home

The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I, like Clinton supporter Ed Rendell, endorse the Cuomo Dream Ticket plan:

ABCNews' Mary Bruce Reports: Clinton supporter Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell backed this morning Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo's proposal to guarantee a "dream ticket". Cuomo has suggested Obama and Clinton agree now that whoever does not win the nomination will become the vice presidential candidate regardless of the outcome. "Well, I can't speak for Senator Clinton, but I would love that," Rendell said in an exclusive "This Week" interview. "I think that this duo, regardless, is a history-making duo. They are both tremendous candidates. They both would make great executives, and I'd love to see that happen," Rendell said.

Obama supporter Kerry? Not so much:

Obama supporter Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., however, disagreed. "That's the privilege of the nominee, and it's certainly one of the options available to him, and it would be terrific in a lot of people's minds. But you have to leave the nominee that option," he said. But Kerry also noted that "whatever judgment he [Obama] makes will be the right judgment."
< MI/FL And The Popular Vote | The Super Delegate Count >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Put Kerry in Gore's Lockbox (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    All I could think of while watching this was that I wouldn't want Kerry speaking on my behalf.  He really is lousy.  He can make the best argument sound awful, and the worst argument sound like there is a fourth degree of the English language beyond worst.

    The "whatever judgement he makes will be the right judgement" just seems to sum up team Obama's view of their candidate.  The combination of an inability to take a stand on anything and the deification of the candidate are the most annoying trademarks of team Obama.

    I caught... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    ...that judgment comment too and found it startling.  The theme seems to be, don't ask questions, don't think about it, just get on board with Obama and he'll "intuitively" (how many times have we heard that word?) know what to do to save us all...

    Parent
    "whatever judgment he [Obama] makes will be (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    the right judgment."

    That's a little odd.

    Very Kerry imo. (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    Rolling eyes.

    "Yes we can!  If he says so."

    Parent

    Kerry Schmerry (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    "Whatever judgement Obama makes will be the right judgement".

    Can't say I agree with that. Countless examples to counter that.

    What a disappointment the 'elders' have been. They don't even give me pause to consider their points of view.

    I was a huge Pelosi fan but her tinkering has not made her the shining example of ethics that she swept in on.

    My office neighbor now has an entire chachki display of obama swag he created himself - tshirts, posters, mugs, stickers, etc. that all say UNITY on top and DIVIDE turned upside down below. I tried to point out that the whole concept itself is divisive but I'm just being "unobjective" according to him.

     Anyway, I've started wearing a tshirt that says
     "Low-Information, Hopeless, Bitter, Middle Aged White Woman for Hillary".

    He told me the font was wrong. Ha!

    Hey, where can I get (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    one of those t-shirts?

    Parent
    it's be really funny (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    if you're a guy

    Parent
    i just made it myself (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    I got iron on paper from office max.
    You can run it through your printer and just iron it on.
    perfect for customizing tshirts for the outrage of the day.

    Parent
    Ok that's funny. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    Things have gotten pretty strange.

    Parent
    I'm not sure Kerry is the best source... (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    ...of what to do to win an election. This is, after all, the man who went from war hero to traitorous coward and managed to lose an election in spite of overwhelming support. One of the things that makes me worry about Obama is that he has the support of so many election losers: Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson. None the them are very good sources for information about how to win a Presidential election.

    And the irony? (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    The guy backing Clinton is the only Democratic President in the last 28 years...

    But don't listen to him.

    Parent

    I agree with Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    on this one. I don't think you want to make that commitment not knowing what's out there concerning either candidate.  

    There's something really off-putting (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    about Kerry's comment that "whatever judgment he [Obama] makes will be the right judgment," since there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Obama's judgment - or Kerry's - is in any way infallible.  I get that Kerry is being the good little surrogate, but he reeks of superiority and haughtiness - the kind that cost him votes in 2004, and will cost Obama in the same way.

    There was a time when such a ticket was more possible, but the more I know about Obama, the less I can envision any combination of Clinton and Obama that works.  I also hate to say that I feel like there are a lot of failed presidential candidates in the Obama camp who are energetically raising their hands and shouting, "Pick ME!  Pick ME!" and that's why they are so lukewarm on the notion of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

    Obama has argued that the one who is leading should not be giving up to take a #2 spot, and that may make some sense now, but I think he will continue to see himself as the leader even when/if she cleans his clock in the next set of primaries, narrows the pledged delegate gap and pulls even or ahead in the popular vote.  The better she does, the more he will resist the Florida-Michigan voters.  He is never going to be willing to back-seat to her, nor do I believe he would put her on as VP to him - for one thing, I don't see him as being able to do it with any grace, and it would be too much an acknowledgment of how close she came.  Then there's the risk that she would outshine him from the get-go without even trying, and the danger that it would be obvious from the start that she would be the better presidential candidate.

    If Clinton could pull it off and get the nomination, I can see her reaching out to him and offering him the VP spot - that's just the kind of person she is - someone who knows that there is more at stake than either of their egos.  Plus, better to have him at her side, on the team and really trying to bring people to the polls to vote Democratic, than out pouting and grousing about how unfair it all was and doing nothing to stop the bleeding of former Obama supporters.

    As with the Michigan-Florida re-vote debacle, how Obama chooses to deal with the issue could provide more proof that this "unity" Obama has been preaching about is really just about him, and that if he can't have what he wants, he isn't the least bit interested in coming together for anyone or anything else.

    In my humble opinion, someone that short-sighted and selfish probably should take his bat and his ball and go home - the Democratic bench is pretty deep and some of its best players really do know something about unity.

    She's the only one acceptable... (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    because she'll break the ultimate glass ceiling for women?  That seems like a terrible way to pick a POTUS.  Plus, your notion that Obama is therefore unacceptable disregards the fact that he would be breaking a major glass ceiling for African-Americans.  Certainly we need to avoid the "which minority has it toughest" debate, don't we?

    Hillary is the only acceptable candidate (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Semanticleo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    Sorry, proseandpromise.

    That post was tongue-in-cheek.

    I was curious as to the survivability of the post, given the acerbic propensity for deletions for any but the most pro-HRC comments.

    Parent

    It will be deleted now (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    as you admit it was deliberately provocative. you are suspended for the rest of the day.

    Parent
    tongue-in-cheek insult to women? (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    nice.

    Parent
    The perfect Roles for both (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    I think Obama has it wrong. He is a movement, an inspirational force that we haven't seen in a while. His statements of being post-partisan and above politics are right on. Unfortunately, the nature of politics is that you MUST be partisan, you MUST have a side to fight for, in order to make any headway.

    Obama, in my opinion, would make a great leader outside of Washington. Jesse Jackson and Sharpton are played out; people don't look to Washington for leadership anymore. Obama can rally together people to the changes he wants to make, bring them to a head much like MLK did in his day. Hell, we can even have Secret Service assigned to him so we can try to avoid another MLK situation.

    I just think he is being wasted on Washington. In all honesty, the things that make him a poor politician make him a great leader for Americans, and vice versa. He could actually take a STAND on things and not worry about polls, but on results. He wouldn't have to worry about re-election. And he wouldn't have to worry about the Press turning on him as much as in politics.

    Hillary, for all the hatred pointed at her, is a true machine in Washington. She knows where most if not all the bodies are buried, knows all the levers she needs, and she is practically indestructible when it comes to barbs and arrows. She has the know-how she needs to come up with solutions to the economy, the world situation, and the healthcare crisis. And if she doesn't she knows who does, whether it's a popular decision or not.

    Case in point: Alan Greenspan. Say what you want about his politics, but the man is a financial genius. He would be controlled by Hillary, not given free reign like he was during the GOP tenure. How's that for taming a tiger?

    Anyways, I think Obama would be wasting away in politics. He just likes the idea of being the first AA President, when he could be something much bigger.

    This is my first Concern Troll (TM) post. How's it look?

    But consider that (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    Obama doesn't want to inspire anyone to do anything except vote for Obama. Try to find a single measure that indicates Obama has inspired people to do anything else, whether it's making a difference in the world, becoming a community organizer (like he was...) or donating to charity (instead of to his campaign...)

    He truly is little more than a career politician -- small-time as a State Senator with a lucky break shortcutting it to the national scene. His being a Democrat doesn't make him any more principled or beyond politics than if he were a Republican. This is not to say Hillary is less of a politician. But frankly politicians-by-choice are rarely just uber-successful principled activists. The rare exception being Dennis Kucinich.

    Parent

    Well considering that Hillary won by (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    ...comfortable margins in most of the large states and that those states had record turnout, I do think that Hillary had a little something to do with the unprecedented record turnout. But you can continue to see it your way, if you like.

    Love it... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    ...only in Obama-land is it a gloat to 'only' be losing by 12 points...

    Parent
    uh... (none / 0) (#152)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    ...thanks for the help with subtraction.  that point was totally lost on me...

    Parent
    obviously... (none / 0) (#155)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    ...you're immune to sarcasm...

    Parent
    My ciritiera for voting in the GE (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    I had initially proposed that no matter who wins the Democrat nomination I would support that nominee.  However, I now throw in this caveat.  If MI and FL are not considered in the overall popular vote I will not vote in the GE. Not including FL and MI will be equal to the 2000 election. One of the most illegitimate elections there ever was.  The only ticket that somewhat mitigates this illegitimacy would be the dream ticket and that would be the only other reason I would vote.

    Dream ticket (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by 2liberal on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    I think there is some bad blood between them. The VP slot is a nothingburger and neither one of these two will enjoy being a team player in the other's administration. I don't like the dream team idea whoever wins the nomination. The press will be looking for conflict and will make it up if they don't find it.

    They need to look elsewhere for VP, like Sherrod Brown, or another ticket balancing figure.

    months ago? yes. Now, no. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by LCaution on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    When Hillary and Obama stood on the stage for their first two/person debate, I looked at them and said to myself: what a dream ticket (with the more experienced Hillary at the top).  I became delirious and figured that would give us 16 years of a Dem. President. (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama).

    No more.

    Even if all else were equal, an Obama/Hillary ticket can't fly.  A person would have to be nuts to accept Bill as the spouse of the VP. (No offense intended toward Bill. I like him.  But he is simply too charismatic even for a charismatic Obama.) And, since Hillary has already been a VP of sorts, I don't think she'd go for it again. She would have a lot more clout, and be infinitely more effective than Reid, as Maj. Leader in the Senate.

    As for Hillary/Obama - my once dream team - no.  The more I've learned about Obama, the more I've watched his performance, the less I've liked him. The icing is off the cake and its stale.  Having him as VP would be like having Brutus as VP.  Obama is not a team player.

    not with millions (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:05:56 PM EST
    of voters. you see what u want to see. obama, michelle and their pastor certainly haven't charmed many of us low info voters. thanks for the UNITY pitch! Just warms my heart!

    Parent
    Bill is in my state (none / 0) (#139)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    and I will get to see him tomorrow.  I will get back to you about whether anyone else shows up and if they are throwing rotten tomatoes, etc.

    Parent
    Finger Wagging (none / 0) (#154)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:13 PM EST
    or just saying, keep your load, folks, the election is still going on.

    Would you have stopped SuperBowl XLII before Eli Manning's last minute comeback? Did the Patriots whine and scream that the game should have finished before that happened? I'm not much into sports but there are definitely something to be said for good sportsmanship.

    Hearken Yogi Berra: It ain't over till its over.

    Parent

    The Obama meme (4.83 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    of "I want the whole pie and I want it now" is fairly off-putting, frankly.

    I can't really see... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    ...what his objection would be to having her as a Veep.  Any way you slice it, it's a free pass to the oval office for him.

    The only thing I can speculate is that he sees this as his party which he'll fill with sycophantic admirers and not have to put up with a backseat driver in Clinton.  Gotta wonder whether he's doing this for country or for ego...

    Parent

    I no longer wonder. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:20:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Been there, done that (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Boo Radly on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    with disasterous results for eight years. The country needs a knowledgeable adult in my opinion.

    I am not wondering - it's ego.

    Parent

    I'd say this means (4.66 / 3) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    that Obama has no plans of putting Clinton on his ticket -- should he be the nominee.

    And considering I wouldn't vote for him either way, I could care less.

    That is because Ted and John and Tom (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    do not want to have to deal with a Clinton in any way shape or form. If she was on the ticket as a VP, she would be like Cheney and have influence. It would be harder for them to manipulate the President as that is their plan. BTW, I supported Kerry but watching him now, I look at him as a person who did not close the deal and it should have been a slam dunk. Why would I have confidence in him? I don't. He quit because people gave him one chance and one chance only and he could not even get out of the dugout this time around.    

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:39:16 PM EST
    voted for Kerry too.  Now I look at him and see the most God-awful candidate.  Is that the bvest we had to offer 4 years ago?

    He can take the most simple truth , butcher it with words and make it sound like slop.

    I'm so glad the voters of his state let him (and Teddy) know what they thought of his endorsement of Obama.

    You'd think Obama would want a winner up there speaking for him.

    Parent

    This has a ring of truth to me but.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    ...I don't understand, particularly in the case of Tom and John, what it is they want to manipulate Obama to do. Unless what they expect to maniputlate him to do is nothing. If these guys still have an agenda, I don't know what it is. You'd think it would start to make them a little paranoid that the number of potential mentors that Obama now has wouldn't fit comfortably in the oval office anymore.

    Parent
    You know what it is (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    They're all just so lame compared to Clinton, so as long as Clinton exists in the party in the spotlight to some degree, they feel exposed as the idiots they are.

    It's how Bush Jr.would feel about Reagan if Bush Jr. was motivated by ego and not greed.

    Parent

    Daschle doesn't possess the ability (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    to manipulate anyone. He was a laughing stock as majority leader.

    Parent
    I agree, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    he was a weak leader, but he is involved. Unless, he wants to get back in and this is the only way.

    Parent
    Tom? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    Ted and John I get.  But who is Tom?

    Parent
    Daschle (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Glad to see (none / 0) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    you are so dedicated to the Democratic Party!

    Parent
    I'm not the least bit (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    dedicated to the Democratic party if it means voting for someone who I believe in my heart of hearts is NOT a Democrat.

    And I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent.  And whenever people say, "you're a bad Democrat if you don't vote for..."  well I'd say you're a bad Democrat if you vote for a lousy Democrat.  How do you like those apples?

    I'm an issue based voter.  And I've talked about my issues before so I'll save my breath here.  Obama doesn't support my issues.  I can wait until 2012 for someone who does.

    Parent

    Their platform... (none / 0) (#32)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    is VERY similar.  And Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  What issues doesn't he support and why don't you think he is a Democrat?

    Parent
    Obama is not the most liberal Senator. That (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    is National Journal giving him the same treatment they gave John Kerry in 2004, creating ammunition for Republican attacks. He's no Ben Nelson, but he isn't a Sheldon Whitehouse or Barbar Boxer either.

    Parent
    That's a fair assessment... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    I didn't source check the report I heard.  Fact remains though, the dude's a solid (D).

    Parent
    What do you mean by (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    Obama's a "solid (D)"? Do you mean Obama is a big D Democrat?

    Obama doesn't make a point of claiming to be an ardent, party-unity, Democrat. The Unity Schtick is all about being post-party isn't it?

    That's why more solid Democratic voters support Hillary.

    Parent

    Absoutely correct.... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    ...he talked about unifying the country, not the party. But now that the Obama campaign wants to end the primary season, the plea is for party unity.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:44:54 PM EST
    are right.  Until Thuirsday (after Hillary had just said it) for the first time I heard Obama speak of party unity.  

    What I remember is that Michelle saying she'd have to think about supporting Hillary.  (BTW, have you seen her lately?  No!  They have put a muzzle on her.)

    I see his health care plan and I think it is Republican Lite.  

    encourages Republicans and Independents to be "Democrats for a Day", so they can vote for him - to get Hillary out of the race - not to get them in the party and keep them there.

    Parent

    By solid... (none / 0) (#70)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    I don't mean partisan.  I mean on the issues, he's a Dem.  I don't care about the party, but about what it represents and the values it holds.  That he wants to gain cross-party support for liberal ideas - all the better.  In my book, he's solid.

    Parent
    On the "issues" (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    how is Obama more of a "solid Dem" than Clinton?

    Remember, in the GE, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party are the only voters who can be relied upon to vote for the Democratic ticket.

    Clinton (not Obama) has had, does have, and will have the support of those voters in the GE.

    Parent

    I didn't say he was more solid... (none / 0) (#96)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    just that he was solid against the accusation that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Parent
    Let's discuss this.. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    This is on Presidential Candidates: He is the only "Democrat" that brought up Social Security and privatization.  He is the only "Democrat" who's health care plan was not universal, he is the only "Democrat" who mentioned Reagan and Bush to be foreign policy models and I know there are many more instances.


    Parent
    He also wants Republicans in his cabinet. Today (none / 0) (#131)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    I read something about how he might choose Bloomberg as his running mate.

    Parent
    That line on Bush and Reagan (none / 0) (#144)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:02:51 PM EST
    is not based in fact.  It is based on the Clinton's gross misrepresentation of Obama's words.

    Obama's HC plan isn't universal, but its close, and I get why he's saying what he's saying.  I think his plan will work.  I don't know if Hillary can make hers happen this time.  I am unfamiliar with his position on social security (it isn't a major issue for me).  But Hillary is weak in some areas too - namely, Iraq, lobbyists and ethics reform.  Iraq is a HUGE issue for me and its one where I want to know for sure I can trust someone.

    So they have their goods and their bads....but the idea that he isn't a Dem is ridiculous.  I'd call it a lie, but that's against the rules, so I won't.

    Parent

    Because he doesn't seem to be proud (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    to be a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive.

    Now "some people say" that's because he's all about Unity and Post Partisanship.

    I say that he needs the votes of Independents and Republicans and needs to seem as generic and inoffensive as possible.  

    "See? I like Reagan!  You like Reagan!  Vote for ME!"

    I think I would vomit if Hillary cozied up to Reagan like Obama does.  

    Parent

    Or called the GOP ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:09:23 PM EST
    ..."the party of ideas."  I wonder which "outside the box" GOP  ideas are his favorites- the fear-mongering, the election tampering, the race-baiting or privatizing social security?  All are doozies, actually.  

    Parent
    The torture, no doubt. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    never cozied up to Reagan,

    That is, unless you're talking about Bill and Hillary's massive misquotations.  But it's okay. I'm sure they both just "misspoke."


    Parent

    Obama dog whistles (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    with the best of the right wingers because he needs them.

    And no, he does NOT talk about how great and wonderful and beneficial and effective progressive policies are.  Maybe he talks about how great HIS policies are, because he's all about Brand Obama.  Are they Independents, Republicans, Democrats?  Noooo, they are Obamacans!  Not Obamadents or Obamacrats, but Obamacans.

    Well, he can be the star of his own party, Obamacans for Obama, if he doesn't want to embrace the Democratic way.  The Obama/Bloomberg ticket would be the perfect third party ticket.  He would be well and truly post partisan and non partisan on his very own Unity ticket.

    Parent

    Have you read his book? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    Obama praises Reagan repeated in The Audacity of Hope.


    Parent
    You might want to check his recent (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:02:26 PM EST
    Foreign Policy remarks . . . ahem.

    Parent
    I believe he praises Reagan a number of times in (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    his books.

    Parent
    I do not (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    question his party affiliation.. he is a Dem.

    However, I do question HOW MUCH he will stay true to the Dem party as POTUS... it is the UNITY issue. The unite ... some one is going to have to compromise. I have a feeling that it is the Dems that will be compromising.

    This is why I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    The big issues are the Economy and secondary effects the the economy... the cost of the Iraq War and Health Care. Clinton shows much more passion in addressing these.

    Sen Obama has to convince the Dem core that he is serious about these issues... and he has not stepped up to so it yet. should he fail in these areas as POTUS... the Dem party will have bigger issues in the future.

    I'll vote for Sen Obama should he be the nominee.... I can't stomach any more of our youth being killed in Irag. The economy is cutting into my retirement and my health care costs have increased.

    I'm NOT trusting a Repub to fix these issues.


    Parent

    I question if he is a dem (none / 0) (#125)
    by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST


    Parent
    "I'm an issue based voter" (none / 0) (#43)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    Excuse me?

    THEIR PLATFORMS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL.

    I'm an issue based voter also. That's why if the supers give Clinton the nomination, even though it's clear to me she would rather destroy the party than let Obama be the nominee, I will vote for her in November.  

    Parent

    As an issue-based voter, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:04:47 PM EST
    consider the millions of folks who'd be affected by Obama vs Clinton healthcare plan. Also consider that Obama doesn't support giving NASA (and potentially the NIH) the $$ they need, which is indicative of his tepid commitment to science/technology, at least compared to Clinton, who knows her stuff on this. I'm also appreciative of her plan and knowledge to get out of Iraq responsibly; she has drawn more support from former military leaders on this than Obama.

    Obama doesn't have the wrong views, but I'm just scared he's selling out on healthcare before the GE. I'm also eager for a President who is a policy wonk and can credibly sell the Democratic agenda without selling out. We'll see if that ever happens though; this President sealed the Republican deal not once knowing what he was talking about.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by badger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    You got the top few, but threre are lots of others. His vote against the interest cap because it was "too high", his more "free market" plan on the mortgage crisis, his more cautious stance in the debates on Iraq, and more.

    I think one of the most overlooked marketing agendas of this campaign is the "Obama is just like Hillary" idea. It's not true at all, IMO - he positions himself close to Hillary to avoid the negative contrast, but he has neither the progressive intent and commitment nor the in-depth understaning that Clinton has.

    Parent

    I really have to believe (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    many Obama supporters have no clue about his econ team. Put Gene Sperling up against Austan Goolsbee and see who's progressive. Wall Street loves Obamacans. Main Street, not so much.

    Parent
    Cutler and Liebman... (none / 0) (#107)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    ...both had roles in Bill Clinton's administration albeit Liebman in a fairly limited capacity.  Cutler was apparently bullied into eliminating mandates from Obama's healthcare plan for political reasons and has since said it could leave 'significant pockets' of uninsured and would 'deal with that when the time comes, perhaps by mandating insurance'

    Obama is a whole lot more like Bill Clinton than he would ever admit.  Not that it's a bad thing, but I really resent the posturing of being progressive and - further - bashing the Clinton legacy while secretly hoping to emulate it.

    Parent

    The Obama econ guys are more unfettered (none / 0) (#128)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    "The spice must flow!" free traders than Clinton's team. She can actually say the word regulation without stuttering.

    Parent
    Not identical... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    ...but that's the talking point Obama's campaign would have you believe.

    1. Health care - this has been fleshed out ad infinitum.  Kerry actually had the balls this morning to confess that Obama's plan is intentionally watered down to appeal to Republicans.  How progressive and 'changey' is that?

    2. Subprime crisis - Obama was and remains the only Dem candidate who did not support a moratorium on foreclosures and a temporary freeze on ARM increases.

    3. Has suggested Social Security is in 'crisis' and has Jeff Liebman talking up private accounts as a solution.

    Et cetera...

    Parent
    Maybe its just me... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Chisoxy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    But whether their platform is identical on paper is meaningless when Obama continually seeks to undermine the others stance (MANDATES ARE THE DEVIL!) and doesnt seem to really believe in what he says, and has a history of appeasing the other side (Exelon).
    Obama's history and actions undermine whatever his "platform" happens to be at the moment.

    Parent
    The Democratic Party screwed this up (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    The DNC and the Party elders who did not like Hillary because she was a Clinton and threw in another candidate. They would not give Edwards a chance either. All this time Hillary could have been campaigning against McCain. Instead it is a Primary fight that never should have happened. It is not Barrack who is fighting for the Presidency. He can step back and let the party elders do the work. So if we are unhappy with the Dem Party, then they need to know it and not take us for granted. We will not vote McCain. But we have other options.  

    Parent
    Barack was not handed (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    anything....Hillary had all the establishment locked up.....After Iowa, Obama started making inroads....

    Parent
    Yes he was. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    Was it his intention to become a Senator for one year and then run for President? Or was he encouraged by the likes of Kennedy? And once encouraged with their full promised support of the party elders, then they use his AAism to pull off voters from Hillary. They had GOP crossover Dems for  a day who have no intention for voting for him in a GE.  And not to rehash this, he has the backing of the powers who did not like Bill Clinton or her and that was a pretty powerful group.

    Parent
    Also, he raised vast amounts of money very (none / 0) (#114)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    quickly. That seemed very unusual to me at the time.  He was able to challenge Hillary right off the bat. Someone had to be behind that. It wasn't all online contributions at that point. I always think you should follow the money. Anyone know anything about that?

    Parent
    Here's a start (none / 0) (#118)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    Vote Hope 2008

    Parent
    Okay. I peeked. Here's a link (none / 0) (#120)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    to a NY Times article in 2006. So who is this guy Steve Phillips and who do he and his father in law represent?

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/obama-money/


    Parent

    Steve Phillips (none / 0) (#127)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:51:14 PM EST
    Wikipedia  on Steve Phillips and Herb Sandler

    Note the funding of moveon.org.

    Parent

    Well, he doesn't sound like all that bad a guy (none / 0) (#130)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    to me. I was a Move-On.org member until they decided to support Obama.  I thought that was a big mistake, as they had done some good things, but, by taking sides, they alienated people (like me).

    Parent
    Yeah, same here (none / 0) (#133)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    I can't claim it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.  ;)

    Like you, I was a member of moveon till they endorsed Obama.  

    Still, it does go to show there's some serious money behind the Obama campaign which belies the myth of the financing being based on $20 donations from college students.

    Parent

    See, I think Obama is a made man (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    errr..president.

    I think Durbin, who I believe promoted him to speak at the 2004 convention, began the short journey for BO, of course after Jones got himself a senator from IL. The plan begun with the Chicago Boyz (Axelrod, Durbin, Jackson, Jr.)planing on their next president. I also think that the rest of them Dodd, etc. have an ax to grind with Clinton, either Bill or Hill or both. Began the Perfect Storm.

    I digress....let's see if I were "the" woman, extremely bright, capable, knew and loved policy, experienced, a fighter, resolute, a mother,
    ..would I want to be BO's VP. Ha! No, but he could be MY VP.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#140)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    we do have options.

    And if Democrats, and white Democratic women in particular,  get the idea that the "fix" is is for Obama (which it is strating to look like) you better watch out.

    If this thing gets closer after the primaries and Florida could put Hillary over the top in either the popular vote (more likely)or the delegate count, and they vote Obama, there will be a price to pay.

    If women think Hillary is getting shafted, McCain will beat him almost everywhere.

    Maybe the dream ticket would be the only hope.

    Parent

    Too bad Obama isn't as dedicated to the (none / 0) (#67)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    Democratic party.

    Parent
    He absolutely does not. (none / 0) (#123)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    Hillary has been the only one to ever even bring it up. And look at the reaction the last time she did. They literally freaked out because Clinton said Obama should be her VP (as if during a primary fight  she'd say she'd take VP). The Obamasphere exploded by the idea of him taking a backseat to Clinton. Even if only hypothetically.  She is so much more gracious when it comes to this.

    Parent
    I'll support a Clinton/Obama ticket, but not a (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    Obama/Clinton ticket.  The first one is a dream, the second one a nightmare.  

    Haha... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    If Obama/Clinton is a nightmare, why do you want him on the ticket at all?

    Parent
    Just consider it our little unity sacrifice. LOL. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST


    Parent
    How... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    charitable.  :D

    Parent
    I am an Obama supporter... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    ...and would accept an Obama/Clinton OR a Clinton/Obama ticket.  Either one, with the caveat that the leader of the pledged delegates head the ticket. That is a perfectly fair deal, although I see no reason why Obama should commit to it if he's ahead in both pledged delegates AND popular vote. It might be good politics, but I don't think he's obligated to do so.  I do think, though, that Clinton, if she is behind in either one or both of those categories, would be more compelled to put Obama on her ticket should she get the nomination.

    I also think Obama should just allow Florida and Michigan's delegates according to the results of those primaries.   But he should get the uncommitted's share of the delegates from Michigan. Michigan's popular vote should either not be counted in anyone's formula or, if it is, he should be allowed to claim uncommitted vote. That's perfectly fair.

    I'm confident Obama will still be ahead, when it's all over, in pledged delegates, and, I think, popular vote.  Why?  Because I think Clinton is beginning to fade, as suggested by the latest tracking polls and Rasmussen Penn poll.  I expect that she won't get anywhere near the 20-point victory in Pennsylvania, but closer to 10.  Obama will then take the remaining larger prizes (North Carolina, Indiana, and Oregon) with +10 margins, padding his pledged delegate and popular vote lead, and hold Clinton to a small margin in Kentucky and Puerto Rico.  Enough supers will then move to him, probably shortly after NC, to seal the deal.  He should then just seat Florida and Michigan according to the results (so long as he gets a share of Michigan's delegates).  I suspect that's how it will all shake out.

    Parent

    Obviously you say this with a huge caveat... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:12:04 PM EST
    pledged delegate leader. Of course you are being disengenuous because you fully expect that Obama will be the pledged delegate leader.

    As for me?  I won't accept any ticket with Obama on it.  Why? Because he will bring the ticket down.

    Parent

    He will be... (none / 0) (#134)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:57:09 PM EST
    ...the pledged delegate leader AND the popular vote leader, I'm confident, even with Florida and Michigan counted.  And I'd be happy to see Clinton join him on the ticket under those circumstances.

    I suppose it doesn't matter what we think, though.  Obama will be the nominee and will be able to choose who he'd like to be the VP.  I doubt it will be Clinton.

    You should vote for McCain and four more years of Bush policy if Obama is so distasteful to you. I would never do that, but you appear ready.

    Parent

    Giving Obama (none / 0) (#136)
    by Robo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    the uncommitted votes in Michigan, I think, is fair.  That is how I have always kind of thought about it.  Splitting them 50/50, however, is not fair.

    Parent
    I prefer it actually, and I prefer Hillary: (none / 0) (#23)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    but Obama is a genius at expertly catapaulting the propoganda: speeches winning over a united country behind Democratic agenda while Hillary is (lousy at that but) the expert at formulating progressive domestic policy detail.

    Parent
    I did everything I could for Kerry (none / 0) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    in 2004 when he was running, but that comment today framing the VP selection as some sort of decision that should be left to party elites was the kind of stuff I felt I was constantly having to address in my Republican friends' perceptions of him.  I am really not looking forward to Kerry being an Obama surrogate in the general election if Obama gets the nod.  I wish they would send him to France or something because we do not want to be perceived as the elite party again.  McCain and the GOP will have a field day with that stuff.

    I sent the Kerry campaign (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    five hundred bucks.  First campaign donation I'd ever made of anything like that magnitude and a lot of money for my family.  And if he'd SPENT that money in Ohio, maybe half of the last eight-year nightmare would have been not so much.

    Maybe he has better judgment now.  Maybe not.  I think I do, though.

    Parent

    Doesn't appear that he does. (none / 0) (#115)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Is there a realistic possibility (none / 0) (#14)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:07:13 PM EST
    that Clinton would accept VP to Obama?

    And under what conditions? For example, that Florida and Michigan hold revotes and Obama still comes out in the final tally ahead in popular vote?

    I'm sincerely asking.

    Personally, I don't see it happening (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    Why would she accept second-spot status to the man who has been trashing her husband's legacy?

    Parent
    Obama may pick Bloomberg (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    Obama has been schmoozing Bloomberg big time....

    There was a selective leak from the Obama campaign that they believed he could not win against McCain unless he increased his base....

    And, Andrea Mitchell said today that Bloomberg could be prevailed upon to take it...That is not surprising.   Bloomberg has done it all in the business world and decided to go into politics....He has been Mayor of NYC for awhile and would love to be President but has no road to get there....He seems like he wants to be part of the action, so VP may get him there...

    Mitchell has very, very good contacts, so I assume Bloomberg would take it.  She said earlier in Tweety's weekly show that Obama may have a problem with Jewish voters.  Then, later when she talked about Bloomberg as VP, she said it would help with Jewish voters.....It may be that Bloomberg really wants the job and is putting the word out in subtle trial balloons.  

    Bloomberg would fit Obama's theme of independence/new politics--an approach that Hillary supporters do not generally like very much.  Kerry tried to get McCain as his VP, so Obama might try to go in a similar direction.....

    Obama would need a big VP pick, so if not Bloomberg, Hillary would have to be a very serious consideration....Edwards came back into the limelight the other day with a lot of praise for Obama, and Hillary, but moreso Obama.  He could be VP pick again.

    I hope they aren't serious. Bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    has no real appeal beyond New York. He isn't going to help in Ohio or Michigan or Penn. or MN or WI, etc. He isn't exactly a dynamic figure. He has no FP or Defense experience. He's a big Republican donator.

    Parent
    I'd like to see some polling on this (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Bloomberg is a serious guy with a lot of bonafides on the economy....He would appeal to independents....

    Hillary in many ways is running a campaign right out of the 1970s--trying to appeal to blue collar whites on economic issues in a traditional FDR/New Deal way....I think that approach is limited....

    Parent

    If you use the other description (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    you must mean the "low information", "low income", "low education" people of the country.

    They were here in the 70's and they are still here.
    It's also a Democratic principle that we try to get some equality for our citizens. It also used to be that we did not divide them with labels like "creative class", "old", "past", or "from the 70"s".

    Of course Bloomberg has some good qualities.  One I like is for new fire arm law. But just because I like it, does not mean Idaho or Texas and about 40 other states will.

    Parent

    The conventional wisdom... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    ...would be for Obama to have a veep who could help him among rural states and in the south (like an Edwards perhaps?)

    I do hope Obama's campaign doesn't actually believe he can carry the midwest/south simply because he pulled off Dem primary victories there.  The wisdom of pairing up an all-urban ticket (Chicago/New York) with a collective 3 years of experience in Washington is extremely dubious.

    Parent

    If that's conventional wisdom (none / 0) (#156)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:30:01 PM EST
    then the ideal veep candidate for Obama would be Larry the Cable Guy.

    Parent
    This if fine (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    But I do know what the A-list "Progressive" (they've earned the quotation marks at this point) blogs would say if Clinton was schmoozing an ex-republican.

    So that's the filter through which I see everything.

    Obama supporter hypocrisy.

    Bloomberg hasn't screwed up NY, I guess, although I do know some have had some legitmate cases to make against him.  Less draconian than Rudolph for sure.


    Parent

    Obama "may" have a problem (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:19:54 PM EST
    with Jewish voters?  I'd say it's a dead cert that he has problems with Jewish voters.  Most of the Jewish voters I know here in NY plan to vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee.

    However, I don't think Jewish voters constitute a large enough segment of the general electorate to make Bloomberg an asset as a running mate.  Obama probably figures he could carry NY in any event. Plus, there's the little fact that Bloomberg is not a Democrat.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    would be Bloomberg's cachet, his premium value.  Most say he really is quite liberal on social issues....and at core a Democrat like fellow Wall-Streeter Corzine.

    Obama could move to the middle getting beyond the old politics by having an Independent on his ticket (according to Obama's reasoning).....It is right up Obama's alley, and Bloomberg would apparently take it.

    Parent

    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#51)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    is a Democrat turned Republican and recently turned Independent.  He's my mayor and I have nothing against him, aside from when he briefly stopped recycling programs in NYC due to financial constraints.  He's a vast improvement over Giuliani (but who wouldn't be?).

    However, I maintain that he'd bring nothing to a Dem ticket.  Why would Obama nominate a whiny-voiced New York mayor (even if he is a multi-billionaire) as VP?  He might gain some NY votes, but New Yorkers voting Democratic is pretty much a given.  Nah, he'd be better of with a VP from a purple state.    

    Parent

    What's the factual support for (none / 0) (#56)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    saying Bloomberg is "quite liberal on social issues"?

    To any extent that he may be liberal, as VP, wouldn't he have to snuff that out for the GOPers who already think (wrongfully) that McCain isn't conservative enough?

    Parent

    The target audience (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    would be independents....

    Conservative Republicans could perhaps be persuaded to sit it out--especially if the Democratic Nominee gets McCain to talk about his views on global warming and illegal immigration--but they would not vote for the Democratic nominee under any circumstances....

    I have heard that Bloomberg is very pro-gay rights....I don't have the cite at the tip of my fingers...

    Parent

    He is pro-gay rights (none / 0) (#66)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    as am I, but we all know how that snags a lot of vote in the GE, don't we?  

    There are Independents and Independents.  Some are basically liberal (fiscal Republicans who smoke pot and watch porn), but many of them are actually quite socially conservative and a gay-rights supporting VP will bring nothing to the ticket.  

    Not that I even care b/c if Obama is the nominee I'm most likely sitting this one out.

    Parent

    No no! You MUST vote downticket! We can live (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    with McCain and his hundred year war plans only if we have a veto proof majority of Dems in Congress!

    Parent
    Please, give us more than (none / 0) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    rumors to support the claim that "Bloomberg is quite liberal on social issues".

    Anyway, if he, in fact, has ever held meaningful liberal views, he will have to renounce them BEFORE he is vetted as the GOPs VP candidate. And then he will lose any presumed appeal to Independents, long before the GE.

    Parent

    Correction, my error. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    I thought Bloomberg was being bandied about as a McCain VP, rather than an Obama VP.

    The latter is even more unthinkable than the former.

    Obama, himself, is barely a democrat. That's the problem ardent, core Democrats have with him already. Add Bloomberg as VP, and the ticket is dead to me.

    Still, good luck with using Bloomberg to woo those Indies and GOP 'moderates' to ditch McCain and sweep the election for the Democratic African-American/Jewish ticket.

    Parent

    It's so easy to make that mistake (none / 0) (#94)
    by badger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    In fact if that were the ticket, I might not even notice I was voting against Democrats for the first time this November.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#142)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST


    Parent
    I live here (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    He's socially liberal. Openly supports gay marriage, etc.

    Parent
    I'm sure Bloomberg would just love to be Prez. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    But if he gets there as Obama's VP I might have to switch back to the Green Party...because that is the biggest crock I have had the privilege of reading about this primary season.


    Parent
    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    pick Bloomberg.  That'll make me race to the voting booth to vote for that ticket.

    Parent
    Rendell was great... (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    he may be a little rough around the edges but he would be a great VP choice for Clinton.  Although I believe if Clinton somehow pulled this off she would want/ask Obama I don't see him saying yes.  I also don't see him asking her if he wins.  I have been frustrated enough at times to think I would vote for McCain or Nader, but I know in my heart I will vote for Obama if he wins because it is just too important not to.

    It's a nice idea but it just doesn't seem likely (none / 0) (#36)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    I have a hard time even imagining a unity ticket at this point. Clinton/Obama makes more sense in general though. Obama/Clinton seems....I dunno I just can't see it.

    The most important thing is that the loser be gracious and serve as a model of party solidarity.

    Basically failing a unity ticket then the loser is going to have to do a lot of work to make sure their base moves to the other side. I think that's part of why the idea keeps comming up...it's the obvious way of reuniting the two halves of the party.

    Did Kerry say he would oppose Hillary's (none / 0) (#39)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    UHC plan during this appearance??? I just read that at No Quarter.
    The person might have been referring to 1993.. it wasn't clear to me.

    He said (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    it was a "non-starter".  Draw your own conclusions.

    Parent
    Kerry said (none / 0) (#158)
    by OldCoastie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:53:40 AM EST
    specifically that Hillary's UHC plan was a non-starter due to the mandates - that it wouldn't be possible to get it thru the Senate. It came across to me as a threat that he wouldn't put thru her legislation if she were elected.

    I thought it stunk.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    Mario Cuomo has always been a favorite of mine, and this suggestion could not make more sense. It would cut down on the nastiness and keep the Dems front and center discussing issues rather than vollys of divisive defensive banter. This would also solidify the Democratic base because it would be us against  McBush/McSame

    xyz (none / 0) (#52)
    by amde on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    ahh. i never liked kerry that much. he has always come off as slightly snobbish to me. for him to say he wouldn't support her HC plan is dumb. we're all democrats, so suck it up.

    ---cant we all just get along??

    apparently not.

    I prefer Clinton/Edwards or Obama/Edwards... (none / 0) (#55)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    to either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.  I just don't see those two working together well.  Ultimately I think Edwards ads more to Obama than to Clinton, but I think he'd be good for either.  I'm not sure he'd want to play VEEP again though.

    Obama + Clinton is stronger... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    ...and the obama partisans should realize that hillary has considerable electoral strength that would add to, not detract from, a national ticket.

    please check out the electoral maps for obama/mccain and clinton/mccain, updated daily with the results of all the head to head matchup polls for each state, at

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    you will find the links right under the main map on the front page, and you can look back into the past since the links to these pages is changed everyday with the date clearly encoded into the URL.

    THE REAL POINT IS THAT HILLARY HAS BEEN CONSISTANTLY MUCH STRONGER IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AGAINST MCCAIN

    if you re-write the urls to look back a week or so (electoral-vote.com has only been maintaining these for about a week and a half), you will see that hillary was winning over mccain in the electoral vote a week ago, and obama was losing against mccain.

    the media, with its blatant obama worship, keeps this very quiet

    i have no idea why it is so difficult for some people to adhere to the democratic principle of counting all the votes, including florida and michigan, before declaring a victor

    we should synergize the strengths of our two great democratic nominees, not tear each other down

    The numbers... (none / 0) (#90)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    ...if all new voters turned out to vote for only Obama, the race would've been over long ago.

    Now if you can explain how only a few percentage points seperate the two in popular vote (at best count) yet the triple digit increases in voter turnout all went to Obama... you'll be awarded the George W. Bush 'Fuzzy Math' award.

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    Your thesis doesn't support his decisive loss in OH and being edged out in TX.  I would argue that Obama has seen more benefit from being relatively unknown.

    Parent
    Regardless... (none / 0) (#110)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    ...your comment has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that Clinton hasn't brought any new voters to the booth.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#143)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    yes she has brought in new voters.

    Women who have never voted before are registering in droves to vote for Hillary.

    Parent

    speaking of presidential losers... (none / 0) (#145)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:34:04 PM EST
    Why would anyone take Mario Cuomo's advice on how to be elected president?

    Probably (none / 0) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    the same people who would take Kerry's. Or Kennedy's. or Hart's. Or Richardson's.

    Parent
    Cuomo never ran for president (none / 0) (#151)
    by Shawn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:21:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I have my own (none / 0) (#148)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    idea of a dream ticket.

    I would only accept Clinton/Obama is she was on top. if not, no way. And even then I would think she was crazy putting herself in the position of NOT having a fighter for a VP candidate and having to haul his crazy baggage around.

    My idea of a dream ticket is Clinton/Edwards. Did anyone else see Elizabether Edwards praising Hillary's healthcare plan in the LA Times today?

    BTW: supposedly Obama's top choices for VP are Webb and...wait for it...Ted Strickland. lol But take it with a grain of salt, it came from Newsmax.

    not in this, or any other (none / 0) (#157)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:06:12 AM EST
    lifetime. sen. obama has so alienated the clinton campaign, she'd be foolish to have him as her VP. his arrogance notwithstanding, he brings nothing to the table.

    as well, were i her advisor, i'd advise her to stay as far away from sen. obama as humanly possible, he will be toxic. it would be better, for her, the party and the country, were she to take the top senate job. sen. obama will lose in nov., why put herself in that position unnecessarily?

    Oh...I agree. (none / 0) (#159)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    I was speaking only for what I would accept.

    I think any tickets with Obama on it at this point will lose in the GE. He may not even be able to win his own senate seat.

    Parent

    The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment