Author
|
Topic: Obama-Clinton - Dream ticket?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595
|
posted 03 June 2008 03:08 PM
Why is this a dream ticket ?Is there any indication that they would ignore the corporations who have backed them to the tune of tens of millions of dollars ? I don't see any reason to be hopeful here. The US system is hopelessly and needlessly skewed towards rich candidates. They're doing themselves a disservice, because a truly left-wing candidate is going to come out of nowhere, running independently. They will be scared then.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 03 June 2008 04:32 PM
That's kind of silly, Jingles. I mean, it's a funny joke and all, but I don't think anyone actually believes that she'd have Obama killed in order to become the President if she were the VP.I don't have my finger firmly enough on the pulse of the Democratic Party activists to know whether it would be a smart move or not to have Clinton on the ticket. But I think most voters aren't Democratic Party activists, and I think it would be smart to have the two of them together. Lots of people really liked at least one of them, and I'm sure many like both. The few haters on both sides who viscerally hate one or the other are, I think, in the vast minority. They should look past their hate and think strategically. [ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290
|
posted 03 June 2008 04:51 PM
Thinking strategically, is there anything that's accomplished by having Clinton on the ticket that isn't equally obtainable just by deploying her to stump for Obama from here to November in certain states - basically the three biggest midwestern electoral prizes (MI, OH, PA), a few other Appalachian areas (WV, AR, MO) and Florida? That's basically where she'll be campaigning if she's slated as his VP, and those are really the only states that she could swing to Obama, several of which he could win on his own I think. I'm of the opinion that Democrats and Independents are going to rally to Obama in any event, and that this election is going to be a blowout by recent standards. I think Clinton (Bill too) is such a polarizing figure, and so emblematic of the traditional Washington establishment that Obama's campaign of change has sought to counter (whether or not Babblers buy into that message is moot), that in the big picture it hurts Obama more than helps him to have her as his running mate. I say give her the choice of cabinet spots or even make her next in line for a Supreme Court nomination rather than put her on the ticket.
From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 03 June 2008 05:25 PM
Strategically speaking the ideal would be another VP who broadedned the appeal of the ticket [Edwards or Richardson come to mind as doing the most to complement Obama's appeal], and Clinton campaigns vigorously for Obama [bulwark to the potential he will continue to be weak with white voters]. Plus the unifying Dems appeal to motivate the volunteers. Etc.And don't think that is a secondary role for Clinton. She can bargain to completely solidify her role in the party, with more power than a VP has. [A parallel to Cheney's power is unique and only possible when the Pesident is a lightweight intellect like Dubya.] My guess would be that she will only be VP if she tells Obama her heart is set on that. She won't have to spell out that if he refuses she won't campaign for him. If she goes into the administartion she'll be trussed. Her power will end at exactly the terms she bargained for. If instead she cuts a deal, she will have a maintained independent power base, a field that is hers to work, and a free hand. I think the latter makes a lot more sense. And I don't care how much Bill muses out loud about her being VP. They use Bill to float things. I can't fathom the purpose in floating stuff that they have no intention of doing [threats of what they can do?], and I'm not eliminating the possibility they mean it about her being VP... but the fact Bill says it means nothing except that the Clintons want the idea floating... for whatever purpose(s) it serves. Forget about the things people say- "well, how is she going to go to the back rows of the Senate?" Not going to happen. Hillary Clinton has already earned a big time independent power base- and she has all the cards to negotiate concrete augmentations to that.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 03 June 2008 07:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom: Obama's speech was worthy of a Martin Luther King ...
Well, John Pilger sees him more as Bobby Kennedy: quote: Bobby Kennedy's campaign is the model for Barack Obama's current bid to be the Democratic nominee for the White House. Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans, writes John Pilger.As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how, regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw nearer to each other. They already concur on America's divine right to control all before it. "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good," said Obama. "We must lead by building a 21st-century military . . . to advance the security of all people [emphasis added]." McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing "terrorists" he would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn't quarrel. Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv, unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel's starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" to now read: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis added]." Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says absurdly, "is a threat to all of us". On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations. Amusingly, both have denounced their "preachers" for speaking out. Whereas McCain's man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic white holy-rollers, Obama's man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a consequence of the violence of US power across the world. The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms". So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was rooted not "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel", but in "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". Journalists applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality.
