In one of my blog posts yesterday, I talked about how Hillary Clinton expressed for the first time that she would be receptive to accepting the vice president's spot under Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for president. One of our readers added an interesting point to the discussion:
"If Obama puts Hillary on the ticket he's lost my vote. Obama's campaign has been all about change this, change that...what exactly would he have changed by keeping the Clinton political machine in the loop? If he's really the change or progressive candidate that he makes himself out to be he should either put a moderate Republican (to show his bi-partisan intentions), a mexican (like myself, lol), or another woman, besides Hillary, on the ticket."
What do you think? If you support Obama, does your respect for him drop if he adds Clinton to the ticket? Although in some ways, I think the two could definitely beat McCain if they team up, I agree that choosing Clinton runs counter to everything he has stood for so far.
Obama and Clinton could probably work well together so I don't think it would hamper his chances. He could pick almost anybody as long as he doesn't pick Jesse Jackson. For me that would ruin everything.
"Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket for vice president creates a ménage-à-trois. Bill will be the unexpected roommate. Even if a President Obama can discipline Hillary and get her to play second fiddle, there is not the remotest chance that he can get the former president to accept such rules. ...."
"The public Bill Clinton has morphed over the past few months from a statesman and philanthropist to a petulant, angry, cursing, spoiled narcissist, accusing everyone of being sleazy and biased and in so doing fashioning himself as a foil for Obama. This unattractive image is not the right one for the bottom of a ticket in a presidential race. And make no mistake, Bill comes along with Hillary...."
Dick Morris 6/4/08
I don't understand why you think he would lose credibility if he picked Clinton. Can you point to one instance where he said Clinton was not qualified to be president? I believe his whole campaign has been that he is the better candidate to effect change, not that Hillary would be a bad president.
That said, I hope he takes a good look at other potential running mates. If he can unify the party with someone else, that might be a better way to go.
I'm a progressive and I feel the need to point out that Obama is certainly NOT a progressive, if that were so, he wouldn't have the support of so many republicans, including right-wing radical,(by his own definition) Rupert Murdoch! He supports a new era of nuclear energy, and the insurance industry's complete control over our "health-care"...these are not "changes" that appeal to us, and frankly, we'd like to hear some anti-war/occupation sentiment that doesn't have the forgiving tone of "let bygones-be-bygones"...criminality unpunished is complicity, and Iraq is the crime of the century...if he's progressive, it's a stealthy gambit...Hillary is to the right of Margerat Thatcher. That being said, these two are (barring another stolen election) an unbeatable dream team, they may be the smartest ticket in our history,...oddly enough,that may be a disadvantage.
The only person that Hillary (or Obama) are to the right of - is Karl Marx!
I’ve often wondered, is the term "progressive" lib-speak for, "I’m-embarrassed-to-let-people-know-I’m-really-a-leftist-liberal?"
Will he lose credibility? No.
Will it gaurantee him a greater chance of voter turnout? Yes.
Would he be better served choosing another female VP choice? If one is qualified, why not.
Would it anger Hillary Clinton and cause a greater sense of division in the Democratic party? Yes.
My only concern is who he picks for Secretary of State once elected. *cough* Sen. Joe Biden *cough*...VP choice is moot since the VP has little no influence in government except for...
a.) Cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock ( not currently a concern... )
b.) Preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College ( again, not currently a concern... )
c.) Replace the President, when the President dies in office ( depending on who you talk to, may not currently be a concern... )
I can't think of a single democrat in the last 20 years that has self-identified with the term, "liberal", common wisdom for candidates of both parties has been that it's always good to praise Reagan and desribe yourself in terms of degree of conservative, state capitols and DC are awash with "fiscally conservative" democrats so comfortable identifying with 'tax-cuts' and increased DOD spending, pro death penalty, anti women's reproductive rights,etc... ....but where is this mythical "fiscally liberal" democrat? you know, a tax-the-rich liberal? I pray for the day that circumstances might bring us around as a nation that cares for the "least among us", but at this point in our history, to self-identify as liberal is political suicide. Today the word liberal, in the pop lexicon, gets alot of use as an ephatat among the idiotic info-tainment movement,agenda-driven columnists, and political opponents, and as a point of fact, "liberal" is the go-to boogyman blamed for everthing the proud conservatives dont like, but T C, if there is no moral equivalent, a "proud liberal"(s), holding office or seeking it, either it's a conspiracy theory, or the word has no meaning. To be honest, I think the word "progressive" is over-used as well, and God knows "Neocon" has got a bad rep....you could say that after 30 years of conservatism it's broken, and we need new language to address new crises'....Personally, I identify with the Green party platform and have since 1983, we've been predicting, and offereing solutions for, most of the worlds current crises', for decades, it's fundamentally a mute horn I blow, as we've been shut out of the system but I know visionaries are abundant and new ideas are out there. Dont let language get in the way.
