Obama/Clinton Ticket?

Dear God I hope this never comes to fruition. An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would essentially be counterproductive. Although they agree on the ideals of many issues their differences on the execution of such ideals would in effect, get very little done without the VP getting told to piss off by the President from time to time.

The problem is they share the same strengths and weaknesses, and thus their strengths and personalities will clash while their weaknesses will expand due to the conflict.

I'd say an Obama/Edwards ticket would compliment each other the best. Edwards would end up filling the weaknesses Obama has, and actually have some say in running the country, which will help ensure that the issues that are important to Edwards not only differ from Obama, but will also get the attention they deserve. I'd imagine he'd still be told to fuck off with Clinton at the helm.

I know I kind of rambled a bit, so let me explain this using numbers:

Obama:
Awesome on issues 1,3,5,6
Sucks on issues 2,4

Clinton:
Awesome on issues 1,3,5,6
Sucks on issues 2,4

Edwards:
Awesome on issues 1,2,4,6
Sucks on issues 3,5

In my eyes, an Obama/Clinton ticket would result in a lot of arguing over issues 1,3,5,6 and the ignoring of issues 2,4, mostly due to personality and execution conflicts of said plans. That's why I'd rather see an Obama/Edwards ticket, because to me it ensures a more well-rounded Presidency, and a more compatible personality base.

~HotShotX
 
Sounds pretty awful. Regardless, if Hillary wins the nomination....I'm voting for McCain. We've had 20 years of two families being President. I can't take more of either.
 
Watched Clinton on CNN this morning for a few minutes, I started to remember why I was a conservative in the '90s.

It is amazing how much work she thinks she got accomplished as First Lady / a figurehead. Yeah, China has the best women's rights and it is all due to HRC.

Dittohead genes kicking in.

Obama doesn't provoke that reaction.

I say Clinton and Obama should go tooth and nail especially after she mocked his message of hope repeatedly.

A pet rock could beat McCain due to McCain-Feingold, the 100 Years Iraq and I don't get Economics comments.

Hopefully, it'll be Obama.

EDIT: Honestly, I think it is a test from Clinton to see if Obama will blink.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well i wouldn't really have a choice either way, certainly not voting for mccain.[/QUOTE]

quotin dis
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Dear God I hope this never comes to fruition. An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would essentially be counterproductive. Although they agree on the ideals of many issues their differences on the execution of such ideals would in effect, get very little done without the VP getting told to piss off by the President from time to time.

The problem is they share the same strengths and weaknesses, and thus their strengths and personalities will clash while their weaknesses will expand due to the conflict.

I'd say an Obama/Edwards ticket would compliment each other the best. Edwards would end up filling the weaknesses Obama has, and actually have some say in running the country, which will help ensure that the issues that are important to Edwards not only differ from Obama, but will also get the attention they deserve. I'd imagine he'd still be told to fuck off with Clinton at the helm.

I know I kind of rambled a bit, so let me explain this using numbers:

Obama:
Awesome on issues 1,3,5,6
Sucks on issues 2,4

Clinton:
Awesome on issues 1,3,5,6
Sucks on issues 2,4

Edwards:
Awesome on issues 1,2,4,6
Sucks on issues 3,5

In my eyes, an Obama/Clinton ticket would result in a lot of arguing over issues 1,3,5,6 and the ignoring of issues 2,4, mostly due to personality and execution conflicts of said plans. That's why I'd rather see an Obama/Edwards ticket, because to me it ensures a more well-rounded Presidency, and a more compatible personality base.

~HotShotX[/quote]Well the VP has no real say in what the president decides to do, so personality clashes wouldn't really matter there. In fact, the VP has little to no power to begin with, aside from the tie braking vote in the senate.
 
