Daily Kos

A prolix argument for an Obama-Clinton ticket

Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM PDT

I want to think about an Obama-Clinton 2008 ticket. There’s no better place to imagine that than here at dKos, the fertile crescent of the Democratic Party (my opinion and a disclaimer).

Here’s another opinion: I don’t think enough of us realize this, a lot of us feel it but don’t know how to quantify it, and some of us are waiting for corporate media to acknowledge it: our Democratic primary contest is the real 2008 presidential election. November starts the denoument of a sordid era of American history.

McCain, the GOP, the neoconservative movement and (to our eventual detriment) traditional conservative principles---vital ideas today’s "conservatives" abandoned a generation ago in favor of jingoism---are all but irrelevant. With each passing day, the high priests of PNAC are exposing the degeneracy of their goals, and the facile propaganda of our corporate media is too banal to mask it any longer.

Consider: Sen. Clinton draws more supporters to her appearances than all the Republican contenders combined and Sen. Obama’s crowds triple and quadruple Sen. Clinton’s.

The mood, as they say, is shifting.

That’s cause for rejoicing, but not for long.

We Americans are finally coming face to face with the onerous future we have charted for ourselves. The shrill propaganda that powered our politics for the past two decades has---finally--- numbed enough ears. For enough of us, the stark reality of suffocating debt, runaway deficits and promises of perpetual war is palpable. The thin veneer that covered over a national policy of imperial greed and public pillaging is worn through.

Where once we Americans were admired for our principles and values---and possessed sufficient moral capital to marginalize our critics---we are now feared, hated or mistrusted. "America"---once an ideal in most of the world---is today a sneer.

Where once our currency served as the world’s standard, today it loses value with each transaction, and the poohbahs among us are contemplating our worst economic cycle since the Great Depression.

And where once America’s free press, universal suffrage and equality before the law stood as idealistic paragons other nations struggled to imitate, corporatization, corruption and cronyism have soiled our American fabric and threaten to rot it through.

At its idealistic apex, American democracy promised to perfect the human project. Today, a plague of nihilistic demagoguery seems bent on bringing Armageddon into being.

Unless we stop them. Unless enough of us throw off the shackles of corporate propaganda and political bullying and seize the rudder of our ship of state.

You can certainly argue I’m way too idealistic, and I can’t refute that. Way too many of us rush the latest Fox News meme into diary form here, as if anything Rupert Murdoch’s drones have to say is worth our consideration.

But there’s plenty of proof that I’m right, too. No one in my lifetime has so energized the vast middle of America to take up its dire responsibility as Barack Obama---and lived to see it through. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Kennedys---all three of them, in my opinion---came closest, but their enemies---our enemies---murdered our noblest vision.

Barack Obama is a creature of our time and place, a profound expression of American will in the face of our declining circumstance. Obama would not likely have succeeded in 1974, or in 1992, or even in 2000, but in 2008, Obama is articulating a thoroughly American demand for tectonic change in the way we express our ideals and conduct our affairs.

Given that our choice is between hope and hate, absent Barack Obama Hillary Clinton would sound just as electrifying, just as energizing. And absent Sen. Clinton, John Edwards voices the same powerful promise of substantive change, progressive change, a future for America that’s worth working for, and worth dying for.

To the man---and they are all men---our opponents promise a future we will want to hide from. Their alternative---the "future" our opponents hope we will embrace---is doom.

For my money, Barack Obama is captain of our most desperate cruise because the course he proposes will take us farther faster. Sen. Clinton has the same general heading, though her many encumbrances---made in good faith, with the best of intentions---will slow our progress. Despite that, I can’t think of a better first mate, and I can’t think of a better future for America than 16 years of Obama-Clinton policies.

I’m 56 years old. The America I came of age in held a remarkable promise for the rest of the world. It was far from perfect, to be sure, and I’m far too idealistic, but the best that it offered was just about the best we humans could be, and promised only better.

That’s not evident anywhere today. It’s as if we’ve been hypnotized by the siren songs of an antichrist. Too many of us baby boomers have shirked our responsibilities for too long. We’ve shut our gates and tended our gardens and let the rabid run wild outside. For the past decade, we have subjected ourselves to a sordid, septic mirage illuminated by greed and vanity.

