The Dream Ticket, Dems 2008

[Monte Smith]

One way out of the current Dem disunity, some have been saying, is a Dream Ticket that puts both Obama and Clinton together as Pres/Veep or vice versa for November.

I'm curious about what people think of the idea, hence this public poll. Makes no difference who is on the top of the ticket. Assume either one.

[Gary Sisco]

What's dream about it to anyone but Clinton?

Put her on top, Obama has no reason to agree, and much of his support would go elsewhere because it's not Clinton support. Put him on top, Clinton has no reason to agree and a lot of his support would go elsewhere because she's on the ticket.

Look, let's face it. As I've said, she's a very unpopular, polarizing personality. The only sound support she has is with older dem white women and a bit of the anti-Nafta (absurdly -- she stumped for it, at the time) vote, which is far from a mass movement. Obama could lose that support and still be viable because he isn't dependent on dem loyalists alone. He has a very healthy swath of the make or break independent vote, and significant support among disgusted repubs as well.

But, as I say, *he* has it. The dem party doesn't have it and Clinton doesn't have it.

The great thing about the election this time is that there is a choice to be made. People have to decide which way to go. That's what people in a democratic society are supposed to do. Yet, we see the dem party worrying over it. They should be thankful for the interest, and to have a candidate with broad support, in Obama. It's pointless to throw a bone to one of the most unpopular and polarizing people in American public life. Not only pointless. Strategically, it would be idiotic. Why drain off the not-dem support for Obama, when it's the support the party needs to win in November?

[Dr Dave]

There are several possible Dream Tickets for the Democrats. Obama-Richardson could be good. Obama-Dodd could be good. I'm just talking off the top, here.

Beyond that, what Gary said.

PS: I can't hardly wait for the McCain-Lieberman Dream Ticket.

[Gary Sisco]

McCain will throw some red meat to the party's right wing.

[Jazz Purist]

Not a snowball's chance if Obama gets the nomination. And he will get the nomination, let's get that straight.

The job of POTUS is hard enough as it is, and as President he'll have his fair share of political enemies both foreign and domestic. And the last thing he needs is to have an enemy (like Hillary) embedded in his own administration on top of that. He needs someone who shares his political agenda, someone who won't stab him in the back every chance she gets. Then there's the overbearing figure in Bill Clinton and all of the distractions (and possible scandals) he might bring to an Obama Whitehouse. Why on earth would you want him that close to you?

An Obama-Clinton ticket, to me, is frought with too many negatives and not enough positives. So I think he'll end up picking someone safe like Bill Richardson, who, BTW, would bring more hispanic voters to the ticket to compensate for the loss of white Democratic voters, who might go to McCain.

I like Bill Richardson as a first preference; Kathleen Sebelius as a second preference, and perhaps Max Cleland right here in Georgia as a third preference. Nothing wrong with having a military veteran and triple amputee on the ticket. Plus, he helps to put Georgia in play.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Jazz Purist

Plus, he helps to put Georgia in play.

So would Sam Nunn, but he has claimed he isn't interested in veep.

If Clinton were Obama's veep he'd need a food taster.

[Gary Sisco]

And a bodyguard of his own, that isn't SS but in addition to it.

[Monte Smith]

I really wondered if Dems would object to the Dream Ticket, so-called, for anti-Hillary reasons or for electoral tactical reasons. Not liking Hillary is one thing, and I am glad to see it. I think the Dream Ticket, so-called, would be a major mistake for simple tactical reasons. Between now and the convention, no one in America will have more shit thrown at them than Hillary and Obama. You don't want two huge shit targets on one ticket, particularly if you can avoid it, particularly if the shit has been intramural between the two candidates on the ticket. That's just a bad idea. So I'm for it.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I really wondered if Dems would object to the Dream Ticket, so-called, for anti-Hillary reasons or for electoral tactical reasons. Not liking Hillary is one thing, and I am glad to see it. I think the Dream Ticket, so-called, would be a major mistake for simple tactical reasons. Between now and the convention, no one in America will have more shit thrown at them than Hillary and Obama. You don't want two huge shit targets on one ticket, particularly if you can avoid it, particularly if the shit has been intramural between the two candidates on the ticket. That's just a bad idea. So I'm for it.

I've said this before, but I think an Obama/Gore ticket would be a good idea.
Everybody says it isn't going to happen and they're probably right. But, an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a MAJOR mistake, IMO, for the reasons that Monte gave and others as well.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

One way out of the current Dem disunity, some have been saying, is a Dream Ticket that puts both Obama and Clinton together as Pres/Veep or vice versa for November.

I'm curious about what people think of the idea, hence this public poll. Makes no difference who is on the top of the ticket. Assume either one.

imho, not a fool's chance in hell of Obama accepting Hill as a running mate.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by hornplayer

imho, not a fool's chance in hell of Obama accepting Hill as a running mate.

Mine too. Obama might as well stab himself in the back.

[gonzo]

obama/richardson 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

What's dream about it to anyone but Clinton?

You meant Monte, right?

[Gordon B]

I think Obama/Clinton is the "dream ticket" of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and most of the other Dem big-wigs.

If McCain and Romney can make up, Obama and Clinton can make up. Bill will encourage his Obama and his wife to join forces because if Obama loses to McCain but Hillary acquits herself well in the campaign, she'll have another shot in 2012, which might just be 1932 all over again.

InTrade markets-- If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, 60% she get the VP nod. If Obama doesn't get the nomination 35% chance he gets the VP nod. Basically, it's even money whether the Dems will run a "dream ticket."

[Gary Sisco]

It's not a question of making up. It's a question of whether people would vote for it. If Obama even agreed to take her on as number two, I'd conclude that he's not as smart as I think he is, nor does he have the good judgment I think he has. For Clinton to offer him number two is plain insult. Also, Clinton, and Obama, knows that vice-presidents don't have a spectacular record for getting elected president on their own afterward.

If McCain goes with an empty suit like Romney, at his age, which at least raises the potential for something to happen, giving Romney the presidency after having been soundly rejected even by his own party, I'd conclude that he's worse than I'd thought, too.

It's time for a change of channels. The boomers have had their day. Time for some younger faces that aren't caught up in that generations evidently endless "wars."

They've also been center-stage in this society for long enough and then some, because of their numbers.

Time to start the fade.

[patricia]

Morning Joe this morning showed footage of Obama bowling and I felt a strange kinship with him. He too is an absolutely abomnable bowler, a score in the thirties!!
On one of the very first dates I went on with the future father of my children, not only did I bowl a 41, but I actually managed to bowl myself down the alley, ending up about ten feet down the alley itself on my buttocks.
I was unaware that one of the tests for suitability for President was the wearing of the polyester back-pleated shirt and the ability to bowl.
Strange.
Kind of reminds me of when some of the hopefuls go hunting and seem uncomfortable.
Issues?? We don't need no issues!!!!

[Gary Sisco]

It must be a real drag to have one's every move covered by media. Makes me wonder why anyone would want to do it, actually. Good-bye to privacy for the next ______ months or years.

I hope he doesn't take a wide stance.

Film at eleven.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

If Obama makes prez it'll be worse.

I'm thinking about the incredible fuss when he Obama had the audacity to head to the islands for a little break. I think the MSM employed the CIA to track him down.

[Gary Sisco]

Nah, the CIA would never have found him!

[clinthopson]

Obama/Richardson would be a winner.

[Gary Sisco]

That's the lineup I'm hoping for. It would be a devastating duo on the general election campaign trail.

[tristano's ghost]

Count me among those supporting an Obama-Richardson ticket. They seemed to have a great chemistry when Richardson endorsed him, and Richardson provides him with some "experience" heft, in addition to being a draw for Hispanic voters (an important demographic to consider, as McCain is the one GOP nominee capable of making inroads in that regard, esp. if the D nominee is Obama).

[Bluebrew]

I voted no BUT... it would certainly be an historical coup for the Dems to have the first woman and the first black man at the top of the government but with Obama and Clinton it wouldn't be a dream, it would probably be a nightmare.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

I voted no BUT... it would certainly be an historical coup for the Dems to have the first woman and the first black man at the top of the government but with Obama and Clinton it wouldn't be a dream, it would probably be a nightmare.

It wouldn't probably be a nightmare. It would be. Clinton has spent so much time tearing Obama down, rather than trying to show the voters why she would be the best candidate, that the ticket would be an impossibility.
I think it's interesting that Ms. Clinton thought that, given the dissatisfaction with the Republicans, she would have no competition for the nominination out of a sense of entitlement she seems to have.
Imagine her shock and dismay when somebody with, and I hate to use an overused word, but it's apt, charisma is put forward?
I don't think she'll get over her sense of betrayal.
The party owed her..........................didn't they??

[Gary Sisco]

Ask yourselves this: Would you want her to be your vice-pres, with her relentless ambitions, in a relatively do nothing much position, after having "taken" her moment in history from her (as she would see it)? Would you want to be her number two after having been insulted daily for months and coming close to spoiling her destiny?

[Bluebrew]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Ask yourselves this: Would you want her to be your vice-pres, with her relentless ambitions, in a relatively do nothing much position, after having "taken" her moment in history from her (as she would see it)? Would you want to be her number two after having been insulted daily for months and coming close to spoiling her destiny?

Kinda like Dick Cheney in drag.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

Kinda like Dick Cheney in drag.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
I know that Dick Cheney has created a role for himself as a kind of Co-President, assuming all sorts of power that the Vice President was not, traditionally, been seen to have.
But, isn't the office of Vice President comparable to the first runner-up in the Miss America Pageant?
The Vice President's purpose is to be available and current on issues and ongoing negotiations only because should incapacitating illness or death befall the President, he/she can step in and reassure the country that they are not leaderless.
Vice President is NOT Co-President. It is supposed to be a safety position, not that of an alternative President, isn't it?

[Gary Sisco]

Cheney is a good example of how much more care should be taken choosing these mofos. For example, Cheney -- and the office of vice-pres itself -- has no legal place in the military's chain of command. None. The office has no place in foreign policy, under the Constitution. The office has no institutional power at all under the Constitution except for the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That is the entire range of constitutional power.

After Cheney's performance, I'd support amending the Constitution to specifically limit the Vice President's power to that vote and that vote only. The rest of the time, the vp can spend meeting cub scout tours of the White House and so forth. Meeting with prostitutes. Stuff like that.

Clinton would be at least as much a loose cannon (never mind her husband being there, too), not that she'd want the office, as it's simply not, historically, a path to the presidency. That's not been common.

Obama would have to be insane to be her vp, because she'd wear his ass out with her vindictiveness and, really, her viciousness. It would be a very long four years for Obama.

[Xavier]

Seems to me that Obama would need someone with considerable foreign policy and international experience. I don't know a whole lot about Richardson, but I think that would be the widespread concern in this day and age. Richardson certainly would be an asset providing executive experience and a wealth of national experience.

[Gary Sisco]

Cheney has all kinds of foreign policy experience. Kissinger. Nixon. Etc.

It's gotten to a point for me where long government "service" (it's we who get "serviced," let's face it) is a reason to vote against a candidate.

In fact, the repub line at the time was that we'd not have to worry about Bush's entire lack of knowledge, or even interest, in other countries, never mind foreign policy or history. Cheney's experience was supposed to put people's doubts at rest. With him there, we wouldn't have to worry about the president being "Home Alone."

Right.