Jump to content
TheScuSpeaks

clinton/obama ticket

Recommended Posts

Former president calls Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ‘unstoppable force’

 

 

Posted March 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

 

What’s that old expression? Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend?

For the third time in the last four days, the Clinton camp is emphasizing, rather blatantly, the notion of a Clinton-Obama ticket. This time, it was the former president.

At a small town hall meeting in Pass Christian, Miss. this morning, the former president took questions from the crowd, something he hasn’t really done since the days of South Carolina. While a large portion of the questions focused on Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Pass Christian community, one resident asked if Hillary would pick Obama as her Vice President. It is a question that Clinton is very familiar with, having been asked it nearly once a day back in the days of Iowa and New Hampshire. Usually, President Clinton shies away from answering, explaining that his family is VERY superstitious when it comes to politics and they never go thinking they’ve won before they really have.

Today, however, the President seemed especially tickled by the answer, and chose to share with his personal thoughts on picking Obama as a VP. […]

“I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat. I mean you look at the, you look at the, you look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio. And the map in Missouri or — well Arkansas’s not a good case because they know her and she won every place there. But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force,” Clinton went on to say.

I think Team Clinton is starting to drop its subtleties.

 

For those keeping score at home, the first hint came Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows by straying from the usual script. Asked on CBS about running with Obama, Clinton said, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

Yesterday, the senator brought it up unprompted.

Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week’s primary, Clinton said, “I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”

While Wednesday’s comment came in response to a specific question,comment, this one was unprompted — meaning Clinton specifically wanted to raise this point for emphasis.

To reiterate a point from the other day, I still think this talk is off-base, at least so long as Clinton is openly and publicly questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for office (she said this week that John McCain meets the “commander-in-chief threshold” and has the experience to do the job, while Obama’s qualifications remain unclear).

Hilzoy had a good item about this yesterday.

It’s not that I think one candidate can’t ever say this about a candidate in his or her own party. It could happen that some candidate in one’s own party was obviously unsuited to be President. (Jack the Ripper. Hitler. Pick your own imaginary nightmare candidate.) If that candidate seemed at all likely to win, I think one should say: listen, this would be a complete disaster. The reason I think Clinton’s comments are out of line is that Barack Obama is not, by any measure, that imaginary candidate. Moreover, I assume that she knows this.

However, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that she actually believes that Barack Obama cannot “cross the commander-in-chief threshold.” One of the most important jobs a President has is to defend the country. If she thinks that Barack Obama is not qualified to do that job, then she should not support him over anyone who can. Specifically, she should support McCain over Obama.

That’s why I think some enterprising reporter should ask her whether she would support Barack Obama if he were nominated. If she would, then she should be asked why she would be willing to support someone she does not believe is qualified to be commander in chief.

While the fitness-to-serve question remains an open matter to the Clinton campaign, any talk about a joint ticket seems misguided.

 

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14829.html#more-14829

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bcom_logo_printerfriendly.gif THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING spacer.gif

from_provider_globe.gif Clintons push Obama as a running mate

 

Joint ticket 'premature,' Ill. senator says

 

By Thomas Ferraro, Reuters | March 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - Hillary and Bill Clinton have been talking up the idea that Barack Obama, whom they have called too inexperienced to be president, would make a strong running mate on a ticket headed by the New York senator.

Campaigning in Mississippi over the weekend, the former president was quoted as saying his wife and Obama could form "an almost unstoppable force."

After winning the Democratic primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island last week, Senator Clinton suggested that she and Obama might end up on the same ticket, with her at the top of it.

Obama won the Wyoming caucuses Saturday, and the latest polls show him leading in tomorrow's primary in Mississippi. He is ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates, but neither candidate is expected to obtain the 2,025 needed for the nomination in the remaining state contests.

As of last night, Obama had 1,578 delegates and Clinton had 1,468. Democratic leaders worry about the damage that could be done if neither Clinton nor Obama has a clear lead by the August nominating convention.