We got what we deserved. Probably, it was a necessary step, an object lesson on the folly of our conceits.

But as I look at the primary returns, the rally crowds, the opinion polls, the shrill tone and idiotic tack of what passes for professional punditry these days, and especially the morbid threats of our enemies, when I contrast all that with the rhetoric of progress and promise articulated by all of our Democratic candidates, I think we---our nation, our Democratic Party and even a few among this web community---have learned our lesson. We’ve been called out, and we are answering.

I sense, on the part of Sen. Obama, a willingness to consider new ways to address our issues. If that includes a new kind of presidency---one that fully incorporates the skills and talents of a worthy vice president as part of a powerful administrative team---I doubt he could do better than Sen. Clinton. And given the nihilistic bent of our opponents, Vice President Clinton represents a valuable 'insurance policy' against right wing concupiscence.

I want an "O-Hillary" bumper sticker.

Please feel free to disabuse me of my naivety, prolixity, and idealism. Why not Obama-Clinton?

Tags: 2008, primaries, O-Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Obama-Clinton, vice president, veep, VP (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 91 comments

  •  Not a bad idea, but she would never (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, Larry Bailey

    say yes when she can go on being the senator from New York.

    How do you feel about Clinton-Obama?

    •  if senator clinton is anywhere near the ticket (9+ / 0-)

      you can expect disaster, in the white house and the loss of congress

      please pardon the poor keyboarding, i can never decide which two of my ten thumbs to use, so hopefully some of you are fluent in Typo

      by TAPayne on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I see it, one of the goals of this (8+ / 0-)

        election is to put an end to Clinton style politics.  For that reason, the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket completely baffles me.  Moreover, such a ticket undercuts Obama's platform of change by placing him with an establishment, DLC candidate.  Finally, such a ticket would weaken his candidacy in the GE by uniting Republicans against him.

        •  Is Clinton style politics much different (0+ / 0-)

          from Bush style politics or McCain style politics? I agree that one of our (your and my) goals in this primary selection process is to put an end to Clinton style politics, but the general election's going to include all the hate-mongering that our enemies can invent, whether Sen. Clinton is on the ticket or supporting it as a dutiful Democrat.

          (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

          by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:21:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

        Plus I believe if Obama is fortunate enough to get the  nomination, it would be very risky to have Hillary as a running-mate because of two words:  

        Bill Clinton.

        Unfortunately for the Clintons, their behavior over the past few months screams out for the need for the Democratic Party to put that approach behind us for good.

        Writing off states and entire regions as insignificant, whining and playing the victim, using abhorrent racial tactics and slicing-and-dicing the electorate and playing up ethnic/racial rivalries.

        Enough is enough.

    •  Not nearly as enthusiastic (0+ / 0-)

      Sen. Clinton has the same general heading, though her many encumbrances---made in good faith, with the best of intentions---will slow our progress.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:47:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •   Maybe Clinton/Obama would work. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy

      Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!

      by ichibon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not for me (0+ / 0-)

        Frankly, if Obama didn't win the nomination this time, I would hope he would position himself to run as the alternative to President Clinton in 2012, but I sincerely believe Obama will be our next chief executive.

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:24:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, John Edwards in 2012. Even if Obama (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          doorguy

          or Clinton is elected this time, neither will be the change we are looking for, both are too tied to the corporations and lobbyists to enact the change we have got to have. John Edwards needs to continue to be the thorn in their side, to primary whichever democrat actually get elected, or a more realistic situation would be him running against President McCain, as I don't believe Obama or Clinton can beat McCain in the GE.

          Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!

          by ichibon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:50:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  in the words of Amy Winehouse: No, no, noooo (13+ / 0-)

    Clinton would never accept VP, and Obama would be handicapped if he were VP by Clintonian scandals and having to share the spot with Bill. he would be better off running for governor of Illinois in 2010.

    I mean, how bad could Senator John McPalpatine possibly be?

    by terra on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM PDT

    •  You obviously know Sen. Clinton better than I do (0+ / 0-)

      but I'll take her at her word, that she does what she does to make America better. And given Sen. Obama's penchant for 'change,' I could see him planning a more substantial role for the VP if his VP was as capable as Sen. Clinton, and I would see that as a heck of a lot more "bettering" than anything she could do as Sen. from NY.

