Clinton: Ticket With Obama May Be "Where This Is Headed"
Still glowing from her big wins in Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton made some news this morning on CBS's The Early Show when she suggested that a Clinton/Obama general election ticket was a real possibility.
Co-anchor Harry Smith fueled the flames of speculation when he said to Clinton, "We talked to a lot of people in Ohio who said there really isn't that significant a difference between you two, and they'd like to see you both on the ticket."
It was a question the New York senator could have easily sidestepped. But she chose to answer it head on.
"Well, that may, you know, be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course, we have to decide who's on the top of the ticket, and I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
The prospect of a Clinton/Obama ticket has been suggested countless times by pundits and Democratic voters who are torn between the two superstar candidates. And while Clinton and Obama have both alluded to the possibility of joining forces in the past, this seems to be the first time that either has left the door so wide open.
Co-anchor Harry Smith fueled the flames of speculation when he said to Clinton, "We talked to a lot of people in Ohio who said there really isn't that significant a difference between you two, and they'd like to see you both on the ticket."
It was a question the New York senator could have easily sidestepped. But she chose to answer it head on.
"Well, that may, you know, be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course, we have to decide who's on the top of the ticket, and I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
The prospect of a Clinton/Obama ticket has been suggested countless times by pundits and Democratic voters who are torn between the two superstar candidates. And while Clinton and Obama have both alluded to the possibility of joining forces in the past, this seems to be the first time that either has left the door so wide open.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 CommentsHE SHOULD COME OUT AND SAY SHE IS IN OZ IF SHE THINK I WOULD CHOSE HER.
HE NEEDS TO COME OUT AND SAY TO AMERICA IF YOU WANT BUSH 2 (MCCAIN) IN OFFICE THEN HAVEING CLINTON ON ANY TICKET WOULD DO THAT.
THATS WHY I CHOSE JOHN EDWARDS AS MY V.P.
THEN SHE WOULD LOSE ALL THE REMAINING STATES BY TRIPPLE DIGGET...
REMEMBER THE REPS WANT CLINTON BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL BEAT HER IN A NATIONAL VOTE. I WOULD AND MANY OTHER IND/DEMS WOULD VOTE MCAIN INSTEAD OF HAVEING HER IN ANY PART OF THE WHITEHOUSE.
misery hillary, go home....no more slick willies allowed...
Which is ironic. Our nation was founded on the notion that disruption works, that dissension speaks louder than complacency. We are only beginning to understand what the framers of this country were saying, and we jeopardize that by allowing our rights to erode away. And the only candidate with the real courage to protect the fundamental rights, the only candidate with the depth to truly understand what is at stake, is Hillary Clinton.
And why is Obama so opposed to the idea of banding together? Isn''t the Democrats'' real purpose defeating the Rebublican marauders? Yet he swaggers in his male superiority and casts aspersions on her.
Which is ironic. Our nation was founded on the notion that disruption works, that dissension speaks louder than complacency. We are only beginning to understand what the framers of this country were saying, and we jeopardize that by allowing our rights to erode away. And the only candidate with the real courage to protect the fundamental rights, the only candidate with the depth to truly understand what is at stake, is Hillary Clinton.
Which is ironic. Our nation was founded on the notion that disruption works, that dissension speaks louder than complacency. We are only beginning to understand what the framers of this country were saying, and we jeopardize that by allowing our rights to erode away. And the only candidate with the real courage to protect the fundamental rights, the only candidate with the depth to truly understand what is at stake, is Hillary Clinton.
Okay...nice thought, but...it''s very tough to unite when Clinton has just spent the past month smearing Obama (or pretending she had nothing to do with those smear and fear campaigns). I tend not to try to chum up with people who punch me in the face. If she attacks her own in this manner, do you really believe she can work with the Republicans to compromise and get things accomplished?
Here''s a newsflash, Hillary- YOU''RE LOSING.
Hillary is still behind in delegates, and even if she won every contest from here on out, she can''t overcome Obama''s lead.
The only way Hillary could be the nominee is for the superdelegates to overthrow the results of the primaries. They have never done that, and won''t this time, either.
Whether it''s giving the Republicans all the ammo they need against the soon-to be-nominee, Barack, or creating civil war at the Democratic convention, Hillary is determined to throw the democratic party into the garbage.
Hillary only cares about getting herself into the Whitehouse. Even if that means destroying the Dem party, and insuring that NO democrat gets into the Whitehouse.
Must read for those into American politics!!!!
I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama%u2019s current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven%u2019t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article %u201CSuper Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons%u201D on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=177, %u201CFollow the Money%u201D on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, %u201CBush%u2019s Twin and the G.O.P.%u201D http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and %u201CBarack Obama%u2019s Apotasy%u201D http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their %u201CPolitical Analysis%u201D and %u201CHumor%u201D sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
HE SHOULD COME OUT AND SAY SHE IS IN OZ IF SHE THINK I WOULD CHOSE HER.
HE NEEDS TO COME OUT AND SAY TO AMERICA IF YOU WANT BUSH 2 (MCCAIN) IN OFFICE THEN HAVEING CLINTON ON ANY TICKET WOULD DO THAT.
THATS WHY I CHOSE JOHN EDWARDS AS MY V.P.
THEN SHE WOULD LOSE ALL THE REMAINING STATES BY TRIPPLE DIGGET...
REMEMBER THE REPS WANT CLINTON BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL BEAT HER IN A NATIONAL VOTE. I WOULD AND MANY OTHER IND/DEMS WOULD VOTE MCAIN INSTEAD OF HAVEING HER IN ANY PART OF THE WHITEHOUSE.
Either way, I think both sides are bad. I think the right wing is greedy, racist, and hypocritical. And the left wing is pro-gay, pro-feminist, with some really twisted views on Christianity(it will almost make me feel better if they would claim to be not Christian instead)
Either way, I lose. If I wasn''t a Christian, then maybe I would be happy, yet I would most likely be blinded to the things that I am seeing now. I just can''t take the polical stance of the democrats even though I do believe they have the better economical plan.
"She is the quintessential self serving political hack and wants to be president for self aggrandizement. Being in bed with corporate lobbyists, she will not change politics an iota."
- I somewhat agree. Since being First Lady, her M.O. has been to get into the Oval Office herself. Don''t forget we called them "Billary" for quite some time, and for good reason. I do wonder about her sincerity, whether or not she is in it for herself, or in it for all Americans. With Obama, there''s no question he''s in it for us.
"As an Independent, I support Obama not because he is all that I would like to see in a President, but because of the promise and potential that he might change the way politics is done in this country."
- THIS is what "I totally agree" with. :)
"She is a hegemonist and a militarist in the tradition of the hawkish politicians of this country." - Eh, not so much. I like the idea of a balanced government, but if we want true change to come about, it will have to be with one party in control of all three branches. We''re at a stalemate right now, and nothing is happening.
"Obama speaks about %u201Cchanging the mind set that gets us into wars". That difference is critical at this juncture." - Agreed.
"It is clear from Sen. Clinton''''s idea of including Sen. Obama as her running mate is that she recognizes she has no chance of winning the general election without him."
- I do agree with this point. Who else would she choose?
"Well known as a divisive force, she has further alienated a lot of people by her Machiavellian tactics (use race, religion, falsehood, etc.), as she has done in Ohio & Texas, and she knows it. She is dishonest, but not stupid. She knows she needs Obama, but Obama does not need her."
- Again, I agree. There have been some rather childish low blows to Obama. I don''t necessarily agree that she''s made all the blows, but when you have campaign staffers do the dirty work, it''s guilt by association.
"While a woman President would be welcome, she is not it."
- That I don''t agree with. Like I said before, if she gets the nomination, sure, I''ll put a Hillary sign in my yard and vote for her.
(con''t)
Whoever said they are voting for Ron Paul... seriously?
He wants to repeal Affirmative Action. He wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. He wants to abolish the minimum wage. He supports offshore drilling, no fuel production taxes, mining on federal land, and conservation efforts.
He might as well be Charlton Heston as far as guns go. He''s opposed to separation of church and state. He opposes gay rights.
Do you really want another President that doesn''t believe people can make choices for themselves (religious, personal, or ethical), that only the rich should get tax breaks, that would destroy our environment, and that would drive our school systems into the ground even more?
Oh wait, you might want to reconsider McCain, too.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 Comments