‘Dream Ticket’ or ‘Nightmare Scenario’?

Periodically over the last several months, the notion of an Obama-Clinton — or a Clinton-Obama — Democratic ticket takes center stage. The candidates then dismiss the talk, the issue fades away, only to come storming back for one reason or another.

About two months ago, this was all the rage, when Clinton began publicly speculating about her willingness to consider Obama for her ticket, which seemed to annoy Obama more than a little. Now that the race for the nomination seems to be nearly complete, the notion of an Obama-Clinton pairing is once again on the front burner.

There’s no shortage of opinions on the subject out there — TNR has been running a series this week with some sharp speculative commentaries — but as for me, I not only don’t think it’s going to happen, I’m not even sure if it should.

Clinton has some tremendous assets and very strong appeal to a lot of voters. That said, I’m not sure her best attributes are unique to her. Clinton has done well with working-class whites, but I don’t doubt there are other good Dems who could do just as well, if not better. Clinton has some solid policy expertise, but there are others who are just as wonky, if not more so. Clinton has very strong appeal among women voters, but there are likely others whose appeal among women could be just as strong. Clinton is perceived as credible on foreign policy and national security, but I’m confident there are other Dems who are just as credible, if not more so.

She could conceivably help in New York, though Obama would be favored to win the state anyway. Her appeal would probably be strongest in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, but Obama is poised to do well there regardless.

But the Obama-Clinton really starts to fall apart when considering the intangibles.

Michael Tomasky had a compelling piece on the subject.

…Substantively, something tells me that Vice President Clinton couldn’t work very well with President Obama. She’d always be thinking, “Well, I’d have done it this way.” […]

One problem is that I think a Clinton choice would be aimed solely at Democrats. It would be popular among them, but what about non-Democrats? Let’s note something that’s been little remarked upon so far this season. People keep talking about the stunning turnout in these primaries, and, for primaries, this has surely been the case. About 33 million people have voted.

But how many people voted in the last general election? Around 122 million. With interest seeming higher this year, and if Obama can indeed register many new voters, there is every reason to think that 100 million more people will vote on November 4 than have voted cumulatively over the last 18 weeks. Hillary on the ticket would clearly go down well among a large majority of the 33 million who’ve voted. But what about the other 100 million? How would putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket strike them?

It would depend of course on who they are. She has performed reasonably well among independents, especially more recently, so maybe this is a false alarm. But I suspect that by and large, her popularity is limited to Democrats. Which means I’m not sure she’d help in the traditional way vice presidential candidates are supposed to help. And it’s possible she could even hurt.

I was also nodding a lot while reading Kevin Drum’s take.

A strong vice president is one thing, but if you choose Hillary as a running mate you get the whole Clinton family in the bargain, and having Bill Clinton as a de facto part of the White House staff just smells like big trouble. That aside, the bigger issue is that picking Hillary would be a sign of weakness from Obama, and a completely unnecessary one. Obama certainly ought to reach out to Hillary once the primaries are over, but he can win in November on his own, and there are plenty of good, solid VP choices out there that would nonetheless make it crystal clear that an Obama White House would be an Obama White House.

Quite right. Obama is poised to usher in a new political era. Why turn back to the last one when picking a running mate?

To help bring the party back together again, Obama will need to prove to Clinton’s most loyal fans that he’s ready to earn their support and trust. That may mean picking a running mate who endorsed Clinton (Gov. Strickland comes to mind). But it doesn’t necessarily mean picking Clinton herself.

I can imagine Clinton working with Obama as a key ally in the Senate. I have a much harder time imagining these two cooperating, with a former president in the wings, in running the executive branch.

Update: Ted Kennedy isn’t fond of the idea: “Obama should choose a running mate who ‘is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people,’ Kennedy said. ‘If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it’d be enormously helpful.'” Ouch.

Never going to happen. Never.

  • I can imagine Clinton working with Obama as a key ally in the Senate. I have a much harder time imagining these two cooperating, with a former president in the wings…

    That former president has earned a new place in history, much lower than his old one.

    I can hear the Republicans now, screaming in their heads for us to please please PLEASE let Hillary and Bill be on the ticket, so that all the mean/false/stupid things they said can be rolled out against Obama. The presence of the Clintons would motivate the wingnuts like never before, and more importantly they would undercut Obama’s call for change.

    Obama is way too smart to let the old guard fuck up his revolution. I hope.

  • Ya. It is a bad idea. You’ll inherit some of her friends, but all of her Enemies.

    Obama does not need that.

  • If Obama is running against the dysfunction of Washington, DC over the last twenty to forty years, having someone who’s been front and center for 16 of those years would be a strange way to do it.

    I think it should be Webb, for a bunch of reasons (most of which are laid out in this sharp piece). But Bayh, Clark, Rendell, Strickland–all Hillary supporters–or Biden, Sibelius (sp?) or McCaskill all would be decent choices as well.

  • Yeah, why would Obama want all that baggage. I’d like to see Clinton campaigning for Obama, but not as his running mate. I don’t think he should go for DC-style gravitas either. I don’t know who should be his VP but I’ll know when he picks him.

  • There was a time I was a “dream ticket” fan, but that well is too poisoned now. I think it would be a good move for Obama to pick a visible, known Clinton supporter – and there are plenty to choose from (although Gov. Strickland doesn’t add much geographical diversity). As the economy gets worse, it may also be that Edwards’ signature issues become more resonant and make him worth another look.

  • She could conceivably help in New York, though Obama would be favored to win the state anyway. Her appeal would probably be strongest in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, but Obama is poised to do well there regardless.

