Is It Possible? A Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton Ticket?
In negotiation, it's wise to define the best alternative to achieving your primary goals -- the fallback -- no matter how unappealing compared to a clear win. Then you tuck it in the back of your mind and aim higher. As unappealing as it may seem now, the vice presidency could be the best alternative for both of the top Democratic presidential contenders.
For Clinton, the vice presidency would definitely feel like a comedown. But it could also turn out to be the only way for a woman to ultimately become president. She'll consider it if she wants to crack the second highest glass ceiling nearly as much as the first and if she wants to influence the course of history from a position closer than a Senate seat. For Obama, the vice presidency would be a comedown too. But he'd likely think twice before turning his back on a step that would take him closer to being president -- the first black vice president. And he, too, would be better positioned -- in his case to infuse the next presidency with his compelling vision.
Neither of them is perfect, we know that. Paul Krugman gave Hillary more credit on the economic front, and that is proving to be crucial. Barack is more charismatic and may indeed be, as he suggests, more of a bridge builder, but is playing catch-up with Edwards and Clinton on ways to stem the tide of recession and provide healthcare for all Americans. Then again, he was against the war in Iraq before the others, even if he could have done more about it after that insight, while Clinton has voted too long in ways that helped Bush prolong the war. He prefers to define the vision rather than be an operations manager, whereas she wants to hit the ground running on day one. Basically, they're both flawed and both gifted and either is better than any of the Republican options.
Unless Clinton and Obama mutilate each other's candidacies, or it's done for them in the press, they may seek to bolster their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses by taking on the Republicans in what would certainly be both an unprecedented and formidable team. Were they to then select exceptional cabinet members who compensate for the team's limitations and compliment its strengths, the country would surely benefit.
Does this mean we should cease to criticize and analyze? No. But like a skillful negotiator, will we entertain what for so many voters is a far less than desired fallback? Is it just too soft a landing? Will Democrats and Democratic leaning independents put the country first if indeed pairing the current top two Democratic candidates, to borrow from Senator Obama's vision, emerges as our country's best hope?
Foresight of this nature, being able to see past our preferences to what best serves the country does not come easy. But as anyone who has faced and overcome major obstacles knows, often a "win" in politics and in life demands stretching beyond comfortable and preferred avenues to ones previously marked "closed".
Loading comments…
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
I don't ever want to see John Edwards' face or hear his grating voice again after he pulls out. Let him retreat into his 28,000 foot mansion and write his memoirs.
Do not lose sight of the BIG PICTURE.
Any Democratic ticket will beat any Republican ticket. That is where the CHANGE will come from.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would unify women, minorities, minority women, moderates and liberals, crossover voters, young and old, voters who want an experienced candidate and those seeking inspiration.
It would be an electoral and popular vote landslide, even if every white, male, Clinton-hating, misogynist, gay bashing, anti-abortion, pro-gun, racist, billionaire, Limbaugh lover over 18 voted Republican (which, of course, they will anyway.) The Democratic majority in Congress would be strengthened in its wake and the end of partisan obstructionism would end.
Let's get past the sniping, egotistical gamesmanship, and fomentation of false controversies. Clinton and Obama are not that far apart on the issues, certainly not so far as to make a common goal unattainable.
Clinton is senior to Obama in age, experience, wisdom, and global diplomatic connections. She can step in on January 20,'09, and clean up the Bush-Cheney mess. In the meantime, Obama will have plenty of time to earn his turn as her successor.
The worst thing Clinton (or Obama) could do is choose a mush-mouthed nice guy like Bayh or Clark as a running mate. Plus, we're gonna have months to get used to the idea of a woman and an African American on the same ticket. They are both heroes to most Democrats.
Obama/Clinton: Not in a MILLION years!
Firstly, Clinton is so polarizing, Obama would be a fool to put her on his ticket. Secondly, who wants both Bill and Hillary looking over your shoulder and telling you what to do? Obama has more judgment than both of them, and that would be pretty damn annoying. Thirdly, all the negativity that follow the Clintons is SO not worth it.
On the other hand, if Hillary should get the nomination (God forbid), it would be in her best interest to put Obama on her ticket. There's ALOT of ABC (Anybody but Clinton) going on nationwide and it's HUGE in Illinois (and she was BORN here), so she may want to think twice about Obama. Otherwise, there are alot of us Illinoisians who are willing to either 1) not vote or 2) vote for McCann or Huckabee! Yes, HuffPost readers, it's THAT bad!!!!!
I would say Clinton/Obama is more likely to happen than the other way around. Obama might very well choose a woman, a governor of a state like Kansas or Arizona, but Hillary might overshadow him too much.
If I had to guess on a VP for Obama it would be Richardson for all his experience. For Hillary I think it would be Obama, Richardson, or Clark. Geographically Obama doesn't give her any advantages, but it would be an exciting ticket that could get lots of young voters and new voters to the polls.
On Edwards VP I just don't think so. I love the guy but it's been there done that. I don't think Edwards and Hillary like each other much, and for Obama he'll want someone more experienced.
