Obama/Clinton ticket is suddenly in the air...

[DeadElephant_ORG]

Since Tuesday, our site - which has nothing directly to do with internal Democratic politics - has received several messages from our supporters asking if Obama and Clinton would run on the same ticket. Personally I support Obama and dislike Hillary, but my own thought since Tuesday has been that these two are more alike than they are different. Is this fight worth the heavy cost? We could end up handing the Presidency to McCain. Given Obama's clear lead, he'd have to top the ticket. But maybe that's perfect: a President with a gift for inspiring the citizenry, and a Vice-President with White House experience, policy knowledge, and guts.

What do you think?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. It's A Huge Possibility, But I'd Say Far More Likely Hillary Would Be At The Top.

[jakem]

3. why? she is losing...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. In Some Ways Yes, In Other Ways No. And Come Convention Time, Might Be A Different Story.

If Hillary can keep the momentum stable, close the gap of delegates to under 100, have national polls that put her ahead, she will be the nominee, period. Mark my words.

[papau]

27. I agree - its likely total votes all contests will show her in lead after PA - a moral claim to win

[totodeinhere]

81. Where did you get that from?

Total votes is a meaningless stat anyway because it doesn't take into account caucuses where delegates, not votes are counted. And as we know Obama has been strongest in caucus states. If we go by total votes we are substantially underestimating Obama's popular support. That's why we have to go by the total number of pledged delegates that each receives. And by that measure Obama will almost certainly be ahead just like he is now.

[Yes We Did]

9. They are in denial.

Hillary will not the VP. She can go back to NY and name some more libraries. That's what she does best.

Obama will not take her as VP. And would certainly not offer it to her, not now. Not after the shit she just pulled.

The Clinton politics is so over.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. You're Being Politically Naive.

It may very well end up not being his choice...

[earthlover]

22. you have a point, however Hillary's recent behavior has made a joint ticket less likely

Too negative on a personal level against Obama. However, politics makes for some strange bed fellows.

I think, particularly if Obama retains a lead in pledged delegates, Hillary needs Obama on the ticket if she is going to do the arm twisting of the SDs to win anyway. No way can she win with a split party, and that would be the result without Obama on the ticket. I don't think this is even a debatable point at this point.

What's likely to happen is Obama will start winning in other states again, the "momentum" will no longer be Hillary, it will settle in before PA. She may well win PA, demographically it favors her much like OH, but her pledged delegate total will still lag.

It might very well become politically wise for Obama to name Hillary VP. If they were able to solve this right now, it would certainly end the animosity and negative campaigning that is hurting the PARTY right now. MAybe accepting her as VP would be a price he would pay for party unity so he can win in November, regardless of the feelings he must have about the shit she has thrown on him about just having one speech compared with McCain's lifetime of service....

I agree it is POSSIBLE for Hillary to be the nominee, if she starts blowing out states, if the national polls have her in the lead, yadayada. To make the pledged delegate total even close, she needs to do much better in all the remaining races than she did in OH, she needs over 60% now of the rest. Even in that event, she still needs Obama for unity. But, since that is not likely to happen, she needs him even more.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. All She Needs Is The Delegate Total Under 100, A Very Tight PV, And The National Polls.

If she gets that, I'd say she has more than a good chance of getting the nomination.

[earthlover]

35. Amazing how the goal posts get moved just to favor Hillary....

What if it was Obama who was 75-100 delegates behind? So why would Hillary get special treatment for being even 75 delegates back?

She has to show a trend, not just winning OH and RI and squeaking by TX in popular vote. Hell, she was ahead by 20 points a few weeks ago in each of these states, so she hasn't exactly forged forward, all she has done is prevent Obama from cutting more into her lead enough to win these states.

Maybe she can start a string of victories. We will see in MS and WY. If she has turned things around, I expect her to win those states. After she does that, let's talk!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Has Nothing To Do With Moving Goalposts, And All To Do With The Process.

