Clinton/Obama in 2008?

I was reading an Australian analysis of the upcoming midterm, and it discusses (briefly) how the midterm could affect the 2008 presidential hopefuls.  It also mentioned a curious pairing for the Democrats.  (On the flip, please.) <div></div> UPDATE: I apreally preciate people reading the diary and stopping to comment. I do --- I've had diaries up with all of 5 comments, so it's nice that people take a moment to respond. I'm a little disturbed, though, by the people who dismiss a short diary about the 2008 election as "not being properly focused" and, more bluntly, that I should "get back to work" on 2006. Hey, I know the midterms are coming up --- the article I'm referring is about the midterms. I'd like to think, though, that if it raises an interesting point about the 2008 election, I could share it without being blasted. Now, about those midterms...

The newspaper The Australian actually put Hillary and Obama together, though more to say that this particular pairing wouldn't have a chance:

But if Obama can wear the blowtorch as well as he wears a pinstripe suit, he could be an attractive running mate for the Democrat presidential nominee, though not if it's Clinton. The US is mellowing but it is not yet ready for a woman and a black man on the same ticket.

Wouldn't that be interesting, though?  Hillary for president, with Obama as VP, against your typical old white guys on the Republican side.

I'm not much of an HRC fan myself, and Barack strikes me as something of a lightweight for so high an office.  However, it'd be a fascinating campaign --- it would be pretty much guaranteed that voter turnout would be to an extent that we've never seen before.

•  I prefer Gore/Clark

  just personally

  but most Dem combo's are workable

  by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:56:52 AM PDT

  •  I'd put Clark first

    The man has earned it this year.  

    by goldberry on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:07:58 AM PDT

    •  Pfizer/LockheedMartin

      might have the same dream ticket.

      Obama is campaigning in Massachusetts for a governor with a 25 point lead.

      Is there somewhere else he might be?

      I hope CLARK/EDWARDS/GORE team up for some combo to take on the Billary

      by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:12:22 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman/Clinton

        I can see Lieberman on a ticket with McCain or Hillary..

        same difference

        by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:13:18 AM PDT

        •  There is a world of difference between

          HRC and Lieberman or McCain (give me a break). She's one of our better Senators (which might be more condemnation for the Senate than praise for her, but it's true).

          by tigercourse on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:17:16 AM PDT

      •  Quit Yer Bitchin'

        Maryland: Friday Nov. 3rd
        Massachusetts: Friday Nov. 3rd
        Pennsylvania: Saturday Nov. 4th
        Ohio: Saturday Nov. 4th
        Missouri: Sunday Nov. 5th
        Iowa: Sunday Nov. 5th

        He's going to be in MA between stops in MD and PA

        by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:21:09 AM PDT

    •  Gore has earned it for 30 years

      in various ways. Most important, he was instrumental in Clinton taking leads in polls in 1992, and getting elected, and then worked hard to show what a responsible Democratic administration can accomplish. (Clinton paid him back with, well, Monica).

      by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:32:23 AM PDT

    •  clark/warner

      or clark somebody else -- no hillary or obama!!!!

      by chiefsjen on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:36:18 AM PDT

    •  I'm with you there

      Clark has great presence in the campaign ads he's done this year.

      I respect Gore. But I think he really dislikes campaigning for office. It's a fatal flaw in someone with Presidential aspirations. Fortunately, I think Gore is wise enough to know this about himself. Gore has a great future of public service ahead of him and I think he will do his best work freed from the burden of seeking election.

      by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

•  I'm still holding out

  for my dream ticket of Cynthia McKinney/Zell Miller

  by melvin on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

  •  And how about

    Bill Nelson while you're at it? Heh, indeedy.

    Hillary/anybody or Obama/anybody would be a disaster for the party and less than beneficial for America, even if they won, which I don't think either could. Yeah, they'd be better than any Republican but that's not the point. Hillary/Obama would just plain be a disaster. A finger-in-the-wind hawk with six tons of baggage and a panderer to the religious right who's more style than substance (at least so far), just what we need. Not.

    Progressives need to stop thinking Hillary or Obama are in any way progressives and would in any way get the things done for the country that we feel need to get done. We also need to stop taking cues from the MSM which does not have our interests at heart.

    Want a strong candidate with true progressive values who can win? Try Clark.

    by mjshep on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:31:05 AM PDT

•  Obama/Clark

  Experience?

  “Judgment can be borne out of experience,” he said. “It would be nice to think the more experience we get, the better our judgment is. But I don’t think that’s the case. I mean, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, and yet have engineered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history. So I would say the two most important things are judgment and vision.”

  by zenbowl on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:59:17 AM PDT

•  Chuckie/Cheese

  Can we finish this election before worrying about the next one?

  by nightsweat on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:00:13 AM PDT

•  If (as is most likely) HRC gets the nod,

  I see her going with Clark for VP. Unless I'm mistaken, the Clinton's were somewhat Clark backers in 04. He also provides a needed military element and I don't think anyone wants 2 Senators on the ticket again.

  by tigercourse on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

  •  Then she and Clark can debate Iraq policy

    There's not much common ground between the two.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:02:17 AM PDT

    •  They don't need to agree on everything.

      Just basic principals of our democracy. And I think they do agree on those.

      by tigercourse on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:07:08 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      she can debate her own VP over Iraq...

      by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:14:06 AM PDT

  •  Party machinery

    Nothingis a foregone conclusion.  After Nov. 7, we need to seriously consider how we monkey wrench this party machinery.  I want REAL primaries and REAL debates and I don't want any frigging Democratic power brokers doing my picking for me.  
    Listen up, Kossacks, NJ moved it's primary from June to February.  They are already well on their way to picking for us.  Let's put a stop to it.  

    by goldberry on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:11:03 AM PDT

    •  N.J. will hold a February primary?

      That's something I thought would never, ever happen.

      I grew up there, and we almost took a perverse pride in being the last state to pick convention delegates. The ballot gave you absolutely no idea who the candidates for delegate were committed to, which suited the local bosses just fine: they didn't want you to know.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:16:38 AM PDT

    •  NJ Democrats suck

      The NJ Democratic party needs a grassroots overhaul to kick out the crooks in that that give all Democrats a bad name.  I feel highly uncomfortable with a NJ February primary.

      by sister daedalus on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:24:42 AM PDT

      •  We're working on it n/t

        by goldberry on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:29:31 AM PDT

•  No.

  by not4bushwa on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

•  Celebrity politics at its worst

  Glitz, glitter, and name recognition. About what you'd expect two years out.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:01:32 AM PDT

•  That combo is not for me, and I don't think

  Hillary will win the nomination.  Lots of other good candidates out there. Edwards, Clark, Feingold, etc.

  by au8285 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:01:53 AM PDT

•  Would you get back to work?

  This does not help at all right now.  Sorry, there will be no speculating if we don't win this election.

  by DrKate on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:01:56 AM PDT

  •  ummm

    there will be no speculating if we don't win this election

    Win or lose, nothing will stop the speculation once the election is over.  People are ever hopeful.  We could lose 50 seats in the House and 10 in the Senate and still people would immediately speculate about the prez primary.

    That said, I completely agree that the focus must be on GOTV and winning back House and/or Senate.

    by Montague on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

    •  Of course

      I'm not down on speculation, its just not very useful right now, when there are other ways we could be using our energy.  

      by DrKate on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:02:35 AM PDT

•  Yawn....No Interest At All n/t

  by MO Blue on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:06:20 AM PDT

•  Are they in CT for Lamont?

  If not, they can count me out as helping spread their message or whatever it is they hope to accomplish by this endless specultation about 2008.
  Clark has worked tirelessly for all candidates.  He actually takes us seriously.  If he runs, Hillary and Obama can take a cold tater and wait.  

  by goldberry on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

•  Two Senators?

  Two things.

  (i) Unless Ford wins in TN, Obama should forget about running for national office, VP or President.

  (ii) Can't the Democratic Party do better than two Senators?  I am a HUGE fan of President Clinton, and would ardently support him, were he to run again.  But while I would vote for the Senator, I could not really get excited about her candidacy, and do not think she would win.

  by PatriciaVa on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:08:23 AM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton cannot run again

    N/T

    by Brother Dave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:10:54 AM PDT

  •  As TN goes, so goes the Union?

    I think not.

    by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:23:56 AM PDT

    •  Obama's natl aspirations depend on TN

      Two things.

      One, obviously, President Clinton can't run for national office.  But, were he able to do so, he'd win by, minimum, 7% points.  I'm not sure his wife would win.

      Two, if Ford, a moderate Democrat, can't win in TN, Obama, who is more liberal, has no shot.  In my opinion, Obama would track 5 to 10 points lower in TN than Ford.  

      by PatriciaVa on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:46:41 AM PDT

      •  I don't know if even Warner could

        have won in TN. Bush, Rove and 9/11 have combined to divide the landscape so sharply, that I don't think most of the south can be in play (at least for now).

        by tigercourse on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:58:27 AM PDT

      •  So?

        I don't remember a single column or analysis ever written talking about the necessity of carrying TN to win a presidential race. Gore couldn't even carry his home state in 2000, so it isn't like Feingold or Clark would be tearing it up anyway. Any Democratic presidential campaign that relies on us carrying the likes of Tennessee is practically a non-starter at this point in time.

        by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:11:05 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          since you've said the oft-repeated "Gore couldn't even carry his home state in 2000", this is how things were:

          Gore was forced to write-off the south because of many factors, including Nader threat in must-win states like WI, OR, NH, WA.

          TN which trended Republican during the late 80s and 90s, and Clinton/Gore had to work overtime and in overdrive to manage a 2.4%  win in 1996.

          Please see these articles:

          1. Bush camp displaying 'tempered' confidence

          2. Unfavorite son

          The next Democratic pres. campaign must look and work to carrying most of these semi-winnable states in 2008: FL, OH, VA, TN, CO, NV, NM, IA, NH, TN, AR, MO, WV.

          2000 was a bad year mainly because Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped up. In 2004, they made a blunder by going "Gore'00 + 1 state" strategy, but that's got to change. A good showing in 2006 and Dean's 50-state strategy will set a good stage for it.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 11:20:46 AM PDT

•  Lets get through this election ...

  before speculating about the next one.

  by Brother Dave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:11:49 AM PDT

•  First off

  I gotta say this, Wes Clark has said he won't say a dang thing about the presidency until AFTER the midterms, if even then.  Clark has not said one word about his own ambitions.  Instead, he has criss-crossed the country, stumping for Democrat after Democrat.  (Including Lamont.)

  That's class.

  I was really disappointed in Obama on that interview a week or so back - he should have said something to the effect of, "I'm not concentrating on that and I'm not going to talk about that now.  Nothing is more important than the midterms."  Too bad, he missed his chance.

  by Montague on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:12:56 AM PDT

  •  Difference of expectations

    Clark isn't being profiled in Time or headlining MTP either. The fact is if Clark throws his hat in the ring now, 97.2% of America will shrug.

    by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:27:22 AM PDT

    •  Clark has class

      Admit it. :)

      by Montague on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:31:47 AM PDT

  •  Clark really interests me

    I used to work in the employment business and did a lot of interviewing of candidates, writing of job descriptions, etc. One of the best things I learned about was a technique called "behavioral interviewing". The premise was that you developed and asked questions that required the candidate to give specific examples of things he/she had actually done. Example: "Tell me about a time that you had to resolve a conflict: what was the situation and what did you do?"

    The questions you asked were to be based on the qualities that you had determined were desirable for a person who would do the job - things like organizational skills, being resourceful, honesty, attention to detail, imagination - etc.

    The goal was to get past the typical interview process where people claimed to have certain skills or qualities but never actually had to support those claims. And it was based on the premise that "past performance predicts future performance".

    I wish we would look at potential candidates through that lens. With that in mind, I look for people who have actually accomplished things beyond getting elected to office. What have they actually done before holding office; what have they done while in office. Done, not talked about, theorized about, etc. Actually done.

    Clark interests me because he held positions of such grave responsibility and was very successful. It makes a nice change from people who mostly yack about their views, and introduce legislation doomed to failure, etc. He appears to have learned a lot since he ran in 2004 - something else I like in a candidate. He seems to understand what is, and has been, actually going on over these last years.

    Howard Dean gets big points for me on the same basis. He, personally, accomplished more in 2 years than any major Democratic figure has since heaven knows when. And he accomplished it partly through his own initiative, vision and perserverance, and partly through his ability to excite the people around and under him. In other words, he has shown real leadership.

    Hillary and Barack do well in terms of looking good and sometimes, sounding good. But leadership? Not so much.

    by Viola on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

•  I think of Hillary as another Lieberman

  and I wouldn't vote for her unless every possible, conceivable and living alternative had been totally exhausted first.

  She is a turn-coat who blames Democrats when she should be attacking Republicans.

  Not unless hell freezes over.

  by TayTay on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:19:57 AM PDT

  •  When has she blamed Democrats?

    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:21:21 AM PDT

    •  For one,

      She just twisted Rove's knife in Kerry's back. And lest you say "aw, poor Kerry" - it hurts the Democrats as a party when we let the lies and smears against any one of our leaders stand.

      It would have been so easy for her to point out that Kerry has been an incredibly hard worker for military and veteran's benefits over the years, and there is no way what he said was intended the way the RW spun it. It would have been so easy to point out the obvious, that Kerry was attacking Bush (just listen to the lead up remarks). If she couldn't be bothered to listen to the full tape (all of about 2 minutes up to the critical moment) before commenting, at the very least she could have pointed out the absurd twist that is required to get from that out of context sentence to the implication the RW spun out of it. (Duh - how does saying that one who doesn't work hard at an education may reduce their options to the military, equate to "everyone who joins the military is dumb"? It only equates if you drink some heavily laced kool-aid.)

      If every high profile Dem who wasn't in a tight race had spoke out loud and clear about what was really going on in this latest smearboating of Kerry, we could have a lot more people understanding the vileness and utter unbelievability of those assholes.

      But no, instead of supporting the DEMOCRATIC PARTY by challenging the lies and distortions of Rove and his puppets, she chose to jump on the train with them. Why? 2008 comes to mind. Or maybe she's just dumb? Either one is not much of a recommendation to support her.

      Search my past comments and I doubt you will find one trashing Hillary. It has been my policy not to do that. No more. My eyes have been opened. I don't think Democrats can afford to accept her facilitating Rove's game for him; I just wish I'd realized it before now.

      by MH in PA on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:14:32 AM PDT

•  Personally...

  I think this is an incredibly formidable ticket just because of two pieces of math:

  1.  The ticket gets north of 95% of a high-turnout African-American vote, due to the combo of the Clintons being beloved in the African-American community and the presence of an African-American on the ticket.

  2.  The ticket gets 53-55% of the female vote off the strength of the combination of the presence of a female candidate at the top of the ticket and a guy who's something of a sex symbol.  

  I think Obama needs more seasoning before he's ready for the top slot, but I have no problem with him as a VP.

  by profmatt on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:23:27 AM PDT

•  Obama deserves better n/t

  by joemcginnissjr on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:49:31 AM PDT

•  Clintons need to be denied the nomination

  Right now, realistically only Gore can do it, by simply pointing out that he opposed the war (2 weeks before the senate vote on the war), while the Clintons cheerled us into the war.

  In case you were wondering what Bill Clinton said on the war before the vote, here it is for you:

  

  The Dave And Bill Show

  NEW YORK, Sept. 12, 2002

  But the former president quickly got serious when Letterman mentioned Saddam Hussein.

  Letterman asked, “Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I'd like to go in. I'd like to get the guy. I don't like the way the guy looks.”

  “He is a threat. He's a murderer and a thug,” said Mr. Clinton. “There's no doubt we can do this. We're stronger; he's weaker. You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished.”

  In fact, I am stunned that a former CiC would make such ridiculous calculation on the expected difficulty of the war.

  Let's see what Gore said:

  "If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? "

  "I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. "

  "the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own."

  Gore's speech against the war

  Don't you wish we had Gore/Clinton instead from 1992 to 2000?

  by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:50:12 AM PDT

•  To answer your question:

  No.

  Now let's get back to winning 2006.

  by chumley on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:12:08 AM PDT

•  That is not a ticket that would interest me

  in the least.

  I don't want Hillary or Obama on the ticket ans sure won't work or campaign for either.

  by SarahLee on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:04:00 PM PDT