In the on-going battle of the incorrigible Cynics versus the perpetual Optimists.
The Repos can only hope that, if the Demos won't nominate Obama OR Clinton, they should choose BOTH. Please, please, please...
The Demos, god bless 'em, must insist that after 232 years & 43 white, male Presidents, it's GOT to be time for that to change.
Because it bears repeating.
The Repos can only hope that, if the Demos
won't nominate Obama OR Clinton, they should choose BOTH. Please, please, please...
The Demos, god bless 'em, must insist that after 232 years & 43 white, male Presidents, it's GOT to be time for that to change.
So, it's a battle of the incorrigible Cynics versus the perpetual Optimists.
Will Rogers said, "I am not a member of any 'organized' political party, I'm a Democrat." He said this in the forties even before the Republicans developed policies that destroyed the middle and lower class in America.
Did anyone hear Chris Matthews question Trent Lott about why the Republicans hadn't settled on a candidate yet?
Usually, the Republican National Committee has met in a smoke filled room and settled on a candidate by now, but Mike Huckabee and the Religious Right have thrown a monkey wrench into things and their party is divided.
If Democrats could unite behind a Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama ticket, we would have the general election sewed up. If Democratic voters would vote a straight Democratic ticket, we would get a supermajority in Congress. If the dog hadn't stopped to sh*t, he would have caught the rabbit. OOPS, how did that get in here?
I can only dream! This has never happened before so why should it now. The Republicans will continue to kick our asses and history will repeat itself because we choose to bicker amongst ourselves while the Republicans use proven stratigies to win.
Sometimes I believe the old saying, "We deserve the Government we get."
If I won the nomination, I might prefer to chose a governor or Congressperson and not take another Democratic Senator out of the Senate, unless I was sure there would be another Democrat in his/her place. I would be thinking of the majorities I would need to pass my programs.
Clinton and Obama do complement each other well.
Obama would bring some much needed passion to a Hillary nominee ticket.
Hillary would bring some gravitas to Obama as a President.
They don't balance geographically, and i'm not sure either of their giant egos could play second fiddle - but it would be a strong ticket in terms of personalitys
Do Obama and Clinton so dislike each other as to make such a ticket, however desirable, unworkable?
Let's remember how much Kerry & Edwards disliked each other. It affected their campaign. The two camps couldn't even agree on the slogan for the run.
I wish the two of them would team up, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Bringing up Obama's drug use is not racist. In my opinion, its irrelevant, as I don't really care what he did for fun decades ago, but it is absolutely not racist to bring it up.
It's not being brought up because people are saying hes black, therefore he must have done drugs. That would be racist. It's being brought up because hes admitted to having done drugs himself. People tried to make an issue of George Bush's cocaine use when he was running, and people tried to make an issue of Bill Clinton's smoking. I was 7 when Bill Clinton was elected, and I still remember the phrase "I didn't inhale" because it was such a big deal that he'd said it.
It's being brought up because, to some people, what someone did as a teenager or in their early 20s reflects on their character in ways that should be taken into account. I think it's a cheap shot against Obama, and it has nothing to do with how he would perform as president, but it isn't racist.
The issue isn't that hes black and used drugs. The issue is that he used drugs. It would be as much as much, if not more, of an issue if he were white or asian or hispanic or any other race. I think it would probably be a bigger issue, in fact: people are afraid that if they bring it up now, they'll be called racists (which they have been), whereas if he were white, nobody would claim that this line of attack were racist, it would be seen as fair game.
Whichever candidate wins the nomination should feel free to pick a running mate that complements their own strengths and weaknesses.
If that is the runner-up for the nomination, so be it, and so much the better.
The strongest ticket in the general election is not nesse-celery the top two for the top job.
Frankly, Hillary can use someone with some military credentials, and Obama can use someone with policy chops, preferably foreign policy. Come to think of it, Hillary fits the bill better for Obama than vice versa.
if it's hillary the ticket - in reality - will be clinton-clinton
who would be nuts enough to be VP in the middle of those two
Not on your life
NO it is not possible; she is too polarizing and the antithesis of what Obama's message is. Wake up! Is this just another attempt for Hillary to ride another man's coat tails to power?
(Continued)
The war on terror is real, and the terrorists don't see much difference between George Bush and Hillary Clinton. Does anyone remember that Bill Clinton tried to asassinate Osama bin Laden in 1999 in Sudan? Do you think Al Qaeda will change their view of the U.S. if Hillary and Bill are in the White House?
Impeaching Bush and Cheney and holding them accountable, for the world to see, will make the U.S. more secure than anything else.
If you add to that some convictions against Blackwater and Halliburton (and maybe the seizure and forfeiture of many of the billions they have made - although now that they have moved to Dubai that may complicate matters...
Impeachment and the Fixing the Economy. Those two things alone (although big issues) would probably get America back on the right track. There are a number of other critical issues, such as addressing the failing infrastructure in the U.S., health care, education, etc., but I would sure like to see the above two issues be addressed first.
Zack
Toronto, Canada
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
