Bill Clinton: Hillary-Obama Ticket Would Be "Almost Unstoppable Force"
Now Bill Clinton is saying it. Here he is, floating the idea of a joint Hillary-Obama ticket at a town-hall meeting today in Mississippi:
"She said yesterday and she said the day after her big wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island that she was very open to that and I think she answered explicitly yes yesterday," Clinton began, referring to Hillary's own answers on the topic in recent days."I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat. I mean you look at the, you look at the, you look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio. And the map in Missouri or -- well Arkansas’s not a good case because they know her and she won every place there.
"But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force."
Via the Page. Note the extent to which he volunteered her thinking on this. This report suggests that he offered this in an answer to a question. But Hillary floated this yesterday, and, now, Bill today -- and it's hard to imagine that both Clintons would be talking this up in tandem by accident.
Separately, Newsweek's poll today finds that 69% of Dems support the idea.
Late Update: Obama himself rejected the possibility that he'd serve as veep:
Obama was asked by a television reporter, "Can you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Sen. Clinton?"And the freshman Illinois senator replied: "Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate -- you know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count."
Comments (241)
desperate and condescending.
March 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The driver on the bus says "move on back, move on back, move on back, the driver on the bus . . . "
This is what he's saying in Mississippi? Okay, this definitely proves that Bill Clinton is NOT our first African-American president. How could he be so clueless about the optics of such a statement: You're ahead, so I guess you're good enough for second place.
March 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read what Toni Morrison actually said about Bill Clinton being the first "black" President? Do you, like Obama, think it had anything to do with dancing?
March 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Driving Ms. Hillary?
March 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary-Obama?
Isnt the winner on top of the ticket and isn't the winner the one who picks the VP.
Iam really starting to get pissed at this, they are trying to belittle Obama.
March 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Obomb certainly hasn't been trying to belittle Hillary .... whew ... almost thought of politics as usual. Eeeww! But with all his vast ummm ...2 years in the US Senate the Obomb has pretty much been USUSAL if ANYTHING. He actually has not done shit about nothin and you would think he had turned the place on it's head with all the new new new politics. ??? Maybe if 2 out of 3 Democrats actually want something to happen it is kinda UNDEMOCRATIC to oppose them. Have fun playing with yourselves 31% ...... the rest of us have to go win some boring election in November.
March 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obomb"
lol
March 9, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
But. But. But. Didn't Senator Clinton say that Obama had not crossed the "threshold"? How is it that someone with the "experience" of Senator Clinton would put an "inexperienced" man like Obama one heart beat away from that 3AM red phone call?
March 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. When will reporters ask the obvious followup question: If Clinton is willing to share the ticket with Obama, doesn't that suggest that Clinton believes Obama is ready to be president?
March 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. They'll say anything.
The Sopranos, New Jersey mob analogy, wasn't that far off:
"Cut me into your presidency, or your party might have an unfortunate accident."
March 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the strategy here? To make undecided supporters feel good about voting for Hillary because that way they get both? To make it seem like she doesn't hate Obama even though she attacks him 5 times a day? To make a case for herself to be VP? I don't fully get it.
March 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's definitely the first one. They want to make it seem to undecided voters and voters who like both candidates as if voting for Hillary is a two-fer, and you will get both candidates if you do so.
Bill Clinton is also wrong in saying "the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly." Just look at all of the rural states he's carried, including Wyoming today.
March 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this take as to what they're doing. And yes, how very condescending when Obama leads in pledged delegates. The sub-strategy is to keep saying insulting things with the hope that Obama reacts in a way that reflects badly on him. Or doesn't react in a way that reflects badly on him.
March 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is exactly what they are doing. "Vote for Hillary and get Obama too!". they're playing to those many, many low-information voters who have positive feelings towards both candidates, who see Obama's success but remember "the good ol' 90's". which of course is all bullshit, as though any Vice President she picks will not just be a sycophant who's even marginal status will be usurped by Bill at every opportunity.
Obama has already (rightly) objected to the notion, and i hope he stands firm on that.
March 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to make it very clear that he won't be her VP on the ticket, but he can commandeer the twofer option by saying he would CONSIDER Hillary as his VP - not that after consideration, she would appear to be the best candidate...