VPs really only have as much power as the President is willing to give them, other than that tie-breaking vote, which would probably be the same whoever the VP was.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It is amazing how much work she thinks she got accomplished as First Lady / a figurehead.[/QUOTE]
It seriously blows my mind when she goes after Obama on the experience thing. It's like the wife of a CEO trying to take his seat years after he leaves.. under a cloud of scandal... and she never made it higher than middle management.

[quote name='HotShotX']The problem is they share the same strengths and weaknesses[/quote]
I have no idea what you're alluding to there. In my mind, these people couldn't be more different if they were from opposite parties. What do they share?

I'd say an Obama/Edwards ticket would compliment each other the best.
Click to expand...
Not even close, dude. Edwards couldn't even carry his own state last go round as Veep. Obama even beat Edwards on his home turf. Edwards is absolutely worthless to Obama. Richardson is by miles the best Veep candidate for Obama. It hits McCain on his home turf, it turns the throngs of primary Latino votes against him into an almost certainty, and most devastatingly for McCain, it puts Texas in play.

Oh, and Richardson is actually a good guy it seems. That would be nice too.

A fusion ticket with Hillary is about the worst thing imaginable for Obama. He would be tainted by her inevitable scandal (a la Gore).
 
If Hillary takes the nomination I'll either be voting independent or not at all.
I seriously doubt Obama would take Clinton as VP, if anything I expect him to take Dodd, Edwards or Richardson. My ideal team is Obama/Richardson, but I'd still vote for him (grudgingly) if Clinton gained the VP nod. Best not to throw out the baby with the bathwater and all that.
 
I'd still vote, as I don't have that much against Hillary. I'd vote for her if she get's the nomination, so I'd definitely still vote for Obama if Hillary was his VP.

That said, I don't think she'd be the best choice in terms of getting him more votes in the general election. Most that voted for Hillary would probably vote for him over McCain anyway. So he needs to find a way to expand his base a bit (i.e. pick up more middle leaning republicans etc.).
 
I would never vote for Hillary even if jesus christ was the Vp nominee.
I doubt obamma would pick her to run with.
Nonpartisan is really the only way to go. I feel sorry for the millions of americans who aren't non partisan.
 
she needs him for VP a lot more than he needs her. If she gets the nom, there will be a lot of previously enthusiastic people that will be pissed. The only way to at least get them somewhat interested is by having him still involved.
 
Obama+Richardson would be a great combo IMO
Obama+Edwards would be cool as well

If Clinton ultimately wins and picks Richardson for VP, I would be for it. If its anyone else, I would likely vote for McCain
 
[quote name='ananag112']Obama+Richardson would be a great combo IMO
Obama+Edwards would be cool as well

If Clinton ultimately wins and picks Richardson for VP, I would be for it. If its anyone else, I would likely vote for McCain[/quote]

I don't get it.

Why would anybody vote for McCain if Clinton won the Democratic nomination rather than if Obama did?

How is Clinton more different from Obama than McCain is?
 
Obamma, is superior to Hillary
She can't run a country and mccain would die within a year of office.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']mccain would die within a year of office.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about that. With a wife like that, not to mention that woman on the side, I'm sure McCain's gotten his hands into the Hugh Hefner Health Plan.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't get it.

Why would anybody vote for McCain if Clinton won the Democratic nomination rather than if Obama did?

How is Clinton more different from Obama than McCain is?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, she really isn't. I just don't like Clinton because of her work to censor video games. Also, I think her plan for national healthcare will be a big failure.

Really, I like all three candidates left and I think they would all be a big improvement over Bush.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why would anybody vote for McCain if Clinton won the Democratic nomination rather than if Obama did?

How is Clinton more different from Obama than McCain is?[/QUOTE]
It depends on what you're voting for. I vote people, not politics. Politics has a way of just muddying the water anyway. I choose the person I think best fits the job. Personally, I would vote

Obama > McCain > Clinton

I think that is an apt description of how I view them as decent, upstanding human beings. And that's the way I vote.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It depends on what you're voting for. I vote people, not politics. Politics has a way of just muddying the water anyway. I choose the person I think best fits the job. Personally, I would vote

Obama > McCain > Clinton

I think that is an apt description of how I view them as decent, upstanding human beings. And that's the way I vote.[/quote]
agreed
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't get it.

