Many people have been dismissive of a Democratic “dream ticket,” with Barack Obama as the presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton in the VP slot. For example, DailyKos, which is strongly pro-Obama, has been sharply dismissive of the idea, for a number of reasons. First, Obama has been putting himself forward as the “change” candidate, and the Clintons represent the opposite of “change.” Second, as a Senator from New York, Clinton doesn’t deliver “geographically” the way someone like Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico) might [but what about Arkansas?]. Third, she is way too big a personality to be comfortable sticking to whatever message and strategy the Obama campaign is likely to devise. Fourth, all this talk of Hillary supporters defecting to McCain seems rather suspect — when it comes down to it, are committed Democrats really going to vote for someone who is pro-Life, pro-Iraq War, etc.? And finally, most people presume the two of them, by now, can’t stand each other.
Sam Arora thinks otherwise. 
He was, until recently, a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, and is still described as a “Hillary-ite,” though he is no longer with the Clinton campaign. He and some other Hillaryites have started a site called “Vote Both,” to promote the idea of a Democratic dream ticket, with either of the two candidates on top. Their project has gotten some media attention, and profiles in articles like this one. Sam Arora was also interviewed on TV here (check it out — he’s a pretty smooth talker!).
SM had a post on Sam Arora (the same Sam Arora?) here, when he was a contestant for a reality TV show. Sam was also one of the “50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill” a couple of years ago (see this). (I will leave it to others to ascertain whether Sam Arora really is, in fact, “hot,” as he has often been described.)
I was earlier skeptical about the joint ticket idea, but now I’m starting to think it could work, as long as the two of them can come to agreement on strategy and message (and agree that Bill should go back to Chappaqua, and stay there until January 2009). Obama is still a “change” candidate, but after Reverend Wright, he no longer seems quite as fresh or revolutionary as he once appeared, and I don’t think working with Clinton will tarnish his image. Finally, any personal bitterness the two of them might feel for one another would undoubtedly go out the window if they were to win the election in November.
Hillary already has been the VP for eight years. Why would she be interested in the same job again?
Moreover, rumour has it that MichelleObama and Hillary cannot stand each other.
M. Nam
No. Bill should go back to Chappaqua until January 20, 2017.
Clinton might be thinking about the long game. If Obama wins the nomination but loses the presidential election, better she not go down with that ship as the VP candidate. Better to position herself for winning the nomination 4 years from now instead.
Clinton might be thinking about the long game. If Obama wins the nomination but loses the presidential election, better she not go down with that ship as the VP candidate. Better to position herself for winning the nomination 4 years from now instead.
On the other hand, a fair number of people might blame her for providing the Republicans with exactly the ammunition they need to attack Obama — and contributing to his potential defeat. The best way to end that is to commit to helping him win to begin with. If he still loses, she will be absolved.
If Obama picked Richardson, would the KKK and other whackos have less incentive to go after him? Not sure, but considering McCain’s age and all the worries about Obama’s safety, the veep choices may get more scrutiny than usual.
Can anyone name a potential veep nominee who brings more to the table than Hillary? Only one comes to my mind: John Edwards.
Whoever gets the nomination needs to pick a white male (preferably Southern, preferably with some military cred) if they want to win the general election.
Hot.
It’s the same Sam Arora. He was my intern in 2002 and he’s amazing.
Must we? I hope not. But I’ve been away, so who knows what the newest class of commenters is like. Maybe they’ll want to discuss the story. One hopes.
Hillary Clinton as veep = Dick Cheney in a pant suit Do not want
Ek Myan mein do talwar kabhi bhaith nahi sakte 🙂
Must we? I hope not. But I’ve been away, so who knows what the newest class of commenters is like. Maybe they’ll want to discuss the story. One hopes.
Hi Anna — I only put that in because it appears one of his main claims to fame on the internet at least is “Capitol Hill’s Hottest…” Maybe now with the Vote Both media coverage Google will start to rank his more serious activities highly as well.
Since when do the Clinton’s represent the opposite of change? This is news to me.. Clinton and Obama have even admitted that they are much more similar than they are different in both their ideas and views.. between them, it mostly comes down to charisma vs experience
Obama is definitely not my favorite candidate (though I have no intention of throwing my support behind John McCain), but I would be much more inclined to support an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket if it were possible. If either one of them can set their pride aside and do something good for the Democrats, then maybe. But I doubt it’s going to happen.
And yes, Sam Arora is a hottie.
This will be the general election, not a democratic primary fight. Any strengths Hillary Clinton brings to the VP slot (remembering that most people don’t pay much attention to the VP slot) are better served by a Jim Webb or someone similar. The whole idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket (sorry hillary-supporters, Clinton ain’t going to be the nominee. period.) is predicated on extrapolating conditions in a democratic primary season to a general election fight; I don’t think this analogy applies enough to justify her being on the ticket and bringing her high negative ratings (and related clintonian scandals) along for the ride.
To be blunt, McCain’s recent comments on appointing right-wing supreme court judges, coupled with the fact that JP Stevens is 88, should give any hardcore Clinton supporter (and they are demographically more likely to be women) pause. With the liberal/moderate judges older than the conservative ones, regarding things like roe v wade, I think a democratic nominee, such as obama, will be far more desirable.
Things change rapidly. not so long ago the worry was that obama wasn’t ‘black enough’ to get the white vote. I will concede that if Clinton proceeds down the path she embarked upon yesterday (asserting that hard-working working class people are white people) she will get the divisions needed to perhaps necessitate her being placed on the ticket. somehow, however, I think being a VP with presumably little influence on the president would not suit her well. A future as senate majority leader seems more a propos.
Magic ball says “doubtful” for Obama/Clinton 08.
There’s always this possibility..
M. Nam
between hillary’s astonishing “hard-working white americans” comment two days ago, a not-even-coded racist appeal of extraordinary brazenness and ugliness, and her gas-tax-holiday pandering, which is an insult to everyone’s intelligence, she really shouldn’t be qualified to be obama’s dogcatcher at this point, much less his (or anyone else’s) v.p. candidate.
but party unity has a way of bandaging all kinds of wounds…
You Amreekans play too nice. If Obama were a thug pol from my home state Maharashtra, forget #2 slot, he would’ve driven her out of senate. Sends a message, nothing personal.
Sam Aurora is way hot! He’s got that 1050s slick hairstyle that is evocative of a young Nehru. (For now, we’ll ignore the receding hairline, meaning he’ll be quite bald by 45.)
Anyway, the fact that someone would spend any amount of time (or even make a full time job out of it) to promote an Obama-Clinton ticket, tells me that he’s a twit. What an absurd idea. He must not have read the papers in the last few months.
If there is one man who can unite Obama and Clinton it’s Sam Arora. He’s the political Tim Tebow. Chuck Norris is the white Sam Arora.
I don’t think it will happen. Obama will have to hire a food-taster 😉
In any case, I don’t think Hillary’s comment about “…hard-working whites…” is a “not-even-coded racist appeal”. She is simply expressing publicly what has happened in the primaries. Blue-collar Democrats (aka Reagan Democrats) are just not gravitating to Obama. Whether they do so in the GE is up in the air. The argument about JPStevens being 88 does not resonate with this group. The Democrats have been making this argument about the courts for years, and it doesn’t work; Gore made it, Kerry made it (maybe even Dukakis made it). Bupkus.
I hate the idea of a ticket with Clinton. I’ll just quote what I wrote on my blog a few days ago… “I have never understood why Hillary has not lost credibility as a viable candidate. And now they are talking about an Obama-Clinton ticket? But why? With experience, a brand-name in politics and a ton of money; she was unable to beat a junior senator from Illinois. What has she actually done that is so worth noting (in terms of bringing in the votes)? Except benefit from the great white fear such as this woman who believes Obama is the anti-christ from the Middle-east.”
Also I don’t understand:
Really? How so? If anything, he seems fresher and more revolutionary (to me) after the whole Wright affair. It would have been so easy for him to cut off ties immediately and distance himself. Instead he used the opportunity to speak about race in one of the most eloquent speeches on the subject by a politician in recent times. Only when Wright left him no choice (w/ comments at the National Press Club no less!), did he take an unequivocal stand.
Just because both are democrats does not mean they are the same. Clinton has shown the kind of bull-headed, irrational, selfish stubbornness that I find queasily familar. Throughout her campaign, she has pandered and played to whoever she has an audience with (gas tax is just one example), has lied, and has spouted all kinds of nonsense about Obama being elitist (the gall of a millionnaire calling someone who comes from a middle-class/working class background an elitist stuns the mind). Her vision, her message is fundamentally different.
libran38,
of course it is! “hard-working” + “white” + “american,” spoken run-on stylee in the current context (and listen to the audio for the full effect, it’s quite chilling) is as racist an appeal as it gets, and i might add, xenophobic to boot. now whether this is conscious or sub-conscious on her part, aware or unaware, i have not idea, but it shouldn’t be on us to parse that. she is a political leader and fancies herself qualified to be president, so we should hold her to a high standard.
even peggy noonan (in today’s wsj) figured it out. it’s that obvious.
truly disgusting, and i hope desis understand that this concerns them, not just “white” versus “black” “americans.”
Not sure about a Clinton/Obama ticket, especially after seeing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMxPajbycgY
sonia, you say, “…spouted all kinds of nonsense about Obama being elitist…”
She didn’t say that Obama was elitist, but his remarks were. You should go back and read the transcript of the debate. She makes that very clear.
Quiet Storm, I guess I don’t see it that way, regardless of what Peggy Noonan says. Are you saying that she cannot publicly state the demographics that voted for each candidate?
by the way.. in case you hadn’t heard… Obama’s already asked someone to his running mate:)
Actually she does say that. Not in the debates, but in an interview with umm… I totally don’t remember. But you can find the footage at Daily Show. (not the highest source for citation, but it’s there). And the context in which she said it was even more smarmy. She said something like, “he did some san francisco benefit with $1000 exclusive fund-raiser”… in other words, “how dare he fundraise for his campaign. Elitist!” And again this coming from a Clinton … (blechhkk).
Also if you are referring to teh “white people vote for me”… the inherent wrongness of that statement goes deeper than “stating demographics”. Teh problem part is where she shamelessly panders to white voters and let’s face it, white fear. “White people won’t vote for a black president.” —something she wants you to wholeheartedly believe. Even despite stark facts to the contrary.
I would rather be in country run by Bush the 3rd then have to have Hillary on the ticket to beg for racist voters to choose them. If you really need them then it has to be Edwards, who is every older white woman’s wet dream or Richardson, who is half white and between Obama and him they make one whole white man so that solves that problem.
I dont put it past her 🙂
I was just beginning to enjoy the fact that she is not going to be the President and you had to post this. Not that I am a big fan of the Bam but he if he is a real patriot he can spare the country the Clinton drama for the next 4 months . With Hill we get Bill and his constant need for attention.
I don’t think Clinton is providing the Republican with any special material to bring up during the election. The main thing she talks about is experince, I think the old white man (Mccain) will bring this up during and would have anyways even if Hillary hasn’t mentioned it.
One thing that Hillary hasn’t brought up is Michelle Obama’s Thesis and I think the republican will use it in the future.
31 · Jimmy said
Well, McCain can runs ads showing the 2nd most powerful democrat in the country saying the nominee of her party isn’t qualifyed to be commander in chief, his only acomplishment being a speech he gave 4yrs ago. That’s pretty good stuff.
No thank you
Webb is the best fit – might be able to turn VA blue, below the Mason Dixon line, has military experience, executive experience (Secretary of Navy) and served under Reagan so he’ll help with the independents.
Clark – you really can’t beat Supreme Commander of NATO when it comes to military experience, but he offers no regional advantage since he’s from Illionis
Rendell – experienced, can really help in winning Pennsylvania, is a strong Clinton supporter, so it would help heal the rift without putting Hillary on the ticket
I don’t think Richardson is a good fit for VP – let’s be honest, race is a factor. He’d be better suited for something like Secretary of State.
Sebelius would help with the female Hillary supporters, but she can’t counter the national security aspect. She might be needed if McCain picks Rice, which I doubt he will.
“of course it is! “hard-working” + “white” + “american,” spoken run-on stylee in the current context (and listen to the audio for the full effect, it’s quite chilling) is as racist an appeal as it gets,”
To you yes, and to other poc’s, but people the most behind a candidate because he/she is of their own color, ethnicity, or religion are always the ones to be most offended at the thought anyone else would vote on such criteria. Let’s say you’re a typical-white-person youtubing Rev. Wright and his allies, with Obama thinking he explains it all by referencing his “typical-white-person” grandmother’s crime of being afraid of crime–need I continue? Of course you may hear what you want to hear. Bill & Hill spent 18 years thinking they had the black vote in a bag, not without good reason. Then up pops the Big O, and poof go those votes. She’s bitter mon. and arrogant. She didn’t commit to the fact that most blacks will always vote for blacks, browns doubtless will vote heavily for a brown should one ever run; and mestizos for the first mestizo to run, likely to occur in the next couple decades; and in the privacy of their voting booths, whites will tend to vote for whites. Obama is getting most blacks, college students of various races and professional liberals, especially those in gated communities or making more than 100,000 a year. Not so much Hispanics or Asians (meaning Korean and Chinese descent), or the mass of whites, truth be told, though he’s getting more of them than anyone would have thought possible two years ago. However, I didn’t see a single Obama sign driving through Pennsylvania (yeah, I’m sure they were there, but Ron Paul was all I saw.) I didn’t think HC had a chance among working class whites–the firemen at 9/11 booed her when she appeared at a rally in October 2001; but the fact she’s still viable shows how deep white mistrust runs–possibly as deep as black mistrust. “here’s my vote, Hil; all’s forgotten.” But no black votes. The Clinton’s thought they were special, atypical. They aren’t. Personally I can’t stand to listen to any of these phonies. The more I’ve read about all of them the more their rhetoric rings hollow. What are people smoking to think the lucky winner will “change” anything but his/her own residence and social networking?
Their butts are all run by interests bigger than them. The president of the United States has less power than a mayor. as an aside: People have been making fun of Bobby Jindal’s beliefs, but I swear, even as an agnostic, I think he may be one of the few pols I could actually stomach voting for, and not because he’s desi, but because I actually think he’s telling the truth about his thoughts and is secure in himself and genuinely able to relate to people of different creed, color, etc. I cannot imagine his exocism beliefs influencing legislature, though god knows, many politicians are sorely in need of exocism.
Now. A little Nostradamus channeling just for fun…. The office of “president” will eventually be admitted to be a mere figurehead, and a sort of committee government will be what actually governs–as it does now, for all intents and purposes, but it is not now elected and is not acknowledged and is composed heavily of corporate interests. It must be public and elected…something tells me this will happen in this country before the end of this century. The country will also divide into regions with different forms of governance. The feelings of division and alienation are that serious. Manhattan and other sacred money-making spaces will become sovereign. Money will unite us up to a point as long as enough people are making a lot of it. But when a unified U.S. ceases to be profitable, it will redistribute itself. Might not be a bad thing. At least we wouldn’t have to go through any more of these freakin’ election horse races waiting for the poor slobs to break their ankles and get put down, and the one who finishes first to get a blue ribbon ticket to live in the White House for at least 4 years in the service of his/her handlers.
nahin na koi rehna de, daal to khilane de, dahi to pilane de. –Baba Sehgal (main bhi sayaana)
Just in, in time for Mother’s Day via TaylorMarsh.com. Thought it would be fun to share here, esp given the normal desi parental assumption that their dreams will be fulfilled via their children.
And Amardeep, I reluctantly disagree with you…blaming Hillary Clinton for pointing our Barry’s faults is like shooting the messenger. And it’s not like the Republians would’ve gone easy on him has she not run a campaign against him – not like they have no oppo research wing, right?
Plus, they can find ever more credible, liked-by-their-TA surrogates and spokespersons than a Democratic former First Lady, even if she is Hillary Clinton, to make the case effectively against “57 state” Barack and Michelle “I want to rip [Bill Clinton]’s eyes out” Obama.
I do think she should let this ship sink and make her bid for 2012 in time. If McCain can run in 2000 and win the nomination in 2008, she can surely run in 2012. There’s more voters who supported her for Democratic nominee than ANY other Presidential nominee, Republican OR Democrat, in the HISTORY of the United States. Clearly, not too many of these voters blog on dailykos.com :-).
38 · Chevalier said
What? Of all things you can point against the Obamas, you pick two off-the cuff-statements that were clearly jokes?
Are you hoping for a Republican victory so the old gal can run again in four years? Oh and by the way, the Republicans have, to date, amassed 1600 pages of opposition research against Hilldawg which they are chomping at the bit to throw at her. Obama has shown tremendous restraint in not knee-capping her with this stuff just because the Republicans will inevitably do the same.
38 · Chevalier said
Chevalier:
I’ve notived a lot of the more strident pro-clinton/anti-obama supporters use “barry” instead of “barack.” why is that?
40 · Manju said
“Priya, Priya, Priya”
sam is on sepia mutiny!!!
i go to school with him. i feel famous by association.
41 · Nayagan said
well, something tells whoever calls him barry is going to feel like ernie very soon.
