Of a Clinton/Obama ticket is for the Democratic party?

I think it's interesting, that even 20 years ago the idea of a woman and a black man running on the same ticket and as front-runners was nearly out of the question. What do you think has changed in the last 20 years to allow this as a very real possibility?

I think Hillary would be better off having someone like Bill Richardson on the ticket. Obama and Hillary are both from Chi town .The ticket should be spit regionally .

There's also the point that Obama is very far to the left of the position that Hillary is trying to straddle. Hillary's strength is that she is able to court the moderates, which is what could win her the general election. She would lose that ability with Obama as a running-mate, because he's too far to the left. She'd no longer be able to claim that she's a moderate if she's choosing a far-left running mate.

Tom's right, she'd be better off with Bill Richardson or someone like him as a running-mate.

There's also the point that Obama is very far to the left of the position that Hillary is trying to straddle. Hillary's strength is that she is able to court the moderates, which is what could win her the general election. She would lose that ability with Obama as a running-mate, because he's too far to the left. She'd no longer be able to claim that she's a moderate if she's choosing a far-left running mate.

Tom's right, she'd be better off with Bill Richardson or someone like him as a running-mate.

I would actually agree with you here. They are hurting themselves trying to show how different they are from each other. However, I would disagree with Tom about the region issue of the two candidates. I believe that Obama, if he can motivate the black voters, will certainly have a strong showing in the South.

Hello John:

I'm not thrilled with her, but I think Hillary is going to be the next president. Especially with bathroomgate hanging around. Hee, hee. Yes, I'm gleeful when hypocrites get their comeuppance.

But, back to Hillary. She's basically a moderate Republican. I don't know if it'll hurt her to have Obama on the ticket. He brings a lot of votes - perhaps MORE than the conservative ones she'd lose if she chose him. I think it would.

What could bring us to a time when this could happen? I think it's a little late, frankly. The civil rights act and the women's movement happened damn near 50 years ago. It's about time we see the effect.

excon

PS> Ron Paul for pres.

Possibly true. However, in the 20th Century, it was rare for a ticket without a North/South dual representation to win the Presidency. It might happen, but its very rare.

A better argument is that Clinton has the Arkansas connection too, so she has a Southern connection there along with the NY northerner connection. In that sense, she may break the rules of Presidential-ticket-geography. That's where I think Tom may be wrong.

Either way, I don't see a Clinton/Obama ticket in the future.

Elliot

I'm all for a Clinton-Obama ticket. There are all sorts of pluses, not the least is the white woman-black man combo--both strong, smart, and able to balance what the other lacks. Clinton's husband is articulate and charismatic, as is Obama's wife. Both of those spouses would be wonderful additions to the WH, especially in contrast to the Stepford wife who's there now. It would be fun to watch Obama's two cute little girls grow up in the WH and perhaps see more of Chelsea as she fine-tunes a career and marriage.

Clinton and Obama have worked well together in the past. I believe they could work well together in the future.

I'm all for a Clinton-Obama ticket. There are all sorts of pluses, not the least is the white woman-black man combo--both strong, smart, and able to balance what the other lacks. Clinton's husband is articulate and charismatic, as is Obama's wife. Both of those spouses would be wonderful additions to the WH, especially in contrast to the Stepford wife who's there now. It would be fun to watch Obama's two cute little girls grow up in the WH and perhaps see more of Chelsea as she fine-tunes a career and marriage.

Clinton and Obama have worked well together in the past. I believe they could work well together in the future.

Bill may indeed be a rather important factor when it comes to attracting voters. Despite the personal issues with his presidency, he was an immensely popular president.

Either way, I don't see a Clinton/Obama ticket in the future.

Elliot

Why is that, specifically?

I must say, at one point during the last election, I thought Dean had a real chance. Oh, how wrong I was!

Just as a side note... Norman Hsu is on the lam again. The Clintoons really know how to pick them .

I mentioned Richardson for many more reasons than the regional argument which in itself has a lot of merit. He is also Hispanic and both parties are competing to recruit them into their constituency. Also from my own perspective Richardson is by far the most qualified Democrat in the field. No one comes even close[ expect perhaps Joe Biden and I think I made it clear what I think of Senators].

Richardson is a former Congressman ;a former diplomat ,including the United States Ambassador to the United Nations ,a former head of the Dept of Energy and a Governor.

Despite the current rhetoric he uses now to appeal to the Moveon Democrats his record is one of a moderate . I do not agree with many of his positions but I'd sleep better at night if he was President over Evita .

Hillary will get the nomination however and she will select a VP from a swing State . My money is on Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland or former Va. Governor Mark Warner . Also Evan Bayh of Indiana has an outside chance as well as Conn. Senator Chris Dodd.

If Obama somehow wins the nomination I would expect he would try to bring John Edwards onto the ticket.

