Obama-Clinton/ Clinton-Obama ticket...?
Bill Clinton adding his 2 Cents. There is a big difference depending who is on top: Man or Woman...
What do you think?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
What do you think?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Bill Clinton: A Clinton-Obama ticket would be 'unstoppable'
(CNN) — Even as Hillary Clinton's campaign attacked her rival, Barack Obama, for failing to "deliver on his promises," her husband, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that a joint ticket pairing the two would be "almost unstoppable."
The former president referred to his wife's own comments that indicated a willingness to consider the prospect. "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," said Clinton during a Mississippi campaign appearance.
"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."
He added that, in his view, Obama would win the "urban areas and the upscale voters" while Clinton claims "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."
Hillary Clinton told a CBS interviewer earlier this week, shortly after she ended a string of 11 losses with wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, that a joint ticket "may be where this is headed. But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
The New York senator has made the suggestion in other interviews, as have her campaign surrogates. On Friday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told the National Journal that it was important for the winner of the Democratic nomination to make the offer to the runner-up this year.
The Obama team has largely avoided making similar statements.
–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
Comments
-
Here's the problem:
The best strategic poker hand is to reveal one's VP as late in the game as possible, which is why you won't see McCain do that for perhaps another 4-6 months.
The only reason why one would announce a VP so early in the competition is if it solves a critical shortcoming of a given candidate.
Forgetting race and gender issues completely for a moment, Obama's weaknesses are as follows:
1) Long career of experience -vs- McCain. McCain wins hands down, even if it's considered to "insider" at first blush given recent McCain/GOP-right embraces (pun intended), because the bulk of McCain's career has been as a maverick against party/beltway establishment BS.
2) Lack of significant foreign policy and Commander-in-Chief "readiness" (whatever that means) -vs- McCain.
Given the above 2 hurdles he needs to surpass to beat McCain, Hillary is the last person that would make a good, strategic VP in the traditional sense of picking a VP to round out the ticket, for best success.
Who would be the best VP choice for him, to make up for the above weaknesses?
(Again, forgetting any aspects of gender and race at the moment...)
Colin Powell on the ticket would not only satisfy both areas, it would put him well ahead of McCain in both areas, and it would erase all political and emotional capital advantage McCain has with his military service and unfortunate PoW experience.
Powell is a cool hand just like Obama (excepting the past week's stumblings, that is), he's universally respected and could even take the military vote from McCain, and is credited as being the renaissance intellectual theoretician that (over the last several decades) transformed how West Point teaches and how military strategy and tactics may best benefit from study of classical and historical methods instead of might makes right as an a priori approach.
So after a month or so, when the realities of McCain's strengths and Republican campaign methods sink in, I think we'll find that current ideas of joining up for combined ticket are perhaps a bit short-sighted and lacking the benefits of the most strategic approach to picking a VP.
For this reason, I don't believe an Obama-led ticket would benefit optimally with Clinton on as VP.
A Clinton-led ticket might benefit with Obama on it given the huge turnout and positive sense of inspiration end empowerment he adds, but even Clinton may benefit more with someone else (like Powell or another who solves for her weaknesses) on as VP.
Obama/Powell would utterly crush McCain, no? -
I'm afraid Colin Powell is more damaged on the subject of Iraq than Hil - it was he after all who assured the world that the intelligence showed that Iraq had WOMD. It's ironic though because Colin Powell was the Sen. Barack Obama of 1995, an African-American political rock star who appeared to have as good a shot as any at his party's nomination for the White House.
If he should come clean about what he knows re the planning of the war in Iraq - well, that would change things in a heartbeat. -
Although it makes me sad to think it, I can't imagine America is going to go for a black/black ticket.
I wish all of this "Is America ready for a ______ President?" shit would go away and people could focus on issues, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. A lot of people will simply vote or not for people based on other things, which are not even vaguely relevant to what type of leader they are
Similarly, I don't think a woman/woman ticket would fly either -
Agreed (Ltt), and agreed (Flexi).