There's lots more at the link.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 03 June 2008 07:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom: unionist, did you even listen to Obama's speech tonight?
No. Tell me one thing of substance that he said. quote: Who gives a shit what any pundit thinks his speech might sound like? Far better to actually listen to the speech, isn't it?
No. It's his positions and actions that matter. Like leaving his church. Or his statements about Israel and Cuba and Iran and Pakistan and racism in the U.S. and the U.S. as a world power... And the emptiness of his rhetoric. His demagogy. Martin Luther King Jr. stood for peace. He stood for justice. Barack Obama stands for office.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 June 2008 07:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jerry West:
Like Idi Amin? Robert Mugabe? or Jean-Bedel Bokassa? White = killer?
With the exception of Mugabe, who are two of several dozen corrupt and vicious tyrants propped up by money and military aid from powerful, mainly white-dominated imperialist countries during the cold war? Sorry, it was a feeble attempt at self-deprecating white humor? Or something ... [ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 03 June 2008 09:13 PM
Some observations.1) Hillary doesn't really add much to the ticket in terms of picking up swing voters - apart from maybe Reagan Democrats. She and Obama are both north east liberals. There is more benefit to reaching out elsewhere. Webb or Edwards would be more valuable in the south - particularly if McCain chooses a non-southerner like the Governor of Minnesota who's been mentioned, or Romney. 2) The reaching out to Clinton supporters can be done as effectively by an appropriate Clinton surrogate - someone like Wesley Clark, for example, who is also a southern Democrat from Arkansas. Clark was the Clinton surrogate candidate in 04. 3) Another possible Clinton surrogates is Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. 4) Governor Sebelius of Kansas - a woman governor of a red state - while an Obama supporter also eases the sexism charge from Clinton supporters. 5) Richardson - a sun state governor and a Latino - would have been an ideal Clinton surrogate - had he not screwed it up by endorsing Obama. An act Ragin' Cajun James Carville compared to Judas Iscariot. 6) I thought McCain's remarks about Clinton were very effective - both complimentary of her and calculated to exploit the current Democratic divisions. 7) My veep predictions: Dems - Obama - Clark Repubs - McCain - Jindal
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 03 June 2008 11:33 PM
Contradicting part of what I said above: quote: Mrs. Clinton used her final hours of the long primary season to make clear that she would be open to being Mr. Obama’s running mate. If there was ever any hope in Democratic circles that she would let Mr. Obama off the hook with an evasion or a flat declaration of no interest, Mrs. Clinton dashed it on Tuesday.
NY Times article that requires registration So apparently they have both indicated she's at least open to being the VP. I still don't see that's all she would take. She has to at least see a lot of logic in keeping her own power base, and using the strong hand she has right now to concretely accentuate that. If Obama is Pres she can be THE force to be reckoned with, right after him. She wont get that as his VP.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 04 June 2008 12:56 AM
Dream ticket? More like Nightmare on Elm Street.Billary's narcisstic speech last night was a churlish attempt to both steal Obama's moment and to sow the seeds for his loss of the election to McCain. With the Clintons,its always about them. Supposedly,the Clintons are pseudo-angling for the VP ticket so they can turn it down and strenghten their hand. What a recipe for disaster for Obama - VP Hillary sowing dissent, upstaging and positioning herself to replace him and her aging satyr lurking about the back hallways, creeping out the female staffers. Give the Clintons an inch and they'll steal the ruler. They will never stop and they will never go away. Billary will not patiently wait till 2016 - they will have another go in 2012 when President McCain is in his dotage.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 04 June 2008 02:43 AM
quote: Dems - Obama - Clark Repubs - McCain - Jindal
Anything's possible. I think Obama will end up picking Joe Biden. Chair of the foreign relations committee, former chair of the judiciary committee. Experienced. Can handle the media and be both a guard dog and an attack dog for Obama. As for McCain, I think it will come down to Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 04 June 2008 03:39 AM
WRT Clinton, Obama is between a rock and a hard place. To win the election, he needs her supporters (18 million?). However, her performance last night, in not conceding after it was clear that Obama won the necessary number of delegates, and emphasizing her own strength (18 million voted for her, after all) showed that she's thinking only of herself, not the Democratic party, and certainly not interested in accepting the fact that Obama won the Democratic primary. Obama has two enemies to watch out for, now: McCain, and Clinton.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595
|
posted 04 June 2008 03:51 AM
quote: a left wing candidate coming "out of nowhere" to scare the democratic establishment is not going to happen this election.
