Clinton Open To Sharing Ticket With Obama

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I have said that after last night, I believe it is a virtual certainty that the ticket will be Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. Jeralyn disagrees with me. Hillary Clinton provides some evidence to my surmise:

Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said "[t]hat may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

That is exactly where we are headed.

< Florida And Michigan: Clinton And Obama Do Not Object To Revote | The Will Of The People: The Popular Vote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I can certainly see (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    how it could go another way.
    but I  hope it happens.  it would be an unbeatable ticket.

    My $.02 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:43:35 AM EST
    If Senator Obama doesn't get the nod for the top of the ticket, he almost has to take the VP spot both for party unity and for his future presidential aspirations.  But I don't see what advantage it brings to Dems to have Senator Clinton in the VP role or do I think that will be easily accepted by her supporters.

    I think this is a complete mistatement (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:12 AM EST
    about the situation.
    I think Hillary supporters would be happier with her in the top spot but ignore her completely at your peril.

    Disagree (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter and I think there needs to be a lot of sensitivity to the perception of a more qualified woman taking a secondary position to a less qualified man.  Plus, can Senator Clinton really contribute in that capacity in a meaningful way to our country?  Especially after the debacle of  VP Cheney?  I want her somewhere that she can exert a powerful influence on the direction of the country. Is VP the spot for that?

    I Don't Want to See Her as VP (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    I would actually have a more negative visceral reaction to the ticket.  I admit it's not rational, but I would.  Obama would do better with me having Clinton campaign for him, but not as his VP.

    I do think Clinton pretty much has to choose Obama and she knows this.  I think she also knows saying she'd have him on her ticket will help her with SDs who may be worried about a split party.  Not likely the threat that Doug Wilder has made about the convention being 1968 will come to pass if Obama is on the ticket as VP (a wild overstatement, IMO, no pun intended).  But the Obama folks have repeatedly threatened to split the party all the while claiming Hillary will.  I've said it before if you want to know what the Obama campaign is up to, look at what they accuse Clinton of doing.  


    I totally agree with this. Clinton, IMO, will not (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:58:57 AM EST
    take the VP slot.  She's saying in a subtle way that she will put him on the ticket as VP.  And I think that when all is said and done, the SD's will give her the nomination if she wins Penn, and gets FL again.  I don't know a thing about Mich.  The SD's will take into account her wins in the big states as well as the fact that BO's votes have come in small, red states which were not contested, he has had a huge crossover vote which will not likely hold in the general election, and finally:  that the caucuses are a sham and not a true reflection of voter's intent.  As I've said numerous times, Hillary has the core of the Democratic party, and the SD's know this and hopefully will make this their highest consideration.  

    frankly, i see hillary and bill (none / 0) (#61)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    as first couple treating obama and michelle with courtesy and sharing of responsibility more than i see obama and michelle as first couple. the thought of the obamas acting with grace in a reverse position is hard to imagine. think back to michelle's very ugly comments. think back to obama's constant never ending whine about how he is being mistreated. i have begun to wonder if that is dog whistle for more racial bruhaha. that is not the profile of a leader in the democratic party or america.

    Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    So you see a Clinton/Someone Else ticket, then Obama challenging the sitting VP for the nomination in eight years?  Or is the Clinton part of my statement that you think is false?

    No (none / 0) (#19)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:52:22 AM EST
    reason he couldn't challenge a Clinton's VP.  How many Vice Presidents have been elected president in recent times--one and he was a one-termer.

    Gore Won the Election (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#68)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    Even despite challenges arising from the situation existing at the time in terms of the fallout from the impeachment.

    Challenge, yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    Win, no.  If Clinton wins the GE, I think she'll be paired with a VP with presidential aspirations. If her presidency is successful, I don't see Obama successfully challenging her VP because where will be the impetus for change?  If she has an unsuccessful presidency, the push will be to elect a Republican.

    I guess I'm seeing Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark as the most likely VP choices right now if it's not Obama or Clinton.


    Or Jim Webb. (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    Jim Webb (none / 0) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    Not gonna happen.  Virginia may have 2 Democratic senators come the fall.  Can't give that up.  

    I think, basically, it would just keep alot (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    of the women's vote. Clinton is basically the only woman who makes any real sense. Still, I don't that pairing would work as well as the inverse.

    16 years of a Democratic POTUS! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by barryluda on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    I agree with Capt Howdy but hope BTD is right.

    And -- as an Obama voter in IL -- I wish that Obama would drop out now to be Clinton's VP because then I think we'd have BOTH Clinton and Obama as President and a Democratic in the White House for the next 16 years.

    Oh, if wishing could make it so!

    That was my hope (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    going into this election season.  I guess maybe I was naive. :-)

    I (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:54:56 AM EST
    actually believe this is what the Party has to be looking at.

    My biggest concern for Hillary is that if she does keep winning and becomes the nominee, given their blatant partisanship toward Obama, is the DNC going to throw their total support behind her?  That's one thing I love about her candidacy.  The People want her, the Party and the media are trying to destroy her, if she could overcome all that and win, she would really be a Populist president.


    I love your sentiment... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    ...but I don't think the super delegates will swing her way.  

    Why wouldn't they? (none / 0) (#112)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    Especially if they ignore Obama's rhetoric about "will of the people" and do their jobs like they're supposed to, then they'd see the strategy about winning the war in November.  Ohio was a real wake-up call.

    The people want her? (none / 0) (#81)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    I think it is pretty clear that the people are slit right down the middle.

    Half the people want Clinton.  Half want Obama.


    Why should he drop out... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    ...when he leads in pledged delegates and popular vote?  That's insane.

    I support Obama, but have never called on Clinton to withdraw and think she should stay in as long as she wants. Her victories last night give her that right. Let the voters be heard, etc etc.

