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.
  • #61
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't know if he is electable, but Obama should play a major role in the next Presidency. We need men like him.
We need him in the Senate. We need an honest man who is not afraid to speak out and lead the liberal faction of that chamber of sheep. We also need real conservatives, not neocons for sale to the highest bidder, so the people have a choice. The difference between the average elected Republican and Democrat these days is like the difference between Time and Newsweek or Pepsi and Coke. We have very few real viable choices that are not beholden to the wealthy and powerful, to the detriment of the average US citizen and to our national good.

A term or two as Senate majority leader would let the US voters get to know him and help dampen the race issue so he has a shot at P/VP.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
turbo-1 said:
We need him in the Senate.

Based on what I have seen so far I disagree. I want him as close to the President as possible. For example, the quote given is a great evidence of invaluable foreign policy insight.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Ivan Seeking said:
Based on what I have seen so far I disagree. I want him as close to the President as possible. For example, the quote given is a great evidence of invaluable foreign policy insight.
I would love to take geopolitical issues out the the presidency, and put if back in the Senate, where it belongs.
 
  • #64
As for Hillary, it should be noted that like Obama, she is also very clean.
 
  • #65
I don't like how Hillary Clinton sounds when she speaks. I don't think she inspires confidence.
 
  • #66
Ivan Seeking said:
As for Hillary, it should be noted that like Obama, she is also very clean.

It's about time you had a female president, but I don't think from what I've heard Hilary would make it as the front runner for the Democrats.
 
  • #67
Schrodinger's Dog said:
It's about time you had a female president, but I don't think from what I've heard Hilary would make it as the front runner for the Democrats.
Nope, unfortunately, she's carrying a lot of baggage. Rove et al would absolutely love to have her run. They'd give her a free ride until she got the nomination, then they would "Swift boat" her to death over her involvement in the health care reform project, Bill's marital infidelities, Vince Foster's death, financial dealings with Whitewater, and her husband's last minute pardon of convicted business partners. They would tar her with a very broad brush, as would their surrogates on hate radio, and she would never be able to fight it off and gain momentum. The Republicans would be guaranteed another 4 years in the White House. Unfortunately, she does not understand the damage that her candidacy would wreak on the Democratic party, and apparently her staff doesn't have the guts to urge pragmatism.

The US is ready for a woman president but not for Hillary Clinton as president. I think she could and would do a great job, if elected, but the chances of her pulling enough undecideds and cross-overs to win in the Electoral College are very, very poor even against a weak Republican candidate. If she gets the Dem nomination, expect the dirtiest, nastiest campaign ever.
 
  • #68
I don't see her health care reform history as a liability, necessarily. The issues she tried to address are in some ways starker than ever.
 
  • #69
denverdoc said:
I don't see her health care reform history as a liability, necessarily. The issues she tried to address are in some ways starker than ever.
It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to approach our government as if they were "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
turbo-1 said:
It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to address out government as "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.

Well, and maybe its wishful thinking, I believe the neocons have had their day in the sun and its setting. People may just be returning to their senses, and thinking about health care premiums, the costs of co-pays, etc. Back when Ms Clinton worked on the reform, the economy was thriving, employers were still shouldering much of the bill, etc. Its much different now, and we have a lot of people w/o any at all, and still more aware of this fact.

A single party payment system makes sense for all. As we speak, the average "overhead" in an HMO is > 20 percent. Medicare is around 3 percent. Thats nearly a 20 percent savings. And where there will be a hue and cry about restricting choices, this would actually open up the market. I won't participate in most HMO's because I either never get paid, or the costs to make sure I do, and hassle factor, make it unworthwhile. But I'm getting off thread, most folk are fed up. It could even be a significant plank of the platform.

One thing's for sure, we are headed for the dirtiest, most slander ridden election in history.
 
  • #71
A couple of things about Obama. First of all, I had been trying to think of the word that best describes what I felt as I watched Obama announcing from same steps as Lincoln. Even if I didn't care for Obama, the historic significance would still weigh heavily for me in all of this. It was certainly poetic, but for me it was more: It was a thing of beauty. How far we have come not just since the civil war, but even in the last fifty years.

I have family in Illinois. The other day I found out that my red-neck, racist cousin, LIKES Obama! I could hardly believe it; nor could his wife for that matter.
 
  • #72
My opinion--any Clinton on either half of the ticket is both nauseating and a recipe for another smear campaign, ending in yet another Republican victory.
 
  • #73
Evo said:
One of the things I hate about politics is the politicing.
Ah - Presidential material here. :biggrin:

With all of the experience managing GD and P&WA - why not the US government. Think of the possibilities! :-p
 
  • #74
Hillary is not a good public speaker. In fact, I found her to be very irritating when she tried to do Gospel-speak in Selma, Alabama.

I think she should let Bill give her speeches.
 
  • #75
Hillary is strident--when she tried to pump the audience emotionally, I felt like flossing my brain with a bungee cord. She is just two left brained to capture enuf appeal. Watch while that campaign withers and dies over the next 1/2 year.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Nice. I like him already. Even though I'm European, it pisses me of when people are against the war in Iraq because of anti-American sentiments or naive notions on the use of force in international politics. He sums up my sentiments quite well : the war wasn't necesarry, a burden on the US and it's armed forces and even worse on the Iraqi people. Even if Saddam was an *******.
 
  • #77
turbo-1 said:
It is not a liability with normal people, but the neocons paint this as socialism, despite the fact that most industrialized countries offer universal health-care coverage and regard it as a cost-saving enterprise. I am a liberal socially and a conservative financially, and I find it pretty hard to find a politician that I can vote for without holding my nose. Stay out of people's personal business, don't use tax money to fund "special" projects for contributors, and do not allow businesses to approach our government as if they were "super citizens" that have special access and special influence. Is it that hard to grasp? The constitution cedes all power to citizens, and administration after administration (THIS one in particular) has tried to deny us our power.

Small niggling dig.

Paleocons would be more likely to paint universal health care as socialism, although a lot of present day neocons probably wouldn't be horribly enthused, even if a little more tolerant of the idea.

Neocons were originally Democrats that split from their main party because of differences over foreign policy. Being mostly Republican going on 30 years now, most have adopted more conservative economic views, but aren't the driving force against things like universal health care.

Neocons believe we should have a strong government to protect us against ourselves. That would seem to make government health care something fairly easy to slide into if public opinion warranted a change. In other words, they wouldn't sacrifice their foreign policy ideals for economic ideals any more than they did when they drifted from being Democrats to being Republicans.
 
  • #78
denverdoc said:
I felt like flossing my brain with a bungee cord.

:smile: :smile: :smile: I'll be using that one!

I agree... I think this is a real problem for Hillary.
 
  • #79
Dimitri Terryn said:
Nice. I like him already.

This explains the situation very nicely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
Speaker: Senator Barack H. Obama (IL)
Title: Executive Session
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 02/03/2005
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - February 03, 2005)

...I Like the previous speaker, Senator Dodd, I wanted to give Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt when we began this process. His story is inspiring, especially for so many of us-like me-who shared in achieving the American dream. I have no question that as White House Counsel, he has served his President and his country to the best of his ability. But in my judgment, these positive qualities alone are not sufficient to warrant confirmation as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

I had hoped that during his hearings, Judge Gonzales would ease my concerns about some of the legal advice he gave to the President, and I had hoped he would prove that he has the ability to distance himself from his role as the President's lawyer so that he could perform his new role as the people's lawyer.

Unfortunately, rather than full explanations during these hearings, I heard equivocation. Rather than independence, I heard an unyielding insistence on protecting the President's prerogative.

I did not hear Judge Gonzales repudiate 2 ½ years of what appears to be official U.S. policy that has defined torture so narrowly that only organ failure and death would qualify, a policy that he himself appears to have helped develop and at least has condoned.

Imagine that, if the entire world accepted the definition contained in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what atrocities might befall our American POWs. How in the world, without such basic constraints, would we feel about sending our sons and daughters off to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children and the children of the world that America is different and represents a higher moral standard?

This policy is not just a moral failure, it is a violation of half a century of international law. Yet while Judge Gonzales's job was White House Counsel, he said nothing to that effect to the President of the United States. He did not show an ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then, and he has indicated that he still has no intention to speak such truths now. [continued]
http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=78401&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

I sure do like this guy. He sees right through and calls their bs.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Out of context, hard to judge, but the quote is so more thoughtful than the usual semantics and even carries within it an argument, and spoken by a politcian I am blown away! But i do believe it, I Have heard him interviewed and unlike the usual platitudinous snake in the grass, seems to make more sense than the average bear. Here's where the tentacles of racism enter the eqn: can I vote for a guy who makes sense but a good 1/3 of the population would oppose him on grounds of race. The guy is first too literate, too logical, and may not be able to do the Reagan "MY fellow Americans" thing very well.
 
  • #82
Do make sure to note the date with the upcoming events this week.

If he is as good as I am starting to think, he might knock that third to a sixth. Besides, nearly by definition, that third always votes for the right-wing anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Obama could be an even more formidable rival than the polls show. If you look at the internet markets that trade futures on elections (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/democratic-presidential-nominee/ ), there's a bigger gap between the markets than one would expect, even given that the Iowa electronic market only has three choices while Intrade lists 10. Either there's a huge difference in demographics between the two markets, or the results confirm polls that show people have already pretty much made up their minds on whether to vote for Clinton or not and her opponent won't matter.

Clinton has a huge lead with many candidates, but Obama leads in a market that lists only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Obama may need only to beat out Edwards and all of the second tier candidates to win nomination. Or a second tier candidate could move up very quickly capitalizing on anti-Clinton sentiments.

By the same token, Mitt Romney has more potential to increase his poll ratings than either Giuliani or McCain, but I think having two big candidates and the momentum swings that could occur between Giuliani and McCain make Romney's chances a lot less than Obama's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
BobG said:
Obama could be an even more formidable rival than the polls show. If you look at the internet markets that trade futures on elections (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/democratic-presidential-nominee/ ), there's a bigger gap between the markets than one would expect, even given that the Iowa electronic market only has three choices while Intrade lists 10. Either there's a huge difference in demographics between the two markets, or the results confirm polls that show people have already pretty much made up their minds on whether to vote for Clinton or not and her opponent won't matter.

Clinton has a huge lead with many candidates, but Obama leads in a market that lists only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Obama may need only to beat out Edwards and all of the second tier candidates to win nomination. Or a second tier candidate could move up very quickly capitalizing on anti-Clinton sentiments.

By the same token, Mitt Romney has more potential to increase his poll ratings than either Giuliani or McCain, but I think having two big candidates and the momentum swings that could occur between Giuliani and McCain make Romney's chances a lot less than Obama's.

Democracy/free enterprise--gotta love it--we can now bet on elections! No wonder there's such enthusiasm for the e-ticket balleting systems. From what little i have paid attention thus far, I would vote for Obama or Edwards n the d side, and romney on the r. This may be the most interesting election since adlai stevenson, another brainy candidate, bit the dust. Is Fox doing all of it, or just early debates?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
At this point I am supporting Obama. I could easily change my mind before the election - for a few weeks Perot sounded pretty good - but I am willing to bet that he could win, and by a large margin I prefer him over any other candidate.

If you plan to donate money to any campaigns, now is a good time. I know there is a deadline approaching that is a critical marker for fund raising.
 
  • #86
Just a reminder: Tomorrow is the deadline for donations for this quarter. Good numbers here will help your candidate.
 
  • #87
Why not just write an editorial or endorsement online or in the local newspaper.

Why do we insist on donating money, which goes to the media who control public access?

Why not call for a public forum or town meeting in which people can have a meeting to discuss matters of policy, e.g. taxes, public services, . . . , and candidates, who are supposed to represent the voters/public/general population, assuming I understand correctly the theory of representative democracy.
 
  • #88
Money makes the world go round.
 
  • #89
or greases the sticky gears of government.
 
  • #90
Yep, we need to get this campaign spending under control. Maybe someone like Obama will finally do something.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
11K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 180 ·
7
Replies
180
Views
20K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K