Why would anybody vote for McCain if Clinton won the Democratic nomination rather than if Obama did?

How is Clinton more different from Obama than McCain is?[/quote]

Clinton claims to have 35 years of experience. Some of those years are her days in law school as a student. More of those years are her days as an attorney general's wife, a governor's wife and a president's wife.

By HRC's standards, my 5 year old daughter has 5 years of experience driving a car because she was inside a moving vehicle.

McCain, despite many flaws, has earned his positions. Of course, I still won't vote for him.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Clinton claims to have 35 years of experience. Some of those years are her days in law school as a student. More of those years are her days as an attorney general's wife, a governor's wife and a president's wife. [/quote]
For me, that's just a single manifestation of what I think is a bigger problem with her. She will do *anything*, say *anything* to win. I just can't imagine that's a good thing.

And I don't like the idea of half the population of America absolutely detesting the president. They certainly haven't been the most apologetic as a whole, but I wouldn't wish the way I feel about President Bush on the Republicans via a President Clinton. Though to be honest, after that bull shit Rush and the rest of the right wing media pulled in Texas (encouraging their people to vote for Hillary to the point that they probably won Texas for her), the evil bastard in me is tempted to return the favor and vote for her in the national election should it come to that.
 
This will most likely have to happen.

If it does they might as well just give the election to McCain. Neither one of them have "experience".

And I agree, I vote for the people because the politics are jokes. They will lie, and what they don't lie about will never pass (health care).
 
[quote name='ananag112']Yeah, she really isn't. I just don't like Clinton because of her work to censor video games.[/QUOTE]

It's dumb vote pandering but she would have to replace most of the Supreme Court to accomplish anything re: video games other than goading Congress into holding more hearings
 
This would be a terrible idea. From the way the campaign played out, they'd be terrible together. I can already see the Republican attack ads where they use one or the other's quotes saying -- "Sounds like unity to me..." or anything like that. It's way to easy to attack them with their own words.

The same could be said for the GOP side, which is part of why I doubt that McCain will pull one of his opponents in as his VP except for possibly Thompson or Giuliani who, for some reason, never said a word about McCain despite being more than happy to attack Romney, Huckabee, Paul, or even each other.

PLUS -- Clinton needs someone who's 100% unoffensive as a running mate and Obama needs someone with good foreign policy credentials. Obama needs Biden, Richardson, or someone of their ilk to help balance his ticket. Clinton needs Mark Warner or Evan Bayh to help balance her. Mind you -- I can already see Obama bucking my analysis and pulling in someone like Edwards to completely make it a ticket of hope/youth...which, there is some merit to that idea. But would Edwards want to keep up being twice a bridesmaid, never the bride? :p
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']
If it does they might as well just give the election to McCain. Neither one of them have "experience".
[/quote]

Experience aside, there is substantial question as to if America is ready for a female pres/VP. There is also substantial question as to if America is ready for an African-American pres/VP.

Sticking the two together does not increase their chances. I believe it actually decreases their chances, as it starts to throw (what should be pointless but are not) issues of race and gender in the faces of a voting base that might not be ready for it.
 
I was reading time magazine yesterday, they had an interesting write up on how much experience each president has had. Truthfully, most of the well thought of presidents had next to no experience. Washington didn't, Lincoln didn't, Grant didn't, Eisenhower didn't, Kennedy didn't. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower had all been generals, but had no political experience. Granted JFK didn't handle the bay of pigs invasion all that well, but Eisenhower already had plans for it set in motion before JFK was even elected.

