Crystal ball gazing: Clinton-Biden, that's the ticket!

[Seabiscuit]

The voters pretty soundly rejected the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements on Super Tuesday, especially in California and in the latters' home state of Massachusetts.

Given her strength in the next round of delegate-rich states, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas, and the probability that Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the Convention, it appears inevitable that Clinton will be our nominee.

Given that probabillity and using it as an assumption, would she choose Obama to fulfill the MSM's "dream ticket"?

I think not. The MSM's false injection of "race" and "racism" and "racist" into this race over the past month was largely fueled by Obama's comments himself, and then Kennedy and Kerry were both trotted out to smear Bill Clinton both mischaracterizing and misrepresenting his words to fit that preconceived distortion. Since then there is undoubtedly a lot of bad blood between the Clintons, the Obamas, the Kennedys, and the Kerrys by now, and I don't see that going away, because the MSM just loves it and will continue to do whatever they can to drive wedges between these two groups.

So it's highly improbable that Clinton would at this point pick Obama as her running mate.

Joe Biden, OTOH, would bring peace, experience, knowledge, and good counsel to a Clinton presidency, and given his extensive knowledge of foreign policy, would be a tremendous asset in building respect for America around the globe again.

Of course, I'm partial to Edwards, and would still love to see him as the next Attorney General in a Clinton administration.

Well, we can dream, can't we? And we can gaze into our crystal balls. That's what we do on DU, isn't it?

[Tropics_Dude83]

1. Clinton is nowhere close to having this locked up

No where close.

[Seabiscuit]

3. That's not the issue. That's a subject for your own thread.

This thread is about who Clinton would pick as her running mate IF she won the nomination.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Well, half your thread is pushing this "she totally has this in the bag" nonsense. They have

even odds.

[jillan]

2. I would rather see him as her SoS.

But I am not convinced that Biden supports Hillary.

[Webster Green]

4. "soundly rejected"

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

6. She trounced Obama in Kennedy/Kerry's home state of Massachusetts.

That clearly spells "soundly rejected".

[Webster Green]

8. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

9. He went from being behind in 18/21 states to winning 13, and possibly 14 if NM holds. He currently

has a slim delegate lead, but either way it's just about a 50-50 split. I don't think that's a rejection at all.

[No Blood for Hubris]

5. Clinton/Clark

Wesley Clark gets my vote for VP. Not Obama, even if he would. do it. He's too conservative. Forty percent of those who voted with him in Iowa were Republicans. I don't get why supposed Progressive Democrats of America supported him in the face of admitting that his policies are more conservative than Clinton's. Lotta media hype -- did you catch Chris Matthews puffing off the election last night? Crazy.

[Seabiscuit]

7. Now that's the kind of response I was hoping to see in this thread.

[WinkyDink]

13. This would be---with the triple-"k" sound---unbeatable.

Kennedy. LBJ/Goldwater, the "b" sound second to the "k".(Loser Humphrey to DiCK NiXon.) Carter. (RR over Carter, because we love alliteration, and Carter's perceived weakness superceded his name, as did the same with MiKe DuKaKis vs. Bush41.) Clinton. (Gore loses to a "b", Bush43, stolen though it actually was.) Kerry, as nominee, lost to a "b", arguably another stolen election.

Fallen by the wayside:
Kucinich (stature trumps name. Cf, Dukakis).
Biden (trumped by Clinton's "k").
Richardson.
Paul.
Giuliani.
etc.
Then, finally, Edwards and Romney.

The most "powerful" names remain standing:
Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton (Bill had both the "b" and the "k").
John McCain.
Mike Huckabee.

HRC is the "weakest" of that list, so adding a Clarke would, if she were the nominee, help in many ways. Clinton/Clarke.

Oh, sure, there are issues, platforms, and all that! But subliminally, this is a winning team!

[peace frog]

10. Sha has mentioned in the past

she thinks Biden would make a great Secretary of State, however I can support a Clinton/Biden ticket.

[Seabiscuit]

20. I concur.

[Occam Bandage]

12. This would be a terrible idea. I love Biden, but he brings nothing to her ticket.

Experience? Knowledge? Foreign policy? Those are all areas in which she needs no help. His profile is identical to hers--liberal Senator from the Northeast. He has a tendency to gaffe and a few skeletons in his closet; the Clintons will have a hard-enough time staying on-message as it is.

Plus, he's already stated that he has no desire to be VP in a White House with an active Bill Clinton. Candidates frequently state they won't accept a VP nod, but when they give specific reasons why they wouldn't want to be VP of one particular candidate for one major reason, that might actually mean something.

[adapa]

14. Love biden--would have voted for him but a Clinton/biden ticket is way too wonky for the public

[Seabiscuit]

15. "wonky"???

[Annces]

16. I think Biden would be too much competition for her

I think she will pick someone that she can keep out of sight and out of her office.

[Seabiscuit]

17. She can always send him on endless "good-will" tours.

:)

[Marrah_G]

18. That would be a great ticket. Or Clinton/Clark

[Seabiscuit]

19. I still like the idea of Clark as Secretary of Defense.

[book_worm]

21. Biden may work for Obama but not with Clinton.

[Seabiscuit]

22. Huh? And that relates to this thread how?