Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via email:
Britannica Blog via RSS
Print
In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the Democratic nominee for governor in my home state of Maryland, declined to make a path-breaking choice for Lieutenant Governor on her ticket by tapping an African-American nominee. She instead chose a conservative white male. This decision drained the enthusiasm from her campaign. It cost her crucial support within the Democratic base vote and contributed to her upset defeat by Republican Robert Ehrlich in the general election.
Barack Obama, who is nearly the presumptive Democratic nominee, should not make the same mistake of choosing a conventional, white male running mate. Rather, he should complete the Democratic dream ticket by making Hillary Clinton his vice presidential choice. Likewise, if Clinton should pull off an improbable upset and gain the nomination, she should choose Obama as her running mate.
It is unusual but not without precedent for presidential nominees to tap a competing candidate as their choice for vice president.
In 1960, Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas campaigned vigorously against Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts for the Democratic nomination for president. The struggle continued to the convention, where Kennedy and Johnson took part in an unprecedented debate in front of the Texas and Massachusetts delegations. John Kennedy and Johnson didn’t especially like one another and Bobby Kennedy and Johnson detested one another. But Kennedy still chose Johnson as his running mate to put together a dream North-South ticket.
In 1980, conservative Ronald Reagan and moderate George H. W. Bush waged a bitter struggle for the Republican presidential nomination and the ideological soul of their party. Still, Reagan picked Bush as his running mate to unite his party, even though Bush had derided Reagan’s economic plan as “voodoo economics” and opposed Reagan on issues such as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment.
I am not suggesting that the Democrats should put together their dream ticket in order to help the party beat John McCain. Given that the Republican opposition is suffering from an unpopular war, a sour economy, and a president with the highest disapproval rating in the history of scientific polling, the Democrats should be able to win with a vice presidential candidate plucked from the phone booth.
Rather, I think the Democratic dream ticket would be good for the party and even better for the nation. So far the intense primary contest has yielded many benefits for Democrats. Millions of new voters have signed up with the Democratic Party, Democratic primary turnout has hit record levels, and Democrats have attained their largest lead in decades in party identification. A ticket that includes both Obama and Clinton would help sustain this momentum and produce a record Democratic turnout in November.
The two candidates also appeal to different segments of the electorate. Obama is strong among African-Americans, young voters, and more affluent and educated voters. Clinton appeals to older voters, women, and blue-collar voters. Of course, some Clinton backers have said that they would not vote for Obama and vice versa. But those heat-of-the-battle sentiments will surely change once the general election campaign begins, especially if their first choice for president is on the ticket.
The Democratic dream ticket would also inspire young people and demonstrate convincingly that no one is excluded from the American dream of opportunity and success. The ticket might even contribute to expanding the representation of women and African-Americans in the second highest set of offices in the land: governorships and US Senate seats. At present there is but one African-American Senator (Obama) and two governors, including David Paterson of New York, who assumed the office after the resignation of Eliot Spitzer. There are only 16 women Senators and 8 women governors.
Six years ago in a small place called Maryland the Democratic Party failed to present the voters with a ticket that included both a woman and an African-American. Democrats can only hope that their party will not make the same mistake on a much larger stage in 2008.
(A version of this post is also appearing in the Montgomery Gazette.)
May 9th, 2008 at 4:08 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
May 9th, 2008 at 4:53 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
May 9th, 2008 at 4:55 am
NOOO, no! No Obama/ Clinton. I have Clinton fatigue. She is not worthy of being his VP. How about Kathleen Sibelius?
May 9th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Absolutely not! Hillary is a polarizing figure, and it would take but 30-60 days in the White House before Barack and his aides would have to be reprimanding and reminding Hillary, “You’re not the President! (And get Bill out of here, too!)” Watch — Hillary will overstay her welcome in this race, and will not bow out gracefully. I’ll vote for Obama, but I’d vote for McCain before voting for any ticket with Hillary on it.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Certainly Clinton will turn off some voters. However, she also has a tremendous following. She has attracted more than 15 million votes in the primaries and still has the support of more than 40 percent of Democrats in preference polls. So the gains far outweigh the losses.