    This alone made it a non-starter for me.

    My distaste for her doesn’t even need to enter into it.
    What does she bring to the table. (What might she take AWAY?)

    Richardson would bring policy experience, executive experience, southwest geographic advantages and Latino AND Native American voting blocs. If only he were a she, it would be a complete no brainer. I could understand the need to get someone like Sebelius instead. (exec, geography, relatively conservative, female… pretty good stuff too)

  • Bad idea, Hillary as VP. I like her in the Senate, or even the Supreme Court.

    My choice is Wes Clark. He would shore up Obama’s weakness on national defense and national security, where they’re going to hit him hard during the campaign. He nullifies McCain’s advantage as a military hero. Clark just towers over McCain.

  • An Obama-Clinton ticket would be good for the economy.

    It would assure at least one new job – that of official food taster for Obama.

  • Hillary would have been a terrible running mate for Obama six months ago. To the extent that she makes any more sense now, it would be a selection made out of weakness (i.e. to heal the party”) rather than one made out of strength (i.e. reinforcing Obama’s strengths, balancing his weaknesses, and getting his back.)

    I really don’t like the idea because it feels like it would only be made out of 19th C.-style back-room horse-trading.

    Modern presidential candidates pick V.P.s that they want, not ones that are thrust upon them.

  • There’s a reason the Constitution was amended away from awarding the vice presidency to the second place finisher. You want executive authority to flow from a single source.

    Like these days, for instance, in which it flows from the OVP.

  • If she’s really so hot sh-t for health care, let Obama appoint her to be his health care czar…omg [cough, cough]…what the hell am I thinking?

  • I think it should be Webb. . . But Bayh, Clark, Rendell, Strickland–all Hillary supporters–or Biden, Sibelius (sp?) or McCaskill

    Webb is a one-issue Democrat. On everything but the war he is at best a Blue Dog. He is not remotely progressive in a big-picture sense. Moreover, while his candor and bluntness can be a lot of fun at times when he is slamming Bush, that works well as 1 out of 100. As a VP candidate, his occasional bull-in-a-china-shop ways would be very dangerous.

    Bayh and Rendell are largely DLC types that would water down what many find appealing in Obama; Bayh and Strickland add little geographic diversity for a Senator from Illinois; Bayh and Biden would be a two-Senator ticket when Senators rarely win. I had high hopes for Sebelius, but her response to the SOTU was underwhelming. McCaskill has crossed party lines much more often than I would want to reward with a VP slot – and we give up a hard-won Senate seat that would not be a sure bet to hold.

    Of that list, I would go Clark.

  • I would like to see someone like Janet Napalitano of Arizona as the next Vice President.

    Napalitano would open doors for those whose support of Clinton was solely or largely because of gender. Some Southwestern states are ‘in play’ for Obama and Napalitano would be a significant plus for that. Strangely enough, with Napalitano on the ticket, Arizona could potentially come into play. McCain & the largest newspaper in the state have been ‘at odds’ for a long time. It would not be totally surprising if newspapers in Arizona endorsed Obama-Napalitano rather than McCain.

    For the ‘anti immigration’ foes, this could make an Obama-Napalitano ticket that would cut into voters who are only luke-warm to McCain. Arizona passed laws (signed by Napalitano) that penalize employers for illegally hiring undocumented workers. Large portions of the illegal worker community have moved out of Arizona. Needless to say, corporate america hates the law.

  • He would shore up Obama’s weakness on national defense and national security, where they’re going to hit him hard during the campaign.

    Obama has made it very clear that he doesn’t think he has any weaknesses in those two areas. He said very specifically that he has no intention of picking a running mate on the basis of providing any specific credentials on foreign policy.

    Sure they’ll beat him up over it but they’ll beat him up over it anyway. Obama’s job is to show that he’s right on foreign policy and McCain is wrong. And admitting to weakness by picking a national security VP will only give McCain ammo.

  • I’ll second tooweary’s take on Richardson, plus I just like the guy.

  • How about Bloomberg? Essentially independent. Economy expert. Executive experience. Too elitist? I don’t know. Just throwing it out there.

  • GREAT IDEA- now that shillary has proclaimed herself the savior of the white race, she can go around the country and tell the kkk and other racist supremacy groups that, like darth cheney, she is really in control because the black man isn’t capable of being president – that the whites are really in control.

    Do you think that if shillary was VP, the clintons would have him bumped off – according to some, there is a long trail of bodies behind the clinton’s rise to power.

  • I’ve said it here before, I’ll say it here again:

    The ONLY way Obama can lose in November is if he has Clinton on the ticket.

  • Would anyone in the Obama White House trust the conspirators over at the National Observatory any further than they could see them with their eyes closed?

    Here’s an idea: why not a woman who actually achieved her position on her own merits (as Obama did his), rather than some old has-been who represents yesterday for women: marry a powerful man, get appointed to everything you do as a result of being his wife, and put up with every humiliation he dishes out? I mean, isn’t feminism about one’s own power?

  • Napolitano, Richardson, Sbelius or Clark. Please don’t take another Dem Senator, we need all we’ve got even though we’ll pick up a few more. I’d go executive experience, Southern or Western state, then national security/ diplomacy/ military.

  • Pencil, if you think Webb is a Blue Dog, I suggest learning a little more about his economic views.

    Hint: he’s well to the left of Obama.

  • I’m leaning toward Clark. He’s not Old Washington, he’s a southerner, and he’s got the military credentials to shoot down McDumbass with ease. He wouldn’t steal the show, and he seems to be a decent campaigner who is comfortable in front of the cameras. Fox News would also have a tough time smearing him, since he’s been one of their military analysts for a long time now.

