The idea of a "dream ticket" is simply wishful thinking now that Senator Clinton has said that Obama is not fit to be commander in chief. With that statement now recorded on video for the Republicans to replay in the fall, neither a Clinton/Obama nor an Obama/Clinton ticket makes any political sense. If Clinton were nominated and picked Obama as her VP, how would she answer the question that will surely be put to her -- "Senator Clinton, you yourself have said that your running mate is unfit to be commander in chief. Why should people vote for a Democratic ticket now that you've admitted that your VP nominee is not ready to take over?" Obama would have a similar problem if he were nominated and picked Clinton as his VP. "Senator Obama, your very own running mate says you're not competent to be commander in chief." Get the idea?
Whatever else you may think of her, Hillary Clinton made a big mistake in making that statement. It will be replayed in the fall if Obama is the nominee and will doubtless hurt his chances. If she gets the nomination, she won't be able to unify the party by picking Obama as a running mate because she's already tagged him as unfit. And of course there was the part where she said McCain had "clearly" crossed the commander in chief threshold. That helps neither her case nor Obama's. It just a plain old endorsement of John McCain.
Far Be It From Me to Disagree with Mario Cuomo, But...
Buzz this article up.
When I was in high school, my heroes were Magic Johnson, Bruce Springsteen, anyone who dated Raquel Welch, and the great orator from New York, Mario Cuomo. In my HuffPo bio, I mention shaking Governor Cuomo's hand just after he delivered the Tale of Two Cities speech at the San Francisco Democratic Convention.
When I worked on Capitol Hill in the early '90s, I was obsessed with the idea that Governor Cuomo could be President Cuomo. I was poised to volunteer for his campaign, to travel to New Hampshire, Iowa, or anywhere else the campaign wanted me to go.
Mario Cuomo never ran for president. We did get Bill Clinton and he turned out to be a very good president, but I wish that Mario Cuomo did run for president, and I certainly believe he should have accepted President Clinton's offer to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Mario Cuomo is my favorite political figure ever, not just because he played minor league baseball, tossed elbows on the basketball court, or called reporters at 3 a.m. to chat with them or berate them. When I saw Hillary's "3 a.m." ad, I thought, under a President Cuomo, Mario would've been making those calls, instead of sleeping by the phone, awaiting its ring.
And yet, when Governor Cuomo talks about the need for Senators Obama and Clinton to get together and talk, with one of the two agreeing to run as VP to the other's P, or both agreeing that the winner of the nominating process will choose the other as VP -- it seems like so much wishful thinking.
Senator Obama is ahead of Hillary Clinton by all measures. He's ahead in votes, states won, delegates. Why should he get together with Senator Clinton and possibly agree to be her VP? And while Senator Clinton may be running a tough campaign, she has every right to run it the way she wants to, to stay in until she wants to, and to fight to the end if that's her desire.
So let them continue to fight. Hillary prays for an Obama slip-up. Obama supporters watch as Hillary coins a new term, "misspeak." That's the campaign.
Today, Hillary is saying she's Rocky, in an attempt to appeal to Philadelphians. She apparently forgot about another Pennsylvania movie, Flashdance, set in Pittsburgh, in which a steel worker fulfills her dream of becoming a ballet dancer. A blue-collar woman putting it all on the line to fulfull her dreams -- better than the Rocky analogy, if you ask me. But opportunities missed -- that's a campaign.
The candidates do not need to get together in a smokeless room and decide whether to run as a joint ticket.
Let the people decide on a winner. They'll have decided by June 10th; by that time, the super delegates, already making up their minds, will have leaned one way or the other, and the race will be over. That'll leave many months until the general election and the matchup with John McCain.
And let the nominee choose the VP they want, the one that will best serve them. If you've run for president for two years, and you may be president for eight, then you deserve to have the VP you want.
The race will have a winner and a second-place finisher. We are blessed to have two great candidates running against each other. But just because they separately have solid support does not mean they need to run as one. The winner deserves to pick the VP.
Governor Cuomo believes the campaign in-fighting will hurt the party in November. I disagree. When this race ends, there will be plenty of time -- five months -- for the candidate to unite the Party and take on George W. McCain.
Governor Cuomo says, "Recent polls of all Democrats whether they have voted in the primaries or not, show the two leaders virtually tied and indicate Clinton may be more likely than Obama to win the states the Democrats must take in order to succeed."
