Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (part deux)

Today's Quinnipiac University National poll is the second poll in a row showing a majority of Democrats favoring an Obama/Clinton ticket.

By a 60 - 33 percent margin, Democrats say Obama should pick Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.

That's almost 2 to 1 among a group that prefers Obama to Clinton for the nomination by a slim 45-41 margin.

It should be noted too that the poll finds that either Obama or Clinton at the top of the ticket would defeat McCain in November, Obama by 7 points, Clinton by 5.

Interestingly, Quinnipiac finds that Clinton and Obama perform quite similarly against McCain among white voters, among men and among women. The real difference between how each Democrat fares against John McCain comes among groups with whom Obama has traditionally held more appeal. In other words, when up against John McCain, Barack is stronger among Hillary's base than Hillary is among his.

In an Obama-McCain matchup, independent voters back the Democrat 48 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. Men split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, while women back Obama 49 - 36 percent. McCain leads 47 - 40 percent among white voters, while blacks back Obama 87 - 4 percent.

In a Clinton-McCain contest, independent voters split with 41 - 41 percent. Men go with McCain 46 - 42 percent while women back Clinton 51 - 36 percent. White voters back McCain 48 - 41 percent, the same margin as the Obama-McCain matchup, while black voters back Clinton 79 - 8 percent.

What I find most remarkable about these results is how close this contest is still. The poll was taken from May 8-12 in the wake of the results of last Tuesday's primaries, indeed, at the height of the post-IN & NC "it's over" talk. Yet Obama is up only 4 points above Clinton for the nomination and only fares 2 points better against McCain. It really shows you not only how popular Hillary Clinton is but also how solid her support continues to be and it really begs the question does Barack Obama want to expand the map and have a landslide victory in the fall as he has said he does or is he content to risk simply winning with 50+1? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, more and more I'm convinced that if we're really going to accomplish the former, finally, Hillary Clinton must be on the ticket.

Update [2008-5-14 21:11:59 by Todd Beeton]:I wanted to add that it's also striking how at odds the will of the voters is with conventional punditry. Not only does a majority of Democrats want Obama to pick Clinton for VP, which itself contradicts the "it'll never happen" chorus from the talking heads on the teevee, but there's also this result from the poll:

"Party leaders may be cringing over the potential damage to Democratic chances in November from the endless primary campaign, but two-thirds of the rank-and-file think Clinton ought to keep battling," Carroll added.



Display:


Sure, if he wants to take on her baggage. (2.00 / 6)

And totally invalidate what he's been campaigning on for the past year and a half.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:24 PM EST

Re: Sure, if he wants to take on her baggage. (2.00 / 2)

It is crap statements like this that divide the party even more than anything you can tag onto Hillary Clinton.

You need to look at the numbers in regard to the democratic party: voters are split nearly 50/50 between Obama and Clinton.  That is a truth that can't be overlooked, especially if you really are part of the people's party.

So, just what has Obama been campaigning under that he hasn't contradicted?  No lobbyists?  Well, some of the most influential unions are backing him, which are undeniably HUGE lobbying forces in Washington.  No old school politics, no Washington insiders?  Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are two of the oldest insider and old school politics White Men you could possibly muster up that AREN'T in the Republican camp, and they support Obama over their constituencies vote.  Most of the Dem. Leadership is behind Obama publicly and privately...so how is he supposed to "clean up Washington" when his biggest supporters are also the big wigs who run Washington?

The big issue here is that the Democratic Party needs to win the Presidency, because combined with a Democratic Congress, REAL BIG THINGS can be accomplished.  With an Obama/Clinton ticket, you have two extremely passionate people who want to make a real change in government AND for the people of America.

And besides all that, just what is your personal reason to deny the votes and will of nearly half of the Democratic Party by keeping clinton off the ticket?  Are you for the Democratic Party as a unified force, or are you just for Obama only?


by Steven B on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure, if he wants to take on her baggage. (none / 0)

If our intent is to build a party that lasts longer than a single presidency, it would be wise of us to choose a politician under 60 for the post.  


by zadura on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure, if he wants to take on her baggage. (none / 0)

"our" intent?  For whom do you speak other than yourself?


by Tolstoy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

But Clinton could end up ahead. if thats the case, should Hillary ask Obama if he would like to be her VP?

With the margin between the two so TINY, when you include Michigan and Florida. (Obama removed himself from the ballot in Michigan) Since the Obama campaign is blocking a revote, the DNC really doesnt have a moral right to reject the existing votes.

Given that Hillary's winning the popular vote is a very real possibility, and that she clearly is the stronger candidate in the swing states, maybe a ticket in which she is running for President and Obama is VP makes more sense?


