Obama: You Won't See Me As Vice President
Bill Clinton is pushing the idea of a Hillary-Obama ticket, but Obama isn't ready to play along:
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."
"You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate," Obama says. Sounds pretty definitive.
Has anyone asked Hillary whether she's open to the idea of being Obama's veep?
Advertisement

Comments (188)
extemporaneous bill IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 8, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. I think "extemporaneous bill" is my favorite lede in to date.
March 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
idiotic's posts ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR TPMEC READERS!!!!
March 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what Obama should have been saying all along. Every time the Clinton campaign suggests the idea of a joint ticket, he should explain that he's not ready to pick a vice president yet. Keep reminding the public that she's running second.
March 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, saying, "NO WAY" is a win for him.
It's obvious they;re polaying the "dream team" crap to try and drum up support from those who really want Obama, but like Clinton, too.
Obama basically told everybody, "the only way you ahve me is to put me at the top of the ticket."
Check and mate.
March 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, unfortunately will never be vice president either. After Obama gets the nomination there's no chance that he'd want to contaminate his positive message of home and change with that monster on his ticket. Nevertheless, it's still curious that he doesn't pass her "threshold," but she and Bill would still want him as VP.
March 9, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he should say something along the lines of Hillary seems interested in being VP on my ticket and I think that is an idea worth considering. Every time she floats the idea of a joint ticket - he should float it with the idea of her as VP. He's ahead - so a joint ticket should automatically mean him at the top. That's the narrative that should stick from this.
March 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
i wish Obama would respond to it by saying "I dont understand why Hillary wants me to be her VP since she keeps saying I am not ready to be President. Guess Bill Clinton thinks I have crossed that CiC treshold AFTER ALL"
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to hear him stand firm. There is only one way I'd support it though, and this is my opinion, it would be if she somehow miraculously garnered the delegate lead (without superdelegates). If she won it fairly - I'd support a Clinton Obama ticket. If she doesn't, I can't support it.
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
God Damn it feels good to be an Obaman today! He's gonna win this thing! The numbers don't lie.
Howard Wolfson can iron my fucking shirt!
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since he's in the lead in every plausible metric, that's the only answer that makes sense.
Webb for VP! We need Strickland here in OH to keep spreading the dems throughout state gov.
March 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden? Wesley Clark?
March 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb!!! Webb all the way. Obama/Webb 08. Awesome ticket.
March 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, me thinks Mr. Clark is an advisor for Mrs. Clinton.
March 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb or Biden.
March 8, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. I think what he was saying is that he will be the nominee and not the VP candidate. That is why he said it was premature and that he had more states, etc. What he basically said was that he was going to win.
March 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, if we could just capitalize his name on the TPM frontpage.
March 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of me supports Obama/Clinton if only because then this really would be the 1960 election redux.
Obama/Clinton = Kennedy/Johnson, only neither of the current nominees has as much legislative experience as Kennedy or Johnson.
And McCain is Richard Nixon!
The only person who doesn't fit their role is Bush, because he isn't 1/100th as good a president as Eisenhower was.
March 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush isn't 1/100th the President that Eisenhower was, but he makes up for it by being 100 times for corrupt and incompetent.
March 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but there is all this fun, anecdotal, conspiracy theory intermixed with history, circumstantial evidence that LBJ may have known about if not had a hand in JFK's assasination. I don't want my man under that kind of pressure. A clinton will do anything to get what they think belongs to them.
March 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - if the Clintons actually put as much effort into trying to win elections as they put into winning the news cycle they might not be in the middle of losing 13 of the last 16 primaries (14 of 17 after they lose Miss. on Tuesday)
Heck, they might have also ended up actually winning the facts out of Texas (delegates) instead of just winning the perception (the networks called Texas for Clinton!).
March 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the unlikely event that she wins the nomination, Clinton will be lucky to get Lieberman to run as her VP.
Every step that Clinton takes to salvage the Democratic party nomination for herself, makes it less likely that she will be able to beat McCain.
Her negative ratings were 50% before the primaries began. Her negative campaigning against Obama, must have raised that significantly. (Anyone have any data?)
Her arguments for herself, and her arguments for McCain, weaken her chances in the general. Who really does have the experience to answer the 3am phone call? Certainly McCain has more than Clinton.
