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.
  • #91
Ivan Seeking said:
Yep, we need to get this campaign spending under control. Maybe someone like Obama will finally do something.
Perhaps if he can resist the temptation of monied interests. I've heard he has raised a lot of money and there are some big bucks interested in his success.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Obama is keeping everyone in suspense, but CNN has referenced claims of an upset that tops even Hillary's 26 million. I wonder why he is delaying...drama, timing? It sure would be cool to see an upset!

Romney came in second with 20 million - a BIG upset
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070402money,1,57601.story?coll=chi-news-hed

There is also talk of Romney picking Jeb Bush as a running mate.

How about if we all agree that if the Reps promise to never vote for a Bush, the Dems will promise to never vote for a Clinton.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
I heard this morning that McCain has gone into a free-fall and Guiliani is dogged by his personal life, and so to Gingrich.

Romeny might have a chance, especially with Jeb Bush as a running mate.

It would be nice to see Obama give Clinton a run.

We really need a viable independent candidate/party. :cool:
 
  • #94
Astronuc said:
We really need a viable independent candidate/party. :cool:

Okay, I'll run. Thanks for your support. :cool:

Strangely, even as an underdog, expectations for Obama are so high that he may have a hard time meeting those expectations.

His appeal reminds me of JFK.
 
  • #95
Ivan Seeking said:
Okay, I'll run. Thanks for your support. :cool:

Strangely, even as an underdog, expectations for Obama are so high that he may have a hard time meeting those expectations.

His appeal reminds me of JFK.
Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton. If either of them wins the Democratic nomination, the Republican candidate wins. As much as this country needs change and as much as progressives want change, the nomination of either of these candidates will cripple the progressive agenda and guarantee that real change is delayed for at least another election cycle. Anybody that thinks that either of these people can carry the southern and western states is out of touch with reality.
 
  • #96
turbo-1 said:
Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton.

How did you come up with that?
 
  • #97
turbo-1 said:
Obama has appeal, but he is no Jack Kennedy (war hero, populist son of wealth). He might be able to win in a popular vote for president, but he cannot win the electoral vote, nor can Hillary Clinton. If either of them wins the Democratic nomination, the Republican candidate wins. As much as this country needs change and as much as progressives want change, the nomination of either of these candidates will cripple the progressive agenda and guarantee that real change is delayed for at least another election cycle. Anybody that thinks that either of these people can carry the southern and western states is out of touch with reality.
t_e and I were discussing exactly this. It's it not the time for either Hillary or Obama.
 
  • #98
Why? To simply make the assertion doesn't make it true.
 
  • #99
Ivan Seeking said:
Why? To simply make the assertion doesn't make it true.
Why? Because the country is not ready to put a female in the Whitehouse as President and the same with placing a black into the Whitehouse.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of who would be good in office, it's knowing how the voters will react.

You of all peole should know that the American public will not usually elect the best choice. If they did, how did Bush get re-elected?
 
Last edited:
  • #100
no Obama is no Jack Kennedy, he might be a lot smarter. But I understand the comparison, he is no PT-109 movie hero or author, and JFK had an astounding ability to talk fast and forcefully. and charisma up the wazoo. My guess if he were white this discussion would vanish.
 
  • #101
denverdoc said:
no Obama is no Jack Kennedy, he might be a lot smarter. But I understand the comparison, he is no PT-109 movie hero or author, and JFK had an astounding ability to talk fast and forcefully. and charisma up the wazoo. My guess if he were white this discussion would vanish.
Yes, it would vanish immediately if Obama was white.

Let's face reality. Racism is alive and well in the US. Why do you think that Republicans talk about school vouchers before every election? It's not to allow poor urban black children to attend better schools - the fact is that if inner-city schools are failing, they need to be improved. There is simply not enough "slop" (classroom space, teachers, resources, transportation) built into the current system to allow wholesale movements of students from failing schools to better ones. The "school voucher" idea is a sop to those white southerners who send their children to all-white "Christian academies" - a sign that the candidate would earmark taxpayer money to help perpetuate existing segregation.
 
  • #102
There's no time like the present!

It's time we change things.
 
  • #103
Astronuc said:
There's no time like the present!

It's time we change things.
Well, I'm not sure that change is going to come about until mainstream politicians bring racism and prejudice into public discussions. So far, every time Bush has made noise about school vouchers, the Dems have given him a free ride, although they know that he is playing to the crowd that use race-restricted church membership to keep their "Christian academies" segregated. The attitudes that fuel this segregation are very deeply rooted and long-held, and they are not going to be changed in an election cycle, or even in a generation.