As for Bill, my solution would be to put him on the Supreme Court. There is precedent for that in the Supreme Court appointment of former president William Howard Taft. And Democrats will certainly control the Senate after 2008.
Sebelius would be a fine choice if Clinton does not get the nod.
Allan
May 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Alan, is the standing of the keys still at 8 negative keys against the gop?
May 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Terrond,
The Republicans have recouped one key — the party contest key, leaving them with a deficit of 7. However, we are still waiting on a possible recession call and I am still holding open the possibility that Obama will emerge as a charismatic candidate. Remember, it takes only 6 keys to count out the party in power. So the verdict is still firmly for a Democratic win.
Allan
May 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Over at TNR, Tomasky says it succinctly:
“A former president married to a current vice president who really thinks she should be president creates the potential for way too much mischief that could undermine the president.” (hat tip: Sullivan)
A pretty strong point, it seems to me. It doesn’t take too much imagination to fill out the picture.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
When in trouble, double down. Throw the Hail Mary pass. It would be difficult to find two candidates with more liabilities PLUS two great records of publicly advertising each other’s liabilities. Add to this, Bill. The political figure you cannot miss, because he won’t go away and you have a mix for one wickedly messed up campaign. What tops it off is what the administration would look like if somehow the Democrats were to win. It would be difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional administration with Obama being routinely upstaged
and undercut by both his vice president and her husband. As a Republican, this would be very entertaining. As an American, I’d be more than concerned that this would be a disaster.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
[…] The Democratic Dream Ticket: Obama / Clinton […]
May 9th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Allan,
On your suggestion of getting rid of the Bill Clinton problem by bumping him up to the Supreme Court: Great, a disbarred attorney on the Supreme Court. I’d love to see those confirmation hearings. I’d love to hear his views about selling last minute presidential pardons for campaign contributions. What exactly is his interpretation of obstructing justice? Is it permissible to commit perjury in a civil case? I think his views on the law would be very, shall we say, innovative. And just because Democrats will have a majority in the Senate is no reason to cajole a couple dozen of them into “walking the plank.”
And on the 13 Keys, I hope you have the Republican Party war hero key turned for McCain. On the recession, it takes two quarters of negative growth. There was positive growth in the first quarter and the third quarter data does not come out until after the election; so even if the second quarter is negative, it cannot be called a recession by the time of your forecast. Isn’t this right? Obama emerge as a charismatic candidate? Is he graduating from charm school or something? What does he have to do to be objectively identified as a charismatic candidate? He had his fellow Democrats swooning at his race speech. I assume he has to do much more than that.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
It’s all over bar the shouting. The Democrats will easily trounce the geriatric WASP McCain whether it is Obama or Clinton or Mr Ed. McCain was yesterday’s man long ago and the the fact the Republicans have chosen him shows how pathologically out of touch they are.
In my view it would be in the best interests of the Democrats for Clinton to run dead in the remaining primaries allowing Obama to build up momentum and the Democrats to tighten up their electoral structure and funding in exchange for her being the VP.
The idea of a dream ticket is just a bonus. (the republicans are already a nightmare). Money talks and with Obama having well over $200 million in his war chest and McCain less than $30 million it is no contest.
The people long ago deserted the GOP over Bush, Iraq, New Orleans etc etc, Now business and donors have also deserted them so we are primed for the mother of all wipe outs for the Republicans. Bring it on.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Mark,
I agree with most of what you said, but would add one word of caution. Voters forget easily. Too many have forgotten that there were supposed to be WMD’s in Iraq. Some believe weapons were actually found. Many still believe that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11, even though a couple members of the Bush Administration finally admitted that he had none, after months of implying otherwise.
Remember, this is an electorate that voted for George W. Bush, TWICE. Now, I think that Al Gore and John Kerry both ran awful campaigns, and there are still questions about the accuracy of both elections, neither should have been close. Except, the voters made it so.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Is the Long-Term Economy Key actually turned against the GOP? Hear me out first…2005-2007 were good years and there was really weak growth in Bush’s first term, so however the Short-Term Economy Key turns, I would think the GOP could still salvage Long-Term. There is a precedent: Jimmy Carter in 1980 won the long-term but lost the short-term economic keys.
