digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk

Nuclear option:Just say NO to the so called dream ticket!

commentisfree.guardian.co.uk — Choosing Hillary to be Obama's vice-president would hurt the Democratic party!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • michelleby, on 05/11/2008, -3/+121Let Obama pick his own VP--preferably one with less baggage than the Clintons!
    • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -3/+47I would really like someone not named Bush or Clinton in the White House for the first time in my life, and I'm 27!
      • whataboutdave, on 05/11/2008, -13/+19If you're 27, you were alive during the Reagan administration. I agree with the sentiment, though. The Bush-Clinton dynasty is poison to our republic.
        • Stroggoth, on 05/11/2008, -6/+8The Bush-Clinton Monarchy. What are the statistical odds that the best people to run your country come entirely from two families over a quarter century? ZERO.
          • TheWookiee, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush are related (5th cousin), so its not quite two families. I remember some newscast making a big deal of it when Clinton was running against Bush in '92
          • FoxFaction, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Statistically speaking, the best person to run the country is never the one running the country. You can't always maximize.
          • t0x2c, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Because of our democracy, that's only true if statistically more votes were cast for the worst candidate.

            Oh wait.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Apparently, Michelle Obama has already let it be known that she does not support Hillary as VP.

            Also, it seems that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's name is being tossed around for the VP spot.

            http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Michelle_Obama_p ...
        • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -1/+30Are you serious??? Duh, I was alive for the Reagan administration, and HIS VICE PRESIDENT WAS......? I'll let you fill that in on your own.
          • whataboutdave, on 05/11/2008, -13/+1The VP doesn't live in the White House. Duh.
          • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6"in the White House" is an expression that often is used to refers to sometimes as much as a President's entire administration.
          • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5How does that make sense in the context the Clinton would be Obama's VP? Clearly he was talking about President and VP.
          • whataboutdave, on 05/12/2008, -8/+1Even if you take the White House as synecdoche for the entire administration, the VP is not even really part of the administration. Constitutionally, the VP exists only to break ties in the Senate and wait for the POTUS to die or leave office. Cheney is unusually influential; most VPs have been little more than warm bodies.

            In short, Bush as VP doesn't count as "part of the administration".
          • whataboutdave, on 05/12/2008, -8/+1Anyone digging me down is either ignorant of the Constitution or in denial. Nobody saying "the White House" means anything other than the Presidency.
        • GroundhogBoy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9And who was Ronald Reagan's Vice President....
    • cl2yp71c, on 05/11/2008, -14/+22Like Ron Paul.
      • FoxFaction, on 05/11/2008, -21/+20Ron Paul is done, stop mentioning him like he is somehow relevant to anything.
        • DigDugDigger, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11In this country, opposing opinions are welcome. Many of Dr. Paul's ideas can help America in the situation it's in, whether he's the one to execute them or not.
        • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3But think of the joy that would reign on digg.com!!! All the Obama groupies & Ron Paul groupies would join hands and sing with one voice. think of the children!
      • masterofshadows, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Have you forgotten Ron Paul is a conservative leaning libertarian running under a republican banner? There is no way he would even consider the VP slot of any democrat. Now if McCain was to ask its anyones guess how he would react.
    • airencracken, on 05/11/2008, -5/+14I'm personally hoping for Edwards.
      • eddiefmb, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Ditto to Edwards he would help with the white blue collar voters that have seemed to flock to Hillary..
      • UberNick, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I think Edwards would be a good fit, but he was a terrible running mate last go. Didn't help with a single state (including his own), didn't bury Cheney in any debates like he should have. That raises some questions from me of how it'll be different this time.
        • yacks, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3but then again Edwards had Kerry to deal with.
          • Zera, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Oh god, not Bush again, err I mean Kerry
    • consoneo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+13Preferably a Mexican so he won't get assassinated.. (Not racist, just a joke :P)
      • asskey, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8That you ripped off of Dave Chapelle...wait a second wasn't that on Digg a while back O.o
      • hansonc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2just a racist joke
    • Zandarrr, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12I'd like Kucinich to be Obama's VP.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14Yeah, just hand it to McCain... Kucinich would be torn apart for being such a liberal, you could put a ribbon on his head as he would be a gift to McCain.
    • maliath, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2I think he probably will choose Hillary. I'd like it to be Edwards, but if he doesn't choose Hillary he seriously risks losing a lot of Democrat votes and McCain might win.
      • unixfag, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4"I think he probably will choose Hillary."