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

Ha, you finally convinced us arch.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

Excellent argument. But no, if Hillary wins the popular vote, she shouldn't ask Obama to be her running mate. They aren't a good fit either way. I'm sure you would agree that the ultimate nominee should pay the losers debts and send her back to the Senate where she belongs.


by xdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

I don't think either candidate should pay either's debt. By the way, that is actually illegal. All Obama could do would be to help her raise it. Like by sending out an appeal to his email list.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

Yes.  And as the poll shows, 2/3 of Democrats want the race to continue.  And Hillary is running neck and neck and she's running for President - not vp.  

I'll say it again.  I can't think of any reason she'd want to be Obama's token vp.  She would never play second to someone less experienced and less devoted to hard work.

She's the most famous woman in the world, already in the history books, her portrait hanging in the WH and her gowns in the Smithsonian, has two homes (one in D,C.)secret service protection for life, she's rich and she's going to do good work just like Bill for the rest of her life.

If O is the nominee I'm sure she'll help him but to run for an office with no constitutional power except presiding officer of the Senate is beneath her.  I predict she won't do it.  


by Tolstoy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

"She's the most famous woman in the world,"

Yeah, she's more famous than Virgin Mary!

And where living women are concerned, the most famous woman in the world is probably either Queen Elizabeth or JK Rowling.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

I think a review of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution is worthwhile here.  Under the 12th Amendment, the electoral college the President and Vice President are elected on separate ballots.

One of the motivations for the 12th Amendment (not the only motivation) was that the original system meant that the first place candidate would be President and the second place candidate would be Vice President.  

Without the 12th Amendment, Bush would currently be President and Kerry would be Vice President.

Early politicians discoverd a flaw in the Founding Father's work and corrected it.  They knew that (in spite of what might be popular), the President and Vice President must be on the same team and be reading from the same playbook.

The 12th Amendment does not apply to the nomination process, but the wisdom of the 12th Amendment does apply.  

Hillary is a fighter for what she believes and there is little evidence that she will act in concurrence with the Obama Administration if she disagrees.  We cannot burden Obama with this.  And Clinton's future is as a legislative leader.

I just think its a wrong match.  Lets not push it.


by smoker1 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leading by ~100,000 votes (none / 0)

The delegate count is all that matters. Why are the rules so hard for so many to understand? Ask Gore about the popular vote.


by kitebro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure, if he wants to take on her baggage. (none / 0)

It is crap statements like this that divide the party even more than anything you can tag onto Hillary Clinton

I couldn't agree more.

With an Obama/Clinton ticket, you have two extremely passionate people who want to make a real change in government AND for the people of America

I think given the closeness of the election, an Obama/Clinton ticket, warts and all, is the true definition of "will of the people."


by reggie44pride on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

Problem with the VP polling is that the majority of people polled know few other VP options.  Hillary has great branding, that's what the polling suggests.  


by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

Exactly. Most Americans probably don't know of other possible candidates for VP.

And just an FYI for all those demanding that Clinton be on the ticket: the nominee gets to choose his/her running mate, not a Quinnipac poll.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

That's not really true... Kerry was pressured by the party to take Edwards...  We could see a similar situation with Obama and Clinton.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

Ultimately, the decision was John Kerry's. The nominee will have earned the right to pick a VP.

Hillary Clinton just doesn't fit in with Obama's message. She's a shrewd politician who is good at getting things done, but she strikes many people as an establishment candidate practicing the same old Washington politics. Obama can pick someone better from a battleground geographical region that will help him much more.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The come from different wings of the party (2.00 / 1)

I think what you are really getting at is the conflict between the DLC wing of the party and the Howard Dean / 50 State Strategy wing.  That more than anything might make it difficult for Obama and Clinton to share a ticket.

I think it is also why you will see more resistance from the Obama supporters than the Clinton supporters.  Many of the Obama supports have chosen their candidate not (as the media would have you believe) because of his Svengali like skill at oratory, but because of the ideology embodied in the structure of his campaign: grassroots driven, rejection of lobbyists, embracing the 50 state strategy, breaking with the DLC.  As much as we respect Clinton for the skilled politician and loyal Democrat that she is, she is perceived as more of an inside the beltway player... not exactly a 'crashing the gate' sort of candidate.


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The come from different wings of the party (2.00 / 2)

It is becoming quite clear that the REAL "insider" has been Obama all along.

From his "get-out-the-vote" initiative that is commanded by Obama Central, to his close ties to lobbyists and people like Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, and Edwards, we've been had.

The outsider in all this, the REAL agent of change  turns out to be Hillary.


by dembluestates on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Real insider? (2.00 / 1)

 I think the evidence does not support that assertion, with all due respect.


by xdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess you need to explain that to me (none / 0)

I don't get how a GOTV effort makes him a Washington insider.  He is implementing a wide scale, locally implemented, grass roots operation.  If he was acting like an 'insider', he would be focusing on swing states and advertising and would probably just leverage the existing local party infrastructure to do the usual half-hearted GOTV.

