We're not talking traffic tickets or meal tickets, but who will be Vice-President. From AP-
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh off a campaign-saving comeback, hinted Wednesday at the possibility of sharing the Democratic presidential ticket with Barack Obama -- with her at the top. Obama played down his losses, stressing that he still holds the lead in number of delegates. On a night that failed to clarify the Democratic race, John McCain Tuesday clinched the Republican nomination. Clinton won primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, halting Obama's winning streak. Obama won in Vermont.She is still behind in the delegate counts, and while Texas has been labeled a win for Hillary, Obama may well win more delegates than her.Both Democrats insisted on Wednesday they had the best credentials to go head to head -- or as Clinton put it "toe to toe" -- against McCain.
Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, 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 the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
The Vice-President question was dumb but Hillary's answer was dumb also. She's been battering Obama for months, why would she want him for VP and better yet, why would Obama accept?



Comments (13)
By the time this race reach... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
By the time this race reaches the convention floor Obama may not be a viable VP. The vetting of Obama bagan this last week, and it's not going to be pretty going forward. The luster and shine on the crown prince of parse has tarnished dramtically in the last week, and its going to get worse.
Clinton is offering him an easy out -- join with her now and have a 100% chance of serving a four year term as VP (which will be an excellent springboard to a 2012 Presidential run) or continue down the same path and risk losing the chance for VP.
We all know Obama's ego won't let him stand down now, but he was offered the choice.
1. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 10:26 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 10:26
2. Posted by Larkin
| March 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The vetting of Obama bagan this last week, and it's not going to be pretty going forward.
Actually, that began during his run for the Senate against Alan Keyes. Look it up.
Clinton is offering him an easy out -- join with her now and have a 100% chance of serving a four year term as VP (which will be an excellent springboard to a 2012 Presidential run) or continue down the same path and risk losing the chance for VP.
Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Let's see now: Obama has won the majority of delegates, the majority of popular votes, and the majority of the contests. So it makes perfect sense that Hillary should offer him an easy way out. LMAO!
2. Posted by Larkin
| March 5, 2008 10:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 10:32
3. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It is about delegates, but with Clinton's wins yesterday you will see a lot of superdelegates hesitant to commit to either candidate, increasing the possibility that this will stretch on to the convention.
And Clinton may have some momentum now, but even the slim gain she may get in delegates from yesterday will likely be erased in the next week in Mississippi and Wyoming, leaving us with the basically the same margin we had on Monday, and probably a slightly larger lead for Obama. Can any momentum Clinton picked up stretch past those contests and seven weeks down the line to Pennsylvania? We'll see. Btw, anyone know why the hell there are no primaries for seven weeks? Couldn't some of these late states bumped their primaries up a few weeks?
As far as Obama being "vetted," all we will see is a re-hash of the stories from the fall, which were a re-hash of stories from years ago here in Chicago. Rezko was covered for months in the Sun-Times and Tribune, and the trial is unlikely to reveal anything new.
Lee is still hanging on to the idea that lying, toothless whackos on youtube are going bring Obama down (when he isn't being fooled by satire videos, that is). He probably knows that if Clinton somehow manages to get the nomination, the only way she can possibly win the general is with Obama on the ticket, but he's too blinded by ODS to admit it. That's why she's hinting that way now. But the chances of her getting the nomination in the first place are slim, no matter how she represents.
Btw Larkin, Jim's right about Canada. Obama bungled that, big time. I doubt the margin in Ohio was entirely due to that, though, and yesterday's outcome probably wouldn't have changed too dramatically if they had handled that better.
Meanwhile, I'll be tuning in to the radio for my daily dose of the Onio-er, Clinton news network.
3. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:22
4. Posted by COgirl | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Seems rather cocky of Hillary to be talking about Obama running as her VP at this stage of the game.
4. Posted by COgirl | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:23
5. Posted by Larkin
| March 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mantis - the exit polls showed the late deciders swung heavily for Hillary in Ohio. If it wasn't the Canada/NAFTA story I'm not sure what it would have been that caused that.
I agree that the Obama team mishandled the story but the timing of the leak by the Canadians was impeccable. Like I've said many times, I just don't believe in coincidences.
5. Posted by Larkin
| March 5, 2008 11:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:32
6. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm not saying that didn't influence it; I think it did, but I think the Ohio margin was too great for it to be just that. That's all.
I don't believe in coincidences either, and clearly whoever leaked that did it to help Clinton (and very selectively, since her campaign gave basically the same assurances to Canada). But if it had been handled better, there would have been less damage.
6. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:41
7. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Regarding the direction the primary contest is going, Axelrod said,
"If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race."
As far as "vetting" the candidates goes, I think Lee is ignoring a fact that the Republicans here are very aware of: almost none of the skeletons in Clinton's closet have even been brought up yet. If that's really what they want this primary election to be about, I'm sure the Obama campaign will find a way to fulfill that wish.
7. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:59
8. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I've seen some of the dirt on Obama that hasn't hit the light of day, mantis -- and it isn't pretty. I don't believe that Obama will be able to survive it.
That's my opinion based on fodder that you haven't seen (I suspect) - and if you have seen it and still don't believe it'll take Obama down before the election -- well, we'll have to see who is right and just wait and see what happens - I think it will.
and that's why I think Clinton's offer today may ultimately be the best offer Obama gets. If Obama is on a Clinton ticket tomorrow then she'll fight the GOP all the way to November 8 defending Obambi. If he doesn't join the ticket, it's to her advantage to let him swing in the wind - and she will.
And mantis is correct about Ohio - Obama would have lost anyway -- with a slightly smaller margin, but a major defeat nonetheless.
8. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 12:23 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 12:23
9. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
That's my opinion based on fodder that you haven't seen (I suspect) - and if you have seen it and still don't believe it'll take Obama down before the election -- well, we'll have to see who is right and just wait and see what happens - I think it will.
Ah, secret knowledge that will take down Obama, held only by political mastermind Lee Ward!
Is it another parody video by an internet comedian?
I'll bet I know more about Obama than you do, we already know how gullible you are, and you're obviously too embarrassed or unsure to provide any details of all the secret information you possess, so color me unimpressed.
9. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 12:31
10. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Ah, secret knowledge that will take down Obama, held only by political mastermind Lee Ward!"
Not at all "secret" mantis, it just hasn't been publicized yet therefore Obamaniacs aren't aware of it yet - but your candidate knows what's coming, and so does Clinton.
You don't, but you've drunk the Obama Kool-aid - you're no longer part of the equation. educating you is not on the agenda at this point, so no begging for links...
Step one was to rectify the press bias in Obama's favor, and that was done just in time to make a major difference in the outcome of yesterday's primaries - especially Texas. Wow, and that's where Obama chose to make his (cough) victory speech last night? - lol...
Clinton didn't defeat Obama in Texas - Obama did. Clinton chose to make her stand there, in Texas and Ohio - and she succeeded despite the bullshit artists who predicted it was another Giuliani/Florida plan bound to fail...
More to Come.
10. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 12:49 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 12:49
11. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I won't hold my breath while you prepare your ultra-secret candidate killer torpedo, but I will laugh my ass off when you finally do reveal it, as I have with every other retarded thing you've posted.
My guess is you found another whacko on youtube. Does this one claim he's Obama's secret muslim/terrorist/hypnotist preparing the new Manchurian candidate?
11. Posted by mantis | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 13:04
12. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I said no begging...
12. Posted by Lee Ward
| March 5, 2008 1:14 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 5, 2008 13:14
13. Posted by Jim Addison | March 6, 2008 3:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, the Chicago Tribune reporters all say Obama has never answered all the questions about Rezko, and even though he had assured them they had been given all the pertinent information, new and undisclosed information had already been released on the trial's first day!
Several of the area journalists reporting on the story say Obama NEVER physically met with them, nor has Axlerod. Any questions had to be submitted in writing.
He ran like a scared child Monday when they started asking about the four different stories he and his campaign had put out on the Canada-NAFTA issue. Had the look of a guy folding like a cheap suit.
The press isn't going to get much nicer. They were stung by the SNL skit, and now they have to actually do their jobs. The free ride is over - welcome to the Big Time!
13. Posted by Jim Addison | March 6, 2008 3:02 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 6, 2008 03:02