A guaranteed WIN.

[Control-Z]

If the democratic party really wanted a guaranteed, no worries, WIN - a win that would make the majority of Americans (indies included, and even some rethugs) happy, hopeful, and excited - a win that would honestly change the political landscape of America - a win that would change the world view of of our country - all it would take would be that "dream ticket" we've talked so little about. You know the one. It would be a sure winner.

So why can't we have both Hillary and Obama? Think about it...

Hillary kicks ass like no other in debate. Obama gives one mean ass speech. They each have their own unique appeal and experience. They are both on the same side - our side. Talk about uniting? What a killer team they would make.

We could have both. We really could. For the good of the party, we could have both and they would be unbeatable.

So. What is stopping them? What is stopping us? Who is stopping us? Why are we choosing not to?

[Renew Deal]

1. A lot of people agree with you.

You're going to get flamed here. I would agree to it if Obama was on the top. But a lot of people I talk to in the real world (not DU) would like this.

[Control-Z]

9. I am trying to look at it from

a real world stand point. And yes, it is what most would feel good about, I believe.

[Bicoastal]

2. The candidates themselves?

Obama don't like Hillary. Hillary don't like Obama.

Of course, this didn't stop Reagan/Bush (boo) or JFK/LBJ (yay) from running and winning.

[Control-Z]

6. Well, yes

that was a big part of my question. Do our candidates really want what is best for the country? If they can't put aside petty dislikes for the good of the country then they are not the candidates they claim to be. My children set a better example.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I object. Vehemently.

I don't want any Clinton cooties on Obama.

[Control-Z]

15. Refraining

from entering the sandbox. LOL

[scheming daemons]

4. Because the reason a lot of people are voting for Obama is...

..because they absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

It is a big part of it.

Adding Obama to a Clinton ticket does NOTHING... because the Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary just to get Obama as VP.

Whoever Hillary would have as a VP would simply have a ceremonial role anyway, because Bill would be the defacto VP.


For Obama to join Hillary's ticket now would be the ultimate sellout to everything he's run against. *SHE* is part of the problem in Washington that he is running against.


And....Obama is going to win the nomination anyway..... and adding Hillary to HIS ticket would be a negative drag on him.


The American people, by a very sizable margin, do not like Hillary Clinton.... if she is part of the ticket, either as VP or on top, the Democrats will lose in November.

They simply will.

Hillary is poison for the Democrats on either end of the ticket.

[Control-Z]

7. Obama supporters

would not vote for him if he were associated with Hillary? That is just sad to say. Period. I believe you are mistaken, though. And vise versa.

[texas_indy]

12. I agree 1000%, no HRC on the ticket at all or you can kiss off a lot of Obama support

Now if you included another woman then it could be doable. But no HRC anywhere near the ticket!

GOBAMA!!

[Control-Z]

14. It is kind of sad

Most Hillary supporters would support Obama.

He's a democrat. Period.

[Eurobabe]

28. I don't want the Clintons anywhere NEAR the White House

No thanks. In light of the shenanigans this past month. No Fucking Way.

[woolldog]

34. Thank you.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm sick of the triangulating, the scandals, the pandering, the shading of the truth and arguments about what "is" is. Enough already.

[VotesForWomen]

38. sad. your hate is irrational, and largely the product of drinking too much repug kool-aide. nt

[DJ13]

5. "So why can't we have both Hillary and Obama?"

Obama's ahead in delegates, states won, and overall votes won, so who should be on top of this ticket?

I seriously doubt Hillary would accept a VP slot to Obama (and she's probably too old to hope for a chance after two terms of Obama being President), and I dont think at this stage Obama should accede to having Hillary on top of the ticket as he's ahead in all catagories.

So how would that work?
:shrug:

[Control-Z]

8. Oh, I don't know.

For the good of the party and the country? Ain't that what they both talk about?

[Eric J in MN]

26. VP is more a powerful job than it used to be.

Maybe Hillary Clinton would rather be a VP than a Senator.

[Control-Z]

32. I'm sure Obama

would rather be VP than Senator as well!

[stahbrett]

10. I don't care for the idea

First, they are both senators with no experience running a government as an executive. Second, whether justified or not, if we assume for a moment that Obama will hold off Clinton for the nomination, why would Obama want to choose a running mate with negatives so high? (Half of the population dislikes her - whether it's a justified negative opinion or not is really not relevant).

A much smarter choice would be someone like Bill Richardson - he's from the west, provides help with Latinos, is a successful governor AND has foreign policy credentials.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

11. Oh, and wasn't it Bill Richardson that ordered the shredding

of ballots in 2004 before they could be recounted? Some owners of glass houses may want to keep their windows dirty so no one can see through them.

[Control-Z]

13. But we're talking about

reality here.

We have two candidates vying for the nomination, and a party split. What really matters is getting a Dem into office, repairing the damage that was done during the bush administration and advancing humanity in the US, and globally.

How are we going to achieve this?

[Exultant Democracy]

16. Sorry sounds like electoral suicide to me, there are a lot of dems that would be happy

but if you look at the potential map having Clinton on the ticket will take a whole lot of states out of play. We need to go old school on this one and play for some regional balance, find a super popular southern Dem that can deliver his state.

[Control-Z]

17. You're just talking

crap right out of your butt, if you'll excuse me.

Hillary has the blue states. Obama has the red states. Put it together and what have you got? A chance to turn the red states blue, which would be amazing and wonderful, and a sure win in the blues. Unless, of course, Obama keeps telling us his supporters won't vote for Hillary.

But I would assume that if they did run together, they would be supportive of each other, and all those red state voters would be pulling the lever for both D's.

Not sure what, where, or how you're mapping.

[Exultant Democracy]

21. LoL, The Blue states will stay blue Hillary or not.

CO VA MO are going to be the key pickups this year, traditionally red states that have been trending blue hard the last few years. If it wasn't for McCain AZ would be another.

Good thing that people a lot smarter then you agree with me and Clinton will never get on Obama's ticket.

[Control-Z]

24. Why do Obama people

feel the need to insult the intelligence of others? Questioning your own? My point is how much power there would be in the two candidates getting along and running together - something I believe the common American people would embrace.

[Exultant Democracy]

27. Sorry I assume that people who say I'm talking out of my ass are stupid,

because I know my shit. If you can't see how each of them would be a negative net gain for the other, and more importantly how Clinton's coalition is a truncated version of the reliable dem base while Obama has a coalition that he could bring to the party that would make the Regan democrats look like a blip then I'm sorry if I'm not impressed. Row v Wade, Iraq and global warming will keep the blue states blue.

[Control-Z]

29. 'Row v Wade, Iraq and global warming will keep the blue states blue'

Funny thing. Roe and the climate crisis are of my utmost concern. They represent the core of our existence. How and when will we address these? Who will address these? How will we get the largest proportion of our United States of America to be concerned and active about these dire issues?

[Exultant Democracy]

30. Put a dem in office and normative international behavior will start again immediately.

That will help out with Iraq and Global Warming, the next incumbent will probably be touting their aggressive policy on global waring in four years if we are out of the Bush recession by then which we should be. As for Row v Wade then it comes down to the SCOTUS.

[Control-Z]

31. With two head strong progressives

working together we can expect a lot of progress over the next 4 years, yes? (I'm glad we can agree.)

As for Roe - I'm afraid religion, prayer and morals dictate Obama's feelings on the issue. Scary. Can't really compromise on this one. He'll need help. Otherwise women will just be screwed.

[Danger Mouse]

18. i think it'd make a good ticket, personally.

i think if i a deal is made, that's a pretty likely one...

[Control-Z]

20. The MSM

would be the only losers, imo. Well, and the rethugs.

[Danger Mouse]

23. it would blend their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses.

a very complimentary ticket...and a way to prevent the nomination process from splintering the democratic party.

[Control-Z]

25. Yes, it would.

People in places like DU may not agree but in the general population I believe there would be a level of excitement and hope there has never been in history.

[woolldog]

36. It's a "feel good" suggestion

But a strategically terrible idea. It would kill all of Obama's crossover appeal to run with Hillary as VP.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. That is like having red wine with fish, separate they are fine but together they leave a bad taste

in your mouth.


Besides there are many many better V.P. candidates than Hillary.

[Kokonoe]

22. Obama gets support because he wants to change govt.

Democrats, and more importantly Republicans will support him without Hillary.

[Recursion]

33. Because she's fought against every transparency bill he's introduced

She doesn't want to govern transparently, and having her on the ticket effectively destroys Obama's whole argument about what the problems we're facing are.

[TexasObserver]

35. Hillary lacks any commitment to Democratic ideals of transparency and disclosure.

She's bought by the lobbyists, and cannot be trusted to undo the hideous executive excesses of Bush.

If she's on the ticket, even as the VP, we will lose in November.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. It would be political suicide. Hillary has already argued Obama isn't

ready for the job. The vice President needs to be ready, just in case. It would step all over her message.

Obama has run on change. That's his message. Hillary represents the staus quo to most people. In fact, that's her message. So if Obama put her on his ticket he would be stepping all over his message.

They have both already precluded putting the other on their ticket.

That's what is stopping them and us, thankfully.