March 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is how they rationalize their denial about the consequences of stealing the nomination. I've gone on and on here on the topic to the point of being tiresome about the likely consequences--(half of all Democrats stay home or vote for McCain if we're lucky; a replay of Chicago in 1968--with due allowance for the calming effects of altitude sickeness--if we're not).
The party elders and uncommitted superdelegates are starting to lean on them about this, so Bill pulls out the the only solution he thinks could solve that problem. He's wrong of course, but that's not stopped them so far. And it has the added benefit of helping people within the campaign rationalize continuing in the face of the numbers. Apparently, denial alone wasn't enough anymore, so they had to call in additional defense mechanisms.
March 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
She desperately needs some of the luster he has achieved just to stay in this. On the other hand, association with the Clinton co-Presidency would be the kiss of death for his candidacy.
March 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve's answer is the correct one (in my humble opinion). The problem for Clinton is that she is trying to win by convincing the supers to take the victory from Obama and give it to her. The problem for her is that this would destroy the party, and the she knows that the supers know this. As such, in order to make this palatable to the supers, she has to be able to convince them that she could repair the damage.
How to do that? If she can craft a situation where the popular will demands a joint ticket, then she can say to the supers "look, his supporters will be angry when you screw them to give it to me, but they will get over it because he will smile and tell them that everything is good." That is why she is talking this up; to create a popular demand for a joint ticket so strong that he could not afford to say "no" without risking his own future career. That way she has a plausible explanation to convince the supers that they would not be facilitating the destruction of the party if they stole the election for her.
March 8, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is dangling the VP in front of him to stop him from going negative. While she has hit him whenever and however she wants to, he has been very careful to leave her the option of taking him as her VP. The thing I love about politics at this level is that both sides are so good at it. It's like watching the bidding in a bridge game. This is a fantastic race!
March 9, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Separately, Newsweek's poll today finds that 69% of Dems support the idea."
Put me in the 31%.
March 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootman,
Me too!
For me, most certainly not the Hillary-Obama ticket, but neither the Obama-Hillary.
PS: When Bill says "her big wins in Texas," he is lying.
March 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And put Obama in the 31%... he already said today he wanted no part of it.
Hillieberman McMonster is going to have to come up with some other way to connive the non-Lieberdem half of the party back to her clutches. Maybe she should build a house out of gingerbread.
March 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. He said it was "premature." Boy. Paul Simon knew where of he spoke.
March 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You like Paul Simon, Billy? That explains a lot.
Put me among those who see Simon as an unremarkable wimp who could neither escape Dylan's shadow, nor carry his jock.
March 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dylan wore a jock strap? Who knew?
March 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Bill is conceding that Hillary is not going to be the nominee at the top. And is paving the way for Hillary as VP.
However, given the nastiness of the Clinton campaign up to this point, I think it's more likely that this is a bit of fakery to reassure Democratic voters that Hillary will put Obama on the ticket, so they can vote for her. Just don't see it happening, though.
March 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way. They diminish Obama further by acknowledging his worthiness for the second slot. And if the public buys in it reinforces the inevitability of Hillary, But mainly it gets them off the hook for alienating huge numbers of Dems by putting Obama in the position of rejecting these beneficent overtures.
Clinton cunning at its finest. Nauseating, but clever.
March 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be preaching the audacity of hope, but Clinton is just preaching audacity. She's trailing in every measurable way, and she's talking about making the leader her running mate? How exactly is that supposed to work? Is Obama supposed to be so grateful for the offer that he'll drop his presidential bid and let her become the nominee?
I think someone should ask Clinton two questions. First, is she absolutely committing to making Obama her running mate in the (unlikely) event she wins? Because I've got a feeling she's trying to have it both ways -- floating the idea without having to actually follow through on it.
Secondly: If Obama won and picked her as his running mate, would she accept? And if her answer is, as I suspect, that it's too premature to discuss, then why the hell is she discussing it the other way around?
March 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to hear Obama state unequivocally that he would not accept Clinton as his running mate, using as his justification that to do so would be to accept "politics as usual"; we need to turn the page in a definitive and decisive way, he could say
in other words, REJECT her, and do it NOW!
however, I realize that such might be impolitic ...
