Clinton/Obama -- An Unbeatable Ticket?

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
This may irk some, but I maintain that it would be true.

No disrespect intended to the Obama for president supporters. This is purely hypothetical. But if the primary season ends as it stands now with Clinton winning and Obama in second .. I wonder how powerful a ticket it would be if Clinton chose Obama as her running mate.

Personally, I don't think any combination of republicans could beat them .. or even come close. I believe it would set records for numbers of voters and campaign fundrasing .. for the democrats. Obama has already raised 58 million and Clinton another 50 million in just two quarters. Obama has 260,000 donors, 100,000 of them from the internet. Hillary has Bill, the most popular figure in the Democratic Party.

They would get 98% of an energized African-American vote, the majority of an energized women vote, the majority of an energized hispanic vote, and all of the antiwar vote. They might split the white male vote.

Obama would negate some of the anti-Hillary vote as even voters like me who has reservations about Hillary because of her war votes, couldn't pass up an opportunity to vote for a ticket like that.

Guiliani -- Romney -- Thompson, no mater what combination or order you come up with, they lose big time.

That would go a long way in restoring America's global respect and dignity. Especially with Bill up front as a statesman. Irrespective of the Bill haters, Bill Clinton still commands more global respect today than Bush or his daddy ever did. .. Especially boy George.

Clinton's "realism" and experience and Obama's "idealism" and charisma. The first woman President and the first African-American Vice President. If they do good work, it could lock up the White House for the next 16 years.

Republicans would lose their minds.

My first choice would be Kucinich, but at some point realty has to set in. Kucinich is not going to be the nominee. Nor is anyone else other than Clinton or Obama. If Clinton and anyother prowar democrat and I'll vote Green. While Clinton and Obama is not perfect, perfection is not what you get in politics.

It may yet be that Obama wins the primary, but I don't think Clinton would accept the VP role under Obama, but I do think Obama would under Clinton.

Unbeatable?
 
blackascoal said:
This may irk some, but I maintain that it would be true.

No disrespect intended to the Obama for president supporters. This is purely hypothetical. But if the primary season ends as it stands now with Clinton winning and Obama in second .. I wonder how powerful a ticket it would be if Clinton chose Obama as her running mate.

Personally, I don't think any combination of republicans could beat them .. or even come close. I believe it would set records for numbers of voters and campaign fundrasing .. for the democrats. Obama has already raised 58 million and Clinton another 50 million in just two quarters. Obama has 260,000 donors, 100,000 of them from the internet. Hillary has Bill, the most popular figure in the Democratic Party.

They would get 98% of an energized African-American vote, the majority of an energized women vote, the majority of an energized hispanic vote, and all of the antiwar vote. They might split the white male vote.

Obama would negate some of the anti-Hillary vote as even voters like me who has reservations about Hillary because of her war votes, couldn't pass up an opportunity to vote for a ticket like that.

Guiliani -- Romney -- Thompson, no mater what combination or order you come up with, they lose big time.

That would go a long way in restoring America's global respect and dignity. Especially with Bill up front as a statesman. Irrespective of the Bill haters, Bill Clinton still commands more global respect today than Bush or his daddy ever did. .. Especially boy George.

Clinton's "realism" and experience and Obama's "idealism" and charisma. The first woman President and the first African-American Vice President. If they do good work, it could lock up the White House for the next 16 years.

Republicans would lose their minds.

My first choice would be Kucinich, but at some point realty has to set in. Kucinich is not going to be the nominee. Nor is anyone else other than Clinton or Obama. If Clinton and anyother prowar democrat and I'll vote Green. While Clinton and Obama is not perfect, perfection is not what you get in politics.

It may yet be that Obama wins the primary, but I don't think Clinton would accept the VP role under Obama, but I do think Obama would under Clinton.

Unbeatable?
Click to expand...

Hi Bac. Well, I'd vote for that ticket in the general election. But, I have my doubts that Hillary would choose Obama as her VP, because that puts two "firsts" on the ticket. I don't think the dems are going to do that. I have, for a couple of years now, believed that it is a Gore/Obama ticket that is not beatable. Of course, that is all dependent on Gore running, and then beating Hillary in the primary.

I agree that Clinton wouldn't accept the VP slot if Obama wins. But I also think he wouldn't offer it to her, for the same reason I don't think she's going to offer it to him.
 
