Washington File

Here is the problem with the dream ticket..there has never been a woman president and there has never been a black president...so statiscally speaking the dream ticket will have no chance of success..second...the dream ticket will be perhaps the least experience ticket in history..with one's claim to fame being that she was married to a president and the other being a very good speaker....and third as someone once said "the comedy is over" i think the time for Bill and his wife to run the show, one way or the other, is over...thankfully... as the image of middle age man exciting himself in the white house sink after few minutes with an intern is not something i want to read about again..

Obama absolutely canNOT ask Hillary Clinton to join him on the ticket. If he does, how can he claim to be the agent of change he brands himself?

Furthermore, John Edwards is not somebody who is going to take a back seat to anyone. He isn't as effective and he knows it when he's the VP candidate. He did little to help John Kerry, not that it was entirely his fault. Edwards was the right pick at the right time for Kerry, but being the VP nominee hamstrings him, by all accounts making him useless.

I would expect that the biggest deterrrent to an Obama-Clinton ticket is the fact that Hilary would have more power as a second term Senator from a big state, than she would have ib the vice-presidential role where any real power is derived and dependant on the continuance of Presidential favour and interest in making use of her.

I work day after day with folks I don't particularly like, but I sure admire and respect their work-skills. As a group on the job, we are formidable.
Why should it be any different at the highest of echelons? Hillary and Obama would be a very desired and impressive political pairing to all but the most Bush-friendly conservative Americans.

No way. Shrillary deserves nothing less than to be exiled to political Siberia for her antics during this primary season. Clearly, she had no chance of winning early on. Did she do the honourable thing - step aside and endorse Obama? Of course not. For this, she has hurt the party and its chances to restore sanity to that little backwater south of the border. For this, she has earned the right to get a job to pay off her campaign debt.

Hello my friends to the North,

As a former-republican turned Democrat and Obama supporter I originaly thought that putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket was a bad idea. While she is undoubtedly popular and comes with a ton of support- she doesn't compliment his weaknesses (experience, military background, 'white man-ishness') as much as other options. However given the recent poll numbers and the never-before-seen passion on the Democratic side this election, I actually think that adding Hillary might just be enough to keep the momentum and bring in working-class folks into the fold.
The perception would be that you're getting 3 for the price of 1: Barack, Hillary, and Bill; with all their economic know-how in the White House.

Regardless of the outcome- it's been a heck of an exciting time. I feel any candidate would be better than what we have know.

Cheers all,
RK

its an interesting idea. If Clinton wants the VP position Obama might be wise to offer it to her. Although its usually the choice of the nominee the reality is that the VP nominee is elected at the convention, like the Nominee. If Clinton really wanted it, she could challange Obama's choice. She would almost be unstoppable, given her support in the primaries. if she were denied it, then her supportors would be twice spurned. So the real question: does she want it. And only she knows that.

the real 'dream ticket' is mccain/hucklby.
hucklby is a great speaker who can sweep the
south and pull in the religious right.
so how does mccain convince hucklby to be his running mate? he tells hucklby 'i'm 76 years old.'
and when the demos run attack ads about mccain's age; hucklby's smiling face will appear on t.v.s all across the south saying
"he's 76 YEAR'S OLD" [with the appropriate attachments about experience, wisdom...etc]

I can not see Hillary taking second place after her lifelong dream is shattered. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton may also have damaged their relationship with the African-American voters which would not help Obama.
I would think that a good team could be Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Let's face reality in that a Obama/Clinton wouldn't be a dream ticket but instead a nightmare scenario. With her ego and determination is Hilary Clinton really going to play second fiddle to President Obama? Then add Bill Clinton into the picture, is he going to restrain himself from sticking his nose into things? An Obama/Clinton White House will result in not one but 3 presidents, with the Clintons largely in control.

The smart thing for the Democrats to do is to see to it that the Obama and Clinton campaigns quit being to negative towards each other. Especially the Clinton gang. That would do far, far more to heal any rifts within the Democrats than some silly Obama/Clinton ticket.

Should Obama and some one other than a Clinton be elected in November, then perhaps they should offer Secretary of Health to Hilary Clinton. If she takes it fine, if not, then fine.

While Barrack/Hillary seems logical, the battle for the democratic nomination has been a unique battle between a woman and a black man. For the Dems to beat the Republicans, they will need to attract enough voters who are willing to vote against the tradition of a white male in the office. Many who would vote for Hillary would vote for Barrack and vica versa. In terms of amassing the most votes, it may be better to have the traditional white male on the ballot.

To Steven Kurtz -- Why does it have to be about race? I am from NYC and voted for Hillary during the NY Primary because I feel she is the best candidate for the job. Does that make me a racist?

Perhaps West Virginia democrats do not identify with Obama and the vision of America he's selling. Perhaps they identify more with Hillary's vision. Why does that make them racist? And why would voting FOR Obama necessarily make someone enlightened? With all this talk about the Clinton supporters playing the race card, it is Obama supporters who make veiled charges of racism against anyone not supporting their candidate.

I believe that they really do deserve each other given Clinton's inflamous 'dodging bullets' lie and Obama's 'fainting ladies at rallys' episodes. What a pair !

This makes perfect sense except for the idea of Hillary, Bill in the White House however I am sure there are other female Democrats that could quite easiliy fill the vice-presidents position.

If both Hillary and Barack claim to be able to "cross the aisle" and work with Republicans on all issues, the least they can do is put aside their admittedly minor differences and walk hand-in-hand down the road to the White House.

I think most would agree that together, that is a team that would be difficult to beat. The Dems secure the White House with a popular, liberal President, Obama gets a strong, hard-working VP (and the votes she can secure from the "working class"), and a very popular former President gets to make his presence once again felt on the world stage.

Seems like a good deal to me...

Henry, IT IS NOT 'mutual' hostility, hostility comes only from Hilary's side toward Obama.

I like the attitude of approaching politics displayed by Obama. Because of Obama I started to care about politics. Clinton is why I dislike politics and my own position in it when I hear her 'obliterating Iran' and 'dodging bullets'. Two of them are the antithesis of perception of a fellow human being. I cannot find the ground to even consider them together, winning or not.

I do not think you have made a mistake here, on contrary, you are promoting this idea.

I think that Obama would be a fool to take Edwards. What did Edwards bring to the last election? Nothing. Hilary as the running mate guarantees a black president. True, Hilary would be a tough person to reign in, however, we've just come off the most powerful VP in history. I would like to see Hilary in the role and watch Republicans twist and squirm as Hilary uses the power that Darth Cheney created. As for Obama, he better learn to make friends after fighting it out or he's going to have a tough go of it even if he does make it to the WH. People like reconciliation. It's the smart move for both sides, we'll see how smart they are.

Recently, someone wrote that this "dream ticket" is only Hillary's dream.

On the contrary, I really doubt Hillary would go for it. Obama *might* be pressured into it by the party faithful, but Hillary is *not* going to accept second fiddle ... why would she want to do what one of her sisters (Ms. Geraldine Ferraro) has already done?

There is the not-too-unlikely possibility that her defeat will see the Clintons backing McCain out of pure spite. Yes, that would be tragically absurd, but we have seen similar behavior in US politics before (remember Joe Lieberman and how he behaved after losing the 2006 primary?).

Another thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. may wind up with Democrats controlling both its Administration and its Congress. Even though this may be a backlash against anti-freedom groups (i.e. neo-conservatives), it runs the risk of creating a dictatorship in spite of itself. A split of the Democrats *after* the Republicans are wiped out may in fact be a good thing in the long run ... and how's that for irony?

What a ticket! Obama and hillary! Where is the change which Obama was talking about for the last year? Clinton represents the core of Washington DC. What will Obama say about her relation with the BIG POWERS in Wahington? I think you went too far my dear Henry. Forget about this possibility. After would Obama finish the primary; all the tune of the campaign would change. You are taking now about one part of the voters' interest, which is the economy. There are other factors. I guess the most important factors would be the big powers in Washington and the war in Iraq. When it comes to that point you will see how Obama defends his policies.