In hailing Obama as a possible vice president, the Clintons are reaching out to him and, perhaps more important, to his backers, whose support she would need to defeat John McCain in the November election.

"The Clintons are in a difficult position," said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Iowa, who has tracked the presidential race.

"If she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, she would need Obama's supporters. But she needs to be careful. If this talk of him on the ticket is seen as a cynical maneuver, it could backfire and hurt her," Goldford said.

The Clintons have charged that the charismatic senator from Illinois lacks the experience to handle an international crisis as president. But since Clinton won the Ohio and Texas primaries, she and her husband have repeatedly touted Obama as a possible running mate.

When asked about the possibility last week, Obama said he was focused on winning the nomination.

"I think it is very premature to start talking about a joint ticket," he said.

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who has endorsed Obama, derided the Clintons' suggestion.

"The first threshold question about a vice president is, are you prepared to be president?" Kerry said yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"So on the one end, they are saying he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying maybe he ought to be vice president," Kerry said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota also mocked the idea.

"It may be the first time in history that the person who is running number two would offer the person running number one the number two position," Daschle said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who has sought to rally support for Clinton in his state's April 22 primary, backed the idea of Clinton and Obama teaming up.

"It would be a great ticket," Rendell said yesterday on the NBC program.

Pennsylvania, the biggest remaining state in the race for the nomination, should be a safe win for Clinton, but analysts say there are pockets of vulnerability for Obama to exploit - and plenty of time to do it.

"If the election were held today it would probably be Senator Clinton by 10 points, but seven weeks in this crazy race, anything can happen," said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

A win in Pennsylvania could be crucial to Clinton's hopes of gaining support from "superdelegates" - elected officials and party insiders who can vote at the convention as they choose.

Mark Nevins, communications director for Clinton's campaign in Pennsylvania, said the state was "a proving ground."

"You can't really expect to win the general election if you can't win Pennsylvania," he said.

"Pennsylvania has more Catholics, more union members, more older voters, and fewer African-Americans," said Terry Madonna, politics professor at Franklin & Marshall College. "This is pretty much a Clinton state. It's hers to lose."

The demographics are similar to those of Ohio, which Clinton won by 54 percent to 44 percent. Madonna said Clinton also can play the "hometown" card because her father was born in Scranton.

Clinton will focus on healthcare and the economy to target the large population of seniors and union members, which is higher than the national average, Nevins said.

Sean Smith, a spokesman for Obama, contends that the demographics claimed as friendly by the Clinton campaign had helped Obama win Wisconsin and could do so again.

"We did extremely well in Wisconsin with the same types of voters," he said, pointing to older voters who were "absolutely open" to Obama's message of hope and change and "bringing the country together to solve our problems."

Richards of Quinnipiac said Obama must do three things to have a chance of winning: boost turnout among black voters, which is historically low in primaries; motivate students at the state's numerous universities and colleges; and win over affluent voters in the Philadelphia suburbs where Clinton is vulnerable. dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

 

 

spacer.gif

© Copyright var crYear = new Date(); document.write(crYear.getFullYear());2008 The New York Times Company

 

0clintons_push_obama_as_a_running_mate%3Fmode%3DPF&tz=240&s=13651&c_TID=00g3iga13ta7etclintons_push_obama_as_a_running_mate%3Fmode%3DPF PT_AC_Iterate();

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/10/clintons_push_obama_as_a_running_mate?mode=PF

 

 

 

 

didn't see that coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's just doing it so she can try and win the black vote in Mississippi by saying they can have the best of both worlds, but it might come to that eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

COLUMBUS, Mississippi (Reuters) - Barack Obama on Monday ridiculed rival Hillary Clinton's repeated hints she would take him for the No. 2 spot on her presidential ticket, accusing her of playing political games in their hard-fought Democratic nominating race.

 

Obama, campaigning in Mississippi ahead of the state's contest on Tuesday, said he has won more states than Clinton and is leading in delegates who will decide the Democratic candidate to face Republican John McCain in November.

 

"I don't know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to somebody who is in first place," Obama, an Illinois senator, told supporters. The crowd booed when he mentioned Hillary's idea...

 

Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is a ploy to convince people they can vote for her and still get him, which is stupid. If they want him they can just VOTE for him. I guess Clinton doesn't get that since she sometimes votes for bills that she hopes doesn't pass.

 

I also think she might be trying to get him to return the favor. I think it's a given that if he wins outright she is NOT going to be on the ticket. However, if he offers it to her to shut her up, I think at this point she'd strongly consider taking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is an impossible ticket. If Clinton wins the nomination and selects Obama the Republican's will have a field day with that red phone add. If Obama wins the primary and picks hillary, he basically concedes every point she made in the primary about him and his lack of experience. this ticket isn't just impossible its suicide.

 

But that aside their is too much animosity between them to allow for this ticket. I honestly believe if the primary goes to the convention (which it will) there is going to be fucking riots.

 

Hillary has effectively turned an election cycle that should have been a stroll in the park, to a coin toss. The Dems had the election locked up, all they had to do was elect someone almost competent, and they pull this shit. If Obama wins then he's going to be drilled by republican's who re-hash hillaries campaign against him because let's face it he doesn't have "experience" (neither does Hillary though)

 

 

I honestl don't know if the Democrats will be able to Beat McCain now. the unity they created to get Republican's out of office has been decimated by the the way Hillary has ran her campaign. Sure she held true to her slogan, she is a fighter, but she's going to destroy the party trying to get the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't know if the Democrats will be able to Beat McCain now. the unity they created to get Republican's out of office has been decimated by the the way Hillary has ran her campaign. Sure she held true to her slogan, she is a fighter, but she's going to destroy the party trying to get the ticket.

 

This is a very unfair characterization. She is tearing the party up as much as Obama is as well. To say that a 130 delegate count is enough of a lead at this point to just concede in a very close race is ludicrous. The problem you're identifying is inherent in any primary that is closely contested by two very good candidates - the closeness is a representation of how strong the Democratic leadership is, NOT that one candidate is just being a bitch and mucking it up for her own self-glory. To say that Obama has been sitting in a corner with a bible just giving out compliments and sincerities is really not that accurate of a portrayal of the process.

 

Granted - the hype over it probably isn't good for the party, but that's what happens when your primary is this close to the election year. This isn't the fault of a single candidate, but probably a flaw in the larger system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is an impossible ticket. If Clinton wins the nomination and selects Obama the Republican's will have a field day with that red phone add. If Obama wins the primary and picks hillary, he basically concedes every point she made in the primary about him and his lack of experience. this ticket isn't just impossible its suicide.

 

But that aside their is too much animosity between them to allow for this ticket. I honestly believe if the primary goes to the convention (which it will) there is going to be fucking riots.

 

Hillary has effectively turned an election cycle that should have been a stroll in the park, to a coin toss. The Dems had the election locked up, all they had to do was elect someone almost competent, and they pull this shit. If Obama wins then he's going to be drilled by republican's who re-hash hillaries campaign against him because let's face it he doesn't have "experience" (neither does Hillary though)

 

 

I honestl don't know if the Democrats will be able to Beat McCain now. the unity they created to get Republican's out of office has been decimated by the the way Hillary has ran her campaign. Sure she held true to her slogan, she is a fighter, but she's going to destroy the party trying to get the ticket.

