An argument for a unified Obama/Clinton ticket...

[Postman]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/11/45229/4976

[babylonsister]

1. mydd? Nothing could convince me that'd be a good idea. Sorry. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donkeykick]

11. With those proven...

numbers that Clinton showed on the road, and including the winning of the states with the most electoral votes, and winning at least one state out of two--Indiana (W) and North Carolina (L)-- and whether or not she does take West Virginia or not, I would still consider the difference in those Democratic votes before the party laughs off the idea, then you must consider that much political clout. I'm sorry. Any thing else, such as a wild-card vice-presidential hopeful is insane! :wtf:

[here_is_to_hope]

2. FAIL. n/t

[FARAFIELD]

20. OH MY DD comes Begging now that their girl is out of it

Nice try, but not going to happen.

[NorthCarolina]

4. A better argument against Clinton on the ticket...she's DLC

I do think that Gov Sebelius (KS) may be a good VP choice for Obama, or Sherrod Brown (OH) another good choice.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. What are three major areas

where Obama differs decidedly from the DLC?

[NorthCarolina]

21. Well

(1) He is NOT a DLC member
(2) He is NOT for a protracted war
(3) He is NOT for privatizing Social Security

There's more, but you asked for three.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Being a DLC member is a DLC policy?

Being for protracted war is DLC policy? Got a link?

The DLC wants to privatize social security? Got a link? Does Clinton want to privatize social security?

[berni_mccoy]

27. If Being a Member of the Unity Church ties you Rev. Wright's words, then HELL YEAH, being a member

of the DLC means supporting their POLICY. If Clinton doesn't really agree with DLC policy, WHY IS SHE A MEMBER THEN?

[newmajority]

29. She's not just a member of the DLC, she's a "leader"

"DLC Leadership Team"

From left to right: Harold Ford, Jr. is chairman of the DLC. U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC. (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's Legislative Advisory Board (LAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

[NorthCarolina]

32. Sorry to burst your DLC support bubble

but yes, they want to privatize Social Security

(snip)

Rob Shapiro, vice president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), agrees. "Only a Democrat can lead the effort for Social Security reform. The Democrats will just kill any Republican who tries to mess with Social Security. So, next year, we are going to run a big project on Social Security." (According to the Wall Street Journal, State Street is planning to help fund the DLC's think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.)

Shapiro believes that ultimately the financial markets will force the president, any president, to tackle the program. "The financial markets have become the engine of action in America in recent years," he says, noting politicians fear the negative economic consequences of their political decisions more than they fear the wrath of voters. "What the markets are saying is, 'We're gonna extract an even greater cost if you don't act.' That's how it gets onto the agenda."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1996/11/dreyfuss.html

(snip)

Oh, and about the war

(snip)

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <9>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

(snip)

It's almost as easy to look this stuff up yourself as it is to post that something isn't true based on your "assumption" or "gut feeling".

[MonkeyFunk]

33. The SS article is from 1996

I don't think that's their position now. I know it's not Hillary Clinton's position.

Both Clinton and Obama want to end the war.

I just think it's silly to keep throwing out the DLC as some giant bogeyman lurking in the wings. It's a think tank. REminds me of how people talked about Skull & Bones in '04. It's just silly.

[NorthCarolina]

34. Silly to you maybe, but certainly not to me

eom

[lojasmo]

5. Jerome jumped the shark long ago

Seriously, as I said at MyDD: "Jerome, I expect better of you, though I don't know why."

I am so sick of the race based fearmongering concern trolling.

Edit; i live in a congressional district that is, probably, 99% white. and largely rural. Obama won her by 33% spread. (66-33)

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. since 1944 no Democrat has ever won without either a Southerner or border state candidate on the

ticket. And a Obama/Clinton ticket would simply be too urbane.

There is a new conventional wisdom that says that the West which used to be solid GOP territory - but now is in contention could replace the South as the region that needs at least one Democrat on the ticket. Yes, technically speaking Illinois like California might be considered "the West". But it is not West enough - culturally speaking.

Strategically speaking, I don't see a whole lot of advantage for Hillary running as the V.P. It might help "unify the party" as they say..but since 1948 no Democrat has ever won the Presidency without at least one Southerner or border state candidate on the ticket. There would be no geographic regional balance from an Obama/Clinton ticket.

In 1960 LBJ was chosen because they knew that without him there was no possibility whatsoever of JFK carrying Texas and without at least one Southerner on the ticket - Nixon would have easily swept the entire South including Texas effortlessly. They needed Lyndon to win. They would have lost without him.

Also, Hillary's greatest weakness in the general election is that she has almost no cross over appeal. She is deeply despised by almost all Republicans and has considerably less support among independents than Sen. McCain. Although she has poled better than Obama among white male Democrats - as a demographic she is generally disliked by independent white male working class voters if positioned in a general election, and all the more so in the South, the West and in small towns and mid size cities.