I'm also a bit mystified about the lobbyist claims.  The problem with lobbyists is when they buy the loyalties of our elected officials.  Obama has some consultants on his staff that are technically lobbyists, but HE is paying THEM... not the other way around.  Obama has actually passed legislation and created mechanisms for tracking lobbyists and there contributions.  He accepts no lobbyist or PAC money.  Consequently, more than any other candidate his funding comes from a very large pool of small donors.  I have often believed if you want to know where a man's loyalties lie, look at who signs his paycheck.  That is why I've spent considerable time looking at the campaign finance reports of the candidates I vote for, and it is why I really respect the immense small donor network Obama has created.

As for those other 'insider' ties you listed... uhm, they are all fellow Democratic Senators.  I don't find that particular shocking.  I would be surprised if he had not built relationships with his fellow legislators.  Its ties to K Steet and other corrupting influences that are a bigger concern.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The come from different wings of the party (none / 0)

Baloney!  


by haystax calhoun on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

Um no it wasn't Kerry's.  HE WAS FORCED INTO IT.  He wanted Gephardt.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

He wanted Gephardt

LOL.

That could have been an even worse ticket.

Edwards was the only thing that ticket had going for it!


by reggie44pride on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

And neither do rabid bloggers either, nor media pundits, nor you.


by Steven B on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

It is funny that you mention "winning with 50+1."  If I had to pick one reason why Sen. Clinton won't be the nominee, it is because she tried to follow that strategy.


I voted for Hillary, but would be happy with Obama!
by deepee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:01:59 PM EST

The white working class (none / 0)

Apparently would prefer that Obama not choose Hillary as his running mate - 48% say no, 44% say yes.

Blacks, however, say yes - 62% to 35%.

I anticipate exploding heads.


Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
by Drew on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:05:21 PM EST

Re: The white working class (none / 0)

Love your sig man. Hell yeah.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

This might help Obama get elected, but it would be an absolute waste of Hillary Clinton's talents.  

I really really hope she says no and stays in the Senate and takes a big lead on health care reform.


by davisb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:05:48 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Agree.  It would be a humiliation and even a demotion for her to be Obama's VP.

I suspect they can't stand each other anyway, at this point, and she would not even be offered the position (unless pre-determined she'd say no and therefore done purely for political reasons).


by Juno on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like how you think (2.00 / 1)

It would be a rather unifying bit of political theater if they did it that way, Obama offers but Clinton politely declines.  Personally, I think she is too much of a powerhouse to take the VP slot; it would be a waste of her talents.  I like the idea thrown around to make her Senate Majority Leader.  Maybe we can send that do-nothing Reid off on a make-work fact finding mission and give his job to Hillary while he's gone.  ;)

I also think she would make a great governor, though I don't know what state would provide that opportunity.


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like how you think (none / 0)

> make her Senate Majority Leader

You got a wand you are planning to wave to make that happen? I apologize for the sarcasm, but I have asked several people who have proposed this why they think Clinton can win the Majority Leader post, considering that nearly all the major players in the Senate (except Schumer) are against her. Nobody has even attempted to answer. I can only conclude that this is a throw-away talking point passed among Obama bloggers who want her to go away, and do not really care where she goes. If I am wrong, please share the details of your thinking.

> she would make a great governor, though I don't know what state would provide that opportunity.

She lives in NY, so it would be rather odd for her to run for governor in any other state. If she runs there, she would have to run against the incumbent, Patterson, who happens to be the first AA governor of NY. After all the ridiculous media driven hype about how horribly racist the Clintons are, imagine the optics of Hillary even trying to take out Patterson, much less succeeding.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like how you think (none / 0)

I freely admit I don't know all the dynamics of the Senate, so perhaps it would be a difficult sell for her to get the Majority Leader slot.  My motives come more from a disappointment with Reid.

As for governor... yeah, I didn't expect she could just claim the governership of NY.  A slot needs to open up somewhere.  Doesn't have to be New York though.  She has history in several states and national recognition.  Heck, she was something of a carpetbagger with her NY Senate run, and that didn't stop her.


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like how you think (none / 0)

I think she could get a "pass" on the carpetbagging charge once, but not twice. Maybe governor of Arkansas - she could sell that as coming home.

I don't know Patterson's plans - maybe he will just fill out Spitzer's term and retire or something. A term as governor (assuming it was successful) would fill out her resume for a 2012 or 2016 run at the Presidency. But there really are very few second chances in that arena.