The lead question tickled my funny bone. A prerequisite for loosing credibility is credibility. What kind of a name is Barack Obama for the president of a fundamentally European Nation. No disrespect for the African American minority, but the name gives me (idiotical) visions of a ring through the nose and crossed bones adorning a perma-curly coiffure. If Mother were alive, she would say that if I had kept my mouth shut,she could have mistaken me for an intelligent person. But I am a frustrated standup comedian at heart.
Loosen up America! You have no control over who is occupying the White House. Have you ever heard of the electoral college???
What does his name have to do with his credibility? Absolutely nothing. If credibility was being evaluated, his credibility would be based on his track record of passing legislation, not the origin of his name. And between Clinton, McCain and himself, he would be hard pressed to stand out in a crowd.
Last time I looked we lived in a melting pot...
Wow, Obama doesn't have credibility because his name is of African origin? What on earth does that have to do with one's credibility? I wonder how many people privately oppose Obama for reasons like that, but won't publicly say so?
I did not vote for Hillary for various reasons. I voted for Obama. If they end up on the same ticket, I hate to say, Barack has lost my vote as well as others who have expressed the same view. It's a conflict of interests, she is power hungry and the comment above, about Bill getting involved...well it could be true as well.
Aside from some asinine attempt to humor (my own), we, now, seem to be "...lost in the dangling conversation..." of should it be Obama or Clinton.
Former senator John Edwards
was a most viable option. He was my choice. But my own husband and daughter nixed me with the lamest rationale. Why waste the
chance of a democratic win
on a candidate who is not likely to win. I believe
that faulty logic sank Edwards. He needed the votes more than name recognition. I knew him not from Adam, but I liked what he had to say. And there was no gender problem and no race problem. Like it or not,but we have not, as of yet, evolved to a gender and color blind culture.
I flat out don't trust Hilary (perhaps this is my own personal bias talking). I hope she doesn't end up on the ticket with Obama. However, if Obama decided to choose her - I guess I'd have to trust his judgement, wouldn't I?
Considering that the alternative would be McCain and endless war, more tax breaks for the rich, less healthcare for the rest of us and a Supreme Court packed with ultra-conservatives, I don't think Hillary should be a deal-breaker.
Not being in that particular loop, I don't know if Hillary really can make that much difference. But it is my believe that all had been manipulated by
the McCain(ites). It is my believe, he would not have been able to beat John Edwards. If; what a little word, but what an insurmountable abstract........
We have far better choices for VP: a. Sen.Joe Biden, who has been chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (10+ years), b. Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, a Clinton supporter that would help Obama carry Ohio, c. NM Gov. Bill Richardson, again with foreign policy experience, d. Wesley Clark / Jim Webb, both have prominent military clout as well as foreign policy experience.
The list goes on and on...
If all Hillary can offer is her experience as a junior Senator from New York (a state Obama does NOT need to carry to win), as well as a former First Lady, Obama will be hard pressed NOT to at least consider her given her 'vote capitol' and following, but I don't see him 'forced' to add Hillary.
Now, having said that, would I want Hillary on the ticket? No, but the voter turnout would almost certainly guarantee a 'winning' ticket. Just not the best ticket, in America's interests...
tsk, tsk! menage-a-trois. Isn't that something sexual? And if Hillary got into the White House, Bill would come along with it.
Why not? They are married.
I spent too much time at the computer, but who can resist learning about the possible menage-a-trois, Barack, Hillary and Bill.
You have to start with credibility to lose it and like in the Allman Brothers Band song..."Can't Lose What You Never Had".
I'm sure Obama will never have any credibility with the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh crowd, Brian. But we're talking about the American public in general, not the right-wing fringe - they're too busy looking for terrorist implications in the Obamas' fist bump and Rachael Ray's scarf.
If he chooses Hillary, who'll have his back? He's already in a vulnerable spot with just the Far Right gunning for him...
Who knows what Hillary seeded when she mentioned Bobby? Especially after all that sniper fire in Kosovo...
Quite frankly....I don't care who he picks. He'll get my vote regardless. I can see where Hillary would attract some and ward off others. But what I can't see is why on earth would any Democrat or Independent who wants to see us get the White House back, vote for John McSame. It's childish to say "If he doesn't pick Hillary I'm voting for McCain." Or...."If Hillary loses the nomination, I'm voting for McCain."
And what's wrong with being liberal? I wear that label with pride. It was a liberal thinking Republican that gave blacks freedom from slavery. It was liberal thinking that gave women the right to vote. It was liberal thinking that gave blacks equal rights. It will be liberal thinking that addresses global warming and moves us towards renewable energy. Liberal thinking has already started loosening the grip of special interest and lobbyists from our government (See Barack's movement to refuse contributions from them) I could go on. I'm proud to be a liberal and I'm looking forward to seeing the failed destructive Bush circus leave the White House.