News Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?

[Ivan Seeking]

Could it happen? It would certainly be a historic ticket.

Is Barack waiting in the wings?

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's team has plenty of real and perceived rivals (John Spencer, John McCain, Al Gore, George Bush, to name just a few) but the man they're watching most closely these days is Clinton protege Barack Obama.

Clinton's allies, donors and operatives have always known that the charisma-dripping Democrat from Illinois was toying with a presidential run. But Obama's refusal to rule out a White House campaign sends shudders through the Clinton camp. [continued]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill1019,0,7352966.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

So far Obama looks very promising but I haven't seen him under fire yet. I don't think he is ready to be President... but then neither was Bush.

 

[slugcountry]

i really liked obama until I found out he was for bombing iran =\

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you elaborate? Got a link?

 

[slugcountry]

ok I managed to dig up a story on google, this is pretty old news by the way (2004):

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[russ_watters]

The site requires a login, but from that quote it seems pretty inoccuous - a long-in-the-future hypothetical that he won't rule out. Fine.

Anyway, I really like Obama, but I think opinions of Clinton would dominate the ticket. I'm not sure it would matter who she would run with and I certainly wouldn't vote for her just because I like him. VP is mostly a useless post anyway.

 

[slugcountry]

oh it didnt require a login from me, my bad... here I'll post a sizable chunk:

" But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

---

He goes on to contrast muslim extremism with the soviet union, pointing out that it [muslim extremism] is a less predictable ideology with regards to nuclear policy.

He might be right on that, but I'm still not a big fan of war hawks.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It doesn't seem like a war hawk kind of stance to me... most of the points are reasonable. And he mentions the possible pit falls and downsides in his plans, which is something not often seen in politics anywhere today

 

[selfAdjoint]

Rather than Clinton(Hillary)-Obama, I'd like to see Obama-Clinton(Bill). Some legal theorists believe Bill is not precluded by the constitution from running for Vice President, and succeeding if required to the presidency that way.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Rather than Clinton(Hillary)-Obama, I'd like to see Obama-Clinton(Bill).

I second that motion

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyway, I really like Obama...

You and I could end up supporting the same candidate?

Hell has froze over, pigs are flying, and I think the stars are blinking out.

I think Oprah saw this coming...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rather than Clinton(Hillary)-Obama, I'd like to see Obama-Clinton(Bill). Some legal theorists believe Bill is not precluded by the constitution from running for Vice President, and succeeding if required to the presidency that way.

That is interesting; also a historic ticket on a couple of levels!

 

[slugcountry]

VP is mostly a useless post anyway.

you're right, cheney has zero influence over what goes on...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They shoot people...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama is on Meet The Press this week
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

 

[russ_watters]

You and I could end up supporting the same candidate?

Hell has froze over, pigs are flying, and I think the stars are blinking out.

I think Oprah saw this coming...

Ehh, don't sweat it - the Democratic Party'll never let him run anyway.

That's why I think he and McCain should join forces.

 

[Astronuc]

Ehh, don't sweat it - the Democratic Party'll never let him run anyway.

Yeah - they would do that.

That's why I think he and McCain should join forces.

Now that's an idea

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Forget it. McCain will never make it to the White House... at least not as President.

I could hardly believe my ears tonight: David Brooks and Mark Shields both endorsed Obama.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is certainly poetic justice in the notion that the first black President would emerge from the state of Lincoln.

Here is his website
http://obama.senate.gov/

 

[Astronuc]

Forget it. McCain will never make it to the White House... at least not as President.

I could hardly believe my ears tonight: David Brooks and Mark Shields both endorsed Obama.

Do write off McCain. He is one of the most popular Republicans in the country right now, especially after the recent elections. I think Republicans candidates preferred an appearance by McCain rather than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Anyway, the first democrat to declare a candidacy for president in 2008, 15 months before the Iowa Caucuses!

DES MOINES, Iowa - Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a centrist Democrat seeking an early edge in an all-but-certain crowded presidential field, launched a long-shot bid for the White House Thursday.

