Friday, February 01, 2008

Dream Ticket?

Yes, even if every progressive has his or her preference, I think almost all would accept it. They can make nice together and maybe even get along. We want them to get along, and both Barack and Hillary understand that, going into Super Tuesday. They would be our dream ticket: Clinton-Obama '08. I can get behind it, if I have to.

If it took one Clinton eight years to clean up four years of Bush I, it figures it will take another
Clinton plus an Obama 16 years to flush the toilet after the current Busheney.

But, there's still a difference between them. It takes a Senator Obama to make this statement, and without a teleprompter:
Well, you know, I -- I think it is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And -- (applause) -- so I have said very clearly I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq. (Applause.) When John McCain suggests that we might be there a hundred years, that I think indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there -- including Iraq, but we've got a -- a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a great concern. We are neglecting potentially our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. And if we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe -- (applause) -- that is undermining our long-term security.

But I do think it is important for us to set a date. And the reason I think it is important is because if we are going to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shi'a, the Sunni and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy. It can't be fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.

And I also think we've got to be very clear about what our mission is, and there may be a difference here between Senator Clinton and myself in terms of the force structures that we would leave behind. Both of us have said we would make sure that our embassies and our civilians are protected. Both of us have said that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the 4 million who have been displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We both have said that we need to have a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.

But the one thing that I think is very important is that we not get mission creep and we not start suggesting that we should have troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence.

If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. (Applause.) We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that I think it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war in the first place -- (applause) -- and that's one of the reasons why I think I will be -- just to -- to -- just to finish up this point, I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain -- or any other Republican, because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies -- because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership I intend to provide as president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)
Barack would have to provide the brains and judgment, of course. But the first woman and first black at the top of our executive branch, at the same time?

This is a ticket which could make history. Good history. For a change.

20 Moderated Comments:

Blogger Big Yellow Forehead said...

I think it would be interesting to see how the two would merge their ideas and make nice with one another on the playground. Nevertheless, change would definitely be the operative word. (Plus, neither would have to compromise on their campaign slogan.)

2/01/2008 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

I have been doing some really heavy soul searching and about the only way I could vote for Hillary would be to have Obama on the ticket. Although, during the debate last night I did actually begin to not cringe when she spoke. Now if I could come to believe that she would have Bill chained up at Camp David for entire time in office I could walk into the voting booth only slightly drunk.

But on the other hand I am enjoying the various members of the conservative hive mind, such as Limbaugh, are about to have their heads explode over the idea that either Hillary or McCain will be in the White House.

2/01/2008 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger LittleBill said...

I was really impressed with the Democratic debate the other night. Hillary's voice had almost completely lost its stridency-a big improvement. Why didn't she think of that before? At any rate, the last question was great, and turned the corner for me. Up until that time, I was going to say that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would have been my dream ticket.

2/02/2008 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Tom Hayden says:

Are we the people we have been waiting for? Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agenda. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. (As Gandhi once said of India’s liberation movement, “There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”)

2/02/2008 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Urbanpink said...

I think Obama nailed it: "I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place." I do not believe that Hillary ends this mind-set. I rarely hear her extend anything but the same old threats and fear regarding foreign policies. I also sense that if we had someone who was really serious about ending terrorism, we could actually disable the big guns (Osama bin Laden and his kin) in about 6 months and the rest would need small but smart police actions. I hope we do this sooner rather than later, so Mr. McCain, I hope we don't get attacked while you're holding on to your "secret plan." Hmmm, do you know something we don't?

2/02/2008 08:44:00 PM  
Blogger Peekay said...

My position:

OBAMA WILL NEVER BE HILLARY'S RUNNING MATE.

There was one thing in the debate that could hurt Obama and it's ironically related to the fact that people like him: the prospect, raised by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, of a Clinton-Obama ticket. But that's a pipedream for those that gullibly believe it. In the event that Clinton wins the nomination she might well offer the position to Obama, but I'll bet money with anyone that wants to part with it that he'd never agree to it.

Unfortunately for Obama, he can't say that aloud, or risk being accused of a "snub" anew. He knows that he'd be crazy to subjugate himself that way to a campaign that takes DC lobbyist and PAC money (which would dissolve much of the good will that his small donor base has for him), and with a nominee that might well burn down to November defeat, turning its vice presidential nominee into something that would look like Edwards looked this round after his '04 vice presidential run (and like Lieberman looked in '04 after his '00 VP candidacy). Obama is ambitious (you have to be, politics), but not blindly so, and not crazy. It ain't gonna happen. But if a big enough sector of voters is naïve enough to think they could get two for one by voting for Clinton, that could give her a bounce on Tuesday. Obama needs to dissuade some voters of that argument without frontally assaulting it. I don't know how he does that.

2/03/2008 08:43:00 PM  
Blogger Peekay said...

I was citing a statement by Al Giordano regarding the possibility of a Clinton - Obama ticket. While I agree exactly with the position, the wording is not mine.