I am not sure if the "dream" ticket is impossible, it is just not very smart. Remember, Bush and Reagan attacked each other more harshly and more frequently during their primaries than Clinton and Obama are now, but they ended up on the same ticket

 

I think that the Democratic Convention could go two ways that would probably determine the fate of the party. 1) The scenario that Hellfish pointed out could happen, this is probably a worst case scenario for democrats and it would probably occur if Clinton continues to split the party through her rhetoric (basically telling the democrats in "red" states that they don't matter), but also the rhetoric of her supporters could doom the party (many feminists are basically telling women that if they do not vote for Clinton then they are traitors and this would alienate those women). 2) Or, the more positive scenario in which the Democrats take these attacks and debates and rather than doing nothing (which would cause negative impacts and cost the presidency) they start acting to uphold their strengths and working on their weaknesses, but most importantly they will unite under the winner of the convention as stronger democrats then before. Although my second scenario depends on a declared winner, I believe that a nominee will be selected at the end of the convention at least, and I believe that it will be more likely because if I know democrats (and I know many democrats, being one myself), I know that they cannot stand a republican president for the next four years (especially with McCain who will basically continue Bush's legacy for another four years!) so that should at least mobilize the democrats to unify.

 

If a winner is not chosen by the Democratic Convention and the nomination has to go to the decision of the superdelegates, then it could get ugly, especially if they do not go with the popular vote.

 

Even though Clinton's attacks and aggressive campaign might cause some disagreements and maybe (not likely but possible) cause riots, she will indirectly make Obama stronger than he is as it has made him stronger than he was six months ago. This way, no matter who is the nominee (even though I prefer Obama) he/she will be prepared for whatever the republicans can throw at him/her and, most importantly, the democratic base will be behind the candidate all the way. Although I believe that Obama would stand a better chance than Clinton because he appeals to the young voters and the middle more than the other candidates, plus his record of holding a reasonably clean campaign gives people the hope that he is portraying. The hope for a better future.

 

That is all I have to say. Peace America!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very unfair characterization. She is tearing the party up as much as Obama is as well. To say that a 130 delegate count is enough of a lead at this point to just concede in a very close race is ludicrous. The problem you're identifying is inherent in any primary that is closely contested by two very good candidates - the closeness is a representation of how strong the Democratic leadership is, NOT that one candidate is just being a bitch and mucking it up for her own self-glory. To say that Obama has been sitting in a corner with a bible just giving out compliments and sincerities is really not that accurate of a portrayal of the process.

 

Granted - the hype over it probably isn't good for the party, but that's what happens when your primary is this close to the election year. This isn't the fault of a single candidate, but probably a flaw in the larger system.

 

thats why i prefer winner take all primaries. Your will, generally, avoid these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very unfair characterization. She is tearing the party up as much as Obama is as well. To say that a 130 delegate count is enough of a lead at this point to just concede in a very close race is ludicrous. The problem you're identifying is inherent in any primary that is closely contested by two very good candidates - the closeness is a representation of how strong the Democratic leadership is, NOT that one candidate is just being a bitch and mucking it up for her own self-glory. To say that Obama has been sitting in a corner with a bible just giving out compliments and sincerities is really not that accurate of a portrayal of the process.

 

Granted - the hype over it probably isn't good for the party, but that's what happens when your primary is this close to the election year. This isn't the fault of a single candidate, but probably a flaw in the larger system.

 

A 160 delegate lead is a reason to concede when you cannot mathematically catch up, which she can't. Unless she knows something we don't and has some secret plan to take North Carolina by 65% or something.

 

As for the original item, I still don't think it's going to happen. If Obama is the nominee there is no way he'd ask her, she does nothing for his ticket. He should pick someone like Tim Kaine or Tom Daschle, maybe even Sam Nunn. Hillary may very well offer it to Obama, but aside from the Hilzoy piece above even Pelosi has conceded that her antics have made that an unlikely ticket. He's better off staying far, far away from the Clintons. If he doesn't get the nod, he should run for Governor of Illinois when Blagovich's term is up, and then run again with that Executive experience.