Darla said:
Hi Bac. Well, I'd vote for that ticket in the general election. But, I have my doubts that Hillary would choose Obama as her VP, because that puts two "firsts" on the ticket. I don't think the dems are going to do that. I have, for a couple of years now, believed that it is a Gore/Obama ticket that is not beatable. Of course, that is all dependent on Gore running, and then beating Hillary in the primary.

I agree that Clinton wouldn't accept the VP slot if Obama wins. But I also think he wouldn't offer it to her, for the same reason I don't think she's going to offer it to him.
Click to expand...

Gore is not going to run and he said so in no uncertain terms recently. I think he's found his niche as a statesman/spokesman for causes he believes in. The success of the global Planet Earth concert may have soldified that. He knows there are a lot of people still pissed at him for 2000.

I do believe that Clinton might indeed offer the VP slot to Obama. She wants to win and there are a hell of a lot of people like you and I who probably wouldn't vote for her without Obama and it's an opportunity to do something historic twice. I've noticed that they haven't been doing much sniping at each other during the campaign .. and then there is this ....

Obama Echoes Clinton on Iraq War, to a Different End
July 11, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001857_pf.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has long said she will not apologize for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq because there are no "do-overs" in life.

Now she and her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, agree on that truism.

"When I opposed this war before it began in 2002, I was about to run for the United States Senate, and I knew it wasn't the politically popular position," Obama said during a town hall meeting in Des Moines on Tuesday.

"But I believed then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama said.

Obama spoke at the Des Moines Area Community College, a few blocks from where Clinton delivered her own speech on Iraq. The two Democrats have been in a cat-and-mouse chase for more than a week, with both campaigning in Iowa over the Fourth of July holiday and rolling out their plans on Iraq for the Senate to consider this week.

Clinton, in her address at the Temple for Performing Arts, repeated her commitment to ending the U.S. involvement in the war if she is elected president. "It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today," she said.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever," Clinton said.

With support for the war continuing to crumble across the political spectrum, Senate Democrats, and in particular the four running for president, are making a renewed push to take control of war policy away from President Bush in the form of amendments attached to the Defense Department's spending authorization bill up for debate this week. Clinton would repeal the congressional authorization for the war. Obama would increase oversight of military contractors and provide more funding for mental health services for veterans.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who is supporting Obama, noted his colleague's advantage in being a consistent war critic, as Durbin has himself been, having opposed the war from its start. He drew an implicit contrast with both Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), who supported the 2002 resolution on the use of force.

Durbin singled out Edwards for helping to fuel antiwar expectations for congressional action. Edwards has chastised his fellow Democratic candidates who are serving in the Senate for not pushing hard enough to end the war.

"I recall when John voted for this war. So it's understandable that he feels badly about that decision and wants to see something done to undo the harm that has happened," Durbin said during an appearance on washingtonpost.com's "Post Talk." "But it has to be done in a sensible way."
***

I think the door is open .. which is not to imply that Obama won't do everything he can to win the nomination.
 
I agree with Hillary and Obama, and she'll do anything it takes.
I also agree that Gore is not a 1. LOFL
 
blackascoal said:
Gore is not going to run and he said so in no uncertain terms recently. I think he's found his niche as a statesman/spokesman for causes he believes in. The success of the global Planet Earth concert may have soldified that. He knows there are a lot of people still pissed at him for 2000.

I do believe that Clinton might indeed offer the VP slot to Obama. She wants to win and there are a hell of a lot of people like you and I who probably wouldn't vote for her without Obama and it's an opportunity to do something historic twice. I've noticed that they haven't been doing much sniping at each other during the campaign .. and then there is this ....

Obama Echoes Clinton on Iraq War, to a Different End
July 11, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001857_pf.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has long said she will not apologize for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq because there are no "do-overs" in life.

Now she and her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, agree on that truism.

"When I opposed this war before it began in 2002, I was about to run for the United States Senate, and I knew it wasn't the politically popular position," Obama said during a town hall meeting in Des Moines on Tuesday.

"But I believed then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama said.

Obama spoke at the Des Moines Area Community College, a few blocks from where Clinton delivered her own speech on Iraq. The two Democrats have been in a cat-and-mouse chase for more than a week, with both campaigning in Iowa over the Fourth of July holiday and rolling out their plans on Iraq for the Senate to consider this week.

Clinton, in her address at the Temple for Performing Arts, repeated her commitment to ending the U.S. involvement in the war if she is elected president. "It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today," she said.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever," Clinton said.