2/03/2008 09:46:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Good points made above. P.K.

The points I would make is that:

Democrats are extremely loathe to be forced to choose between lifting up into nomination the first qualified woman and the first qualified black. Despite the so-called negativities of HRC's polarizing baggage, I believe Clinton-Obama ticket would be a slam-dunk, historical precedent and winning ticket.

Vice-Presidency would offer Obama a holding place and a maturing apprenticeship for his ultimate presidency (which of course, I don't believe he really needs). However, building up four or eight more years in the U.S. Senate will give him a track-record of policy-baggage which will ham-string and not suit his eventual run on the presidency well. (Long Senate careers are supposed to attract too many negatives to successful presidential campaigns.) Hiding his light in the Vice-Presidency might not be such a bad idea. And there is always something to be said for positioning oneself one-heartbeat away from the president.

OTOH, as John Nance Garner once described the office of the vice presidency, it's "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Al Gore broke the mold to some extent and Cheney blew it to smithereens. In the context of post-Busheney, "Change" would mean returning to a single president, and dispensing with even a hint of a Vice-President pulling strings from an 'undisclosed location'.

So, I don't know.

But the real deal-breaker is Bill Clinton. Barack and Hillary could patch things up. But I don't think Barack and Slick Willie can get along. With Bill in the picture, the Vice-President would be 3rd fiddle instead of 2nd fiddle.

So, again, I don't know.

When is gubernatorial seat open in Illinois? Can Obama do a pit-stop as a Governor?

2/04/2008 07:07:00 AM  
Blogger Urban Pink said...

Vigilante, your comments are very well put. There may be two upsides to Obama as V.P.; holding his position in-line to be the next Pres. (if Hillary doesn't seriously burn that bridge the way Clinton and Gore did, which is probably 50/50). And that even as 3rd fiddle he's probably strong and visionary enough to make his case in the right direction--and to advocate to Congress. I like the Governor idea as well. But man I'll be bummed for awhile if Hillary wins the nomination--it's those Super Delegates.

2/04/2008 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger Boris said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2/04/2008 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger Boris said...

Urban Pinks, Do you want a Obama-Clinton ticket or a Clinton-Obama ticket? Shouldn't women be on top????

2/04/2008 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger Peekay said...

Guys, a Clinton - Obama ticket will not happen.

Neither will an Obama - Clinton ticket.

Let's spend our time getting out the vote (if you live in a Super Tuesday state) or on other more, relevant and realistic conversations.

2/04/2008 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Peekay said...

Oh, and please don't go into tomorrow's vote (if you are in a Super Tuesday state) thinking that if you vote for Clinton you will get Clinton, Bill and Barack -- some kind of Terrible Threesome to beat back the Republican horde.

The only way to get Obama...is to vote for Obama.

That is all.

2/04/2008 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger skip sievert said...

Duh. Any one remember my self predicting an obvious Clinton Obama ticket a year ago or so ?

All the fake politicking aside they will sweep McCain into inglorious Prisoner of War hell.

I would not give three cents for any of these players... however Hillary is the pit bull .. Obama the shiatsu lap puppy that will win America's retarded heart.

Then... what will they do in the coming collapse?
Whats in your Wallet.

2/04/2008 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Yellow Dog said...

I'll go deep for a Clinton-Obama ticket, principally because it would mean a Nightmare Ticket for the right wing! Look at this:

Dream? For whom, people who want an even greater amount of their wealth taken from them along with greater restrictions on their freedom? Such a presidential ticket would be a nightmare ticket for people like myself since it could potentially mean 16 years of these two people in the White House assuming re-election and promotion/re-election to President for whichever one becomes Vice President. Sixteen years would make me 58 years old but more importantly it would delay more retirement plans via the theft known as progressive taxation.

2/04/2008 07:02:00 PM  
Blogger LTE said...

If a Clinton-Obama ticket wins in November, it will not only make history; It will make herstory. Obama will only be number 3 in the White House. Probably much lower.

If a Clinton-Obama ticket loses, Obama will be finished. Look what Kerry did to Edwards. His message was stale after four years. It's a lose-lose ticket for Obama.

The Clintonistas understand this and they're the only ones pushing this theory. Peekay is right. If you want Obama, vote Obama.

2/04/2008 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger skip sievert said...

Both of these two are merely stopgap players.

A new and remodeled system must come. Social change will not occur under the present system.

2/04/2008 08:16:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Yes. LTE! Obama is the one to put America Barack on its track!

2/04/2008 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger Boris said...

LTE, maybe Clinton as a VP would be the best life insurance Obama can get.

2/05/2008 08:13:00 AM  
Blogger Urban Pink said...

Ugh, the implications of Hillary being a "life insurance policy" are too Russian for me but is also one reason why my dream ticket will never include a Clinton.

2/06/2008 03:06:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home