        Have you been paying attention lately?
        • Neiby, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I doubt he'd ever really consider Hillary as his running mate. And if he does, he loses my vote. I simply cannot vote for that woman in any way. I just can't.
      • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1All those Democrat voters would sit at home on election day instead? You don't think that putting Hillary on the ticket would be the greatest gift the Dems could give the Republican turnout drive?
    • quiksliver, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Wesley Clark would be a good choice, older white military man that could balance out his ticket
    • quandrum, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I'd like to see Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Pick a strong liberal female and all those Clinton biddies will come home to roost. Plus, she would give Obama the midwest/west.
    • senatorpjt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7I'm still thinking it'll be Bill Richardson. Obama needs help with Latino votes and has been attacked for lack of experience.
    • KiraDnote, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4The thing about the Clintons is that they have a political machine. That's what Obama needs, in addition to picking up most of the people who would prefer to vote for Hillary. Baggage be damned. The vice president can only do as much as the president allows them to.
      • Dukaso, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Unless his(her) name is Cheney
      • riyehn, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2If by political machine you mean campaign groundwork, he's built enough of that already. Except for Florida and Michigan, he's got a pretty good message-spreading and vote-getting machine. And certainly no problem raising money compared to Clinton.
    • oldgal, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Since Obama ran a pretty clean campaign, she has not been vetted. We have no idea what the Republicans would throw at her, but it must be significant since she is their first choice for the nomination.
    • richmomz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1And preferably one who WONT get into daily catfights with Michelle.
  • aussiejan, on 05/11/2008, -4/+100It's a dream for Hillary, a nightmare for everyone else.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6It's not a dream for Hillary. She can back to the Senate and be much more relevant and powerful. President Obama may be battling Majority Leader Clinton for the next eight years.
      • asskey, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7She would gladly work with him for the chance to be his successor. Though until November I see her working against him for a chance to run in 2012.
        • Gerz1219, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2If Obama wins in November, Hillary could never be his successor. I think I'll see a woman president in my lifetime, but I'll never see a 68 year old woman president in my lifetime.
    • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I don't know. Sounds like Rush Limbaugh's dream too...
    • oldgal, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I can't imagine why she would want it. If Obama loses, she would also lose. If he wins only one term, then she goes down with him. If he wins two term then she is too old in 2012.
  • thedragon4453, on 05/11/2008, -12/+112You know, I may just be a conspiracy theorist, but if you let Hillary be the VP, I would not be the least surprised if Obama were assassinated.
    • Jambi, on 05/11/2008, -4/+29Don't be silly; everyone would suspect her first if that happened. It's much more likely he'd die of "cancer".
      • thedragon4453, on 05/11/2008, -2/+23Call it what they want, it would be an assassination.
    • vault, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14And we'd still be screwed.
    • kettlehead, on 05/11/2008, -1/+22exactly. let's not make Obama the new JFK in more ways than are necessary.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Looks like it's Mexican Vice President time.
        • known, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Why not Chinese or Indian Vice President?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -10/+3You sound just like a Republican...
    • mikestg, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5Weren't you Obama people the one's who were supposed to "bring us together"? How does insinuating that Clinton would have Obama assassinated bring us together?
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -6/+2Obama'ites don't practice what Obama preaches...
      • sulthernao, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13a. It's a joke. b. Clinton is power hungry. c. Obama's supporters are not Obama. d. get over it.
    • AnnaBannana48, on 05/11/2008, -2/+9I wouldnt put anything past the Clintons
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Thanks for your input Rush...
    • bluelights, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8he'd be like a real life David Palmer!!!
      • Professr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The real David Palmer would be cool with Jack Bauer having guns.
      • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1So do we have to have Kiefer Sutherland as the real life Jack Bauer or can we have Chuck Norris even if he's voting Republican?
    • drplump, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Well there is already several foreign and domestic (kkk) terrorist groups would want to kill Obama for a number of reasons were he to become president. The last thing we need to do is add another reason for another fringe group of nutjobs*.

      *People who want Hillary Clinton be president NO MATTER WHAT.
    • dddavid, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly what I was thinking. After all, she's already proven that she will stoop to any depths to become president.
  • insomniac8400, on 05/11/2008, -25/+29What's this about the Obama-Paul ticket?
    • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -14/+10It would be a guaranteed win.

      They both want out of Iraq, and that is the most important issue right now.
      • vault, on 05/11/2008, -7/+22Obama and Paul wouldn't want to run with each other...it's such an absurd ticket that only in the minds of 19 yr old digg political scientists can it even be conceived of. Guaranteed loss, if anything.
        • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -4/+7Ron Paul has said on the Colbert Report that the first person he would consider as a running mate would be Kucinich, because they are the only two who consistently oppose the war. Obama isn't that far of a stretch, when something so important is at stake. The economic problems we're having currently are purely a result of our involvement in the middle east. That's why we need the huge loans from China, that's why inflation is at a record pace, and all other economic problems are either a direct result of the war, or have the war as one of the large contributing factors.

          But I'm glad to see your personal attack in your reasoning. It's what's needed when the side that uses it runs out of substantial reasons to cite in support of their viewpoint.

          An Obama/Paul ticket would certainly gain all the Obama supporters, as well as all the Paul supporters, and since Paul supporters lean slightly more Republican than Democrat, that takes a good number of votes from the few percent of Paul supporters who MIGHT vote for McCain if there is no other option. It also gains the ticket the votes of those who would *waste* their vote on a third party candidate or candidates out of the race.
          • senatorpjt, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Yeah, Paul/Kucinich is the dream ticket. Of course, that's the only place it'll ever exist.
          • vault, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3But the anti-war Democrats already have Obama as a candidate, why would they need an extra anti-war vice president, let alone from the far right like Paul? An Obama/Gravel or Obama/Kucinich ticket is more their style than an Obama/Paul ticket.

            You're also assuming that Obama would even want as a running mate a guy who opposes the civil rights act, a guy caught publishing racist newsletters under his name that he claimed no knowledge of, and a guy who accepted money from white supremacists and then refused to return it.

            It just doesn't make sense as a ticket. Plus the DNC wouldn't even want that, as Paul doesn't fit their ideology nor does he even carry any political value seeing as he failed to win a single primary.

            And the economic problems we're having are mostly the result of the real estate bubble bursting. People overextended themselves with home equity loans and ARM's and then property values fell, leaving tons of people with negative equity. The war had little to do with that, and it's not really open to interpretation- that's the accepted fact if you actually got your news from a place other than digg. Add inflated food prices, bank writedowns, high energy prices (which the war does have a very direct effect on, I'll give you that one), etc. and you have the recipe for a recession. But we'll get through it like we have every other recession in the past...we've been through much worse and thrived.

            As far as this: "An Obama/Paul ticket would certainly gain all the Obama supporters, as well as all the Paul supporters" You're acting as if the Paul supporters count for much which they don't, as they failed to give Paul the Republican nomination...and it wasn't even close! Obama would gain nothing from it and certainly LOSE support from the very liberal Democrats who would've considered Obama but likely then would go to Nader or not vote.
          • Zera, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1"But the anti-war Democrats already have Obama as a candidate, why would they need an extra anti-war vice president"
            To earn the votes of the Anti-War Republicans.

            "Paul doesn't fit their ideology nor does he even carry any political value seeing as he failed to win a single primary."
            He has consistently pulled in 7% of their OPPONENTS' primary votes. That is an absurdly huge amount to rip from your opponent in one fell swoop.

            "And the economic problems we're having are mostly the result of the real estate bubble bursting."
            Yep, and why did that happen? A.R.M.'s that increased their percent rate as a result of rampant inflation. Loans in time of inflation KILL the loaning agency, because their "investment" in you is shrinking in value, yet what is paid back is immune from inflation.... EXCEPT A.R.M.'s
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6most americans don't care about the massive deaths and hatred against america created by our illegal foreign intervention. recent polls show that most americans consider the economy the most important issue right now.
      • GroundhogBoy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4If you think that this is a good idea, you either only are concerned with Iraq and nothing else or, more likely, just get on every Digg bandwagon, regardless of substance.

        The two have policies that are nothing alike aside from wanting to get out of Iraq.
      • widgetmaker, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2It's the economy stupid.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Dude, get a clue. The economy and Iraq are linked.

          - Lots of Iraq spending means lots of government debt.
          - Lots of government debt means lower value for the dollar.
          - Lower value for the dollar means increased oil prices (as oil is priced in dollars).
          - Increased oil prices means increased everything prices.
          - Increased everything prices means a problematic economy.
    • synaesthesia, on 05/11/2008, -9/+32You might as well say what if Obama ran alongside the Burger King King. Only on digg would anyone even consider such a retarded scheme to be within the realm of possibility.
      • Genghis1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3I agree
      • chownrus, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10That's absurd! The Burger King King would never agree to a VP slot.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9Yeah, who wants to be Vice President after being King!
      • Zera, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5"Only on digg would anyone even consider such a retarded scheme to be within the realm of possibility."

        Yea, the founding fathers were real retards. What were they thinking??????????

        "Article Two of the Constitution originally established the method of presidential election. Each elector cast two votes, with the intention that one would be used for a presidential and the other for a vice presidential candidate. The candidate with the highest number of votes would become the president, with the second-place candidate becoming the vice president."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Unit ...

        The philosophy behind this was that it is GOOD to have opposing viewpoints represented (or at least the two most popular national viewpoints) in the white house because that meant that there would always be someone to play "devils advocate" and thus, encourage competent debate on every issue of the present day. Yes, it still comes down to the Presidential duties and Vice Presidential Duties, but the key difference is with opposing viewpoints, a more healthy debate can be had.
        • Alexandru25, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Yeah and in practice it was stupid so they fixed it.
          • Zera, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2They changed it because they lacked the logistical ability to fix the tie-breaker flaw that caused the problem. They simplified their ideal scenario down to the Electoral College.

            It's the same reason we haven't always had Instant Runoff Voting from day 1. They simply lacked the technological ability to conduct the election in that fashion. Remember, the innovation of Pony Express was still roughly 60 years off at this point in history. Now imagine holding a nationwide election. They had to cut corners.
    • youareretarded, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12It might be an absurd ticket but I'd much rather prefer a president and a VP with opposing ideas. This is how it was done early on and it should have continued.
    • MrWhite7, on 05/11/2008, -3/+7God knows it would be the best insurance policy Obama could buy.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3how do you figure that? Ron Paul supporters act like crazed cult members. You really think Obama would be safe with a virtual cult leader as his VP?
    • AnnaBannana48, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8To be quite honest, this would be a dream ticket
    • MrESaulved, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5The essence of Checks and Balances. I'd vote for it, while hating it. Win-win.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8Obama is for real
      Paul is a joke.
      • Duncan3, on 05/12/2008, -5/+0You have that backwards, but whatever works for you.
    • richmomz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Would be a true dream ticket for the American people - which is why it will never happen.
  • wonderchemist, on 05/11/2008, -2/+51Clinton brings too much baggage. Simply put I believe there are many people who vote against Obama/Clinton just because the name Clinton is on the ticket.
    • vermax, on 05/11/2008, -4/+16I would most certainly be one of them.
    • colincornaby, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8If people do that, I don't want to hear them complain when McCain gets elected.
      • cranium, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5If Clinton's on the ticket, it'll be a RELIEF if McCain is elected.
        • colincornaby, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Really? Again, don't complain if McCain gets elected. People spouted the same hyperbole crap about Kerry in 2004, and look where we ended up... Would anyone these days seriously suggest that Kerry would have been no better than Bush?
          • hansonc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I still don't know what Kerry stood for other than not being Bush. So I'll say that we have absolutely no idea if Kerry would have been a better choice.
          • yacks, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I actually think Bush is better than Kerry and that is saying a lot.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Besides that, it shoots Obama's credibility if he chooses a VP that embodies everything he's been campaigning against.

      edit: Damn, oldhick beat me to it.
    • jebudas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3This is just hype by the media and will never, never happen. Don't forget that Hillary said McCain was a better candidate than Obama. You really think he'd pick her after that jab?
    • ChromeWalnut, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I disagree. Most Obama supporters are too starry-eyed to let go of their dream candidate, and the Hillary supporters would most likely fall into place accepting the so-called compromise. I know it sounds insane to most of you Hillary-haters, but I think that, if anything, the dream ticket would serve to bring the party together, not divide it; although, the very idea of unity after a race such as this is pretty much an impossibility. Plus, the various policy differences might be too much to overcome..
  • oldhick, on 05/11/2008, -2/+81How could anyone vote for Obama if he took Clinton as a running mate? Wouldn't that make all of his speeches about change, hope, and a better tomorrow pointless? In my opinion this would be disastrous for his credibility and integrity.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Why do you think he refuses to answer the question. When he wins the primary he'll likely announce someone more stable to take that position. The last thing he or any of his supporters wants is those Clinton snakes in his white house. The only hope she has is that he doesn't win in November, regardless of when she goes out. ***** her!
      • oldhick, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3I don't think HE wants her, I think the party wants her. I'm not sure how much say he'll actually have in the decision.
        • sulthernao, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3He should get of the say. The president and VP need to get along.
          • oldhick, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Argggggg..... Of course he SHOULD get the say, doesn't mean he will.
    • str1fe, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2"In my opinion this would be disastrous for his credibility and integrity."

      Actually, that would be fact. I still dugg you up :)
      • anubis2night, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I agree and dugg the comment as well, it would only be a detractor, in fact we should sign a petition to NOT have her as V.P. I would imagine that would be the ultimate out for Obama and a great way to show the super delegates just how far she's fallen.
    • AsylumAleikum, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1Obama's speeches are pointless.
    • incredibilistic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'm hoping to see a Obama/Edwards ticket myself. While I love Obama I was sad to see Edwards go. Having Edwards on the ticket would be a dream come true. Edwards was actually defending Obama against Clinton in a debate when it got down to just a few Democratic hopefuls so for me he's the logical choice for VP.

      If Clinton gets on the ticket I'll have to rethink my impression about Obama, eat my hat and consider crossing party lines. But if McCain picks Jeb Bush as his running mate I'm getting a work visa for the UK and moving.
    • yubpro, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2This is the exact feeling I share too, not that Obama is my dream candidate, but among the three candidates he has at least spoken about a brighter future. The problems in America are caused by a society in turmoil, there are problems everywhere and honestly none of them have been seriously addressed by our government for the past eight years. It's like Bush is just twiddling his thumbs in office, wasting his time and ours on issues that shouldn't be issues. And the problems in government are a symptom. Among the three candidates Obama recognizes us, the youth, and it's us who have to inherit a very troubled world from our parents.

      I could respect Obama for preparing a cabinet like Lincoln, because constructive criticism is necessary to do a good job. However, choosing an enemy who has proved as daft as Hillary, and whose only concern thus far seems to be getting elected, would be insane. But that's just IMHO.
      • yubpro, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Submitted above comment too soon, I forgot to add...

        Screw the health of the Democratic party. I want a political system where politicians (who are a necessary evil) are elected for who they are and what they stand for, not the loose set of ideals that define the Democratic and Republican parties we have had for so long and whose ability to govern seems to have gone down the drain. Focusing on party lines and the 'health' of a party should be secondary to simply understanding who the politician is and what they plan to do. Hold the politicians to their words, make them accountable to us, the people!
  • barfooz, on 05/11/2008, -5/+22Can't someone find a novel way to say something political without resorting to the cliche-du-jour? E.g. "nuclear option", "dream ticket", "*gate", "on day one"
    • CanIGetAWitness, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4FUBAR
      • bokep, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4Anyone who says 'nuclear option' is a retard.
    • clickmyface, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3Can't someone also recognize that all these articles are written by Obama supporters and those claim "it will hurt the party" without any factual evidence? Is it not true that Hillary Clinton has had HALF the democratic party vote for her? So what are you talking about? What makes you believe 15 million democrats are wrong?
      • barfooz, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Well, that was a complete non sequitur.
      • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Because more than Democrats vote in Presidential elections. It will hurt the party if Obama/Clinton lose to McCain.

        And it's not just that Clinton will guarantee high Republican voter turnout. It's also that if Obama puts Clinton in for VP that rather makes it look a lot like his "politics of change" was just a big pile of bull.
    • atticus8, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I have long lamented the use of the "easy way out", both linguistically and philosophically, to describe our political discourse. It's effects are so insidious, so quietly destructive that it is hard to counter. George Orwell was an expert at noticing how rote and hackish language degrades and devolves political writing. To wit, you can read his excellent (and short) essay "Politics and the English Language" here:
      http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
    • yacks, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Nuclear Dreamgate.
    • riyehn, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1*gate = Stargate?
  • spaceman84, on 05/11/2008, -4/+15He should get Jim Webb for VP. While I like Kucinich, I don't think they'd win the election with him on the ticket.
    • IAmTheGuy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7As the economy worsens, it becomes a bigger issue for voters. Surely the MSM will bring up Kucinich's horrible time as mayor of Cleveland which will turn off many voters.
    • AnnaBannana48, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Yes, Obama-Webb would be amazing!
    • quandrum, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I think Webb is too much of an Alpha Male. Not that that's a bad thing. Just a bad thing if you want the guy to be VP. He's waiting for his own turn to take a shot at the big show.
      • paigeinphilly, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1and he would get his shot...after Obama's 8yr run...perfect!

        Obama/ Webb 08
  • Bouncybanana, on 05/11/2008, -11/+7this article says that clinton is way more hated than obama...but there are already lots of hate videos out there against obama too. and conservatives hate hillary, but they wouldn't vote democrat anyway, so she wouldn't necessarily be taking away votes from the democratic party as VP candidate. i'm still unsure about who obama's running mate should be, but this article is nothing more than tasteless clinton-bashing.
    • AnnaBannana48, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3There are already scores of republicans who are crossing party lines and backing Obama, so how can you say that they wont vote democrat for Obama? Just because Obama also has some hate videos out there doesnt mean that he's even with Hilary by any means. Compare the amount of people who are passionately against Obama to the amount of people who are passionately against Hilary and then talk to me
      • Dichotomic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'll tell you this... I'm one of those republican voters. If obama chooses hillary, there's no way I'll vote for them. If he chooses someone else, I probably will vote for him simply because I've bought his message of hope and change.
    • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4The argument isn't that Republican voters would vote for Obama.

      Getting the vote out is VERY important for either party. Putting Hillary on the ticket makes it very easy for Republicans to get their vote out because Hillary is hated by the Republican base.

      Without Hillary on the ticket, there will be more people who would have voted Republican who don't actually show up to vote.
      • Neiby, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm not a Republican but I hate Hillary. There are many people like me who would go out of their way to vote for her opponent to ensure that she doesn't get into the White House. And that would mean voting for McCain, which would kill me, but I'd do it if it helped stop Hillary.
    • dddavid, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0While it may be true that conservatives won't vote democrat (or democratically for that matter if they can help it), they might stay away, vs. vote for McCain.
  • mCanada, on 05/11/2008, -10/+22Obama - Chappelle '08. You know it has to happen for the new season.
  • whataboutdave, on 05/11/2008, -4/+56Those are some epic sideburns.
    • Donwangugi, on 05/11/2008, -3/+19They prevent me from taking this article seriously.
      • Stevethegreat, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Yeah cause sideburns is associated with people of low intelligence.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov

        Having said that I don't think a person's appearance should have a bearing to his/her writings, their rationale can be determined independently, no?
        • Donwangugi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's just that the laughing that resulted from the sideburns fosters a mentality of hijinks.
    • wampalord, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I was waiting for a sideburn comment. Dugg for awesome sideburns.
    • Startemus, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4If you ask me those sidesburns are what will hurt the Democratic Party.
    • zspade, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I believe those may actually be the fabled Mutton Chops.
  • dakbonsa, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7407/2332/1600/ ...
    I think this is a guaranteed victory. These two can reach out to everyone..
  • shadus, on 05/11/2008, -3/+12I'd take Hillary for a VP if I were suicidal. Because you *know* you're not going to make it through 4 years alive.
    • mikestg, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2Weren't you Obama people the one's who were supposed to "bring us together"? How does insinuating that Clinton would have Obama assassinated bring us together?
      • cranium, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4It would if you had clue one about Hillary's ruthlessness.
    • shadus, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry man, I'm not "Obama people". I'm an independent and I don't like anyone in this race to be honest. Of the three remaining candidates I'd vote for Obama though because he's the lesser of the three evils.
  • countmischief, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6If Obama really wants to win he should pick Anthony Zinni: a four star marine general who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and is one of the greatest tactical minds in the military today.
    • Stormwern, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3VP is a political office, usually best held by politicians.
      • Startemus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7The fact that these offices are held by Politicians is the problem.
        • countmischief, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Politicians have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought - Jack Ripper, Dr. Strangelove.
    • Dichotomic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You're a ***** joke, and you have no understanding of history.
  • dakbonsa, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7407/2332/1600/ ...
    Guaranteed victory. Especially among white female voters.
  • RockeN5, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3Blogspam FTL. Buried.
  • MasterTroll, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11Dugg for sweet mutton chops.. And apparently there's an article that goes with them.
  • mgks2007, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8If he makes Hillary his V.P. I bet he ends up dead
    • FoxFaction, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2What does that even mean?
      • whataboutdave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6The VP becomes Prez in the event of the death of the Prez in office. Hillary is powerhungry and ruthless. Put the pieces together.
  • str1fe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+18Wait, people are actually talking about the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket? I didn't know it was ever even a viable idea.
    • zspade, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4What, Clinton said he could be her vice president months ago...
      • cadmiumpaint, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2more like a few weeks ago...how tides change
  • johnsonjoeb, on 05/11/2008, -2/+21Obama/Edwards. The Hillary supporters will swoon and working class Whites will have their fears abated. Double KO. Put me down for Democratic strategist, I'll be here all week.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Won't happen. Edwards was conspicuous in not endorsing either candidate. That kind of political cowardice is rarely rewarded.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Reminds me of the scene in 300 where Cowardice is rewarded by getting to "live forever" as opposed to death in battle... With the living being the bad thing :) In other words, Edwards should have picked a side, now his only reward is he gets to trudge onward as a non-player.
    • GroundhogBoy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Big issues with the healthcare positions stand in the way.

      Which is too bad. Edwards was my pick in 2004, but the last 4 years didn't help him and, in my opinion, his wife's cancer issues have caused tunnel vision regarding healthcare.
    • AnnaBannana48, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Itd be great if we could have Edwards on board, but he's already said hes not going to ride shotgun for anyone
    • 140Suffolk, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Good idea. Edwards didn't even get reelected in his own state. Please Democrats, pick Edwards.
      • sulthernao, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Edwards didn't run, because he was running for VP.
  • gryphon50, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5It would be a grave political mistake for him to choose her as a v.p. She will drag down the ticket. I think he is more politically savvy than to do this.
  • pookkake, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3RMS for VP
  • NelsonR, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Most Democratic voters and truly every Republican voter would NEVER desire Hillary Clinton as V.P. The world at large even desires Obama to bring sanity to the mix and without perverted Republican Hawkishness to continue.
    America once was thought of as being the model to follow by nations. Today with the lunatic, idiotic, inane Bush administration, accepted by Republicans, the world despises us and rightfully so. To think we F****ed up again after going through that other aggressive war started by America, Vietnam. Please, Bush/Cheney and their crony's should be turned over to the Hague for trial with America's acceptance, that's moral and ethical but knowing how our system works, many will think we are the chosen and righteous who do not deserve retribution for jerks we elected. Oh, the love of our upper crust, PUKE.
    • Dichotomic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Before you get too high and mighty, take a look at EVERY other western country's history... and while you're at it, take a look at our own. This isn't new and exciting.
  • Genghis1, on 05/11/2008, -10/+3Clinton is the obvious choice for VP. She has almost as many people behind her as Obama. The numbers are proof of that.
    • Stormwern, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2The VP is always number two though, somehow I doubt she can handle that.
    • calantus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2you act as if the clinton supporters aren't going to support obama, most will. So thats not really an issue.
    • rdoger6424, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Hillary Clinton has talons.
  • MastaJ1984, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2I thought this was about nuclear weapons and possibly nuking iran.. damn
  • amightywind, on 05/11/2008, -5/+9Hillary will not be the VP nominee, but Hillary supporter Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell might be. Obama needs help in swing states Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If he doesn't win all three states, he is doomed. Lets say he picks presumptive favorite, Clinton turncoat, Bill Richardson. The guy will bring nothing to swing states. Indeed, his liberal stance on immigration is likely to hurt. But Rendell could very well deliver Pennsylvania.
  • thesavagemonk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1terrible use of an adjective--- where does the gamma decay come in? or the quarks?
  • fuzzybeard, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Obama/Clinton? *shudder* That would be a guaranteed way for the DNC to ***** away yet another run at the White House.
    /likes Obama, loathes Clinton. Combination would be about as appetizing as a ***** sandwich, IMO.
  • rhartman, on 05/11/2008, -0/+14My guess is he names Kathleen Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas. She's considered an up and comer in the Democratic circles, he still gets a female VP for the women who so desperately want one of their own in the White House (not saying that is the only reason ALL women are voting mind you) and he doesn't have to compromise his vision of Change by having someone like Hillary by his side.
    • NelsonR, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Thank you, I said it before and I will say it again, Sebelius is the right choice for V.P.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2i don't know much about her, but I like your thinking. It def would solve lots of problems...
    • quiksliver, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4GILF
    • ZeroBananas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1There can't be many people turning 60 this week being labeled "Up and Comers" on Digg.
  • calantus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0would be awesome if he picked Kucinich
    • Caviarmy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0energy crisis king, right there. AND has a smokin' hot wife to boot.
  • Milkey, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3UK site talking about a US election? Cause that makes sense.
    • Andytom, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You don't have to be from a county to report news about it.
    • issachar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That's because UK news has good international coverage.
    • packetguy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1presumptuous idiot broadcasting his ass-backwards ideas to the world? makes sense.
  • Azriel7, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3No way in hell for Clinton, but I would not mind seeing a women VP. In would get all those women votes that Hillary has.
    • DigDugDigger, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You couldn't possibly be implying that women are simply voting for Hillary because she is a woman, could you?
      COULD YOU?
  • Heidenreich12, on 05/11/2008, -5/+3Is there a way on digg to block all stories related to Obama/Hillary? Its just starting to look like spam...
    • whalt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1digg is not you email account. Just because you are not interested does not make it spam.
  • megahan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I don't know about the ticket situation, alls I wanted to say is dude is trying way too hard to look like Bob Dylan circa 1966
  • diggdiggerid, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I hope he doesn't choose Clinton as it would hurt his credibility in my eyes, but remember, Digg and the Huffington Post are far more anti-Clinton than the rest of the world. A lot of people I talked to in the REAL WORLD would be ecstatic if Obama and Clinton would just unite to crush the Republicans; that is, Clinton as VP.

    Also, remember that traditionally the VP was the person with the second-most (electoral) votes so that a balance was created, not one party getting both spots and having so much power.
    • Franswahili, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Er, um, oh dear. Have many of these people actually done any research into HRC's political career? She's just as dangerous as Bush wrapped up in pretty, gay-friendly, liberal, socialist paper. HRC=Bush 3rd Term. How about that?
  • Papajohn56, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2because I always trust a guy with mutton chops like that. buried for lame
  • JasonCox, on 05/11/2008, -7/+5Obama/Edwards or Obama/Gore.

    Not Obama/Bitch.
    • zspade, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Yeah, I'm sure Gore is interested in being the Vice president again.
  • queenbee93, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Hillary for VP would be the same as having a dummy tooth in your mouth full of cyanide. On the surface, it might look like it could work for the entire mouth but inevitably its purpose is to destroy. Hillary and Bill would undermine any Presidency and not only that, they would use Obama as a scapegoat and make him a token in his own Presidency--if Obama chooses Hillary, there is no "change" in the equation. She is a monster and he will be catering to the minions of the monster.
  • markdall, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5I won't vote for Obama if Clinton is his VP.
  • kylere, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7I will not vote for anyone that puts Hillarious one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
  • skyz, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2this whole 'dream ticket' idea is stupid - neither one wants the other for their vp
  • c010rb1indusa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9I think Obama's VP pick would shock the country and win the election if he picked Chuck Hagel, a former senator of Nebraska and a Republican. That's the real dream ticket. Having a Democrat and a Republican on the same ticket is a brilliant strategy, plus it goes extremely well with the Obama's "change" message, simply because it's unheard of. With both on the same ticket, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all working together is one of the best things that could happen to America.
    • pkonink, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I have to agree with you. In our day and age that would be considered a revolutionary act. But is the risk of it back-firing worth it? So many republicans don't like McCain I feel certain if you could find conservative more palatable than him Obama/Whoever would win by a landslide.

      I looked up Hagel since you mantioned him and he seems like he would make a good running mate. However, is he more palatable to right-of-center republicans than McCain? But it's already commonly discussed that whoever is the next president is going to have one hard hell of time. Perhaps a show of political unity like this could ease the burden a bit and act as encouragement for everyone to put the common interest above their personal interests.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel
  • minox, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Ok, I am not an Obama supporter, but I hope that doesn't result in my comment being automatically buried. But I always thought it would be a challenge for Obama to pick a proper VP candidate given his message. It would be difficult to pick an old Washington insider, because it would be inconsistent with his message. I think that would rule out most members of the house and senate. Another option would be to take a new Dem up and comer. This also is not a failproof option, because people might like to see him balance his ticket with someone with more political experience. I think his most likely choice would be an established Dem governor with years of political experience outside of Washington. Governors don't generally have as close an association to Washington political as do senators or reps. That said, it is still an uphill battle because of the way Obama himself has been lionized by the press. Any VP choice would probably come off as a tad boring. Anyway, I think the biggest mistake he could make is picking Edwards as his VP. Edwards didn't stumble in his debates against Cheney. He was simply outmatched. Kerry probably wouldn't allow Obama to pick Edwards because apparently Kerry truly blames Edwards for his loss in 2004. That said, I am supporting McCain, who by necessity of age will pick a VP younger and more conservative than he is.
    • spinchange, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1He needs to find a politically moderate retired general or someone with military credentials. I don't know who that individual is, but I think that helps close the deal.
  • patch6, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Having her as a VP would guarantee another LBJ scenario.

    Having any of the frontrunners in office would guarantee that the country's sovereignty is ceded to the UN, and that the country acts as a war machine for the next term, while constituents foot the bill with reduced living standards the entire time, losing wealth through a financial system heavily tilted against the general public, towards those who issue the most credit.

    That's if a sharp economic downturn -doesn't- occur. So, best case scenario is that you'll be further enslaved, and you voted for it.

    Though you didn't have to.
  • c010rb1indusa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Is no one feeling the bipartisan Obama-Hagel ticket?

    Seems like his best option to me, you get a well liked man from the middle of the country that relates to that culture, and you have the idealism of Obama on the other side. He'll take many moderates away from McCain. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
    • TinternAbbot, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2But but but Hagel is a former LOBBYIST! OMG
      • Dichotomic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1OMG Someone took a job that pays well! call the authorities...
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2Ummm... Hillary would actually be a good running mate. Plus it would unify the party again.
  • irvin666, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Why does everyone think (including my father) that making Hillary Obama's VP will get him assassinated? Where do people come up with such thoughts!

    I mean, I know that Hillary is powerhungry but I don't think she would do that.
    • ChromaticDragon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The reason they believe this is rather simple. Many people believe Hillary Clinton to be incredibly corrupt and power-hungry with no scruples whatsoever. Add to this the not-so-few who bought into these lists of people who have died since working with the Clintons and you have a fair number of folk who not only believe she could stoop this low but that they're already there.

      The trouble with this thinking is that it's rather simplistic. If anybody has been paying attention for the last few years, it should be enormously clear the sweet spot isn't the presidency, but the vice-presidency - as long as you have the ability the control the president and other aspects of power.

      Now, Obama wouldn't be as easy to manipulate as directly as Bush. But all you have to do is to ponder what a president actually does to realize that you don't have to be able to tell them what to do in order to control them. You can control a mouse by grabbing the doggone thing or you can just close all but one path. A president is not a king. A president doesn't make laws. A president doesn't set the budget. A president must seek ratification for all treaties. A president must seek confirmation for all appointees. Get the picture? If a VP (and said VP's spouse) has powerful sway over a Democratic controlled Congress, it would be rather simple to control the president by blocking all paths but the desired one.

      Now I believe Barack Obama is clearly intelligent enough to see this. I would be rather surprised if he chose Hillary Clinton as his VP.
    • dsmyre, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well, Hillary's campaign has already been connected with the deaths of one motorcycle cop and one race horse. If she keeps going through June or through the convention in August, who knows how many more deaths the Clinton Curse will cause.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Lincoln offered VP to his opponent...he ended up assassinated.
      Kennedy offered VP to his opponent...he ended up assassinated.
      Regan offered VP to his opponent...he ended up almost assassinated.

      lesson here?...well its kinda written on the wall.

      Obama/ Webb 08
  • stevenhatfield, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0James Poulos is absolutely correct, but I would also add that he is omitting something is even more important, and it is this:
    If Obama accepts Hillary as the VP, she is 1 gunshot away from realizing her dream.
    Do you think for a second that she would hesitate to pull the trigger? I sure don't.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Bill Richardson as VP for Obama could be cool

    Richardson has diplomatic experience and would be great for the Latino vote. I think it would be a pretty good ticket. Hillary has no place as VP after her antics
  • duke, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Gore
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.