March 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should take this deal! Otherwise he'll be lucky if the Clintons let him keep his senate seat.
March 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep drinking that Clinton Kool-Aid, dude. By the way, when is Obama up for re-election, anyway?
March 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no Clintonista, I just play one on the internets. I guess I wasn't outlandish enough.
March 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not outlandish enough. You've gotta go really overboard for someone to see the sarcasm in a pro-Hillary post. In other words, its hard to out-crazy crazy.
March 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're outlandish enough.
March 9, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no thanks. Why would she extend the VP slot to someone she thinks wouldn't be a good commander-in-chief?
March 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-you-wont.html
Obama already put a nail in this idea.
The Clintons are throwing this idea out there so people think that they can get both if they vote for Hillary.
The truth is that they can't. After implying he's a under-qualified, Hope-monger why would he want to run with Hillary McMonster???
It's a dead story. It ain't happening.
And Obama/Clinton won't happen unless the party (Super Delegates) absolutely demands it.
March 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh so Obama said no and yet Bill is still pushing it about. Very annoying.
March 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too on the 31%. A few weeks ago I would have been all for it but the last few makes me just say no.
Also, the MSM is starting to piss me off when they automatically assume HRC would be at the top of the ticket. Obama is oh, yeah - WINNING!
Besides, I don't see where having HRC on the ticket would help Obama, he would bring all of her negatives with him then which would counteract his appeal to indies & repubs.
There are plenty of other good candidates for VP that are better choices for Obama.
March 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking Samantha Power would make a good VP. Otherwise we ought to pick a woman who actually Supports Obama, like Clare McCaskill. Someone the Hillaryis44.org people really hate.
March 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Samantha's not eligible; not U.S. born.
March 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the 31%. What I'd like to know is who the hell that other group is thinking? They apparently think that you can find an accomodation between "politics as usual" and "change and turning the page." It's one or the other. Pick a side. Otherwise Mccain will pick us off like soft geese.
March 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so dumb. Hillary needs to win the primary before she picks Obama as her VP. I guarantee you she wouldn't be talking like this if she had a delegate lead.
Hillary ought to be talking about an Obama/Clinton ticket. Of course, she'd have to stop bashing him.
March 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, talk about putting the cart before the horse! Doesnt someone have to win the nomination first? Pride always comes before a fall!
March 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pure condescension and is a perfect way of minimizing Obama's authority as a candidate. The way the press falls for this is shameful.
March 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-you-wont.html
Good for him. Don't take the bait.
He's smart to do this and here's why:
1) Obama's vision for America does not include the ugly, divisive tactics of HRC's.
2) He is not going to play the "sidekick" figure that HRC and her old white crowd think that minorities should play. You know, like that asian boy in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the black partner to the white cop. Sorry, he will not be the "bone" that HRC throws to the African American community in a spirit of tokenism.
3) After Al Gore's experience, no sane person would want to play VP #2 to Bill Clinton. Playing VP #2 to Hillary was bad enough.
4) I thnk he truly doesn't want to be VP. He is something of an idealist. The VP is a job, like governor, for people who want to hold high offices, instead of people who want to change the country.
5) Hillary can not win mathematically. She can't catch up. She;s hoping to try to steal the nomination in the back room. Problem is, if the first AA candidate in US history is robbed, the AA community (not to mention the millions of young people) will sit out November. She is guaranteed a loss if she steals it. By refusing to allow her to steal the nomination and put him as VP to quell the outrage, he is calling her bluff.
March 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think it was Temple of Doom.
March 8, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There he goes again! Bill putting Obama in the back of this election bus! What audacity they have to think Obama would consider being a VP to Hillary. No room for a VP if the Clinton are elected. Three's a crowd especially when two of the three have the massive Clinton egos. Let Obama choose someone fresh and new to the process. Bye bye Clintons. We've vetted you and found you wanting, over and over again.
March 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Implying in Mississippi that Obama should submit and go to the back of the bus even though he is ahead in the popular vote there is really a shrewd strategy!
Think about the implications of that.
