Clinton/Obama - the Dream Team?
Today my good friend Elena wrote a thought-provoking blog entitled The Democrats Must Win in November (please click the title to read it). I've never doubted that Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would be an unstoppable dream ticket for the Democrats. But I always thought it was only a dream - that Hillary would never select her strongest competitor as her running mate and that Obama might not be likely to do so either. But I'm reconsidering the possibility. Having such an unexpectedly close race for the Democratic nomination has tested and strengthened both candidates. It has energized the electorate (this is the first time I can remember the Ohio primary meaning so much - usually the Democratic choice is pretty much made before Ohioans get to vote). And this close race has made it much more possible for the dream of a Clinton/Obama ticket to come true. I tend to favor Hillary as President, partly because of the experience factor. But I will support whoever wins the most delegates and becomes the Democratic nominee - whether it's Clinton or Obama. We can't afford another four or eight years with a Republican president - particularly when their nominee (barring an act of Huckabee's God) will be John McCain, who even a staunch right-winger like Pat Buchanan has characterized as "Bush on steroids." After these next few big primaries, we as Democrats need to put aside our differences and unite. What better way to make it happen?
Vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket
And tell the G.O.P. to stick it... LOL
The Dream Team
Don't you think?
WOW. My brainstorm to you this morning
really has made sense at this point. If
the party really wants to win this is
absolutely the DREAM TICKET. Thanks for
directing everyone to my blog.
Reply to this
You're welcome, Elena! Thanks for the inspiration!
Reply to this
makes sense to me, but i think you already knew that
Reply to this
Thanks, mb!
Reply to this
I'm hoping Obama wins the nomination but picks Kucinich to run with him. They have often agreed on policies and Kucinich's greater experience will be the balance against Obama's inexperience and possible over-idealistic approach.
Reply to this
Thanks for your comment, Jane!
I love Kucinich as much as I can love a politician... he may not be perfect either, but he's very bright, a relatively good man, and he's made some great policy suggestions that no one else has had the courage to pursue. If he could win as a VP, that might be wonderful. But can he? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think so. Sadly, I don't think a majority of folks in this nation take him seriously.
Reply to this
I would think it would be a good ticket is Clinton was elected President. I jusst don't know enough about Obama. The media is keeping his past surpressed. This makes me wonder. I just wish I knew more. He has already tooks some of her plans as his own so i am conflicted right now.
peace
Reply to this
Thank you, Lori. That's the main drawback for Obama in my mind - though I'm intrigued by his success and think he MIGHT eventually be the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in ages, I just don't feel I have enough knowledge enough of who he is and what he'll actually be like as president. The last time America wanted a feel-good anti-Clinton, they fell for the "compassionate conservative" BS of George W. Bush. Sometimes change for change's sake is not the best solution. As Hillary said at the rally in Lyndhurst, there's a big difference between speeches and solutions. Maybe Obama can give us both - but I think a season as VP will make him better equipped to do so.
I think the fact that Obama seems to have taken some of Clinton's plans as his own is evidence that they are good plans and that the two candidates are largely on the same page policy-wise. They might, therefore, make an unexpectedly good team, if they decided to do so. I've always thought their differences were far less pronounced than their similarities - although I feel Hillary offers more (and better) specifics and has a more realistic idea of what can be accomplished and how to get things done effectively in Washington. As my friend Margaret suggested, being VP would give Obama a chance to "learn the ropes." Al Gore was a visionary from way back - but I believe his eight years of experience as vice president (and even his losing candidacies for president) helped strength him, mature him, and give him a better ability to make good things happen for our country. The same might prove true in Obama's case.
At least these are my pre-coffee morning reflections....
Reply to this
See, this rocks! Faabulous blog! Tell the G.O.P. to stick it, indeed!
Reply to this
Reply to this
if i were obama, i'd think twice about choosing hillary to replace me if i died - i'd keep thinking of vincent foster, who held secrets for hillary and then "sort of" committed suicide to let her off the hook.
Reply to this
That's a scary thought! Fortunately, I think it's more likely that Hillary would be at the top of the ticket. From a purely political standpoint, I think it makes more sense for Hillary to select Obama than it does for Obama to select Hillary.