The only way I see her getting Majority Leader is if a President Obama backs her for the post. That seems like a long shot right now, but politics is a strange business. She might prove instrumental in getting him over the finish line in certain states and with certain groups this fall, earning some favors in the process.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

I definitely think we need to hear from Hillary sometime after June 3 on whether she'd want VP if she isn't the nominee.  

Everyone just assumes that she'd want it...I'm less sure.  

But I suppose it makes her the presumptive nominee in 4 or 8 years.  And if McCain can take his shot at 72 or whatever, she can take one at 68.  Particularly since women live longer.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

I don't recall Hillary is on Senate Finance, which is where the committee in which the health care reform action will most likely be.


by wolff109 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:07:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop Stoking this Fantasy (2.00 / 3)

It will not happen.  Obama needs things Hillary doesn't bring to the table (like the ability to unit people and the ability to not repel moderate Republicans.)  

Stoking this Fantasy is a cruel trick that the right wing is playing on Hillary supporters just to piss them off when it doesn't happen.  

Sadly, many of her supporters are playing right into this.  

While there may be some other role for Hillary after this campaign, VP is not it.  


by ruscle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:08:00 PM EST

Re: Stop Stoking this Fantasy (2.00 / 3)

You seem to know a lot from your distant bench.

I might add that Clinton has brought A TON of voters into this primary; its not all Barack Obama, all the time.

And the whole moderate Obamacans bulls**t is just a farce.  Show me any real numbers that say Obama pulls Republicans...it was a nice little story while it lasted.  Obama should try harder with the working class voters before worrying about Republicans.


by Steven B on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Stoking this Fantasy (none / 0)

Hillary did not bring a ton of voters into the primaries the facts just don't support your observations. It would be a horrible idea to put her on the ticket because it wouldn't be just her but it would be both she and Bill.

Bill has done some questionable things post his presidency and we do not need that coming up in this election. I'm sorry but it's just a horrible idea.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Stoking this Fantasy (none / 0)

Obama UNITES people?  

Obama has DIVIDED our party.


by dembluestates on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Stoking this Fantasy (none / 0)

What a stupid comment... That's like saying its the Woman's fault she got pregnant.  TWO people (and their minions) were involved in this and BOTH have there share of the blame.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Stoking this Fantasy (none / 0)

Obama has not divided out party - the Clintons who believe in their divine right to the nomination and their followers are the ones that have divided our party.


by mwfolsom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

I'm so torn over this ticket...

On the one hand... She obviously shores up some of his weakest demographics... Seniors, Working Class Whites (although I question if it would be as much as some think... I think more go to McCain than either Obama or Clinton as polling suggests), and most importantly, Latinos which I feel we need to spend a LOT of money putitng infrastructure and shoring up that community.  The people seem to want it which is an argument of the Obama campaign...getting people involved.   And on some levels, while she is the definition of Establishment and political elite, she also represents change.  

On the other hand, Clinton has a strong personality (as does Obama) so the question becomes can she stay in the background more as she did during the last years of Bill's Presidency and the first few years of her Senate career.  Instead of complimenting Obama, will she accentuate some of his flaws as he would probably do if She was the nom and he was the VP nom.  Is she too polarizing as the CW says or in a Dem year, will that not even matter.  

Its a tough decision.  There are people I like Better... Schweitzer being to me the best one.  But given that since IN and NC she has stopped the attacks (I credit the Newsweek interview to poor wording on her part like Obama's bitter comments AND that it was probably done before the IN and NC primary.)  and has tried to act in a unifying manner.  So I am warming up to the idea... I'm torn between the fact she OBVIOUSLY balances the ticket and that CW and the Reaffirming VP theory as discussed by Chris Bowers.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:09:07 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

Great post, nice summary of pro's and con's.

The "staying in the background" aka "too many cooks" thing is the main issue I have with Hillary as VP.  OTOH, you're quite right that she has shown she can chill out when necessary.  That's a pretty good rebuttal.

I don't know what effect she'd have on the ticket.  I don't really buy the argument that she'd mobilize Republicans any more than they're gonna try and mobilize.  She's polarizing only because she's been on the scene for awhile as a prominent Democrat.  The Republican game is to demonize any Dem and make them seem "polarizing".  So, I'm skeptical that she'd turn a lot of people off, especially because she polls about as well as Obama.  Would she add to the ticket?  Sure, as would Edwards, Richardson, Sebelius, Napolitano, Webb, etc.

I think she's great (and I support Obama, but I think they're both very strong candidates, which is why it's been so close).  So if Obama feels like he can work with her, and she is able to be a team player and let Obama be Pres and then have her shot in '16, that would be peachy.


by acujimmy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Still, though.... (none / 0)

She's gonna have a whole group of people (McAuliffe, etc.) chomping at the bit to do stuff, and I'm not at all sure these people are going to be willing/able to read from the same page as Obama's people.