sask, Yes, I should have clarified that I meant in 2012 or 2016. And I should have added that I really HOPE it's not a right-wing candidate. The popularity of the fringe candidate Ron Paul is something to be worried about in the future, IMO.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 04 June 2008 04:40 AM
If Obama/Clinton is a dream ticket it's the Republicans' dream, not the Democrats.Hillary epitomises politics as usual and Obama is running on a platform of change. It'll be hard to argue that there is change while the Clintons remain in the picture. (And I use the plural intentionally.) In addition, that ticket will bring out the "anyone but Hillary" crowd as well as the "we can't have a coloured President" crowd. If anything it would shift the odds in McCain's favour. Given that Hillary has said, in so many words, that only McCain and herself are qualified to be President. I fully expect McCain's campaign to focus on that. Don't forget that both Hillary and Obama have spent months telling the world why the other doesn't deserve to be President. The "dream team" provides the Republicans with the perfect opportunity to use both their comments against them. Finally, Hillary's refusal to concede reinforces comments I've read all over the blogosphere, both left and right - this is about her. Not about the US. Not about the Democratic party. But her. The lady that deserves to be President.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 04 June 2008 05:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by abnormal: Hillary epitomises politics as usual and Obama is running on a platform of change.
Well, let's be honest. It's not a "platform" of change. "Platform" suggests substance. Let's call it "a slogan of change". Or maybe "a soundbite of change". Or perhaps, "an illusion of change". Which, I agree, is better than Clinton's "no change at all". But only marginally so. [ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 June 2008 07:12 AM
quote: Worse news yet is that Obama and McCain are almost neck in neck. Does anyone really believe Americans will elect either Obama or Clinton?
Thats still the odds on bet by some margin. We sould absolutely expect that after months of the pettiness and mud-slinging the Dems are going to be at the low point of public opinion. That indicates nothing about the mid and long term. The Republicans have nothing to build from. Nor has the campaign [with predictable effects] begun of tagging McCain with Bush. That will be a piece of cake once it starts in earnest.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 04 June 2008 09:03 AM
Hillary has some good policy priorities but the method she has campaigned by suggests those priorities take a poor second place to her own sense of entitlement. quote: Her dreams of the White House denied, her once powerful campaign reduced to lobbying for a vice-presidential nomination on her opponent's ticket, Hillary Clinton may never lay legitimate claim to membership in a political dynasty. But Ms. Clinton, along with her husband and the loyal circle of advisers around her, succumbed to the form of hubris that has felled many a dynasty past: an overarching sense of entitlement to the trappings of power.
G+M
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545
|
posted 04 June 2008 09:25 AM
quote: Worse news yet is that Obama and McCain are almost neck in neck.