Governor Cuomo, I hate to say it, but you're wrong. First of all, while Senator Clinton won states like California and New York, is there a human being alive who believes that the Democrats will not win those states in November? Second, Obama has won states Dems normally find difficult. Virginia. Missouri. Colorado. Iowa. Wisconsin. States that may open the Dems to a larger victory in November.
So, Governor Cuomo, to your suggestion that Barack and Hillary get together and pick which one should run as president and which one should be vice president: uh-uh. There's no need. Let the people decide the presidential nominee.
And to your suggestion that the second place finisher be the VP nominee: let the candidate decide.
The Party will be fine. And I hope you forgive me for disagreeing with you. I'm sure that there are many things we do agree on -- how about the end of Isiah Thomas's reign in New York? The Knicks may have some hope. I'm sure we're on the same page on that one, right, Governor?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Matt - it's simple - what an exit strategy that would be. Go out on top. But sadly, she destroyed it. It's not going to happen. Can't have 2 527's running at the same time for the dems, now can we - lol. Surely wouldn't be a very wise decision.
We'll start to hear this VP ticket again from the clinton camp and especially the surrogates. Nope, this rescue would never work.
A "dream ticket" might not be the best idea, as historic as it would be. But, having read many of the posted comments here, I have some friendly advice to supporters on both sides: Calm down. I have frequently said that I will never ever vote for Hillary. Well, I hereby flip-flop. I have had some time to calmly think things through, and, let me tell you, the thought of a Republican - any Republican - in the WH for the next 4-8 years gives me hives. Even if we just look at the Supreme Court. I do not want McCain to be the one who chooses anywhere from 1 to 3 of the next Supremes. Even one more right winger there will bring us all untold horror for the next thirty years. I'm still rooting for Obama, and I still believe he's our next nominee. But I, for one, will remember the stakes involved when I go to vote in November. Please, people, calm down and THINK.
Wow! A voice of reason! Thank you, jstock!!
I agree that this cartoonish polarization of the party into "Clinton Haters" and "Obama Bashers" smaks of pre-adolescent playground tantrum-throwing. The thought that ANYONE who claims to support Clinton or Obama based on their policies (which, let's face it, are 99% identical) would vote for McSame is dizzying. Are supporters who suggest such things simply following some cult of personality? Would they truly find voting for the opposing DEMOCRAT so distasteful that they'd rather relinquish any chance of a progressive agenda in this country for the next 4, 8, or 30 years? Are they really willing to let their children and grandchildren die in the 100-Years Pan-Islamic war just to prove a point?
I am thankful that regular Dems I know don't talk this way. It seems to be confined to the blogosphere, where people with nothing better to do than obsess and post commentaries all day gradually descend into madness.
I prefer Obama, because I'm a bit tired of the politics I've lived with all my life (since the Nixon era). Obama seems like a break from that. But if the nominee's Clinton, I'll vote for Clinton, because I know that her administration will not be a whole lot different than his would have been.
"If you've run for president for two years, and you may be president for eight, then you deserve to have the VP you want. "
If only it worked that way. You run for president for years, then get to actually govern for about one hundred days. This is straight from The West Wing, but it's true, a congress person has to raise $10,000 a week from the day they are elected just to pay for their re-election. And the president has to spend the second year of their first term helping congress with mid-terms and the entire second half of their first term running for relection. Once re-elected a president is politically almost impotent, see: George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, neither did much, to my knowldge, of great signficance that they actually wanted to achieve. Most second term presidents find themselves just trying to maintain the status quos.
The fact is we live in a tranny of elections.
Is it part of the right wing deal for outting Spitzer?
This whole "Candidate X has won the states we need to win in November" is pure bunk. I do believe that John Kerry won Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Missouri in 2004's Dem primaries. Did he win them all in the General Election?
I think you are missing the point of the argument, well educated as you may be. The point is, if you don't win the swing state within your own party, what are your chances in the general election against the other party? You listed the red states that John Kerry won in primary but did not win in the general election. Are you trying to point out to the Obama supporters that winning the traditionally red states during primary really does not mean anything?
There is no such thing as a dream ticket with Obama/Clinton on it.
The whole VP thing is an attempt by Hillary to keep 'her' superdelegate support from leaching away to Obama. She knows that many of her supporters are starting to think--as the rest of the party thinks--that Obama is the future; the candidate with the wind at his back. Given that much of her support is due to personal loyalty / friendship / owed favours being returned, etc., she needs to find a way to keep those on-side despite the above.
So, the her camp is putting out a joint ticket hoax. She's telling people that if they only vote for her out of personal loyalty, they can ALSO have Obama, the candidate they know is the future.