Could have head-butting between Clinton and Obama camps, which will be a distraction.


by acujimmy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

I think you're reading too much into this. Most people are not hardcore political junkies. They're almost certainly not familiar with other names that have been thrown around like Webb or Clark. Do they think Hillary should be VP? Well, sure because she's the Dem other than Obama they're most familiar with at this point.

But what I also see here is more a reflection that people are not as divided as the behavior of some in the blogosphere would make it seem.


by animated on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:10:20 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

I agree -- those numbers are going to drop hugely in a couple months when Obama gets closer to making a decision, Hillary's been out of the spotlight for a while, and other names start getting seriously discussed.


by ChrisKaty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

She won't be out of the spotlight.  She will be out there campaigning for the nominee as McCain was doing in 2000 after the GOP bitter primary.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Obama should be VP.

Hillary is THE one who should be president!


by RosWaState on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

That's your opinion... however, that's not going to happen...


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

Every White House policy making apparatus has to have its zenith at the desk of the president. Hillary Clinton may be good politically, but it would be suicidal from a policy-making standpoint. We don't need 3 people trying to govern the country at once, regardless of how good the ideas from any of them are.

Every time you espouse the "Clinton as VP" meme, have you considered the practical implication of how the power sharing would work?


by tedit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

As an example, consider any parliamentary system's "unity government" - i.e. Germany right now. Train wreck in slow motion.


by tedit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 4)

One interesting note from this poll: Both Obama and Clinton lose white voters by the same margin, but Clinton's support with black voters against McCain is quite a bit weaker. That, to me, suggests that maybe we should stop talking about Obama's supposed weakness with white voters and start talking about Clinton's weakness with black voters.


by unionfield on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST

Exactly (none / 0)

The problem with Clinton voters is that they have assumed that blacks will just come back into the fold. Wrong.  Also, Barack doesn't have a white working class problem in general he has an appalachian problem which is not surprising because those people are backwards.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhh...NO!!!! (none / 0)

Great way to win people over by insulting them.  Stupid


Enough already...
by pjv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Clinton Ticket = No Thank you! (none / 0)

Too many things have heen said and written (many of them on this site) to mend the damage at this point.

Too many lobbiests, we couldn't fit them all in the bus.

Too much Bubba.

Too many debts, Clinton owes a lot of money and a lot of special interests groups.

Its time to end the dynasty.


by Silence Do Good on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = No Thank you! (2.00 / 3)

The whole "Clinton Dynasty" meme is a load of crap.  You can keep with your fantasy that the Clintons are somehow like the Bushes, but you're wrong.

I don't care how much you hate the Clintons personally, but you have to realize that for the last eight years, both Hillary and Bill have been working nonstop to raise money and establish greater power into the Democratic party which helped get the Congress back into Democratic hands...heck, they've been doing it for nearly 35 years.  

That is dedication to the Democratic party that you will never, ever come close to from your keyboard.


by Steven B on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC and other Clinton issues... (2.00 / 1)

...gave us the Bush years.

Not only with his personal indescressions, which you and both agree shouldn't count as much as they did, but they did.

But with the whole Clinton, centrist, de-regulation, corporate friendly, free trade stuff is what put us where we are today.

After losing our majorities in congress he had a public affair.

Bubba, by embarrassing us with his behavior and by leading this country towards the right, at least when it comes to corporations, allowed Bush to steal 2000.

And he did not have a 50 state strategy.
And he didn't have a plan for his wife campaigns past super Tuesday.

I could go on, but the point is, its time for new ideas and new faces.


by Silence Do Good on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC and other Clinton issues... (none / 0)

PLEASE don't go on.

What a load of right-wing crap.


by dembluestates on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC and other Clinton issues... (none / 0)

Right, because the rightwing is so against deregulation, dismantling social programs, and privileging the market.  Look into Bill's record and get back to us on this.  The person you're responding to is exactly right.


by Philoguy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC and other Clinton issues... (2.00 / 1)

Personal indescressions?  Is that all you can muster?  

Do you think highly of JFK?  Talk about a womanizer...all the Kennedy family men are notorious for personal problems.

You put a lot of weight on Gore/Edward's lose on Bil Clinton, where you should be looking at the strategy the Bush campaign used to undermine Gore and Kerry both...and how the Obama campaign mirrors much of their strategy.  There are a number of news articles out there referencing this.  

It seems you really have a personal problem with Bill Clinton, and it is very big of you to NOT let Hillary Clinton be her own.  

Are you also ready to state that Hillary Clinton has made a terrible Senator so far?

And, if you are asking for new ideas and new faces, what is your opinion of Ted Kennedy, Kerry , Pelosi and other Obama supporters who are betting on Obama in order to save their own asses in the future!?!?


by Steven B on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do have a positive opinion of JFK (none / 0)

but if JFK were alive and his personal life had been exposed I would not want him on my ticket.