Besides, Bush was governor of Texas and look where that experience got us.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It depends on what you're voting for. I vote people, not politics. Politics has a way of just muddying the water anyway. I choose the person I think best fits the job. Personally, I would vote

Obama > McCain > Clinton

I think that is an apt description of how I view them as decent, upstanding human beings. And that's the way I vote.[/quote]

I realize that a person's personality is important, and being a decent, upstanding human being is, obviously, good, but to vote for someone that is opposed to you politically because they have a better personality for the job doesn't make any sense.

I know they won't do everything they say, but why would you vote a person into a legal position that could possibly do things you don't want done rather than voting in a person who might not do the things that you want done?

If you think that their politics really don't matter, have you been paying attention to things like abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, etc. over the past 8 years? The president has effects on things like that. Especially now with a majority Democrat Congress, if you support the Democrat platform it would only make sense to vote for the Democrat. If they have any chance of passing laws that match their ideology it's now.

If you're politically indifferent then obviously you don't care, but if you're politically indifferent then why are you voting?
 
[quote name='SpazX']
If you're politically indifferent then obviously you don't care, but if you're politically indifferent then why are you voting?[/quote]

Apparently you've learned nothing from shows like American Idol - it's an American's duty to vote! For the prettiest one!
 
[quote name='SpazX']I realize that a person's personality is important, and being a decent, upstanding human being is, obviously, good, but to vote for someone that is opposed to you politically because they have a better personality for the job doesn't make any sense.[/quote]
Everyone's opposed to everyone. No candidate gets close to my position on most things.

I know they won't do everything they say
Click to expand...
That's putting it mildly.

but why would you vote a person into a legal position that could possibly do things you don't want done rather than voting in a person who might not do the things that you want done?
Click to expand...
Because I don't believe that's the choice. I believe that the person elected president will do whatever they like. They always do and I think it's a fool's gold idea to believe that any candidate genuinely feels obligated to follow through on even half of their candidacy positions. To me it's not a question of whether McCain will do things I don't like (I know he will), it's whether I think he's a decent human being or not.

If you think that their politics really don't matter, have you been paying attention to things like abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, etc. over the past 8 years? The president has effects on things like that.
Click to expand...
Of course they don't. That's absurdity. A hardcore Republican majority for 6 years with a crazy hardline partisan President and how many times did abortion rights, gay rights, stem cells, etc. (essentially, the entire Republican social agenda) actually get voted on, much less passed?

And even with stem cells, California laughingly swept Federal whimpering aside and did it themselves.

Especially now with a majority Democrat Congress, if you support the Democrat platform it would only make sense to vote for the Democrat. If they have any chance of passing laws that match their ideology it's now.
Click to expand...
I don't give a shit if I agree with a candidate 80% of the time (which it's never that high). If they're a disgusting excuse for a human being, I'm not voting them in. Character should be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd considerations for a leader.

If you're politically indifferent then obviously you don't care, but if you're politically indifferent then why are you voting?
Click to expand...
Who said I was politically indifferent? Just because I don't beg for every sound bite campaign scrap at their table doesn't mean I'm indifferent to politics. I'm indifferent to campaign politics, sure, but that's not real politics. That's theater for children and partisans.

Bush has gone against just about everything he said on the campaign trail.
Clinton went against just about everything he said on the campaign trail.
Bush went against just about everything he said on the campaign trail.
Reagan went against just about everything he said on the campaign trail.
Carter went against just about everything he said on the campaign trail.
Ford was a joke.
Nixon... haha.
 
[quote name='speedracer']If they're a disgusting excuse for a human being, I'm not voting them in. Character should be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd considerations for a leader.[/quote]

Agreed.

My voting preference:

McCain>Obama>Horse Shit>Clinton

Although McCain isn't really my first choice, I have little confidence that Obama has the backbone required for the job.

To answer the thread's original question:
I doubt Obama would take Hillary as his VP, but if he did I wouldn't vote for him. Obama-Edwards I might vote for, depending on who McCain chooses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top