A gap of less than 100 delegates is a virtual tie in many ways. If she gets it that close, can show all the big states in her pocket, have the national polls on her side, and the popular vote close enough to a wash, she'll have one hell of an argument for being the nominee and being the one that's viable. That's just political reality. Deal with it.

[workinclasszero]

56. A gap of less than 100 delegates is a virtual tie in many ways.

Only in some slimy, cheating, Clintonian fantasy world.

I'm sure, if the tables were turned and Hillary was up 100 delegates, you would be calling it a virtual tie for Obama, eh?:eyes:

If Obama is up ONE delegate over Hillary, he damn well better be the dem candidate in the GE or the democratic party needs a name change.

Of course if they cheat the majority of dem voters out of their choice, it will be dead by then so it wont matter too much I guess.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. LOL At The Dramatic Naivete LOL

No, not in a cheating fantasy world, in the real world. I'm amazed that you are thinking so much in a bubble that you put that much stake in the delegate numbers, as if that's the only thing that matters. Welcome to political reality pal, cause it isn't. If you think that Obama having merely 1 more delegate is reason to win the nomination, and that any other scenario would be cheating and a death to the Democratic party, then you are being amazingly politically naive as to the reality of the rules of the process and how everything works.

Furthermore, I can't help but laugh my ass off at what your statements reflect about your thought process, as if this nomination process is such a straightforward, written in stone, perfectly executed process that doesn't contain within it inherent flaws. It's almost cute. You act like the entire voting process is perfect, that no other factors come into play, and that even 1 delegate difference means everything. How silly! I mean, you have a nomination process that includes God knows how many flawed caucus events, which are processes that by their very nature are ridiculous, disenfranchising, and not truly the voice of the people. Yet you want to put forward that every delegate selected from them was done from this perfect pure process that just TOTALLY reflected the voice of the people LOL. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical, if not monumentally ignorant in concept.

The reality is the nomination is NOT a straightforward, one tangent only perfect and pure process. There are many factors in play and it's laughable that you think there aren't. Primaries are part of it, flawed caucuses are part of it, super delegates are part of it, and the rules of the game are part of it. All those things come into play. To think for a second that just having a handful more delegates means the people have spoken, and ANY other decision would be 'cheating', is beyond short sighted and naive.

Having a difference of under 100 delegates is absolutely in so many ways a virtual tie as it relates to the choice of democrats as to who they want to be a nominee. If in the end Hillary has the big states to her claim, has national polling on her side, a popular vote that is for all intents and purposes a wash, and a delegate difference of less than 100, she absolutely would have a HUGE case for being the nominee and the one most viable to run in the GE. Feel free to yell, pout, scream, stamp your feet and issue ridiculously dramatic declarations about cheating all you want. All it does is show that you have little understanding of what this process is about, how it works, and how many factors go into it. To think for a second that even 1 delegate difference makes or breaks everything, less the Democratic party be a fraud and the nominee be chosen through cheating, is really quite laughable.

[workinclasszero]

64. Wow, thats a lot of verbiage

just to say to hell with democracy.:eyes:

[joshcryer]

67. You don't think they would take all of these things into consideration?

That *is* the democratic process with a representational democracy. Just because they don't pick and chose the things you like doesn't make it "undemocratic".

Yes I'd do away with this system and go direct proportional voting all the freaking way, but for now this is what we got.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. ROFLMAO!

To hell with democracy :rofl:

You are just too silly, you know that?

:crazy:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

68. you're rationalizing cheating and manipulation

which is EXACTLY what I have always hated about Hillary.

That said, it's also exactly why I think she'd be a hellishly effective VP. Cheaters are not loved. VPs don't need to be loved.

[joshcryer]

70. What cheating? Nothing the poster has said is outside of the democratic rules of the convention.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the process, the democratically agreed upon process, but that's just how it works.

I find it amusing when Obama supporters say "MI and FL broke the rules, the rules must be adhered to!" while in the same breath denouncing the rules of the democratic system our party has put in place, the same one that could even go so far as to make MI and FL count under a democratic process.

It just goes to show how assinine and ignorant some people here really are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. ...