 

This is all null, I don't believe the superdelegates are dumb enough to alienate a generation of new, energized voters and African Americans by stealing the election from them, and if things hold, even with re-votes in MI and FL, Barack will have the lead in pledged delegates, states and the popular vote. She won't have an arg. There is zero risk he loses CA for example, in fact he does better than her against McCain in CA according to the SUSA polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara, what do you think about Sam Nunn? He obviously brings foreign policy expertise. He's been around so long, I was surprised how not-old he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sebelius, FTW

^ Move over, Clinton, because she's going to be the first woman president. (fingers crossed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'd be a far better president, for sure. She knows how to deal with three factions (Dems, small-L libertarians, and right Republicans) in a legislature, she can win in a red state, and she is an excellent manager. Saving taxpayers a shit ton of money by changing the way we do paper clips is simply incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She'd be a far better president, for sure. She knows how to deal with three factions (Dems, small-L libertarians, and right Republicans) in a legislature, she can win in a red state, and she is an excellent manager. Saving taxpayers a shit ton of money by changing the way we do paper clips is simply incredible.

 

1. a. What evidence says she can deal with factions? Can you cite bipartisan bills she has passed, or ways she has taken on the republican party? Did she vote against the war? Did she vote against Kyl-Lieberman? No. She has been as docile as a puppy when it comes to 'standing up to republicans'. she also can't work with them.

 

1b. Her legislative experience is quite slim. Has she ever worked in a state senate where the caucusing is a lot more intense? No. What bills have crossed bush's desk with her name as a primary sponsor? none.

 

2.a. Please see list of states Obama has won. There are more than a few red and swing states.

 

b. If I was a democratic congressional representative, I would hoping for an Obama/anything but clinton ticket: it will bring out the most straight ticket voters without mobilizing the religious right.

 

3.a. Her campaign has been a disaster. She didn't even know how the texas two step works. Her campaign has been one racist attack after another (and those don't tend to stick to John McCain, unless its about his child). She's had to loan herself money very secretively (and still wont release last years tax returns). She cant even manage her 20 point leads without them disintegrating before her eyes into Obama victories. If anything, this campaign proves she never deserves the presidency.

 

b. I think after 3 trillion dollars worth of war related costs, a tanking economy, pay-to-play politics, and the destruction of any semblance of a constitution, im worried about changing the terms of the debate in this country, more than im worried about changing the 'way we do paperclips' whatever the fuck that means.

 

--

Think what you want, but your reasons for supporting clinton are dubious, at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think andromeda was talking about sebelius, not clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote button helps.

 

i dont much like her either - but thats just cuz shes so booooooooring. like old school al gore boring, but without the doomsday scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone says Clinton is being the problem on this, but I think Obama is equally to blame. Neither of them has been willing to compromise. They both decided to run at the same time, because they both think they're somehow entitled to the presidency.

 

If they were to combine tickets I would vote for that. I know people don't like the idea, particularly because both of them (but largely Obama) have their supporters almost- I hesitate to say brainwashed, but it's getting there- that compromise is bad. If they ran together, they'd have his "momentum" (what an overused word) and her knowledge on how stuff works in Washington. And, with their factions unable to bad-talk each other, there could be peace in the Democratic Party, though I see an impending split coming one of these days if nothing changes anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone says Clinton is being the problem on this, but I think Obama is equally to blame. Neither of them has been willing to compromise. They both decided to run at the same time, because they both think they're somehow entitled to the presidency.

 

If they were to combine tickets I would vote for that. I know people don't like the idea, particularly because both of them (but largely Obama) have their supporters almost- I hesitate to say brainwashed, but it's getting there- that compromise is bad. If they ran together, they'd have his "momentum" (what an overused word) and her knowledge on how stuff works in Washington. And, with their factions unable to bad-talk each other, there could be peace in the Democratic Party, though I see an impending split coming one of these days if nothing changes anyways.

I am not sure how much this "dream" ticket would unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if they run together on the same ticket then the supporters of whoever is the VP will probably feel used, since the purpose of this ticket would be for votes. And this brings up another point of mine, the main argument for this "benevolent" ticket is that "it would be able to beat the Republicans in November," but is that all that the Democratic party can think about? I am a democrat, and I am fairly upset with some of the things that my party does.

 

And maybe it is good if the Democratic party splits, although I doubt that it would happen unless there is no nominee at the end of the convention. But the party should unite at the convention at least. If the party does break, rather than thinking of this as the "doomsday" scenario why not think of it as an opportunity for a new party to arise that can more adequately address the needs of the people than the current Democratic party.

 

 

As for who's fault this is... I think that this was inevitable. Although, this year should have been an easy no contest victory for the Democrats (which it is not, unfortunately) since the last president was a tool and disgraced the Republican name in the minds of most of the people. The fact that John McCain could win is a bad sign for the Democratic Party because if the dems can't win this year then it is pretty much Game Over.

I admit that both candidates are at fault for what is going on in the party, but Clinton has made the most publicized attacks that actually aid the Republicans (3 AM ad, assertion of foreign policy "experience", etc) all of which might aid John McCain in the long run since (for the two examples I gave) he has much more foreign policy experience than Clinton and he was a POW. Thus all of these attacks that Clinton makes on Obama for not having experience hurt her, because most of the things she has done has been matched by John McCain and he knows the military much more than her.

 

I firmly believe that Obama can beat McCain because he is a breath of fresh air and many people like that. And if he does become the nominee then all of Clinton's attacks will make him a lot stronger than he is now. I mean no disrespect to Fisheromen since I think you make some valid points, but I think that it is exactly this kind of pessimism that Obama can't be a good president because he has no experience will make the end of the party sooner. We must remember that some of our best presidents, like JFK, had little to no political experience. But maybe that is just me and my belief in hope and the "heroic in man" as Ayn Rand would put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And maybe it is good if the Democratic party splits, although I doubt that it would happen unless there is no nominee at the end of the convention. But the party should unite at the convention at least. If the party does break, rather than thinking of this as the "doomsday" scenario why not think of it as an opportunity for a new party to arise that can more adequately address the needs of the people than the current Democratic party.

 

I'm with you on this. I'd love to feel like I could vote for a candidate who firmly stands for everything I believe in.

 

We must remember that some of our best presidents, like JFK, had little to no political experience. But maybe that is just me and my belief in hope and the "heroic in man" as Ayn Rand would put it

 

True, but what everyone forgets is that, while Kennedy got Civil Rights on the agenda, guess who pushed it through- LBJ *who was probably personally a racist, but was pragmatic enough to realize it needed to be done or the country was going to explode*.

 

And, guess what? Kennedy had him to balance the ticket and appease the Southern democracts, because he was from Texas and because he had experience.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is, if Obama nails this thing (which he probably will even though it's dragging on) he should consider that when picking a partner. Even if he can't take Clinton, retired is right- he should take Biden, or someone very similar. Especially since he keeps drawing parallels to the Kennedy campaign.

 

Trust me, I'm aware the "Dream Ticket" is an overtly idealistic scenario, and not necessarily the best idea in real life. But, hey, isn't that what Kennedy represented? and isn't that what Obama wants? Idealism and Change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sara, what do you think about Sam Nunn? He obviously brings foreign policy expertise. He's been around so long, I was surprised how not-old he is.

 

I like Sam Nunn, I think he definitely brings foreign policy experience. What he doesn't bring is executive experience (but I don't think that's devestating, Daschle doesn't either). I think the bigger problem with Nunn on the ticket is that he doesn't deliver a state. I don't think there is really a scenario where either Clinton or Obama win GA, so he's great for experience, not so much for delivering votes. I guess that's a reason to prefer Kaine or Sebelius (both have executive experience and are in states that could swing even if it's not likely...Daschle is in the same boat, but SD has a whopping 3 electoral votes, so I'm not sure how much that helps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...