Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama might be stuck with each other -- not just for the long haul to the Democratic nominating convention, but well beyond. They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not.
The most likely scenario going forward is that unelected delegates, the so-called super delegates, will decide this thing -- and they might not make a choice in sufficient numbers to give either hopeful the nomination before the convention.
If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix
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
Rocky and Apollo Creed became buds. Why not Hillary and Obama? Would shut up MSM for about 10 minutes.
Hillary can't pick Obama she has stated he isn't ready to be President....Obama can't pick the past and claim he wants to change Washington.
Let's see, Hillary says Obama is not fit to be President. Well, if she is the nominee (which is not likely) and taps Obama for VP then how could she reconcile the fact that she said he is "unfit" to be President. Undoubtedly, the VP has to be capable to assume the helm if something tragic happened to the President, Right?
No matter what anyone says, making hay of that ticket would be too good for the Republicans to pass up in the fall. Make no mistake, by that time McCain and his VP would refresh America's memory by replaying Hillary's sound bites over and over again. What would have been a dream ticket (prior to Hillary's rants) would suddenly become a nightmare for the Democratic Party.
Ha!
You know words are always bandied about. Look at Bush and his step-child McCain. Much more vitriol, flaming rhetoric and scorched earth there.
He would have to be nuts to pick her as a running mate. There's no room in those pant suits for anyone else's opinion. Even as VP, it would be HER way or the highway.
Clinton is to Obama as Putin is to Medved...Mevdev.... Med....or WOT-ever :)
Agree. If it was an actual marriage I wouldn't even give it a week and that is being generous. We should have them tested on eHarmony.com if they are considering a joint ticket.
I don't know who will win the nomination, but I'm confident that Hillary would easily take him in a fight.
Assuming either Hillary as Pres. and Barack as VP, or vice-versa, the FIRST thing she/he should do is....name Bill Ambassador to... Burkina Faso? or maybe Fiji? and only enough budget for postage stamps. Bye-bye!!!
Are you kidding me ? - We need him as Ambassador to Canada.
News of his " exploits " will keep the press so busy that there will be no further " unfortunate memos" leaking across the border.
...tell him we have REAL Cuban cigars up here & it's done.
Obama just made his first foray into foreign relations, by contacting the Canadian government to assure them that his NAFTA rhetoric to the American eletorate was not sincere.
This was foolish, naive and showed an extreme lack of judgement, and it proved that he will lie to the American people, lie to cover up the lie, and lie to try to minimize the impact of all his lies.
In one fell swoop, he has proven that he is not the New & Different kind of politician he portrayed himself as.
He's shown himself to be a light-weight, naive panderer, lacking the most basic foresight or vision.
Not exactly top-of-the-ticket material.
Brilliant analysis. You are really, really smart. Here I thought Clinton was the twister of facts, and you've informed me that it's really Obama.
We need to change this endless cycle of hate, obstruction, and pitiful progress that we see each election and term. It is getting very tiring and we end up with politicians we don't respect, don't want to elect, and then want to impeach and convict, based on some combination of fact, stereotypes, and bad assumptions. We start each cycle with a victorious party intent on maximizing the implementation of their political agenda that may not be representative of the demographics of their own party, There is certainly no concern for the other - which just happens to be 170 million people. It is no wonder it takes forever to get any legislation passed and when we do has been watered down and stuffed with specials interests. The one thing we do know is that we see both parties as being ineffective, but the fact is they are just mirroring us.
If we are going to change things then we need to actually sit down and learn about each other and the needs of our parties, while dispelling the age old false stereotype that get us even more enraged. I would suggest that we find a way to have a ticket that is represented by both parties and then we can really focus on an agenda that brings a balance view and much higher execution without the constraints of the petty tactics.
The combo of McCain/Obama or Obama/McCain might be just the thing we need.
Uh, no thank you.
Conservatism has nearly destroyed this country.
All this ,'I'm fighting for Hillary' and 'I'm fighting for Barrack' shooting at one another reminds me of the line in terminator 2 movie. You may remember it, John Connors watches the kids playing with toy guns, shooting one another, and says to the terminator, "we're not gonna make it, are we"? How can we go against the bad guys in Nov when we're on our self-destruction course? We're not gonna make it, are we?
Only logical that Hillary be at the top and Obama as VP so that he can get some experience...He's young and will have his chance. That's the only sensible ticket. Otherwise, she should remain as the US Senator from NY, a very prestigious job and suitable to her good mind. She should not agree to be his VP. She's far to much the better candidate for the job of President than he is at this point in his career.
Why would this be logical if, at the end of the primary process, he has more delegates than her?
In fact, one could argue that, as a far more inspirational and transformative leader, he is much better suited to be the head of state and that if they somehow teamed up, she could serve as veep in a more COO-type role which would be more suited to her policy wonkery. Though as I've noted in a previous post, I cannot imagine her ever agreeing to do this, just as I cannot imagine Obama agreeing to be Hillary's veep, which would make him third banana.
I'm beginning to think it may be best if McCain wins.
Then he can go ahead and screw things up really, really bad and we can get a decent candidate in 2012.
Then Edwards can come back and say "I told you people what we needed to do".
I don't want Obama to choose Hillary. I don't like her campaign lies and distortions. That's the nightmare. Obama/Edwards 08.
Here's my favorite. All the superdels vote for Al Gore. Then at the convention we make Gore president, someone like Richardson VP. Clinton as Majority Leader. Obama gets the next Supreme Court nod. Edwards as AG.
Anyone vote for that?
My dream team for over a year now has been Gore/Obama. I also agree with everyone who thinks Obama MUST be on the ticket, in either position, but preferably as President. I would ultimately be O.K. with a Clinton/Obama pairing, but it's not my first choice.
Edwards/Kucinich. Then I could vote without holding my nose.
It could only be improved by Kucinich becoming the next Speaker of the House.
You do that and large portion of blacks will stay home in November. That means McCain wins. In reality after such ugly compaign unless Obama is on the ticket - Dems have no chance...
Almost assuredly a fantasy and my first choice is still for Obama to be president, but I could certainly live with that scenario and would vastly prefer it to Hillary being the nominee.
Best idea I've heard all day.
There is one very logical way to look at this. The super delegates are going to decide this race. That is a fact. Neither candidate can get to the 2024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Here is a rational way for the super delegates to make a decision. Review all the states. Remove any state fom the equation that is going to vote RED or BLUE no matter which candidate wins the nomination. That means don't worry about NY, CA, MA, ID, UT, WY, AK, AZ, SC etc
Now, take the close states that could go either way and do some polls with Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain. Match these results up to the electoral college and see who does better in a general election matchup.
Just for fun, do some more polls with an Obama/Clinton ticket vs McCain and a Clinton/Obama ticket vs McCain and see if that has any effect on the results.
Then if you are worried about congressional seats and senate seats. Do some more polls to see if any of the above tickets do better for gaining seats in congress.
Look at all of these results, keep doing comparisons over time to see if things change as we get closer.
Then the super delegates would actually have some data to use to make a rational decision.
Interesting ideas here, but my main concern is the extent to which your plan relies on polls, which have been wildly inconsistent this year.
Let all of the super delegates declare as neutral. Let Clinton and Obama, each with less than enough, try to get a majority without the super delegates. After a few rounds with no winner, the super delegates, also not a majority, propose a compromise candidate. It could be Edwards, Biden, Dodd or even Gore. All of the super delegates would vote for the one they had decided among themselves was the best choice. Clinton and Obama would have their fair chance. If they couldn't manage it, tough. We might then end up with a qualified candidate that could get the support of essentially everyone.
Je pense, donc je suis populiste.
No, it's a nightmare ticket for two reasons. One, this country is not yet ready to vote for a woman and a black man together. (Some days I'm not sure if it is really ready for a woman or a black man alone -- especially the older population, which makes the youth vote important.) A "dream ticket" would effectively end the dem's bid for the White House. Two, I am pretty sure Hillary would only accept such a ticket if she was on top. Obama is clearly about a different kind of politics and government. It would do him no good to be involved in any way with a Clinton White House.
batgirl, can you define "ready"? does "ready" mean when you feel comfortable putting leadership in the hands of a non-white/non-male? see, i actually appreciate the fact that i won't be forced to vote between two people who look, talk, act and pee the same because i'm supposed to. see, i was "ready" to think that it truly is possible that ANY american can pursue and achieve the role of president because that's what our history books, teachers, parents and leaders have been saying. so, maybe it's ok that women now occupy the high rungs on the corporate ladder -- or that blacks can own property. "have your fun, but stick to the roe v. wade debate and basketball courts." "it's ok when it's morgan freeman playing him, but god forbid we get a REAL one." "we know we gave you your rights," but it's still better that women and blacks stay within the confines of stereotypes and limited freedom until people are "ready." frankly, as a black woman, i've always felt "ready" to achieve anything my heart desires and that this country offers its citizens, and i don't care if the rest of the country is "ready" or not.
You may be right about some people not being willing to vote for a Black or a woman. Prejudice certainly is extant. Your post is witness to a prejudice against us geezers.
Je pense, donc je suis populiste.
"Obama is clearly about a different kind of politics and government. "
Please stop reading press releases. These are two DLC candidates who will do what it takes for their personal political ambitions. Let's knock these heads together and hammer out a deal.
As we have seen, the Veep can wield a lot power nowadays.
Not under Hillary. It's Bill who would play the Dick Cheney role -- think of that what you will -- while the Veep would be attending funerals if he's lucky.
Can you imagine Michelle as first vice lady under Hilary? Owwww!
I went back and took a look at the advice karl Rove gave to Obama in an open Memo before Iowa. It is actually brilliant advice and by all appearances Obama is using it very effectively.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html
Wow ! Thanks for the link.
My thoughts about how he needs to change his campaign strategy as a result of yesterday very much mirrored Karl Rove's ! However, you have to remember that Rove's advice was given back in December '07. I doubt he would offer the following words of wisdom now, in light of her continued dredging of the " 35 years experience ' and " red phone " fiasco.
" Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you " and she does. "
He needs to call her on this.
Otherwise, Rove's article contains extremely valuable advice to Obama, regardless of the disdain in which many on this site justifiably hold him. Thank you Karl.
But he is using the tactics of taking shots to bait her and then she freaks and he can just smile about it and poke at her some more. That is pure Rove. Keep hitting the same thing until it is burned in our brain. while causing your opponent to finally lose it. It would be interesting to go back and see if Obama started adopting these concepts.back then.
I am not an enthusiastic voter for Obama, but I am pretty strongly against Hillary. I can non concieve that a questionalbe commodity attached to a terrible commodity makes a good commodity. I do not want Hillary anywhere near to being President, period. McCain is mentally unbalanced old man, but he is at least a Republican. In 2010 the disasster of another destructive Republican will lead to a Democrat President if the Pathetic Democrat Party does not self destruct again.
If Hillary is elected we will most probably have 8 year od republicans after here single term.
No. Obama/Richardson or Obama /Webb should do the trick. Hillary needs to bow out - not that she will. As always her ego is bigger than her desire to do the right thing.
All the talk about a redo in the states in rebelion is dumb. THey had their chance and they blew it. THey can get ther vote on the second ballot at the convention.
How does Obama name Hillary as a VEEP when she has consistently said in flat out terms he brings nothing at alll to the table? Those quotes of hers are going to be played over and over and over again. "McCain brings a lifetime of experience, Obama brings a little speech he gave in 2002" ...how can he have that on his ticket?
How does she name him when he is so completely unqualified to be president?
When Craig says the ticket in order don't take him at his word. There is only one order he his looking at and that is with Hillary at the top of the ticket although she trails in popular vote, "ELECTED" delegates, and contests won. In order for Hillary to be at the top of the ticket with the facts I just stated you would need Obama on the ticket to make it pallatble to African Americans who will nonetheless Know that she STOLE the nomination. There is practically no way for Hillary to make up the difference in the metrics with the rest of the calendar. Something dramatic, as has been suggested in another blog, would have to happen like Obama being caught in some airport restroom with a "wide stance".
The way the Clintons have used the race card in this election is reason enough for Obama to reject & denounce any thoughts/offer of being her VP.
Posted March 5, 2008 | 09:44 AM (EST)