:thumbsup:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

77. Right. And waterboarding isn't "torture". Data mining isn't "spying". False statements aren't "lies

...cheaters are forever claiming that the rules are ambiguous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Oh I Am? See, I Thought I Was Stating Fact About The Political Process And Yours And Others Naivety

about it.

Oh wait... Let me check... Yup. That was in fact what I was doing. Calling it cheating and manipulation is a huge sign of political ignorance, naivety, and foolish overdramatization.

Just plain silly.

:crazy:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

78. And I'm agreeing. The fact about this political process is that some candidates will cheat.

but I don't appreciate the name calling. I'm sure I'm no less worldly and intelligent than yourself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. We're SOOOOOOOO Not In Agreement. And If You Don't Appreciate The Name Calling, Then

next time don't post something that's such a huge sign of political ignorance, naivety, and foolish overdramatization. :hi:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

82. uh... that was sarcasm dear. Anyway, cheaters aren't "dramatic" - they're banal.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

85. I get that you're a wee bit sensitive about the cheating issue

[earthlover]

63. IF Obama was behind 100 delegates, the goal post would be moved again!

You would be saying that it is an insurmountable lead. The only reason 100 don't count is your beloved Hillary is behind. And your beloved Hillary gets the goal posts moved for her no matter what.

[joshcryer]

No, that's patently untrue. At least a few of us expected Obama to surge the way he did.

In fact, I was surprised by Hillary's wins on March 5th to be perfectly honest.

Please don't generalize about all people on this forum.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Nope.

See, my mind doesn't close into an ignorant bubble just because of which candidate I do or don't support. My theories and logic in my posts within this thread are all despite who the candidates are, and would hold true for any candidate in any primary election.

[joshcryer]

66. I think it can be a delegate total under 200 to be honest. As long as the PV is close.

[niceypoo]

13. Obamites hate the Clinton family

...and if it were John Kerry running against him, they would be wearing 'purple heart bandaids'

[CountAllVotes]

25. I agree!!!

I bet at this point she would be his LAST choice!! :mad:

[tekisui]

8. It's hard to diecide who should be at the top.

If Obama has the delegate and popular vote, I think he has to be. If they split those criteria, it's up for grabs. If one does have the pop. vote, and the other has the PD's, I think we have to take them both. They are each pulling in huge numbers, and each have a lot of support in distinct demographics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

True.

I think if Hillary cuts the delegate lead to anywhere under 100, has national polls on her side, and either the popular vote on her side or a popular vote that's a virtual tie, she'll walk away on top.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. Top or bottom, Hillary is a non-starter with me. I'd rather sit it out. GObama!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Pretty Selfish, If I May Be Honest. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. With the vast amount of muck the two are slinging at each other...

Do they really think we will forget everything and vote for either one, much less both together?

Yikes! They must think the voting public are total idiots with with minute attention spa... Ooo! Britney Spears is in the news again!

[Drifter]

4. Hillary as VP ...

might be the only thing that keeps Obama alive.

:sarcasm:

Cheers
Drifter

[dysfunctional press]

38. just the opposite...

if hillary was the vp nominee, the vrwc would find a way to rfk obama, and make it look like hillary's doing.

[IndyOp]

5. I think that it is wrong and it will only serve to reward bullying.

Senator Clinton has been stating this is a possibility because she is losing the race for delegates and she knows it -- so she dangles the possibility and then says that the only question left is who is on top of the ticket. Bull.

Senator Obama has been saying that it is too early to think about this possibility. He is saying that because he is too classy to say that there is no way he will chose Clinton as his VP.

I think that it is wrong and it will only serve to reward bullying from certain Clinton campaign staffers.

[DemzRock]

6. Yes you must remember that they are more alike than different...

They won't be more of the same McBush...

[WVRevy]

10. I'll be honest...

...my first reaction, given Clinton's tactics in Texas and Ohio, is to say "No way in hell".