Fifteen months before his own state holds caucuses — the first step in the nominating process — Vilsack announced his candidacy, filed documents with the Federal Election Commission and heralded a multistate tour beginning Nov. 30.

The governor is the first Democrat to file for the presidency although a number of better known candidates are presumed to be running.

"Americans sent a clear message on Tuesday. They want leaders who will take this country in a new direction," he said in a statement. "They want leaders who share their values, understand their needs, and respect their intelligence. That's what I've done as governor of Iowa, and that's what I intend to do as president."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008

I think Obama is too junior, but maybe his popularity will propel him into the VP slot.

Clinton will likely run.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On CNN, Senator Dick Durbin, who describes Obama as a "political phenomenon", just endorsed him as a presidential candidate. He said that with over 30 states under his belt while campaigning this election season, Obama drew large crowds and was extremely well received.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do write off McCain. He is one of the most popular Republicans in the country right now, especially after the recent elections. I think Republicans candidates preferred an appearance by McCain rather than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Did you mean do not write him off?

What seems painfully obvious to me is that [and I'm just being pragmatic here] McCain is already looking too old.

As Doc Brown pointed out: If you want to be President, you have to look good on TV.

[source anyone?]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How funny is it that we could elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama [sounds like Osama] who dresses like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

 

[Astronuc]

Did you mean do not write him off?

I did mean "Don't write off McCain. I probably re-wrote the comment and typed too fast.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would be elected president in 2008 and would probably tap Senate colleague Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) as her running mate.[continued]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18446

 

[Rach3]

Tom DeLay says lots of things. Myself, I never take anything he says seriously. But if you do, don't forget to read his blog at www.tomdelay.com[/URL]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tom DeLay says lots of things. Myself, I never take anything he says seriously. But if you do, don't forget to read his blog at www.tomdelay.com

I take it that you don't like the idea!

 

[BobG]

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would be elected president in 2008 and would probably tap Senate colleague Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) as her running mate.[continued]

No way. By being the favorite for the nomination, she's doing the same thing to Democrats that Ted Kennedy did.

She has no chance of winning the election if nominated, but she clogs things up for any candidates that have a real chance. Yet, it's hard to separate herself from being the favorite, because being the favorite increases her stature as a Senator. As a Senator about to start her second term, she would normally be lost in the crowd. In Clinton's case, being "Bill's wife" would get her a little extra notice, but being "Bill's wife" isn't the kind of notice that would establish her influence in the Senate.

Ted Kennedy did the same thing. Had he won the primary (a long shot at that), his chance at the election might have been a little better than Clinton's, but not very good considering his past. It did help establish Ted Kennedy in his own right instead of just being Jack and Bobby's little brother.

Clinton has to step out of the race by next December at the latest for any Democrat to have a chance of winning in 2008.

 

[turbo]

Clinton has NO chance of winning a general election and should stand aside if she wants to advance the cause of the Dem party. If she runs, the next president will be a Republican. Look at John McCain, for instance. He can get lots of cross-over voters from the Democratic party. Does anybody believe that Hillary can attract enough cross-overs from the Republicans to close that gap? Likewise with Obama, and you can forget about winning the southern states by running a black candidate (unless it happens to be Colin Powell as VP candidate on a McCain ticket, perhaps). If the Democrats want the presidency, they must advance candidates that have a chance of winning cross-over votes. When Ton DeLay says Clinton will be elected in 2008, it is with just as much sincerity as Bre'r Rabbit when he pleaded not to be thrown into the briar patch. He would be absolutely gleeful if she got the nomination, and the dirtiest political campaign in US history would ensue.

 

[BobG]

McCain has to be considered the front-runner and he has a realistic chance. To be honest, I'd consider him the 'front runner until someone else emerges from the pack'. If we had a BCS poll, my top ten would be:

1. John McCain (6-1) His loss to Bush in '00 actually increased his standing. He's #1 until knocked off.
2. Newt Gingrich (11-2) The most creative of the bunch and most likely to pull off an upset. No one will even know he's from Georgia, let alone that he's the devil.
3. Mitt Romney (1-1) I think Huckabee has more substance, but Romney's the media darling. His only loss was a quality loss to an unbeatable Ted Kennedy. Then again, he only has one win.
4. Mike Huckabee (4-1). What a career! He 'unloses' his only loss when his opponent replaces President-elect Clinton (Bill). He becomes governor by default when Arkansas's governor resigns in scandal, unresigns the morning Huckabee's to be sworn in, then finally un-unresigns. Huckabee can't lose even when he loses.
5. Rudy Giuliani (2-1*) He gets a free pass (no-decision) on withdrawing from the '00 Senate race because of health problems, but everyone knows Clinton would have stomped him. Giuliani can't win the Republican nomination if there's a possibility of Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. Everything's changed since '00, but the Republican money still wouldn't want a rematch. If Clinton drops out, Giuliani immediately jumps to #2.
6. George Pataki (9-0) This is like the Big 10. Pataki's the best from New York, but can't go to a bowl game unless both Clinton and Giuliani lose.
7. Chuck Hagel (2-0) A very quality win in his first election against Ben Nelson. No visibility and almost no chance of getting any.
8. Sam Brownback (4-0) Could rise quickly. If Gingrich drops out, Brownback is the religious right's only hope. No chance of getting in the BCS Championship Game, though.
9. Tom Tancredo (6-0) He gets on TV a lot. Jerry Springer would love to have him as a guest. This is America and anything can happen.
10. Duncan Hunter (14-0) Good Congressman, but Boise St has a better chance of reaching the BCS title game.

 

[BobG]

Democrats are tough to rank, since there are too many 'distraction' candidates - the Clintons, Obamas, Gores, and Kerrys that can't win (in '08 at least in the case of Obama).

1. Joe Biden (6-1) One big loss in embarrassing fashion. He's still the Dems highest profile serious candidate.
2. John Edwards (1-1) A quality loss in the Dem primaries. Still, he has only one win to his credit.
3. Evan Bayh (5-0) He shoots up to #1 as soon as Democrats start getting serious about '08.
4. Bill Richardson (9-1) A western Democrat can't win.
5. Tom Vilsack (4-0) He'll get a boost by playing at home in Iowa, but Iowa is still too far west.
6. Chris Dodd (8-0) By time Clinton drops out, it will be too late for him to get the visibility he needs.
7. Barak Obama (2-1) He could be the real deal, but he's still an incredible underdog for '08. Then again, Edwards is ranked #2 and has fewer wins than Obama.
8. Hillary Clinton (2-0) I've ranked her down way too far, but only because I don't believe she'll run in the end.
9. Al Gore (7-1) Who'd you think I'd put here, Kucinich (11-3)? Clinton keeps the field pretty thin. Edit: One additional thing to consider - Nixon's nailbiter loss to Kennedy, his descent into oblivion, his triumphant comeback 8 years later.
10. John Kerry (5-2) If I didn't have Gore and Kerry, I'd have to decide between Sharpton (0-4), Clark (0-1), or Gravel, and Gravel hasn't won since 1974.

 

[BobG]

Wow! I can't believe it! Hillary's actually going to run!

So:

1. Hillary's in. If not for Bill, she could be the first woman President.
2. Obama's in. As long as he doesn't quit smoking, he could have a chance to be the first black President.
3. Richardson's in. Why not the first Hispanic President?
4. Biden's in. He suddenly looks really old and out of place in the Democratic Party.
5. What happened in New Orleans the week that Ford died and Saddam was executed?
6. Vilsack's still in as well, right? With a woman, a black, and a Hispanic, you have to have an invisible candidate to fill out the ticket.
7. Gore's not in yet. Still, he could just walk through the carnage of Democratic candidates and wind up winning the nomination.
8. Gravel. Fewer people hate him than hate Hillary, plus I think Lucinda Williams sings a song about him.
9. Kerry. You know, Pat Paulson was probably taken more seriously.
10. Kucinich. You know, Kerry is probably taken more seriously.

 

[verty]

How funny is it that we could elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama [sounds like Osama]

That could be politically beneficial, he wouldn't look like just another suit.

 

[turbo]

That could be politically beneficial, he wouldn't look like just another suit.

There is absolutely no way that he could be elected. Have you spent any time in the deep south? Racism is alive and well, and thanks to freedom of association for religions, segregation is alive and well. The reason the Republicans bring up school vouchers so frequently is not to benefit inner-city minorities - it is to pander to "Christians" in the south who send their kids to all-white "Christian" academies associated with their all-white churches. Neither Obama nor Clinton could carry any of the states in the deep south, nor most of the western states. They are both non-starters, and Republicans are absolutely thrilled at the prospect of their candidacies, since even the weakest Republican candidate can prevail against them.

 

[verty]

How many votes can any democrat expect from the "deep south"?

 

[Rach3]

Hehe... Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000.

I expect Clinton to win, and continue the centuries-old tradition of executive nepotism (two Adams, two Roosevelts, two Bushes (ugh!), and soon... two Clintons!).

 

[Evo]

I honestly can't see Clinton or Obama winning together or separately. This country is just not ready to accept either.

I've only seen Obama speak once on tv and he came across as an evangelical tv preacher type and completely turned me off. The guy strikes me as a complete phoney.

Hillary has too much baggage with Whitewater and the theft of the Whitehouse silverware among many others that smack of dishonesty.

I can't consider the Republican hopefuls either.

The 2008 Presidential elections have no viable candidates right now as far as I am concerned.

 

[wasteofo2]

Clinton and Obama are both going to kill each other, you're not going to see them on a ticket together. They're both very smart, and very aware of the disadvantage their minority status gives to them, they wouldn't want to double up their flaws.

Remember Dean and Gephardt in Iowa last year? They were supposed to be first and second easily, and all the attention was paid to them. Since they were both obviously just fighting for first place, they leveled tons of attacks at the other. End result was voters got turned off to both, and Kerry became the nominee.

With Clinton and Obama presumptive frontrunners this far out, look for them to both, directly or indirectly, be focused on bringing the other down.

Also, look for Richardson to gain serious ground. Congressman, Ambassador, Energy Secretary, and effective moderate Governor. Compares quite well to these 4-8 year long Senators running who've never done anything but give speeches and say "yes" or "no".

 

[wasteofo2]

The 2008 Presidential elections have no viable candidates right now as far as I am concerned.

Not ONE of these people are viable?
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Richardson
Vilsack
Biden
Dodd
Kucinich
Gravel

McCain
Guliani
Romney
Huckabee
Gingrich
Gilmore
Hunter
Thompson
Hagel
Pataki
Brownback
Tancredo

You should look into some of these fellas a little closer. Or at least explain how you define "viable", because tons of these people could be effective presidents.

 

[wasteofo2]

How many votes can any democrat expect from the "deep south"?

If Deep South = Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, a Democrat can expect about 4 million votes, but can't hope for any in the electoral college.

 

[Gokul43201]

I really like Obama - the legislator, not his chances at making President. He has the integrity of a Paul Wellstone, the intellect and capability of a Jefferson, and the charisma of a Kennedy. And it is only that latter quality that will give him a shot at political success.

With Olbermann:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zhzDYh30C5s

Keynote address at '04 DNC:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TCBs0Ttoet8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9hilCb_QL2A&mode=related&search=

On Charlie Rose:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XpeZFkuB1jQ&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZgqeMe4gEfI&mode=related&search=

With Larry King:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pyZRfWDNPoo&mode=related&search=

On the Senate floor:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dc6I3jnTRe0&mode=related&search=

On the Daily Show:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P-qLDWQQmmo&mode=related&search=

Announcing formation of exploratory committee:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BX8Qxry-k

 

[Uterus Chewer]

A few posts back, Evo mentioned that Obama strikes her as an evangelical TV preacher type. I've come away with that impression on some occasions, and I've come away with a very different impression on other occasions. Recently, I read this opinion piece:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070119/cm_rcp/obamas_religion1

In response to the question of whether Obama considers himself an "evangelical," he gave the following response (as quoted in the article):

"Gosh, I'm not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations. I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means. Does it mean that you feel you've got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then that's directly part of the black church experience. Does it mean you're born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it's understood by some other tradition? I'm not sure. My faith is complicated by the fact that I didn't grow up in a particular religious tradition. And so what that means is when you come at it as an adult, your brain mediates a lot, and you ask a lot of questions. There are aspects of Christian tradition that I'm comfortable with and aspects that I'm not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, 'Ya know, I'm not sure about that.'"