      Let her do for quality universal health care delivery what Cheney did for energy corporation and weapons dealer profits.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cheney is an anomaly (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        "The last time I checked, my constitutional obligation was to have a pulse."

        -Vice President John Hoynes, The West Wing

        Vice Presidential authority is basically nil. You are an unpowered arm of the President, and if you're on the ticket because you lost out in the primaries, you're basically just biding your time and waiting for your chance. The reason it's different for Cheney is that Bush basically gives him free reign. Add in the fact that Bush Sr. is the only sitting VP to be elected President in a very long time and it's not hard to think that Hillary might consider the Senate a better option.

  •  bad either direction (6+ / 0-)

    an Obama Vice-presidency would be the fastest trip to redundancy anyone ever had. A Clinton vice presidency would be an albatross around Obama's neck, all the negatives and no help.

    We will fight. We will win. This machine kills fascists.

    by Elvis meets Nixon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM PDT

    •  I agree with your first point (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      stephdray

      but disagree with your second. Take Obama out of the picture and Clinton would be wiping the floor with McCain.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:56:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not at all convinced of (5+ / 0-)

        this.  I highly suspect that if Clinton gets the nomination the GE will be extremely tight and there would even be a high likelihood that Clinton would lose.  Don't underestimate the amount of respect McCain commands among independents and soft democrats who aren't very politically literate.

        •  she'd beat mccain. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          doorguy

          she's much smarter than mccain.
          plus it's a very favorable environment for a D.

          after a couple of months of pointing out that mccain is a R, and a warmonger, I's would mostly desert him.

          •  The atmosphere in early 1988 was also favorable (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            doorguy

            for a D ... old Reagan, people tired of the GOP, Iran-Contra, "Wimp" GHW Bush not being very inspiring....

          •  its a favorable environment for a generic D (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            doorguy, Philoguy

            but not a favorable environment for Hillary Clinton.  She has negatives specific to her and a lot of swing voters considering voting D this year will go back to R if she is our nominee.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:53:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Enough to elect (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority

              McCain's 100-year war strategy as America's future?

              (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

              by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Enough to even (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                doorguy

                elect that, yes.  Clinton is the weakest we got in the general...  Excluding Kucinich and Gravel, of course.  Just look around at the response she's gotten from hardcore democrats online.  Now we're all deeply attached to the democratic party.  What's it going to be like among those who have no particular commitment to the democratic party and among independents?  Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take their blinkers off and start examining how those outside the rank and file think.

                •  Is DailyKos the home of the rank and file? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm surprised (but pleased) at the strength of the anti-Hillary sentiment here, and I think we are certainly influencing and even empowering the Democratic Party's rank-and-file as both its conscience and one of its most capable incubators, but I think this primary selection process is showing that rank-and-file Democrats and Independents are expressing candidate preferences in roughly equivalent proportions, aren't they?

                  (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

                  by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:05:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  If this campaign against (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            doorguy

            Obama is any indication of how she's perform in the GE, we should be very concerned.  I simply don't buy that she's "much smarter" than the republican machine.

            •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

              but Obama is such a superior candidate to McCain I'm not sure the comparison works.

              I think Clinton would smother McCain---she'll swing as far to the right as he does and we'll have a traditional tweedle dum and tweedle dee faceoff, only tweedle dum will have eight years of Bush, a failed economy, deteriorating infrastructure, unaffordable health care, and the promise of endless war to weigh him down.

              Hillary Clinton easily wins in a 'least bad' choice.

              (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

              by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No way (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy, TLS66, keenekarl

        She's running a 50%+1 campaign which by definition has little margin for error.  One reason that Obama is doing so well in opinion polling is he and his surrogates have been to places like Kansas and Idaho and Nebraska and stuff where Dems never campaign.  Hillary would be running on a "carry the Kerry states plus Ohio," whereas Obama will play offense all over.

        I don't think Hillary has a chance to be president, so maybe I'm biased, but looking at it objectively just like Hillary ceded all these small states to Obama she would cede every red state to McCain before the campaign even started, so McCain would only have to campaign in Florida, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and could ignore the other 44 states.

        -Fred

        Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

        by FredFred on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:18:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's still young (0+ / 0-)

      8 years as VP wouldn't hurt Obama.  He would be pretty young if he ran for prez again in '16.

      Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

      by Valhalla on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well (5+ / 0-)

    I think the problem of an Obama-Clinton ticket is he would be automatically labeled a hypocrite and the media and republicans would make him eat a lot of his words from the primary in the general. it would be a disaster. I think a clinton-Obama ticket would actually be a rather wise move for clinton, But I think in reality Clinton has too much hubris to be on a ticket with obama, in either slot.

    •  Bush sr. called Reagan's policies "Voodoonomics" (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Valhalla

      and I don't remember much flack when St. Ronald (pbuh) gave him the nod for number two. And that's way back when American corporate media enjoyed twice as much diversity as today---12 conglomerate owners, not six.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Clinton era needs to end NOW. (8+ / 0-)

    HRC for Veep?..

    NO!

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:50:53 PM PDT

    •  Hillary's not Bill (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy

      Hillary is not Bill.  She would be a different president than him.  She could very well be an amazing VP.

      Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

      by Valhalla on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:03:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If her campaign is any indication of what kind (4+ / 0-)

        of President she would be, I'm not interested.  She was the prohibitive favorite in November, and is now in danger of being eliminated.  This appears to have been largely due to (a) how she structured her campaign, around a few people and targeted at a few states, and (b) her total lack of preparation for having to seriously contend for the nomination.

        Honesty is still the best policy.

        by oscarsdad on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:18:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That sounds like football strategy (0+ / 0-)

          and it's an apt analogy and analysis. But what if Sen. Clinton really wants to do what's best for the country, which has always been her claim? I think she could accomplish more, and together Obama and Clinton could accomplish more, than he could with any other vice president or she could as senator from NY.

          (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

          by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She can introduce legislation as a Senator, I (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            doorguy

            don't see what more she could do as VP; as VP she would only get to actually cast her vote in the Senate if there was a tie.  The VP doesn't set the policy, the President does.

            As for how much she can accomplish, the more closely she is connected with a piece of legislation, the harder the GOP fights on it.  She is just that polarizing.  So it isn't clear to me that she can be effective at all as a President.  As a Senator, though, she attracts less national attention and can work behind the scenes to get things done.

            Honesty is still the best policy.

            by oscarsdad on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I think the Clinton era has ended (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, keenekarl

      Bill Clinton, who did many great things, is reduced to the role of clown nowadays, a barking dog in a cage whom a bunch of 9-year olds prod with sticks for amusement.

      Sen. Clinton clearly represents an old and plodding way of thinking, and an old and low standard of progress: not the best we can be but just better than the other guy. But she's still better than the other guy, and the Democratic Party---thanks in large part to dKos---is substantially better than the other guy's posse.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:07:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do not see Obama taking anyone but a white man (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, keenekarl, Psychotronicman

    as his Vice President.

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

    •  Sebelius, Napalitano . . . (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy, Elise, Philoguy, keenekarl, thetadelta

      If Obama wins the nomination he will be looking at how to pull together regional support.  Sebelius in particular makes a great play in the midwest.  

      The kind of voters who would not vote for someone solely based on gender are probably the same kind of voters who would not vote for a candidate based on race.

      •  Napalitano, maybe -- Sebelius, please NO! (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        Sebelius is DLC and too conservative and not to mention uninspiring.  Napalitano might work.

        Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

        by Valhalla on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure an O Hill ticket would (4+ / 0-)

        be a good match. I really think he needs to make the right choice without all the baggage that the Clintons bring. I don't think we realize how valuable the SC primary experience was. Painful as it was, it reminded folks about the things the didn't like about the Clintons. O can go much further faster without that burden. She would still be helpful as a well connected and influential Senator from NY. I agree working together would be good for them, but it would take sometime for her to get over not being the president and I believe that adjustment should not be happening in the White House. Same for O. If somehow he doesn't become the president, I would like to see him continue to represent my state, or be the govenor or the mayor.

    •  I am not so sure (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy, keenekarl, NotGeorgeWill

      On a personal level, I would like Obama to pick someone who is fiery -- like Clinton or Edwards.  But if not them, I would rather see him pick Barbara Boxer over a lot of other white men who've been mentioned.  Basically, I want Obama to pick someone who is willing to argue with him.  I don't want him to pick a "yes" man or woman.  Considering the magnificent Michelle's forthrightness, I think Obama is the kind of person who appreciates someone who will forcefully challenge him when need be.

      Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

      by Valhalla on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...because? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy, NotGeorgeWill

      Do you have a particular white man in mind, or a reason why he wouldn't pick a minority and/or a woman? All else being equal, there's statistically a fair chance that he will end up picking a white man, but I'm not seeing why Obama would discount all other possibilities.

    •  What about Gov Richardson? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy

      His resume' balances out Sen Obama's in theory at least.

      •  Yes, I think so. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy, Quicklund

        And working under my theory below, he would bring a number of positives to the ticket without in any way overshadowing the headliner.

        Though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. --Albert Camus

        by GreenMtnState on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:42:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Clelsea is only 27. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, landrew

    She's not constituionally eligable until she's 35.

  •  Here's why not. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, rhetoricus

    A vice-presidential pick should support the Presidential candidate, bring positives to the ticket, but never overshadow the Presidential pick.

    Though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. --Albert Camus

    by GreenMtnState on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM PDT

  •  Bad idea. (5+ / 0-)

    A.  She'd never do it.

    B.  We don't need a Clinton on the ticket.  Sadly, they have damaged their brand beyond all repair.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it is a good idea either way (4+ / 0-)

    Obama is a leader, not a follower.  
    Clinton is not an Obama follower.

    •  Let's pretend (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton is in it for the good of the country. Let's pretend she has a myopic view of "good of the country."

      With a pair of Obama glasses, or that new miracle Obama eye surgery, she might see more clearly.

      She could make a powerful vice president, and an Obama-Clinton 'team' could substantially restore American values, the security of American people and a sharp reduction in military conflict worldwide if they put their minds to it.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        Clinton is in it for the good of the country. Let's pretend she has a myopic view of "good of the country."

        Ok, let's pretend that. But let's also pretend she's got a fair-sized ego as well. In the Senate, the kind of back-room dealing that she specializes in can get you very far. By the time 2016 rolls around, I could easily see her in a leadership role, maybe even Majority/Minority Leader. At which point she can decide to run again, but will have spent those eight years in the interim doing something rather than being someone else's #2. Where do you think she is going to think she can do more good for the country?

      •  Depends on the definition of (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        "good of the country". How do we knoe the definition is not "An Iraq war supporting centrist like me or McCain is better for the country as opposed to a non-supporter like Obama?"

        "Just being the President is not a good way of thinking about it. You want to be a great president." - Barack Obama

        by politicaljunkie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

          and I wouldn't suggest putting Vice President Clinton in charge of defense. But she could kick ass with FEMA, health care, conservation and alternative energy strategies.

          (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

          by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:30:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I would be happy with that (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    I prefer Obama as prez than Hillary but I think I would be happy with either as prez.  I used to think it was far-fetched but if Reagan & Bush could partner, then so can Obama and Hillary.

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:56:26 PM PDT

  •  I just don't see it. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    I think it would be too bitter a loss for her to stomach the submission that accepting the VP spot entails. She doesn't want to be VP, she wants to be president.

    •  Sen. Clinton is one of the most proficient (0+ / 0-)

      adaptors in history. How long ago was it she was the health care industry's Stalin, and how long ago was it she was the wife of a salacious philanderer? She is extremely capable at playing her hand best.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton's negatives . . . (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, keenekarl

    she shores up Obama's support in the northeast but she'll have some negative effects in purple states in the midwest and mid-Atlantic.

    If Obama wins the nomination, I don't know who his pick will be, but I'd guess he's going to go for someone who can help put him over the top in a region that he might not win otherwise.  

    He'll probably be OK in the northeast without Clinton on the ticket.  

  •  Not for me. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, keenekarl

    As explained in my diary Here, I'd rather not have anything to do with Hillary if I can avoid it.  If Hillary wasn't a flawed candidate to so many voters, there is no way that an upstart freshmen senator with low name recognition and an unkown past could go head to head with her campaign for so long.  This primary season is providing us with all the reasons we need to not wish for a Clinton on the ticket in November.

  •  it's a dream ticket (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    and the Repubs would have to walk a thin line between effective smear and attack-that-goes-too-far-and-causes-a-backlash. Plus, I feel it would be needed to counteract a possible McCain/Huckbee ticket. That's right, Ornery Codger/Squirrel Boy aka Crazy War Monger/Crazier Theocrat.  A Obama/Clinton ticket would be attractive to people who like both candidates equally (like me). The idea needs to be explored throughly before it's dismissed out of hand.

