Clinton and Obama ticket?
Apparently Bill and Hillary have recently been publicly entertaining the notion of a split Democratic “Dream Ticket”.
Barack seems to be standing off so far, saying that he wouldn’t be interested in being in the VP slot. I haven’t heard him make any statements ruling out naming Clinton as his VP, however.
This is an interesting discussion to have now, before the two candidates have much longer to rip at each other. If Democratic nomination comes down to litigation and super delegates, I think we’ll see a lot of the good will that much that the nation is extending to the Dems will start to evaporate pretty quickly.
If one of the two candidates could put aside some of their personal ambitions (hey there’s always 2016, right?), I think the Democratic support would be huge and would steam-roll the Republican ticket in November.
Anyone think this is possible? If so, will it come sooner than later (i.e. post-convention)?
Sorry only site members can participate in this discussion
For me personally, a joint ticket would be great – I think Clinton and Obama or Obama and Clinton would be an unstoppable policy machine with deep pockets and deep influence.
However, I don’t believe that it is a feasible ticket.
First and most importantly, I would argue that neither candidate would benefit (in terms of voters gained) from a combined ticket. Clinton supporters are by and large going to support Obama, and I think most Obama supporters would vote for Clinton in a general election.
Second, I think that there is already too much bad blood between Obama and Clinton to make a joint ticket likely, and certainly, as time goes on, the bad blood will only thicken. See my recent article on this site appealing to Sen. Clinton to bow out of the race now for the good of the party. I wrote that prior to Super Duper Tuesday…I realize now that Clinton’s only hope for any future political success is to gracefully end her campaign and endorse Obama now. See Jonathan Alter’s superior editorial in last week’s Newsweek regarding the same issue.
Lastly, I think that very few people actually base their vote (or lack thereof) of the associated VP. I think that McCain’s choice of VP will be much more relevant to shaping the election because McCain is older than God’s Grandfather, and I believe that some people are justifiably shaken up about that sort of thing.
I think that the Party elders must step in to pressure Sen. Clinton to end her campaign. The Clintonian machine will not give up on their own, and as much as I’d love to experience the excitement of a split convention, I think that it would be foolish of the Dems to allow McCain unencumbered access to endorsements and fund-raising opportunites while they tear themselves apart in a never-ending steam of debates and stump speeches.
It sure is an interesting season, though!
This will probably not be a very popular post given the strong Obama following here, but it is an interesting topic, and I thought I’d bring up my perspective. Ever the optimist, I see the current situation as a way to double-team the American public with debate points against the GOP nominee. I know it is predicted that it couldn’t work this way because Clinton and Obama are supposed to be slamming each other right now. I don’t think that either should step down until a clear winner has emerged, and I disagree that failure to step down hurts the party or shows too much self-interest.
I happen to find Clinton’s persistence to be an inspirational demonstration of her conviction about her strong plans for the future as president, and I believe strongly in her capability to carry them out. I’m thrilled that she is still in the race, and I think her campaign could certainly work this angle on the up-and-up without having to revert to negative advertisements down the stretch. I don’t see her persistence as solely personal in nature, and I think it bodes well for the party that there are two candidates who are willing to fight for the nomination. I don’t believe that becoming president should be easy-whether searching for your party’s nod, or in the battle against the opposing party.
Competition within the party could actually produce us with a nominee that the country would get behind en masse. Perseverance, patience, and conviction are attributes that we should look for in selecting a president. What better way to show these characteristics than in overcoming adversity in a strong fight for the democratic nomination. I think it can be argued that if these two fine candidates battle through June, and do so tactfully, which I believe they could, then the party will surely convince many more people to vote democratically. There must still be undecided voters out there, and we should hear their voices, too. These are not easy times, and our next president must be especially tough. Here is a perfect test of fortitude.
Whether or not Clinton and Obama or Obama and Clinton will be our ticket…I HOPE it’s way too early to say. Aren’t you all so glad I voted in Ohio?
Hillary in my eyes is
1) corrupt and certainly a polarizing force that the GOP machine has been expecting to do battle for eight years now. I feel she should step down. She stands off with people. Thios accomplishes nothing as W has shown.
2) Stacy a tactful campaign?.. Look at what she has been doing to Obama since he began his winning streak? There is nothing tactful about it. Same old dirty politics. At least Obama sticks to his guns on the subject.
3) She Cries in public… Common….... Way to show your strength in the face of??? Oh yeah someone asked her how she stayed strog so she cried… LOL
I agree that Sen. Clinton is a polarizing figure…that has been my primary objection to her White House bid. I also agree that she has lost a lot of her tact recently, and that in desperation, the Clinton campaign is willing to do most anything to not lose, which is the sort of Machiavellian hallmark of the family that I personally think is so striking and almost admirable. I agree with Stacy that no one could possibly question Sen. Clinton’s persistence, determination, or conviction, any more than they could question those traits in her husband.
I disagree, however, with the assertion that Sen. Obama isn’t engaged in the “same old dirty politics” along with Sen. Clinton. It is an increasingly vicious battle, and both candidates are showing their willingness to swing low.
But mostly, I totally disagree with criticism related to Sen. Clinton crying. Sen. Clinton gets a funny end of the stick…if she is strong in the face of adversity and criticism, she is characterized as being “cold”, impersonal and inhuman. If she shows any emotion on the campaign trail, she is accused of being too emotional, weak, or insincere. How bizarre! Why not strong criticism of Brett Favre or Mitt Romney?
If you want to be the leader of the free world you should not let a stupid question like, how do you remain strong? make you quiver and cry. (I honestly think that in both cases it was totally a politicle stunt to get her female base going) however I think it back fired on her.
If she was crying because of the loss of lives of americans or something of that nature I couldnt agree more with you orin but in either situation this was not the case.
Theres no problem in my eyes for someone who is strong to show a compasionate side however this was at best.
All in all my biggest criticism of any of these things is that she whatever she does comes of as fakeing it. Putting up a front that she thinks people want to see and its very transparent.
All good points.
I was flabbergasted at the arrogance in the Clintons’ tease to offer the VP spot to the front runner. She may be persistent and determined but I agree these qualities have led her to actions that are undermining to her party’s success. I hope she is as persistent and determined in her desire to bring the democratic agenda to the american people, even if she is not the candidate. Had there ever been a chance for an Obama/Clinton ticket, I think there is no chance now. And I think that is a good thing. Historically, the VP spot is ideally a balancing act of political capital- demographic or geographic and she would offer neither to Obama. Clinton’s main contention is that she is the candidate of experience. If one grants her time spent in the white house as first lady, she does exceed Obama in the number of years of experience. But what came of that experience? Her current health care plan is much the same as it was when she worked to implement the plan during those years. Had she had leadership abilities we might all have had the benefit of at least 10 years of health care. Experience is evidently not enough. On principle, there should be no issue with sincere and balanced displays of any emotion..in fact, I think we americans all suffer from the misguided puritan notion that stoicism is the mark of stability. People who are joyful can shout out state names, can shed tears when touched. The issue I think was expressed above, is the insincere, calculated display of emotion.
Im sorry but being the first Lady does not equate to leadership experience in my book. Especially when the one thing you were in charge of flopped.