    But to suggest that the candidate who currently is leading in states won, pledged delegates, and popular vote should withdraw is nuts.


    That was a smart move (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:53:52 AM EST
    It starts to condition voters to the idea that Obama is subordinate to her.  A lot of people will buy that.  It makes it harder for Obama to convince voters otherwise.  

    Yes, exactly. She said in a subtle way that he (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    could be her VP.  She didn't say she would take the slot.  She wants to be on top.  

    Clinton On Top (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    I think the main reason Clinton has to be on top is to win white voters in swing states like Ohio.  Obama helps strengthen the African American vote.  With Obama on top, it might help him with white women, but not as much as having Clinton on top.   The ticket will have problems with white men either way, but I think Clinton on top could help a lot with white women.  Clinton also strengthens the hispanic vote.

    Simply put, there are more white women and hispanics than there are African Americans.  Math can be harsh.

    Can Only Speak For Me (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:37 AM EST
    Having Clinton as the VP candidate does nothing to make me want to vote for an Obama presidency. I'm an issue voter and I don't trust Obama on Social Security, Health Care and definitely don't think this bipartisanship crap is good for the party or will work.  This is the short version of the problems I have with voting for Obama.

    everyday that passes i trust obama less. (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    frankly with the break in the voting last night, i think the average joe and jill agree with me. i think obama has a lot of hubris in his campaign that  clouds their judgment.

    so who would you vote for (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    you think McCain will be better?
    I think the Hillary supporters need to suck it up and stop tittering about how insulting it would be for her to the the VP.
    if thats what it takes to win.  I say say do it Hillary.

    No I Won't Vote For McCain (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:03:55 AM EST
    As an independent voter, if Obama is the nominee, it will depend on how many more core values I care about that he is willing to sacrifice on the alter of his ambitions. So far, he has had a Cure The Gays minister campaign for him and refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newson after having him raise money for him. He has IMO put Social Security back on the table after the Dems successfully took it off when they were in the minority. He has seriously wounded any chance of Universal Health Care. He has announced that he is thinking of having two Republicans in key positions of Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State in his administration. He has praised the presidency of the white supremacists wet dream of Ronald Reagan and depicted Bill Clinton as a failed president and as a racist. He has indicated that the Dems are equally to blame for the failures in D.C. At every opportunity, he has repeated Republican talking points to diminish Hillary and the Democratic party. He and his supporters have stressed loyalty only to Obama and not to the Democratic party.  His supporters have made death threats against Tavis Smiley and harassed his family just because he criticized Obama. To date, I haven't heard Obama state that type of action is unacceptable. Electing Obama just reinforces the Dems current disgraceful behavior of capitulating to the Republicans since it confirms that the public wants them to give up everything to get a bipartisanship (Republican) solution.

    My question is how much further is he willing to go in abandoning what I used to think the Democratic party stood for to be elected and how much more will he give away if he becomes president?

    BTW, I didn't titter about how insulting it would be for her to be VP.  Instead stated my reservations to Obama as the nominee which I have expanded in this comment .   Opinions of Clinton supporters is now reduced to tittering. How dismissive.


    after last night, clinton is the woman! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    she is the leader and has the big mo. to pretend obama does is simply WRONG! let's talk about hillary as president. that's what i came here for today.

    I am with you (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    President Clinton 08!

    moblue, you stated my concerns (none / 0) (#104)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:09 AM EST
    very well. i don't trust obama. i can see real long term damage by his lack of core values ie health care and jobs for americans and just plain lust for success. i don't trust this wink, wink nafta bull. tell the truth, man. we are trying to make our way here in america and live. so get out there and tell us the truth. then work your backside off to help america, not iraq. iraq is getting free universal health care but we are begging here.

    well captain howdy, here is what i think. (none / 0) (#71)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    obama will be a one term president if elected. this unity stuff will blow up in his face. the repubs will see the advantage and charge back in to cause nothing but a stalling of major bills. we will have 4 years of nothing. no progress! obama has already shown he will cave in under pressure and already asked the insurance companies to the table before he is elected. the people will become more discouraged and angry. one term, that't is and a very long four  years for a very weary america.

    not that I would argue with much of that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    are you seriously suggesting 4 more years of Bush McCain would be better?

    frankly, i have a very serious concern (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    about obama. i worry about long term damage to the democratic party by him. by passing all the red flags flying around him is just plain dumb. the media and so called leaders in the democratic party in my humble opinion are a joke. i don't see mccain as anything but a one termer at best. i also see a strong democratic congress that should keep him in check if they do their jobs. mccain is pathetic but he isn't dumb as bush. i would imagine medicore or gerald ford lite at best. he has shown himself to be a real sellout for politican gain. he'll bend with the wind. obama on the other hand is an unknown quanity. i can see where the damage he could do would insure republican presidents for a generation. that may sound unconventional to you, but it is what i think. will i vote for mccain. heck no! i might point out that influential republicans in texas think this way. they see obama as a one termer and laught with glee at the idea.

    IMHO (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    this is very dangerous thinking.

    ok, please let us know what your thinking is. (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    i would appreciate it. thanks

    its pretty simple really (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    it goes like this.  any democrat is better than any republican.  this is true, I believe, in almost any case but particularly this cycle.
    we can not, simply CAN NOT let McCain give us 4 more years of the policies we have lived with for the last 7 years.
    we just cant.
    trust me, I doubt that you dislike Obama any more than I do.
    here is Craig Crawford opening paragraph.
    Craig Crawford is a very smart man.

    Only a Dream Ticket Prevents Democratic Nightmare

    By Craig Crawford | March 5, 2008 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (84)

    Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama might be stuck with each other - not just for the long haul to the Democratic nominating convention, but well beyond. They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not.


