garysher

Joe there's only one right answer - a Clinton/Obama ticket

Otherwise whoever gets the nomination will be pissing off the other 50% of the Democratic party and that's not good.

The two aren't that far apart on issues. But there's no sense on battering themselves for the next 6 months.

Also it lines up Obama for 4 or 8 years of experience before running for President.

It could lead to a 16 year run for Democrats.

__________________

nuttyjoe

You may be right, Gary; except for the experience issue.That remains to be seen. But you are definitely correct in that the Dems need to solve this-and soon. Instead of superdelegates jumping ships or not for the Dems; they risk supporters switching party affiliations- which can (anddoes) happen during long, intraparty struggles.
McCain must be licking his chops today!

highway80west

But you know, a presidential nominee has always chosen an unknown to be his running mate. I mean who could ever have heard of Spiro Agnew when Nixon chose him as his running mate, or Walter Mondale as Carter's running mate, or Dan Quayle as George H.W. Bush's running mate, or Dick Cheney as George W. Bush's running mate? Hubert Humphrey chose Edmund Muskie, and McGovern lost Thomas Eagleton to Sargent Shriver.

I think the lone exception was when Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. Johnson expected to be the nominee, but Kennedy surprised a lot of people by being the nominee. I feel that we may see a repeat of this should Clinton choose Obama. I can't see that happening if Obama gets the nomination. Obama may choose an African-American as his choice.

Having said that, I think Hillary can stand up to McCain in debates, but I have a feeling that McCain could tear Obama apart in debates.

Wouldn't it be funny that if Hillary is elected president, that it would be like a battle between the Bushes and the Clintons in the last 20 years or so.

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

CrazyFlamingos

__________________
Karmageddon is near!

"I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." -- Frederick Douglass

nuttyjoe

I think they both can stand uo to McCain in debates. McCain can only talk about his military experience and hope that America equates that with leadership as a whole.
Have you wondered why McCain will not discuss the economy? He has no clue; that's why! And this would lead to years of unchecked government wasteful spending-as if we don't already have enough of that.
Everybody seems to be backsliding to "race". Obama is not; and has not made this a part of his campaign. If he were the nominee; I believe he would offer the Vice-Presidency to John Edwards, John Kerry, or Bill Richardson.
My father made an interesting comment about the Obama/Clinton situation:
"Right now they are like two scorpions fighting in a tight space. One will be totally destroyed, and the other will not survive for long afterwards".
He said he read a quote close to this in some Tom Clacy book years ago; but couldn't remember which one.
I actually agree with his assessment.

highway80west

Perhaps you are right, CF. Like Yoda always say: "Hard to predict the future is."

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

highway80west

Bill Richardson might be an ideal choice.

I hope that McCain won't bring up Bill Clinton's draft-dodging issue should he ever debate with Hillary, since McCain himself is a former POW.

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

Katczinsky

I'm afraid this is where you're dead wrong, garysher. If there is an illusion in this equation it is the illusion of Clinton 'coming back'. In reality, the only come back kid on March 4th was Obama. Clinton had 20-point leads in Texas and Ohio just a few weeks before the election, and Obama was able to close the gap to about 10 in Ohio and create a tie in Texas (actually, Obama will get the most delegates out of Texas because the delegates from the primary will be split 50-50, and he'll win the caucus). So in reality, Obama's delegate lead remains virtually untouched.

Clinton needed to win both Ohio and Texas by wide margins for her to be able to have enough delegates by the convention. She failed at that and now it seems as if the only way she can win the nomination is by the virtue of superdelegates and good negotiation skills at the national convention. Obama only needs to retain his lead until he passes the delegate majority mark.

If Clinton is the nominee, it will be like when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. It's a dramatic analogy but I believe it's an accurate one. Hope and enthusiasm on the left will die or live with the fate of the Obama campaign.

The very bad thing for Clinton is that she's been running her entire campaign on illusions. The illusion of inevitability, the illusion of experience, and the illusion of trust. In reality she doesn't have all that much more experience than Obama, and probably less in actually getting things passed in the Senate. Obama frequently is able to reach across the isle to Republicans, whilst Clinton promised hundreds of thousands of jobs in New York but instead upstate New Yorkers received an unemployment increase. She likes to create the illusion that she'd be the most qualified one to make an important decision on her toes when 'that phone rings at 3 am', when in actuality it was Clinton who supported the war authorization and supported NAFTA. It was Obama that was opposed to both at the beginning.

Also, one of the biggest illusions that Clinton seems to be running on, and what you seem to buy into, is her electability. I have no idea where Clinton supporters got that idea; but they seem to be completely ignorant of the large Clinton-hate machine the Republicans have built up. Poll after poll where McCain is up against the Democratic candidates, Obama does better. Clinton likes to cite her victories of big states as evidence of electability; what does that mean? We don't need a Democratic candidate that can win states like New York and California, we need a candidate that can win the mid/western and southern states; states that may have otherwise gone Republican. If Clinton is elected to the Presidency, and that's a large if, then we could see the resurgance of the Republican Party and the death of any Democratic popularity gained during the disastrous Bush administration; possibly causing Republicans to win the house and/or senate. It won't be too far off from the Bill Clinton years.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

garysher

If you want to talk about illusions then you should mention Obama - his whole campaign is based on illusion!

And as you point out he has failed to beat Hillary in any of the big states so far - the ones who pay all the Federal bills and subsidies those empty "flyover" states.

Even with all his "momentum" he failed to beat Hillary in Texas, and she beat him comfortably in Ohio.

And she won Michigan and Florida - two more large states - that sooner or later will have to be counted. Several million voters cannot be ignored just because of childish Dem party politics.

All the nonsense about hating Hillary is irrelevant - 99.99% of voters will never meet her let alone spend time getting to know her.

As the weeks roll by and McCain's team start to beat up Obama we'll see who comes out looking the most electable.

We need someone with Hillary's feistiness to portray McCain for what he is - Bush Lite.

I still think the best result would be a Clinton/Obama ticket and based on her onterviews this morning she's starting to agree with me.

I wonder of she reads my posts?

__________________

Gadgetory

Well said garysher. I find him childish to be truthful relying on the lowest common denominator every single time and he says nothing of relevance just the 'dream' he has to change DC. Does DC know?? Because without the consent of DC no-one will change anything..its rhetoric...he has bumper sticker slogans to spare

He has no achievements of any kind domestic or foreign. Whilst Hilary may not be the most likeable of candidates ever, but its actually not suppose to be a personality contest. Its about who will be best for our Nation and by extension because what we do effects everyone else, the rest of the world. And someone with no experience of any kind and someone no-one outside the US heard of before 6 months ago and have never met is not the person.

Given time I think he will be a great leader but McCain will eat him alive. McCain is way to caustic and quick witted for this guy to handle, not because Obama is not intelligent, of course he is, but mainly because McCain has so much political experience. Hilary is a much better suited candiate to go against McCain. He jumps positions all the time because he will not take a stance, which just makes him McCain canon fodder. The "We can Do it"?? bumper sticker is just not going to cut it.

During this never ending campaign I have been amazed at the amount of people who whilst trying to avoid sounding racist have had no issue with sounding totally sexist some of the time bordering on mysoginistic including Obama himself...its a sad indictment on the political process IMO...stick to the facts at issue not her gender or his race or vice versa.