  • I like Richardson a lot, but like Biden he is a bit gaffe prone. Napolitano makes me nervous – one consequence of being Arizona Gov. is that you have to deal with Immigration realistically, which ultimately means you do plenty of things to upset all sides in the immigration debate, which will be one of the big hot buttons this fall.

    Brian Schweitzer? Able to win in traditionally red area, hard to put the “liberal” label on him, yet he has some pretty progressive ideas, good campaigner, plays to the Mountain West, a Governor to pair with a Senator. . . a bit inexperienced to team with Obama, and not a lot of electoral votes in Montana, but still seems to bring quite a bit to the table.

  • #20 – Tom Cleaver

    WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!?!?! A woman that EARNED her way to the White House based on her accomplishments instead of via sleeping with the previous president as “wife”.

    Damn – guess we should just cross our fingers and hope that PICKLES doesn’t decide that sleeping with the chimp has qualified HER to be our next president.

    Or even worse – What if JEFF GANNON/GUCKERT (homosexual prostitute with fake identity and bogus press credentials) decides that his many mysterious “overnights” at the White House qualify HIM to be our next president?

  • How about Bloomberg?…Too elitist?… -Danp

    Too not a Democrat. Instead of working to fix problems with the party, he’s been to hung up on ego trying to start a new party. Doesn’t sit well with me.

    Hint: [Webb’s] well to the left of Obama. -anonymensch

    Unless of course you consider his support of corporate immunity. I will never forgive Webb that vote.

  • I know this is probably wrong, but I suspect that a Clinton VP would mean the death of an Obama presidency.. literally, I mean. Poison. Literally. Her ambition, I think, would lead her to it.

  • I hate to have to say this, but with there still being elements of racism AND sexism throughout our country, to have a ticket with a black man AND a woman of any color would make it a no-brainer for many angry white guys to not even consider the ticket. And to add further insult to injury, it’s not just any woman, it’s Hillary freaking Clinton, half of the most divisive dynasty in modern political history.

    I’m not a big fan of coddling racists, but there are VP candidates to consider who are just as qualified, if not MORE so, to be a vice-president than HRC, and many of those candidates might make people consider the ticket, especially for people who are biased against blacks BUT don’t like McCain either. “I never thought I’d vote for a black guy, but McCain is for all the Bush policies that’ve been screwing me over for 8 years, and at least Obama has that Jim Webb (or pick a candidate) backing him up…”

  • So much negativity, so little time.

    Hillary would bring one thing to being the Vice Presidential nominee. She can be (actually is) the kind of attack dog you want there during the General Election. Short of Carville, there is no one else better for the job.

    As for being Vice President, that depends on how Obama wants to use the office. If he cuts it back to it’s traditional minimual role (ask every day after the health of the President) then she would do as well as anyone. If it’s to be the head of the Office of Vice President as created by Dick Cheney (David Addison (sp) really) then I’d say she could do a pretty good job too, but I wouldn’t really want that.

    It’s the more in between Vice Presidencies of Gore or GHWB that she would really do poorly at.

  • You, Me and Dupree with Dupree being WJC crashed out on White House couches and eyeing the little girls bustling about the halls. HRC would be obsessing about how she would have been in the Oval Office if Dems just did things like RepubCo and Obama would be wondering how the hell to get these people out of his f’n house.

    He’s so much smarter than this. Obama doesn’t owe either Clinton anything and we are in the poo way too deep for unproductive symbolic gestures like this. It’s an appalling idea. Right up there with paying off the Clinton’s campaign debts with the money of Obama’s donors.

    If H&B had any self respect they’d bow out with some grace and strong statements to the effect that they will pay off their own damn debts and work hard for Obama and whoever he chooses for VP. I don’t know if they’ve got it in ’em.

    Whoever Obama does pick is going to be more fun and more interesting than this cobbled together and unimaginative odd couple scenario.

  • What about Former Gov. Warner of Va.? That would be a great state for the Dems. to carry this year, he has decent crossover appeal…

    I think Edwards is a mistake for VP (I cannot think of anyone loosing that position and coming back to win it) but he might make a good Sec. of HHS.

  • C’mon…expecting Obama to select She-Unworthy-of-Naming as a running mate would be like going back in time, convincing Julius Caesar that the Senate is going to assassinate him on the Ides of March—and then telling him: “But go there anyway. Getting whacked by Brutus can be really fun.”

  • You won’t pick up Hillary supporters by putting a woman on the ticket with Obama. Women do not regard themselves as interchangeable (the way some men regard them). It would be real “shameless pandering” and obvious as such. The raw feelings Clinton supporters have are not going to go away with anything less than an apology and real reconciliation.

    I’d be suprised if Clinton would accept — but note that this talk is all coming from Obama supporters. Deciding on the VP is what the “presumptive nominee” does next. This talk is designed to make it clear to all that the race is over, when it is not. Clinton is still running for President, not VP. It is over when she decides to end her campaign, not when Obama calls for her to quit, much less when you guys do.

    This is demeaning to Clinton and has nothing to do with political realities. It’s just more trash talk.

  • Schweitzer looks pretty good to me: additional attractiveness in western red & purple states, won’t scare the NRA gun rights crowd who might otherwise lean populist, competent and experienced governor, “outdoors” image in contrast to Obama’s “indoors” persona.

    I used to favor a ‘unity’ ticket, but Clinton has stomped that sucker flat. She has become too antithetical to his message of newer and better and different – she’d be a little like running on the message of compassionate conservatism and then picking Dick Cheney, or bringing honor and responsibility back to the White House, and picking G.W.

  • What about Hagel?
    I know, I know. He’s a Rep. But he’s moderate. And could be effective in negating whatever foreign policy advantage the people might see in McCain over Obama.
    He’d also be proof positive of Obama’s willingness to reach across the aisle, juxtaposed against McCain’s mere claim.
    But I like the sound of Obama/Webb, or Obama/Clark. Frankly, I wish it had been Dean/Clark in 2004 or even this time around.

  • …(although Gov. Strickland doesn’t add much geographical diversity).

    if he moves Ohio to the Dem column then we don’t need geographical diversity.

    Count me as a supporter for Clark, Sebilus or Napolitano for VP.

  • WRT, picking a woman other than Hillary (e.g. Napolitano or Sibelius), I’d like to see some hard data on the wisdom of this. Don’t get me wrong. I’d have no problem voting for a woman without difficulty.

    But I hear people talking about them as if a woman qua woman would be an asset to the campaign. I am far from sold on that. There is a reason that we have never had a woman President or Vice-President. Our country is sexist.

    Things have improved substantially from 100 years ago, when women lacked the right to vote. But have we reached a point that a woman on the ticket is an asset and not a liability? I think the jury is still out.

  • What about Former Gov. Warner of Va.? That would be a great state for the Dems. to carry this year, he has decent crossover appeal…

    Not only would it likely put VA in the Dem column, but would very likely help keep PA blue. But why did he drop out of the presidential race so quickly? That’s a real mystery.

  • There is NO WAY Obama can beat McCain. And, I’m a life-long dem. Believe it or not, information on him being a racist IS about to be all over the news. And no smooth talking speech is going to help him. Plus, one in five american claim they will not vote for a black president. Sad thought, but true. Our only chance in 08 is Hillary. Like her or not – those are the facts.

  • Mary, the majority of Democratic women, even of those whose feelings are so hurt that they swear they will vote for McCain before they vote for Obama, will in August or September take one hard look at McCain and his anti-choice, anti-women, anti-compassion political promises to the far right, and will decide that Obama looks pretty good after all, almost no matter who else is on the ticket.

    Possibly not you, but certainly most of the rest.

  • Just to finish off this meme for good, I’ll tell you right now that Barack offered the VP slot to me and I’ve already accepted. We’ll be announcing this on July 4, right before the big potato sack race.

    BTW, this was supposed to be kind of a secret, so shhhhhhh.

  • Warner is a pretty much guaranteed pickup for the Senate at this point. I don’t know that he would be such a prudent pick.

  • .With Hillary only a heartbeat from the presidency–and that heart beating in Barak’s chest, I’d frankly fear for Barak’s safety. It’s not such a leap to envision her as Lady Macbeth to Bill’s Macbeth..

  • When Bill was in office, Americans were well off – so Bill as vp-in-law would be great. I mean, someone has to help out baby Obama. This job is for President, not fluff speaker.

  • It is over when she decides to end her campaign, not when Obama calls for her to quit, much less when you guys do.

    Damn straight, Mary. That’s why it chaps my hide to no end when people keep forgetting that I’m still running for president in the 2000 election and that Bush isn’t president until I say he’s president. To suggest otherwise is just demeaning trash talk.

    I am NOT delusional. I am NOT delusional. I am NOT delusional.

  • ‘Dream Ticket’ or ‘Nightmare Scenario’?

    Dream Ticket for the media and Republicans.

    Nightmare Scenario for Democrats.

  • It is over when she decides to end her campaign, not when Obama calls for her to quit, much less when you guys do.

    It is over when she can’t win. She can’t win.

    (1) She can’t win enough pledged delegates to win a majority.

    (2) She won’t persuade enough superdelegates to make up the difference.

    Like Mike Gravel, Hillary is entitled to continue her campaign until she feels like ending it. I, OTOH, have absolutely no obligation to pretend that her campaign is not dead in the water.

    The raw feelings Clinton supporters have are not going to go away with anything less than an apology and real reconciliation.

    Does the self-pity and melodrama of Hillary supporters know no end? An apology?

    For the past several months, Hillary supporters have taken the truth (i.e. that the Clinton campaign has tried to make Obama the “black candidate” and many black Americans feel slighted by it) and warped it into a massive lie that feeds into their victimization psychology (i.e. Obama and his supporters are calling all Hillary supporters racists).

    Now, Hillary supporters demand an “apology” for slights that were never made, save in their own minds.

    Don’t hold your breath. If you don’t like it, go vote for Crazy McNutcase.

  • “To help bring the party back together again, Obama will need to prove to Clinton’s most loyal fans that he’s ready to earn their support and trust. That may mean picking a running mate who endorsed Clinton (Gov. Strickland comes to mind). But it doesn’t necessarily mean picking Clinton herself.”

    Sounds like Wes Clark is the man for the job. And also a former general is somebody the ‘angry white males’ can rally around as well.

  • Please, the only racist here is Obama. You can all close your eyes because you think he’s the second coming, but read up on him. And his wife.

  • You won’t pick up Hillary supporters by putting a woman on the ticket with Obama. Women do not regard themselves as interchangeable (the way some men regard them).

    I was multitasking and skimming CBR when I saw the two sentences above. I had skimmed past the name. I honestly assumed I was reading a post by IFP.

    Which I think means that Mary has become a convincing parody of herself. And IFP, I mean no insult – the rest of the post was a dead giveaway that it was, indeed, Mary.

    By the way, the only downside to having IFP around (and it really is almost all upside) is that along comes meredith, and I can’t tell if she is a bad copy of Mary or a bad copy of IFP!

  • Nyet. Nein. No. Never.

    I disapprove. Case closed. Don’t even think about it.. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Keep moving…

  • This job is for President, not fluff speaker.

    Meredith, the job you’re referring to is called “presidential fluffer,” and I believe it was last filled by Monica; though I suppose the entire Fox News crew has filled the job figuratively for Bush.

    Cheap joke, I know. But I couldn’t resist. And why is it that people seem to forget that one of Clinton’s greatest skills was his ability to communicate? Or that “Baby Obama” is the same age Bill was in 1992?

  • cookie, it pains me to say this because I was (and am) a big fan of Chris Dodd, but the stark reality is that Dodd had trouble getting 1% of the vote running for President. it is hard to say he brings much of anything, other than just being a smart, good guy (traits which, sadly, the electorate hasn’t much track record of rewarding), to the ticket.

  • I third the selection for Wes Clark.

    I have heard it said that this is unlikely because Clark endorsed Hillary. I actually think this is a selling point because Hillary supporters already like Clark.

    Obama looks like he’s gracious in victory and Hillary supporters (the non-wingnut variety) are welcomed back into the fold.

  • Nightmare scenario. Which is why only the Clinton supporters ever mention it. And even there it’s not uniform support for the idea, as evidenced by Mark Pencil (on the sane side) and Mary (on the other side of the spectrum).

    And leave my (VA) Senators alone. Mark Warner is a shoo-in (knocking on wood) but I doubt we could put up an equally assured replacement in the time left. And Webb too, except for the misguided “FISA Fix”, is fine where he is. I have my doubts how good he’d be in VP’s position.

    Clark is fine with me; he was my first choice 4 yrs ago, mostly on the strength of his position on women’s rights as well as his military experience (just what the doctor ordered to trump up McCain’t No More)

  • Actually, I am a life-long dem. Just not buying into Obama. And I know plenty of people who feel the same. That’s why I am VERY scared about the upcoming election. I just don’t think Obama can beat McCain. And let me say for the record – I hate McCain even more than I hate Obama.

  • I like Clark or Richardson. Biden would also be a good choice. Webb is an attractive name to throw around, but in the long run, his over all experience might be a little thin, especially since Obama, himself has only been in the Senate for four years

    Clark and Richardson, both, would bring alot to the ticket, each in their own way. My only reservation with Richardson is that he’s kind of dull as a campaigner. Now that might not be a problem with Obama topping the ticket.

  • “You won’t pick up Hillary supporters by putting a woman on the ticket with Obama. Women do not regard themselves as interchangeable (the way some men regard them).”
    -Mary (35)

    …Mary has become a convincing parody of herself… – Mark (53)

    Admittedly, I’m inclined to agree with Mary, though I wouldn’t have put it in quite the same terms. I too thought it was IFP talking at first. Such a move could very well come off as, “Shit, we can’t piss off the ladies. So, let’s put a less controversial woman on the ticket to appease them…”

    Okay, I know it’s not gonna happen, but I’m entranced by the idea of getting an actual moderate Republican on the ticket with Obama, as opposed to hack-maverick McCain. I love the idea of an Obama-Hagel ticket. An Obama-Chaffee ticket would be even more up my alley, but I have to temper my dreams somewhat (otherwise I might start foaming at the mouth).

    Really, I see someone in the Clark/Webb mold as a more likely choice

  • “This talk is designed to make it clear to all that the race is over, when it is not. Clinton is still running for President, not VP. It is over when she decides to end her campaign, not when Obama calls for her to quit, much less when you guys do.

    This is demeaning to Clinton and has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL REALITIES. It’s just more trash talk”.

    So you’re saying Hillary has photos of Obama doing drugs with a Cub Scout troop as he buggers them one by one?

    In that case I’d have to admit you’re probably right. It isn’t over, not by a long shot.

  • About Webb’s experience, he lacks it in the legislative. But he has it in military and the executive branch!
    Many good and decent presidents have had no legislative experience. He makes up for it elsewhere.
    Sherrod Brown for Secry of Labor!

  • libra, if your soon-to-be-Senator Warner wouldn’t have dropped out I’d have never become a Clinton supporter. I was completely on board with Warner until he backed out. but i agree it is more important to let him win the Senate race than to put him in the VP slot.

  • …and meredith….

    Why the “hate” for Obama? I understand that a lot of people don’t “buy” it, but few people “bought” Bill either…

    Maybe you don’t think Obama can beat McCain, but in the event that he wins the nomination, you sure as hell can hope he wins, and work to change the party in the White House.

  • Bush willingly ceded his presidency to Darth Cheney who was supposed to reassure the country that an adult was really in charge rather than the super-annuated frat boy. Obama needs a VP who can really help, and not second-guess or compete with him. My hope would be Clark. He could be the foreign policy/military envoy to help reestablish some credibility for our debased country. A decent Secretary of State, even Alfred E. Newman would be better than the current one, in addition could begin to quiet the world down, and get people talking to each other.

    Hillary as VP would be a waste and a disaster, aside from the fact that her presence on the ticket would doom it from the getgo. If she hasn’t alienated all her Democratic colleagues in the Senate (Diane Feinstein won’t desert her for sure, but she’s a closet Rethug) she could, as majority leader, make a big difference. However, she has a lot of apologizing to do for all her race-baiting, which should have been beneath her.

  • NB – let me explain. MANY dems do not like Obama. Not only do they not like him, they really hate him. And, there are many reasons. Some view him as a racist, some believe he lacks the experience and others just can’t stand all his talky talky that doesn’t include concrete answers. Most of these people that hate Obama voted for Hillary – and I really believe – he needs her supporters. Another VP choice just isn’t going to cut it. Obama / Clinton is the only way we’ll win in 08.

  • I think he should offer Hillary the VP slot. Whether she accepts is unknown. The combined interest will put them over the top in November.

    Although I’ve been disgusted with the lies and the racial overtones of the Clinton campaign, she is smart and capable. No VP is going to go back to the non-involvement of former years after Darth Cheney has run things. I say take advantage of her talents.

    What else would she do? Senate majority leader? Many senators have soured on her. Governor of New York? What the heck would Bill do in Albany? Cabinet post? Maybe.

    Naming another woman as VP (I’m not saying they’re not qualified) would seem like pandering and would not mollify Clinton fans.

    And just for the anti-Obama trolls out there: As a life-long Illinoisian, I can tell you that Barack Obama has 12 years of legislative experience with many accomplishments, including health care for Illinois kids, tax cuts for working-class families, and stronger ethics rules at both the state and federal level. And no, he and Michelle are nowhere NEAR anything that could be construed to be racist. You can disregard any crap you might read about that.

  • Those of you who have suggested that Hillary would off Obama to get the top seat…

    I can’t tell if you’re being serious or just exaggerating for effect. Either way, it’s incredibly crass, so please stop.

    Seeing your posts, I can’t help but envision some GOP troll mouthing off about Vince Foster.

  • Please, the only racist here is Obama. You can all close your eyes because you think he’s the second coming, but read up on him. And his wife.

    Can we get some decent trolls for once? This one is just pathetic.

  • Molly, I think appointing another woman veep would probably anger Clinton supporters.
    I wouldn’t mind seeing her there alongside Obama, but she’d have an awful lot of fence mending to do, I think.

  • ditto to micheline (73)…. and if you’re going to cite Wright as a reason people believe Obama is racist give me some explicit examples of Wright’s “racist” statements.

    and I’d love to examine your assertion that he’s all “talky talky” without concrete answers…
    what issues are you concerned about that he hasn’t addressed?

    As for your third reason, I can’t believe that anyone would hate him for being inexperienced it’s just… so… irrational… anyone who actually likes the Clintons would do well to remember that this was the biggest knock on Bill (who beat out the supremely more experienced Bush I). Then again, I also can’t believe anyone’s eating the gas-tax bull.

  • I love Wes Clark, but I’m not sure he’d be any more willing to be Barack’s running mate than Hillary would (and I think she’d prefer staying in the senate to running for VP, though I also think she’ll campaign vigorously for Barack if he’s the nominee, as he will be unless some unforeseen lightning strikes). Richardson and Biden both have foot-in-mouth disease, though of the two Richardson is the better choice by far because he could attract Latino votes that Barack would not be able to get on his own. That Biden could attract any voters who otherwise would not vote for Barack strikes me as dubious. I don’t know much about Strickland, but he’s worth serious consideration because it might be the only option that would give Barack a chance of winning Ohio. Webb — and soon enough Mark Warner — we need in the senate. Sebelius — I don’t know very much about her, but her response to the SOTU made it look/sound like she’s not ready for prime time. I’ve been more impressed by Napolitano than I have been by Sebelius, but again I lack sufficient information for my opinion about her suitability as a running mate to be of any use to anyone.

    Are there any plausible Floridian VP selections that wouldn’t put a D senate seat in jeopardy? It sure would be nice to have those 27 EVs in our column for a change. However, no such Floridan pops readily into my mind.

  • Meredith @ #70: If a load of GOP lies and false innuendo about Obama is enough to convince you not to vote democratic in November, then you are either a doormat for Faux “News” or you are lying about being a dem. Either way, I really don’t worry in the slightest about your vote. Because if idiots like you really do hand the general election to John “even worse than Bush” McCain, either by voting for him or by not voting at all, then the blood will be on your hands, not mine and not Obama’s.

    When the dust clears, I will have done the right thing by working to put the Democrat in the White House. My hands, and conscience, will be clean.

    On the other hand, if you’re just a trolling blow-hard who will end up backing the dem in November despite your current posturing, then you’re an obnoxious little spoiled brat as well as an idiot. And in that case, I worry about your vote even less.

  • Shade Tail – I’m sorry. But Obama’s ties to Rev Wright just bother me! I’m an African American woman who used to work for Oprah – and let me tell you – she believes that black people trump white people. And, I think Obama believes that rhetoric as well (they did until recently attend the same Church). And as the republicans bring this issue out later on, it will bother many dems. I don’t appreciate your childish words. I am writing to bring a different perspective to the conversation. You can’t ignore what will be an issue. I just want to win in 08, and NEVER said I’d vote for McCain.

  • I sure as hell don’t think women are interchangeable, which is why I didn’t vote for this one and why I think she’s just about the worst possible Democratic choice for president.

    However, she is a better choice than McCain. So I suppose to a certain extent Democrats are interchangeable to me–after the damage of the last eight years and the prospect of more carnage under Johnny Maverick, hell will freeze over before I fail to vote for the person with a D behind his or her name this fall.

    Fortunately (HUGE HAIR- AND PAPER-BLOWING SIGH of RELIEF), Obama has won and I’m not going to be forced to vote for a person who should really be taking the closest interchange out of Washignton.

  • Are there any plausible Floridian VP selections that wouldn’t put a D senate seat in jeopardy?

    Carl Hiaasen is from Florida…(and would bring some much needed humor to this discussion IMHO)

  • meredith @#81: “I don’t appreciate your childish words.”

    I don’t care what you appreciate, and it is the height of projection for a brat like you to call my words childish. What you “believe” about Obama is not an opinion; it is stubborn ignorance. Whether you like it or not, you are wrong about him, and you could easily discover that for yourself by listening to his speeches (which are packed with policy specifics) and/or by visiting his web site. In this age of Google and youtube, you have no excuse for your willful blindness to reality.

    And on top of that, you are assisting the GOP by giving credence to their lies and smears. The way to deal with them is not by getting defensive and pretending that they are real issues, as you are suggesting Obama should do, but by standing up for yourself and hitting back with the truth, which is what Obama is doing. And he’s doing it so well that he has, for all practical purposes, already won the primary. I am not the least bit worried about his chances against the GOP in November, and you wouldn’t be either if you had been paying attention.

    So don’t waste my time by trying to chide me with your ridiculous moral outrage. I have no sympathy for people like you.

  • Shade Tail @84 – I think the problem here is that the rock, paper, scissors school of politics is in effect. Here’s how it works: Obama beats Hillary. Hillary beats McCain. McCain beats Obama. See, so the fact that Hillary’s campaign was so inept at beating Obama’s less experienced campaign is proof that Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain. Had Hillary beat Obama, it’d prove that Obama was the one who could beat McCain, but this is obviously not the case.

    But I suppose you didn’t know any of this and somehow imagined that we had selected the candidate with the best campaign. That’s understandable for a novice like you to make that mistake, but it’s simply not the case. As long as you remember that Hillary’s paper would beat McCain’s rock that will crush Obama’s scissors, you’ll understand why Meredith is so concerned about Obama’s chances in November. Or do you think somehow that scissors will beat a rock? How childish! The rock will crush the scissors every time!!

  • Meredith@81: “Shade Tail – I’m sorry. But Obama’s ties to Rev Wright just bother me!”

    Why?

    ” I’m an African American woman who used to work for Oprah – and let me tell you – she believes that black people trump white people. And, I think Obama believes that rhetoric as well (they did until recently attend the same Church).”

    I’ll bet that you’re as black as my pasty white butt.
    And… Oprah? Huh?

    “and as the republicans bring this issue out later on, it will bother many dems. I don’t appreciate your childish words. I am writing to bring a different perspective to the conversation. You can’t ignore what will be an issue. I just want to win in 08, and NEVER said I’d vote for McCain.”

    What a cute, little concern troll you are!

  • So Obama has the same beliefs as Oprah because they both attended the same church?
    Seriously?
    That’s your evidence of his racism?
    Oprah believes blacks are better than whites; they attended the same church; therefore, Obama believes blacks are better than whites.
    WTF?

  • The nightware from Arkansas: Obama + Hillary + Bill + and don’t forget, Monica, too!

    Somehow, if I were Obama, I would not want to turn my back on Hillary.

  • “I’m sorry. But Obama’s ties to Rev Wright just bother me!”

    You know what bothers me?

    The fact that the U.S.A. invaded a country that hadn’t attacked it; its leaders made up a pack of lies to justify it; most of the country bought into it; and five years later people are still questioning whether they should take the obvious steps to remedy the problem because a preacher at the church one of the candidates went to had a habit of mouthing off.

    Having said that, I’m putting the over/under for John McCain at 10 states in November. I used to like the guy, but now I’m looking forward to seeing him get steamrollered. And as long as Obama is basically a walking mint for the Democratic party’s coffers, steamrollered he is going to be.

  • I’m an African American woman who used to work for Oprah – and let me tell you – she believes that black people trump white people.

    It is officially over for Obama. He has now lost the African-American “That uppity Oprah Winfrey is too militant” vote. If he can still win without the votes of Condaleeza Rice OR Alan Keyes can someone show me the math?

  • I was going to write a long post on a number of choices — starting with why Hillary shouldn’t be the one — nobody has mentioned one main argument. Whatever you think of her, she ‘should’ve’ been the nominee. She had money, name recognition, all the rest. But she and her totally incompetent staff snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Add to that her and her surrogates’ personal attacks on Obama (ending with Mary Matalin’s husband’s “they’d both have two”). If she’d limited her attacks to his positions — no matter how she had twisted them — or his ‘experience’ they could have been dismissed and forgiven as ‘just politics,’ but accepting someone who used the race card and the others would make Obama look weak, look as if he needed her ‘adult supervision.’

    But I started doing some research, started with Sebelius, and stopped there. She is such an obvious choice. Catholic, pro-choice, incredibly popular in her home state, family history (father-in-law long time Conservative Republican Congressman, father Governor of Ohio), much more progressive than her reputation. Check her record in Wikipedia.

    Not perfect, but a very good selection. (I also like the idea of Chaffee except for one thing. Sheldon Whitehouse is the obvious choice for Attorney General in the Obama Administration, and then Chaffee could resume his old seat as a Democrat.) Webb, Warner, Dodd, are all good choices, except they are needed in the Senate. Richardson (my original choice for President) is a good second choice.

    And if there is a serious thought of selecting a ‘moderate Republican,’ I’d pick someone who has been mentioned for the Republican slot, despite the fact that he is gay, Charlie Crist. Yes, he’s weak in some areas, but so is Hagel. (And he’s one guy McCain couldn’t attack since he’s praised him so highly.)

    I also like Wes Clark and a few others mentioned, including Bayh — and ideologically I’d love someone like Finegold. But all in all my first choice is Sebelius.