Why would Obama want to align himself with the inevitable November train wreck?
March 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, don't even joke about Clinton/Lieberman.
March 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? It's somebody's dream ticket for sure.
March 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No more definitive than John Edwards public rejections of the VP possibility in 2004.
March 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way Obama should select someone like HRC to be his vice president.
No one should become vice president due to nepotism and being related to a former president. She simply isn't qualified to be VPOTUS
He should pick someone who is credible and who accomplished.
March 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah!
March 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that Hillary and I have similar foreign policy experience, I hereby submit my name - officially - as a candidate for Senator Clinton's running mate.
Say goodbye to refugee crises in Kosovo - and say hello to me, SINBAD!
March 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm sure you've performed, I mean served in a diplomatic capacity, in Ireland as well. You sir, have crossed the Commander in Chief threshhold. Welcome!
March 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. I am still laughing.
March 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! Sinbad for Veep!
March 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
*
Bill Clinton is offering the Vice Presidential slot to Senator Obama.
So much for all that bluster about Hillary as a Big Strong Independent Woman who would be totally in charge. Bill is the one who is selecting and openly offering the Vice President slot to Senator Obama. I guess Bill and Hillary do not feel that Big Strong Hillary is capable of handling such a "Ready From Day One" executive decision. Step aside Hillary and let Big Foot Bill handle it for you.
Tell us again about what a fine feminist example Hillary is.
Bill is still calling the shots.
March 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If HRC manages to win the nomination Obama should not join the ticket.
With Bill Clinton being married to the president will mean the VPOTUS will go back to being a meaningless position.
Obama should enthusiastically support Clinton if she is the nominee. If she wins he should run for governor in 2010. If she loses he should stay in the Senate and run for president in 2012.
March 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did Rep. King smear Obama today, the Iowa paper that reported it also contained this patently false reporting of Obama's policy on the War on Terror.
The Obama campaign needs to get the paper to immediately pull down and correct the web version of the story and to issue a correction and apology in it's next print edition.
March 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They want his fundraising power without giving up authority. Obama knows they need him more than he needs them right now. Without Obama, the Democrats are starting to realize that Hillary will do almost as well as Mondale did. Almost.
I had a conversation with my dad today. He's a Texan republican. I have almost talked him into voting for Obama, because the republicans have committed such epic fail with Bush. He's ashamed of them for that. However, there is no way in hell he would ever vote for Clinton.
March 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone bothered to ask Hillary if she'd be VP?
I know it is non-intuitive to the lily white press corp to consider such a thing.
But she is losing, and they will look like racists if they keep this up.
March 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's trash. No reason he should pick her.
Basura, for our Spanish speaking friends.
March 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Barack would be on anyone's short list.
March 8, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama shoukd turn the question around and ask the reporter if they have asked Hillary this question ,and why not.
Talk about huge ugly double standards.
March 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama hasn't been talking about Hillary as a VP nominee. But someone should really ask if Hillary would like to be Obama's VP.
March 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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 think 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 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't trash-talk Short Round!
March 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore's VP gig was extraordinary. He was left out of the loop in fellatiogate, which occasioned his petulant decision to exclude Bill from the '00 campaign cost him the White House (which may be the best thing that ever happen to him.)
March 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am an old person; but I won't vote for Hillary in the fall. Her actions in the past couple of weeks have convinced me that there is no party unity for me to maintain by voting for her. She will just further injure the party, increase the neocon agenda accomplishments, and make it even harder to get a Democrat elected president anytime soon.
We're not always going to be trying to win an election following a really horrible president like Bush.
March 9, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone asked Bill whether he's open to the idea of being Obama's veep?
March 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that's how Obama should return the volley:
"I'd be interested in discussing with Clinton how HE would feel about serving as my vice president -- but as for Hillary, I'm not sure I'd want someone to serve under me who doesn't think I cross the commander in chief threshold.."
Ha... too good...
March 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the only way she could be VP is if she agrees to withdraw from the race this month.
Otherwise, she's just scorching the earth and not paying a price.
March 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking she's well past the point where O would consider her for VP, with the turning point the week she said she was honored to run with him and 48 hours later issued the Shame on You remark. I sincerely hope, as a matter of principle, that O has simply ruled out HRC. We also have to hope that any senior Dem officials don't press hard to put together the ticket. If a combination of Dean, Gore, Edwards, etc. strongly pushes and O-HRC ticket, we could get stuck with one. Which puts us back at risk for a huge Repub turnout to vote against HRC. Not good...
March 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell no.
He's leading in every way possible: popular votes, pledged delegates, and morally.
She is bringing the party and the level of discussion down in every way - race-baiting, smears based on lies, attempting to steal elections in Michigan and Florida, and now this insult.
Oh, yeah, and she voted for a stupid war that thousands of US soldiers, and hundreds of ordinary Iraqis have died in.
She certainly is not worthy of the vice-presidency, and right now I don't know she is worthy of being re-elected Senator.
March 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops - that should have read 'Oh, yeah, and she voted for a stupid war that thousands of US soldiers, and hundreds ***of thousands*** of ordinary Iraqis have died in'.
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
for my money, i'm calling Obama's best choice for VP to be Wes Clark. an acceptable laurel branch to the Clintonistas, shrewder campaigner (since 2004), vastly experienced in military and foreign policy. just the kind of guy to fight the tough fights a VP is supposed to, and takes a whole bunch of wind out of John McCain's sails.
calling it now.
March 8, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree. I've been a big Clark far (I voted for him in the 2004 primary) but he always seems to sort of miss the mark in public. He has a great resume, but just doesn't quite seem ready for prime time.
My money is on Webb or Biden. Webb has foreign policy credentials and is young enough that in 8 years, he'd be groomed for his run.
March 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he wins the nomination I doubt if Obama, after presumably vanquishing one neocon war criminal, would add another (albeit from a different war) to his ticket. Wesley Clark is the wrong way to go in every sense of that word.
Better someone like Rep. Kucinich (and I'm only half-joking)
March 9, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for him. Even if he weren't winning, he would still have a very bright future ahead of him that would be tarnished if he were formally associated with her.
If by chance, she were to steal the nomination:
1. She would lose to McCain as many folks, myself included, would never vote for her particularly after the campaign she's run
2. He could easily either come back and run again in 2012 or first become Governor of IL for a term.
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Webb '08!
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary could certainly do better than Obama!! I hope, after her big win, she will pick someone like Biden or Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Obama is too "green"...and there are too many unanswered questions about him.
March 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad knows what you mean. Is he a Muslim? Is he in the pocket of the A-Rabs?
I don't think he is...AS FAR AS I KNOW!
March 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)) oh, that was just perfect!
March 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do tell. What are these unanswered questions? And how do they compare to the unanswered questions about Hillary, like, say . . .
What was your security clearance when you were first lady?
How many conferences during national security crises did you sit in on down in the White House Situation Room?
What crises of any kind have you ever managed that didn't involve your husband's bimbo eruptions or Mark Penn's big mouth?
Why are you and Bill still holding up the release of information from the archives dating to your days as First Lady?
Where did you and your husband make all that money? Why won't you release your tax returns so we can see? Why was it bad that Rick Lazio wouldn't release his returns when you were running against him, but totally okay that you haven't released yours?
Speaking of Bill, why is he still cozying up to the dictator of Boratland?
And, speaking of money, how was it, exactly, that you made all that money on the cattles future market?
What jobs in your "35 years of experience" are not attributable to your husband's influence or position?
How exactly is it that your twelve years servicing big corporations as a partner at the Rose Law Firm count as an important part of the 35 years of experience you say you'll bring to the White House, but Obama's twelve years as a civil rights lawyer and teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago don't count as meaningful experience at all?
Oh, never mind. Since she's been so thoroughly vetted already, I guess it isn't troubling at all that there are still unanswered questions.
March 9, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think Hillary could certainly do better than Obama!! I hope, after her big win"
Big win where?
She will lose the majority of the remaining states: Mississippi on Tuesday and North Carolina and several others.
She's doomed, my friend.
March 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Pennsylvania, which is reliably Democratic, unlike Mississippi and North Carolina, which are reliably Republican?
March 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Reliably Republican" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
March 8, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got back from an Obama event where former Gov Ray Maybus of MS (the last democratic govenor of MS) spoke. He thinks Obama would put MS in Play. Forgive me if I choose his assesment of the political realities in MS over yours.