I'm not trying to determine whether Obama is an evangelical; I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Obama's belief system is, and I think his response here could be construed many different ways. Does anyone know of any instance in which Obama has more clearly stated what he believes, or does anyone know where I can find unequivocal evidence from his past actions and groups affiliations regarding his beliefs?

 

[verty]

I don't know much about him but it sounds like he's another Tony Blair, an unbelievably good actor.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know too many Evangelical TV preacher types that are pro-choice, that support funding for embryonic stem-cell research, that are against a ban on gay marriage and that support same-sex civil unions that confer equal legal rights to gay couples. If he is "Evangelical", he's hardly typical of that group.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=2282748

 

[Evo]

I don't know too many Evangelical TV preacher types that are pro-choice, that support funding for embryonic stem-cell research, that are against a ban on gay marriage and that support same-sex civil unions that confer equal legal rights to gay couples. If he is "Evangelical", he's hardly typical of that group.

It's his manner of speaking, not his views that I found highly annoying. Honestly, he was too annoying to even bother listening, which is a shame if he has something intelligent to say. I don't know if he was "talking down" to the group of people he was speaking to (he was outside at what looked like a county fair) and jumping around some makeshift platform while speaking in that annoying "evangelical" manner. I haven't had a chance to look at your links to see if he uses different styles to different audiences.

He needs to drop the "evangelical" thing if he wishes to appeal to a broader segment.

 

[Evo]

Not ONE of these people are viable?
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Richardson
Vilsack
Biden
Dodd
Kucinich
Gravel

McCain
Guliani
Romney
Huckabee
Gingrich
Gilmore
Hunter
Thompson
Hagel
Pataki
Brownback
Tancredo

You should look into some of these fellas a little closer. Or at least explain how you define "viable", because tons of these people could be effective presidents.

I was thinking a much smaller list of the ones I'm afraid will actually make it to the national conventions. Ok, I'm really pessimistic right now. I just have a feeling that we're going to end up with another national election where we're left choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know if he was "talking down" to the group of people he was speaking to (he was outside at what looked like a county fair) and jumping around some makeshift platform while speaking in that annoying "evangelical" manner.

That's quite possible. He's an excellent orator, and probably has a good idea of what it takes to rouse any particular audience.

 

[polar]

I really like Obama - the legislator, not his chances at making President. He has the integrity of a Paul Wellstone, the intellect and capability of a Jefferson, and the charisma of a Kennedy. And it is only that latter quality that will give him a shot at political success.

Obama sort of lost me during the Alito confirmation, when he claimed that a filibuster was a “procedural maneuver” that he didn’t agree with, although he was going to vote for it anyways.

Alito was confirmed with 42 votes against him, after the filibuster was defeated (only 41 votes were needed to deny cloture). Are there any logisticians that can make sense of this, or is it just me?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+filibuster+alito&btnG=Google+Search

Comparing Barack Obama to Paul Wellstone (or Jefferson) just seems like a sick joke to me. The last bit about charisma, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Gokul43201]

Comparing Barack Obama to Paul Wellstone (or Jefferson) just seems like a sick joke to me. The last bit about charisma, I agree wholeheartedly.

I wasn't being entirely serious about that. I should have thrown in one of these guys -->

 

[Gokul43201]

Obama sort of lost me during the Alito confirmation, when he claimed that a filibuster was a “procedural maneuver” that he didn’t agree with, although he was going to vote for it anyways.

What's wrong with picking the lesser of two evils? Have you never done something you wished you didn't have to, but really didn't have better alternatives to pick from?

 

[Ascetic Anchorite]

Bush, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton.

Yeah, anyone can become president!