When the dust settles between Clinton and Obama the public will once again get to focus on how much they dislike George Bush and Company and McCain gets to choose which part of his constituency to abandon. And, when it comes to televised debates McCain will play Nixon to Obama's Kennedy, the difference being that Nixon had better rhetorical skills than McCain, and from what I have seen, Obama's are better than Kennedy's. When I was watching the speeches yesterday, Obama made me think of FDR, and McCain of Dopey in Snow White. [ 04 June 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 04 June 2008 09:38 AM
I agree with Jimmy Carter quote: Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian. "I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates." Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton. In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999
|
posted 04 June 2008 12:00 PM
Well a few months ago I asked whether the Florida and Michigan delegates were likely to be seated and was told not a chance.A few days ago I read or heard someone say that Clinton was going to take advantage of the chaos of the national convention. In Canadian traditions delegates are free agents. The control on them is via their loyalties, but in the end it is a secret ballot. The famous occasion being the Flora syndrome where many pledged supporters voted for another candidate. Is the vote going to be via secret ballot, roll call, or some other system?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 04 June 2008 08:18 PM
There's a number of reasons why Obama wouldn't want to campaign with Clinton:- She spent most of the last year slamming him (for being soft) and his policies (like his anemic health plan). - She's married to a guy who gets media wherever he goes and has lost his political judgement. - He spent the last year criticizing her for being a whithered-up symbol of insider politics. Reasons why he might: - He has limited appeal amongst the swing voters he needs to win the election and she seems to have some. - She and Bill might undermine him from the sidelines if she doesn't have a stake in winning.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 05 June 2008 11:02 AM
Here's Howard Zinn's antidote to this election madness. quote: And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections? The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry. Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.
And these two aren't even Canadians. The biggest thing I fear with Obama is that in his personhood, he will utterly destroy the progressive movement, even more so than Clinton did throughout the 1990s when the centre-left was paralyzed and on the defensive throughout the decade. Obama will also take the progressive consciousness of Black America with him, a consciousness that has always been a palliative for the worst excesses of American imperialism. He will do so, by moving hard to the Right, even as he speaks of hope and change. He will drain even those words of meaning. There is a risk of him doing this, given his record. With Clinton, what we say would've been what we got -- just the continuation of the Republican-Democrat duopoly. Obama promises something different, but may deliver the opposite.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 June 2008 03:52 AM
I guess these folks won't be pushing for an Obama-Clinton ticket:http://democrats-against-obama.org/ Man. They're slogan is, "NObama EVER!" That's kind of extreme, considering that Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same when it comes to policy. I haven't noticed any overt racism yet on the site but I haven't read it carefully either, just glanced at it. (Edited to add: okay, now that I AM reading it carefully, there's racism all through it - "The dark forces in the Democratic Party have converged on Hillary Clinton" and "They played the race card continually, then blamed the Clintons" and "Oprah plans to go door to door for her homeboy," suggesting that if she knocks on your door that you "read her the riot act for siding with a lying, racist pig". Also, there's a picture of Obama in traditional clothing that includes some sort of turban, I think, with the caption, "If we don't band together and stop this man, this could be your next President.") Got the link from the comments after a NYT article. [ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 07 June 2008 01:44 PM
There are a number of talented women that would make excellent running mates. The name that gets mentioned often is that of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who delivered the Democrats' response to the SOTU Address and then endorsed Obama the next day. There are also Democratic women running Washington (Christine Gregoire), Arizona (Janet Napolitano) and Michigan (Jennifer Granholm). Granholm is not eligible because she was born in Canada. Napolitano and Sebelius both reach their term limit in 2010, so they are less likely to show reluctance to give up their current positions for a shot at the Vice-Presidency than Gregoire, who is in her first term. I'll confess that I don't follow state level politics that closely, so I don't have a sense of which of the three who are eligible would be considered progressive (or, at least, progressive by American standards). As well, VP candidates are typically expected to carry their state, so Napolitano is an unlikely choice (if we assume that McCain already has Arizona in the bag). At a national level, there is Nancy Pelosi, but she has far more power as House Speaker than she would as VP, and she's not likely to want to wait eight years to run for President (she would have done so this time if she had aspirations). In the Senate, I'm a fan of Barbara Boxer and I like Claire McAskill. What I'm saying is that Obama doesn't have to name Clinton as his running mate if he wants to nominate a woman.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 07 June 2008 04:27 PM
What Hillary Won By GAIL COLLINS Published: June 7, 2008 excerpt: Her campaign was messy, and it made some fatal tactical errors. But nobody who sent her a donation could accuse her of not giving them their money’s worth. For all her vaunting ambition, she was never a candidate who ran for president just because it’s the presidency. She thought about winning in terms of the things she could accomplish, and she never forgot the women’s issues she had championed all her life — repair of the social safety net, children’s rights, support for working mothers. It’s not the same as winning the White House. But it’s a lot.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|