March 9, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has won over 20 states, but 10 of them--Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming--have not voted for a Democrat since at least before '88, and are unlikely to do so this year. Two more states Obama won--Colorado & Georgia--have only gone to the Dems once in the past five presidential elections; and three more--Louisiana, Missouri & Tennessee--only voted for a Democrat when that Democrat's name was Bill Clinton.
Please start looking at this practically, people. According to a fine post summarizing the Survey USA 50-state match-ups, both Obama and Clinton ONLY NARROWLY beat McCain, and Survey USA shows him losing reliable Blue states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They need to be on the same ticket. Just cause you like the guy, don't imagine he will have a cake walk in the general election. The Republicans found enough voters to elect BUSH in 2004; need I say more?
March 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad's not sure you understand politics.
Obama will win OH, CA, MA, and NY.
Maybe Sinbad understands these things because he's passed the Commander-In-Chief threshold of foreign policy experience.
Clinton/Sinbad - Ready for Comic Relief on Day One!
March 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOL
Sinbad brings the funny!
March 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check it out:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php
March 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remain skeptical that Obama would lose New Jersey, and I think with some campaigning he could win Pennsylvania.
And I think he does take Colorado in the general. Maybe even Georgia, too. And to top it all off, he takes Virginia.
Plus, don't forget that this poll is a snapshot of the electorate as it stands now in its feelings about the candidates. Obama will come under more fire... but so will McCain. Obama won't pull his punches against McCain like he's tended to with Clinton; the one time so far that they've actually dueled on an issue, Obama slapped McCain silly.
Give St. McCain a taste of Chicago politics, and he might find his halo a little tarnished.
March 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
who needs it? Who's they? Neither of them have anything to gain from being on the bottom of the ticket and basically disappearing from political life for 8 years and that is why it will never happen. Both are politicians at the height of their powers right now. They have raised more money and mobilized larger movements of voters than any politicians in the history of the democratic party. A VP slot would be a huge demotion for either of them. Why would they do that? Because looking at it 8 months out, there is some slim chance that the other one might not win? Sorry. Doesn't fly.
March 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he's won thirty states. So, yeah, more than 20, but a little misleading the way you put it.
Let's write ten of those off, folly though it may be. But what the hell, it's your scenario, let's indulge it.
Two more you say we can toss into that bin. And evidently three more are only winnable if your name is "Clinton." Whatever.
By my count that leaves fifteen states voting for Obama, all of which -- by your metric -- are reliably blue. How many states has Clinton won again?
March 9, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Hillary followers ever understand. Obama is re-writing the formula for political success. There are no more red and blue states. His appeal spans the deep divisions created by the Bush-Clinton political machines to keep the nation in partisan warfare. As long as we are fighting each other, the corporatons rule America. Obama is the best opportunity this nation has seen since Kennedy to become united and address major issues with ideas and visions and hope.
Many Bush and Clinton supporters are addicted to political warfare and mean, dirty politicsa as sport. Enough of them. We the people want America back and the Clintons are trying to prevent that.
March 9, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's only argument to the superdelegates is the popular vote. I've been looking carefully at the remaining primaries, and she's going to lose that too. Hillary is going down. Howard Wolfson can iron my motherfuckin' shirt!
March 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's argument to get the superdelegates is that their job is to nominate someone who can win in November. Remember, Carter had more delegates than Kennedy in 1980, and lost virtually every state to Reagan.
March 8, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not much of an argument when you CAN'T WIN THE NOMINATION OF YOUR OWN PARTY.
March 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
a) McCain is no Reagan
b) Barack is no Carter
Kennedy has endorsed Obama.
March 8, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery is evil! She's like Pol Pot or Idi Amin. She should die in a pit of her own excrement.
March 8, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard many people say she is "Evil" and has no "Soul" but she told me that she isnt "Evil" and ill have to take her word for it. She isnt EVIL as far as i know.
March 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery is Satan and her cooter smells like a dead hobo's ass. That's why Bill can't keep a chub near her. She should be raped in hell by demons.
March 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have helped me understand why posts get deleted.
This kind of sentiment reduces us all.
March 9, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Humor" or not.
March 9, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are disgusting.
March 9, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a guess here, 4eva- you don't have a girlfriend, do you?
March 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go away, adults are talking.
