A new angle on an Obama-Clinton Ticket

[thefuturist]

Bear with me, I know we've all heard talk of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama "superticket". We've also heard how unlikely it is to happen. I agree that it is unlikely, however, I enjoy considering things from all angles. Below is is my "what-if"/ conspiracy scenario, please feedback/comment/blow it out of the water at your discretion.
__________________________________________________ ______
If Obama wins (or achieves a near equal share of the delegates) in Ohio and Texas on March 4 - Clinton may withdraw her candidacy.
It is generally viewed as quite unlikely that Clinton would want be running as VP for Obama (or vice versa), and it is similarly unlikely that he would want her running as VP (it appears to his message of change). However, it may be contrived behind the scenes, by the party leadership, who are eager to cease the Democratic civil war as soon as possible - as to not give the Republicans a head start in unifying the party. Secondly, the party leadership may be pressured or given external incentives to achieiving a Obama Clinton ticket.

Swallowing her pride, Clinton might agree to run as VP, and Obama may reluctantly agree to have her as VP. He has said in the past he would take talent from where he finds it, and it would pad the Democratic ticket in the demographics he has struggled in - (ie Hispanics, women, older voters). A Clinton Obama ticket, while not apparently likely - is the most sure way to defeat what is either likely to be McCain Romney or McCain Huckabee.

Fast Forward. The election is won by Obama Clinton in a landslide. Obama gets inaugarated in January. Before too long in office, he is assasinated. Clinton is there to step up.... Becoming the LBJ to Obama's JFK. And the White House is back in the pocket of corporate America.

[PatrickHenry]

Dude!

You will be given a tinfoil hat as soon as I get the new model!

Welcome to the DarkSide!

[Labrocca]

Nope...It would seriously hurt his chances to win the election to choose Clinton as his running mate. For the same reasons she has lost how many states in a row now? When she loses Texas to Obama it will be the end of her campaign.

Obama-Edwards would be a strong ticket.

Heck...Obama could get Gore too.

His choice will be well thought out and that alone eliminates Clinton.

Swallowing her pride, Clinton might agree to run as VP, and Obama may reluctantly agree to have her as VP.

I don't think she has that ability.

[thefuturist]

Heck...Obama could get Gore too.

His choice will be well thought out and that alone eliminates Clinton.



I agree with that, Gore would be a nice choice and asset to the ticket... However I don't think he'd fancy VP again. Although, VP with the chance of stepping up to the big seat? Maybe...

[Buck Laser]

I doubt that Gore would be interested in another run as VP. Obama-Edwards sounds good, but I'd rather see Edwards as AG and Gore in a major environmental policy mgmt position.

I have full confidence in Obama to pick someone who will enhance his administration and (of course) his chances to win.

[Drocket]

I think an Obama-Clinton ticket is highly unlikely. Clinton simply doesn't bring much of anything to the table that Obama won't already have. There's very, very few Democrats who support Clinton who won't support Obama if/when he gets the nomination. I'm sure there's some scattered racists who won't vote for a black man, but they're not going to vote for a black man no matter who his running mate is. Picking Clinton won't gain Obama any votes, but it could quite possibly cost him some, as there's a lot of Clinton haters who won't vote for her even as VP.

Actually, I can't think of very many running mates who would bring in demographics Obama is weak in, except possibly Richardson. I think that's somewhat unlikely though, as I think that may be a bit TOO much change for a number of people to handle at once... (Clinton kind of has the same problem there, too, actually)

[Labrocca]

but I'd rather see Edwards as AG

Does he actually have the law experience for that position?

[cronic]

I think an Obama-Clinton ticket is highly unlikely. Clinton simply doesn't bring much of anything to the table that Obama won't already have. There's very, very few Democrats who support Clinton who won't support Obama if/when he gets the nomination. I'm sure there's some scattered racists who won't vote for a black man, but they're not going to vote for a black man no matter who his running mate is. Picking Clinton won't gain Obama any votes, but it could quite possibly cost him some, as there's a lot of Clinton haters who won't vote for her even as VP.



I know I'm going to probably go off-topic here some and most likely eat crow later, not to mention get blasted here in rebuttals but thats ok..lol.. I'm ready for it, plus I wont have to worry about eating crow until at least march 5th..lol - ~~puts on the bravery hat and speaks~~

I agree that them running together is very unlikely.. I guess tho I am also one of them very very few Dems, still at this point, that isn't ready to just give my vote to Obama if he gets the nomination over Clinton. Maybe i need a little more convincing. Yea.. I do. Yes, Im a Democrat. Yes, he is running for the Democratic party. Will I give him my vote if he gets the Nomination, hmmm.. I'm sitting here shrugging my shoulders unsure but probably yes, because I don't want another Republican for 4 more years.