But the more I think about it, the more I start to warm up to the idea. Clinton would be the deciding vote in a VERY evenly divided Senate. She could push her own legislative agenda along with Obama's, and she could do so in a place where she is already intimately familiar with the rules and procedures.

I don't know that she brings as much to the ticket as some others might, but at the same time, it might bring quite a bit among Clinton's support base if she were on the ticket. Plus, if she weren't on the TOP of the ticket, I don't think it would mobilize the far right quite as greatly, which would be a plus.

So, while my initial reaction to this idea was "no way"...upon further consideration, I think it would work out ok.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

51. I appreciate your honesty. That was the pattern of my own thinking exactly.

[smiley_glad_hands]

12. Hilliary would never accept the vice presidency. eom

[earthlover]

23. I used to think that, now not so sure

I think the talk about a joint ticket may be just more bs coming from the Hillary camp. They have shown that they are capable of saying anything if it serves their interests to say it. So it is hard to take the vp talk seriously with her history of machinations. However, if it does become a serious thing, it MAY work out that way....not because either of them wanted it to happen.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

14. It would be a way for Obama to show that he's serious about building unity

[papau]

29. I'd like to think Obama wanted to build unity - but so far it is I win or I go home

[Zachstar]

60. Then he needs to pick Edwards.

Or gore.

[tedoll78]

15. I'm a Hillary supporter, but..

in all fairness, I think the person with the most delegates and popular votes should be at the top of the ticket. Given that our party is pretty much divided 50-50 between the candidates (from looking at the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls), I'd say that a dream ticket is a must if we want unity for the Fall.

[Benhurst]

19. I not very enthusiastic about either of them, but if such a move is

considered, I think it should be Clinton/Obama. This would give Clinton the potential for eight years in the White House, followed by eight years of Obama, who by then would have more than enough experience.

Neither of going to make the magic number of 2025, so neither is entitled to either spot on the ticket. This isn't The Biggest Loser, it's a national election with extremely high stakes. To hell with the egos of both candidates and their followers. If the "super" delegates were functioning, a third choice might very well be in order. But then what in this country is functioning anymore? So forget that.

The main problem I see with either a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket is the current state of the union. Whoever gets the White House, whether Democrat or Republican, is in for a rough tenure, and may not be in line for a second term, so being second fiddle is not the cat bird seat it used to be.

[earthlover]

26. The way things are now, Obama is the most logical choice

However, if Hillary starts to win decisively, and her poll numbers improve, she might have a case later on. Right now, she is way behind in pledged delegates. She squeaked by in TX, won comfortably in OH and RI but she still has only won 3 races out of the last 15. It remains to be seen whether she can demonstrate a trend. We will see in Mississippi and Wyoming. Oh, I forgot, they don't count if she loses, dumb me!

[shraby]

30. She lost Texas.

Obama got the most delegates with the caucus. He won the state.

[earthlover]

32. I was trying to be generous...popular vote she squeaked by

If she can't show a trend in at least popular vote from here on out, she doesn't have an arguement at all for heading the ticket. She is going to lose the pledged delegate totals, that much we know. Unless what happened in OH and RI become a trend from now on, she doesn't have a leg to stand on for the nomination. Maybe VP if she stops the negative bile coming from her mouth about Obama in the meantime....

[Benhurst]

46. Yeah, and the Democratic party doesn't seem too concerned about

the popular vote these days, contrary to its name. But as that great American Condoleezza Rice pointed out when talking about Venezuela, there's more to democracy than free elections.

After this mess is over, we should insist the party do away with caucuses, super delegates and open primaries. And the rules should be changed to allow the candidate who gains the plurality of the popular vote to be the nominee, or, better in my opinion, have a national runoff of the top two candidates if none achieves a majority. Sure it would be expensive, but is expense really a factor in the ridiculous system we have? That done, we should return to our former progressive stand of trying to get the money out of the process. This primary season has set a new low, with so-called progressives vying for bragging rights over who has raised the most money.

The proud tradition continues: The Best Government Money Can Buy.

[democrattotheend]

33. That might be acceptable IF she agreed not to run again in 4 years if they lose

I am an Obama supporter but could accept him being on the bottom of the ticket if, and only if, she agreed publicly that she would not run again in 4 years if they lost. It seems more than fair to me, since Obama would be taking the bottom slot despite being ahead in the delegate count.

If she agrees to that, it's a win-win for Obama. He'll pretty much automatically be the nominee in either 4 or 8 years, win or lose. And by that point, he'll have either 4 more years as a senator or 4 or 8 as VP under his belt, and won't be so vulnerable to the inexperience argument. Personally, I'd rather see him become president now, before he loses his idealism, but the last thing in the world I want to see is him lose his chance by getting the nomination and losing. If he can't close the deal in Pennsylvania, I think he might just not be ready, or perceived as not ready, and if that happens, I'd rather have him wait 4 more years than get the nomination in a weakened state and lose his chance to become president.

[Benhurst]

37. Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to have such a statement made

publicly before the general election (a bit defeatist, don't you think?); but a statement filmed, signed (in blood -- for DNA testing) and notarized might be in order.

:rofl:

[dailykoff]

16. Great idea! Like Gore-Lieberman!

That way, if anything "happens" to the president, there's a neocon waiting in the wings to hand everything right back to Exxon-CIA-Halliburton-Mobil!

:puke:

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. That's how I feel about it

Would she undermind the Obama's administration indirectly or directly
covertly or in covertly?

I don't want to risk it.

[derby378]

17. Ain't gonna happen

If it does, we lose the southern and western states. The electoral map will look a lot like it did in 2000. And that means we invade Iran.

[predfan]

18. want to sit out this election if your candidate doesn't win the primary?

Two words.......Supreme Court. Go ahead and let McCain choose the next Justice, especially if you like Scalia and Thomas.

For the good of the party, but especially for the good of our country, I really like a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket, flip a coin on national TV for God's sake.

[mmonk]

20. pull!

[Nine]

21. not as strong as Clinton/Obama

I don't think Obama has a clear lead and I don't think it's a given that he will be at the top of the ticket. I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the strongest possible ticket at this point, but I don't think Clinton would be a great choice for the VP spot if Obama wins the top spot. Off the top of my head, though I really haven't given it much thought - maybe Bill Richardson?

[democrattotheend]

31. As an Obama supporter, I have to agree

I think if he wins Pennsylvania or comes close, he will have a big delegate lead and he'll probably be the nominee and he doesn't need to put her on the ticket, as she does not add a lot and might hurt him by bringing out Republicans who are lukewarm on McCain and might stay home. But if she wins big in PA, which is possible given the demographics, we might have to do a joint ticket, and even though I support Obama, I think Clinton/Obama might be the better order, IF she agrees not to run again in 4 years if they lose (which seems more than fair to me, if he gives up the top slot despite having more delegates). She does nothing for his ticket, but he would help her at the bottom of the ticket by keeping the African American community and young people fired up and involved, and by dedicating the grassroots infrastructure he has built to the general election.

[mmonk]

28. It would be like a ticket of Kennedy and Carter in 1980.

[Renew Deal]

34. Reminds me of Bush-Cheney

:evilgrin:

[redqueen]

36. I think it's a bad idea.

[DemGa]

39. Only Clinton/Obama is possible

Otherwise it's an imbalance in power. But this will be more clear after the PA primary.

Besides Obama could not welcome Clinton as VP when he's painted her as a "polarizing and divisive" figure who would "unite the opposition."

The VP slot would be a victory indeed for the young Senator.

[Colobo]

41. He's beating Hillary. He should be at the top.

[JMDEM]

40. Well I had beans with dinner and that's still in the air too... nt.

[whatchamacallit]

43. Like a stale fart

I think this air-biscuit will clear the room.

[JMDEM]

44. Great minds run in small circles. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Oops missed yours

:toast:

[Emillereid]

48. I can work and vote for that ticket. Not the other way round though.

[Godhumor]

49. I'm just waiting for some one to start suggesting Clinton wants the VP

So Obama can be removed from the picture and she could take over. Considering how whacky this place has gotten in the last week, it will not be long before someone posts that as a serious thought. What's worse, I almost guarantee it would get recommended to the greatest page.

[Catchawave]

52. A Unity ticket will probably save the Dem Party at this point....

...and DU :evilgrin:

[marlakay]

53. after all she has done to try and take him down

i don't think he will pick her ever!!! nor would his supporters want it...if she wants to go to the end, fine but she will go down and maybe go down so far she has to fight to stay being senator...

[d.amber]

54. Just say no to any combo of the Two.

It would destroy Obama to have Hillary as VP. First I can't see her doing it and what then do you with Bill. But he comes as change and something fresh and not part of the Clinton machine. That is his appeal. Put Clinton on the ticket and you destroy that appeal.

And Obama would be crazy to be her VP. Gore loved that VP position behind the Clintons. First the GOP dream of having Hillary as our nominee. It's what they have been talking about for years and their is nothing that fires up their base then the Clinton name. If they don't win and it would be a very hard race then Obama will be marked as a looser like Edwards was. Not only that he could have accepted everything he claimed to be against.

No to either combination. If you want to put the Clinton's in the WH again..ok...i'll still vote for them but please keep Obama clean. Find someone else as VP...How about Biden...my choice for VP for either one of them.

[Skwmom]

55. They are NOT alike. It will never happen. Why would Obama

want Bill and Hillary as his VP (they would be way too divisive and the independents would make a stampede to McCain). Furthermore, running would Clinton would tarnish Obama and would hurt his chance to EVER be President (just ask Gore) and bring about the change that this country so desperately needs.

[Benhurst]

57. Gore won, but the election was stolen. If he hadn't listened to those

who said he would be hurt by his association with Clinton (like people were going to blame him for Monica -- what nonsense!) he probably wouldn't have picked Holy Joe Lieberman, and his popular vote might have been even higher.
Still, the election would have been stolen, nevertheless.

Obama's running with Clinton would hardly tarnish him as much as Rezko and other such associations, which, so far, don't seem to be hurting him at all.

[Zachstar]

58. No

The only VP that really needs to be getting ANY attention right now is Edwards.

[AtomicKitten]

59. No thanks.

[wileedog]

65. So we'll have two candidates

with no foreign policy experience running against McCain. He can run Hillary's 3am ad over and over for 6 months.

[otohara]

69. She Was Already Vice President

and got to live in the big house vs the Veep house. I can't see her taking the Veep spot, been there, done that and had more power the first time around.

[ExFreeper4Obama]

73. Hillary as VP?

Please.

- She said he has no experience except a speech.

- She accused him of plagiarism

- She mocked his supporters

- She called his speeches change you can xerox

- She asked him is he needs a pillow

- She praised McCain and dissed Obama big time

- Shame on you Barack Obama


You know what? She can take her "dream ticket" and shove it up her you know what. Obama will be the nominee and Hillary can take a hike.

[Harry Monroe]

76. There's no way Hillary would take second billing

...and run as Obama's VP. Even if she did, I wouldn't trust her. Given how she has acted so far, I believe she would probably work behind the scenes to undermine an Obama presidency at every opportunity, that's how craven and manipulative she is. She may do it simply to undermine Obama and set herself up for a run at the Presidency at 2012.

I can think of no one worse than someone like her in the VP slot.

OTOH, if she did somehow pull a rabbit out of her hat and get the Democratic nomination, Obama would make an excellent choice as VP as it would enhance the ticket. She needs Obama more than Obama needs her. I do not, however, see Obama accepting the slot. Too much bad blood has passed between them.

[backscatter712]

80. Clinton as VP?

Only if she fires Penn and Wolfson and relegates herself to standing next to Obama and looking pretty...

I really don't want Hillary's strategy jerks messing up Obama's campaign too...

[dansolo]

83. I would fear for Obama's life

[adoraz]

84. no, there is no way they would win

a woman and a black man at the same time would be a disaster.

they would be better off with either by themself (and a white man).