James, I’m a Republican who supports McCain in both the primaries and general election. However, you are just sounding just as bad as the Democrats who refused to believe the keys (I remember some even saying scandal should be turned against Bush) in the 2004 election cycle. The keys are supposed to be how a median voter views things, not die-hard partisans.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
RWG has it exactly right on interpreting the Keys. If like Professor Campbell, you interpret the Keys from a partisan perspective, you will always arrive at a prediction that favors your party. An example, is Professor Campbell’s attempt to turn the charisma/hero key in favor of John McCain when the definitions of the keys, established in 1981, would clearly exclude him. The definition includes national leadership in wartime as exemplified by Grant and Eisenhower. It does not include heroic performance in war. By that criteria, for example, George McGovern (one of WWII’s great bomber pilots)should have turned the key. He did not. All of this is carefully laid out in my book, The Keys to the White House.
Also, my prediction of a Republican defeat (by two keys) does not include calling the recession key or the challenger charisma key against the party in power. So far I have turned neither key against the GOP. The long-term economy key is measured against the previous two-terms and economic performance in the Bush administration falls short mathematically. We will wait on the short-term economy key.
My own assessments of the keys has produced six predictions from 1984 to 2004. In three elections I predicted that the Republicans would win the popular vote (1984, 1988, and 2004) to the great chagrin of my Democratic friends. Likewise in three elections I predicted that the Democrats would win the popular vote (1992, 1992, and 2000) to the great chagrin of my Republican friends.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:11 am
allan has it on the mark. even as a die-hard dem i accepted the keys perdiction on the 2004 reelection of bush. 2000 was tough for me because i was so sure of gore’s 5 key election. i am still worried about the electoral college.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I would say that Keys 5 and 13 are against the party in power. People are talking about it being a recession all over the place, so they are feeling it. It is like 1992. The official figures said then that the economy was not in recession, but the people felt that it was. That turned Key 5 and defeated GHW Bush.
Obama has toppled Key 13. The very existence of the concept of “Obama girls” shows this. Also Obama has displayed the talent of winning the approval and votes of people even when things (and people such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright) are going badly for him.
The pattern of keys then, XOXOXXXOOXXXX, is identical to that of 1960. So will this election be like 1960? People are already comparing Obama with Kennedy. If so it could be foreboding for the Democrats. 1960 was close, and if you divide Alabama’s popular vote the same way the electoral votes went, Nixon has the popular vote, meaning the keys failed to predict the winner that year.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Allan,
Regardless of how you would code war hero, I think any common sense view of war hero would include him. He is commonly referred to in these terms by other Democrats. I would guess that your candidate, Senator Obama, probably has characterized McCain in those terms. If you want to characterize him otherwise, it is up to you and, I think, just demonstrates the highly subjective nature of “the keys” index.
As to partisan perspective, are we seriously to believe that a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination from the State of Maryland, is not partisan? Come on. McCain is a war hero. Unlike McGovern, McCain is well known as a war hero and has been for many years. This is not partisan. This is a fact.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Jim,
You can think what you want and you are free to design your own system. As for the keys, there is nothing whatsoever subjective about the call on McCain. McCain clearly does not fit the definition that was established 27 years ago. And he clearly does not fit the ways the keys have been called to date. End of story. As far as partisanship in calling the keys, my record speaks for itself: 3 Republican predictions, 3 Democratic predictions. We all have political leanings. However, there is nothing whatsoever partisan about my calls on the Keys.
Allan
May 16th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Allan,
And there is nothing partisan in a perspective that calls Senator McCain a war hero. My sense is that your keys would have historically fit just as well with a definition of war hero that would have included war hero McCain. Regardless of when the coding choice was made, this perfect collinearity means that you cannot defend your call of the key being against McCain against my call of the key being for McCain. The only way to break this impasse is to have had a case like the McCain case in which the coding of the war hero key made the difference between a correct and an incorrect prediction.
Jim
May 19th, 2008 at 6:27 am
as a partisan democrat i walked like a zombie by 2003 through 2004 knowing bush had the election wrapped up becuase of the key’s perdicting his reelection. i voted for john kerry anyway to perform my civic duty. bottom line, the keys do not discrimminate. diehards in both parties may not like the perdiction or try to “change” the historical factors to fit their political wishes. it just does not work that way. most likely mccain is going to lose against obama unless we have another 2000.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Dr.Lichtman,
You said in the foreword to the 2000 edition of the Keys that McCain MIGHT HAVE turned the challenger charisma key against the Democrats had he gotten the GOP nomination.
I can understand why you changed your mind, as McCain’s popularity with Democrats and independents has faded fast over the last couple years mainly due to his strong support of the Iraq war. But I’m just pointing out that you did say that.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Please Obama - do NOT tap Hillary for VP.
1) It would go against everything you stand for - change - and would immediately deflate the enthusiasm supporting you thus far
2) It would activate the unfortunate (and undeserved) hate for Hillary among all parties, driving votes for McCain.
Rise above the political calculus and follow your vision: change for America. We are all counting on you to pick a VP that yes, can help you win, but also can amplify rather than erode your message. Please don’t let us down.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
RWG,
You are right on every count. I did say that and I have changed my mind, because John McCain is not the man he was eight years ago. Its not just the war. His reputation for putting principle above politics has been severely damaged as well.
Allan
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Obama cannot win without Hillary.
I’m a die-hard democrat and I will not vote for him. If he adds Hillary to the tickets, I might be persuaded.
Damn! I hate voting for a republican.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
So,
You’d vote for McCain because you don’t like Obama? May I ask why you don’t like him? Because He’s young and inexperienced? Because he’s black?
I realize this will sound insulting, but I can’t think of a simpler way to put it. No “die-hard democrat” with half a brain will vote for John McCain. Or, perhaps, only those with only half a brain.
That being said, the “dream ticket” may yet happen, though I still believe that the better choice would be Bill Richardson. Former Congressman, Ambassador, Cabinet Secretary, and current Governor, he has the resume. On top of that he not only is popular with Hispanic voters, he is Hispanic.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Allan,
With recent events, Hillary’s statement in her semi-public conference call to the NY congressional delegation in which she indicated that she was open to the VP slot, and her refusal to concede the nomination to Obama in her speech after the final primaries, I now think that you are right: that the Obama-Clinton ticket is very likely!
Everything I wrote before about this being a bad ticket politically and even worse if it won the election, I still think is true–but if Hillary wants the VP slot, and I think she does, I do not think that Obama can or would try to stop her. I think she will force her way on the ticket. If she wants the VP slot, she can take it to the convention and with nearly half the pledged delegates and probably hundreds of super-delegates that favor her or want party unity, it would be a political blood-bath for Obama to get in her way. The easiest course would be to accept her on the ticket. He has a choice: accept her and her liabilities or try to stop her and possibly win (increasing party disunity) or lose and be publicly humiliated. It is a win-win situation for Hillary and a lose-lose situation for Obama (and the party).
This may be a dream ticket for some, but I doubt that it is Obama’s idea of a dream ticket. It may be McCain’s dream ticket to run against. If this is how it plays out and the Dems still win, it could be the most dysfunctional winning ticket since Jefferson and Burr.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I used to agree with your thoughts here, Professor, but now I’m not so sure. The Congressional Democrats who supposedly are pressuring Clinton to concede don’t seem unified in wanting her on the ticket.
It could be that the Clinton era is over, time to move on.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I was a Republican and I changed to a Democrat so I could vote for Hillary. I trust Hillary and I felt so lonely when she made her incredible speech, I was so sad that she did not win. I am going to vote for McCain if Hillary is not selected to be a Vice President. I wish to God the Democratic Party can get together to put Hillary as a Vice President. Thank you so much.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Sorry, I really don’t understand this. You would rather vote for an anti-choice, anti-gun control, pro-Iraq War candidate, all positions opposite those of Hillary Clinton, than a pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-war candidate, whose positions are extremely similar to Hillary’s?