Why is that, specifically?

Because Hillary and Obama are oil and water, politically speaking. Hillary is trying to pose as a moderate, and Obama is a left-winger. Their positions are incompatible. Hillary can't triangulate to the center if she has a left-leaning running-mate, and Obama can't lean left if he is seen as "selling out" to the Clintonoid moderates.

Furthermore, both of them have big egos, and both of them want to be the center of attention. Obama won't play second fiddle to Hillary, and Hillary won't tolerate a running-mate who might take some of her limelight.

Elliot

Because Hillary and Obama are oil and water, politically speaking. Hillary is trying to pose as a moderate, and Obama is a left-winger. Their positions are incompatible. Hillary can't triangulate to the center if she has a left-leaning running-mate, and Obama can't lean left if he is seen as "selling out" to the Clintonoid moderates.

Furthermore, both of them have big egos, and both of them want to be the center of attention. Obama won't play second fiddle to Hillary, and Hillary won't tolerate a running-mate who might take some of her limelight.

Elliot

Yes, but I think, as we've seen in the past, whenever running-mates are finally chosen both candidates tend to modify their previous positions. So, I'm not so sure it cannot happen. I also feel that, as a whole, both moderate and left-wing democrats generally like Obama. I believe that I read somewhere that Fidel Castro, for whatever his opinion is worth, thought their ticket would be unstoppable.

I believe that I read somewhere that Fidel Castro, for whatever his opinion is worth, thought their ticket would be unstoppable.

Bwahahahah. Sorry, I couldn't keep the laughter in.

Yeah, like Castro knows a lot about running a fair, open democratic election.

Bwahahahah. Sorry, I couldn't keep the laughter in.

Yeah, like Castro knows a lot about running a fair, open democratic election.

Yes, that was more of an interesting tidbit that I stuck in there.

I don't see a Clinton-Obama ticket. My antenae have picked up on what's blowing in the wind the last couple of days.

I'm thinking that since Obama is getting enough financial support and has a new team of foreign policy experts on board combined with his charisma... I'm seeing an Obama for President and an experienced white man running for Vice President... Joe Biden,? Obama for President is going to gain huge momentum in the coming year despite the Republican Noise and Slime Machine attacks.

Republicans continue to be soiled by Bush and the antics of other Republicans. The mood is that people are sick of hypocritical politicians. Another plus for a charismatic visionary.

Hillary will put up a valliant fight for the nomination. She has a good chance, too. It would be Hillary and a moderate white man if she gets the nomination.

I'm for Joe Biden to date...

I think very viable:

Clinton has the machine, drive, and her husband's expertise as to how to get and maintain power. She is a realist and adaptable.

Obama, has the name recognition, has proven he can raise money, and has charisma that Clinton lacks. His lack of experience is a minus, but others may see that as a plus because he is not perceived as a Washington insider.





Grace and Peace

Wondergirl, not only do I know about Hillary, I have actually spoken to people who worked for her and her husband. Put simply, she's got a Napoleon complex. She cusses like a sailor. She berates anyone lower than her, especially her secret service staff (who may one day have to make the choice of whether to take a bullet for her). She is not a nice person, and she has an ego the size of Texas. She's also a phoney... just check out her put-on southern accent. She and Barack Obama are oil and water. They will never be able to work together for more than five minutes without their egos getting in the way of each other. Ain't going to happen.

I think that a Rudy/Huckabee ticket might be interesting, going up against Hillary. Rudy would take NY away from Hillary, and Huckabee would possibly (probably) take Arkansas away from her. From a purely geographic perspective, it would be interesting to see. And I've been impressed with what Huckabee has to say on the issues.

Elliot

I think that a Rudy/Huckabee ticket might be interesting, going up against Hillary. Rudy would take NY away from Hillary, and Huckabee would possibly (probably) take Arkansas away from her. From a purely geographic perspective, it would be interesting to see. And I've been impressed with what Huckabee has to say on the issues.

Elliot


I think you may be right, with regard to Rudy probably carrying NY, but I think that's where it would stop. I honestly don't believe he has much of a following outside his constituency. He does have name recognition, I'll give you that, but I don't believe he can pose a real threat to the Democrats, if it comes down to that.

In all honesty though, I must admit that my knowledge of many of the Republican candidates is rather weak, since I wouldn't vote for one in a million years. However, that is only due to wedge issues.


agrees: Elliot-I'm on my out the door for work. Just wanted to mention that I saw in the news yesterday that Fred Thompson made his bid for the White House official.

While interesting, I don't think he will have any real influence during the elections.

All I know is that the Clinton culture is beginning to become manifest again and she has not even secured the nomination yet.

3 examples.

The Democrat candidates would love to take her on but they are afraid of the 1000 lb. gorilla in the room . They know in the unlikely event that they win the nomination that they will need the Clinton machine to win the general election . So they dare not take swipes at her. Instead both Obama and Edwards have sent their wives out to do the dirty work.

