Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Here We Go... | For Those Who Think JOSH is Be... »

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Clinton/Obama ‘08

posted by on January 8 at 20:07 PM

Discuss.

RSS icon Comments

1

Sigh...that's my dream ticket! Too bad they don't seem to like each other much right now.

Posted by Blacksheep | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM
2

I've already polled my three favorite Dems, and they all like Clinton/Obama.

Posted by Big Sven | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM
3

I think Bill could broker the deal but I think Obama is going to win the nomination.

Posted by postergirl | January 8, 2008 8:12 PM
4

Clinton/Obama would be acceptable to me, and I'm a pretty die-hard Edwards fan.

Posted by lorax | January 8, 2008 8:13 PM
5

Ridiculous, Dan. She was SUPPOSED to win New Hampshire. She was SUPPOSED to win Iowa (oops!). One good night, a day after widely-televised crocodile tears, does not a nomination make.

Posted by Trey | January 8, 2008 8:14 PM
6

My exact thoughts while watching Obama's speech from NH twenty minutes ago on CNN. Some strange little frisson went off in my brain and I knew it was true. Destined. Call me psychic.

Posted by David K. | January 8, 2008 8:14 PM
7

I'd love it, but I think those two hate each other.

Posted by arduous | January 8, 2008 8:14 PM
8

I'm holding out for Obama/Clinton

Since it's doubtful that Edwards will get the nomination (though god knows anything could happen)...what are the odds of him taking a Vice nomination again? Is there a precedent of that happening twice in a row before?

Posted by Joey the Girl | January 8, 2008 8:15 PM
9

Tempting, but I'd probably vote for McCain or Bloomberg anyway.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 8, 2008 8:15 PM
10

Not going to happen. Hillary, from what I've heard, was pissed about Obama even running (the audacity!), and she holds a grudge.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 8:15 PM
11

Truly awful from a strategic (counting electoral votes) perspective.

Posted by gnossos | January 8, 2008 8:16 PM
12

i'm pretty sure that obama will still get it. south carolina (with all the black voters), and michigan (which is right there by illinois) will both go to obama.

Posted by konstantConsumer | January 8, 2008 8:17 PM
13

I don't think Hillary would hold a grudge if she knew that adding Obama to her ticket would help her win. She wants to fucking win.

My dream would still be Edwards/Obama. I can't envision any circumstance in which Edwards would accept (or be offered) a veep nomination again. Stranger things have happened, though.

Posted by lorax | January 8, 2008 8:18 PM
14

It's my dream ticket too. Everytime they make a dig at each other it breaks my heart.

Posted by Loc | January 8, 2008 8:19 PM
15

Reagan hated George H. W. Bush, and vice-versa.

Posted by Dan Savage | January 8, 2008 8:19 PM
16

i'd be surprised if that were the eventual ticket. first because i think obama is going to win the nomination (and he would never pick hillary as his running mate). second because hillary would never pick obama as a running mate (why pick a running mate that totally shows you up?!?). and third, as others have pointed out, i don't think either one of them likes the other very much. as marc ambinder's piece in last month's atlantic shows, the clintons are pretty pissed that obama is even running.

in short, the odds are against a clinton/obama ticket.

now, mccain/huckabee on the other hand...

Posted by jaykay | January 8, 2008 8:19 PM
17

Remember when Obama won one state and everyone said it was over?

Posted by matt | January 8, 2008 8:20 PM
18

Dan, you need to tame your irrational exuberance. She's leading by only two percentage points. This is barely a win.

Posted by Louis | January 8, 2008 8:20 PM
19

@12--Um, sorry to break it to you, but Obama's not on the MI ballot. We decided to try to have our vote early, and Obama, Edwards, and others pulled out since that's what the DNC wanted. Hillary stayed on. If we want anyone but Hillary we've got to vote uncommitted. It's a huge fuck-up. Huge.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 8, 2008 8:20 PM
20

@13 - Yeah, nothing will help a female senator representing New York win the presidency like a black senator from Illinois. Red states? Nah.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 8:20 PM
21

@12, no Hillary is the only one on the ticket in Michigan. Obama will probably win South Carolina.

Posted by arduous | January 8, 2008 8:21 PM
22

I think that Clinton/Richardson is more likely or even Edwards, even tho I would love Edwards/Clinton.

Posted by meow | January 8, 2008 8:24 PM
23

Yup that's my dream ticket too. But as the campaigns go on, it seems more and more unlikely. They're too different. And they seem to be clawing into each other with increasing ferocity. It's my dream ticket because I believe Hillary as the experience and know-how to fix the state of your country when Bush's term ends. You know she'll hit the ground running. And as VP, Obama can gain more experience and cred for his time in the White House. Then he'll be a shoe-in for 2012/16!

Note: I'm not an American... Just an avid follower of the campaigns here in Australia.

Posted by Calvin | January 8, 2008 8:25 PM
24

Clinton/Gore

Posted by maybe | January 8, 2008 8:25 PM
25

Yeah, No. If, (god forbid) she wins I want him untarnished by her 2008 loss to run again in 2012.

Posted by karst | January 8, 2008 8:26 PM
26

I will vote Republican if there is a Clinton/Obama ticket, and no one will convince me otherwise.

Posted by amp | January 8, 2008 8:26 PM
27

If Clinton wins, I bet she picks Biden, or some manly-man governer (like the guy from Montana)

Posted by polytics | January 8, 2008 8:26 PM
28

remember when geena davis was the first lady president? she had problems with a veep too.

Posted by yah | January 8, 2008 8:26 PM
29

Obama will choose Joe Biden or John Edwards.
Clinton will choose Bill Richardson.
Edwards - ah, who cares, he's gonna lose anyway.

You heard it here first.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 8:27 PM
30

You know as well as I that Clinton has brokered deals with the Democratic establishment to get where she is in the nomination process. Undoubtedly, she has had her nominee lined up for months... someone who is completely part of the establishment, who can be groomed as her successor for the 2016 election.

Mark Warner fits that mould. First of all, he currently doesn't have a job. He backed out of the race for the nomination very quickly. He's younger than Vilsack, and he's a pro-gun Southerner.

And DUDE! Clinton totally forgot about Mike Gravel in her victory speech!

Posted by bma | January 8, 2008 8:29 PM
31

If not Clinton/Obama, then Clinton/Biden.

Posted by Big Sven | January 8, 2008 8:30 PM
32

In what I think might be one of the most interesting stats gleaned from New Hampshire, Obama not Hillary won large numbers of independent voters. Dan, do you think this could point to a higher possibility of him winning in November, should he get the nomination? Couldn't it also mean that Hillary is a less attractive candidate for independents, meaning a potentially tougher battle for her, rather than Obama, come election day?

Posted by clarkj | January 8, 2008 8:30 PM
33

I was just thinking about this yesterday, although for a different reason. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason nobody has tried to kill GWB is because the guy who would take his place is even more reprehensible (Cheney). That was some good thinking on his part I must say. Therefor it serves to reason that if you were the first black president or the first woman president, wouldn't you want to have a VP who might be just as hated by those who would want to take you out. Seriously, aren't most sexists racist and vice versa?

Posted by Super Jesse | January 8, 2008 8:34 PM
34

Mmmmaybe.

But they'll be hard pressed to beat Cheney/Satan '08 (already seen as bumper sticker here in Pittsburgh).

Posted by MichaelPgh | January 8, 2008 8:34 PM
35

I still want to see Obama / Edwards. I think Edwards will be a huge asset to advocate for powerful policy change. I would also be for a Clinton / Edwards ticket. Just please let it be two out of these three.

Posted by wiseblood | January 8, 2008 8:35 PM
36

I'm still guessing it'll be Obama/Biden or Obama/Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I bet she'll choose former Virginia gov Mark Warner Sen. Jim Webb, another Virginian.

Overall, I think the NH result won't be that significant. They'll probably spill NV (Clinton) and SC (Obama), and Super Tuesday will be huge and unpredictable.

Obama's speech tonight was WAY better than Hillary's, more about the good of the whole than about him (the opposite of Hillary's), and less staged -- she shipped in lots of college kids to show the "youth" like her too...

Posted by amocat | January 8, 2008 8:35 PM
37

So thats why Papa Bush was such a colossal fuck up compared to his predecessor Reagan. He didn't even like "Reagan the Magnificent (douche bag)".

I think Clinton would swallow her pride and have Obama for VP if it would guarentee her the prez. Her ambition is way bigger than her pride. I'm not sure the same is true if Obama gets the nom though.

Posted by brandon H | January 8, 2008 8:35 PM
38

From an election standpoint, and Obama/Richardson ticket gives the best possible outcome. Richardson brings the experience in which Obama is criticized as lacking, brings in the Latino vote in an important election for the immigration issue, and comes from a swing state. He also gives all this without extremely low unfavorables compared to Hilary.

Posted by m | January 8, 2008 8:35 PM
39

Obama / Winfrey

Posted by kinaidos | January 8, 2008 8:36 PM
40

Alright media/ blogosphere. What have we learned about what happens when you ASSUME ?...

Posted by matt | January 8, 2008 8:36 PM
41

Never happen. Hillary doesn't like dreamers who are too liberal.

Posted by Christian | January 8, 2008 8:36 PM
42

Obama/Potted Plant or Clinton/Kitchen Sink, people are dying to vote for change. The old Democratic playbook says "let the little guy/insurgent/maverick/liberal stir up and get the rank and file Dems excited for the ticket (with a Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, etc) and signed up to volunteer and work, then pull the bait/switch trick and end up with the long-annointed-by-the-DNC candidate (Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis)" --who's also the candidate of the status-quo, still sucking off the same corporate-lobbyist teat as the GOP.

The question is will that pattern be broken this time? Will the candidate who breaks the mold end up the nominee? IS that candidate DNC-approved Clinton? Centrist Obama? Or, ironically, the Southern White Guy Populist Edwards, who, if he were actually to try to do what he says he believes, would be the most revolutionary of the three, gender and skin-color aside. (And I'm a committed Obamaton.)

Posted by Andy Niable | January 8, 2008 8:37 PM
43

m @38 has good math.

Posted by gnossos | January 8, 2008 8:41 PM
44

Interesting, but I think it's unlikely considering how willingly she's taken her campaign negative against him (to the detriment of the Democratic chances in 2008, IMO)

Posted by Beguine | January 8, 2008 8:43 PM
45

The Dem convention is being held in Denver because they really believe they can't win without at least a few western states. It'll be Richardson for veep, regardless of who the nominee is.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 8, 2008 8:44 PM
46

I read some feminist saying Obama/Napolitano (Janet, Gov. of AZ) would be a good pair and I'd have to agree.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 8, 2008 8:44 PM
47

m@38 - smart thinking. Though I was at a taping of "The Daily Show" when Richardson was a guest, and he's such a - well, I hate using the word douche, but in this case it fits.

Posted by Joey the Girl | January 8, 2008 8:47 PM
48

VP candidates rarely swing the election. Ferraro didnt deliver the women for Mondale, Bentsen didnt deliver Texas for Dukakis (or rekindle the Massachusettes/Texas JFK/LBJ magic they were going for). Edwards didnt deliver the south for Kerry. All these pairs lost more because of the lack of campaigning skill by the presidential candidate, who couldnt have been saved if Christ had been his VP candidate.

But would having the first person of color as a mainstream party VP candidate finally make the difference and mobilize black, progressive, and youth voters in unprecedented number?
(Hoping that is they don't face roadblocks (Florida 2000) and long lines/too few machines (Ohio 2004) or hell-knows-what the Machia-Rovian machine dreams up this time...)

Posted by Andy Niable | January 8, 2008 8:52 PM
49

WOOT! I knew you had it in you, gurl!

Clinton '08!!

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 9:00 PM
50

No presidential nominee has ever nominated a VP candidate who was (or potentially would be) more popular than the would-be President.

And yeah, there doesn't have to be any great love between the two people. Think Kennedy and Johnson. The job of the VP is to lie low for eight years. Hell, even as President of the Senate he does little more than bang a gavel. Only very rarely has he cast a deciding vote.

Osama may be willing to do that, but I doubt Hillary wants someone that popular in the second position.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 8, 2008 9:03 PM
51

No presidential nominee has ever nominated a VP candidate who was (or potentially would be) more popular than the would-be President.

And yeah, there doesn't have to be any great love between the two people. Think Kennedy and Johnson. The job of the VP is to lie low for eight years. Hell, even as President of the Senate he does little more than bang a gavel. Only very rarely has he cast a deciding vote.

Osama may be willing to do that, but I doubt Hillary wants someone that popular in the second position.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 8, 2008 9:03 PM
52

No presidential nominee has ever nominated a VP candidate who was (or potentially would be) more popular than the would-be President.

And yeah, there doesn't have to be any great love between the two people. Think Kennedy and Johnson. The job of the VP is to lie low for eight years. Hell, even as President of the Senate he does little more than bang a gavel. Only very rarely has he cast a deciding vote.

Osama may be willing to do that, but I doubt Hillary wants someone that popular in the second position.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 8, 2008 9:03 PM
53

Digression: Did anyone else notice that it look like bird shit all over Clinton's jacket during her New Hampshire speech?

Posted by wiseblood | January 8, 2008 9:05 PM
54

about 50, 51, 52....

Sorry for the triple post. A computer glitch. Server timed out (or so it said).

Posted by Bauhaus | January 8, 2008 9:07 PM
55

@51/52 She might not LIKE it, Bauhaus, but if she wants to win (or if she cares enough to know we need him TO WIN and start turning the American Empire back toward a Constitutional Republic again), then perhaps O-BA-MA (say it again, learn how to spell) is the key to victory and hope.

Posted by Andy Niable | January 8, 2008 9:08 PM
56

Well, as we've seen in the past eight years, the veep can pretty much run the policy show if the president is non compos mentis. He's got a staff of hundreds, they're going to be doing SOMETHING between gavel bangs.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 9:09 PM
57

Here's a thought: Edwards wins his home state of South Carolina, and we've got a three-horse race again. We start actually counting delegates. That would be fun!

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 9:17 PM
58

prefer Obama/Biden but would accept any Obama/Clinton/Biden combination.

Posted by happy renter | January 8, 2008 9:20 PM
59

As an Obama supporter, I'm already drowning my sorrows alone at home, in a most shameful manner. Without reading these other 56 comments, I'll sum up your Clinton/Obama challenge here:
1. He won't accept. The Office of the Vice President is not a place to enact the kind of change he's pushing. Better to make an honorable try of it in the Senate, and maybe someday from the Illinois statehouse.
2. Hillary already has three potential VP candidates waiting for their rewards for NOT challenging her in the primary: former Iowa Governor Vilsack, Indiana Senator Bayh, and former Virginia Governor Warner.

Now, back to drinking.

Posted by James | January 8, 2008 9:20 PM
60

obama/gregoire

Posted by or | January 8, 2008 9:23 PM
61

And for anyone entertaining a Clinton/Richardson ballot, dream on. Richardson challenged her, and she won't forget that. Plus, even though Governor Richardson served two positions in her husband's previous administrations, he's not exactly loved by the Clinton camp.

Posted by James | January 8, 2008 9:24 PM
62

Which is probably why Fnarf hates her.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 9:26 PM
63

Yeah, Fnarf, my vote at the caucus (yes, caucus - aaargh) on Feb. 5 might actually mean something for once. What a concept....

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 8, 2008 9:26 PM
64

@ Dan: The sheen wore off pretty quickly for Kerry and Edwards, too. And it's not as if JFK and LBJ split the Sunday paper over eggs and crullers. You're right: it seems implausible, but Clinton and Obama might opt to join forces.

P.S. Does anyone else remember Chris Rock's routine re why there will never be a black vice president?

Posted by Litsa | January 8, 2008 9:28 PM
65

@57 -- Edwards is from North Carolina. Big difference between North Carolina and South Carolina.

Posted by jonathan | January 8, 2008 9:32 PM
66

@65:

I believe Fnarf was referring to the fact that Senator Edwards was born in South Carolina, though (you're right) he was once a Senator from North Carolina... and there is a significant difference between the two states.

Posted by James | January 8, 2008 9:36 PM
67

@65 - I amb dumb. I thought he was from East Carolina! OK, so maybe Edwards isn't a shoo-in in SC.

@62 - Hate who? Why? I don't hate Clinton, I like her. And I don't don't follow your reasoning, if it exists.

If it is Clinton/Obama, I look forward to lots of crossed signals and unauthorized statements and embarrassed backpedaling as they compete for the spotlight.

Shit, look at that clusterfuck of metaphors. Time to kick this server out the window and go home to bed.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 9:38 PM
68

You're looking for reason in something I've said. Charming.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 9:44 PM
69

Seriously, Poe, 'Woot' is dead and buried. Let it go man.

Posted by Blerg | January 8, 2008 9:46 PM
70

No.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 9:56 PM
71

55...

Andy..lesson learned. Never post when you have the flu. My apologies to Barack.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 8, 2008 10:02 PM
72

The other day for Iowa I predicted "Hillary vs McCain" - I really meant NH. And I could vote for either one of them.

It's expedient for Hillary to choose Obama as a running mate and for once, such a choice would make a difference. I have never met anyone who voted for a president on the strength of his vice presidential choice, however.

Edwards would never accept 2nd spot again. And if Obama got the nomination, Hillary would not accept the VP silver ribbon.

Christ, I'm beginning to sound like Will - lamely rambling on, pedagogic and pointless. Go Hill! And @70 who's going to read this far?

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | January 8, 2008 10:03 PM
73

i still say i'd put money on clinton/clark, which would kickASS!

Posted by kim | January 8, 2008 10:10 PM
74

Agreed with Poe, Woot is not out and go Clinton.

Clinton/Obama would be great. I think it would be a great balance. Obama with his oratory skills and high aspirations (and he's a MAN, so add man implications)and Hilary has contacts, experience, can bridge a divide and get things done.

So yeah, I think its a dream ticket. The bigger ticket will be if McCain really gets back in the game and has Guiliani as a VP. Most moderates and independents would be tempted by that ticket.

Posted by Original Monique | January 8, 2008 10:10 PM
75

Blerg is so square.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 10:17 PM
76

w00t is acceptable, but must be spelled with zeros.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 10:35 PM
77

Um, shouldn't we wait and see how the other primaries and caucuses play out before we go punching- oh wait, this is the Stranger and you love jumping to conclusions. nm.

Posted by Gomez | January 8, 2008 10:59 PM
78

Mark Warner is running for Senate in VA, a job he will hold until he dies of old age. Nobody's foolish enough to give that up for VP.

Posted by Nat | January 8, 2008 11:11 PM
79

I like Kim's suggestion of Clinton/Clark. (Fair disclosure: I gave Clark money in 2004.) If McCain is the Republicant, you almost *have* to choose someone with some military experience.

Posted by Big Sven | January 8, 2008 11:14 PM
80

Richardson is my VP candidate no matter who gets the main bid.

Posted by Cale | January 8, 2008 11:14 PM
81

Clinton pulled one out of her hat.

@48: Cheney has, good or bad, forever changed the office of the Vice President. Instead of being someone in waiting the VP will be a power player in Washington politics regardless of who is elected. As for the "has beens" I agree. Short of the opposing party having pix taken with hookers, Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry weren't presidential. None of the three of them looked like they could kick anybody's ass.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 8, 2008 11:19 PM
82

if obama chosses clinton as a vp it would have deafeted the whole unexplanable draw of his campagn

Posted by linus | January 8, 2008 11:52 PM
83

Ummm HELLO

WHY DO YOU MORONS THINK BILLARY IS GOING TO BE FIRST ON THE TICKET?

Geesshhhh

Billary will be lucky to be in the picture once Obama gets the nomination.

Like many here, if Hillary is anywhere NEAR the ticket, I too will be voting straight Republican (no pun intended)

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | January 8, 2008 11:58 PM
84

I think a lot of us want Obama at the top of the ticket and believe he might win the nomination.

To even speculate about Obama and Clinton on the same ticket, though, means you have to consider Hillary in the top spot, b/c there's no fucking way in hell she'll ever accept the VP offer. I'd hate to see Obama in the #2 position, however.

Posted by Litsa | January 9, 2008 12:18 AM
85

Reality Check-

Please consider decaf. You can't handle the strong stuff.

Posted by Big Sven | January 9, 2008 12:56 AM
86

Obama/Gore '08

I kid you. Mostly I think I'm just going to vote for either the woman or the black man. I'm tired of all these white dudes. Hell, I'm tired of BEING a white dude. So I guess the the one-two combo wouldn't be so bad.

Posted by Damien | January 9, 2008 1:13 AM
87

Except the white dude, sadly, is the most progressive of the bunch. Obama's ok but his politics pale next to Edwards. Obama hasn't done anything bold or radical - status quo with a great personality. I need someone with a solid track record of voting against the establishment and battling the corporate takeover of America. There's only one candidate who's done that - John Edwards. He will win South Carolina (as he did last time) and each contender will have one wee state. Then it will get serious.

Posted by Lucy | January 9, 2008 1:36 AM
88

Obama/Gore '08

I kid you. Mostly I think I'm just going to vote for either the woman or the black man. I'm tired of all these white dudes. Hell, I'm tired of BEING a white dude. So I guess the the one-two combo wouldn't be so bad.

Posted by Damien | January 9, 2008 1:37 AM
89

McCain/Edwards

Bingo.

Posted by Danniel | January 9, 2008 1:41 AM
90

Woops, sorry about the double post. And almost a half hour apart. I blame it on the hippy shit I've been smoking.

Posted by Damien | January 9, 2008 1:53 AM
91

It's never going to happen, and if it did, Chris Rock would assassinate her. According to a comedy routine I'm too lazy to find.

Posted by Phoebe | January 9, 2008 2:00 AM
92

@ #23, I like the way you think.

Posted by DanFan | January 9, 2008 7:03 AM
93

If Hillary gets on the ticket, I'm going for Bloomberg.

Posted by Ohgodnotanotherclinton | January 9, 2008 8:33 AM
94

Could someone articulate for me -- based, let's say, on facts about her voting record, or statements she's made on record -- what this boundless hatred of Hillary Clinton is all about?

I can understand preferring another Democrat, but preferring McCain? What's the deal?

Posted by Punninglinguist | January 9, 2008 9:09 AM
95

Sure in dreamland it would be cool to have a Clinton/Obama ticket, but it won't happen in reality. And personality issues between them aren't even in the top 10 reasons why it wouldn't. You have to consider electoral college issues. My guess is that either of them will look to pull someone from a big state, California, Texas, Florida and then will also look for someone who compensates for their issues.

Posted by Brad | January 9, 2008 9:14 AM
96

Clinton/Obama '08? Why not just put a national referendum on gay man-dog polygamy on the ballot instead, if the intent is to mobilize the Republican hate-machine as much as possible.

Posted by kk | January 9, 2008 9:30 AM
97

Obama/Biden with Webb in the cabinet somewhere.

Posted by monkey | January 9, 2008 10:10 AM
98

Punninglinguist@94-

I posted this whole thing in another thread about how Clinton and Obama supporters talk a different language. But to this I will add that I agree with you about the hatred, and it was depressing me until last night, when I suddenly realized with the results out of NH that the hatred is actually galvanizing the remaining 70% of Democrats to vote for Hillary.

So hate away, haters! Talk about how if she wins you're moving to Venezuela, or Libya, or wherever. It just makes my candidate stronger.

Posted by Big Sven | January 9, 2008 10:13 AM
99

They don't hate each other. They have different messages. Why do people have to make disagreements personal?

Posted by sprizee | January 9, 2008 11:28 AM
100

My gut feel is that Clinton might have probs with Obama, but not the other way around.

But I'd prefer Obama/Dodd or Obama/Edwards.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 9, 2008 11:58 AM
101

Damn! I'm late posting...
I personally would love to see Clinton take over Dick Cheney's job while Obama takes over Dubya's. It just strikes me as the right fit.

Posted by Woodbun | January 9, 2008 1:39 PM
102

@101: Obama would never be satisfied to sit about all day and drool.

Posted by butterw | January 9, 2008 2:56 PM
103

I'd love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket in the fall. It's certifiably unbeatable, and Clinton will lie back, think of England, and accept it, because it's her ONLY shot at the presidency EVER again if she loses the nom, since Obama would probably win in the fall and she'd have to challenge his V.P.

Still, for electoral reasons I'd love to see him pick Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), or for "governing experience," Gov. Napolitano (AZ).

Posted by TCBATL | January 9, 2008 3:56 PM
104

Edwards isn't going to win the nomination, he's so far behind. I would like to see an Obama/Edwards campaign, if not Edwards...since I doubt he wants to be in that position again, then Obama/with another that has experience...Maybe McCain should cross over and be a Obama/McCain. LOL

Posted by Jenn | January 11, 2008 6:14 PM
105

Here's my take on it. Although many don't see Hillary as "likeable" (and some prefer to be absolutely asinine and call her "Billary"), I think that she really is the best candidate. She's done amazing work; she's been taking crap and dealing with people trying to kick her in the stomach for decades now - and she's lasted longer than most of the men. Obama is a very charismatic man. He has a ton of fresh ideas and hopes; but I'm sorry, I don't think he can deliver. Most politicians, no matter how fantastic, can never deliver on 100% of what they want. What disturbs me about Obama is that he really hasn't laid out his *plans*. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be AMAZING. She has her plans, she knows exactly how she wants it and how she's going to do it. Obama has his fresh ideas, and despite what some may believe, Hillary really does like listening to impassioned ideas about how to make the country better. I think they could learn a lot from eachother - they'd work well together. By the time Obama ran for his own presidency, white Republican America will have calmed down enough and he will have more than enough experience. God, it would be a great GREAT ticket.

Posted by Amanda | January 12, 2008 6:55 PM
106

Vote for Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton or Either of the Above or None of the Above on the Democratic Unity '08 blog!

Posted by DemUnity08 | January 18, 2008 12:13 AM
107

"Could someone articulate for me -- based, let's say, on facts about her voting record, or statements she's made on record -- what this boundless hatred of Hillary Clinton is all about?

Easy. Misogyny knows no bounds.

Posted by trevor | January 18, 2008 12:20 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).