Time: Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both?

[Barry]

Long ago I dreamed about an Clinton/Obama ticket but I was concerned that they couldn't win the general election. It seems now that they could easily win it! Sounds like a dream ticket to me, though this article from Time Magazine raises some serious concerns.

And did any you watch the Hollywood debate? The hug was truly the most powerful part of the evening!

If they are both true patriots that yearn to serve the country, do they have any other choice but to run together?


Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both? https://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/a_wboth_0218.jpg
Wednesday, Feb. 06, 2008 By MICHAEL DUFFY (javascript:void(0))


Here's a quick rundown of the many advantages the Democrats enjoy at this stage of the 2008 campaign. Voter turnout in most states is running well ahead of that for the gop. Democratic fund-raising continues to break all records—even those set previously by Republicans. The Democrats' issues cupboard is fuller than it has been in a decade and a half. And voters have narrowed the field to two wildly popular candidates, either of whom would make history if nominated, much less elected.

Given the embarrassment of riches, it was only a matter of time before Democratic voters looked at the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and asked the question, Why not both?

That idea had been on some voters' minds even before the dream was made flesh two weeks ago in Los Angeles, where, at the end of the Kodak Theatre debate, Obama and Clinton smiled, embraced each other for more than the usual nanosecond and then seemed to whisper something knowing in each other's ear. After weeks of hand-to-hand combat and rumors of tiffs that may or may not have been real, the Hug rightly or wrongly got even more people thinking about the power of two. Even if their act was dutiful, evanescent and faked for the cameras, party regulars seemed to eat it up. It was all there: the visionary and the technician, the candidate who could inspire the masses and the candidate who could get under the sink and fix the plumbing.

- - - - -

See the rest of this article here (https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1710667-1,00.html). And then come back to this thread and tell us what you think!

[Neshamah]

They are both very educated and very intelligent, but they also share a lot of the same weaknesses. Whoever wins will need to pick someone with more experience. Although I don't like him personally (he blew me off at the train station the other day, : ) Joe Biden has extensive experience and is especially sharp on foreign policy. On the other hand, that would still leave the problem of two senators on a ticket that is supposed to bring change to Washington. I don't know enough about the governors, but that is where I would look first. Personally, I like Ruth Ann Minner. She led the nation in smoking bans and made Delaware one of only four states to stay in the black in the midst of Bush's super big government disaster. Maybe I should look outside of Delaware.

~ Neshamah

[Barry]

Whoever wins will need to pick someone with more experience.
Hillary needs more experience??? :hmmm:

Should Hillary somehow win the nomination, Obama would the perfect Veep for her. He could learn from a couple of pros. I don't know that he would accept it though. And it looks like he's going to win, yeah!

Hillary would also make a great veep, but I doubt she would accept. That's unfortunate because she/Bill has just the experience he needs. I think Obama/Clinton(s) would be my dream ticket, but I'm not holding my breath...

[jborges3]

Hillary needs more experience??? :hmmm:

Both of the Democratic front runners will receive heavy criticism from the Republican nominee about their lack of experience. The good news is that most people seem more interested in change than experience.

It's odd to me how Clinton has done such a great job painting herself as the canidate with experience. Seems like most people buy it, but not me so much. Being the spouse of the Governor of Arkansas for 12 years and then the spouse of the President of the United States for 8 years doesn't count as the same kind of political experience that McCain has, having been a member of Congress for 25 years. IMHO

Yes, I remember she was very active during her husbands presidency, but her own political career really only started when she became a US Senator in 2001.

Obama assumed his US Senate Office in 2005, that is only 4 years less time in the Senate than Hillary Clinton. One term in the US Senate is 6 years! So in my eyes Hillary's big experience she is always boasting about is about 2/3rds of one term as a US Senator. Not enough to have me very impressed with her "experience"

Also, Hillary seems ready to tear Barack to pieces in her desperation to hold her lost lead. I think it is backfiring on her and making her look bad. Maybe some distance from her would be better. There are many people who suck up FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and think that Hillary is the little sister of the anti-christ. As the VP I bet she would piss off more people than she would draw anyway.