March 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Obama were to select a Republican for VP--someone like Chuck Hagel, who has publically said "I like Barack Obama a lot. He's smart. He listens. He learns. He's a worthy candidate for president." He has also thus far declined to endorse McCain.
March 9, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad thinks that the Clintons are setting up a scenario where if Obama doesn't pick Hillary to be VP, she won't campaign for him.
Sinbad knows from his experience solving the refugee crisis in Kosovo with Hillary that she can be one tough lady when the situation requires it.
Sinbad is still waiting for a front page post on TPM. Sinbad needs some LOVE!!
March 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then it looks like the Clintons' are being played by Obama.
March 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a word, awesome.
March 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
jed757, I agree that Sinbad comment was awesome. I actually hope Hillary stays off the public campaign trail if she loses the nomination; let her do fundraising and low-profile roundtables with no press allowed. Michelle Obama will be a far better campaigner that Hillary, IMO.
March 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We love you, Sinbad!
March 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
ps.
The winner gets to pick the VP.
As someone else mentioned, the MSM assumes that Whitey is at the top of the ticket. A sidekick perhaps. They'll give him some pencils with his name on it.
March 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two reasonable explanations:
1) They know the numbers and the superdelegates aren't going to break Senator Clinton's way and they are building pressure for a unity ticket to assure Senator Clinton becomes veep.
2) They're trying to depress Senator Obama's support with a wink and a nudge about putting him on the ticket.
And one unreasonable explanation:
3)They think they will win and they want Obama as veep.
Best to ignore the whole stunt. They will be plenty of time to pick a veep after the nomination is secured.
March 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since McCain's passed the threshold, and they're such great friends, seems she'd be more comfortable as his vp..
March 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the press falls for it because they are 99% white.
March 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
69% aren't paying very much attention. Hillary is not going to pick Ken Starr, and Obama isn't going to pick someone who says all he's ever done is give a speech.
March 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should offer her the ambassadorship to someplace nice, like New Zealand or some other country that's quiet and far away.
March 8, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Zealand is a lovely country--gorgeous--the people are nice--I loved it---don't do this to New Zealand.
March 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary actually has more friends and contacts in Canadian government.
March 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the nasty and negative comments Hillary has been saying about Obama, it would be idiot for Obama to be in a joint ticket with Hillary whether for P or VP. If the Democratic party leadership succumbs to the Clintons' insistence for the Florida and Michigan delegates, and win the nomination, Obama has a better chance to win the presidency running as an independent.
March 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! There goes Hillary's Richardson endorsement. Bill played the veep card too early.
March 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad ... that is hilarious, or maybe hillarious.
March 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The VP slot has been already filled. That spot goes to someone who can put a key large state in play. One person fits that description. Illinois and New York are safe Democratic States, so there is no need to have either Hillary or Obama in the VP slot.
I predict: The person who will get the VP slot, with either Hillary or Obama is..........
Ted Strickland, Popular Democratic Governor of Ohio.
Think about it. Ohio is a bellwether State. He can deliver it for either Obama or Clinton. It is the only choice that makes any real sense for either candidate.
March 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. He's not qualified to be commander-in-chief, but he should agree to run as the number three beneath two shameless cynics who have engaged in "the politics of personal destruction" against him to a degree that no Democrat has ever done to the Clintons.
Right now, Hillary's raison d'etre is to help elect John McCain. Obama has got to beat her into the ground.
March 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Zealand is waaaay to nice for Ms Clinton after the last 2 weeks. I would go more for Siberia or Greenland (where her & McCain were doing shots of vodka, she'll feel right at home).
BTW- add another state and at least 2 more delegates to Obama's lead. There are only 4 more counties left to report in WY and they don't have enough voters left to overcome Obama's 19 pt lead. I am just hoping they are enough to push him over the 20pt mark.
March 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question:
Assume for a moment (as I do 24/7) that a ticket with Clinton as Pres. and Obama as VP is the mechanism by which *the Party* (not just the Clintonistas) intends to stave off a mass defection of rank-and-file Democrats once they hand this nomination to HRC in Denver.
Will it work? Can they get away with it?