I do see Clinton bringing alittle more to the table then Obama in certain areas, areas I feel are very important, mainly experience.
Not to sound like Ann Coulter but Clinton will have a much better chance at getting things done in office where Obama will be more of a run with it type of president due to his age and lack of experience. That by no means, doesn't mean he would be a failure as a president. Just an inactive and/or an ineffective president. I'm always subject to change and I have been watching Obama closer then ever, I just haven't seen anything convincing me he is better then Clinton to date. There is still more time.. so who knows!
On that note, I also agree with you that there is some scattered racists out there that won't cast there vote for Obama due to the color of his skin and that is really sad as well as stupid that anyone would judge anyone else on that pretense for such an important job that undoubtedly Obama is qualified to run for.
I believe tho that Clinton will get the Democratic Nomination. Yes it is very close now and I think will remain close till the end. ( it's not over till the fat lady sings, hence the Clinton machine still lives ). Clinton still has the states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania ( I believe ) most likely won in her favor. Thats 492 more delegates. Obama has surprised tho so we will see.. If she loses those states. Then yep. I will agree with you, it will not be looking good for Clinton at all and Obama may be the man for the Democrats. One more advantage Clinton has over Obama is superdelegates and the ghost delegates from Florida and Michigan. ( If Clinton wins them 3 states just mentioned ) then even if Obama wins every contest from now on by a five-point margin he will not gain the magic number of pledged delegates needed to secure his nomination.
As far as the 2 of them running together.. whoever for pres and vp either way, I think would gain more votes.. alot more? maybe not, but more still and I believe certainly enough to take McCain out at the knees.

Since the thread is asking what ifs..and my girl friend is here asking me this new what if.. I would like to share her question and my answer here vs starting a new thread. If Clinton does win the Democratic Nomination and Obama decided to then run Independent. ( he wouldn't due to the fact it would be damaging to his career concerning ever being able to run again on the Democratic ticket ), could he win? I say no.. he couldn't nor could Clinton..because that would surely split the vote even more and most likely give McCain the presidential seat.

ok.. there I said it.. go easy on me alright..lol

[Buck Laser]

but I'd rather see Edwards as AG

Does he actually have the law experience for that position?


I think he does, unless there's some requirement that the AG must have been a judge at some time before he's appointed to the position. Edwards has been a phenomenally successful trial lawyer, and it seems a good idea to me to have an AG who's been on the side of the people rather than big business.

I wouldn't expect too many republicans to accept that, seeing how many of them somehow believe that what's good for big business is good for them.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do see Clinton bringing alittle more to the table then Obama in certain areas, areas I feel are very important, mainly experience.

I hate this argument for so many reasons.

First of all. Hillary Clinton has no executive experience. She has less experience in government than Barack Obama. If you're willing to include Bill's two terms in office, then she should not be eligible to run.

Second, after experiencing Bush II, I am aware of what these "dynasties" can bring. Bush I had some unfinished business with Saddam Hussein, so Junior marched us off to war as soon as possible. I'm sure Hillary has some loose ends she'd like to tie up as well.

Third, if history should serve as our guide, Andrew Johnson (AKA, the first and second President to be impeached) had held the Vice Presidency, been Governor of Tennessee, and a Senator and Congressman there as well. Richard Nixon had also been Vice President, and in both houses of Congress before serving as President.

Dwight Eisenhower, however, had never held a political office prior to being elected President and is one of our greatest Presidents ever IMO. He was a natural leader.

[cronic]

First of all. Hillary Clinton has no executive experience. She has less experience in government than Barack Obama. If you're willing to include Bill's two terms in office, then she should not be eligible to run.


I guess in all fairness I should have defined type, concerning experience.
Since you wish to bring up "1" specific type then I would like to list as well my types.

Hillary Clinton has 35 years of leadership experience, Thats 11 less years then Mr. Obama's age, starting from her legal work for the Children’s Defense Fund. Let's not forget her private legal practice at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, her years as first lady of Arkansas, and yes I do wish to include Bill's 2 terms in office where as she was the first lady of the United States. I note your sarcastic opinion that she should not be eligible to run because of her husbands presidency but that was not her presidency and your attempt to discount the time as not being experience doesn't wash with me as I'm sure as first lady she has already seen more about how the seat of the presidency works then Obama has. Let's not forget her eight years she has served as a senator for New York.