Why does the presence of Hillary Clinton on the ticket enthuse people ? Because, besides being brilliant, she is a female, and America needs to turn an important corner, just as we do in Canada.
Why Obama ? Because we hope the American people have at last gotten over their racist past as it pertains to 'blacks'. And he's brilliant as well.
Why ignore those two possible 'firsts' for America ? I think you'd be crazy to let gender and racial partisanship break up a very 'winning' scenario.
Why not 'dazzle' the world with the newness and teamwork that such a ticket would automatically bring to a tired and failing system ?

It's been obvious to me for quite some time that they'll have to eventually team up. If they don't then they'll lose Democratic votes to McCain. And if they don't team up then the Republicans will use their animosity in their presidential campaign ads. So they really have to make nice to each other or they won't win.

It makes for great headlines but it would not be a "dream ticket" but more like Obama's worst nightmare. Hillary & Bill crave power which is different from, simply, wanting to be president and the historic prestige that goes with it. If their ticket would win the oval office, Obama would be the foster parent trying to reign-in latch-key kids. I agree with those who see an Obama-Edwards ticket.

There is also a lot of talk around town that Hilary is hoping to undermine Obama enough with her negative ads and her spin that he loses in November against McCain. Then she can start running for president for 2012, vindicated by Obama's loss.

It sound paranoid, but given what has happened over the last few months, the increased negativity of her campaign in the face of the reality that she can't win, there may be some truth to it. No one can really imagine a Clinton taking second seat.

What America needs now is a Democratic ticket that can take power. Maybe Obama will win it on his own, but if Clinton joins him they might have a better chance. There would probably be some conflict of egos flying around but I would hope these two could work them out for the betterment of America, and for the rest of the world for that matter. America needs to turn itself around and if paring these two together will help, I say give it a go. They both seem to be respectable people and I think voters would appreciate the commitment to the country that would be demonstrated by such a partnership.

Cheers

I don't see why some Democrats would sooner split the party vote and render more power to McCain, than encourage the Obama/Clinton ticket.
I also find it odd that you could call yourself a Democrat in one breath and then vote for McCain when 'your' candidate doesn't win the nomination.
Seems like 'rainy day' support to me.
I think its a fine combination...take the best of both, and clobber the Republicans.

This is one person's dream only. Hilary's. At one time this combination would have been unstoppable but Hilary has lost so much credibility with her pandering and lack of honesty that she would be a liability at this point.
Obama-Edwards, now THAT would be a real dream ticket.

While personally I think McCain is a stone cold freak, plenty of Americans will vote for him because of the fears they have (the terrorist thing and the black thing, both of which are just Republican strategy). I say this because to me, the Dems NEED Obama and Clinton on the same ticket to win.

"Dream Team"? Sounds more like "Nightmare Alley" to me.

If Obama does ask Clinton to be his VP running-mate, he will be tacitly admitting that he can't win the presidency without her. Given her "He can't close the deal" taunt, she will take full advantage of his dependency, backed up by her husband, who can't wait to get back into the cockpit, so to speak, and the Clinton network. Imagine being double-teamed by those two on a daily basis . . .

The other factor to be considered is the revulsion Hillary Clinton has generated towards herself. It could be that for every "blue-collar white voter" she brings with her, one or more other voters will be turned off by her being on the ticket.

Obama should consider John Edwards as his running mate, if he is concerned about the "blue-collar" vote. If women want to vote for McCain out of spite, that's too bad, but I suspect most women who supported Clinton will switch to Obama.

I can't see Clinton accepting the vice-presidential nomination. She already served in the position from 1993-2001.

"the White voters matter more than the Black voters."

Derek

Posted May 14, 2008 06:40 PM

______________________________________________

Its clear you dont understand American politics , They both need each other , you dont carry the black vote you dont win, they are over 40 million Blacks eligible, its not how many voters you get at the end.. but how many electorial states you carry, and many blacks by numbers are concentrated in medium to small states. you can win New York and lose 2 small states and its over , its not about the amount of people.. but the amount of states you carry ..remember that.

There were rumours that outgoing Republicans that was against the war from the start, Chuck Hagel, would be a great choice for Barack , he would keep the gun-happy base happy and attract more males , And Barack did well in those Southern states.. maybe hold on to those voters he earn in the primary come November .

However my personal choice.. and i have no idea how it will fly in November, Was more a calculation to appease the Hillary supporters who were voting for her because she was a woman /.

The choice is good friend and someone who was in his camp from the start.. from Missouri Claire McCaskill, She is tough a former prosecutor.. ride on issues rather than part lines, And will help him with those older blue collar base . And sure can be groom for 2016 .

Finally - I wondered if I was insane. This is exactly what I've been hoping for all along (although I did want Hillary in the presidential role. I have enormous respect for both candidates as some of the best (of albeit the worst) U.S. politicians in a long time. To waste either one of them would be a shame.

Should Obama actually win the nomination, I cannot see how he could possibly choose Clinton as his runningmate because he has been campaigning about change - there's nothing new about a Clinton.

Hillary is running for 2008 at this point. The longer she drags this out, the less time Obama has to hammer away at McCain. If McCain wins the election, that will be the end of Obama and smooth sailing for Clinton to the nomination next time around.

Obama/Edwards....perhaps???

The Obaman's should get Al Gore as a running Mate. He is enough "Clintonesque"
to appeal to that side of the Democrat camp plus it help corect the injustice of the 2000 debacle.

Bill and Hillary can then have lunch with Al, who might then say a word to Barack.

Al can then run with Hillary in 2016...

Other presidents and vice presidents held their respective noses after viscious primary campaigns to unite as a team. I suppose it could work here too. However, I wouldn't want to be Obama's food taster.

I would be surprised to see Obama ask Clinton, and even more surprised to see Clinton accept. I can't see her piggybacking Obama through two terms only to run anew. I think she will probably step aside and see how Obama does against McCain. If McCain wins, Hillary will be sitting pretty for a run 4 years from now and Obama will be a lame duck in that race. If Obama wins, Hillary will have to wait 8 years to run again anyway, whether it is against an incumbent Republican or not, but I don't believe she would strengthen herself by being the Al Gore to Obama's Bubba, especially if Obama loses the presidency after 1 term. Hillary would be well advised to focus on being a good senator and supporting her party as well as she can, so that she is ready for her turn at the plate.

It isn't going to be Obama-Clinton...maybe Obama-Richardson to get the Latino vote. What does winning West Virginia mean? Only that they are more racist there than the folks in Nebraska who gave the majority of their votes to Obama.

I don't buy the argument that the rancor of the campaign prevents Hillary Clinton from joining a 'dream ticket'. By joining the ticket, Clinton would compensate for all the weaknesses that she has pointed out in Obama. To paraphrase Lynden B. Johnson, it's better to have her inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

It wasn't all that long ago that "Time" magazine was suggesting that a bipartisan McCain/Clinton -- or Clinton/McCain -- ticket was a slam-dunk. They'd worked together on various bills and hearings, had travelled together on several overseas junkets, and seemed to get along well as people. The suggestion was that given the bitter divisiveness among voters, a bipartisan ticket with those two candidates might be just the, er, ticket. McCain ruled it out on "The Daily Show" recently, but that doesn't mean he couldn't change his mind.

As with a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, there would be a huge battle of wills and egos over who would be the VP half of the ticket. I think Clinton and Obama getting together is more likely than Clinton and McCain, but don't rule it out just yet. It's a long shot -- OK, a very long shot -- but it's not impossible.

I disagree completely. It is unlikely that many would actually support a Clinton-Obama ticket; they prefer to muse about it. I have to wonder how many female Clinton supporters would be happy seeing her play "second fiddle," and whether as a career choice Clinton wouldn't bide her time in the Senate. Moreover, Clinton has all but said on national television "the White voters matter more than the Black voters." I'd like to see a pole showing what Black Americans really think of Clinton as a running mate. That aside, Obama should probably be looking for a Southerner.