    I'm at the junction of short, nerdy, and oddly attractive.

    by Pan Zareta on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM PDT

    •  That's what I thought (0+ / 0-)

      thanks

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:20:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But on the pragmatic side, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy

      a Pres and VP have to govern together (or at least simulate governing together).  In case we haven't noticed in the last 16 years, Presidents and Vice Presidents have become a LOT closer than they used to be, and VPs can have their own bases of power (as Cheney so, uh, aptly illustrates).  

      I don't see Obama and Clinton governing well together.  They're both ambitious and used to making the decisions.  And after this election, there will be NO love lost between them.  I cannot see either one deigning to remain in the other's shadow.

      Though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. --Albert Camus

      by GreenMtnState on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm viewing this election (0+ / 0-)

        through the same media I used since 2000. I've seen way less rancor in this race than practically any other faceoff I can remember.

        Relatively speaking, both candidates are conducting themselves in a mannerly way. Not the most mannerly way possible, and maybe not to a level you find acceptable, but way more mannerly than most contests I remember.

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you look at the history (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          doorguy

          of presidential politics, you will be shocked to find out early 19th century contests were WAY more vicious than they are now. Heck, I once read fistfights were very common as a form of "debate" in Congress.

          I'm at the junction of short, nerdy, and oddly attractive.

          by Pan Zareta on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:53:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the 19th and early 20th (0+ / 0-)

            centuries, Americans enjoyed hundreds more media perspectives than we do today---even small towns and counties had two or three newspapers, and many newspapers were operated by labor unions, political parties, religious groups and the like. And partisan newspapers had no trouble printing all sorts of salacious fiction about opponents.

            (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

            by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:35:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  ARGH (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, rhetoricus

    This ticket would be like "you can only have dessert after you eat five heaping plates full of brussels sprouts."

    Can't I have my Obama without effing it up by adding Hillary Clinton?  Talk about a drag on the ticket.  Why not have Obama add Joe Lieberman?

    If you want to draw in people who were really excited about seeing a woman on the ticket and may be put off by "yet another man" at the top - what about any of the very qualified governors on congresspeople who would not have Clinton's negatives, would not have pissed on the collective wheaties of the rest of the Democratic party, and would be pure benefit.  

    But please - no Hillary Clinton.  There's a reason most Kossacks aren't supporting her even if Edwards, Dodd, Gore, Warner, or someone else were really their first choices.

    -Fred

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM PDT

    •  And dessert is full of vitamins and (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      NotGeorgeWill

      valuable nutrients, not that teeth-rotting crap you've been fed for the past 30 years.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair point about the nutritional requirement . . (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        although I'm not sure I would declare Clinton's presence a valuable nutrient until after she's released her joint tax filing for this past year; the presidential records related to health care reform; and the Clinton library donors list.  

        Most Democrats may not care one way or another, but I would want to make sure that the empty carbs are vetted before the general election when potential swing voters are likely to care a great deal about potential conflict of interest issues.

  •  for months (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    i thought obama-clinton wasn't a good idea.
    but after super tuesday, i decided it is the best way to go.

    too many ppl, especially older women, are emotionally invested in clinton's candidacy.  (same can be said of obama's candidacy with regard to blacks and young voters.)

    this race has gone on for so long with a split party.  i think very many ppl will felt let down when the other person wins.  the safest solution is for both to be on the ticket.

  •  My biggest issue is whether Hillary is on the (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, Elise, Quicklund

    ticket or not.

    If she is on the ticket, some people would walk a mile on broken glass to get a chance to vote against her.

    If she isn't on the ticket, the GOP will remain demoralized about voting in this election at all.

    I look forward to Senator Clinton practicing her wonkish tendencies in the Senate.  I don't see that she could do more good as President than she already is as a Senator.  She hasn't helped set the direction of the country as a Senator, and I don't think she would do so as President.

    Honesty is still the best policy.

    by oscarsdad on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

  •  Setting the table for 2016 (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, politicaljunkie, Elise

    The Democratic Party will want a younger VP to set up a strong contender for the 2016 race.  Sen Clinton would be what, 69 or 70 then? I'm fairly certain the party will prefer to groom someone younger.