And for a bit of comic relief...
If Obama wins, I wonder if Bill will send him a box of cigars.
Reply to this
re: Clinton/Obama ticket
wonder if it will happen... don't think it will 'cause it looks like Obama may win and he wouldn't put Hillary on the ticket (I don't think)... maybe someone like Richardson or some dude with serious military cred... like a general or somthing...
Reply to this
For a long time, I thought Hillary would choose Richardson. But seeing Wes Clark campaign with her made me think she might have him in mind (and I'd be pleased with either). I think the closer her victory, the more likely she'll choose Obama. But maybe it's not realistic to think they'd team up. I think you're right to suggest Hillary might be more likely to choose him than he would be to choose her... for a number of reasons.
But if we could get them to team up - we would ensure victory for the Democrats!
Thanks for your comment, Adam and Steve.
Reply to this
I always thought Clinton would choose Wes Clark, till the campaign really started and Obama began to eat her lunch.... I myself supported Wes Clark early on last cycle. Nobody in the party much seemed to care for him.
One prediciton - Condi will someday be a United States Senator.
Reply to this
I think you're right. This isn't the last we'll see of Condi in the political arena.
Reply to this
I love both of them.
I'll vote for them on the same ticket.
Reply to this
I appreciate your feedback, Roxanne, and I hope you received some good responses from my last blog . Peace....
Reply to this
Anybody except a Republican!
Reply to this
Especially with candidates like Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee.... I might take Ron Paul's candidacy more seriously if I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.... or if we didn't have so many electable Democratic options (I would have been happy to support John Edwards if I thought he could have won the nomination - but this time, he couldn't even win the same states he won against Kerry in 2004). I wouldn't mind seeing either Richardson or Edwards as the VP pick. All four options are far preferable in my mind to McCain and anyone he might select as a running mate (why do I have a feeling it might be Mitt?)
Reply to this
The groundswell has been for both Clinton and Obama and thousands have turned out for both their rallies. What concerns me is that the Dems are splitting up on this right now and the right move would be to combine their forces before the election. McCain is boasting today that he can beat Clinton and out campaign her. But many are saying Obama has a better chance to beat McCain. Who is going to be the next president. That is what concerns me.
We need the DREAM TICKET to win.
Reply to this
And we need to win. Where in the world is the environment going to be after four or eight more years of a Republican presidency? We're already on the verge of having done irreparable damage to our world. If we're not past the point of no return yet, we may well be there in another eight years. People were reluctant to rally behind Gore because he was a Clinton's vice president and uncharismatic. If a few thousand people had overlooked his flaws and gotten over their negative opinion of him as a phony (I know a lot of people felt he was), we wouldn't have gotten ourselves saddled with cowboy "Fuck-the-world-and-let's-give Exxon-Mobil-tax-breaks-while-they-reap-60-billion-dollar-profits" George W. Bush.
Then progressives pussyfooted around and held back support for John Kerry until he lost by a hair's breadth in Ohio - and once again we were saddled with George Bush and Dick "cavortin' with Halliburton" Cheney. Does anyone not see that we would have been better off, despite some flaws, with eight more years of any Clinton, Gore or Kerry than with eight years with Bush and Cheney?
Look, I'd LOVE to have a perfect candidate, a totally honest candidate, a totally selfless candidate. But guess what... if there is such a candidate, he or she, barring a huge miracle, WILL NOT EVER BECOME PRESIDENT in these United States. Abraham Lincoln didn't win half the popular vote in 1860. He got lucky because the part opposing him was split between two favorite candidates. Nixon, however, won by a landslide. A flawed candidate WILL win. So we need to make the best choice (who has a chance to actually win) among the flawed candidates - and then support that candidate, so the WORST choice among the flawed candidates, the one who can do the most damage (in this case, I feel that person is Republican), does NOT win. I prefer to be an idealist. But these times call for realism. We can't afford another batch of right-wing Supreme Court justices... we can't afford 100 years in Iraq (as John McCain seems to expect).... We need to put our differences aside and defeat the right-wing ideologues. That's my humble opinion.