March 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Bayh of Indiana--the words induce coma. Hillary/Bayh '08. I can picture someone disgustedly scraping off the bumper sticker in late November.
March 8, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton/Bayh '08 = Lieberman/Lieberman '08
March 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as it makes me want to puke, I would vote for a Cli/bama ticket if it came to it.
a) I would vote any ticket with Obama on it, this man/person is the real deal. I am from IL, I have watched his work for 12 years (yes, those 12 years count as experience) and there is a reason he won IL by a larger % than Hil won NY.
b) McCain is insane. We must not let him near 'The Button' under any circumstances.
That being said if HRC by some miracle won and there was a half-way tolerable republican, I would vote anyone but HRC. I used to like her but her campaign has disgusted me.
March 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain is insane"
That's why they call it the Straight Jacket Express.
March 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put away your barf bag. It ain't gonna happen.
March 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Evan Bayh of Indiana--the words induce coma. Hillary/Bayh '08. I can picture someone disgustedly scraping off the bumper sticker in late November."
It's Mondale-Ferraro in reverse. LOL
March 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is on the ticket with Obama,he will no longer draw Independents and Moderate Republicans. They want no part of any ticket that has Hillary on it. She has the highest negative ratings of all the people who ran this year, and she has had those same high negative ratings for several years. Any ticket with Hillary on it is doomed.
March 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary's argument to get the superdelegates is that their job is to nominate someone who can win in November. Remember, Carter had more delegates than Kennedy in 1980, and lost virtually every state to Reagan."
Carter lost, in part, to Ted Kennedy's no-surrender slash-and-burn campaign against him in the primaries. It was ugly and divided the party. Hillary is acting just like Kennedy did, the ungracious asshole spoiler.
At some point, candidates who lose need to bow out. HRC is just an asshole.
March 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if that's part of why Ted endorsed Obama this time. Deciding to go with the nice guy for a change?
March 8, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad, you rock.
March 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would be the world's biggest hypocrite if he ran with Mrs. Bill Clinton in any combination. How could you possibly promise change and then help bring the Clintons back to power? They with the Bushes have created the politics of division that prevents meaningful action on any issue. How could Obama keep his integrity in a campaign with the Clintons?
If Hillary is nominated, irrespective of who her running mate is, the Democratic party will be deeply divided. We are witnessing the same type of dishonesty and deception from Hillary in her win at any cost campaign, that we have seem from Bush. We know what a presidency built on lies, family ties, corporate dollars and constant spin is like. Never again.
Obama can win the presidency on this own and leave the Clintons behind.
March 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the same token, how can Hillary one minute say that Barack is so unqualified that McCain would be better, and then in the next sentence suggest a possible "dream" (nightmare) ticket??
Talk about hypocrisy. It's just mind boggling.
March 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>I think the only way she could be VP is if she agrees to withdraw from the race this month.
Correction: next week. Within 48 hours after the Mississippi primary. Her last chance.
March 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will eat Obama for lunch. McCain-Obama means a very close contest and a probable McCain win. Hillary would beat McCain by 3 or 4 points.
The problem is that Obama does not win white Democrats and with his dependance on independent voters, who are often ticket splitters, he won`t have coat tails. Everyone should stop this nonsense about super delegates, most of them are elected office holders and the program has been around since 1980. In fact, the purpose of these super delegates is to avoid giving the nomination to someone like Obama. Clinton/Obama would indeed be a winning ticket.
March 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain-Obama means a very close contest and a probable McCain win. Hillary would beat McCain by 3 or 4 points."
You get that from your call to the psychic hotline? Gee, they told me just the reverse.
Oh, well, I'm not worried about Hillary getting the nomination, because that's not going to happen. But I AM worried about her big push all of a sudden to get the V-P nod. If anything could ruin Obama's chances (more than Hillary's praising of McCain), that would be it. Heck, I'd have to grit my teeth to vote for that ticket, myself. And I'm a big Obama fan.
March 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is on the ticket, Obama will be just another politician. I will never vote to put the Clintons back in office. They are the past, leave them there.
March 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
TimAZ Polling (formerly known as Zogby).
March 8, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Obama won some white Democrats tonight in Wyoming. He won white Democrats in Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, Colorado, etc.
March 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
in other news, igor resigns after calling frankenstein "hillary clinton."
March 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink