Will Hillary Give Obama The Vice Pres Nod?

sozobe wrote:

That's familiar -- I think it was that Obama was saying he didn't want to be anyone's VP. That he wanted the presidential slot or nothing. Not sure though.

I think his wording was, "One doesn't run for Vice President".

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

He (Bayh) recently endorsed her, and my first thought was "he wants the VP slot."

Could happen.

I find this question wonderfully clarifying.

I think that choice would be disastrously stupid. All the name recognition and positive public response to Obama would be erased immediately. And not just that. If I were an african american, I would be deeply pissed that Obama had been passed up for another white person, particularly one who almost no one has ever heard of..."Will things NEVER change!?"

A Clark choice would be only slightly less disastrous.

I hadn't actually thought of this before, but I think circumstances are boxing Hillary in. I think she is going to have to offer it to Obama if she wins.

0 Replies

nimh

It's true that the next term and the term following look to be so volatile and unpredictable that absolutely no guarantee waits up the line if Obama takes a VP role. But I really hope he takes it if Hillary wins.

It is true that Cheney is unique as regards wielded power. But one might also consider the possibility that he has forged a new paradigm in this, one that will influence future pres/vice teams.

I don't consider it anything like a given that Hillary must, through some psychological need, actually wield sole and unchallenged power nor even be perceived to do so. I have no evidence to support that notion. I would actually consider something quite different to be likely, given her co-operative track record in the Senate and her relationship with Bill's aspirations.

So, if I'm close to correct about those things, then we are left with the questions about how Obama might relate to the vice role (or to some other role such as you imagine). I guess we'll see.

0 Replies

Al Gore lost after 2 Clinton terms despite surplus and terrific economy, no damaging war. VP not very promising for aspiring politician.

0 Replies

Blatham:

Quote:

I hadn't actually thought of this before, but I think circumstances are boxing Hillary in. I think she is going to have to offer it to Obama if she wins.

Blatham old shoe, you know I am fond of ya, and all due respect but I think you might be just a wee bit naive about the depth and breadth of Hillary's ambition, the casualness with which even a black man as formidable as Obama could be dissed, and a couple other things having to do with the politics of race in this country.

You and I already have a $10 bet that she will/will not offer it, but you're sounding more and more like an easy mark.

Have you ever heard that in terms of real cache and status in American society, of the 4 main groups it shakes down in order of precedence- white men, white women, black women, black men? If you haven't heard that, do you believe it?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

sozobe wrote:
That's familiar -- I think it was that Obama was saying he didn't want to be anyone's VP. That he wanted the presidential slot or nothing. Not sure though.

I think his wording was, "One doesn't run for Vice President".

Found this:

Quote:

Barack Obama isn't interested in running for vice president.

The Democratic presidential hopeful made that clear during an appearance Monday on CBS' ''Late Show With David Letterman.'' Letterman asked Obama if there had been any discussion of the Illinois senator sharing the Democratic ticket with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

''No, you don't run for second,'' Obama said. ''I don't believe in that.''

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/333938,040907obamadave.stng

0 Replies

She's not going to win the nomination, so who cares. you folks are eating up the narrative slop that the media is feeding you and instead of analyzing the positions of the candidates and how their policies might affect you and the country, you are dwelling on the horse race and that is exactly how the media controls you.

whose best for america and working people? it sure isn't hiliary clinton. she already has the nose of big business poking around under her tent, just look at her "alleged plans for health insurance, private funded, not single-payer, so she has already sold out to big business on the single most popular idea to the american people.

hil is a judas goat; as ambitious as her husband, but totally devoid of his empathy.

bad juju all the way around.

we'll have nothing to really separate the dem versus the republican in 2008, they're just sock puppets controlled by the multi-millionaires who actually own this country.

you know who actually have a far greater voice than the rest of us in the nation's fate?

political assassins.

0 Replies

So you're saying Edwards is going to win the nomination?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

whose best for america and working people? it sure isn't hiliary clinton. [..] just look at her "alleged plans for health insurance, private funded, not single-payer

Um. There's not a major Democratic candidate that is proposing a single-payer system. Not Edwards, not Obama, not Hillary.

You think Kucinich will be the nominee, then?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So you're saying Edwards is going to win the nomination?

i do.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

snood wrote:
So you're saying Edwards is going to win the nomination?

i do.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion - and I like Edwards!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
whose best for america and working people? it sure isn't hiliary clinton. [..] just look at her "alleged plans for health insurance, private funded, not single-payer

Um. There's not a major Democratic candidate that is proposing a single-payer system. Not Edwards, not Obama, not Hillary.

You think Kucinich will be the nominee, then?

see above, although Kucinich is fine with me,

btw: looking at health care as the "prol" that I am, Edwards proposes committing the necessary federal resources to allow states to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to serve all adults under the poverty line and all children and parents under 250 percent of the poverty line (about $50,000 for a family of four).

That is for all intents and purposes a national health program supported by the government for one-half of the US population, and neither clinton or obama come close to it.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
snood wrote:
So you're saying Edwards is going to win the nomination?

i do.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion - and I like Edwards!

Cycloptichorn

The day Al Gore says definitely NO is the day millions of us are heading over to the Edwards campaign. No other candidate has a truly progressive message on which to campaign. Clinton is in the pocket of business, Obama's blackness is his rallying point, and that will wear off when you get down to the lick log, but he isn't even a real progressive, he is just a moderate black man who was against the war.

Edwards will win in Iowa, he has strong union ties but unlike Gephardt in Iowa in 2004, has a much better organization on the ground. Edwards also is an outsider above the Washington DC fray. Clinton will win some elections for sure, but as soon as she is revealed to have a glass jaw she'll lose that image of imperviability that the media has built up around her. Then folks will have two choices either Edwards or Obama, and will support Edwards, because........

.......no one besides Edwards or Al Gore on the Democratic side can fuse the disparate factions of the Democratic Party together, Labor, working class, liberals, seniors, minorities, environmentalists, the young, and intellectuals during the next presidential election. The GOP would love to battle a black man or Hilary Clinton, which is why they talk of those two and ignore Edwards.

The message Edwards promotes of "Two America's" resonates profoundly with people who look around and see the rich getting richer as they themselves struggle to rise simply to the level of their own parent's economic standards.

Edwards promotes helping to give people dignity in their work, joy in the company of others and strength to be more than their surroundings. He is optimistic that we can beat these guys. We can fix the place, and make it a better nation.

The right wing and those brainwashed by them will screech "class warfare" all they want but the cat is out of the bag and that accusation can be met with, "yeah, and the rich are winning!"

Finally a personal antidote, I am in business with two men, one a PhD, born and raised in the North the other a good old boy born in the South, both good hard working men, who love their wives and adore their children, who voted for Bush twice. Each has said that they would not vote for Clinton but nod agreeably to voting for Gore or Edwards. Neither one has been converted to liberalism (regardless of my personal missionary work), but they have come to the conclusion that America's a mess and the GOP they voted for caused it. Both like the populist message of Edwards and plan on supporting him if he is the nominee in 2008.

These are the type of people who left the Democratic Party in 1980 to vote for Reagan, it is time for them to come home, just as its time for America to come home to the values that made it a city shining on a hill and the envy of the world.

If Al Gore doesn't pick up the torch John Edwards certainly will.

0 Replies

I noticed a conspicuous lack of the word 'Obama' in your last post. A significant percentage of the Gore supporters will flock to him if Gore doesn't run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Blatham:

Quote:
I hadn't actually thought of this before, but I think circumstances are boxing Hillary in. I think she is going to have to offer it to Obama if she wins.

Blatham old shoe, you know I am fond of ya, and all due respect but I think you might be just a wee bit naive about the depth and breadth of Hillary's ambition, the casualness with which even a black man as formidable as Obama could be dissed, and a couple other things having to do with the politics of race in this country.

You and I already have a $10 bet that she will/will not offer it, but you're sounding more and more like an easy mark.

Have you ever heard that in terms of real cache and status in American society, of the 4 main groups it shakes down in order of precedence- white men, white women, black women, black men? If you haven't heard that, do you believe it?

I think the American voter... alone in the booth... no matter what kind of window dressing they put on their "progressivness" is not ready to vote for a woman AND a black. Maybe one or the other... but I think they need a male caucasian safety net on the ticket.

This does not reflect my views but I think it's accurate more's the pity.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

That is for all intents and purposes a national health program supported by the government for one-half of the US population, and neither clinton or obama come close to it.

Dont know how you come to that ranking of the three. I am no fan of Hillary, but her plan was widely touted as clearly surpassing Obama's, and in fact being very similar to Edwards' indeed.

Hell, even Edwards himself was somewhat at a loss when asked to mark the distinctions between his and Hillary's plans in the recent MTV/MySpace debate: he said it was hard to be critical of hers because it was "extremely similar to mine."

In the last TV debate, too, he teased Hillary about coming out with a plan that was so similar to his, x months after he had paved the way for it..

0 Replies

I think selecting the most progressive candidate is a swell idea.

0 Replies

Obama is the only Dem I would consider voting for. Purely for his charisma factor.

It would depend on his rival to get my vote. For example, I don't particularly like Rudi. Obama V. Rudi, Obama wins. McCain on the other hand, would get my vote. There is no other Dem that would get my vote over any of the Republican nominee.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
That is for all intents and purposes a national health program supported by the government for one-half of the US population, and neither clinton or obama come close to it.

Dont know how you come to that ranking of the three. I am no fan of Hillary, but her plan was widely touted as clearly surpassing Obama's, and in fact being very similar to Edwards' indeed.

Hell, even Edwards himself was somewhat at a loss when asked to mark the distinctions between his and Hillary's plans in the recent MTV/MySpace debate: he said it was hard to be critical of hers because it was "extremely similar to mine."

In the last TV debate, too, he teased Hillary about coming out with a plan that was so similar to his, x months after he had paved the way for it..

so what you have written shows that it is edwards who leads and obama and clinton follow.

that's about right.

which is why neither ought to be president, few americans seriously believe had hilary clinton not been married to a US president she would be running for president, nor would anyone with obama's scant political background be considered a viable candidate if he was a white man.... (unless his father was president)

one is an artifact of political dynasty, the other is merely a political curiousity (in 2008, but maybe not in 2012).

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Obama is the only Dem I would consider voting for. Purely for his charisma factor.

It would depend on his rival to get my vote. For example, I don't particularly like Rudi. Obama V. Rudi, Obama wins. McCain on the other hand, would get my vote. There is no other Dem that would get my vote over any of the Republican nominee.

Strangely enough, McCain is the only Republican I would consider voting for.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Will Hillary Give Obama The Vice Pres Nod?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know