« DNC To Assess Challenges On 5/31 | Main | The First Of Many? Hillraiser Defects » Comments Thread: The Crawford Ticket25 Apr 2008 04:14 pm Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign and a long-time Democratic fundraiser, told Radio Iowa's O Kay. Henderson yesterday that a unity ticket is the only way that Democrats can come together in the fall. Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagrees. Who's right? Comments (83)
If he means that Sen. Clinton would be the V.P. on that ticket, then perhaps this means she sees the writing on the wall. 
The question isn't can they run together... it's whether they can govern together? The answer to that question is pretty obvious just looking at the marked differences in their approach to government and how it should function. The so called "Dream Ticket" would be a disaster - neither fish or fowl and wouldn't satisfy the desires of either constituency. And what president would want to subject themselves to 4 years of their former competitors base finding fault at every perceived slight. That formulation would ill-serve both party and president!
Is the Clinton campaign tipping their hand? Is Senator Clinton's objective at this point to position herself so as to be able to demand the veep slot?
I can see why Pelosi is shutting this talk down: if the unity ticket talk becomes chatter again the Clinton campaign can jump on it and say why not have Barack Obama take the number two slot. Pelosi is avoiding that. However, I think it's more and more clear that Obama is going to choose Clinton as his VP. He doesn't have the time to expand the map and solidify the base too. The longer this draws out, the less time he has to pivot and the RNC is defining him as other already; something the Clinton campaign is validating to some degree. The sooner that this primary is over and the sooner the base comes together, the sooner this campaign goes back to being about Iraq, Iran, the economy and the future of this country. That's a fight he can win. A clinton VP would be a clear asset. Bill Clinton can continue his small town tour and focus on the south which would force the RNC/McCain to spend money defending territory they thought in the bag. If in MS Obama can maximize the black vote and get a third of whites he can win the state: Clinton can help here. If Obama can maximize the Hispanic vote for himself and the female vote too as Clinton has done; if she brings that constituency with here then he can easily win. An Obama/Clinton ticket is unbeatable IMO. Women don't want HRC humiliated: Obama reaching out would comfort them about staying in the fold. The Supreme court would keep them there. The historic nature of the candidacy would bring so much grassroots exictement. And I think that grassroots frevor would temper the inevitable roll out of the Clinton baggage; because McCain/RNC would be facing suburban Republican woman who don't want to see a woman being trashed like that too. JMHO But it would do a lot to immeidatly unite the party and allow Obama/Clinton to draw a new map and unite the grassroots frevor of the Democratic Party. It's win-win. And I think Clinton would take the job.
I think a dream ticket is the solution. If Pelosi was really worried about tearing the party apart with such a "divisive" primary, she'd endorse the idea. Instead, I think she is either (a) making it known that she does not want to be foreshadowed by another woman or (b) sees Obama, not Clinton, as the only way to increase her majority in the House. Both are selfish reasons and not with the good intentions of the party in mind. If you they did run together, what would McCain attack them on? They've already vetted each other and that's an understatement.
I think a dream ticket is the solution. If Pelosi was really worried about tearing the party apart with such a "divisive" primary, she'd endorse the idea. Instead, I think she is either (a) making it known that she does not want to be foreshadowed by another woman or (b) sees Obama, not Clinton, as the only way to increase her majority in the House. Both are selfish reasons and not with the good intentions of the party in mind. If you they did run together, what would McCain attack them on? They've already vetted each other and that's an understatement.
There isn't going to be any problem with unity. Democrats want to end the destruction of our country that the Republicans led by George Bush have wreaked the last 8 years and that John McCain promises to continue. Whoever wins the nomination should pick whoever they think the best person for vp is. The idea that supporters of the losing candidate are going to be satisfied with that candidate getting the ceremonial position of vice president is a joke. Obama and Clinton, while fairly close on most domestic policy matters, have overall messages that directly contradict each other and neither makes any sense thematically on the other's ticket.
Of course a Clinton adviser says that a unity ticket is the way to go -- that's the ONLY way that Clinton can (a) possibly hope to secure the nomination and (b) hope to win in the general election. For Clinton to win the nomination, she's going to have to take it from Obama by getting the superdelegates to override the pledged delegates won (in sanctioned contests, at least). The only way to even possibly do that without causing an incredible uproar among Obama supporters is to give him the consolation prize of the VP slot. (And it's probably the only way to avoid a massive loss of angry Obama supporters in the general election.) This is, of course, why the Clintons themselves suddenly started talking about having Obama as VP some weeks back. Therefore, no one should take a Clinton supporter's claim that a "unity" ticket is the best way to go at face value. They're saying so for political self interest. Now, as to whether it's a good idea. Well, yes, for the reasons stated above, if Hillary's the nominee she HAS to have Obama on the ticket. And that's so despite the fact that, for other reasons, she'd very much want to pick someone else (with more direct national security experience, etc.). As for Obama, I don't think he needs to have Hillary on the ticket. He doesn't need her for legitimacy the way Clinton would need him -- that is, if he wins, he will have a more "normal" claim that he beat Clinton to the nomination (i.e., "I won the most delegates and votes in the sanctioned contests"). With that, I think he won't need to protect as much against loss of Hillary supporters in the general election by naming her as VP. Therefore, I think if he wins he'll do what she would want to do -- pick somebody else, preferably someone with direct national security experience.....
Notice that all the people calling for a "unity ticket" are Clinton-supporters.
forget about their personal differences for a moment. having clinton as obama's VP candidate or vice versa, does not add anything to either ticket. the IL senator does not need a NY senator as his VP to help win the country, and vice versa. they will both win NY and IL without the other's help. and they both have the same type/amount of experience - more or less - she with eight years in the senate, and he with four. neither adds a meaningful geographic, ideological or experiential benefit to the other.
The decisive consideration is: would putting a woman on the ticket nowadays gain more votes than it lost? It would seem risky to go for a historial twofer, but perhaps not. Another possibilty: Pelosi.
No more Clintons! This would be an epic disaster for Obama. I think Pelosi sees this, as well she should, as a return to 90s politics that Obama is trying to kill. Let him do it. Let's move on. Why reward the Limbaughs, Roves, and Clintons of the world? It's over. She can go back to the senate.
Crawford's right in two circumstances. If Hilary is somehow able to wrest the nomination, or this is not decided by the time the primaries are over (In which case Obama will still probably win). If Obama can win on May 6th, he'll be able to spare us the nightmare ticket, and himself from massive headaches.
There is only 1 way that the Dem party does NOT unify and cast a vote against everything Bush stands for: if the superdelegates wait until the convention, and then overturn the pledged delegate lead. It will be a backstab too late to be forgotten, but anything other than that - even a wave of supers giving Clinton the victory, would be forgiven in the months to come.
Wouldn't work-think of all the personal tasters President Obama would need!
About the only way Obama can lose the Presidency is if Clinton is his running mate.
As a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't want Obama on the ticket as VP. No, I'm not racist, I just think he's full of hot air and nowhere near ready for the job. You Obama supporters have equally negative things to say about Clinton. So, much as I hate to admit it, I think Pelosi is right. Half the Democrats would be unhappy with the ticket, even if both were on it.
Repeat after me: there will be no unity ticket. Again. Now again. Say it over and over until it gets through that thick head of yours. Want to talk about the Democratic Party's troubles unifying? Fine. But let's have a reality based discussion instead of these "unity ticket" flights of fancy.
I'm not sure that Clinton helps Obama where he needs it. In the general, she won't help him either with independents or white men. If he does the right kind of outreach, he should be able to shore up the base without putting her on the ticket. Obama, sadly, needs a white dude, preferably someone with military experience or credentials. He needs someone the media can get all hot and bothered over, someone who smells like Old Spice, as Chris Matthews would say.
Clinton would need Obama as her VP choice after the damage she's done to her reputation among blacks. But Clinton has lost the nomination, so that particular ticket is moot. Conversely, Obama has no use for her. If her ardent supporters (mainly women) can't get excited for Obama, he has one argument for them: Stevens and Ginsburg are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, and President McCain means the stars will finally align for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
The Unity Ticket is a ridiculous idea. I don't want to cast my vote for Clinton -- I want to vote for Obama and the person he sees as HIS #2, not a runner-up. So. Frustrating.
I think a unity ticket is a good idea. Without Obama as VP, the Democratic Party will be leaving a lot of money on the table. Obama's upscale goo-goo base of support is like a gigantic ATM. Putting Obama on the ticket is a necessary compromise to keep the Democratic Party well funded and winning.
So the candidate who is winning and will win should reward the opponent who has remained marginally competitive by race-baiting for the votes of whites who might have voted for a black man before being reminded of why they should not. Where Geraldine Ferraro when you need her to remind us of all of Obama's great advantages as a black man? With luck, the Former First Lady's political career is already over. The Clintons are an embarrassment. I now have the same visceral response to the sound of their voices that I have had to Bush's for the last 7 years.
Let's think about this for a minute, folks -- HC has been, by most lights, a reasonably effective senator (the 2002 Iraq vote notwithstanding), and she is a master of policy detail on many critical issues. She's detail-oriented, a huge wonk, and (obviously) tenacious beyond measure. And she does have a record of working "across the aisle" during her seven years in the Senate. Now, the Vice President is also the Presidnet of the Senate, which would give her an office on Capitol Hill. Although she cannot vote in the Senate, except in case of a tie, wouldn't she be EXTREMELY well-positioned to help push critical legislation through the Senate -- sort of a "super-whip" (no jokes, please) -- when one considers that the Dems may not be able to attain a filibuster-proof majority in the fall? And don't forget, the main role of a running mate in the general election, apart from appealing to some critical geographic region or segment of the electorate -- is that nominee for vice president is the campaign's point person for negative hammering of the opposing campaign, to say things that the presidential nominee cannot say. Who better for that job?
I've seen repeated calls for a unity ticket - EVERY SINGLE ONE - from a Clinton supporter. They know that (a) it's the only way she could get on the ticket or (b) if by some miraculous turn of events she became the nominee, she would desperately need him on the ticket to appease the pissed of African American, youth, and upscale vote.
Jerry Crawford has always been a fool. I'm from Iowa, and I know him. Why you choose to quote him is beyond me. There will be no unity ticket. Obama should choose who he wants. The saying isn't, "to the victor goes the spoiled brat."
I don't think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be good for the country. It would not be a sufficiently clean break with the policies and personalities of the last 16 years. Psychologically, the country needs to turn a page. This would be impossible with Clinton on the ticket.
As an Independent I will NOT vote if Hillary is on any ticket....there are much better women out there he could pick
Pelosi The Clintons are a package and there is no room for 2 vice presidents-- Bill more than even Hillary is too much of a wild card His own wife cannot control him - how could Pres Obama? (thanks for comments section Marc - we missed you)
There are many reasons for Obama to NOT choose Clinton: 1. It would undermine the theme of his campaign. She is the epitome of old-style politics (in bed with big money) and old-style tactics (Karla Rovette). To pick her would be to say that Obama is not serious about bringing real change to Washington. It makes no sense to start the GE by saying you aren't serious about your stated reason for running for office in the first place. 2. She's shown herself to be perfectly willing to use any tactics against him in service of her own interests regardless of whether this is good for either the party or the country. Could she be trusted to not undermine him as president if circumstances made such a move useful to her personally? 3. She has a HUGE amount of baggage. Her talking points notwithstanding, it is still the case that she riles up the Republican base like no other figure. It's not remotely obvious that the damage she would do to the ticket on this score would be offset by whatever advantages she might have with her base. The only positive reason to even consider such a move would be as a way of bringing unity to the party, and especially as a way of offering something to her supporters (mostly women). But I think this is better accomplished by picking another woman as VP and by offering her a plum that is a bit further from politics (SC -- where arguably her better qualities could come out since she'd no longer have to play politics). Fortunately the democrats have a good crop of women governors to choose from (with the added advantage of getting someone other than another senator). Speaking as an Independent, I'd probably still vote for Obama if he picked Clinton. But it would be MUCH harder. (I'm one of the very large number of voters who would not vote for her under any circumstances. But I'm not losing much sleep over what I'd do in this case. For the reasons listed above, I don't think this is a likely outcome. And Pelosi having made this point multiple times means that he will have at least one big Democrat gun backing him up on this.
Hillary Clinton can do much more for the country as a senator than as vice-president.
My reasons for not wanting the nightmare ticket. GOTV is the ultimate factor in winning. There are now more registered Dems than GOP, although they could decrease the lead for November. Racism will bring out a certain number who will vote AGAINST a black. Sexism will bring out a certain percent to vote AGAINST a woman. Billarys' well documented high negatives will bring out some to vote AGAINST a Clinton. Some of these groups overlap. My question is why we would trigger any more of these people, who might otherwise stay home, to vote (some for the first time) than we have to. Don't forget this will also affect the down ticket races. I don't just think we should avoid Hillary, I think trying to run two minorities on the same ticket in this election is a gamble we can't take.
HRC might be close to ungovernable, Bill would certainly be ungovernable, and his behavior and business ties would present an ongoing risk of scandal. Plus, choosing HRC would be at odds with Obama's brand. One choice would instantly unify the party--Al Gore. I wonder if he would feel dutybound to accept if offered.
I think the media push the idea of a unity ticket becasue they want to continue the sitcom/soap opera in perpetuity. Political reporters would be constantly coming up with psychobabble theories about the happenings in a dysfunctional Obama-Clinton administration. Clinton as VP would be a huge distraction because of all the controversies that would come up. There are 2 alternate ways for Obama heal the party if things look too divided as the convention approaches: a) pick a female VP: i.e Sebelius, Napalatano, b) Pick a priminent Clinton supporter for VP: Rendell, Strickland, Wes Clark. I think either of these routes is preferable to picking Clinton.
Obama would have to be out of his mind to accept any Clinton except Chelsea as his VP! Chelsea would be good (Well, better than her Mom.).
Terrible idea. Either one would be weakened by the other at the bottom of the ticket. It undermines the other's core message. Not to mention, they seem to despise each other by this point and I would argue that the president needs to be, at least, neutral towards their VP.
First, Clinton has pretty much lost the nomination. She has long-shot fantasies in her mind, but she's done. Second, Clinton salted the V-P soil long ago. Obama will never pick her. In addition to her nasty attacks, her and her minions have been cuddling up to some of the biggest enemies of the Democratic Party, including Limbaugh, Faux News, and Richard Mellon Scaife. Add in her and Bill's massive baggage and it would guarantee that Obama would lose in November. Also, if they both served, the Dems could potentially lose control of the Senate (depending upon the results of Nov.) As it is they have to depend on Jokin' Schmoe Lieberman. Obama will pick a non-Senator, but I wouldn't be shocked if he picked a woman.
I'd have to agree with LRC -- it seems like Clinton has ruined her chances of being VP throughout the campaign. I could live with her as VP, but I don't see that Obama would ask, that she would want to do it, or that it would work well.
Secret Service would be dangerously overstretched guarding PresObama is Hil were Veep; remember Vince Foster? Seriously: If you think of the two candidates as leaders of wings of the Dem party, unity is reasonable. If they become personal champions and locked in combat, not so likely. That's what's wrong with the Clinton campaign; it's all personal.
Clinton goes away
Well, Obama is going to be the nominee. 99% chance of that. I don't see why he would offer the VP to Clinton after the disgusting campaign she's run. She proven that she represents what Obama is actually running against. But even if Obama thought it a political necessity to offer Hillary the VP slot, why would she take it? I see no reason why Hillary would take the job. So I think the whole discussion is meaningless.
Just what is getting everybody to believe that Hillary Clinton will agree to be Obama's VP. Never mind her husband Bill; she has an ego with the size of a house and it's hard see her working in the shadow of his former rival( much younger than her).Yes, she could agree to be at the top of the ticket, but nothing less will satisfy her big self- esteem.
Obama has a every right to pick whomever he wants, and the way the Clintons have treated him Hillary will be the last person on his list. Picking Hillary for his VP would be like having to deal with a viper or a scorpion. It is like that story about the scorpion begging the turtle to carry him across the pond, and in the middle of the pond the scorpion stings the turtle. The turtle asks why did you kill us, and the scorpion says it is just my nature.
Dump her. Sebelius brings almost all of the same qualities, less of the baggage, and doesn't have a grating voice that makes people think, "GOD! I have to listen to THAT for the next 8 years." Sebelius plays directly into all of the thematics that Obama has been trying to communicate, and she brings a calming, non-controversial presence to the campaign that simplifies the choice in people's minds. Sebelius is the person who will domesticate Obama in the minds of all those "working-class white people" we keep hearing about. Sebelius forms a wall of wholesome Nixon-Goes-To-China moderation that allows Obama to be an out-and-out "uppity black man" without having it rebound on him. She counters the presence of Reverend Wright in the race by adding a reasonable mid-western presence that will allow Obama to push progressive policies without seeming like a "radical lefty". Sebelius should be the pick.
Pelosi is. However, it is pretty certain that Obama will be the nominee and he could wouldn't have Hillary. I've heard he doesn't trust her. Plus, you have a progressive who is on the Dean side of the party and Hillary is DLC corporate. It is a nightmare in the making and cannot work. Nothing in this, other then the fantasy of the press, that says this is even possible.
The Clinton's have run a scorched earth campaign against Obama. Obama's campaign has been about bringing people in this country together to solve problems and Hillary's campaign has been about widening and encouraging the divides in this country. I am a democrat and a huge Obama supporter but I would not vote for him if he chose her as his VP. I would no longer be able to trust his integrity or judgement. The reign of the Clintons is over - Thank God!
I think a clinton/huckabee ticket would be just great. It folds together the working class voters who tend democratic with the christianist rest-of-the-country and brings a real groundswell of grassroots, common folk, populist unity to the Executive Branch. Huckster is also a good talker and motivator, and we all know Hilldog is a wonk. Strength with Strength. Plus it'll show all those limo liberals and fat cat Republicans what's what. Clinton/Huckabee '08! Unite!
Besides, doesn't Hillary have her heart set on being McCain's vp pick?
Hell no. This urge to play nice and somehow find a solution that everyone will like sounds like the syrupy advice of a Girl Scout leader trying to keep a troop of 13 year old girls in line. Hillary's style does not mesh with Obama's. I want a President and VP who mutually respect each other and back each other up, which is clearly not going to happen with these two. On top of that, there's the nightmarish prospect of Hillary skulking around and trying to style her VP role on Dick Cheney's, hoarding power and generally treating Obama like a privileged naif. And that's not even coming close to the fact that President Obama would have a VP who's going off-message a lot, PLUS a VP spouse/former president who's taking that divergence and going off-message the off-message... Maddening! For Obama to sign up for that would be like volunteering to live in a loony bin. Leave those sort of MacBethian politics out of the White House -- it can stay in the Senate, fine, but save us from well-intentioned Girl Scouts.
Besides, doesn't Hillary have her heart set on being McCain's vp pick?
Hillary is toxic to the Democratic party in any general election. With sky high negatives, a ton of baggage, Bill running wild, and who knows how many scandals in waiting. Hillary should always have been a non-starter when considering a candidate with general election credibility. It's always bad to turn to someone based on their family name alone. Just ask the Republicans how GW Bush has damaged the Republican brand.
Party unity can be brought about without a "dream" ticket. (nightmare is more like it) Democrats just need to be reminded they are not only voting for a president in November. They are voting for what kind of people will be chosen to be on the Supreme Court and in other federal courts. They are voting for who will be in charge of the DOJ, who will be Secretary of State, who will be in charge of the Defense Department or Fema. Do they really want another Brownie or Gonzales? Or Rumsfeld? Or we can unite the party with these three words: Iraq, War, Economy. Obama needs a VP choice they will help bring in more votes. Hillary won't help. Many of the independents and republicans that Obama draws may just stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is on the ticket. Hillary being on the ticket doesn't deliver New York. The democrats will get New York no matter who is the VP choice. Better to select someone from a swing state who can help bring deliver the electoral votes from their state.
Waaaiiiiittttt! OK. Let's look at this. 1. The guy's from Des Moines (the state went massively for Obama) And there are people out there who want to take the post and the other responses seriously???? I'm going to bed.
I think Hillary ought to choose Obama as her VP. It only makes sense for the popular vote leader to go with the pledged delegate leader. My guess is this is the price the superdelegates will ask her to pay to put her over the top, as the extent of the Obamimplosion becomes more apparent, as in, "Okay, Hillary, you've fought hard, and won this fair and square, and you've proven yourself the meanest dog in the pound, and we can't risk going with a nominee who will have trouble winning Massafuckingchusetts, but you've gotta put Barrack on the ticket. Deal?"
The best thing for party unity is for the superdelegates to step in end this process now for Obama. It will take time to heal, and one should not be so arrogant as to think victory is so assured in November that this thing can drag on much longer. That's what the Republicans would do. And they would not suffer at all for it. In essence, that's what they did with McCain; they quickly united behind him and shut down Huckabee and even Romney, and even then Huckabee went on to win some big primaries. But the GOP had chosen and it didn't matter. Now McCain enjoys a free field in front of him while Democrats fight each other. In essence, the superdelegates have to decide whether they are more afraid of the Clintons or the voters, or more afraid of the Clintons or more afraid of losing in November. It's sad that the Clintons have ruled like the mafia inside of the Democratic party. The supers needs to show courage and discard the Clintons once and for all. It will feel very liberating and it will be best for all, including them. The party and they will prosper. But the more the supers are scared of the Clintons the more they risk losing in November.
Petey thinks it's a good idea. Motion tabled. Next open thread please.
When a senior adviser for Ms. Clinton says a unity ticket is the only hope for the party, the translation is that Ms Clinton knows she won't win and is trying to convince the party that somehow everyone can win -- if she wins. How else can the candidate who is behind hope for the top slot? Show of unity! A little late!
I think hillary is gracious and savvy enough to offer obama the vp position. Is he gracious and saavy enough to accept it? It would help make him ready for his next run. it would give him the seasoning he still needs to win in his future. It will help him save face after blowing his chance at the nomination. I really do think she is wise and strong enough to give him the opportunity, even for all his exposed weaknesses. They will make each other better the way clinton and gore made each other better in thier first general.
"Popular vote leader?" That's funny, Thatcher. Tell you what, why don't we just include all Republican voters in Hillary's total also? Because, given a fair process, they would all vote for her too, right? Since "fair" equals "Hillary's current best interest." I gather, anyway.
"They will make each other better the way clinton and gore made each other better in thier first general." Funny, but I don't remember that Gore's association with the Clintons really did him any good. I seem to remember him keeping as far as possible from the Clintons during his own run, even though it was seen as throwing away a major advantage. Hmm. Wonder why? I think Obama would be a fool to accept a VP slot in a Clinton candidacy. A fool. I'll vote for Clinton if I have to, but Obama would be a fool to be associated with that ticket.
Hillary Clinton is gracious? hahahaha. Michael, I have to respect your endurance. If she manages to steal this nomination Obama is her only ticket to win the general. She'll do anything to get there so I imagine she'd offer it to him, but gracious. I say it again: hahaha. FWIW, I didn't begin this campaign hating the Clintons and was prepared to vote for Hillary in the general if I had to, as I did in two senate elections. Now I really feel she has to be stopped. And I'll be staying home in November if she's the nominee.
If Hillary wants to be VP, that might be the only way to resolve this convention without a destructive fight. I don't want it (I'd prefer either Sebelius, Napolitano, or Webb); but an Obama/Clinton ticket looks increasingly likely to me.
Obama doesn't need her. Clinton can't win without him. Obama has a deep bench to choose from...hell no to adding her poisonous self to HIS ticket. He doesn't need the Clinton baggage.
To be true to his whole campaign theme of changing the ways of Washington, Obama has to pick a new face, like Sibelius, Kaine or McCaskill. Picking Hillary would cost him as many votes for its cynicism as it would gain him. Besides, what would President Obama ask V.P. Hillary to do? Go botch health-care reform again? The way to unify the Obama and Clinton camps for the general election is for the supers to do what they're doing now: let the campaign play out long enough for it to be clear to Hillary and her supporters that she has lost, whether that moment comes on May 6 or June 3. So long as they don't feel like they were cheated, most of them will come around by November. It goes without saying that the whole idea of a joint ticket is one of many transparently delusional Hail Marys being heaved by the Clinton camp as the clock winds down on her campaign.
If Obama is dumb enough to pick Hillary as his VP, expect him to get the Vince Foster treatment in his first year. If Hillary is the VP, getting rid of President Obama will be too tempting, which would allow her to get what she deserved in the first place - the presidency.
Several commenters, in varying degrees of jest, have already suggested Hillary as VP would be hazardous to the health of President Obama. I think this is worth serious thought, rather than merely edgy. You don't think so? Read MacBeth. Some people should not be in a semi-permanently close frustrating relationship to the power they seek -- unless they are young and dewy enough to wait their turn. We have seen that lying, cheating and stealing are oft-used arrows in the Clinton quiver, and that smaller crimes do not self-restrict but lead to bigger ones. It may be not for nothing that President Clinton pardoned so many criminals, and does business with still more.
McCain's campaign manager, the one who said he would step down if Obama were the nominee because he does not want to tarnish the man, said that he would burn down his own house for a chance to run a negative campaign against Hillary Clinton. I think many of the people who chirp about the unity ticket fail to realize the severity of Hillary's negatives outside of the Democratic party. Obama in no way needs to tap into that ill will. If he's truly worried about Hillary's supporters, he can easily tap Sebelius or Napolitano to get back the old guard feminists who have been voting for her 70-30 this whole process. I doubt it will be a major problem, though.
The "Dream Ticket" is a nightmare. It might work if Clinton didn't have so much baggage and hadn't already thrown both reason and party loyalty out the window. But she does and she has. Any ticket she's part of now is toxic.
It does seem like the obvious solution, but I sure wouldn't trust Clinton as VP. As I heard one of the pundits say, "who would be Obama's food taster?"
It's not a dream ticket. It's a nightmare ticket.
Meanwhile Economic brainiacs endorse Obama http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9595dd85-2990-431d-9c6f-bf9c7eadac42
I think it's a disastrous idea, and one time to stand up to the Clintons. Her governing style is completely different from his, and not in a complementary way. That said, I don't see why she wants the job. She'd have more influence in the Senate, and be her own boss.
Two more points: In a more normal election (let's say Obama had the nomination, and all other candidates had gracefully dropped out and thrown him their support), then Obama choosing my preferred candidate (let's say Biden) would be a plus: He sees the same great qualities in Biden that I do, so we have a similar judgment of people, so I feel better about voting for him. The level of vitriol as it is, I don't think anyone would buy that Obama offering Clinton the veep slot betrayed any respect for what she could bring to the ticket. Make the Clintons put their actions where their mouths are: They can support the nominee and his choice of veep, and try to get Dems elected all down the ticket. The second point: Clinton's been a foreign relations gaffe machine. The soulless Putin, the threats to bomb bomb bomb Iran, the tasteless joke about the prime minister of New Zealand--even if she wasn't running, those should give anyone serious pause about giving her an even more prominent stage from which to embarass the country. (The New Zealand one is particularly egregious because if anyone told that joke about Clinton, her supporters would be shrieking "MISOGYNY!!" rather than saying how nice it is that she at least knows the Prime Minister's name, even if she's confused about who's in office.)
"Popular vote leader?" That's funny, Thatcher. Tell you what, why don't we just include all Republican voters in Hillary's total also? The Obama campaign itself brags about all the votes it's gotten from Republicans and Independents. If you wanna get all partisan on me, I would simply point out that if one is talking about the votes of actual, living and breathing Democrats, it isn't even debatable who is the popular vote leader (and eventual winner). It's Hillary Rodham Clinton. By a country mile.
As a Hillary supporter, I oppose the unity ticket. Why? My first loyalties are for Bill Richardson. In an Obama Presidency, I would hope to see: Hillary get SCOTUS, Richardson VeeP, Biden SecState, Edwards AttorneyG, and Dodd name-recognition. If Obama manages to fill one of these slots as I have, I'll be happy. Otherwise, I will consider it a bad omen.
"...a unity ticket is the only way that Democrats can come together in the fall." Right.... Because the Microsoft-Yahoo merger is totally going to work too. Please are you kidding me. An Obama-Clinton Presidential campaign would make for once-in-a-lifetime-reality-t.v. but there's no way it would work.
It is bizarre that snarky hateful obama supporters can go on line an suggest that a vp would off the president. It is similarly bizarre that you would embrass jokes rumors and accusations about a man's suicide as a way to explain your preferences for your candidate. Does your rancid joking about vince foster and Hillary give me room to embrace rumors and accusations from crazies on the other side of your fence and say that obama is muslim, atheist or communist? That you sink to joking about a suicide really demeans you and your candidate.
Nancy Pelosi or a no name Iowa lawyer? Something tells me Pelosi's got better political instincts. She was smart enough not to commit to Clinton, at least. There will be no unity ticket. The Clintons are anathema to Obama's whole raison d'etre. Sorry Hillary supports, she's going back to the Senate until New Yorkers (myself included) vote her out of office in 2012.
No dream ticket. The monkey wrench in the works is Bill. What exactly would Barack be doing if he's vice president? Perhaps Hillary is magnanimous, but I don't see Bill helping Barack's portfolio.
Nancy Pelosi is right. No Obama/Clinton ticket. He doesn't need her to win in November. She has way to much baggage and Bill would only be a problem for Obama. The Des Moines lawyer doesn't know what he's talking about.
Isn't it funny that Bill Clinton and every ex-president except Jimmy carter has been near perfect in thier comportment during other president's terms, that Clinton travelled the world to support a president he and we (his party) intensely disagree with AND yet crazy obama supporters think he could not effectively comport himself during an obama or Hillary presidency? you obama supporters can't figure anything out. Saying that half the party doesn't matter and that a candidate with 1600 delegates doesn't matter to Obama if he somehow comes back from his current problems and gets the nomination? You obama supporters are like those folks on the news who don't get out of thier houses in hurricaines or floods or wild fires, which is to say that when it really matters your stubborness gets in the way of common sense.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
I think it may become politically necessary, though disastrous in application. Senator Clinton's supporters are ardent, and I honestly don't see them lining up behind Senator Obama with much zeal unless she's on the ticket.
Then again, that rewards vicious and mendacious behavior, so I'm not sure how I feel about that.
If Obama wants to win, he may need Hillary because of the kind of race she has won. And she'll be a non-stop headache as VP.
Posted by Reaper0Bot0 | April 25, 2008 4:30 PM