Jim Neal

Obama-Clinton Ticket

Filed By Jim Neal | June 03, 2008 6:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democrat primaries, election 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, obama-clinton, vice president

Now that the Presidential primary season is winding down after months and millions of votes cast, it's now time to set our focus on November and winning back the Presidency.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have energized millions of new voters, and all of them are committed to seeing a Democrat in the White House in January.

Certainly, there has been a great deal of back-and-forth bickering between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's campaigns - and each candidate has millions of passionate supporters. But now it's time for unity - and I believe the best way to unite the party is to unite the two strongest candidates our party has ever seen.

That's why I support an Obama-Clinton ticket.

I hope you'll join me by adding your voice to those calling for an Obama-Clinton ticket. You can add your signature at DraftObamaClinton.com.

The DraftObamaClinton.com website gives regular citizens a way to weigh in on the VP selection process. Senator Obama has said he will have to make his vice presidential choice quickly after the primaries end this week.

Citizen involvement and grassroots organization is a cornerstone of Senator Obama's campaign, and, frankly, a foundation of our democracy. We've seen millions of new voters involved this campaign season. Their voices make a difference, and that's what DraftObamaClinton.com is all about.

Our government works with the consent of the citizens, and the Presidential nominee chooses the vice president with the consent of the convention delegates. This site is a tool for letting party leaders, convention delegates and the candidates themselves know the extent of support for an Obama-Clinton ticket.

It's about giving the citizens a voice in the vice presidential selection process, not just party elites.

This is not some folly - such a petition has been successful before. In January 2004 "Citizens Consent" launched a draft Kerry-Edwards web site and collected over a hundred thousand signatures to an on-line petition. Months later, Senator John Kerry selected Edwards as his running mate.

With enough voices pushing for an Obama-Clinton ticket in November, we can make this happen. Take a page from history as a guide: Kennedy and Johnson, fierce rivals in the primary back in 1960.

DraftObamaClinton.com was launched by "Citizens Consent" - a grassroots organization dedicated to mobilizing citizens to participate more directly in our democracy - and not affiliated with any campaign.

I hope you will join me and sign the petition now at DraftObamaClinton.com - it only takes a few seconds to add your voice to the thousands that already have weighed in.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

OMG - no, no, no, no, no. This is a horrible idea that should be squashed instead of promoted.

The last thing Obama needs is a veep that is a stage hog and thinks she should be #1. As with any good manager, you don't choose an assistant who's overwhelming need to climb the ladder means they'll use your back as steps.

She would completely undermine him at any chance she can find. Her main goal would be to make him look weaker than her so she can run again in four years (a la McCain v Bush) and hopefully beat him this time.

Health Secretary? Sure. Give her a cabinet position. Let her lead the health care initiatives. Put her on the Supreme Court. Whatever.

But putting her as 2nd in command? Very bad idea. It would be the worst mistake he'll make.

This would be a horrible idea, the two of them together.

1. Clinton is exactly the opposite of Obama's message of change - she is what he's wanting to change from. She voted for the war, panders on issues like flag burning and gas tax holidays, and uses any petty attack that's available (like that Obama could be assassinated, y'know...).

2. Choosing her would prove her right that he can't stand up to those who attack him. She's attacked him relentlessly, so now it's time to stand up.

3. Their foreign policy approaches are vastly different. It's not just that he opposed the Iraq War while she voted for it, it's that she's unable to accept and articulate the fundamental idea of limited intervention and a liberal world order that Wilson and FDR envisioned. Plus she thinks that the US is the best actor for MAD with a nuclear Iran, for whatever reason.

4. They represent different factions of the party. She's in the DLC and hired Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn; he's repudiated the DLC and was part of the progressive/grassroots resurgence. Again, what he's talking about changing from is Hillary's style of being a Democrat.

There's more, and I can see the point of having a survey, but she's definitely not the person to ask for when there are so many talented alternatives.

What about Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius?

Choosing Hillary as his running mate may be the only way Obama can prove he is a uniter of all people regardless of gender. Hillary's staunch supporters may be older women, but they have memories of elephants (no pun intended), they won't soon forget being told "Hold on a second, Sweetie" by Obama.

I'm still trying to get over this remark:
"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.''
--Barack Obama
--During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue''
--Chicago Tribune
Nicole Ziegler Dizon
Associated Press Writer

I've been saying this from the beginning. But that's just because I don't like having to make a choice when I have 2 good options.

Can we bundle them together and throw them in the ocean??

I'm sooooo tired of this campaign...

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 3, 2008 10:11 PM

Alex, how are they different.

You say that only Clinton “voted for the war” but they both pandered to the right voting for war funds and to extend the Paytriot act. Or maybe, given their votes on NAFTA and socialized medicine, they’re not pandering. Maybe they’re just two more right centrists.

The truth is they both favor "phased withdrawal", politicspeak for "we want that oil and no one is going to get in our way."

You say that “their foreign policy approaches are vastly different.” The central question is the war and on that they totally agree. Their agreement was cemented early on. "Hopefuls Seen as Unlikely To Effect Rapid Change - By Thomas Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer - Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page A01- “In their debate Wednesday night in Hanover, N.H., none of the three top Democratic presidential candidates would promise to have the U.S. military out of Iraq by January 2013 -- more than five years from now. "I think it would be irresponsible" to state that", said Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). And Hillary Clinton said "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting..."

You say that Clinton is the only lunatic among the two because she “thinks that the US is the best actor for MAD with a nuclear Iran..." Iran doesn’t have nukes, so it wouldn’t be MAD, it’d just be one more genocide, like Bill Clinton's infanticide and George Bush’s oil piracy. Obama, on the other hand, did promise to attack Pakistan to get at Bin Laden. The Pakistanis, who do have nukes, are not amused.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | June 4, 2008 12:47 AM

Something we must remember folks. With the most senior Democratic Senator (Robert Byrd) in hospital and the second most senior (Ted Kennedy) scheduled to undergo chemo, following surgery the Senate will need someone to fill the huge leadership gap created by the unfortunate, but inevitable, departure of the best abilities of these stalwart gentlemen.

Hillary should stay in the senate because that is the place where she can be strongest to get the issues and agendas she claims to care about enacted. Our presidents do not rule, they compromise with congress and we need a strong set of leaders there.

It would also be wrong to win an election and each of them lose credibility.

Before this campaign, I liked Bill Clinton. But after what we have gone through, I don't want him near the White House. Sorry Hillary.

Senator Clinton continued to campaign and to detract from the apparent nomination of Senator Obama on Tuesday evening. She could have been gracious and acknowledged the obvious, but she chose not to do so. Her speech was all about her, and how wonderful she was in the campaign.
I have said it here before in this forum and I'll repeat it here: Senator Obama has the potential to unify the country while Senator Clinton will unify the Republican party to ensure a Democratic defeat in November.
I am adamantly opposed to including Senator Clinton on the ticket, but would support the addition of Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas who gave a brilliant response to the State of the Union speech in January. I think the VP nominee should be a woman but NOT Senator Clinton.

Curtis Morton | June 4, 2008 12:09 PM

I agree with Serena, I think we should bundle them together and toss them in the ocean. Heck, send McCain in too.

There are many people that would vote for Hillary, but would vote for McCain before Obama. And same with some of the Obama voters, they wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter what. This is according to Rasmussen polls. If you bundle Hillary and Obama together, the Democrats will lose a lot of votes to either the Republicans, or non-votes.

Let me just say that I am not satisfied with ANY of the candidates, nor have I been through this whole election. The only one I was ever somewhat interested in was Rudy Giuliani.

"The last thing Obama needs is a veep that is a stage hog and thinks she should be #1. As with any good manager, you don't choose an assistant who's overwhelming need to climb the ladder means they'll use your back as steps."

She is #1. She is immenently more qualified than Obama who is not a substantive candidate. But that never has slowed down the American electorate who put Regan, BushI aand BushII in office.

I want to sell bumper stickers that say:

"Congratulations America. You've done it again.

I'm with Bill -- I see very little difference between Clinton and Obama, except some stylistic differences -- she aims to appear as war-crazed as the Republicans, and he spouts silly false prophet rhetoric... but I will admit that for some strange reason I like the idea of the two of them together, maybe just because they both have such wide appeal so it increases their chance of winning -- although I'm not exactly sure why I care whether the Republocrats win... I guess it's desperation.

I, for one, am more fascinated by the rumor that McCain may pick Condolezza Rice as his running mate ... not in favor, just fascinated.

It would make for a very entertaining five more months.