I was "taken to the woodshed" on this issue by a project engineer on a job near Atlanta. My (black) boss and I were having breakfast together at a cafe in Atlanta and we were scanning the morning paper and chatting. It seems that a local minister was fired for inviting a black family to the church picnic. The family showed up and when asked who invited them, they said that the minister had invited them. The church board members got together and fired the minister on the spot. When I got to the project site, I mentioned to the chief engineer that I thought that was an unfortunate move in a "progressive" place like Atlanta and he ripped me up. Freedom of association is guaranteed to churches and if churches can exclude blacks from membership, then there will be no black children in the members-only church academies and their precious little "Christian" children won't have to associate with "them". He said that the minister got just what was coming to him. Now, this man was a professional living in suburban Atlanta. You multiply him and his wife by the number of kids in these "Christian" academies, and you'll see the degree to which blacks are still shunned and marginalized in the South. I'd love to see Obama in the WH, but it isn't going to happen. Even if he got overwhelming support from the blacks in the south, the districts there have been gerrymandered to death and a win in the popular vote would probably still translate into a loss in the electoral vote race. The right-wing would love to see either Obama or Clinton win the Democratic nomination because they could run practically any viable candidate against them and be assured a win.

I'm with Evo on this one. There's no point in wringing our hands about how we need a black president or a woman president. We have to be pragmatic enough to realize that a candidate needs to be electable in this stupid electoral college ballot system, and neither of these candidates could take the south or the majority of the western and bible-belt states. If we could elect the president through a popular vote, there is a slim possibility that one of these candidates could win, IMO, but very slim. I believe that we could elect a woman president in this election cycle if we had a smart, competent, woman without Clinton's baggage, but we don't. If she wins the nomination, expect her to swift-boated on Whitewater, Vince Foster's death, inaccurate claims about her plan for universal health-care coverage, Bill's last minute pardons, and a hundred other things. The Republicans and their errand boys on hate radio and Fox will keep Clinton so covered in mud that she will be unable to get HER message out.
 
  • #104
Obama pulled in $25 million for the first quarter, just behind Clinton's $26 million. At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances. Edwards looks like the only one that's going to be able to hang in there just to reach the primaries. Unless Gore enters, but spotting that much money to two candidates surely has to be intimidating to even Gore.
 
  • #105
BobG said:
Obama pulled in $25 million for the first quarter, just behind Clinton's $26 million. At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances. Edwards looks like the only one that's going to be able to hang in there just to reach the primaries. Unless Gore enters, but spotting that much money to two candidates surely has to be intimidating to even Gore.
You might be right, Bob, but I think if Gore jumped in today, he would be the presumptive nominee, and a lot of Clinton/Obama funding would dry up. There are a lot of Democrats who are willing to embrace pragmatism and nominate a candidate that can gather enough votes to actually be elected, instead of tilting at windmills. I think if we were looking at a Pelosi candidacy, we would have a much better chance of electing a female president - Clinton brings so much baggage that she is dead off the starting line. Her support in Democratic/progressive circles is not at all indicative of her support in the general electorate. Many otherwise liberal/progressive women that I know have little to no respect for her after her tolerance for Bill's philandering, and though she may appeal to liberal moneyed interests, she will not play well in more conservative districts.
 
  • #106
BobG said:
Obama pulled in $25 million for the first quarter, just behind Clinton's $26 million.
Interesting! Don't write off Obama yet.

At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances.
Long shots anyway. They would better serve the country in their current positions, or retire.

Edwards looks like the only one that's going to be able to hang in there just to reach the primaries.
Obama - Edwards. :biggrin:

Unless Gore enters, . . .
I hope not.
 
  • #107
Astronuc said:
Obama - Edwards. :biggrin:
Edwards-Obama would be a winner IMO, as would Gore-Edwards or Gore-Obama. In fact, I think that Gore could win with McCain as his running mate, despite McCain's habit of toadying up to the Bush misadministration. I can't imagine any man who spent as much time as a prisoner of war and being tortured embracing the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales definition of torture and exposing our own soldiers to that kind of abuse, especially since Bush was back home partying and ignoring his Air National Guard obligations while US prisoners were rotting in NVN jails.
 
  • #108
Evo said:
Why? Because the country is not ready to put a female in the Whitehouse as President and the same with placing a black into the Whitehouse.

When I heard that my cousin - a guy who [according to dad] was likely in the KKK at one time - likes Obama, that notion went out the window for me. We are talking about people who grew up with a slave state mentality and who openly expressed their racism [in the past].

And we have to factor in the changing demographics in the Southern states...and the northern states for that matter. Obama should pull both the black and hispanic vote without even trying.
 
Last edited:
  • #109
Ivan Seeking said:
When I heard that my cousin - a guy who [according to dad] was likely in the KKK at one time - likes Obama, that notion went out the window for me. We are talking about people who grew up with a slave state mentality and who openly expressed their racism [in the past].
There is nothing "in the past" about suburban and rural southern areas in which affluent white kids do not attend public schools, but instead attend segregated "Christian academies". It is prevalent today. I have spent a lot of time in the deep south and have gotten to know a lot of the rank-and-file voters there. Obama is toast in the south. Yes, there is minority voter support to help him, but there has been decades of gerrymandering that ensure that the votes of minority populations will be diluted and result in losses in the electoral vote.
 
  • #110
Astronuc said:
Interesting! Don't write off Obama yet.
At a minimum, that surely has to make folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden reconsider their chances.
Long shots anyway. They would better serve the country in their current positions, or retire.
They're long shots with little chance, but any of the three would better choices than the three front runners. Probably the only way I'd vote for them is if Republicans nominate someone like Gingrich, but at least all three are qualified to be President.

Ivan Seeking said:
And we have to factor in the changing demographics in the Southern states...and the northern states for that matter. Obama should pull both the black and hispanic vote without even trying.
Why would hispanics vote for Obama? They're both minorities, but they're different minorities.

My view might be a little skewed. Most of the hispanics in office in the West are pretty conservative, even if some do happen to be Democratic, but, then, a liberal candidate would never get elected out here regardless of their ethnicity.
 
  • #111
well I was thrilled with the news that Obama might have actually exceeded Hillary's efforts as some of those monies may be earmarked for other uses. The south is a lost cause for the dems as we all know, (not that this is the exclusive province of racism left in USA) so maybe he can pull it off. With charisma, eloquence and capable of forming AND EXPRESSING a logical argument, he's the only candidate that faintly inspires a hope that politics is not quite dead here--moribund yes, which is why youth turnout is likely so low--they are cynical to beat the band.
 
  • #112
BobG said:
Why would hispanics vote for Obama? They're both minorities, but they're different minorities.

:smile: :smile: :smile: Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I can't defend this pov, but I think the hispanics will identify more with Obama than any other candidate [less Richardson of course, but I don't expect him to go far]. I guess the simplest way to say it is that he isn't white. Now, if Obama was an idiot or a dud, that would be different, but when I consider his ethnicity and his charisma, this is how I see it going. Perhaps the best way to say it is that he will be perceived as an alternative.
 
  • #113
Note that Obama had ~100,000 donors to Hillary's ~50,000. About 1/3 of Obama's donations came through the internet. [as per The News Hour [PBS] tonight]

Notably, the dems raised about 30 million more than the reps.
 
  • #114
interesting re the internet/grass roots donations issue. Evo and I got tangled up in a thread a while back where I took the position that cheap and unrestricted internet access is the only real hope to keep democracy alive and kicking in a two party system where too much $$ spent on campaigns, and those increasingly nasty.
 
  • #115
CNN just reported that in the twenty-four hours following Obama's disclosure of his 25 million, he received total donations of $435,000 on the internet from new contributors.
 
  • #116
I guess Obama better get down south and start testing the waters.

I think if anyone wants to be president, she or he need to get to the people and listen, and answer questions.
 
  • #117
So true, ah the whistle stop days of yore. But Astro, help me out here, isn't it possible to lose the entire south and still win if he/she carries big states in East, california, and at least splits the rest of the west?
 
  • #118
denverdoc said:
So true, ah the whistle stop days of yore. But Astro, help me out here, isn't it possible to lose the entire south and still win if he/she carries big states in East, california, and at least splits the rest of the west?
Lose Florida and Texas and still win? That's not a plan.
 
  • #119
denverdoc said:
So true, ah the whistle stop days of yore. But Astro, help me out here, isn't it possible to lose the entire south and still win if he/she carries big states in East, california, and at least splits the rest of the west?
Maybe.

Let's look at the last election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

If Gore had one Tennesse and one other, or if Kerry had won Ohio or Colorado + another state, either might have won the presidential election.

One thing I noticed about Kerry is that he and his campaign by-passed several states, which they had written off to Bush. This was so wrong! Even if that was the case, Kerry should have gone there anyway to state his case.

It seems that politicians still play the 'popularity contest' game. It shouldn't be. If we allow that to continue, then we will be mired in mediocrity or worse.

Any election should include a substantive discussion/debate on the critical issues: the economy, especially a sustainable economy, energy policy, air and water quality, national security, education, taxes, transportation and infrastructure, scientific research, employment/unemployment/retirement, medical care, . . . . .
 
  • #120
turbo-1 said:
Lose Florida and Texas and still win? That's not a plan.
But then one needs Ohio and . . .

One needs to think about representing and advocating for the entire nation, not just the one's where one enjoys popular support.
 

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