Forget an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket

Socrtease

Verified User
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/roland.martin/index.html

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor


(CNN) -- Democrats across the country are abuzz over the possibility of the "dream ticket" featuring Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama running for the White House in November.

In the words of one of "The Sopranos" characters, "Fuggetaboutit!"

Look, this might sound exciting and history-making to have a woman and an African-American competing against the Republicans, but there are multiple reasons why this won't happen.

1. Clinton will not be overshadowed by an underling. Clinton is hugely popular in Democratic circles, but truth be told, that pales in comparison to the love and affection showered on Obama. This is a guy who brings people to tears just by speaking, and attracts folks on the left, right and the disenfranchised.

When you have the children of elected officials putting pressure on their parents (Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is one example.) to support this guy, you know he is touching people in a place others haven't in 40 years. The role of a VP is to be supportive of a presidential candidate, not someone who overshadows them.

2. Obama would not want to carry Clinton baggage. He has offered a vision of change, and having to answer to the years of strife under the Clintons would be too much. It would make sense to have a fresh face serving as his vice president who doesn't engender anger among some in the Democratic Party, and definitely the GOP. An Obama run would be about going after Republicans and independents, and Clinton being on the ticket would make that very difficult.

3. Way too much bad blood between these two during this campaign. A lot of folks say that George H.W. Bush rankled Ronald Reagan by declaring his economic plan "voodoo economics." That didn't keep Reagan from adding Bush to the ticket. But Bush was one of these loyal guys who would have done anything for the party ... and himself. I don't see that for Clinton and Obama.

Sure, their attacks on one another are what you expect in a campaign, but it has gotten very personal. Obama says she is a return to the "politics of old," and that doesn't bring a smile to her face. The race-baiting Southern Strategy used by former President Bill Clinton and the surrogates of Sen. Clinton have absolutely angered Obama's camp. There is too much blood on the floor, and you just don't forget that.

4. Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Clinton. She went through the behind-the-scenes battles with Al Gore when he was her husband's vice president. She's not interested in second fiddle and doesn't want to have to fight to be on the stage. For her, it's all or nothing. She's also 60, and being VP to Obama means that if he wins two terms, she'll be 68 running for the highest office in the land. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but she'll have to confront the skeptics who are snipping at the heels of Sen. John McCain, claiming he's too old.

5. Obama doesn't want to be an LBJ. When Lyndon Baines Johnson was the vice president under President John F. Kennedy, he was ostracized and marginalized because of the influence of Robert F. Kennedy. With Bill Clinton serving as consigliere to a President Hillary Clinton, Obama would be on the outside looking in. He knows the likelihood of him doing anything of substance and having influence in a Clinton administration.

Former Democratic candidate Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, when asked if he wanted to be her VP, he said competing with Bill Clinton isn't his cup of tea. Some would say that serving as VP two terms under Clinton would give Obama administrative experience, and he would be 54 when he could run, but I just don't buy it.

Now, as a way out, I would expect to see these two on a ticket only if Clinton is the nominee and they run the numbers and determine that the best chance of winning would be with him. She wants to be president that bad and would discount the bad blood. Then, they would hope he accept it.

I just don't see any of it happening. This might be seen as a dream ticket, but it is not a match made in heaven.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University, and he is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.
 
Well good, because I wouldn't for Clinton just because Obama was on the ticket, and I wouldn't vote for Obama IF Clinton was on his ticket.
 
I think this guy is right on every point.

I don't.

Stranger bedfellows are strewn throughout American political history .. and the democrats know that ticket is unbeatable.

Of course, I'm hoping it never happens and Obama wins the nomination .. but the alternative is a warmonger with his finger on the button.

Obama has not ruled it out.
 
I don't.

Stranger bedfellows are strewn throughout American political history .. and the democrats know that ticket is unbeatable.

Of course, I'm hoping it never happens and Obama wins the nomination .. but the alternative is a warmonger with his finger on the button.

Obama has not ruled it out.

I don't think Clinton-Obama is at all unbeatable.

I think Obama-Anyone Else would be competitive.

I think Clinton-Anyone Else is downright vulnerable.

Clinton-Obama is better than Clinton without her, but it would not be a forgone conclusion and would end up being decided by the dirty politics and fearmongering tactics employed in October before the election.

There is a sense of Obama being "above the fray" and while he will certainly still be attacked viciously, he can credibly and categorically dismiss it in a way that Clinton cannot.
 
I don't.

Stranger bedfellows are strewn throughout American political history .. and the democrats know that ticket is unbeatable.


I believe with Clinton on an Obama ticket, they are certainly more vulnerable to defeat.

If the nominee is McCain, the Democrats need only appear new and fresh and they will win under intense dissatisfaction among the conservative base, some of whom will even vote for Obama.

Clinton will energize more red-state, blue-state polarization, and there aren't enough votes in just the solid Blue States.
 
I believe with Clinton on an Obama ticket, they are certainly more vulnerable to defeat.

