News Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the potential candidacy of Barack Obama and the implications for Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. Obama's rising popularity and charisma are seen as threats to Clinton's campaign, with some expressing skepticism about his readiness for the presidency. Concerns are raised about his past statements regarding military action against Iran, which some view as hawkish. The conversation also touches on the dynamics of a possible Clinton-Obama ticket, with opinions divided on its viability given their respective political baggage and the challenges of appealing to a broad electorate, particularly in the South.Participants speculate on the implications of Clinton's candidacy for the Democratic Party's chances in the general election, arguing that her nomination could hinder other candidates with better chances of winning cross-over votes. The discussion highlights the complexities of the political landscape, including endorsements for Obama and the potential for a historic ticket. Overall, the sentiment reflects a mix of optimism for Obama's appeal and skepticism about the effectiveness of a Clinton-Obama partnership in a competitive election.
  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
verty said:
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.
 
  • #34
How many votes can any democrat expect from the "deep south"?
 
  • #35
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!).
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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".
 
  • #38
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #39
verty said:
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.
 
  • #40
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
 
  • #41
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
I don't know much about him but it sounds like he's another Tony Blair, an unbelievably good actor.
 
  • #43
  • #44
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
wasteofo2 said:
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.
 
  • #46
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #47
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #48
polar said:
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 --> :biggrin:
 
  • #49
polar said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Bush, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton.

Yeah, anyone can become president!
 
  • #51
Gokul43201 said:
What's wrong with picking the lesser of two evils?

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It is time the two-party false paradigm was crushed.
 
  • #52
I don't know enough about Obama, but I trust Gokul's opinion enough that if he's got that good of a track record, I'd vote more on his policies than demeanor. One of the things I hate about politics is the politicing.
 
  • #53
Gokul43201 said:
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?

I guess I'm just more old fashioned, and a true believer that the filibuster, as practiced in the Senate, is an historical tribute to our freedom of speech, which shall never be curtailed, and it annoys me to hear it referred to as a "procedural maneuver". Symbolism used to be huge in this country, and I'm not sure all of it was bad.

But aside from my personal views, how does Alito ever get to the bench with 42 votes against him? This is just total nonsense, and it should never be possible, and statements like the one Obama made about this vote just serve as more disinformation. I think his statement is either stupid or dishonest, which is a lot different from making a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Or perhaps I just don't like the way that particular vote turned out, so I want someone to blame. But what he said sounds so stupid to me. It really does.
 
  • #54
Ross Perot>>Hillary Clinton
 
  • #55
polar said:
I guess I'm just more old fashioned, and a true believer that the filibuster, as practiced in the Senate, is an historical tribute to our freedom of speech, which shall never be curtailed, and it annoys me to hear it referred to as a "procedural maneuver". Symbolism used to be huge in this country, and I'm not sure all of it was bad.
So, your objection to Obama is purely on the grounds of his philosophical discontentment with the process of filibuster. That is really something quite independent of the Alito confirmation, so let's make the positions clear.

But aside from my personal views, how does Alito ever get to the bench with 42 votes against him? This is just total nonsense, and it should never be possible, and statements like the one Obama made about this vote just serve as more disinformation. I think his statement is either stupid or dishonest, which is a lot different from making a choice between the lesser of two evils.
His voicing his opinion has morphed into promoting disinformation? Do you think some of the Alito opposers voted "aye" for cloture because they heard Obama's words and underwent an immediate philosophical about-turn? Would you be happier if he'd just kept quiet about his opinion? Would that have sat happily with your love for freedom of expression?

How did Alito make it to the bench with 42 opposing votes? Well, it was possible because there were at least 17 senators that expressed a stronger distaste for the filibuster than Obama did (including, I think, most of the Dems from the Midwest/South, Lieberman, Jeffords and Chafee). Or, more likely, they didn't want to look wimpy supporting an "action" that was, at the time, expected to fail. They were the reason the filibuster was defeated. Not Obama!

Now that I read some of the liberal bloggers bashing Obama for his opinion, I notice that they were also bashing him for foolishly expecting to win the majority in the 06 midterms. Hah! Of course, this is irrelevant to the topic, but as you admitted, I think you are blaming Obama because he was among the few that voiced an opinion at the time...and it appears a lot of the bloggers jumped on him for this and began bashing him. In the end, he voted both times, the way you wanted him to, and I see no logical inconsistency in his vote.

Recall how many years (decades?) it took for Civil Rights legislation to pass because of southern Democrats using the filibuster. You will also, no doubt accept that the filibuster, by definition, is a temporary paralysis of the Senate, whose members are paid out of tax dollars with the expectation that they do work, not recite the phonebook. And how often does the filibuster actually bring more meaningful debate - one of the prime reasons for its existence - to the issue at hand? To not recognize that there may be some negatives to the process of filibuster is silly, in my opinion. And to recognize that only under certain circumstances (one of these being the Alito confirmation), the positives outweigh the negatives, is at least thoughtful, even if not in concord with one's own personal philosophy.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/
 
Last edited:
  • #57
  • #58
Obama's statement regarding the upcoming war was nothing that realists like myself had not been writing to our newspapers and our elected representatives for months after Bush/Cheney started the saber-rattling. That Obama went on record publicly in this manner does him credit. It does not make him electable, nor is Clinton electable. The Republicans are hoping against hope that the Dems run Obama, Clinton, or even both, because there is no way that either of them could carry the South or the Western States, except possibly one or two pacific coast states. Republicans would be guaranteed another 4 years in the White House. Democrats need a huge dose of pragmatism if they want to win the presidency. Racism is very much alive and well in the deep South, killing Obama's chances, and Clinton and her husband have so polarized the electorate (with the help of years of neo-con attacks from the Republican party and hate radio) that she could never pull the volume of swing votes necessary to be elected. Any ticket containing Clinton or Obama in any configuration is at a disadvantage from the start.

A Gore-Edwards ticket has a chance, but I don't think the Democratic party has the vision to recognize the pragmatic choice. Right or wrong, there are a lot of Republican women (and some men) who would vote for a Democratic president who believes that we should work pro-actively to reduce pollution and keep the world safer for their children and grandchildren.
 
  • #59
I understand what you are saying but the dems aren't stupid; and Obama certainly isn't. Obama wouldn't end up on a ticket if he couldn't possibly win. And it could be a matter of getting out the black and hispanic vote.

The demographics of the South are changing quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG
 
  • #60
This does make one wonder how Obama was so sure then others either weren't, or they perceived Saddam as a threat. But I think I know why. I think it was a case of cowardess on the part of the dems. Many knew that this was BS and that Bush was both reaching and rushing, but they were afraid of the Bush/Rove steamroller. They were afraid that speaking out would make them vunerable, so they acted to protect their butts. I remember thinking this at the time because the evidence presented to the UN was not compelling.

I don't know if he is electable, but Obama should play a major role in the next Presidency. We need men like him.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News CAC records for Obama not released yet
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
News Does a Strong Economy Guarantee a President's Re-Election?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Was Oprah right to preach about Obama's moral superiority?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
News Preaching Politics from the Pulpit
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
11K
News Should CNN be allowed to host any more debates?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation
  • · Replies 180 ·
7
Replies
180
Views
20K
News President survives possible assassination attempt
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K