    I have to admit (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    ...these have been my thoughts too.  Scary.

    actually no! i don't see anything good (none / 0) (#97)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    with republicans. but obama? i truly try to be open here. as the days go by i become more and more concerned about him. another day, another time, i might say ok let's make history. right now we need strong leadership in this country with someone who cares about us and wants health care, a good environment and jobs for americans. i don't see obama there, sorry to say. it just seems to be a poor choice with obama. i can't find any energy for the idea. like i said, i won't vote for mccain. and sad to say, you will find a number of others who feel just like me.

    I like the possibility (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:51:30 AM EST
    of Obama's nominees for SCOTUS lots better than McCain's.  Obama's "present" votes on women's right to choose is better than McCain's vow to replicate Scalia and Alito.  

    don't you think it is rather sad to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    have the choice of which one is slightly better? i for one want someone much better. hillary 08!

    Personally, I Would Like To Hear More Personally (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    from Obama on what type of judges he would appoint. After putting Social Security on the table, I am not so willing to take it as a given that Obama would appoint left leaning judges to the court.

    From an opinion piece (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    at Huff Post by Sunstein, who teaches at Univ. of Chicago:

    After he received an email from a pro-life doctor, Obama recalls how he softened his website's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "[T]hat night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

    In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

    That Does Not Make Me Feel Confident About (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    Obama and SCOTUS appointments. What I would really like is to hear him directly address the types of judges he would nominate. If he is the nominee, then I hope that this will become a subject that he will have to response to directly.  I am not going to vote for him because of judges if he does not take a firm stand on the types of judges he will appoint. Bottom line, I just don't trust him.

    I didn't suppose the quote would put (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    at ease the heart of any woman who values freedom to choose.  Sure didn't make reassure me.

    i am beginning to think after watching (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:57:02 PM EST
    obama in action that his talk about the good and so forth is relevant for him at that moment. when a heavy wind blows against him, he is subject to changing quickly and doing whatever works for him and not necessarily for the good of the american people.

    Beginning To Think? (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    How dishonest. You have been tooting the same horn since you got here.

    rude! not nice! (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    i came on here thinking obama was the wrong candidate. at that time i was open and hoping to see more. if he was to be the presidential candidate, i hoped to see more from him.

    now i have seen more and more convinced he is the wrong candidate for november. i am also more convinced that many of his supporters have closed minds as well.


    Rude? Not Nice? (1.00 / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    You must be kidding or have forgotten what you have written here. Your comments reflecting your dislike of Obama and loooove of Clinton has been consistent. Not even a slight change as far as I can tell.

    no i won't change my (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:17 PM EST
    estimation of obama and his campaign. i have no reason to it would seem. obama plans to go negative again. heck he never stopped. that means playing the race card. that makes a really swell leader.NOT!

    Not Asking You To (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    Change your opinion, just calling you out for suggesting your position is any different than it always was.

    i higly recommed you reread my comments. (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    i never said i supported obama. i stated my view has hardened with his negative campaigning. if you want to just argue, is suggest you go find someone who enjoys that with you. if you have a grudge, go run a mile. but stop trying to argue all the time to no end.

    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    I have been reading your comments from when you first started here. You have always distrusted Obama, and said it clearly.

    That you are just beginning to think he is whatever is nonsense. Your comments have been consistent. I will spare quoting you.

    I voted for HRC, but I think it is not right to bash a dem. Isn't that why you left the dkos?

    Let's work on McCain instead.


    Oh And (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    I am sure that you were just using "I am beginning to.." as a figure of speech. Sorry to take you seriously and belabor a stupid point.

    no, what you are actually do is (none / 0) (#152)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    trying to argue and gain what you think is the upper hand. if you think i somehow did not make myself clear or contradicted myself, all you had to do was politely ask for clarification which i would have done. that isn't what you have been doing and continue to do. you want to argue and appear to be superior. please cut it out. it is negative and doesn't help this blog.

    Superior? (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    I do not care about becoming superior to you, whatever that would entail, really.  If I came across as less than warm to you, do not take it personally. I am sure that I am overreacting. As a long time TL supporter it is a bit hard to take the flood of one note HRC supporters, who bash Obama while complaining that the other sites suck because they bash HRC.

    Things change, that is for sure. It used to be the that the Bushlickers were roundly called out here for drinking the GOP kool aid. Now it seems to be mostly HRC one noters are the kool aid addicts.  Almost all the new flock of commenters are patting each other on the back while for putting down BHO in order to prop up HRC. For me it is hard to take, and I voted for HRC.

    I wonder how many of the dkos (et al) refugees will stick around if BHO is the nominee, because this site will be supporting him against McCain. Will you?  My Guess is that if HRC gets the nomination everyone will go back to dkos, because they will be supporting her too.


    if you read my posts, you might have (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    noticed my comments about kos and tpm. i won't be going back. i have lost trust in them.

    it is fine to be an obama supporter. one of the reasons most clinton supporters came here is because there was a lack of ability to communicate and debate. it was no longer viable for communication. but surely you know that.

    well i stick around? i went to kos in 04 as a lurker reading about the campaign and stayed till recently. history speaks for itself. once the campaign is over, i might not be on as much as i do have a company. but that's the same with many on here.


    you know, personal attacks (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    aren't allowed on here. so please take your anger or whatever it is to another blogger. i have answered you and been ridiculed, and basically called a liar by you about what i say and write. i am tired of this. please don't write to me again if you continue to have this attitude. i know what my thoughts and positions are.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    If you are dishonest, I may call you out in it again. Feel free to complain to TL. She will delete my comments if they have broken the rules, as she has done many times before.

    asking for clarification is one thing (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    in a polite manner. inferring someone is a liar is another as you well know. i made that very clear in my posts. thanks

    Yes, it can be. But that's the reality (not HOPE) (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:48 AM EST

    Yes, math can be harsh... (none / 0) (#128)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    ...as Clinton will likely find out in Denver.