Am I missing something?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
DON’T FORGET, KENNEDY DIDN’T WANT JOHNSON, AND KENNEDY WAS ASSINATED! THERE WERE RUMORS! BUT THAT ASIDE, CLINTON WANTS THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE, NOT THE SECOND BEST! SO WHY WOULD SHE ACCEPT VP, (IF OFFERED)? SHE’D BE IN THE PERFECT POSITION (AS VP), TO CONTINUE HER CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENCY, SO SHE COULD CONSISTENTLY CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENT’S PLATFORM, DEMEAN HIM, EMBARASS HIM, IN ORDER TO OUTRIGHT CHALLENGE HIM FOR THE OFFICE IN 2012! DON’T BE SHOCKED, SHE’S CAPABLE OF ANYTHING, (THE KITCHEN SINK, REMEMBER)THAT WOULD GIVE THEPRESIDENCY TO HER! IT WOULDN’T, IT WOULD GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE REPUBLICANS.
WAKE UP VOTERS! SHE’D USE THE VP POSITION TO PROVE THE SUPER DELEGATES MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT GIVING HER THE NOMINATION, BY CONSISTENTLY TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT, DEMEAN HIM,EXPOSE PRIVATE FLAWS, THAT ALL PRESIDENT, ALL HUMANs HAVE, TO THE PUBLIC, PROBABLY THROUGH BILL, ALL TO SHOW THAT SHE’S A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN THE PRESIDENT! HE COULDN’T FIRE HER AND BILL, (YES BILL, THE FORMER IMPEACHED PRESIDENT WHO HASN’T CHANGED, EXCEPT FOR THE WORSE)!
HE’D HAVE TO SELECT A NEW RUNNING MATE IN 2012 AND SHE’D HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT CHALLENGING HIM IN 2012, AND THE VOTERS, EVEN MANY OF YOU DEMS.,WOULD BE DISGUSTED WITH, AND SICK OF HER BY THEN. MANY OF US NON DEMS.ARE ALREADY SICK OF HER BEHAVIOR, AND I WAS INITIALLY SUPPORTING HER! IF I’M GOING TO PUT A WOMAN IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE, I DON’T NEED ONE WHO NEEDS TO PROVE SHE CAN DROWN SHOTS WITH MEN IN A BAR! THAT FLATTERS MEN, NOT WOMEN! IF WE NEED TO ACT LIKE THEM, THAT SAYS WE AREN’T GOOD ENOUGH BEING WOMEN. WE WANT EQUALITY FOR WHO WE ARE NOW, NOT WHO WE ARE WHEN EMILATING MEN! WE AREN’T TRYING TO RAISE THE CEILING FOR MEN, THEY HAVE NONE! WE NEED TO RAISE IT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE WOMEN!
WE NOW HAVE A CHANCE TO SELECT AS VP, A WOMAN TO BE PPROUD OF, WITH GRACE, SOUND JUDGENMENT, WISDOM, QUALITIES WE CAN SERIOUSLY ADMIRE, AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR DAUAGHTERS EMULATE. I DON’T WANT MY GRAND DAUGHTERS DROWNING SHOTS IN A BAR, TO RAISE THE CEILING, I WANT HER TO USE BRAIN, INTUTION, WISDOM, FISNESS, GRACE,ETC.! I WANT HER TO BE CONFORTABLE BEING A WOMAN, CONFIDENT IN HER WOMANESS, EXPECTING THE SAME EQUALITY WHILE BEING A WOMAN, THAT MEN DON’T HAVE TO EARN. LETS EXPECT A WOMAN VP, WHO CAN ACTUALLY RUN IN 2016 AND WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. ALL WOMEN, REGARLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION, WANTS TO SEE A WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT WE DON’T ALL SEE HILLARY AS THAT WOMAN! IF SHE DOESN’T CLEEAN UP HER ACT SHE’LL HAVE A HARD TIME WINING A SECOND TERM AS SENATOR. SHE LETS THE HUNGER FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL POWER CLOUD HER JUDGEMENT. THAT’S NOT A GOOD PRESIDENTIAL TRAIT, AND EXPLAINS WHY WE’LL IN IRAQ! IF THESE WARS CONTINUE, THE DRAFT WILL NEED TO BE REINSTATED, AND MANY OF YOUR LITTLE DARLINGS, MALE AND FEMALES, (EQUALITY, RIGHT),AS WELL AS MANY OF OUR GRAND SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL BE FIGTING IN IRAN, THEN CHINA, THEN….
WE CAN EITHER USE DIPLOMACY FIRST, OR JUST GO TO WAR! IF WE CONTINUE TO CHOSE WAR FIRST, OUR ECONOMY AS IT IS NOW, WILL JUST BECOME THE NORMAL WAY OF LIFE! ASK YOURSELF, HOW CAN SHE EXPECT TO BE VP, WHEN; SHE HASN’T BEEN ASKED, AND SHE REFUSED TO EVEN CONCEDE. SHE HAS SHOWN SHE IS FOR CLINTON FIRST, PARTY AND COUNTRY LATER! SHE’S A LOT LIKE BUSH, WHO IN MY VIEW IN ORDER TO SECURE A SECOND TERM, (SINCE HE KNEW HE DIDN’T WIN THE FIRST ONE), PROPELLED THE US INTO IRAQ, THINKING IT WOULD BE A PIECE OF CAKE FOR OUR STRONG MILITARY,(MUCH LIKE DESERT STORM)! HE FORGOT WHAT THE AFTERMATH OF DESERT STORM DID TO THE ECONOMY! LOSS BUSH SR. THE WHITE HOUSE! CLINTON IS AKIN TO BUSH,(NOT JUST IN IN MY EYES, EITHER), BECAUSE SHE ALSO LETS POWER CLOUD HER JUDGEMENT!
SHE BURNS HER BRIDGES WITH NO CONCERN THAT SHE MAY NEED TO RE-USE THEM. SHE SCORNS THE POLITICS OF HOPE, YET SHE LIVES HER LIFE HOPING THERE’LL BE A NEW ROUTE OR RIDGE IF SHE NEEDS TO RETURN THE WAY SHE CAME! I BELIEVE IF SHE BECOMES VP, THE REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE OVER THE WHITE HOUSE, BECAUSE HER 18 MILLION SUPPORTERS IS A LOT FOR A PRIMARY, BUT THE TICKET FOR THE GENERAL HAS TO ATTRACT THE VOTING MAJORITY! SHE’S THE DARLING OF THE DEMS, BUT ISN’T TOO WELL LIKED BY NON-DEMS, LIKE MYSELF! SHE’S UNCOUTH, UNGRACIOUS, UNDISCIPLINED, THE PRIMARY IS OVER AND SHE STILL DOESN’T KNOW WHEN OR HOW TO STOP) DANGEROUS FOR A PRESIDENT. THAT’S WHAT GOT US IN IRAQ, INSTEAD OF GIVING US VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN!
June 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I mostly lean Republican,but am very willing to listen to Obama. I had enough of the Clintons to last me 2 life times.Bill is a walking nightmare to her efforts and she sure didnt do well dodging mortar fire or anything else. It is truly amazing she even came that close. Republicans loathe Clinton, both of them and none of them will vote for Obama with her on the ticket and most will not even listen. At least with him you will not find Obama haters voting for anyone but him. With Clinton there is quite a bit of anyone but her,including Democrats. She also erases his ideas of a fresh start and change and brings several extra pieces of baggage that would cost $100 more on a Delta flight. The target would be too big and then you would have the Slick Willy factor in the news either intentionly or of his own doing for several months filled with idiot sound bites he has had to everyone who hates him delight.I for one would love to see a great Presidential race,that would be good for the country and big on debates and issues.Is it possible with out the sleaze factor? It could be without the Clintons.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I believe no Democratic sure victory without Hillary Clinton on ticket. My firm belief is that there will be a lot of voters going to McCain column.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I would never vote for Obama if Clinton were on the ticket. If she were on the ticket and Obama was to win, she would say that she was the reason he won. I live in NYS and she has done abolutely nothing for upper NYS. The Clintons are like the relatives that come to visit and outstay their welcome.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
It’s over. Whatever your opinions of the Clintons, they are shrewd politicians. Hillary will toe the party line, and Obama will pick someone else. It will be a very tough campaign. A major factor, because of his age, will be McCain’s VP choice.