Mr. Obama has three years more legislative experience than Senator Clinton.
I will give you that!

[Mia]

Um, the next to last thing TX might do is elect a woman. But the last thing it's going to do is elect a black man. Sorry, but come on. some people down here still wish they could hang black men, not elect them to high offices. And um yeah I do think he'd be assassinated if he did win. Which is even more unlikely when it comes down to him vs. any Republican.

I would like to see Edwards or Roan Paul. I never get my way <pouts>.

Guess I have to vote for Big Pharma, et al,,,,otherwise known as Hillary, because I'm sure not voting for McCain! <grrrr>

[Drocket]

Not to sound like Ann Coulter but Clinton will have a much better chance at getting things done in office where Obama will be more of a run with it type of president due to his age and lack of experience.

I have to disagree with you here. I find it highly unlikely that Clinton would be able to get much of *anything* done as president, simply because the Republicans will block every single thing she tries. This was the primary problem with Bill's presidency - he really didn't accomplish much of anything, when all it said and done. Even the extremely minor adjustments to the American health system that Hillary headed up got completely railroaded by the Republicans, who turned it into "Big Government is coming to steal your children!" scaremongering.

Obama will almost certainly TRY less, but I think he'll be far more successful at what he does try because the Republicans are going to have a harder time opposing him.

If Clinton does win the Democratic Nomination and Obama decided to then run Independent. ( he wouldn't due to the fact it would be damaging to his career concerning ever being able to run again on the Democratic ticket ), could he win? I say no.. he couldn't nor could Clinton..because that would surely split the vote even more and most likely give McCain the presidential seat.

In that case, the vote would probably be divided sufficiently to throw the matter to Congress. Since the Democrats control the House, Clinton would win.

[Alexander Hamilton]

First of all. Hillary Clinton has no executive experience. She has less experience in government than Barack Obama. If you're willing to include Bill's two terms in office, then she should not be eligible to run.


I guess in all fairness I should have defined type, concerning experience.
Since you wish to bring up "1" specific type then I would like to list as well my types.

Hillary Clinton has 35 years of leadership experience, Thats 11 less years then Mr. Obama's age, starting from her legal work for the Children’s Defense Fund. Let's not forget her private legal practice at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, her years as first lady of Arkansas, and yes I do wish to include Bill's 2 terms in office where as she was the first lady of the United States. I note your sarcastic opinion that she should not be eligible to run because of her husbands presidency but that was not her presidency and your attempt to discount the time as not being experience doesn't wash with me as I'm sure as first lady she has already seen more about how the seat of the presidency works then Obama has. Let's not forget her eight years she has served as a senator for New York.

Mr. Obama has three years more legislative experience than Senator Clinton.
I will give you that!

So......Hillary was or wasn't President already? I'm a little unclear still.

By the way the point I was trying to make is that leadership is not a learned quality through political experience. Often times, these sort of experiences only lead to the corruption of individuals.

[cronic]

I have to disagree with you here. I find it highly unlikely that Clinton would be able to get much of *anything* done as president, simply because the Republicans will block every single thing she tries. This was the primary problem with Bill's presidency - he really didn't accomplish much of anything, when all it said and done. Even the extremely minor adjustments to the American health system that Hillary headed up got completely railroaded by the Republicans, who turned it into "Big Government is coming to steal your children!" scaremongering.

Point well taken Drocket


If Clinton does win the Democratic Nomination and Obama decided to then run Independent. ( he wouldn't due to the fact it would be damaging to his career concerning ever being able to run again on the Democratic ticket ), could he win? I say no.. he couldn't nor could Clinton..because that would surely split the vote even more and most likely give McCain the presidential seat.


In that case, the vote would probably be divided sufficiently to throw the matter to Congress. Since the Democrats control the House, Clinton would win.


That is possible also.. I guess it would be no surprise to anyone that I surely wouldn't mind it going that way.. lol

[Mia]

Obama will almost certainly TRY less, but I think he'll be far more successful at what he does try because the Republicans are going to have a harder time opposing him.




How is that?

[cronic]

So......Hillary was or wasn't President already? I'm a little unclear still.

No offense, But do I really have to dignify that with an answer? When i read my response to you I think it sounds pretty clear cut what I'm saying.. maybe you could try re-reading it again..