With support for the war continuing to crumble across the political spectrum, Senate Democrats, and in particular the four running for president, are making a renewed push to take control of war policy away from President Bush in the form of amendments attached to the Defense Department's spending authorization bill up for debate this week. Clinton would repeal the congressional authorization for the war. Obama would increase oversight of military contractors and provide more funding for mental health services for veterans.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who is supporting Obama, noted his colleague's advantage in being a consistent war critic, as Durbin has himself been, having opposed the war from its start. He drew an implicit contrast with both Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), who supported the 2002 resolution on the use of force.

Durbin singled out Edwards for helping to fuel antiwar expectations for congressional action. Edwards has chastised his fellow Democratic candidates who are serving in the Senate for not pushing hard enough to end the war.

"I recall when John voted for this war. So it's understandable that he feels badly about that decision and wants to see something done to undo the harm that has happened," Durbin said during an appearance on washingtonpost.com's "Post Talk." "But it has to be done in a sensible way."
***

I think the door is open .. which is not to imply that Obama won't do everything he can to win the nomination.
Click to expand...


Well, we will see. I still have my heart set on Gore, would vote for Edwards in the primary if the choices stay as is, but, in the general, would vote for Hillary/Obama. The most important thing to me, at the end of the day, is keeping us from having another four years of this kind of lunacy. And that means keeping Rudy or any of those other "bomb them torture them" maniacs out of office.
 
Duhla, you said dems wouldn't do 2 1's with Obama and Hillary
thus Gore is not a 1, Obviously Obama is.
Bad joke I guess, Are you getting old?
 
Topspin said:
Duhla, you said dems wouldn't do 2 1's with Obama and Hillary
thus Gore is not a 1, Obviously Obama is.
Bad joke I guess, Are you getting old?
Click to expand...

Oh. Are you so lazy that you can't write out "first"? No, I didn't get it, I'm sure it's me.

I ain't getting younger, are you?
 
Darla said:
Well, we will see. I still have my heart set on Gore, would vote for Edwards in the primary if the choices stay as is, but, in the general, would vote for Hillary/Obama. The most important thing to me, at the end of the day, is keeping us from having another four years of this kind of lunacy. And that means keeping Rudy or any of those other "bomb them torture them" maniacs out of office.
Click to expand...

Exactly .. again.

I'm not a democrat, but under a democratic congress an increase in the minimum wage got passed and more affordable access to colleges and universities has been approved .. neither of which would have happened under republicans. There would already be timelines for US troop withdrawal from Iraq had it not been for republican obstruction. With republicans in the White House, Lieberman will lead them into attacking Iran and the republicans will call that "bi-partisan" support. America would continue to be disgraced, isolated, and hated all over the world and our sons and daughters will keep dying for profit.

At the end of the day, that's the choice we will have to make.
 
blackascoal said:
Exactly .. again.

I'm not a democrat, but under a democratic congress an increase in the minimum wage got passed and more affordable access to colleges and universities has been approved .. neither of which would have happened under republicans. There would already be timelines for US troop withdrawal from Iraq had it not been for republican obstruction. With republicans in the White House, Lieberman will lead them into attacking Iran and the republicans will call that "bi-partisan" support. America would continue to be disgraced, isolated, and hated all over the world and our sons and daughters will keep dying for profit.

At the end of the day, that's the choice we will have to make.
Click to expand...

Well said...I agree.
 
blackascoal said:
This may irk some, but I maintain that it would be true.

No disrespect intended to the Obama for president supporters. This is purely hypothetical. But if the primary season ends as it stands now with Clinton winning and Obama in second .. I wonder how powerful a ticket it would be if Clinton chose Obama as her running mate.

Personally, I don't think any combination of republicans could beat them .. or even come close. I believe it would set records for numbers of voters and campaign fundrasing .. for the democrats. Obama has already raised 58 million and Clinton another 50 million in just two quarters. Obama has 260,000 donors, 100,000 of them from the internet. Hillary has Bill, the most popular figure in the Democratic Party.

They would get 98% of an energized African-American vote, the majority of an energized women vote, the majority of an energized hispanic vote, and all of the antiwar vote. They might split the white male vote.

Obama would negate some of the anti-Hillary vote as even voters like me who has reservations about Hillary because of her war votes, couldn't pass up an opportunity to vote for a ticket like that.

Guiliani -- Romney -- Thompson, no mater what combination or order you come up with, they lose big time.

That would go a long way in restoring America's global respect and dignity. Especially with Bill up front as a statesman. Irrespective of the Bill haters, Bill Clinton still commands more global respect today than Bush or his daddy ever did. .. Especially boy George.

Clinton's "realism" and experience and Obama's "idealism" and charisma. The first woman President and the first African-American Vice President. If they do good work, it could lock up the White House for the next 16 years.

Republicans would lose their minds.

My first choice would be Kucinich, but at some point realty has to set in. Kucinich is not going to be the nominee. Nor is anyone else other than Clinton or Obama. If Clinton and anyother prowar democrat and I'll vote Green. While Clinton and Obama is not perfect, perfection is not what you get in politics.

It may yet be that Obama wins the primary, but I don't think Clinton would accept the VP role under Obama, but I do think Obama would under Clinton.

Unbeatable?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think any combination of republicans could beat them .. or even come close. I believe it would set records for numbers of voters and campaign fundrasing


Speaking from a purely calculated position, here's my deal: I don't look at the presidential/VP ticket in a bubble. The president and VP are important, but they are part of a much larger picture. In a calculated sense.

Who the party places at the top of the ticket can have a ripple down effect farther down the ballot: the congressional races, the governor's races, local legislative races.

If the Democratic Party has Hillary at the top of the ticket, she may well could win a national election. But you know what? And I hate to say this about our country: that rancher in Montana, or that hunter in Colorado has mixed feelings about hillary (at best), or is outright hostile towards her at worst. He or she may be tempted to voted Democratic -- At all levels on the ballot. But, seeing Hillary on the top of the ballot may be enough to keep a lot of Montanans, a lot of Missourians, and lot of Coloradans, to hold back from voting a straight democratic ticket. Local democratic nominees for senate, congress, and state legislative bodies, may lose millions of votes simply for the fact of having Hillary's name above there's on the ballot.

I'm certainly not proud of this fact. Its says a lot about how far we have yet to go in this country.

And the thing of it is: It's not enough to simply win a national race - the White House. You have to build a progressive movement, and a democratic majority at all levels, and across all the country.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Personally, I don't think any combination of republicans could beat them .. or even come close. I believe it would set records for numbers of voters and campaign fundrasing


Speaking from a purely calculated position, here's my deal: I don't look at the presidential/VP ticket in a bubble. The president and VP are important, but they are part of a much larger picture. In a calculated sense.

Who the party places at the top of the ticket can have a ripple down effect farther down the ballot: the congressional races, the governor's races, local legislative races.

If the Democratic Party has Hillary at the top of the ticket, she may well could win a national election. But you know what? And I hate to say this about our country: that rancher in Montana, or that hunter in Colorado has mixed feelings about hillary (at best), or is outright hostile towards her at worst. He or she may be tempted to voted Democratic -- At all levels on the ballot. But, seeing Hillary on the top of the ballot may be enough to keep a lot of Montanans, a lot of Missourians, and lot of Coloradans, to hold back from voting a straight democratic ticket. Local democratic nominees for senate, congress, and state legislative bodies, may lose millions of votes simply for the fact of having Hillary's name above there's on the ballot.

I'm certainly not proud of this fact. Its says a lot about how far we have yet to go in this country.

And the thing of it is: It's not enough to simply win a national race - the White House. You have to build a progressive movement, and a democratic majority at all levels, and across all the country.
Click to expand...

I disagree that these people you site wouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Are there some people in America? Sure. A large number of those could be women themselves. But you have Democrats, some even on this board, who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and its not because she's a woman.
 
cawacko said:
I disagree that these people you site wouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Are there some people in America? Sure. A large number of those could be women themselves. But you have Democrats, some even on this board, who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and its not because she's a woman.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was because she's a woman. I said it was because she was hillary.

That Democratic governor of Kansas - Kathleen Selbius - doesn't have the baggage or polarity of hillary.
 
Topspin said:
freaktard lefties even hate moderate dems
Click to expand...

1) hillary is NOT a moderate... no matter how much you want her to be like Bill, she is not. But good to see she has managed to con a few people into believing she is.

2) Hillary has a low margin of error. she already has about 40-45% of the population against her. So she cannot slip up or she loses.

3) IF the vote were today, I think Hillary would very likely win given the current crop of candidates. But with the contempt for the lack of leadership in Congress right now, that could change if people start getting pissed at the Dems as well. The bad news is now Pelosi has to look out for Sheehan as she is talking about running against her.

4) last sentence was complete sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top