This is what bothers me about all the "Unity Ticket" talk

[Ken Burch]

Those that talk of it(almost all of them HRC supporters)act as if it should go without saying that the ticket should be Clinton/Obama. If they really wanted unity, shouldn't they be at least equally willing to have it be Obama/Clinton?

Why do they think they're entitled to put their candidate on the top of the ticket when they're still losing, and when they'd still be losing even if the illegitimate Florida and Michigan delegations were allowed to vote for the nomination?

Why can't they at least be open-minded and modest enough to admit that, in the case of a "Unity Ticket" they aren't entitled to simply demand the top spot for THEIR candidate?

Had they left it at simply suggesting a Unity Ticket, without insisting that their candidate automatically be the one to top it, it might have been worth considering.

[dkf]

1. Because that's the only way she gets on the ticket...

I highly doubt Obama picks her.

[BlooInBloo]

3. She doesn't deliver anything that the Democratic nominee wouldn't already have.

[babylonsister]

4. Yep. Her savior with the AA vote is Obama; she's doomed otherwise.

And frankly, she doesn't have a prayer. I can't see Obama picking her; she's been horrid at anything close to uniting the Dems. It's all been about her, and I'm sick of it!

[Elidor]

2. This is what bothers me about all the "Unity Ticket" talk

It's a stupid fucking idea from the get-go.

[grantcart]

5. god that just saves so much work

I usually go point by point but your way is so much better lol

[NanceGreggs]

6. It's not just that ..

... although the fact that they think she deserves top-of-the-ticket as the second-placer is annoying enough!

It's the fact that people who supported her "he's just a speech he made in 2002" remark now think that he'd be a perfect VP on her (non-existent) ticket.

Shouldn't Hill be choosing someone who was more than "a speech and a bunch of big rallies" as VP - unless, of course, he was her only ticket to the WH?

[bhikkhu]

7. What bothers me is the focus on "unelectability"

which is entirely manufactured. Essentially, the arguments tear down Obama to the point where it seems he must need another certain "asset" on the ticket to stand a chance. The problem being, the suggested asset is the same one who is perceived as having done all the tearing.

"Not gonna happen" is the first take. Second take is why do they keep tearing up the front-runner, undermining the infrastructure, hacking at the party foundations? Isn't that what we have Republicans for?

[Blue_State_Elitist]

8. I would love an Obama/Clinton ticket.

The only problem that I see is that Clinton might be a little too old in 8 years.

[Ken Burch]

13. You can't seriously be arguing that you're entitled to demand the top of the ticket

for your candidate this year, considering she's behind and is going to stay behind in delegates?

You've just illustrated the arrogance I was talking about.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

14. Dude.

I wasn't demanding the top of the ticket at all. I simply said that I would love an Obama/Clinton ticket except that Hillary is going to be too old in 8 years for a national campaign.

Relax.

[Ken Burch]

18. Yeah, but that means you're insisting that Obama musn't lead the ticket now

Or couldn't possibly win now.

Both of which are untrue statements, as you know.

Both candidates are equally electable, especially if they only focus from now on on bashing McCain.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

19. I wasn't insisting that at all.

Just saying that I think Hillary wouldn't be a good VP because we need someone who could run in 8 years to fill that role.

[Ken Burch]

20. Well, then there's the alternative I've repeatedly suggested:

She could be Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, and then eventually become Chief Justice. In that role, she'd have more power than she ever would in partisan office, and have it far longer. And, freed of having to deal with day-to-day public opinion, she'd finally feel free to actually fight for progressive values. In this way, I think she could be the next Earl Warren.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

21. If you could give me an example of a sitting Senator being chosen for the Supreme Court...

I might agree with you. The idea seems a little bit implausible.

[HooptieWagon]

9. The reason Hillary is mentioned at the head

There aren't enough food-tasters in the Secret Service if she was the VP...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

10. I'm a Clinton supporter who would go along with Obama/Clinton.

or vice-versa. Whatever way we can win the easiest with....

[Ken Burch]

12. I can respect you for that view.

n/t.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

26. thanks!

Not used to getting a lot of respect from the Obama supporters - so appreciate that.

[donheld]

11. Isn't bargaining part of the grieving process

These people are doing everything they can to keep Hillary in the picture. They may as well start threads "PLEASE, PLEASE LET HILLARY PLAY." I'm thinking they know she's lost but their looking for one last ditch effort to get they're candidate in some where.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

15. Maybe it's bargaining.

But the idea of a black man and a woman on a winning ticket sounds like a great addition to any high school history book. Right?

[WillyT]

16. I'm Sorry... I Couldn't Accept It In Either Direction...

I don't think the "let bygones be bygones" puppet show is gonna work this time around. It will make everybody into a pandering liar.

Too much troubled water under that bridge.

Plus... who wants to give up their Senate seat for the VP slot???

:shrug:

[krispos42]

17. It's an inheirently stupid idea

The Veep only has as much power and authority as the Prez delegates. Cheney et al. has a lot because Bush is clueless and hands-off, effectively a head of state but not a head of government.

People seem to think that it will be some sort of co-presidency, when in fact I doubt either yield very much power to the other. The Veep's only constitutional authority is as leader of the senate and first in the succession line to the Presidency. Remember, it was originally the prize for the guy that finished second in the presidental elections!

Traditionally, it's been more of a public-relations and bully-pulpit office than an actual functioning part of the executive machinery of government.

I don't think either of them as Prez will yield much power to the other as Veep, nor as a Veep reduce themselves to photo ops with the Boy Scout of the Year.


Incidently, this is also why a Biden/Hagel (or any "Unity" Dem/Repub combination) ticket is also a dumbfuck idea, regardless of what Sam Waterston says.

[musicblind]

22. I haven't really gotten that impression from Clinton supporters.

I for one would have no problem with a unity ticket with EITHER of them on top, as long as it is a ticket of unity because honestly believe that is the only way we will win this. I feel like DU has its head buried in the sand, ignoring polls that show the majority of Dems want this ticket... and the common logic that HALF of the party has supported each of these candidates. It does not matter if it is Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. I don't care, but they should have a unity ticket. Most people who think otherwise are blinded by their hate of Hillary. And as Bill Maher (who supports Obama) poignantly said "If you hate Hillary, that doesn't say anything about her, that says something about YOU." (or something to that effect, I don't have a transcript here, but it was discussed on DU after he said it, and I saw him say it live)

[AllentownJake]

23. The Presidential Nominee

Should chose the person they are comfortable running with and being part of their administration. Nothing should be shoved down their throats because of a close race.

I remember the line in the West Wing when the VP asks why he won't be replaced an the only response of the President is

I might die.

The person who the nominee feels would advance their ideals and agenda should be the VP nominee in case something horrible happens.

[davidpdx]

24. Ken, I posted something very similar to this in another thread

and I agree with you. Most of the suggestions I've seen about this so called "unity ticket" have Clinton at the top and are coming from Clinton supporters.

Even putting that aside, I have a big problem with a unity ticket as do most Obama supporters. It is at the discretion of the presidential nominee to choose who he/she sees fit. If it was reversed, there is no way I'd assume Clinton would pick Obama.

[newmajority]

25. You can't run on "change" and continue tio enable the status quo

The corporatist DLC is what's wrong with this party. The Clintons are the embodiment of the DLC. It's time for them to go, and time for the DLC to shrivel up and die.