By the way the point I was trying to make is that leadership is not a learned quality through political experience. Often times, these sort of experiences only lead to the corruption of individuals.


So now, tell me again how did corruption even become a part of the experience subject we was discussing?

[Alexander Hamilton]

No offense, But do I really have to dignify that with an answer? When i read my response to you I think it sounds pretty clear cut what I'm saying.. maybe you could try re-reading it again..
I read it. The only thing Hillary Clinton did while in the oval office as I recall was attempt and fail at implementing Hillarycare. That's some convincing experience, let me tell you.

So let's clear this up, if my wife has a teaching job and tells me about it at the dinner table and I give her suggestions on how to deal with troublesome children from time to time I can include that position in my resume?

So now, tell me again how did corruption even become a part of the experience subject we was discussing?
I explained this in my first post regarding Nixon (Watergate) and Johnson (impeachment).

At the other end of the spectrum there's Honest Abe with very little experience, as well as Eisenhower who I mentioned before as well.

[cronic]

So now, tell me again how did corruption even become a part of the experience subject we was discussing?


I explained this in my first post regarding Nixon (Watergate) and Johnson (impeachment).


OK, But we was comparing experience between 2 candidates running for office this year for the presidency.. I fail to see how the corruption of Nixon and Johnson have anything to do with the facts we started out debating

[Drocket]

How is that?

This gets a bit complex, because the issue is made up of both real and imagined parts, but... On one hand, you have the real issues: the skeletons in the Clintons' closets. There are some real Clinton scandals. Bill had an affair, and... Um, actually, that's about it.

That leads us to the imaginary, which is the perception that the Republicans have managed to build against the Clintons over the past 2 decades of them being massively corrupt. There's no shortage of non-scandal scandals that the Republicans have managed to pin on the Clintons, at least in the public psyche. For Obama, they're essentially going to have to be starting from scratch, and that's going to take time.

For another, Obama is simply more charismatic than Hillary, possibly even more than Bill. That gives him a lot more leeway to maneuver once the shit-flinging begins.

The third factor requires being extremely blunt: Obama is black, whereas Hillary is a woman. When all is said and done, its a lot more acceptable to be a misogynist than it is to be a racist in our society. The Republicans are going to find it difficult to use their more vile weapons against Obama (not without serious blowback, at least), but against Hillary, they'll feel no such restraint. Just witness "Hillary was just fake crying for sympathy!" thing (when all she did was get slightly choked up. It was a non-story that got turned into a major story by playing on the extremely sexist stereotype of manipulative women.)

[thefuturist]

Hey again .

Can i just throw to the floor one of the points I touched on in my first post - the potential for Obama to be assisnated? I wonder what everyone thinks about that?

Aside from the obvious JFK parrallels that everyone is drawing; Obama's anti-lobbyiest stance, his calls for change...

Forgive my paranoia and perpetuation of conspiracy theories - I'm just interested to know what folk think.

[Buck Laser]

Hey again .

Can i just throw to the floor one of the points I touched on in my first post - the potential for Obama to be assisnated? I wonder what everyone thinks about that?

Aside from the obvious JFK parrallels that everyone is drawing; Obama's anti-lobbyiest stance, his calls for change...

Forgive my paranoia and perpetuation of conspiracy theories - I'm just interested to know what folk think.

Actually, I don't see much greater likelihood that Obama will be a target for assassination attempts than any of the other candidates. All the candidates have full Secret Service protection now, and of the three remaining candidates, Obama seems by far the least divisive of the three. He may actually turn out to be what Bush said he was..a uniter, not a divider.

The threat of assassination seems to me to be just one of the tools Obama opponents are using, along with stressing his middle name, "Hussein," and, from some libertarians, calling him a traitor. It all just adds up to desperation so far as I can see.

My worry right now is that Obama may be hoisted onto a pedestal of high expectations that will be impossible for him to fulfill: this isn't part of his plan, but a visceral reaction by a great many people who are just relieved to find a candidate they can support enthusiastically.

[cronic]

Hey again .

Can i just throw to the floor one of the points I touched on in my first post - the potential for Obama to be assisnated? I wonder what everyone thinks about that?

Aside from the obvious JFK parrallels that everyone is drawing; Obama's anti-lobbyiest stance, his calls for change...

Forgive my paranoia and perpetuation of conspiracy theories - I'm just interested to know what folk think.


I think it is possible for anyone to be assassinated, So, as far as "potential", well I think anyone with a cause, belief, shallow mind, mental illness, or agenda ( along with I'm sure even other reasons ) can pose the threat of assassination to another or others. I believe There are reason's in peoples minds as to why they feel the need to assassinate regardless of how senseless the act is. I believe a politician ( Obama, Clinton, McCain only to name what would seem to be the 3 front runners ) or a gas station attendant could be assassinated. I could get chopped today when I walk outside of my house by a neighbor pissed off at me because I mow my yard more or because his wife and him had an argument over breakfast and he was in a foul mood.. That could create potential

Potential =
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>

This first definition is key in answering your question.. -"existing in possibility"

2: expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in “it may rain”)

I guess thats all I have to say.. no doubt I could ramble on and on and on but I think in the end I can't really answer this question any better.

[Tsky]

A Clinton/Obama ticket would make more people stay at home rather than go to the voting booths. People who don't like Hillary just flat out don't like her and putting Obama in the White House, in some capacity, is still not good enough for his supporters. When his wife gets on tv and says she wouldn't jump at the chance to vote for HRC you already know neither campaign are leading towards holding hands and singing Amazing Grace. Obama will choose a white male as a running mate and HRC will do the same, neither or them are stupid enough to do otherwise.

Obama/Kerry '08 would be killer, I mean just killer.

[Drocket]

Can i just throw to the floor one of the points I touched on in my first post - the potential for Obama to be assisnated? I wonder what everyone thinks about that?

This is something that I fear too. I think the same goes for Clinton, as well. Both of them have a lot of detractors who are insane, to put it bluntly, Clinton especially. I don't think the potential for assassination is a worthwhile basis for selecting candidates, though.

[Tsky]

Can i just throw to the floor one of the points I touched on in my first post - the potential for Obama to be assisnated? I wonder what everyone thinks about that?

This is something that I fear too. I think the same goes for Clinton, as well. Both of them have a lot of detractors who are insane, to put it bluntly, Clinton especially. I don't think the potential for assassination is a worthwhile basis for selecting candidates, though.


If Wubya has made it this far without having to dodge a bullet, anyone can. :madlaugh:

Obama is half-white and even the most racist of racists would take that into consideration. Furthermore, Obama hasn't run his campaign as a black man, he's running as a man of the people. Since that is the case, I doubt he's high on the list of black people to assasinate.

[Alexander Hamilton]

OK, But we was comparing experience between 2 candidates running for office this year for the presidency.. I fail to see how the corruption of Nixon and Johnson have anything to do with the facts we started out debating

You fail to see that history repeats itself in almost every way? Is this not why history is taught in school? If you don't see my points here, I'm afraid that I can't debate with you. However, my feeling is that you choose not to acknowledge the obvious negative effect which political experience can have.

[cronic]

OK, But we was comparing experience between 2 candidates running for office this year for the presidency.. I fail to see how the corruption of Nixon and Johnson have anything to do with the facts we started out debating


You fail to see that history repeats itself in almost every way? Is this not why history is taught in school? If you don't see my points here, I'm afraid that I can't debate with you. However, my feeling is that you choose not to acknowledge the obvious negative effect which political experience can have.


Here is what I see and don't see!

What I do see:
Hogwash,
I see you changing our debate about who has more experience between the two candidates in question.

I see you asking nonsense questions

So......Hillary was or wasn't President already? I'm a little unclear still.
&
I see you bringing up information about Nixon and Johnson, and now bringing up history repeating itself as well as posing a new question as to why history is taught in school.[hr]

I fail to see nothing substantial in your statements except contradiction from your own words.
First of all. Hillary Clinton has no executive experience. She has less experience in government than Barack Obama.

So, this is saying to me You are stating Obama has more experience politically.. I interpret government experience as political.

Then you say


By the way the point I was trying to make is that leadership is not a learned quality through political experience. Often times, these sort of experiences only lead to the corruption of individuals.

So, now your saying leadership isn't a learned quality through Political experience and you cite corruption of individuals as a result from political experience. Do you see the contradiction here?
One one hand your telling me Clinton has less experience then Obama. Then you claim that political experience, ( what Obama has more of ), will lead to corruption. Remember, "history shows us this." So, your saying he ( Obama ) does have more experience, then you say he
( Obama ) doesn't have leadership qualities because he has more political experience.

What I don't see:
the Logic in your debate.
Which I assume then, you wish to end because you yourself stated that if I can't see your points, then you are afraid you can't debate with me anymore..
That's fine because you have already almost lost me!