    Also the Party will probably not want to take 2 Senators off Capitol Hill.

  •  no (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    first of all, I have no doubt that she'd flatly refuse such an offer.  She's 60 years old.  By the end of a two term Obama presidency.  She'd be 69.  Would she want to run at that age?  Quite possibly not.  Secondly, it's a bad mix.  It would bring out the repugs in droves even if she's not on top of the ticket.  And as someone up thread pointed out, you can't have two superstars on the same ticket.

    two cheers for democracy

    by ClaryinVT on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:35:51 PM PDT

  •  once you realize Obama doesn't need Clinton (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, doorguy, Elise

    you can begin to visualize a beautiful, Clinton free November election.

    I don't think Obama should cave to any pressure to accept Clinton as a running mate.

    Gave it some thought for  a while.

    But now I see she would at best, only be dead weight for his presidency.

    I remember you well at the Chelsea motel you were famous, your heart was a legend

    by gregoryjames on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:41:31 PM PDT

    •  I doubt there's any pressure (0+ / 0-)

      from anywhere to choose Sen. Clinton as vice presidential candidate. Hard to imagine how there could be.

      But as to her worth, not long ago Sen. Clinton was the presumed nominee. Certainly the 'presumers' were talking out of the same collective ass, but they'll be right back at it if Clinton doesn't lose badly in March.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vice-President Wesley Clark (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy, Elise, rhetoricus

    Yeah, he endorsed Hillary, but if Obama is the nominee he should pick Gen. Clark for many reasons...

    1. Obama already has some crossover appeal in red states and the addition of Gen. Clark, a military man from the south, could help put some more of them in play.
    1. The introduction of Gen. Clark to the campaign might remind Americans of Kosovo and how badly McCain wanted Pres. Clinton to send in ground troops. For all his supposed foreign policy experience McCain sure has some bad judgment. How many troops would he have sacrificed to a war that Gen. Clark was able to win with ZERO US lives lost?
    1. Reaching out to the losing wing of the party would help unite the party after a long, bitter fight.
    1. "General Clark and I" has a nice ring to it.
    •  Clark already endorsed Hillary (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy

      otherwise he'd be a pretty good choice.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she's not the nominee, (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doorguy

        what good does his continued endorsement of Hillary do for him or the nation?

        How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

        by rhetoricus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:57:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not thinking of endorsement (0+ / 0-)

          or even election. I think the election's ours to lose whether Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton occupy the top of the ticket, my preference is Barack by a length and a half.

          I'm thinking presidential administration, and the massive global repair job we have ahead of us.

          (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

          by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Seconded a thousand times. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      doorguy, Elise

      He'll neutralize McCain's "national security" and "foreign policy" advantage, plus he's extremely smart, moderate where the independents like it, and progressive where we need him to be. Plus, he's kind of hot. :)

      How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

      by rhetoricus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:56:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does McCain have a national security (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        rhetoricus

        or foreign policy advantage over either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton? Does anyone in America think we need to consider staying in Iraq for a hundred years maybe a thousand?

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not with thinking people. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          doorguy

          Unfortunately, we have a lot of the other kind.

          How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

          by rhetoricus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  excellent diary! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    you did a fantastic job of summing up the US political scene in the past years. i agree it's been horrific, and hope this really is the denoument.

    But, i think putting Clinton on the ticket would be a disaster. she is so polarizing, for Dems and ReThugs. and it would kill Obama's "fresh start."

    we should work to defeat any candidate who steals the Democratic nomination.

    by catchaz on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:55:35 PM PDT

    •  I really think this election (0+ / 0-)

      is ours to lose, whether Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is the candidate (I prefer Obama). If I'm right we need to think about governing. I think Sen. Clinton could be a masterful vice president, especially in the aftermath of the current cabal.

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:13:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They have completely opposing philosophies (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    doorguy

    about how to run the country. Obama is about change, Hillary is about the status quo. She can't run with him...they don't fit together.

    •  I think change and less change (0+ / 0-)

      is more accurate than change vs no change, but you're right, Obama looks to see how we can be the best, Hillary looks to see how we can be better, and there is a huge difference (as Sen. Clinton is learning quickly).

      (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

      by doorguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 91 comments