Reply to this
I beleive Kucinich has not made enough of an impact, as most other candidates have. I like Kucinich, but feel that he is an unrealistic candidate. I think we MUST go with the strongest "set" we can get....Clinton/Obama fits that picture.
Reply to this
That's where I'm at, too. I have great respect for Dennis. I also have great respect for Jimmy Carter, for some of the same reasons. But despite his obvious gifts and his contributions to our civilization, would Dennis be a great President? I don't know.... He can't even get Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney (which to me should be a true "slam dunk") - so how the hell is he going to get any laws passed as President? He can have all the ideals in the world - but what if he doesn't have what it takes to get any of them enacted?... Sad but true: the best Person does not always make the best President.
Reply to this
I'd love to see Obama win in '08. I like his voting record and I like what he has to say. His inexperience might be a drawback, but then again he has proven himself to be an excellent Senator.
I don't, however, like Hillary Clinton, my number one reason being that she is using negative campaign tactics, which I despise. I would never vote for anyone whose campaign premise was talking trash about the competition. If you can't run on your own merit, you shouldn't be running.
Reply to this
Thanks, Helen! I appreciate your comment. I agree one hundred percent that if you can't run on your own merit, you shouldn't be running. It's unfortunate that there were some negative tactics, especially in the lead-up to the South Carolina. At the time, I almost, as a result, backed away from endorsing Hillary. It caused me to re-examine the candidates thoroughly. I don't think any major candidate's campaign has abstained entirely from questionable tactics. Obama has proven himself a good Senator - but I think there is no question Hillary has done so as well.
One thing's for certain in my mind... any of the Democratic crop this time is preferable to any of the Republican crop this time.
Peace....
Reply to this
50% for Hillary, 48% for Obama in Texas.
That is the projection. Clinton has the women's vote, Obama the men's vote, Clinton has the Latino vote, Obama the Black's vote. Clinton has the non-college vote, Obama has the college educated vote. Clinton has the over 50 vote, Obama has the under 50 vote. Clinton and Obama then have together 100% of the primary vote. Clinton has the experience, Obama has the rhetoric. Split them up and what is left? Half and half ain't cream. I think there is good reason that the Democratic delegates should reason with each other and support both of them no matter who is ahead in the primaries. After all it is for the support of these delegates, who in the end pick the nominee, that the final decision is made at the convention. I think we voters should make this clear by standing by both of them, either a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket. I fear a split would damage the party in this election.
Reply to this
Sound like a good idea to me....
Today's paper says Clinton enjoys "a comfortable lead in Ohio" over Obama. If she wins Ohio and Texas, there is a good chance she will lead in delegates even without the "super delegates." But the closer and more contested the nomination, the more we need a Clinton/Obama ticket to unite the party. See my new blog about McCain view on Iraq, if you haven't already.
Reply to this
HEADLINE: PLAIN DEALER FEBRUARY 19
6,000 CHEER OBAMA AT YOUNGSTOWN RALLY
That's a lot of people at Youngstown State U. gymnasium.
Also McCain still doesn't have the nomination "locked up."
Reply to this
Thanks, Elena!
6,000 is more, I think, than attended the Hillary rally in Lyndhurst. But bear in mind that she had just spoken in Lordstown, Ohio, less than an hour away, a day or two before that.
Close to 30,000 people attended the John Kerry rally I was at in Elyria in 2004; yet he lost Ohio to Bush.
McCain might not have it "locked up" - but he was already the clear Republican front-runner. Now he has added to that Romney's endorsement (and for the most part) delegates. Mike Huckabee cannot win either the Republican nomination or in November. McCain would have to drop dead, acquire a debilitating illness, or completely self-destruct in order for Huckabee to have a chance of winning. And we don't wat Huck either. He's the guy who pretty much said he'd like to change the Constitution to align it with the Bible.
I've never been the type of person to vote strictly along party lines. I don't believe a Democrat is always the best choice. But in this case, the presidential election of 2008, I believe that it absolutely IS, considering our options.
Reply to this
First Ladies go first.
Reply to this
You are a true gentleman.
Thanks for your comment!
Reply to this
Not no but hell no.
Reply to this
I remember saying that to a Bush-Cheney ticket in both 2000 and 2004.
Thanks for your comment, sir!
Reply to this