It is, in other words, just the same as her earlier, pathetic attempts to steal Obama's "change" theme and mimic his oratory.
I am sure you thought you had a point but I failed to see it. If, like you said, much of Hillary's support is personal, then why would she need to worry? Will your friend abandon you that easily?
And a word of advice, do not pretend that you represent the whole party. 50% of the party voted FOR Hillary.
The article is pretty respectful so I will not bash the writer for saying: "Governor Cuomo, I hate to say it, but you're wrong."
It is true that CA and NY are pretty solid on the Democratic side. It will take a 9% swing for the Republican to claim CA and even bigger margin to claim NY. However, it is a stretch to think that VA will go Dem in 2008. Even at the darkest hour for Rep in 2006, the race for the senate came within a point or two. And that is after Allen made the regrettable "macaca" remark.
I researched the 2004 general election result and these states were decided by 5% or less: CO 5% Rep, FL 5% Rep, IW 1% Rep, MI 3% Dem, MN 3% Dem, NV 3% Rep, NH 1% Dem, NM 1% Rep, OH 2% Rep, OR 4% Dem, PA 2% Dem and WS 1% Dem.
VA was 8% Rep and MO 7% Rep. To equate Obama's win again Hillary in those 2 states to winning the general is a bit of wishful thinking. Even CO and FL at 5% will be hard to turn if you ask me.
Mario has slipped . His convention speech was a 'barn burner". With todays comments and support of HRC he has taken that speech and trashed it ;by supporting the candidate who has played the race card repeatedly. Sham on you Mario
It's a stupid idea. You can't have someone who's questioned your fitness for Commander in Chief as your Vice-President. The press would beat that question into the ground: "Senator Clinton, in February you said....."
And they'd be right.
It is NOT a stupid idea. It is not feasible but NOT stupid. While you are making fun of Hillary, just remember, the same can be said about Obama questioning Hillary's "judgment" from day one.
What Mario proposed was like a doomsday scenario. He propose the two get on the same ticket so we do not loose the election. It is a good strategy to unite the party for now but not necessarily a good ticket to go against McCain and whoever.
Yes, Obama is ahead in delegates won to date, and he is CURRENTLY ahead in the popular vote. The popular vote lead may well change. It would LIKELY change if a revote were held in FL and MI. Obama is currently ahead by about 700,000 votes. Clinton would get more than half of that back with revotes in FL and MI. And, probably the rest of it in PA. The number of states won doesn't mean anything. It never has. States vary in size. That's why they all have different numbers of delegates assigned to them. A candidate can easily win more states and still have fewer delegates.
There is only one count that matters and that count is 2024 delegates. Neither candidate is going to get there.
Being unwilling to compromise is not a good quality in a politcian. We seen Bush "my way or the highway" in action and its been a disaster.
This "dream ticket" would be a major nightmare.
This type of "compromise" is a lose-lose instead of a win-win.
I lost respect for him when he uttered the 'shucking and jiving' comment. That he thinks Obama would be a great Veep shouldn't be a surprise. It only surprises me that he wants Obama on the ticket at all.
That was his son, Andrew Cuomo.
I have always liked Mario Cuomo too. If he supports Hillary, that's fine - just say so. Noone has won this race yet, but Obama is ahead and very likely to win.
Bottom line is that ANY Presidential nominee should be able to pick the VP THEY want.
I think that if Senator Obama wants to get the party together he needs to put HIllary in the ticket, whether he likes her or not. They need each other and they need to bring the party together.
I hear a lot of Obama people saying if that's the ticket, we won't vote for it. Ok don't.
Place your vote for McCain.
Its amazing to hear how Obama voters think in absolutes. Kind of like my 6 year old daughter. The extreme left and the extreme right tend to see things in black & white. Moderates tend to see things in shades of grey.
The Obama supporters don't believe in compromise. Well if you want to win in November, you better if not half the party will walk out the door.
Another desperate clinton groupie,Railing against Obama for weeks, now looking get The Heroine Of Tuzla back into the Whitehouse as VP. Not Happening, any chance of a "Dream Ticket"( and that was a slim chance anyway) has been completely quashed by Hillary's lying,race-bating,change the rules for me campaign. She and her ilk are all done (for awhile,anyway) So just let go and have a real look at Obama's policies and character, you might just like what you see.
I actually like his policies, since it is not much different from Hillary's or the general ideals of the Democratic party. I have heard people who met him say that he is really nice. I have heard people who met Hillary personally who says she is really nice. What turns me off about him is his supporters like you.
Please don't get caught into being turned off to any candidate because some annoying supporter on a blog rubs you the wrong way. You aren't voting for supporters. You're voting for the candidate and his/her policies. If Obama himself turns you off, that's another thing, but let's stay focused here on what matters -- the candidates. There's irrational, illogical supporters-a-muck on both sides of this thing. Fortunately, they're not the ones positioning to run the country.
I'd vote for that ticket, but I don't think it's required to "bring the party together", and it's not the best ticket.
"Its amazing to hear how Clinton voters think in absolutes. Kind of like my 6 year old daughter. The extreme left and the extreme right tend to see things in black & white. Moderates tend to see things in shades of grey.
The Clinton supporters don't believe in compromise. Well if you want to win in November, you better if not half the party will walk out the door."
See what I did there?
That you lied? Didn't your parents teach you better?
If you don't agree with "pbarba1969"'s observation that "Obama voters think in absolutes", I have thousands upon thousands of comments posted in this very web site to show you how wrong you are. If you want to assert that "Clinton voters think in absolutes", you will need to provide some proof. Otherwise, you are a liar.
A) I didn't lie, there are many posts by Clinton supporters that support my statement.
B) Thanks for insulting my parents. Way to prove how mature and respectful Clinton's supporters are.
C) His or her observations are correct in that some of Senator Obama's supporters are extremists like that. I was not disagreeing with that point.
D) Your last sentence is basically proof of my contention that some of Clinton's supporters think in absolutes. IE you've said "I disagree with you so you're a liar" Also, insulting my parents was a really classy move.
Maybe, IF she's lucky, Obama will offer her the VP slot. He's winning. He's ahead in the polls. Why on Earth would he agree to be her VP? Because she's got all that "experience"? Right...
I think you missed the point in Mario's post. He is talking about when no one wins. Right now, without counting FL and MI, no one wins. You can talk until your turn blue, you can not tell me that Obama can somehow reach 2024 delegates.
Let me give you an example. I have a race of 2024 feet and I tell you and your opponent that whoever reach that mark wins. The catch is, the two of your share a rope of 4026 feet that is pinned down at the start line. AND, I am going to cut the rope down about 350 feet just because I can. Now, you are closer to that 2024 mark than your opponent, but the rope is running short fast. What do you do? Keep running until the rope run out on both of you? Try to convince your opponent that since you are ahead there is no chance for her to win so she should quit? (Like Obama is doing) Or try to get that 350 feet of rope back because it will give you a chance? (Like Hillary is doing)
Then good riddance. Personally, I'm tired of Clinton supporters holding the threat of "walkout" over my head whenever I disagree with them. If threat and extortion work for you, join the Republicans, and while you're at it, cosign the letter Hillary's high-power, big-money doners sent to Speaker Pelosi threatening her. Clearly, Hillary has no problem with the tactic.
We may lose if you leave, pbarba1969, but everyone will know why. And in the end, true Democrats may finally learn how to take a stand on an issue from the beginning, and most importantly, we'll rid ourselves of the Clinton curse for at least a generation.
What is this Clinton curse that you talk about? From what I know, Bill Clinton was considered a pretty good president both in this country and abroad. Do you live on Mars?
Talking about threat, I believe Mr. Obama himself said it best: If Hillary wins, I don't know if all my supporters will vote for her. And if not for the threat of uniting the Republican party if Hillary is the nominee, a lot of democrat would have voted for her.
I like Mario Cuomo, although I can't stand his policies. But I will give him this, he is just trying to save the democratic party from complete collapse. Of course neither one of these candidates will agree to having the other as VP. Besides they have both probably sold their political souls by now so I'll bet that VP slot is already promised to others.
Hillary and Barack do not need to run together on the same ticket to make the ticket stronger (although that would work). What they do need to do, at some point, is work together to see that whoever is eventually chosen as the Democratic nominee goes on to get elected. They need to work together to see that the issues that they 99% agree on get worked out for the benefit of the American people, and not for the fat cats at the oil companies.
I hope that at some point they join hands and work together for the benefit of the American people, by putting someone intelligent and competent back into the White House. If Barack and Hillary can do that, then I think the rest of the Democratic party, and many Independents and Republicans, will unite to overthrow the neo-con yoke that we are all suffering under.
"The winner deserves to pick the VP."
Exactly.
Meanwhile, one good reason that Obama would choose the Clintons as his VPs??
Thank you.
Posted April 1, 2008 | 07:16 PM (EST)