The most likely ticket is Hillary/Obama in 2008 - here's how it will all go down

[Herman Munster]

The big thing that nobody seems to be talking about on DU is the changing primary calendar. BIG states such as Michigan, Florida and California are pushing for primaries one week after New Hampshire. The only candidates that will be able to compete will be the big three: Hillary, Obama, and Gore. They will be the only ones able to raise the money and build the infrastructure to run a nationalized primary calendar. Everyone else will be an afterthought.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/24/three_big_states_push_for_earlier_primaries/

Gore, Obama, and Hillary will all run because 2008 will be a historical election. Open elections without incumbent President's or VP's happen once in a politico's lifetime. It's now or never for Hillary and Gore. Obama is young but he also knows history. The longer he stays in the senate the more "polluted" he will become. He knows he must strike while the iron is hot. Waiting 8 years is a lifetime in politics. Any number of things can happen to doom his chances if he waits and he knows it.

This large field will be the best thing that could ever happen to Hillary. The only way Hillary goes down is in a one on one race against Gore or Obama. If both run, a divided fractured anti-war left split will not be enough to take out Hillary. And both will run.

Centrist democrats, single women, and a large percentage of minorities will back Hillary. Don't ever underestimate the value Bill Clinton will bring to her campaign in money, star appeal, and most importantly behind the scenes strategy. No other candidate will have the most brilliant political mind in the country with first-hand experience running two winning national presidential campaigns taking such an active role in their campaign. He will view Hillary running as part of his legacy and will put ever ounce of energy into getting her elected. He will campaign for her like he has never campaigned before to wipe away all the hurt and pain he has caused her in their marriage.

After Hillary wins the primary she will be forced to pick Obama as VP. Anything less will be a slap in the face to the African American voters who she needs to become elected. Without record women and minority turnout in 2008, Hillary won't win and she knows it.

This is the most likely scenario that will go down in my opinion. I strongly disagree with people here who say she is unelectable. You have no idea what the Clinton's are capable of but you'll find out and you'll all be amazed when she wins it all.

[dysfunctional press]

1. I CANNOT nor WILL NOT support that ticket.

Hillary is a war-monger and barak has almost ZERO experience.

if that's the ticket we get stuck with, i'll be giving the green candidate my vote.

BUT- i think that it's WAAAAAAY to early to say who is going to be on the ticket- at this point in 1990, how many people outside arkansas had even HEARD of "bill clinton"...?

[Mythsaje]

4. Did I hear you say you were going to vote Republican?

Might as well if you're going to vote Green. Go ALL the way rather than just half the way.

Just a waste.

I don't like Hillary either, but if she's the candidate, I'll vote for her. Because to do anything else would be criminal.

[JeremyWestenn]

17. Notice something...

How whenever anyone brings that truth to light, that if you vote Green or Reform your voting Repuke, that suddenly they never respond or draw themselves back in the conversation?

Truth hurts.

[MercutioATC]

34. Notice something else...

...whenever anybody here expresses a problem with voting for Hilary, they're branded a Republican.

[cascadiance]

43. Perhaps a better suggestion would be to get in place instant runoff voting!

That way one could vote for Green Party and not necessarily "vote Republican".

[still_one]

5. First she hasn't announced, but most important I remember nader saying

there was no difference between Gore and bush

and I also know there WAS and IS a difference

THAT IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, people who thought there wasn't a difference or that it didn't matter


as an aside, I doubt very much Hillary will run

[thereismore]

6. And you say that without knowing who runs on the green ticket? WTH?

You are so finicky about dem names, but green names are just dandy. Go figure.

[k_jerome]

19. you are on the wrong board then. nt.

[berni_mccoy]

2. I got news for ya: if things are fractured on the War issue, Hillary will lose

The majority of the U.S. (not just Dems anymore) think the war was WRONG (beyond just a FUBAR mistake).

The VAST majority of the Dems (like 90%) believe the war was IMMORAL and UNJUSTIFIED and are against those who support it or staying there in any fashion.

Hillary will lose because of this.

[Mz Pip]

11. She may lose

but not because of that. She'll lose because she is a Clinton. She'll lose because she won't play well in the South. She's lose because she has little charisma.

I doubt in the grand scheme of things the average voter will hold her Iraq War vote against her. Most people, who aren't political junkies can't remember what they had for lunch yesterday, much less the positions candidates took 7 years ago.

THe Democrats were backed into a corner over the war. They were the Minority Party and back in 2003 being anti-war was a political liability. I blame most of this on the Repugs who made this an either you're for us or against us choice. Hind site is 20/20. I doubt Hillary thought it would get as bad as it has in Iraq. It's easy to look at the current situation and go all ballistic over people who voted for this. And if that 90% of the Dems voted against Bush in 2004, we wouldn't be in this place. But there were plenty of Democrats who held there nose and voted for the status quo because thye bought into the meme of not changing horses in the middle of a waer

A vote for the Iraq War will not be my litmus test. It's where we go from here. I'll listen to what she has to say if she runs. If she ends up being the candidate, I'll vote for her - just like I did for Kerry, who I thought was about as interesting as watching paint dry.

If any progressive votes for some unnamed Green candidate over Hillary because of what she did in 2003, when the country was still raw from 9/11, well screw them.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[IndyOp]

3. I'll be amazed and disgusted. I despise Bill Clinton & Billary, too --

Their DLC politics contributed to the rise of the current administration.

Bill Clinton allowed the deaths of over 500,000 vulnerable, innocent civilians in Iraq during the killing economic sanctions. That makes him a bigger war criminal than either Bush.

Bill Clinton allowed the free-trade agreements that are destroying our nation.

Bill Clinton is an S.O.B. who should NEVER be allowed to step foot in the White House again.

:grr:

[thereismore]

7. As opposed to repug killers? I can't believe this is DU. nt

[IndyOp]

15. While my tone may've been over the top - the truth is the truth.

Every President (except Carter) since WWII is guilty of war crimes. I want another Carter - another decent person who will NOT support the agenda of the corporations and the CIA and the military industrial complex.

I am anxious enough about my urge to support Gore - because he is cut of the same cloth. I believe we can push Gore in the right direction. I believe that his betrayal by the US public and the Democratic Party in 2000 and his understanding of the role corporations have played in the climate crisis will allow him to see our world more clearly.

Hillary is same old, same old and that is too, too dangerous right now.

We've GOT to do things differently - very differently.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson (close paraphrase)

[thereismore]

33. I give you that. nt

[mattclearing]

55. Gore is no answer to that, though.

In fact, no Presidential candidate is going to solve the problems you're talking about. The military industrial complex doesn't get destroyed in one fell swoop by electing a single person. If it did, JFK and RFK would still be alive today.

Your rant against Clinton totally ignores that he cut defense expenditures and moved for a less overtly malevolent foreign policy. That's a policy that Gore supported.

I like Al Gore, but I don't think he is going to run. And even if he won, if he took on the military industrial complex, he would lose. See JFK.

The only way to end the military industrial complex is to starve it. That means making it utterly unnacceptable to kill for any reason. No killing = no money for killing machines = no money for media oligopolies to convince us it's okay to kill people in other countries.

That's something that will only happen from the grassroots up. No one is going to end the military industrial complex from the top down. You can wound it, but you can't kill it without addressing that which makes it tick...the total disconnect between the American citizen and the people who act in their supposed interests.

[mattclearing]

51. All of that is nonsense.

First assertion: DLC politics didn't contribute to the rise of the current administration...if anything they postponed it (in the form of a Bush I re-election).

Second: Bush has caused the deaths of 300,000 Iraqis (at least) directly by invading. And the economic sanctions were U.N. sanctions, not U.S. sanctions.

Third: Bill Clinton pushed for the free-trade agreements that lowered prices for middle and lower income families in the U.S. while providing work to impoverished nations. The jury's still out on whether free-trade agreements are destroying this nation, though clearly they are destroying a lot of others.

Four: Calling his mother names? That's not called for.

Bill Clinton is a hero, better than any other President in recent memory, and did a great deal more good than harm.

I'd like to see an alternate reality of what would have happened had he not run for President in 1992. You'd not be making such comments if we could see that parallel universe, methinks.

If you despise Bill Clinton, you may be in the wrong place.

[Skittles]

52. "Billary" - n i c e

:puke:

[cascadiance]

8. And then the DLC wins and America loses...

NO THANKS!!!

Write off any chance of getting Clean Elections legislation through nationally if that happens! And therefore keep our system of corruption alive and kicking!

You forget though that Biden and Vilsack will also be running, which will help split the pro-DLC vote too in the primaries, so I don't think it will be as much of a foregone conclusion that Hillary wins either.

I think most of us that are anti-war, pro-grass roots progressives, etc. will be getting behind Al Gore if he runs. I know I will. If he doesn't, I might look Wes Clark too before I look at Obama.

I don't like being "marketed" a presidential candidate the way everyone is saying we should vote for Obama now. He feels too much like a stealth candidate of the DLC. I want him to earn his spurs more in the Senate, where I can see his true colors first before I decide I'll throw my hat in with him. I'm not writing him off like I have with other DLC candidates yet, but his voting record hasn't done much for me, and this latest "marketing pitch", quite frankly just pushes me away further.

[unschooler]

24. The DLC is about practicality. Hillary is not a practical choice.

They'd be fools to push for Hillary.

Gore, btw, is also a DLC member. But he has shown he can win nationally and would be extremely tough against anybody the republicans nominate.

[cascadiance]

37. Gore has left the DLC spiritually, if not physically...

Since the 2000 election he's on a number of occasions come at odds with folks like Lieberman and the DLC. I think he inwardly probably blames the DLC a bit for the message he used from them to campaign in 2000 that didn't win as many voter as he could have.

Check the following articles:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/12/debunking-centrism.html

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

You look at other articles too out there, and it's obvious that Gore's heart is with that of Democratic populists, not DLC corporatists. As noted in the above two links here, the DLC actually got upset with Gore when he "turned on them" to appeal more to populist sentiment to raise himself in the polls in 2000. I liked that he took them on head on then. I'd like to think if he ran again this time, he'd be more in Howard Dean's camp, and he of course already has name recognition from earlier times that it is hard for a non-DLC member to get these days without their backing.

I still feel that it is THE most important thing that we have a 2008 candidate that is NOT tied to corporate money, and therefore not tied at least not mentally in the camp of the DLC. The DLC I'm sure will do their damndest to keep national Clean Elections campaign legislation from happening, as it will render them useless if it passes.

I still wonder if Obama is the DLC's "pragmatic choice" now. Perhaps they are seeing that the odds on Hillary don't add up, no matter how much they try to sell her as the favorite. Perhaps they think a stealth candidate that they could count on later being on their side would be someone that the base would come out to support more than Hillary. I still think though that Obama is just not experienced enough yet for us to know where he really sits. He might turn around and give the DLC the finger sort of like Gore did, and that would really elevate him on my radar, but right now I see mostly marketing spin, that doesn't really grab me like a solid record of progressive stances and efforts would.

[thereismore]

9. it's possible that Gore will take Hillary anyway. In that case, Gore/Obama.

[cascadiance]

10. Personally I'd prefer Gore/Feingold...

But I guess we'll have to wait to see how the wind blows then.

[dysfunctional press]

36. Gore/Clark would be my first choice at this point...

i just don't understand what people see in barak obama- he's got almost NO experience to show for- some people apparently see an articulate black man and figure that's enough for him to deserve a spot on the ticket?

[cascadiance]

38. Gore/Clark would be my second choice after Gore/Feingold

That would be another combo that would keep corporate money influence away from the ticket.

My biggeset issue with Clark is political experience, which is why I favor Feingold over him at this point for the second spot. But that is a plus in his favor too in some respects. I also wouldn't mind seeing Clark/Feingold if Gore doesn't enter the race.

[dysfunctional press]

39. i think that feingold would be wasted as vice-president...

and don't sell clark short on "political" experience- there's a lot of it involveed in the job of supreme commander of nato.

[cascadiance]

41. I was thinking of Boxer earlier for running mate...

But I think I'd much rather have the governor of Wisconsin pick a replacement senator for Feingold than our current governor here in California picking one for Boxer. I still hope we can get a recall before then, and then Feinstein could be put in a "good" place for herself if she were to win the governorship, and then we'd no longer have that problem.

I still would like to see Clark on as a cabinet member in 2008 (Sec. of Defense or Sec. of State if he's not on the ticket). That would also be a good preparation for him to run for president (or VP) later down the road if he doesn't do it this time around, especially if he could really help clean up Iraq situation properly in one of those two roles.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. oh come on, does all this matter

the party could throw a rubber chicken and a goldfish out as our 2008 ticket and I'd vote for it. What are my options?

Vote Republican?

No.

Vote Green?

Uh, did that once, not again.

Stay home?

Yeah right, as if.

[Tony Soprano]

13. I despise Karl Rove

but he "gets it" about the base. No Pro- War candidate is going to make it, I'm tellin ya....

[Perky]

14. Obama will have a mortal lock on the noimination if he runs

HRC will not win either of those stated and will not be able rise up to the expectations. She will not win either of those...Shw will not win South Carolina, She will not win Nevada. Four straight losses starting out and the media will say what's wrong with this campaignb and the money will start flowing in other directions. SHe might break through for Super Tuesday, but that will proably be too late...

The race in Iowa is really for number two position. Vilsak ought to win it, he is toast if he doesn't. But Harkin and Durbin are gonna back Obabma. He ought to finish a strong second going into NH. I thion he is going to win in IA and NH because both demand reatil politics and they take they are both very informed voters., He is esceedingly genuine..He will be the master of the 1,000 coffees he has to do. If you win those two and South Carolina with a large African American bloc, it is off to the races and no one will be able to stop him. There will be financial and poliitcal pressure on the rest of the field to yield to the inevitable.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. If Gore gets in, the nomination is his for the taking IMHO.

Sorry, this idea that Hillary is some kind of shoo-in works in Rupert Murdoch's head, and nowhere else.

[JeremyWestenn]

18. I'm with you here..

That actually makes a lot of sense. However, I'm still not sure if Gore is going to run regardless to what everyone else in the world swears he will and will not do. Personally, if someoen says their not running, their not running. I don't think Obama can hold against Hillary in the primary, even on a 1 on 1, I could be wrong but this is my view. I think that a Clinton/Obama ticket is inevitable. What would be even more astounding is if they just sealed the deal now, Obama being VP, and ran her through the primary with a premade ticket. Essentially gurantee's a victory.

[Raine]

20. That ticket is a sure loser

if that's the way it turns out we might as well stamp "L" on all our foreheads right now! x(

[NV Whino]

21. Only if you really, really, really want to lose the White House.

Good Gawd, I can't even think about it.

[unschooler]

22. Hillary and Obama energize nobody but the republican base.

Bill Clinton could energize supporters by the sheer force of his personality. Hillary would be a great Secretary of State, but she'll never be president.

[Gloria]

23. From what I hear, Hillary is the only potential candidate who voted

for the IWR who hasn't offered some sort of retraction/regret.

That alone is a huge problem.

I'm more interested in "fighting Dems" rather than "triangulating Dems." .....Which means I'll probably have to focus on working close to home than the national campaign.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. Fully agree... n/t

[splat]

25. Gee, who will the white men vote for? n/t

[unschooler]

26. Moving SC down on the primary schedule will be a blow to the religious right in the GOP.

Probably good for the GOP in general.

[JNelson6563]

27. Is it just me....or....?

Is there a serious uptick in the Hillary is our candidate and resistance to the idea is futile posts of late?

Julie

[cascadiance]

44. That and Obama is pres or her running mate...

It's called marketing... And that is what the DLC has a lot of money to do right now...

[enid602]

28. VP

If Hillary really wants to be President, she should realize that the best way to get there is by initially running as VP, perhaps under someone like Clark.

[ruggerson]

29. You're forgetting Edwards

The first two caucuses are Iowa and Nevada. First two primaries with the new schedule are NH and So Carolina.

Edwards has an impressive ground operation in Iowa, Nevada and S. Carolina. If he wins all three, who do you think heads into the rest of the season with a full head of steam?

[B Calm]

32. I like Edwards.. He has never forgotten that he came from a working

class family!

[Samantha]

30. When we were at this point prior to the 2004 election

Gore had a favorability rating of over 50% among Democrats; Hillary polled 19%.

If he announces he's in, Hillary won't be able to touch him. He came out prior to the preemptive Iraqi invasion with an incredibly strong, passionate speech opposing it. If we invade the borders of a sovereign nation which has not attacked us, we will be doing the same thing we went after Saddam for in the first Gulf War. Sure, he's a bad man, but he's not the one who attacked us. Invading Iraq will draw necessary resources from our war in Afghanistan, and that is where the terrorists are hiding who did attack us (paraphrasing Gore's words).

With that speech, Gore was attempting to give Democrats in Congress political cover for opposing Bush's* war. Hillary, among others, did not take that cover. She opted instead to sign the authorization. It was a fatal political mistake with those of us who agreed with Gore.

Too many people have died as a result of the mistake Hillary made at that critical time. No nuanced modifications subsequently tendered to the voting public can undo that tragic fact.

I am a single woman who will vote for Gore any day any time over Hillary. In decisions involving the highest political stakes, gender is a non-factor. Judgment and experience are everything.

[Solo_in_MD]

31. And the repukes will win the Whitehouse and maybe retake

the House and Senate

[MazeRat7]

35. So we're gonna hand '08 to the pugs on a silver platter.... -nt

[NuttyFluffers]

40. i could care less about the prez ticket. i care more about buffering congress more.

let the republicans blow their money on propagandizing for the presidency. i'd rather build the grassroots to take a super majority in the congress, start impeaching off some of those bullshit supreme court justices, and undo this republican crap (like bankrupcy bill, war funds, corpo slush funds and tax give-aways, etc). also, if we have enough votes a presidential veto wouldn't matter, and if he got outta line his ass could be grass(roots) faster than he can say "oh my dear lobbyists!"

but we could spend our time pissing on each other's shoes about '08 prez election... meanwhile i'll just sit back and judge the color of the stream.

[Dinger]

42. It's Not Hillary I Have A Problem with

I am REALLY tired of the way she is being shoved down our throat! She could be an outstanding president, I have NO doubt, but please, let ME decide who I want to vote for! Thank you:)

[BenDavid]

45. If SHE decides to run I will

support HER. If SHE decides to place OBAMA on the ticket I will support that ticket....SHE will win if SHE decides to run....As of now the decision is for HER to make and if SHE does then you all that are writing all this hate about HER will either keep writing your hate or go sit your asses down and wait this election out....i prefer you come and join in something hisorical as having been part of the first woman elected as President....That is if SHE decides to run....

[HCE SuiGeneris]

54. What is this HER SHE crap? Your righteous preaching is tiresome.

You are the Determinator? I will NOT vote based on some marketed package presented to me. I WILL vote based on past performance and voting records of the candidate. I WILL vote based on qualities such as honesty and integrity, and platforms that will provide new direction and work to rectify the damage that has been done by the corporate-owned flunkies we have allowed for 40 years.

[diamidue]

46. I'll stay home.

If Hillary/Obama is who I'm asked to vote for. And if the Republicans win, then maybe next time the Democrats will come up with electable candidates. I voted "Anybody but Bush" in the last election. I'm not doing that again.

[Blue-Jay]

47. Can I borrow your crystal ball?

[mattclearing]

48. Gore won't run. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

49. Every presidency since JFK has been a

Corporatist enabler. The sellout of our nation without true representation will continue under Clinton rule. Trilateral members need not apply in my book!

[Ms. Clio]

53. hide thread

it's a beautiful thing.

adios to this nonsense.

[AJ9000]

56. Mcain will beat that combo is how it will go down. nm