We have already posted on the illegal fundraising being done for Hillary and it's possible link to foreign money. Norman Hsu tried to become a fugitive but he became ill in flight on the California Zephyr and was taken to a hospital in Colorado . He skipped town even though that meant forfeiture of a $2million bond that someone posted on his behalf.

Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she her house was burglarized over the weekend .Her purse was stolen as well as a manuscript for her upcoming book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton”, which promises revelations that could damage Evita's campaign.

The Democrat candidates would love to take her on but they are afraid of the 1000 lb. gorilla in the room . They know in the unlikely event that they win the nomination that they will need the Clinton machine to win the general election . So they dare not take swipes at her. Instead both Obama and Edwards have sent their wives out to do the dirty work.

We have already posted on the illegal fundraising being done for Hillary and it's possible link to foreign money. Norman Hsu tried to become a fugitive but he became ill in flight on the California Zephyr and was taken to a hospital in Colorado . He skipped town even though that meant forfeiture of a $2million bond that someone posted on his behalf.

Not that important, but I believe Hsu became sick on an Amtrak train. I believe Obama and Clinton have given the money back that they received through him.


Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she her house was burglarized over the weekend .Her purse was stolen as well as a manuscript for her upcoming book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton”, which promises revelations that could damage Evita's campaign.

Ehh, I don't see that having much influence on the election. Bill's reputation has already been damaged in that category, so it's an easy stab. Because of this, I don't think it will be taken very seriously. I also have my doubts that the Clinton campaign would be stupid enough to do something as obvious as breaking into her house.

John ;In flight was in the context of being a fugitive . I am aware the Zephyr is an Amtrack route.

The fundraising fits a pattern that went back to the 2nd Bill Clinton camaign and was repeated in the 1st Hillary for Senate run. She is still under investigation for that .

The Willey book is only relevant in that it congers up the worst images of the Clinton legacy . I'm sure the Clinton machine is already working overtime to discredit this former devoted Clinton follower.

John ;In flight was in the context of being a fugitive . I am aware the Zephyr is an Amtrack route.

Ahh, I see that now. What happens when I read through things too fast.


The fundraising fits a pattern that went back to the 2nd Bill Clinton camaign and was repeated in the 1st Hillary for Senate run. She is still under investigation for that .

Fair enough. I could see how that would at least tarnish her reputation, even though it's hard to believe it will amount to any charges being brought against her.


The Willey book is only relevent in that it congers up the worst images of the Clinton legacy . I'm sure the Clinton machine is already working overtime to discredit this former devoted Clinton follower.

Okay, but I will have to claim ignorance with regard to this person. Does she have credibility?

John, I got to disagree with you. Rudy and Hillary are consistently neck and neck in the polls, with Rudy winning more often than Hillary. He would carry NY, NJ, CT, at the very least in the Northeast, and he would carry most of Middle American and much of the South, which tend to vote Republican/Conservative. He would probably lose CA, but then again, ANY Republican would likely lose CA. FL is Rudy Country, since many Floridians are NY transplants. OH, which tends to be an indicator of the USA as a whole because the demographics match those of the country as a whole, seems to be behind Rudy in most polls. Rudy has an excellent chance.

As far as Fred Thompson is concerned, I happen to be a little pissed at him over how long he waited to officially announce, and the fact that he avoided the Republican debate. I would have liked to see him participate in the debate and put out some really good sound-bytes that the press could chomp on. But the fact is that he is second in Republican polls, led only by Rudy. He's fourth overall, after Hillary, Rudy and Obama. And that was before he even officially announced that he's running. To say that he won't be a factor in the race is to ignore the fact that he's ALREADY a factor.

Elliot

John, I gotta disagree with you. Rudy and Hillary are consistantly neck and neck in the polls, with Rudy winning more often than Hillary. He would carry NY, NJ, CT, at the very least in the Northeast, and he would carry most of Middle American and much of the South, which tend to vote Republican/Conservative. He would probably lose CA, but then again, ANY Republican would likely lose CA. FL is Rudy Country, since many Floridians are NY transplants. OH, which tends to be an indicator of the USA as a whole because the demographics match those of the country as a whole, seems to be behind Rudy in most polls. Rudy has an excellent chance.

As far as Fred Thompson is concerned, I happen to be a little pissed at him over how long he waited to officially announce, and the fact that he avoided the Republican debate. I would have liked to see him participate in the debate and put out some really good sound-bytes that the press could chomp on. But the fact is that he is second in Republican polls, led only by Rudy. He's fourth overall, after Hillary, Rudy and Obama. And that was before he even officially announced that he's running. To say that he won't be a factor in the race is to ignore the fact that he's ALREADY a factor.

Elliot

I feel that the Northeast will vote Democrat, regardless of his current poll popularity. The Northeast voted for the Democrats in the 2004 election, and the 2006 congressional elections. I think it will do the same in 2008, regardless of his moderate position. For the most part, due to his stance in issues that polarize voters.

I'll concede to you on Fred Thomspon, but I think this is a momentary popularity. But, we'll have to wait few months to see who is correct.

Re Kathleen Willey
Does she have credibility?

This is what I know. She was working as a volunteer for the Clinton White House . She claims that in 1993 Clinton cornered her in a private study next to the Oval Office ;kissed and groped her and grabbed her hand placing it on his crotch . She disclosed this publicly in a 60 minutes interview. She also testified during the Paula Jones trial .

Linda Tripp(who was herself smeared by the Clintons) has countered that Willey was flirtatious and that she encouraged the President's attentions. But ; let's say that Tripp's account is the more accurate one. All that changes is that the President in this case was not a predator .He was just on the make while on the job. Also this story also fits a pattern involving various women and Bill Clinton.

In one case ; Juanita Broaddrick (aka Jane Doe #5 in the Paula Jones trial ) ,claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978 . During the Jones trial she had filed an affidavit saying the assault charge by Clinton was untrue . But she later publicly said she only filed it because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life." As I understand it ,that is consistent with the reluctance of other rape victims to go to court or file charges. She testified to the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment days and David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee found her story credible.

In one case ; Juanita Broaddrick (aka Jane Doe #5 in the Paula Jones trial ) ,claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978 . During the Jones trial she had filed an affidavit saying the assault charge by Clinton was untrue . But she later publically said she only filed it because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life." As I understand it ,that is consistent with the reluctance of other rape victims to go to court or file charges. She testified to the House Judiciary Commitee during the Clinton impeachment days and David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee found her story credible.

Ahh, well, regardless of the validity of her first statement, she has shot herself in the foot. Her going back and forth is not going to add credibility to her story. Perhaps it's true, but it doesn't seem to fit Bill's personality, nor does it appear that he needs to rape woman in order to get them into bed.

The problem with all this is that it's old news. No one cares about Bill's infidelities, and unless someone can come forward who hasn't already tarnished their reputation and believability, all this will remain in the realm of conjecture. Which really isn't going to hurt Bill or the Clinton campaign at this juncture anyway.

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html

Wow, that is the most blatant example of propaganda, masked as a background profile article of a candidate, I have ever read in a major publication.

Lol

How could you not vote for someone dedicated to cerebral policy debates.... a sponge for all the angst and argument engulfing her generation ?The future champion of the “large gray mass”.

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html
Great article Tom, just makes me want to run out and vote for Hillary.:)

From a Salon.com Editor's Choice letter:

"The political reality remains that too many Iowa Democrats and independents can't get past Hillary Clinton's obvious lifelong desire for power, and her exquisitely hedged positions on just about everything important. Edwards, now that he is being scrutinized more closely, looks a lot more like an opportunist with a great smile than a President.

But, Barack Obama is still firmly planted where he's always been, preaching the gospel of redemption and hope, spinning a seductive tale of change, and carefully planning for the greatest political upset since JFK. The golden opportunity for generational change in our political leadership that Obama represents, and his promise to restore our pride in American leadership will carry him through to the Presidency. And Iowa will be the beginning."

From a Salon.com Editor's Choice letter:

"The political reality remains that too many Iowa Democrats and independents can't get past Hillary Clinton's obvious lifelong desire for power, and her exquisitely hedged positions on just about everything important. Edwards, now that he is being scrutinized more closely, looks a lot more like an opportunist with a great smile than a President.

But, Barack Obama is still firmly planted where he's always been, preaching the gospel of redemption and hope, spinning a seductive tale of change, and carefully planning for the greatest political upset since JFK. The golden opportunity for generational change in our political leadership that Obama represents, and his promise to restore our pride in American leadership will carry him through to the Presidency. And Iowa will be the beginning."

As much as I like Obama, I simply don't believe he will get the nomination. If he wants to be included in the race for president, I think he will have to be relegated to the VP position.

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/choux.html)Choux (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/choux.html) agrees: Reduced to common gossip, Elliot?? BWAHAHAHA A leader has to be tough. :D
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/choux.html)

I don't disagree with that point, Chou. I was just defending myself against the accusation that "I don't know anything about Hillary or Obama", and stating the reasons that I believe that Hillary and Obama can't get along together. Gossip, yes. But that is a valid basis for character assessment, isn't it?

Snoozeweek has already anointed Evita the nominee .

How Does Hillary Clinton Make Decisions? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20649206/site/newsweek/)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070910/capt.008ff71aac33428eb83f84865f99c5eb.democrats_sp anish_debate_flml128.jpg
They deserve each other .