March 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying doesn't equal getting away with it. As things stand now--and I would suggest also in the future--Obama would top the ticket. There's simply no way Obama could take the VP slot and be continually overshadowed by Bill--heck, Hillary can contend with that but no one else has to.
The only feasible ticket would be Obama as prez and Hillary as VP with Bill kinda free to do his own thing under Hillary's thumb and without interferece with the Prez. It could be negotiated for Obama's first term only and then a younger VP for the second term.
The Clintons are not in the power position here and Obama knows that. They will get zilch for now.
March 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama takes the top spot and makes Sen. Clinton his running mate . . . all I can say is he'd better hire a food-taster and not start any automobiles. The Clintons have demonstrated to anyone who cares to see it that they will not be denied.
March 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Hell no.
March 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What better evidence that the Clintons don't believe, but "know" they have lost? What candidate with an actual plan to win the nomination would choose a vice presidential nominee during the contested portion of the primaries?
The fact is it is over, and Bill Clinton is hoping that the superdelegates are morons and will go for this. Obama, as we know from his campaign, is not a moron, and would never join a ticket with these hacks who are ready to marginalize him on day one of a disastrous Clinton administration.
Newly engaged voters, African-Americans, and independents will either stay home or lean to McCain if this happened. It is time for superdelegates to move quickly to Obama NOW to stop this damaging charade! Personally, I, a person who supported the Clintons through thick and thin in 1990's, am sick of them.
March 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a Clinton line of attack and, as much as I hate to admit it, a pretty damn good one. It accomplishes a slate of simultaneous strategic objectives:
1. She gets to appear like she's taking the high road, providing excellent cover for herself as she slams Obama on other fronts.
2. She makes herself appear even if not ahead of Obama in the primary race.
3. She subtly backs up her experience argument by implying that Obama needs seasoning as Veep to be CIC.
The whole idea is a complete crock, of course. Obama sharing the ticket with Hillary-- no matter who was at the top-- would largely negate his appeal to his constituents. I mean, how can you embrace a dynasty and change anything?
March 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it is a setup. But it's one of those tricks that only work if you can do subtley. HRC doesn't do subtle. If even *I* can see that this is telegraphing HRCs weakness, I don't think it's going to go over anyone else's head either.
March 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Clintons are planning another Vincent Foster style incident for Barack if he accepts the deal......
Now THERE is your Right-Wing conspiracy!
March 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could swallow my dislike for Hillary and vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. But Clinton/Obama? Norfolk and way.
Besides, why in God's name would Obama give up when he's got a significant (if not insurmountable) lead in delegates, more money, and more of the popular vote?
I hope he comes out and emphatically says no again.
March 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a word.... no!
A strong Democratic Party is a Clintonless Democratic Party. Obama will be the nominee and he gets to select his running mate.
I, like others, won't vote for president in November, if she is the nominee.
March 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way in the world that Obama would or should consider the VP slot. Period. There is *nothing* in it for him except loss (of a promising Senate career, of the support of so many peple, most likely of his self-respect).
Maybe she can steal the nomination. I doubt it. Her 'McCain or me but not Obama' moment did away with Superdelegate support, I suspect. But if she did, without Obama, she would never win the Presidency. She will be "shredded" by McCain and (moreso) by the Republican machine. We've seen her fall apart when she gets hit, and she hasn't even *begun* to receive the hits that will really hurt. Obama, to his credit, doesn't believe in wrecking a fellow Dem.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY THAT CLINTON CAN BE ON THE TICKET AND HAVE THAT TICKET WIN IN NOV.
It's not a certainty, but it's a possibility. IF she contacted Obama **today** (or as soon as possible but definitely before Pennsylvania) and offered to 1) stop the attacks, 2) accept the VP spot and work hard beside him, and 3) promise not to pull her nasty technigues during the general campaign .... then it *might* be worth his thinking about that. He doesn't need or I'm sure want her as VP - far from it!! -- but to end the intraparty bloodletting and get that 'dream ticket' lock on all segments of the enlarged-by-Obama Dem party, it would be worth thinking about I guess. Perhaps.
But every single day the value of what she has to offer in exchange for that VP spot becomes less. Abd after PA, no matter what the result of that primary, it is virtually worthless - he is only going to get stronger and gain momentum from that point on.