Apologies for the long comment, but here i go…
I think it would be a grave mistake on obama’s part (and not quite uniting for the democratic party) to enlist Hillary Clinton as Veep. It would be such a double standard for Obama to do that.
Obama’s anti-war, and never wanted to invade Iraq to begin with. Clinton won’t apologize for her pro-war vote, and recently made comments about wanting to OBLITERATE the COUNTRY of Iran if they attacked Israel (sounding quite bush-ish). Obama wants to talk to leaders of other countries that we might not agree with. Clinton doesn’t.
Most importantly, Obama’s got a huge 50 state strategy going on, it’s quite impressive, he’s showing that every state counts, and has hired community organizers in every state (locals) and has engaged record numbers of citizens in the electoral process and in grassroots organizing. He’s already improved the popularity of Dems running for congress in traditionally red states, and cares about all the states. Clinton’s repeatedly talked about important states and states that don’t matter. She expensively hires outsiders (folks from other states) to “organize” in other states. She doesn’t care about half the states in America. And she’s offended many states’ citizens in the process.
Obama’s playing clean. Clinton’s publicly said that he’s not worthy of being president, and less so than McCain, and that all he has to say for himself is a speech in 2004. WOW. On that note, people here keep talking about Obama/Clinton meaning hope AND experience. WHAT??? Obama’s got a total of TWELVE years as elected official by the time he would be president. Clinton will have a total of EIGHT years of elected official by that same time. So we’ve gotta quit the talking points about her having more experience than he has. Plus his accomplishments in that time (major ethics reform passed, anti-cluster bombs and mines, major other pieces of legislation passed in both illinois and nationally) really beat out any of her accomplishments in that time (renaming post offices (for REAL), voting AGAINST banning cluster bombs and mines, voting to call Iran’s national guard a terrorist organization).
It is statistically impossible for Clinton to get the nomination now (for her to get more superdelegates or more of the popular vote or more states). So why is she in the race? Does she have a plan? She hasn’t revealed one if she does. So she’s dividing the party and taking up resources for no good reason other than… what? And she’s run her campaign into debt over and over again.
There are VERY clear differences in obama’s and clinton’s approach to the issues. And she’s pulled out all the stops and has used right-wing tactics right out of karl rove’s playbook to attack Obama. It wouldn’t make any sense for obama to reach out to clinton as his VP. I personally think Obama should go for Kathleen Sebelius for VP. Or ANYONE BUT CLINTON.
In other news — Sonia (comment 22) — RAWK. ditto that.
Pols (comment 34) talks about Clinton and the black vote:
Um, no. Up popped the Big O, and Clinton for a while had MORE popular support among blacks than the Big O did. She and Bill did it to themselves — they repeatedly made the black vote seem unimportant in various remarks along the campaign trail. And the most recent comments about the need for the dem candidate to win the blue collar hard working vote are outwardly racist (and Clinton TOTALLY knows that). She’s also been meeting with the undecided superdelegates to try to convince them that Obama won’t be able to win the white vote and that they need to jump to her side because of that. Looking back, I really respect John Edwards for getting out of the race fast and telling people that he did NOT want to be the candidate that folks who didn’t want to vote for a woman or a black man voted for (knowing that MOST of his supporters did NOT fit that bill, but hearing that some did). Clinton is doing just the opposite. She HAD huge swaths of the black vote and has since been losing them for good reason. To chalk up the black vote’s support for Obama as “blacks will vote for blacks” is just absolutely WRONG. I’m a female and i won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a WOMAN. She’s a war-monger, is divisive to the party for the reasons mentioned above, and in my opinion is hugely less of a feminist than obama is. Obama’s got more women on his side, and it’s not because they hate themselves. Likewise let’s give black voters some credit and some brains here by respecting their vote and not attributing it to just voting for the person who looks like them. And by the way, Obama has HUGE portions of the blue collar white vote. That’s a fact that Clinton’s trying to create lies around. Again.
Wow. I just took a look at the Vote Both website. There are lies and damned lies on it. Sam Arora and his folks are totally misleading voters (this is not new among the Clinton folks — she’s STILL spreading lies about the election). On the VoteBoth website, the letter that they ask you to write to undeclared superdelegates includes the following talking point:
Fascinating. First of all, Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote (49.5%), the delegate count, and the superdelegate count. One of the VoteBoth founders, Adam Parkhomenko, recently admitted on a news interview that Obama will likely have at least 50.1% of the popular vote (and it will likely be even more than that). Second of all, since when did this qualification of whether or not a candidate receives half or more of the popular vote in a drawn out primary decide who should be on a ticket? (of note, Bill Clinton only received 52% of the popular vote in the 1992 dem primaries). Also, tons of polls in states like New York and New Jersey and California (states that Clinton won in the primaries) are as supportive of Obama in the general election (see Pollster for the actual results of recent polls in those states).
And third and most important, there’s an interesting trend here. We have people like George Stephanopolous (former Bill Clinton staffer and very loyal to the Clinton family) starting discussions on national television about the need for a “dream ticket” of both Obama and Clinton. And this VoteBoth site is VERY misleading — at the bottom of it there is a disclaimer:
However, both Adam Parkhomenko and Sam Arora were very recently staff on the Clinton campaign. Parkhomenko resigned from her campaign 3 weeks prior to starting this website (and had been the executive assistant to Clinton’s former campaign manager for years, and had also encouraged Clinton to run for president and was one of the first supporters of her PAC). Arora was recently a spokesperson for Clinton.
So sure the site’s not authorized by any candidate (and it’s very possible that Clinton has NOTHING to do with the site), but it’s definitely SHADY. And as the creator of Voteboth.org (a protest site to voteboth.com) states in the about section:
’nuff said.
Los Anjalis — nice to hear from you after a long time!
You make some good points, but you don’t address what I think might be an important issue here, which is the idea that Clinton will “do what it takes” to win. Obama does need someone who will play the “attack dog” role against the Republicans, and she has proven herself to be someone who can do that. I’m not sure Kathleen Sebelius, or one of the gray-haired elders in the Democratic party that have been mentioned (Biden, Dodd, etc.) for the VP slot are up to the task.
Another issue might be what I call the “appeal” voters. Here, one sould put aside actual records and strengths and weaknesses for a moment, and think “demographically” — as in, the millions of voters who don’t respond to detailed knowledge about a candidate, but who rather vote at a more visceral level. One candidate or another just “appeals” to them, and for the most part you aren’t going to change their opinion unless something extraordinary happens. Despite running aggressive campaigns in both Ohio and PA (and outspending Hillary, especially in the latter state), Obama was unable to quite break through to a sizeable chunk of the Democratic base.
It’s a mistake to see these voters as racist. Some of them may be, but for a good many of them the idea of an experienced person who talks the way Hillary talks just appeals to them more (she is really good on the stump and in debates).
In short, Hillary may have said and done many things in this campaign that are ethically problematic, but many of those sins haven’t really registered with most voters as much as they have with Obama supporters & party activists. The bottom line is, she can help Obama win, which is probably why he should consider picking her. (Though conditions are favorable for a Dem. win this fall, it is by no means going to be a cakewalk. He will need all the help he can get.)
Is an Obama/Edwards ticket out of the question? John Edwards certainly seems to be a fan of Obama…
amardeep, the assumption that hillary helps obama win is highly contestable. hillary is going to go out as a graceless loser, and that’s not a good energy to put in front of swing voters. beyond that, look to the “fav/unfav” i.e. the favorable versus unfavorable opinion rating of each poltician, which is one metric that actually has some usefulness. her unfavs have always been high and if anything are getting higher. obama needs to pick someone with lower unfavorables, at a minimum, and the assumption that such a person can’t also fight hard and take it to the opposition is false. i think the vice presidential nominee will be someone like mark warner of virginia, who is widely liked, can fight hard, and delivers a big swing state.
Obama cannot choose Clinton for the same reason McCain can’t choose Jindal. In both cases the choice of said VPs undermines the core argument in favor of the P. Change for Obama and experience for McCain.
47 · coach diesel said
that would make a lot of sense. edwards has a strong base and would help obama out with hard working americans, white americans; complementing obama’s base of lazy americans, black americans.
the problem is that edwards is considered particularly machiavellian in democratic circles. kerry, who is as responsible as anyone for obama’s rise, hates him now. he thinks he undermined him during the 2004 general and announced his run for ’08 when after promising kerry he’d give him right to first refusal.
i don’t think obama want to piss off kerry, and may view edwards suspiciously himself; but otherwise he’d make a good pick…purely politically speaking.
Yes, vote both. A McCain-Clinton ticket would be a very satisfactory end to Rush’s operation chaos.