Nafta, Media de-regulation, losing the House and the Senate, having no plan to actually campaign post super Tuesday, not being able to raise even enough money to win a primary fight etc...

You think all I can come up with is personal???


by Silence Do Good on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary isn't my personal choice (none / 0)

for veep, but I wouldn't be that bothered by it. It mainly depends upon how she runs her campaign in the next few weeks, and what her role as veep would be precisely - i.e. what areas is she going to take a special interest in. Another important factor is Bill - what role would his be, how influential? How would he interact with the media? He's been less that slick on more than one occasion.

One of the major problems with the Clinton campaign has been behind the scenes drama spilling over into the media, and that's something Barack doesn't need to deal with. Hillary would have to take a back seat, campaign in states she is strong in (Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and, heck, WV) and attempt to not stick her foot in her mouth.


by grass on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST

Edwards (none / 0)

Why not Obama Edwards?


by mady on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:13:40 PM EST

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

He'd have been the VP nominee twice in a row, and I don't think people thought that highly of him the first time.

I like him, but I don't know if I want the media to compare Obama to Kerry for 6 months.


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

After watching them together in Grand Rapids a few hours ago, I'd put the odd on Edwards fairly high. There was a lot of "Barack and I" from Edwards and "John Edwards and I" from Obama.

Granted, this is exactly the sort of talk one would expect at an endorsement, but we were also half-expecting them to announce JE had accepted Veep. It's still too early to do that, though--bad taste as HRC hasn't dropped yet.


by lucky monkey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

I bet they promised him SOMETHING.


by dembluestates on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

My guess would be AG.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

Yeah he wants AG and I think he would be very good at it.


by sweet potato pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

And I keep repeating that just like calling on her to drop out hardens her resolves and makes her NOT want to drop out, the more Obama is pushed to put her on the ticket, the less likely it is to happen.
Picking the VP is the first act of authority of a Presidential candidate. Do you really think he wants  to be perceived as yielding to emotional blackmail from the Clinton wing of the party ?

I dont think those polls are conclusive right now but if you think she is the best option, ARGUE for her and the SDs should lobby him in private. Public calls and pression for it to happen is the BEST way for it not to.

And once again, those polls, taken right during the primary, are not conclusive. Try asking people for Obama-Edwards for instance. I am pretty sure you would get even higher numbers.
Everything is relative and the fact that option is popular does not make it the most popular option or the smarter one. Heck, Richardson keeps getting talked up as a boon for a ticket when we all know he would be a disaster for purely political reasons (vetting, poor campaigner).


by Benjaminomeara on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:10 PM EST

A thousand times no! (2.00 / 1)

In other words, when up against John McCain, Barack is stronger among Hillary's base than Hillary is among his.

vs
Hillary Clinton must be on the ticket.

If we do well with her base why do we need her?  Wouldn't it be better to pick someone else that expands to a diffrent base?

And if we wern't talking about Hillary Clinton would we even entertain the notion that someone with the baggage and high negatives should be on the ticket? We discount Richardson for a word he used and a rumor but we accept Clinton?  If we were talking about the same person with a diffrent name she wouldn't even get through a Democrat controlled Senate on a Cabinet post.

Stop trying to put the Albatross around Obama's neck.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:15:23 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

Presuming he is the nominee, the day after Obama picks a running mate, polls will come out showing that large majorities of Democrats strongly approve of his choice. Almost no matter who that choice is.


by vinc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM EST

Shame on you Barack! (none / 0)

Yeah, like that ticket would sell. NOT.

Stop forcing this fantasy on us, Todd. It won't happen for a myriad of reasons. Hillary bring so much baggage to Obama's own baggage.


by richochet on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:14 PM EST

Hillary is not going to be on the ticket. Get over (none / 0)

..it.

She ads absolutely nothing to the ticket that Obama can;t get from someone else. Women are already starting to gravitate back to Obama in recent polls against McCain.

And Hillary, in general election matchups" does no better than Obama with "wokring clas white men" than Obama does.

This is silly talk.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:25 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket (none / 0)

this would add a troupe of food tasters onto the federal payroll.


"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain
by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:49 PM EST

Two words - > Edwards (2.00 / 3)

Edwards just deep-sixed all the clinton-for-veep talk.

There's now way she can match his charisma, or appeal to blue collar voters.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:21:34 PM EST

I agree. Edwards would be far better. (2.00 / 1)

That looked like a great ticket tonight.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. Edwards would be far better. (none / 0)

He was my first choice. I saw him in NC at a bar-b-cue rally. Teeth count. Between them, Obama and Edwards have more dentition than the entire state of WV.

They wouldn't make a 'dream ticket', they'd make a

DREAMY ticket!


by xdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Feingold (none / 0)

Or barring that, anybody but Clinton.


She was against seating MI and FL before she was for it.
by lojasmo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST

Obama/Webb. Or Obama/Rendell. (none / 0)


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't do that to me! (none / 0)

I just about had a fainting spell.  ;)  The only downside to that ticket is I would lose Feingold as my Senator.

It is interesting that our remaining three presidential candidates are all senators.  It allows me to perform the 'Feingold comparison test' to see how they measure up.  I just line up their voting records and see who scores highest on 'ol Feingoldimeter. >:)
 


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but the Clintons bring (none / 0)

far too much baggage to be of good use as a VP.  Obama's best option is Sebelius: a charismatic, relatively new face with lots of recent exposure would serve as an excellent complement to Obama.  Not to mention that she is a white woman, and thus able to attract certain demographic groups that have been hesitant to enter the Obama camp.  


by brathor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM EST

Obama doesn't need to put a woman on the ticket. (none / 0)

McCain does. Not Obama. Don't be fooled by the heat of the moment polls.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, but the Clintons bring (none / 0)

I'm sorry but in what universe is Sebelius charismatic? In her response to the State of the Union it looked like someone propped a corpse up in a chair and played a recording.
She is dreadfully uncharismatic.
by big poppa smurf on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

All I can picture would be

When the 3am call comes in.. Hillary comes bursting into her old presidential bedroom screaming "I got it I got it!!"


**Stop the Drama.. Vote Obama**
by Winterblink on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST

She can't be on the ticket. (none / 0)

The media will constantly ask her and him about All the crap she said about him during the primary.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Mcaskill, Obama/Casey... (none / 0)

Obama/Hagel, heck even Obama/Paul. But NEVER Obama/Clinton. That would be the mother of all oxymoron tickets and career suicide for Barack!


by Bob Sackamento on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:49 PM EST

Have we gone insane (1.00 / 1)

to the point that Hagel should even for a microsecond be concidered for Obama's VP? That would be suicide for the Democratic ticket. I and many loyal Democrats would not vote for Obama if that happened.


by Christopher Lib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

It's not happening.  The only thing Clinton would do is lock down registered Dems, something Obama should be able to do on his own during the course of a 5 month campaign against McCain.  He needs someone to expand the map, to appeal to independents and moderates.


by Skaje on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

No thanks. It would be a total distraction. And honestly, I don't think the poll takes much into account. So what if that many dems think he should pick her, that just means she's popular among dems as he is, and they would be happy with her as a VP. She wasn't pitted against anyone else, and people who were answering the poll were likely not sitting there analyzing ever upside and downside and looking at all the other possible candidates.

Plus, most of this large number comes from Clinton supporters, who obviously want to see her on the ticket, it makes sense. And some of Obama's supporters probably want her too, but just as many may want someone else.

Let the candidate choose his running mate. He should take this poll into consideration just as the many other factors, but this whole will of the people thing is bullshit.


democracy!
by BlueGAinDC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:36:14 PM EST

Todd, let it go. (2.00 / 1)

It's not going to happen. You know as well as we do--as well as Obama, Clinton, and pretty much anyone who's followed the primaries does--that Clinton burned the VP bridge months ago.

It's not going to happen. Continuing to insist it will isn't much different than continuing to insist Hillary can win the nomination outright.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST

Just pushing it is unseemly. (none / 0)

She had her chance and blew it.

Unlike LBJ in 1960 -- Hillary brings NOTHING to the ticket for Obama.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just pushing it is unseemly. (none / 0)

Obama stands a better than even chance of blowing this election for Democrats in November.

The divisions he's created, his weakness in swing states, his baggage and rising negatives will make it hard to win.

And if he follows thru on his gotta-be promise to Edwards, and puts him on as VP, look out.


by dembluestates on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just pushing it is unseemly. (2.00 / 1)

Clinton stands a better than even chance of blowing this election for Democrats in November.

The divisions she's created, her weakness in swing states, her baggage and rising negatives will make it hard to win.


Enough already...
by pjv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just pushing it is unseemly. (none / 0)

you now polls don't back you up right?  Also, where did you get your magic powers, I was pretty sure the general was not until November.  Obama has won fair and square.  That does not mean you have to be happy about it, but this is our system and that's how things turned out.  

I never liked Kerry but busted my ass for him.  In the end I just want our side to win, and could care less about primary squabbles.  


by Xris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just pushing it is unseemly. (none / 0)

"The divisions he's created". Earth misses you. Please come back!


by kitebro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She wants it, she does. (none / 0)

It's not going to happen, though.

Obama wants someone who will continue to endorse his principles of transparency and bipartisanship.

Clinton is a master of partisanship.  Which makes her great for the Senate, but not so hot as Obama's VP.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:39 PM EST

Re: She wants it, she does. (2.00 / 4)

Clinton actually has a very strong record of bipartisanship.

This is another mythical paradox on which the Obama camp has expounded. ON the one hand, they express anger at Clinton because she has worked with Republicans, call her a DINO, etc., but on the other insist that Obama is going to magically unite people but can do so withou being called a DINO and similar slurs used against Clinton.

I've yet to get an answer from anyone as to what the evidence is that Obama can unite this country.  His own supporters are vicious toward other Democrats for simply choosing to support Clinton over him.


by Juno on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't have a problem with people supporting her (1.00 / 2)

We have a problem with scumbab, GOP Karl Rove style campaign tactics being used by Hillary and her supporters to win a Democratic primary.

You don't see Obama supporters trashing Edwards, or Biden supporters do you?

The fact is you all have been acting like assholes. So we treat you that way.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We don't have a problem with people supporting (none / 0)

Oh, you do NOT have a problem with Karl Rove style politics.

Indeed, you should be grateful for them. They got Obama where he is with all that bogus race baiting crap.

You know, take an asset (the Clintons' excellent relationship with the AA community) and turn it into a liability.  Rove's MO.


by Juno on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh, nevermind (none / 0)

I was actually going to talk to you about the "bipartisanship" issue in your comment above, but you hauled out the old "Obama played the race card" chestnut and I'm not inclined to waste my effort.

If you still believe that, then I might as well yell at a brick wall.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She wants it, she does. (none / 0)

you guys/girls are totally civil though right?  I am sure you never throw a fit when someone supports Obama over Clinton?


by Xris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Anyone Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST

It would Pose a Dilemma (2.00 / 1)

 I read every comment over at Taylor Marsh (it's a Zen thing for me) and I don't think we have enough hospital beds in the USA to care for the exploded heads which will result.
 If voters who will never vote for Obama and who will always vote for Hillary are presented a ballot with one box for both, there's gonna be big mess to clean up.
by xdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST

I must give you mojo (none / 0)

Just for the wonderfully disturbing image you have put in my head.


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to disagree with the rephrasing (2.00 / 2)

The question asked in the poll was, "If Barack Obama wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, would you like him to pick Hillary Clinton to be his Vice-Presidential running mate?"  In my opinion, that's not the same as saying he should.  "Would you like him to" implies a degree of satisfaction, "should" is an imperative to the exclusion of all other choices; and that was not what was asked in the poll.

I'm a perfect example.  If he picked HRC as his VP, I'd be fine with it, but I don't think he should.  No offense intended to the diarist, for Quinnipiac itself is guilty of the error; but at the same time,  I'd hate to see the error become the meme.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM EST

Re: I have to disagree with the rephrasing (2.00 / 1)

Not only that but there is nothing in that question that suggests they would be not amenable to another option.
Yeah, I bet they would like it. But tell you I bet a  similar number would LIKE an Obama-Edwards ticket too.
It will be up to Obama to decide what works the best.
by Benjaminomeara on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to disagree with the rephrasing (none / 0)

Exactly. The rephrasing implies exclusivity of the option.  There are no doubt other VP choices voters would also like.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to disagree with the rephrasing (none / 0)

Moreover, as anyone with a basic knowledge of polling (or even generic statistics) will tell you, people tend to say "yes" when the question is asked in a vacuum. This is why eg. "do you want more funding for schools?" and "do you want lower taxes?" will both get high "yes" votes, despite their being mutually exclusive.

At best, this shows that 2/3 of these voters wouldn't mind Clinton on the ticket. I honestly think the fact that 1/3 of the voters would, in fact, mind Clinton being on the ticket is far more significant; for this kind of question, it's much more difficult to say "no," which speaks to the amount of enmity against her.


by Senori on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thin soup, needs its own survey (none / 0)

The whole thing is based on one question, so it's too trivial.

I think it is a great idea to game this out, but one question doesn't help much. We'd need followups.  What would the same person who answers yes to the VP question say to:

Has Clinton's criticisms of Obama hurt ticket?

Will Clinton will deliver her base over the choice of John McCain?

Would you support Clinton as VP if she loses a seat at the healthcare table?  Or loses her universal coverage plan?

Would you feel Clinton's best options for her and her agenda  are in the Senate or VP?

Will Clinton's negatives harm the ticket?

Will Bill Clinton be a big help the ticket to get elected?

Will Bill Clinton be a distraction to the ticket if elected?

I need more info.


by drowsy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM EST

Re: Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will of the People (none / 0)

You know, I get the theory that Clinton will help Obama with white voters, but wouldn't someone else actually be more helpful?

Besides, Hillary stands for everything that is wrong in the political process--that's the very reason why I supported Obama.


by MNPundit o