-
There won't be a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate"
Not that it matters, since he's going to win the primary anyway... :twisted: -
as time goes by, clinton and obama seem more incompatible in terms of political style. at one point i thought obama-clinton made sense but no longer. clinton-obama would be a nightmare for obama, since bill clinton would be de facto vp. if obama somehow is not the nominee, he should return to the senate. if he really wants to be president, he can run in 2012 against either clinton or mccain.
clinton needs obama more than obama needs clinton, since she'll need to attract the obama supporters who are turned off by negativity. the comment that semi-endorsed mccain over obama was an indication of how much clinton wants the nomination and how far she'll go to get it. -
Biden could negate McBush' tortured experience
-
i agree with bill. they each deliver constituencies the other is weaker on. the hispanic vote comes to mind as a big weakness of obama vs. mccain.
other strong dems (biden, richardson, etc.) can't deliver voters the way hillary can -- if they could, they'd still be in the race.
this "bill would be defacto vp" business seems to me the usual business of defining a woman in terms of her husband. do you think bill has been the defacto senator of new york? i sure don't. he's been in the public eye plenty since leaving office, but in a very jimmy carter way, doing international good works, not strong arming new york's domestic affairs. plus, what would a "defacto vp" even DO?
colin powell would be a disaster. anti-war dems hate him, and he won't take more hawkish swing votes from mccain. also, part of the reason he's perennially popular in these conversations is that he's pretty close-mouthed about his political views (as befits an officer, frankly). that does not give me confidence that he's a candidate i'd like to vote for.
for many reasons, some less pragmatic, i'd love to see a joint ticket. i think obama will end up taking the nominations, in part because i think more superdelegates will vote for him. i'd love to hear him talking about how proud he is to have a vp with a lifetime of defending children's rights, with convictions to match his and the will to make it all happen, etc. i think such a speech would go a long way towards pulling the party back together and reminding us who we should be fighting. -
hillary clinton has defined herself in large part in relation to bill clinton's presidency. it is reasonable to assume bill will have as much if not more input with hillary clinton than any VP she might pick.
-
witch-king wrote: hillary clinton has defined herself in large part in relation to bill clinton's presidency. it is reasonable to assume bill will have as much if not more input with hillary clinton than any VP she might pick.
oh, i misread your earlier statement. sorry.
i think obama is a little tougher than that, though. also, clinton and obama hardly disagree about anything. i don't see where the big wrangling would come in, anyway. -
sweet tea wrote: colin powell would be a disaster. anti-war dems hate him, and he won't take more hawkish swing votes from mccain.
Perhaps you and I have entirely different recollections of the man, what he stood for, what he fought against, and how his enemies (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) laid him out for sacrifice as a result of all of his embarrassing and highly inconvenient stands on principle on behalf of the rest of us.
To my memory, he was perhaps the first and single highest-ranking US official that broke ranks and came out adamantly against invasion of Iraq, rejecting the notion that we'd be greeted as liberators, asserting that we would only end up as occupiers and incite whole new waves of civil war in the region.
Alas, he was utterly duped with what appeared to be strong, bona fides intel and pushed out as the sacrificial lamb by his loathed NeoCon enemies to go before the UN (instead of Bush or Cheney, for that would have been suicide) to unwittingly peddle and stake his reputation on the whole dossier of lies that got us into this Iraq mess.
Once he learned of the false nature of the intel provided to him by the Bush/Cheney crew, he resigned and condemned the whole lot of them for perpetrating such fraud and lies on a grand scale and pursuing such a premature, half-baked and unjust war as he had been saying all along.
Politically, btw, although he was a republican, he was a moderate with many liberal-leaning beliefs. One of those center-of-the-road fiscal conservative / social liberals that are referred to Blue Dogs just barely over the Dem side. Pro-choice. Pro-gun-control. Pro-Geneva-Convention (important in his line of work, especially these days...). Pro-diplomacy and containment, as opposed to war itself as a lead instrument of foreign policy (the whole von Clausewitz thing). Pro-international-consensus and coalition, as opposed to unilateral, volatile and mistrusted.
So I guess you and I will probably have to agree to disagree
, as I think he's just the brilliant centrist that fills out Obama on foreign policy and military expertise levels, and leaves McCain utterly nowhere to go.
But that's what makes all this fun, so many potential choices out there for VP, great topic of conversation. -
sweet tea wrote: i agree with bill. they each deliver constituencies the other is weaker on. the hispanic vote comes to mind as a big weakness of obama vs. mccain.
the hispanic vote can be changed quickly for the presidential election
you just need to have the proper message funneled through to the major 2 tv networks and that'll get transferred to papers and magazinessweet tea wrote: other strong dems (biden, richardson, etc.) can't deliver voters the way hillary can -- if they could, they'd still be in the race.
richardson has yet to declare an endorsement
and biden never had a chance. he's just not sexysweet tea wrote: this "bill would be defacto vp" business seems to me the usual business of defining a woman in terms of her husband. do you think bill has been the defacto senator of new york? i sure don't.
being supreme commander of the world's most powerful power does have a definite effect on the egosweet tea wrote: he's been in the public eye plenty since leaving office, but in a very jimmy carter way, doing international good works, not strong arming new york's domestic affairs. plus, what would a "defacto vp" even DO?
what about cheney?
a third reign of bill is illegal. republican or democratsweet tea wrote: colin powell would be a disaster. anti-war dems hate him, and he won't take more hawkish swing votes from mccain. also, part of the reason he's perennially popular in these conversations is that he's pretty close-mouthed about his political views (as befits an officer, frankly). that does not give me confidence that he's a candidate i'd like to vote for.
i don't see powell as a viable candidate
that powerpoint presentation was his brist
how can he expect us to believe him in this instance?
like... i lied to yo before but i'm not lying now. for sure!sweet tea wrote: for many reasons, some less pragmatic, i'd love to see a joint ticket. i think obama will end up taking the nominations, in part because i think more superdelegates will vote for him. i'd love to hear him talking about how proud he is to have a vp with a lifetime of defending children's rights, with convictions to match his and the will to make it all happen, etc. i think such a speech would go a long way towards pulling the party back together and reminding us who we should be fighting.
an obama ticket, for me, is the only way to go
the democratic party has not been very different from the republican party
clinton would be a continuation of that legacy
obama would mean actual change
music cues from the sky
when doves cry... -
quijibo wrote:
what about cheney?
[quote=sweet tea]he's been in the public eye plenty since leaving office, but in a very jimmy carter way, doing international good works, not strong arming new york's domestic affairs. plus, what would a "defacto vp" even DO?
a third reign of bill is illegal. republican or democrat
as i said above, i misunderstood the implication i was responding to. i thought the idea was that if hillary were the VP, bill would be the defacto VP. i misread.
save it for the naderites. the democratic party has its problems, but if you can't see the big differences, i envy your sheltered life.
the democratic party has not been very different from the republican party -
quijibo wrote: i don't see powell as a viable candidate
Fair enough. As a corollary to your point, if duped once, may he not yet be duped again? (Same negative against Clinton in that respect)
that powerpoint presentation was his brist
how can he expect us to believe him in this instance?
like... i lied to yo before but i'm not lying now. for sure!
The doves cry thing was very well-placed, btw. Well done.
-
sweet tea wrote: [quote=quijibo]the democratic party has not been very different from the republican party
save it for the naderites. the democratic party has its problems, but if you can't see the big differences, i envy your sheltered life.
it's the truth
just degrees of conservatism
i'm hardly alone in this thought
regarding sheltered life: i challenge you
we pick a day
and whoever collects the most crack bags on that day wins... -
quijibo wrote: [quote=sweet tea][quote=quijibo]the democratic party has not been very different from the republican party
save it for the naderites. the democratic party has its problems, but if you can't see the big differences, i envy your sheltered life.
it's the truth
just degrees of conservatism
i'm hardly alone in this thought
regarding sheltered life: i challenge you
we pick a day
and whoever collects the most crack bags on that day wins...
bags? LUXURY. out here, we wrap crack in the skin of dead rats.
i'm sure your life has its difficulties, just as mine has many privileges. but many things about my life and the lives of people i know are worse under the republicans because of specific policies that do differ between parties.
that there exists intellectual territory to the left of the dnc does not make them "conservative" any more that the existence of the aryan nation makes the rnc "liberal".
the difference between honolulu and kodiak is just degrees of latitude, but i know where i'd rather spend the winter. -
Oh, let's vote the whole thing off.
:roll: -
LOVE it.
-
Total crackup. I keep going back to it.
Here's a little more fun:
-
I doubt Obama will choose Clinton as his running mate. It would go against his "no more politics as usual campaign" and he's been courting Bloomberg. And I doubt he wants to end up like Vince Foster.
-
from obama's twitter (can I just say that this is a little shocking? who are his no-longer-goody-two-shoes-campaign workers??)
Barack Obama BarackObama In Columbus,MS & wondering how somebody who's in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who's in first place. Vote Tues! about 1 hour ago from web -
alafairnadia wrote: from obama's twitter (can I just say that this is a little shocking? who are his no-longer-goody-two-shoes-campaign workers??)
That was part of the message (revealing the Clintons' attempt at power dynamic reversal / subversion tactics there), as well as another point:
Barack Obama BarackObama In Columbus,MS & wondering how somebody who's in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who's in first place. Vote Tues! about 1 hour ago from web
The hypocrisy of Clintons saying he is not ready day one, not past CiC threshold....but yet also that he is (by Bill Clinton's own criteria) if they are suddenly saying he'd make such a great VP.
Video here:
(warning: msnbc gives embeds inside an iframe without easy methods of stripping out embed tags for insertion here [b*stards!], so Flash player will delay a bit in loading in)
More Wolfson hypocrisy, waffling, backpeddling and hedging (and overall Clinton message diminishing) here.
So which is it. He is, or he isn't experienced enough.
Their own statements and actions betray themselves, for they know the truth as well as everyone else. -
alafairnadia wrote: from obama's twitter (can I just say that this is a little shocking? who are his no-longer-goody-two-shoes-campaign workers??)
In what possible way is this shocking?
Barack Obama BarackObama In Columbus,MS & wondering how somebody who's in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who's in first place. Vote Tues! about 1 hour ago from web -
I don't disagree that it's hypocritical of mr. clinton to suggest that obama should be clinton's vp. I think it's hypocritical of him to blast the idea in a soundbyte over the equivalent of internet based text message. if he really can't stand her tactics, he needs to stop lowering himself to that level.
does no one else see this? -
alafairnadia wrote: I don't disagree that it's hypocritical of mr. clinton to suggest that obama should be clinton's vp. I think it's hypocritical of him to blast the idea in a soundbyte over the equivalent of internet based text message. if he really can't stand her tactics, he needs to stop lowering himself to that level.
This is a fake issue. His campaign made a totally legitimate point. It should be discredited because it's via twitter? That makes no sense to me.
does no one else see this? -
alafairnadia wrote: I don't disagree that it's hypocritical of mr. clinton to suggest that obama should be clinton's vp. I think it's hypocritical of him to blast the idea in a soundbyte over the equivalent of internet based text message. if he really can't stand her tactics, he needs to stop lowering himself to that level.
It's a huge news item out there this afternoon, and some dumbass campaign staffer thought they'd ZING! by twittering it.
does no one else see this?
Wrong method, wrong medium.
I agree. Staffer is a dumbass, that's like breaking up with someone over IM. A 100 character text message medium is not where you deliver an actual blow. A limited medium like that should be for topic or event story teasers only (directing people to sites for full story), not actual teasing itself.
They should have twittered something like "Obama discusses joint ticket, questions Clinton's views."
Heh, politics in the uber-modern age. -
Btw, he totally delivered (read: pwned), and in my opinion still kept things on the level of issues and actual statements made instead of going dirty with intentionally damning, mere innuendo.
-
Carnivore wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]I don't disagree that it's hypocritical of mr. clinton to suggest that obama should be clinton's vp. I think it's hypocritical of him to blast the idea in a soundbyte over the equivalent of internet based text message. if he really can't stand her tactics, he needs to stop lowering himself to that level.
This is a fake issue. His campaign made a totally legitimate point. It should be discredited because it's via twitter? That makes no sense to me.
does no one else see this?
it's a legit point, obvi, but as jeffrey pointed out, it was the wrong medium. plus, frankly, the tone in a text based medium was sarcastic as shit. which, on one hand, it should be. if he's going the rove/starr way - ho ho ho, the little lady thinks she can pull this one over on me? if he's going the alleged obama way, it should be as jeffrey stated - this is what I'm discussing today, come out and vote! and let people read a well reasoned press release or watch an inspirational video of some speech. reading a twitter is just obnoxious. -
This.
jeffrey wrote: Btw, he totally delivered (read: pwned), and in my opinion still kept things on the level of issues and actual statements made instead of going dirty with intentionally damning, mere innuendo.
-
Carnivore wrote: This.
yeah, in his press releases and speeches. gosh! no one reads what I say, eh?
[quote=jeffrey]Btw, he totally delivered (read: pwned), and in my opinion still kept things on the level of issues and actual statements made instead of going dirty with intentionally damning, mere innuendo.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds