February 2, 2008

Dream team?

OK, here's something I neglected to mention in my post about the recent Dem debate. Near the end of the thing, the candidates were asked if they'd consider being on the same ticket, either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. Obama had a quick and witty response saying, "Well, there's quite a bit of difference there."

Needless to say, they both avoided giving any indication if they'd even consider it.

But considering the fact that many in the country are torn between the two, and that between them, they'd be the closest thing to a sure thing the Dems could ever hope for, consider four questions.

1. What do you think of the idea? Is the possibility appealing to you?

2. Do you think it is in any way possible? Why or why not?

3. Who do you think would be best at the top of the ticket? Why?

4. Do you think your choice for vice president would ever agree to accept the slot?


At 2/02/2008 7:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should he win the nomination, Obama will not choose Hillary, as he will not need her. She has too great an ego and he will never consider allowing Bill Clinton near the White House.

Hillary, however, I do not believe that she can win without Obama. I do not know that she (or Bill) could accept the understanding that they would be riding Obama's coattails to the White House. Billary's combined ego may be too big to accept a rock-star VP.

In the end, it makes great sense either way, but I do not see it happening because of the Clinton ego.

At 2/02/2008 10:46 AM, Anonymous Tinker said...

As long as Clinton or Obama doesn't take a phony like Edwards, Democrats will win!

At 2/02/2008 10:52 AM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Sometimes tickets are forged as a matter of political necessity, in order to bring in a key state or, in the case of HRC or Obama, a certain constituency.

Look at it this way- whichever one doesn't get it, then that person's constituency will feel alienated and slightly "less than enthusiastic". (either the women or the young people/Blacks). So in that sense, it makes better sense to have a HRC-Obama ticket.

I don't believe that it is too risky to nominate both a woman and a Black or that the country is "not ready". That is a different discussion.

I think it's shaping up to be a Democratic year anyway, but this makes it easier.

At 2/02/2008 12:48 PM, Blogger tiz said...

I agree with anon 7:23. There's no way Hillary would let herself be the undercard to Obama (or anyone else for that matter). If Barack is serious about his message of change (and I think he is, which is why I'm supporting him) he'd do better to pick a more unconventional running mate. Bloomberg has been adamant that he's not running for president. He has been careful not to say anything about VP. I think an Obama/Bloomberg ticket would be unbeatable.

If Hillary gets the nod, she doesn't choose Obama at her own peril. All of the "new blood" (young people, moderate republicans and independents) that Barack has brought into our primaries will be needed to overcome the droves of pissed-off bible thumpers who would vote for anyone to keep a Clinton out of the White House. Picking him for a running mate would also obviously undo some of the internal damage that has come from going negative.

At 2/02/2008 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

go back in your archives dope, I think someone predicted a Clinton Obama ticket on your site over 14 months ago.

At 2/02/2008 3:50 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1. No, the possibility is not appealing to me--February to November is a million years away and the luster will come off anyone nominated by then. Asking the American People to swallow two "firsts" just too big a leap of faith. It's giving too many people a reason to pull back;

2. It is possible if She wins the delegate count by the thinnest of margins with nervous Super-D's weighing in the balance. She will have to please the fidgety Super-D's and that will be the end of Wesley Clark wet dream and the beginning of the Obama Executive Experience;

3. She would. A campaign between her and Wink wouldn't be a fair fight. She would be the Alpha Male in the race. A campaign between her and the Crazy Uncle would be the easiest campaign in the history of demography. You could practically NAME the undecideds. That makes the campaign a ground game. Nobody wins a ground game against Team Clinton;

4. He would/She wouldn't. He would do it to do the GHWBush thing and gain palpable executive experience/credentials. He likes being a Rock Star more than being a Senator anyhow.

That ticket would win. It would be hell for both of them...he would spend 8 years leaking "It ain't my fault!"

You've heard "Good Government is good politics" and that's often true. Much less frequently is good politics good government. That ticket would win but it be tough governing. I don't see BO taking a Gore-like bullet for the team.

Good Topic. Continued Success!

At 2/02/2008 4:29 PM, Blogger Andy said...

1. If Obama is the nominee, I don’t find the idea appealing. If it’s Clinton, I do think it would be ok.
2. I do think Obama *might* be inclined to take that seat. I don’t think there is any way that Clinton would accept that slot. Either way, I think the chances of a Obama-Clinton ticket are highly unlikely. I find it much more likely that either one of them will select a governor, probably from a swing state like Ohio.
3. I think Obama would be far better at the top of the ticket. I think that Clinton could win in a general election, but that it will be difficult and that it will be a drag for House and Senate candidates. The Republicans will come out to vote against Hillary. As for Obama, I do believe that he is genuine in his desire to transform politics. But I think it’s naïve to believe that the current batch of Republicans will suddenly become cooperative. The only way this is going to happen is through brute legislative force. Conservative Neanderthals only understand that kind of reasoning.
4. My choice for VP would be someone out of the box. I would consider Bob Kerrey. He was a war hero, national security expert, seen as kind of a maverick, was a Midwestern Senator and is outside the political environment in Washington right now. Not sure he would accept though.

At 2/02/2008 5:43 PM, Blogger Whetam Gnauckweirst said...

I agree with "anonymous" about Hillary simply having too great an ego to be the VP most effective for Obama. And Bill Clinton continues to be a lightning rod. Bill's aggressive campaigning for his wife has been pretty distasteful and I think he would be a huge liability -- a needless liability.

Honestly, I think Obama should employ some asymmetrical warfare and make Dick Cheney his VP when he wins. He should have Cheney hypnotized and ordered to undo all of the goddamned mess he's created over the last 8 years.

At 2/02/2008 11:39 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, I love it, I love it, I love it. I guess I finally found something that people are willing to offer rational, reasonable comments on.

Great responses by all. Thanks.

To Anon 1:18 who urged me to check my archives as someone had suggested an Clinton/Obama ticket in the past.

You really made me work, damn it. It took quite some time and searching to try to find this needle in the haystack, but I wanted to give it some effort so that credit could be given.

I finally came across a comment by "LatinV" to a post published WAY back on April 8th of 2005, in which said he'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket, though he acknowledged it would probably never happen.

And to Whetam Gnauckweirst, your comment about an Obama/Cheney ticket might not be that far-fetched.

When Katie Couric recently asked all the candidates if they could take one book (aside from the bible) to the White House were they elected, what would it be?

Obama cited an outstanding book which I've happened to read. Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" which details Lincoln's choice of his political rivals to serve on his cabinet. It was a deft move and served him well for many reasons.

But in this day and age, the very thought of Obama filling his cabinet with radical righties or neo-cons sends a shiver down my spine. Maybe chosing Cheney as VP would be the ultimate show of Obama's goal of "uniting" the country by not seeing Republican or Democratic, conservative or liberal labels?

For the love of God, Ihope not.

By the way, Bill Moyer's Journal is soliciting your choice for what book the next president should take with them to the White House.

You can send in your suggestions at the show's website and they'll publish the results as well as reveal them on a future show. Just go to the PBS site and look for or search for the Bill Moyer's Journal page.

At 2/06/2008 7:15 AM, Anonymous Andrew said...

After Super Tuesday, the republican ticket appears headed to -

McCain - Huckabee.
Huck can help in the South (not that the Republicans need much, as the Dem's have been quite poor in the South) and he is very likeable and will be able to out debate any Dem VP-nominee. In addition, Huck appeases the Conservative wing.

Clinton, after the California win, appears headed for the nomination. I do not see one Democrat who she can choose that will be a benefit (other than Obama - who, I don't think would accept). Maybe someone from Florida or Ohio, in an attempt to win one of these swing states?

At 2/06/2008 7:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am trying to figure out who are reasonable Democtrat VP options - other than the losing POTUS candidate.

The Ohio Gov. is a Dem, which could help in a swing state, but largely unknown.

Are there other reasonable options?

At 2/06/2008 10:21 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 7:32.

The veep question is interesting... premature... but interesting.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is often mentioned as a possible VP for Hillary. He's bland as toast, pleasant enough, a conservative DLC Dem, and has a long connection to the Clintons.

And he's about as far from a "change" candidate as one could imagine.

If I had any say in the matter, I'd love for either Dem to pick former VA governor Mark Warner. The guy is dynamic as hell, a very engaging speaker, attractive, has a sterling resume of winning in a majority Republican state, has enjoyed phenomenal success as a businessman in the private sector, and is known for his innovative ideas.

I think Warner would be an outstanding choice, but maybe he's not from the "right" geographical area, a consideration I've long thought was rather silly.

And of course, one should never rule out John Edwards, who still remains very popular with many people and would be an effective voice for the middle class that's feeling such a financial pinch.

Bill Richardson strikes me as ... I don't know...he just doesn't strike me as anything I suppose. But he might be a prospect due to his following and the fact he's hispanic and a popular governor of a southwestern state.

Party insiders usually employ some cynical calculations designed to pick someone who can bring the most votes to a ticket, and I'm sure there's other rising stars in the party that aren't too well known that I'm ommitting.

McCain and anyone are still going to be so conservative that I feel the majority will reject them as representing a continuation of the Bush administration, a prospect extremely unattractive to a clear majority of the electorate, Dem, Republican and Independent.

The desire for a change, a true break from the past 8 years is simply too powerful to go up against.

With McCains message that jobs are gone and not coming back and offering endless war and conflict, I think a message of positive change and renewal will win handily.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home