In order to win, the Democrats have to have a ticket that can carry at least some states from either the West, the South or Southern border states while making a respectable showing in small towns and mid size cities across America.

Although it is a given that McCain and the Republicans will almost certainly win most of rural America and most white males votes -- in order to win - the Democrats have to make a respectable showing in rural America and among white males. I cannot see how Hillary on the ticket would strengthen the ticket in either the West or the South (including border states) or strengthen the ticket among white males and or help make a respectable showing in small town and mid size city America.

Obama's weakest points in a general election is in Southern and border states and among white males and in small towns/mid size cities. In the state by state counting that Obama would need in order to win a general election this would play out very differently than exclusive Democratic Party caucuses and primaries in places like Wyoming or North Carolina.

For Sen. Obama to win I cannot see how he can do it without broadening his appeal in these areas. And I do not see how Hillary would be anything but a hindrance. So from my point of view, the V.P. candidate needs to be a populist Southerner or Westerner or border stater who appeals to white males and who would have appeal in small towns and mid size cities.

[babylonsister]

9. Good, reasonable, sensible post there, Douglas. It needs its own thread. nt

[Merlot]

19. Populist Southener = John Edwards

Do you think he'd consider being the VP twice? Much as I like him, I'm not sure how good he'd be on the ticket.

[WA98296]

24. EDWARDS brings a populist message. THAT is REAL change! LOVE JOHN EDWARDS!

[elocs]

8. There is no compelling argument for a Obama/Clinton ticket, only a politically expedient one.

Obama is not about political expediency. He is about change and hope and a break from the old politics of the past. Who better represents the past than Senator Clinton. She would be a weight around his neck and he would regret it if he chose her.

Also, Americans are not stupid. Instead of building herself up these last two months, Clinton has been determined to tear Obama down. I don't think Americans would buy the two of them on the same ticket and would read it as an Obama sellout.

[Bjorn Against]

10. We don't need a VP candidate who says that John McCain is more experienced than our nominee.

[RC]

12. A DINO on the ticket is exactly what this country does not need.

What is needed is someone to the Left of Obama that can and will help to get this country turned around. Someone to get us out of the Meddle East. Someone that will spend the time necessary to round up and convict the real terrorists.

[rock]

13. Big O and High Hill are a bad fit

For once, I (a Hillary supporter) agree with those Obama supporters that say this would be a bad pairing.

[annie1]

22. 2nd.

[Avalux]

14. NO. The Clintons (PLURAL) would drag Obama down.

His message is about the change and the future - putting Hillary on the ticket goes against it. He would be saddled with 20 year old baggage from both Clintons.

As persuasive as Clinton's camp is about Obama needing her and her demographic; it's not true. Obama needs someone who will make states like Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, etc. competitive. Hillary isn't that person.

[crankychatter]

15. I'm not even going to read it - STOP just STOP, ok?

her negatives are through the flipping roof... even as a VP she'll motivate the opposition and turn progressives away

[JimGinPA]

16. An argument against a unified Obama/Clinton ticket...

[Skidmore]

17. Good argument, indeed.

And, might I add, the economic savvy behind Hillary's campaign should serve as a second argument against inflicting her on the nation.

[bowens43]

18. bad idea. Hillary is the poster child for everything that is wrong with politics today.

We need another visionary on the ticket , not a dinosaur.

[WA98296]

23. She's already crossed the Rubicon. Besides nothing says "change" like a Clinton.

[TBF]

25. I'm very sorry but you are delusional.

Hillary is going to be lucky to keep her senate seat after her theatrics this week. She is becoming a laughing stock. She is not going to be anyone's VP.

[ima_sinnic]

28. gee, are we going to have this asinine argument every damn day until he announces?

that's all he needs, some scheming fuckwad behind the scenes, undermining him, plotting against him, running her secret deals with Uribe and other fascist scum, selling off our natural resources to the highest bidders from Dubai, having Bill's little indiscretions fill the headlines with scandal and bullshit, hoping Obama dies or gets seriously ill so she can assume her birthright, the presidency.

If Obama were to choose the low-class backstabber for VP, I would instantly lose all respect for him and sit out the election, or write in Kucinich.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THAT LYING, FRAUDULENT, DLC SCUMBALL for any office, even dog catcher. People go out of their way to vote AGAINST her. She is at approximately 99% DISAPPROVAL. What part of that do you not get? She would be political suicide for Obama -- but somehow I think those who keep proposing this dumbass "unity" bullshit are WELL AWARE of that, and it gives them great glee to imagine it.

[Catherina]

30. Not interested. Their politics are as different as oil and water

and they have no personal charisma. A President needs a VP they can rely on. Sorry but that dog don't hunt, OUT with the DLC and IN with politicians who are responsive to the people.

Little by little we'll clean house until we get it in order.

[ej510]

31. Uh Fuck No!