    Clinton as VP (none / 0) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    She'll never take it and I don't think he'll offer it.  Assuming he would actually win, and serve 2 terms, you want a VP who can go in as the presumptive nominee.  She'll be almost 70 in eight years.  And not that I think age should play a factor, but as we are starting to see with John McCain, it will, and as much as it isn't fair - a 70 year old woman will not get elected.

    Clinton being political (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Prabhata on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    I think that Clinton was being political by being positive about a Clinton-Obama ticket.  I'd be surprised if she accepted the number 2 spot, and also if Obama accepted the number 2 spot.  I don't like the idea.  I want Hillary and someone other than Obama.

    Oh I think Obama would definitely accept VP (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    He has hardly done anything at the national level and VP would still be a huge jump for him and perfect preparation to take over after a Clinton term.  He would also benefit from going through the general election process alongside the Clinton machine and learning from the best we've got.

    Well, this will sound snarky but I think BO thinks (none / 0) (#48)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    he already knows everything and doesn't need the preparation or the learning experience from the Clinton machine.  

    I think that's true. (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    It's part of his arrogance.  But I also think that his troubles with being vetted (how he imploded the day before yesterday) will bring him down a notch...his advisers shouldn't be pumping up his ego anymore.  A smart adviser would tell him that he could ride out these stupid things (and they are stupid) like Rezko, his mis-votes, his BAD votes, his other missteps/pandering and whatnot better in the VP slot and then be pretty clean for taking the Presidency after Clinton.

    the sad fact is obama needs a lot of (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    schooling. his wife could use a course from miss manners in my opinion. but that's me.

    True (none / 0) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    But it would give him some legitimacy that some Democrats (me included) think he lacks.

    My instinct says (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    she is hinting at the shared ticket idea as a way to win over some Obama supporters (obvious not the hard core supporters, but rather those who like both candidates, prefer Obama at this point, but upon reflection wouldn't mind him getting a little more experience).  

    I have a hard time imagining she would take the number two spot even if she was asked to do so (which I also doubt would be the case).  Don't get me wrong, I think if she loses to Obama she will do everything in her power to support him and get her supporters to support him too.  She is a Democrat through and through and (unlike Obama, I must say) is essentially always gracious to him in her victory and concession speeches and at debates.  But I think she and the party know that she could be of more use in a number of other ways (senate majority leader, supreme court justice just to name two), than being vice-president.

    Nah, I can't see her in SCOTUS. (none / 0) (#69)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    She is too politcally active to just sit there and make judgments on what other people do.  She wants to have a pro-active hand in helping people, which is what she's tried to do her entire life.  She'd be wasting her time on SCOTUS.  Maybe Edwards for SCOTUS (if he doesn't get AG).

    That may or not be true, (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    by my general point was that there are a lot more interesting jobs than being vice-president given her level of experience and influence.

    Yes, Hillary needs to be (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM EST
    at the top of the ticket.  She'd look "10 feet tall" next to him either way, and utterly ridiculous at the VP level.

    He needs to do his "internship" at the VP level, not at the presidential level.  We don't need his inexperience ruining the possible first Democratic presidential win in 8 years.  At present, he doesn't even know how to handle a hostile press conference.  We need HER finesse.
    She can train him.

    In 4-8 years, I would probably be convinced that I could vote for him for president.  Right now, I can't because of how convinced I am (and have said repeatedly) that an unfinessed Democrat in the White House isn't better than no Democrat at all.

    obama has not shown himself to be (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
    very concerned about the welfare of the democratic party. i have to wonder just how he would conduct himself on the veep slot in a campaign. would he like edwards suck it up and play the secondary role with grace. i don't see it.

    furthermore, the idea of hillary in the second veep position after winning all the big states makes me laugh. why should she do that? let obama act like an adult and negoicate for the second position. all this whining about how he is mistreated is getting very very old. that includes some of his supporters with treats to riot, etc. i don't appreciate intimidation.

    It's funny that you say BO should act like an (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:13:53 AM EST
    adult because when I went to bed last night I told my husband that I felt like the adults were back in charge after the Ohio and Texas wins!  

    One direction only (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jarober on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    A ticket with Clinton at the top is possible.  The reverse is highly unlikely.  Look at it from her perspective: she would go from being an important senator to being an irrelevancy, and - worse - 8 years from now she'll be too old to be a viable candidate.

    Never mind McCain's age now, or Regan's back in the 80's - IMHO, the rules are different for an older woman.  Fair?  Heck no, but ask Hollywood actresses whether they think it's fair that older guys can get leading roles while it's a near impossibility for women.

    That's the reality that Clinton will see if the bottom of the ticket is offered to her.  I really don't see her accepting it.

    she might (none / 0) (#89)
    by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    for the history/legacy factor, and I don't think we can assume the VP is not relevant anymore. That has become an increasingly powerful position. I think she'd be better at the top, though.

    MY "DREAM TICKET" (4.66 / 6) (#27)
    by vicsan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    is Hillary Clinton/Wes Clark, but she may be forced to take Mr. Hope just to appease the DC elites. That's the ticket that would get the most mileage. Clinton Prez for 8 years and then Mr. Hope can be Prez for 8 years because he's younger. I wouldn't like Mr. Hope on the ticket, but could live with it if I am forced to.

    This wll get to ugly (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM EST
    in the coming weeks.   It is going to come down to Denver and one of the two candidates is going to feel as if they got screwed when it comes to super delegates deciding this.   We all know that it's going to come down to this.    

    No one will win the delgate count so it's going to come down to probably both sides having a reasonable argument to be the nominee.  

    There are 4 months between now and Denver.  Clinton is going to do whatever it takes to be the nominee.    No way if she loses is she going to settle for being the VP after this goes as low as I predict it will.   No way she will take here medicine when she feels that the DNC let her down if they don't give here the super delegates she needs to be the nominee.

    I could maybe see Obama settling because he's still young and can use the experience but if he loses it will be because the super delegates put Hillary over the top becuase he will have won the delgate count and why would he do her the favor?

    Hillary, forget about it.

    Don't count the eggs (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    I've been around long enough to have seen incredible candidates go up in flames.  A day in a campaign is like a lifetime.  Because Clinton is more vetted than Obama, I'm counting on Clinton out-lasting Obama.  She is less likely to make mistakes, like the NAFTA denial that created a window of opportunity for HRC to paint Obama as not credible.

    it wont really be a decision (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:46:10 AM EST
    that either of them are in a position to make.

    How so? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:50:53 AM EST
    remember the winner decides who they ask to be the nominee and if this gets ugly why would the winner want the person they just got done trashing?

    Hillary is being open now to the idea becaus she thinks she's on top but she hasn't gone as negative as she will on Obama and he is probably going to start in on her.

    We'll see but this argument is impossible to talk about becuase we have 4 MONTHS of hard campaigning between now and Denver.


    Ostensibly the winner decides. (none / 0) (#26)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    In reality, the Party dictates.  Think JFK would ever have shared the ticket with LBJ if the Party hadn't insisted?  They hated each other.

    the party didn't force johnson on jfk. (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    jfk was a shrewd and hard headed realist unlike some contestants i see today.

    hahahahahah (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    Obama or Clinton not shrewd. You are waxing nostalgic and/or in a Clinton haze.

    if obama were shrewd, he would have (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST
    run a far different campaign rather than just what is convenient for the moment but won't really work down the road. you know the part about the love fest with republicans. hahhaha yourself!

    Right, the party didn't force (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    LBJ on JFK -- LBJ forced LBJ on JFK.

    At this point same can be said for Obama... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    i.e., that if he wins its because the super delegates put him over the top, or has something changed in the math that I am not aware of?

    That'll work (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    Hillary, Bill and Barak

    That'll work (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    Hillary, Bill and Barack

    This sounds (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    like you're saying that Hillary Clinton is incapable of being president by herself?

    Or are you saying that Bill Clinton is incapable of stepping back from power?

    What are you saying?


    I can't see (none / 0) (#1)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    how it could go any other way at this point

    I'm surprised that she sounds open to (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:40:14 AM EST
    the idea of being the vp candidate. I don't know if that would work.

    Where (none / 0) (#16)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    do you get that she's open to the VP slot?  I doubt that's the case.  ANd why should it be?  She's got the more experience.  He has plenty of time to run (god forbid).

    I would love to see a Hillary/RFK, Jr. ticket, but it can't happen this time.  The good news is, if Hil is the nominee, RFK,Jr. can run for her Senate seat in NY.


    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:47:50 AM EST

    no chance (none / 0) (#13)
    by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:48:50 AM EST
    I still think Obama will win the nomination. The superdelegates will not go for Clinton as long as Obama has a pledged-delegate lead and appears to be polling better against McCain.

    I can't imagine why Clinton would want to be Obama's VP. I would rather have her stay in her Senate seat for life and keep Obama honest if he does manage to get by McCain.

    Yes they will (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    When HRC wins PA, and they figure out what to do with MI and FL, she has the much stronger argument to the supers, who are supposed to be "independent" and decide whose the best candidate for the party and who has the best chance of winning the White House. Obama's argument that he won more votes by winning Utah and Kansas aren't going to be very convincing.

    Ahh, but what if (none / 0) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    Obama loses the electoral college math and it keeps getting worse?

    The more I think about it (none / 0) (#17)
    by barryluda on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:02 AM EST
    (which admittedly isn't much)...

    the more I think there should be as much pressure on Obama as on Clinton right now to drop out.  I really do think that either one could win this thing, after yesterday, if they keep going...but keeping going is just going to make it easier for McCain to win.

    pressure on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:00:11 AM EST
    There should be no pressure on either candidate to drop out -- the pressure should be directed at success in Pennsylvania.   If Obama shows that he can beat Clinton in PA, then he should be the nominee, and Clinton should be told to step aside.  If Obama can't beat Clinton in PA, the party leaders should tell him to step aside, because he simply hasn't shown that he can close the sale with the voters who will determine who the next President will be.  

    The problem with the PA (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:05:23 AM EST
    argument is that Clinton is going to win PA.  Just like Obama is going to win his states.

    This election is boiling down to demographics.   Obama wins blacks, young people and independents.   Clinton wins older white, hispanics and blue collar.

    The only state that hasn't followed this formula was WI.   All the others are clear results of demographics.

    So again Obama will win the pledged delegate count no matter what happens because they will win the states they are each supposed to win and then it will come down to Denver.


    if Obama can't win PA (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    ...against Clinton because of "demographics", then he is going to have a very tough time beating McCain here because of those same demographic consideration.

    And that's the point.  Obama has to show that he can get the job done.  So far, his main appeal in the primaries is that he's "not Hillary", and his main appeal for the general election is that he's "not a Republican".  Time after time, in key states, voters have said the being "not somebody" isn't enough.

    If Obama can't convince PA voters that he's a better choice than clinton, he should hang up his boots, because he's not going to convince them that he's better than McCain in November.


    Pledged Delegates (4.50 / 2) (#53)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:16:30 AM EST
    The only way pledged delegates will matter is if one of the candidates can get to the magic number with only pledged delegates (absent concession or collapse, ain't gonna happen) or if one candidate gets enough of a lead, he or she needs very few SDs (if current voting trends hold, ain't gonna happen).

    I thought it was right to focus on pledged delegates early on as a means of keeping Iowa or NH or other really early states from deciding the nominee.  In other words, "it's not over because only X states have voted and neither candidate is anywhere near the pledged delegate number needed."  

    But if we remain essentially deadlocked, with either candidate (most likely Obama) with a small lead, they shouldn't matter because they don't reflect the popular vote, the preference of democrats, or the ability to win in November.  What they mostly reflect is that democrats love white rural voters more in Nevada and Alabama and in some states prefer to give more power to the party elite through caucuses than those dirty masses of people known as voters.  


    i think the point being made is simply (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    this, we are tired of hearing that hillary should do the right thing and drop out. let obama drop out and do the right thing.

    actually let them battle it out. obama needs more vetting. we are just now getting a good look at him.


    Let the voters sort it out. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:23 AM EST
    If (and it's a big "If") Hillary wins Pennsylvania, and wins re-votes in FL and MI, then she could make an argument that Obama ought to step aside and let her be the nominee (and take the VP slot). But now is certainly not the time to make that case. Nobody drops out when they are winning, and at the moment, although it's close, I don't think there's any way to say Obama isn't winning.

    I do think Hillary would feel obligated to offer the VP slot to Obama if she wins, and that he would take it - there's a lot of animosity between the campaigns, but I don't get the sense that they personally despise each other, so I imagine they could make it work. On the other hand, I don't see why Hillary would want to be Vice President (unlike LBJ in 1960, she's probably not young enough to ride out eight years and run again, and she's already as famous as she can get), and I don't think picking her would really help Obama. So if he wins, I think he'd look elsewhere.


    Almost impossible to see HRC, (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    14 years Obama's senior with far more DC experience, taking the #2 spot just to serve another 4/8 yrs as a major advisor to another president.  Been there, done that.

    As I've said here before, if Obama were to win and felt he needed to shore up his support with women, he'd have several options other than Hillary.  And as a HRC backer, I would prefer at that point that he look elsewhere.

    Further, there would be less party bigwig pressure for her to take the #2, as they would understand the substantial age and experience gap between the two would put her in an uncomfortable working relationship (for both actually), plus Obama's other female options for Veep would be a reasonable alternative.  But the fit for Obama being #2 to her is a lot more natural and reasonable and Hillary would have nowhere else to go in terms of keeping blacks satisfied if that were an issue.

    Re LBJ wanting to be on JFK's ticket, interestingly, according to some insider accounts, Johnson told his fellow TXan-mentor Speaker Sam Rayburn, who at the convention wondered why the Majority Leader would possibly want the powerless job of VP, Lyndon supposedly said, "I've looked at the history, and 1 in 4 presidents die in office -- and I'm a betting man!"  


    Nobody should drop out (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    Hillary just won two big states and has the momentum, while Obama still has a significant lead in delegates.  It would be absurd for either candidate to drop out.

    Agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM EST
    All this talk about dropping out is just plain silly.  There's lots more voting to be done.

    I agree (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:16 AM EST
    I wish we could stop the drop out talk.
    it insults everyone.

    Again, I agree with Capt Howdy (and AF and Democra (none / 0) (#115)
    by barryluda on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    hellothere got it right:

    the point being made is simply this, we are tired of hearing that hillary should do the right thing and drop out. let obama drop out and do the right thing.

    When I said:

    there should be as much pressure on Obama as on Clinton right now to drop out

    that was exactly my point.  It's too bad that this is still not resolved since it does help McCain, but that's where we're at.


    The corollary (none / 0) (#20)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:53:32 AM EST
    Is that the campaign needs to get less negative now.  

    In particular, I think the point has been made that Obama is less experienced than Clinton and is something of a gamble.  If that point continues to be made for the next three months, and Obama is the nominee, we will be in trouble.  We will have essentially done McCain's work for him.

    Isn't that just really asking Hillary to concede.. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    ...in a more polite fashion? From the beginning she has made experience the cornerstone of her campaign. She can't drop it now. But I guess she could if Obama's side would agree to stop bashing the only successful Democratic administration we've had in almost 40 years.

    No it is not (none / 0) (#92)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    She can make the experience argument, she just has to do it by emphasizing her own superior experience rather than raising fears about Obama.  

    Obama shouldn't bash the Clintons either.


    Obama Has Not Been Reluctant to Bash The (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    Clintons at every opportunity and not just on the issues. When he stops, then your point is valid.

    When Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    runs an ad about the Clintons, your point will be valid.

    excuse me, he has opened his mouth (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    at every opportunity bashing the clintons.

    With FL & MI, Clinton Leads Popular Vote (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM EST
    See here.

    Although I don't really agree with how Real Clear Politics counts Michigan since they give Obama zero votes.  Now, admittedly, that's his own fault for taking his name off the ballot, but I still don't like it.

    Funny (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    Just did a post in this.

    Hillary better get her ground game up and (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    running full speed ahead and MI and FL.  

    my own numbers... (none / 0) (#43)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    I did some quick calculations, based on my own numbers, and Obama is still up by 206,000 votes.

    (I assign all uncommitted in Michigan to Obama, use the Washington primary results, split the Iowa and Nevada caucuses based on estimated participation and exit polling, and with the other caucus states I use participation numbers/estimates and divide them up by the delegate count when delegates, rather than than participants, were reported.)


    no to Obama/Clinton (none / 0) (#25)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:55:21 AM EST
    simply because the media will make it impossible for Obama to get his message out, and will focus on the Clintons, obsessing over what role she would play in the administration -- and "what about Bill?"

    If Obama gets the nomination, he should pick a Joe Biden or Sam Nunn -- someone with very strong national security credentials to offset his own lack of them.

    I'm all for Clinton/Obama....but Clinton brings nothing to an Obama/Clinton ticket but her gender....and a whole lot of anti-Clinton blowback.

    Y'know (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    Democrats really need to get over the Clinton/media bashing meme.  That statement shows political naivete.  If it were the problem Obama's people want us to believe it is, she'd already be out of the race.  If he's the nominee, the media will be so busy framing him they won't have time to worry about her.  She's already vetted.

    Really, do you actually think there's a Democrat out there who could be in the VP slot and not get bashed by Republican media?  Get real.  That's what the Dems thought about Lieberman.  WRONG.


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    Plus, if Obama loses, Clinton will still get blamed.  OTOH, she'll get no credit if he wins and I think does undermine all of his strengths.

    In addition to the ones you cite, Paul, there is also the optic that many of us dislike of choosing the less experienced young guy for the job and then making the more experienced woman VP so she can back him up.  That has the capability, IMO, to lessen the benefit she brings with women.  

    I've thought Biden would be Obama's best choice for awhile now.  I cannot stand Sam Nunn.  


    I can't stand Nunn either... (none / 0) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:26:45 AM EST
    but he'd still be a good choice for VP in terms of winning the election in November.

    No Pentagon-worshipping Demicans like Nunn, (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST

    Demoralizes the Dem base.  Unnecessary Hail Mary in a year where Dems, with Hillary or even with the less qualified Obama, should be in the driver's seat come November.

    Nunn also doesn't provide needed assassination "insurance".  His being in the admin would make that unfortunate possibility more likely, however .


    Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#72)
    by Coral on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    No, please!

    Nothing but her gender, heh...... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    Looking at the voting demographics on CNN ....

    Texas: 57% Female  43%  Male  

    18-29 16%, 30-44  28%, 45-59 34%, 60+ 22%

    Ohio:  59% Female  41%  Male
    Using same age group:

    Rhode Island:  57% Female  43% Male

    Vermont:  57% Female  43% Male

    One thing to note: The voters were older. And except for Vermont, that might show about the experience factor. But it is plain, that there were way more females voting and thus, the gender factor works well. Clinton/Obama would work out well with me.

    And also: Markos said last night
    "I can honestly say I really like Hillary Clinton. To bad she has so much scum floating around her" referring to Martin Chavez. And on CNN they have a picture of Hillary in her Orange and holding the hands of Governor Strickland and Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I know what he was trying to say, but I think the wording came out wrong. Kinda lumped everyone together.


    I really don't think Obama can pick (none / 0) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    an anti-choice VP. And who the hell remembers that Nunn has defense credentials anyway?

    personally if either of them picks Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    I am voting for Nader

    On the other hand... (none / 0) (#32)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:55 AM EST
    If there is going to be a joint ticket, it has to be Clinton/Obama.  Otherwise, she'll be just another woman doing the work of her boss and not getting any credit for it.  If I were her and someone proposed the VP slot to me, I'd decline it in a heartbeat.  

    Agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by Coral on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM EST
    I'd rather see her stay in the Senate and make a career there.

    But a Clinton/Obama ticket greatly appeals to me.


    Richardson... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    ... should be Obama's pick if he wins. He's got pretty much everything you'd look for in an Obama running mate - national security credentials, lots of experience, appeal to Hispanics, influence in a swing state, and ties to the Clintons that would help patch up the wounds. And unlike Hillary, it would make sense for him to accept the job.

    well jerry, overall you are right. but (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    richardson sometimes opens mouth and inserts foot don't you know.

    Except.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    Richardson has that small bug on his resume when he fudged about his baseball playing past....people that lie on their resume aren't likely to get a clean trip anywhere. I doubt he will ever be on a presidential ticket of any kind.

    Richardson... (none / 0) (#143)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    ...is not "tough" enough to be VP.  The role of the VP candidate through the election is to be the attack dog, so the nominee can "stay above the fray". I don't see Richardson doing that.  What if she co-opted someone who endorsed Obama?

    Veep (none / 0) (#56)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    I think I see Obama perhaps looking to Bill Richardson to bring strong and diverse EXPERIENCE to his ticket with a hand out to Hispanic voters.

    While, on the other hand, I think Clinton would be happy to run with Obama in the Veep slot, I wonder if he'd take it?  It would be an interesting ticket.  I think I see a strong Defense hand, rather, in her Veep picture.  

    While I am a strong Hillary supporter, I will work for the election of either because the alternative is imponderable!

    As a final note, I usually find my views relatively congruent with BTD on many issues.

    Thanks the Jeralyn and BTD, inter alia, for TalkLeft!

    We had this discussion literally a month (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:23:36 AM EST
    ago, over in a post titled  "Obama Campaign Predicts Deadlocked Race".

    And, you can read all the comments (they're the same as the ones being made today, BTW) and have (the same) fun (as you did then) making them.  For ease of your catching up, check out this thread to my comment there.

    What did I do wrong in that thread? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    Nothing at all. (none / 0) (#94)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM EST
    The point is that, rather than all Dems joining together to beat the crap out of Flip=floppin' St. John McBush, the man who never met a principle or position he couldn't compromise (if it meant he could move up), we're all sitting around still chasing our own tails and letting the media define the general election race for us.  A month later.

    While they give McBush a pass.

    This is not going to be resolved until the convention, and we all ought to recognize that.

    Advocate for your respective candidate, but keep it nice.  None of that "If my candidate doesn't win, I'm not going to play."  crap.  Beat on the Republican and work to build both party infrastructure and down-ticket races (so we can have a stronger Dem majority).


    taking its toll (none / 0) (#80)
    by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, I was feeling that Obama was on his way to victory. Now that has changed a bit. Has anyone noticed that he looks like he's losing weight and is more drawn and tired looking. I know Hillary looks tired too, but I was not expecting Obama to look so worn out at his age.  I'm sure he'll bounce back, but for the last few days, he just doesn't look good to me. Has anyone else noticed that?

    While I Admire Obama, (none / 0) (#82)
    by bob h on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    I don't think he has the killer instinct needed to win against McCain.  If he gets the top spot, perhaps Hillary could be brought on board to tear McCain's nuts off to help win the election.  Then, after four years of VP, if it is not to her liking, she could go back to the Senate and perhaps Majority Leader (RFK, Jr., who would have been given the Senate seat, would agree to relinquish it, and Reid would have signed off to giving her the Majority Leader spot.)

    lol (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:52:21 AM EST
    So eloquently put!  Some people think Obama is too invested in being liked (lacking the killer instinct). While that is admirable to some degree to me, it is not a good perception for people to have of him.

    My view that would be a mistake (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:00:53 AM EST
    with identity politics and group grievances in a touchy electroate sensitized by the DNCs failed leadership, subjugating either a white female or black male is going to cause a group to break off and for some time to come, it wont matter I believe if they are on the same ticket.  Hillary needs someone from a State we need to win that can unlike Edwards for Kerry bring it home for the Dems Va. maybe.

    she's brilliant (none / 0) (#98)
    by Polkan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    For all the talk about "experience" argument being weak, look what's happening with nomination:

    1. two candidates, essentially tied, by Denver

    2. one - a party veteran, with acknowledged experience, another a new fresh face

    So, yes a joint ticket and that's when the experience argument comes right back.

    If Obama continues to argue his small lead in pledged delegates, he will start sounding petty and small.I'm sure he won't want to be a spoiler.

    Why should Florida Revote? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Krista on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    Florida may have held an early primary but why should they revote?  No, the candidates weren't able to campaign there, but it's not as if they were un-knowns.  People have TVs that catch national news.  I envy the Floridians... they weren't slammed with ad after ad.  I heard so many Obama ads on my favorite radio station the days before the Virginia primary, that I went channel surfing.

    Clinton-Obama Ticket 2008 (none / 0) (#102)
    by CONTINUEtheMOMENTUMandCONTRIBUTE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    This is the ONLY answer to unite the Democratic Party......imagine the scenario:  EITHER candidate wins the nomination----at the August Democratic National Convention----the "other 1/2" of the Democratic Party will not go to the convention because "their candidate" did not win. Or, one candidate is chosen at the convention, and the other candidate's supporters walk-out of the convention in pprotest. This can happen TO EITHER CANDIDATE.  A Clinton-Obama Ticket would assure that the WHOLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is satisfied-----and Hillary can appoint John Edwards into a high office----maybe Secretary of Energy, and maybe even use Al Gore somewhere.  Bill Richardson can be used somewhere valuable, too-----these are ALL the WORKING-IST people.


    Clinton would never take VP slot (none / 0) (#107)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    Nor should she. I suspect Obama has too much pride to do it. His problem tho is that if he stays in the senate he will have to distinguish himself as the renegade he says he is, or develop a whole new self portrait.

    The two most important results of last night are:

    1. The Hispanic vote. Clinton has it and it's more important than the black vote. Holding it against the Republicans is also more important.
    2. The independent and Republican votes did NOT go for Obama to the extent that he needs.

    You Are High (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said "[t]hat may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket.

    Do you think she would have said that if she were not willing to be VEEP.

    Amazing that you would think otherwise.

    Both HRC and OHB will do what is best for democrats, and clearly at this point it is a combined ticket.


    No chance, either way. (none / 0) (#119)
    by bob5540 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    Clinton would be foolish to be a VP when she could have more personal influence as a senator or majority leader.

    Obama wouldn't take the VP job knowing he'd be marginalized by Hillary's husband.

    And that's not even considering the bad blood after this long race.

    Bad Blood? (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    You have to be kidding. This is politics and it has hardly been a nasty campaign by any standards. You may be faint-hearted, fine, but these candidates are pros.

    McCain endorsed Bush after a super nasty campaign.


    Chuck Todd agrees too (none / 0) (#121)
    by maritza on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    He said on Morning Joe on MSNBC that he thinks that where it stands right now is that he knows who the Dem ticket will be but we just don't know what order.  They will be fighting it out in terms of the order of the ticket for the remainding of the primary.

    I say that because Hillary is too strong of a candidate and has such huge support from women and white blue collar workers that Obama can't get and Obama has the youth and African-American voters that she can't get.

    A united ticket means that the Dems have a coalition of women, Latinos, blue-collar workers, and African-Americans that can win in the Fall.

    My prediction (which I predicted after Super Tuesday) that the ticket will be Clinton/Obama for the Fall.

    If Obama wins the nomination (none / 0) (#134)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    which I think is likely, I agree that Hillary will not be the VP.  She would not want it, the level of bitterness between the two camps is more likely to increase than decrease in the coming weeks, and as some Hillary supporters say here, it would not make them much more likely to vote for the ticket anyway.

    I think it should be Richardson:  Help with Hispanic voters, help with states like NM, CO, NV, and help with the foreign relations experience issue.  What am I missing?

    Don't play with me. (none / 0) (#139)
    by coigue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    That is my dream!

    Is the reason (none / 0) (#142)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    that Clinton seems open to the idea of sharing a ticket with Obama, and he seems negative about doing so, because she understands that she would be at the top of the ticket, and he knows that he'd be on the bottom of that ticket?

    Definitely looks ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    ... from her words as if Hillary Clinton is aiming for the Vice Presidency, by keeping Obama away from any kind of winning big. If she gets the top of the ticket she won't turn it down, of course.