry.

And utterly shameless in her self-serving attacks.

You're dreaming if you think she'd let the voters decide against her.

[Fovea]

79. If the incredibly unlikely happens

and HRC is somehow ahead narrowly at the convention, then an Obama Veep does her no harm and epoxies the rifts of the primary.

OTOH, I am not sure that Hillary as veep works as well for Barak.
Barak would not be able to shake HRC's comment regarding McCain Experience.
McCain will need a knuckle dragging freep to make the base happy.

Edwards is the best choice.

If not Edwards, I would prefer a Robert Reich, or if you really wanted to kill the religious right, Kevin Phillips, moderate Republican, if he would cross the aisle. We could use an economist who is not a supply sider near the top. Read "wealth and democracy" or "the politics of rich and poor" ... He may have had an evil youth, but Phillips gets it as clearly as Edwards. Reich believes in the economic power of labor in a brick and mortar economy, as best I can tell.

And watching Reich take Huckabee apart would be quite enjoyable. I think Phillips hates theo and neo cons enough to vivisect ole Huck with a titanium spork on prime time TV.

But Edwards would take Huck and turn him into a Kline Bottle with a tinny cry and a puff of smoke. End of debate.

If you told either of these two guys to find a way to make healthcare universal by removing 90% of the profit motive from it, they would, even if in Phillips' case, he would probably weep some. Getting a national public transit system working? Either could do it. Reich could do it better, I suspect.

Edwards, I think would go at it with a vengeance.

If not Veep, Edwards would be my choice for SCOTUS.

Hillary would be my preferred Senate Majority Leader.

Kooch would be my preferred Speaker of the House.

My wild card veep pick would be Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. of Kansas.
Or perhaps Jay Nixon, Missouri Atty General-- he's a scrappy mofo.

Either would cement the midwest swing state vote and Sebelius would flip Kansas blue.

[CaseyStorm]

80. Would Obama?

Would Obama agree to be HRC's VP candidate? I kinda doubt it. Maybe the Democratic party will force Obama and ask him to wait "his turn in line?" I don't think most superdelegates will vote contrary to their constituents. They are political animals and are more concerned about their political career than the party. Just my opinion.

[depakid]

82. Dream ticket? More like a nightmare

worst of both worlds- pretty well guarantees another 4 years of Republican irrationality.

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Then Huckabee made the same offer to McCain...

Nice ploy, but I don't think anyone is actually going to buy it, do you?

[Zhade]

85. She has to win first to offer it, and she's still losing.

Man, she's as arrogant as many of her supporters.

[minnesota_liberal]

92. Obama's more likely to go with Edwards, but thanks anyway

I really doubt that he's want Team Hilary to ride shotgun.

[judaspriestess]

97. several months back someone had posted a story

that both camps had made a secret deal to run as each others veep. I cannot remember who posted it sorry, I'll try to look for it in the archives.

but I always thought that was going to be the outcome anyway.

[Raejeanowl]

99. If Either's Ego Could Step Aside

They'd be DA BOMB.