If the nominee is McCain, the Democrats need only appear new and fresh and they will win under intense dissatisfaction among the conservative base, some of whom will even vote for Obama.

Clinton will energize more red-state, blue-state polarization, and there aren't enough votes in just the solid Blue States.

I don't believe that Clinton would accept VP on an Obama ticket.

She needs him, he doesn't need her.
 
I don't think Clinton-Obama is at all unbeatable.

I think Obama-Anyone Else would be competitive.

I think Clinton-Anyone Else is downright vulnerable.

Clinton-Obama is better than Clinton without her, but it would not be a forgone conclusion and would end up being decided by the dirty politics and fearmongering tactics employed in October before the election.

There is a sense of Obama being "above the fray" and while he will certainly still be attacked viciously, he can credibly and categorically dismiss it in a way that Clinton cannot.

Obama means an energized electorate across the board and there aren't two republicans you can rub together to beat him.

Clinton means an energized electorate, especially women, and Mccain wil be EASY to beat.
 
I don't believe that Clinton would accept VP on an Obama ticket.

She needs him, he doesn't need her.

Yeah I don't realistically think she would either, I was just using it as a hypothetical.

I honestly think that a lot of the broad support for Obama you see among independents and Republicans would not carry over to a Clinton-Obama ticket just because she made him VP.

There would be a sense of Obama being sullied, and I hope he wouldn't do it because it could damage any future Presidential run he may have hoped for.
 
Yeah I don't realistically think she would either, I was just using it as a hypothetical.

I honestly think that a lot of the broad support for Obama you see among independents and Republicans would not carry over to a Clinton-Obama ticket just because she made him VP.

There would be a sense of Obama being sullied, and I hope he wouldn't do it because it could damage any future Presidential run he may have hoped for.

I hope this is all a moot discussion.
 
I believe with Clinton on an Obama ticket, they are certainly more vulnerable to defeat.

If the nominee is McCain, the Democrats need only appear new and fresh and they will win under intense dissatisfaction among the conservative base, some of whom will even vote for Obama.

Clinton will energize more red-state, blue-state polarization, and there aren't enough votes in just the solid Blue States.
God I have been saying this for weeks now. A vote for Hillary is a vote for 4 more years of Republican rule in whitehouse, with more wars against more people that didn't attack us. Clinton will polarize the conservatives that were not going to vote for McCain so much that they will come out to vote. Short of a Clinton/Christ campaign, there are not enough votes to keep McCain out of office. The Women's vote will not be enough to over come the women that HATE Hillary and will vote against her and all the Republicans that HATE Hillary and will vote against her and the Independents that just don't like Hillary and will vote against her.

Truth be told, the Republicans are TERRIFIED of a McCain Obama race. McCain will look like Nixon and Obama like a well tanned Kennedy. The age difference will be magnified where as Hillary on the same stage with Johnny boy will not have the same affect. Obama will win the election in November, Hillary will lose the election in November.
 
Obama means an energized electorate across the board and there aren't two republicans you can rub together to beat him.

Clinton means an energized electorate, especially women, and Mccain wil be EASY to beat.

That's what people said about Bush in 2004. One can never underestimate the potent combination of a candidate that is perceived as strong on defense or militarily experienced and an ongoing military conflict.

I think McCain could beat Hillary in the primary without too much difficulty. Obama in her VP slot might add an extra obstacle, but it would not be invulnerable or a shoe-in.

McCain can "out-war" Hillary in a general election. They both supported the war originally and still support it, he just supports it more.

He would have more trouble using that tactic with a candidate who was against it in 2002, and against it today when it has become an obvious failure.
 
An energized republican electorate is still a distinct minority in American politics today.

They can get energized all they want .. they still lose.
 
when is Ron dropping out?

He's not. We're going for all the delegates we can muster.

Washington on Saturday, Alaska, California, West Virginia, Colorado tomorrow...there are many remaining opportunities to have the delegates that make the difference in the majority.

The plan is to force a brokered convention and empower the movement for years to come.

Some may consider it a poor example in terms of its results, but the Robertson campaign of years past, although unsuccessful in gaining the nomination, controlled the party effectively for many years thereafter.
 
That's what people said about Bush in 2004. One can never underestimate the potent combination of a candidate that is perceived as strong on defense or militarily experienced and an ongoing military conflict.

I think McCain could beat Hillary in the primary without too much difficulty. Obama in her VP slot might add an extra obstacle, but it would not be invulnerable or a shoe-in.

McCain can "out-war" Hillary in a general election. They both supported the war originally and still support it, he just supports it more.

He would have more trouble using that tactic with a candidate who was against it in 2002, and against it today when it has become an obvious failure.

That's just theatre.

McCain is easy and would have been out of the rce long ago if there was any republican candidate with any semblance of being electable.
 
Ron Paul has 9 delegates. That's better than having none, but he's not going to make any real difference at the convention, with McCain and Romneys thousand delegates each voting the same way.
 
Back
Top