  • Obama would do well NOT to take women for granted. We register and vote in greater numbers than men. If we are pissed off we might just stay home. Hey, the Dems in Congress have done little for us, why should we expect any more from a candidate who has voted “present” on issues of great importance to us.

  • You guys are in a dream world. First, I don’t need pictures of Obama doing drugs –he has admitted it himself. That doesn’t play well with a lot of people, including those in the rural areas worried about meth, those hardworking low-information voters (clinging to their guns, God and beer) and those who are not currently college students. Second, Clark is an ex-general. How are the people who accused Hillary Clinton (of all people) of being a liberal hawk going to feel about adding a general to the ticket? Third, there is a reason why people like Wes Clark are supporting Clinton instead of Obama and what makes you so sure they would ever be willing to join an Obama ticket? Fourth, the idea of adding a Republican to Obama’s ticket is not going to bring back the Democratic base voters who think Obama is too conservative — the ones like me who don’t trust a man who thinks social security needs to be fixed or that NCLB and Ronald Reagan are just wonderful. Fifth, the more you keep saying that you don’t need all those seniors, Hispanics, and working white people, the less they are going to be willing to vote for Obama no matter who you put in the second spot. The arrogant jerk (and his supporters) keep saying they don’t need us, that all those “new” voters are going to carry the day, and that politics as usual means politics without all those annoying Democrats.

    Maria, next time you feel like suggesting that former President Bill Clinton would assassinate Obama, think first and shove your fist in your mouth instead (preferably up to the elbow).

  • “Obama would do well NOT to take women for granted. We register and vote in greater numbers than men. If we are pissed off we might just stay home. Hey, the Dems in Congress have done little for us, why should we expect any more from a candidate who has voted “present” on issues of great importance to us.”

    Never mind women. A competent politician would do well to take NO voters for granted. So you’re “pissed off and might stay home?” Cry me a river. People like you spent months defending Clinton as she and her team dissed voters across the country for living in red states or small states or voting in caucuses or registering as Independent.

    If you think Obama won’t support “issues of great importance” to you (and I assume you’re referring to abortion, since that’s where the meme about Obama’s present votes began), go ahead and vote for McCain.

    Just don’t come to me and whine that Clinton would have been a more reliable defender of abortion rights because she isn’t. She was at one point a major supporter of gun control and abandoned that entire movement to pursue the critter-shooter vote in Pennsylvania. Can you give me one reason to believe that she wouldn’t do the same to the reproductive rights movement?

    At this point I’d sooner trust McCain on abortion than Clinton. A pro-lifer who’s abandoned his principles may not be any more trustworthy than a pro-choicer who’s abandoned hers, but at least if he stabs someone in the back on this issue, it will be the right group.

  • All you are demonstrating with this talk is that once you’ve selected one unqualified candidate it is super easy to select two. Someone earlier pointed out that Clinton would upstage Obama and not be subservient enough. That should tell you something about who is the stronger candidate. When the top guy is weak and you have to make sure no one outshines him, you’re back in Bush territory, selecting people for their ideological loyalty instead of their qualifications for a job. Haven’t you learned anything from the past 7 years?

    Hagel is going to run in 4 years. He won’t be interested in doing anything to help Obama.

  • How are the people who accused Hillary Clinton (of all people) of being a liberal hawk going to feel about adding a general to the ticket?

    Well, Mare, not all generals and people with military experience and expertise are interchangeable, and I’m disappointed that you lump them together with such insouciant prejudice. Some are smart, and some are dumb, and some are good candidates, and some are bad, you see.

    I don’t personally see the attraction to Wes Clark, but some of my compatriots seem to think he’s worth thinking about.

    Maria, next time you feel like suggesting that former President Bill Clinton would assassinate Obama

    What the eff are you slurring about now? Every weekend night nowadays you get on here and post boozy, incoherent tirades that seem to refer only to little movies playing out in your cottony head. If this is about my observing that the Big Dog’s nose looks like late-stage syphilis, I assure you I wasn’t concerned that Bill would try to kill Obama by seducing him. We’ve established that urbane, elitist Barack’s taste is far too refined for Bill to be able to pull that off.

  • Maria — apparently you haven’t actually read Macbeth. Everyone else has, so you’re just making yourself sound stupid.

  • I just hope Obama doesn’t take away from this that he needs to be even more Centrist and with less regard to women’s and other personal freedom issues..

    Steve, Clinton brings to the table several things: Healing. Feminism. Language. Experience. And… Actually a more liberal set of proposals.

    That’s what I’m worried about. Will we actually lose the left from this?

  • Um, Mare, but there’s no relevance in the Macbeth reference, my drunken doll. Only a misguided missile of impotent anger. A post penned by an idiot, full of sound and fury.

  • Steve, Clinton brings to the table several things

    Crissa, I know you’re a Clinton supporter from way back; I remember seeing you at Washington Monthly, too, and have liked your posts there. Serious question: Do you think she’d take it? I really have no idea. I probably wouldn’t, if I were she, but I’ve heard some decent arguments for why she would.

    Mary: Post #46, which I just now noticed, isn’t mine. (In fact, I wonder if it isn’t you posting as me–I understand you’ve handle-jacked before.) Am fairly certain that anyone else could instantly spot the difference in style, tone and spelling ability, but we’ve established that your analytical ability is pretty much nil.

  • Have you noticed the polls say that Clinton has a better chance of defeating McCain in the Presidential election than Obama does?

    Check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    If Clinton is not the nominee for President, many Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or Nader because of the dismissive attitude of Obama and his supporters, the biased media. Nader offers real change and a progressive agenda. McCain is a patriot and war hero.

  • Comments are closed.