So, if Bill and Ed Rendell and everyone else think that a 'dream ticket' is such a good idea, they ought to be having some serious heart to heart talks with her -- right NOW!
March 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Survey USA just did a poll on this. Sorry kids, but the majority want Hillary to head the ticket.
March 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Moishele,
The "kids" have given Obama a 150+ pledged delegate lead with a few more today. The clock is still ticking. In fact, it's almost 3AM now. Must be time to wake up Sinbad and free Kosovo!
March 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moishele and the other Clinton supporters who enjoy calling Obama supporters "kids," "child army," etc.,
Are you serious? Clinton is pulling a sizeable portion of the over 65 crowd but you don't hear Obama supporters making any geriatric, senile related jokes because they would be completely indefensible and way out of line. But, you guys seem to take great pleasure in deriding us because our candidate pulls in the youth vote. Yeah, isn't it horrible that he is attracting a new generation of Democrats. Don't you realize this is good for the future of the party? Whatever your age is, you are the ones that need to grow up. These types of comments bring nothing to the table and only breed hostility within our party. You'd do better to focus on the issues...like, for instance, why don't you explain why it's totally awesome for a democratic candidate to hype the CIC cred of the republican frontrunner....that's be a good start.
March 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same sort of condescension we've seen from Republicans for decades.
The real question is why Clinton supporters don't just jump aboard the Rove Talk Express seeing as how they love to revel in this sort of puerile behavior.
March 8, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's lookin' at you, kid. I couldn't have said it better myself!
March 9, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that were the case, then the majority would have voted for her.
Sadly for you, Obama wins the popular vote even with Florida and Michigan included.
March 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, could you link to this poll?
March 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the majority of the people in favor of a shared ticket are in favor of Hillary being at the top? In other words, Obama supporters don't want her as VP.
March 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're trying to push a new "inevitability" meme. As others have said--voters not paying attention will think it's a great idea. Obama needs to keep saying no and then change the subject. I am so sick of this crap.
On another note, great to see you Sinbad, and keep on posting! Share with us some of your lifetime of experience in the crucible of foreign policy, wontcha?
March 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Barack, hit her hard on this one.
How about saying, "I have no interest in having a running mate who believes the way to victory is through divisiveness. We neet to move forward as a country and Senator Clinton represents the politics of the past."
Reject her as your running mate now!
March 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Clinton choose a running mate for Vice President who she feels does not cross the Commander-In-Chief threshold?
That seems dangerously irresponsible.
March 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. She's going to whip his sorry ass into shape. Make a man out of him.
March 9, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is this Clinton's latest strategy: she has seen the handwriting on the wall (the now famous "math"), knows she's lost, but continues on for the sole reason of "bloodying" Obama so that his chances of beating McCain are seriously diminished, McCain is elected, we get the third Dumbya term, the nation becomes exhausted which gives Clinton the opportunity to say "I told you so, you shoulda picked me" and comes to the country's rescue in 2012. Pardon me, I've got to go hurl chunks.
March 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the Clinton portion.
March 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exercise: Show that the following three propositions are consistent. (No, never mind, don't bother.)
1. Obama is not able to demonstrate that he can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.
2. Obama is qualified to be VP.
3. Anyone who is qualified to be VP is able to demonstrate that he can cross the commander-in-chief threshold is qualified to be VP.
March 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain says that he will maintain George W. Bush's Domestic and Foreign Policies. Hillary Rodham Clinton has endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama.
Hillary Is The New Lieberman!
March 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible idea. A total non-starter. Sheer mindgames from Camp Clinton.
Ready to [be Veep] on Day One? Really?
March 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
so, Clintons think Obama is not good enough for the west wing but just enough to work for Clintons. if Obama becomes Clintons VP -forgive me for saying this- he'll never become the president, or do you think?
March 8, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the clear preference of most Democrats for the dual ticket solution, Obama's rejecting the entire idea out of hand is going to strike people as quite arrogant.
This is not the way he's going to want to be perceived.
I see this as working very much in Hillary's favor -- she looks gracious and accommodating, and Obama looks like he's saying, "You're likable enough, Hillary."
March 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink