Should Obama and Clinton run together?

Hillary Clinton silenced some of the calls for her to pull out of the race for the Democratic nomination, for a while at least, by defeating Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary.

But despite a ten-percentage-point win by Clinton some people believe the race is now so damaging it is threatening the Democrats chances of making it to the White House. So is now the time for the two to join forces and run together?

The “Dream Ticket” has of course been raised before – by Bill among others – and rebuffed by Obama when the Clinton camp suggested he should be the second name on the ticket. After a couple of months of increasingly bitter campaigning, can the two come together for the good of the party? Would either agree to play second fiddle to the other?

If they can’t agree, how will the Democrats choose a candidate? And will the party tear itself apart before that happens?

33 Responses to “Should Obama and Clinton run together?”

  1. 1 steve
    April 23, 2008 at 15:44

    Topics like this are like “Should Mr. Spock have given the soul transfer to Mccoy or to someone else in engineering?” it’s still pretty much fiction. These are politicians, they both want to be president badly. Neither one would want to be sit in the dummy seat for 8 years. I think Hillary feels more entitled to be President since she’s been in politics for longer, so she’s even less likely to take the dummy seat. It’s simply not going to happen. They will destroy each other before agreeing to this. The VP barely does anything in a normal administration. someone with a massive ego won’t be happy with that, especially with Hillary, given she’ll be close to 70 at the end of 8 years.

  2. 2 Brett
    April 23, 2008 at 15:55

    They have polarized themselves and their followers in this race, pitting democrat against democrat. Even if they can come together (which with Hillary’s aggressive demeanor I cannot see happening unless she is Pres. and Obama is Vice), their followers will have a tough time accepting a marriage of the two camps.
    I wont be voting for H-Bomb, regardless of her Vice. It’s not like she will take their ideas or opinions into account anyways.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  3. 3 nicholas kariuki muthaara frm embu/kenya
    April 23, 2008 at 17:51

    obama and clinton should run together.due to her experience clinton should be on top.

  4. April 23, 2008 at 17:59

    Both are incompetent, and untrustworthy. They both need to go to boot camp and strive to be the leader in a rifle squad. They really are lacking in the basic building blocks of leadership. Both say they would refuse to listen to Generals in regard to their suggestions on what to do once they became the Commander in Chief.

    There is a total lack of respect. A clear arrogance to smart people in uniform. They say the hollow things by rote regarding acknowledgeing their service, but always there is this, but we know better, because we are smarter.

    You can’t trust either one, let alone both of them.


    Nehalem, Oregon

  5. 5 Dorcas
    April 23, 2008 at 18:01

    I think that Clinton should give up and give Obama the chance to be the President. She can go on and on about her experience but I feel that she’s experienced enough white house and “snippers fire in Bosnia” to last her a lifetime. She is not going to accept to Vice anyway so why should Obama accept it. Obama has something different to offer Americans and the world and as such Clinton should either settle to be Vice or drop out of the race. Everyone thinks Obama is inexperienced but so was Jimmy Carter. He didn’t have a lot of Washington experience but he won. So Clinton should drop out because even when should would accept to be a Vice she would make governance impossible for Obama and would send the Democrats packing from the white house after a term.

  6. April 23, 2008 at 18:10

    Mrs Clinton first failed in her answer to the question why people are suffering if there is God, which she should have taken advantage of to speak about existing bad leadership and how she would provide good leadership that she would offer. Yesterday, she said that Americans are people who do not quit and that they need a president who does not quit. The statement that should have confirmed that she has intellectual sensitivity, and altruism, which human sufferings demand of world
    leaders, is “Americans need a president who knows when to quit, and when not to begin …”. Not quitting or not knowing when to quit is the major cause of wars and suffering in the world today. Clinton should go home; she is not qualified!!!

    Prince Pieray Odor

    Lagos, Nigeria

  7. 7 Kenneth
    April 23, 2008 at 18:28

    Don’t be so dramatic regarding this rag football that has been kicked around the media floors for months. “Some people believe the race is now so damaging it is threatening the Democrats chances of making it to the White House.” Political campaigns are a part of freedom. This kind of open competition is a necessary process to allow candidates to challenge, provoke, and dominate one another like any competition of dogs, cocks, or corporations. Sure, it often leaves at least one of the competitors lame or dead, but that seems to be the way our neo-roman civilization likes it. Once the Democratic gladiator prevails, they will do battle with the Republican gladiator, and believe me, the battle will be no softer because of the blood already on the gladiator’s sword from the last triumph.

    Really, all this talk about Hillary and Barack beating each other up is very overblown. Has he accused her of being something he’s not, or she him? These guys are playing pure softball, because they sincerely respect each other and also absolutely need to, as American tolerance for outright aggression is very limited. Now, hidden aggression, like the dirty tricks of the Reagan campaign stealing Jimmy Carter’s debate preparation training book, or W with his direct wireless line to Rove during the debate with Kerry, well America calls that downright clever and rewards it with the spoils.

    Once the primaries are over, you’ll see the real teeth and claws come out, and only an aggressive and tough dog will survive the bites of the foe.

  8. 8 selena
    April 23, 2008 at 18:49

    Everyone is talking about change! But what does change mean? Will voters be satisfied by the simple change of putting a woman or a Black man in the White House?

    Stephen Harper won a minority government in Canada on the change ticket. As he was traveling around the country shouting for change, his Party was devising ways and means to cover up millions of dollars in spending not permitted under the Canadian Elections Act.

    Isn’t it time we stopped being taken in by words and charisma?

    BTW, I have never been able to listen to the WHYS program live. I can never find it when it is on. I think I check at the right time but apparently not. 🙂 Suggestions anyone?

  9. 9 Janet T
    April 23, 2008 at 18:53

    I’d vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket- but I don’t see it happening, mostly because I don’t think the Clintons- and I do mean both of them, would ever take a back seat to anyone- Obama would have to be nuts to take a second chair to Clinton- I think Bill would play a huge part in her administration and whoever is vice-pres. will be on the sidelines, cutting ribbons- sort of like they did to Al Gore when Bill was running the show.

  10. 10 Rashid Patch
    April 23, 2008 at 18:58

    Yes, Obama should pick Hillary for the VP slot. That way, he’s far less likely to get assassinated – the people who would hate him, would hate having her as President far more.

    Actually, I’m not really pleased with either of them. I had hoped that there would be an alternative to the current administration, but all the candidates say they are committed to war, and none of them express any connection to reality in their foreign policy statements.

    At least, anybody but McCain. Conservative commentators have called McCain more hawkish than Cheney. God help the world if the Republicans win this election!

  11. 11 Will Rhodes
    April 23, 2008 at 20:44

    I certainly don’t think they should run together – Obama can pick someone far better than her.

  12. April 23, 2008 at 21:38

    Simple answer is “NO!” Obama wouldn’t take hillary because, well it woudl be too taboo to say it, but he thinks she is a lieing “bafoon” who can’t rmember something like getting shot at.

    the “Clintons” are so old they are apt not to live to see 8 more years let alon 16 more. The age thing could be why she is so forgetful about the details.

    local survey as to why people voted for clinton instead of Obama.
    “He is a Muslim”
    “”his name is “husein”
    “can’t trust a muslim”
    “if you let the blacks run the country they will ruin it like they ruin their neighborhoods”

    “Hillary will bring Bill with her and our economy was good when he was running it.”

  13. April 23, 2008 at 23:50

    I am a big Obama supporter – short resume and all. I endorse completely the politics of change that he champions and about which he opponents are so very critical, as I feel that it is instructive in the current dispensation where there is, without question, a need to alter the paradigms of leadership used at that level to effect meaningful change across the globe. All, of course, are impacted by these developments, after all.

    Indeed, I hear the argument about experience, or the lack thereof. However, I think it is largely overrated. Last night, I remarked to my pastor who is a supporter of Hilary, that I have seen where we were all told to get the much needed “experience” in the professional world after college. However, other people who were even less qualified and, dare I say less capable, waltzed right in and became even more senior, notwithstanding. Which leads me to my conclusion that the nature of the “experience” which they brought to the platform may well have been sufficient in the particular context. However,it was never clear what that constituted and, as a result, some of us were left in the lurch even while others who were “not-as-experienced” reaped the fruits of particular rewards.

    Just how important, then, is this “experience” that Mrs. Clinton speaks of so much and about which she has been so keen on bandying about in her efforts to become the Democratic Party nominee in the quest for the US Presidency? Does it matter that, more than the other candidates (including Senator McCain) hers is seen as the candidacy likely to cause more divisions because of what is largely seen, among others, as her very negative campaign style?

    There is value, I am sure, in having someone in power because of popularity. However, I am not sure if that by itself is a sufficient commendation to the lead, especially in the case of the President of the “Free World”, as goes the title. Should this job be based, purely, on congeniality as determined by the argument that Senator Obama is “not electable”, according to what some CNN analysts say is Mrs. Clinton’s campaign position in private?

    Surely, there are times when the hard answers need to be given and the tough questions are asked in the interests of peace, development and the advance of all peoples everywhere, even us outside the US. This means that, where and when necessary the leader – whoever that is, has to have more than a resume to commend him or her. When did having actual vision, integrity and stamina/ endurance and basic human compassion, if nothig else, became such bad qualities in such a context?

    After all, the race is never about how swiftly one can run but about endurance to the end. How far does reputation, by itself, goes in terms of a job like the one these guys are campaigning for? Is it enough to have had a long list of commendations and or experiences? Or, is there more to the matter like causing people to believe in their biggest and best selves, even while acknowledging your own shortcomings, in various ways? Is there not a way in which “Readiness on Day One” means just that “Readiness on Day One”? Does that come with a manual? Or should it come with a manual? Do get “Presidential Training” at a particular school, through certain social settings, meeting with and socialising in certain gatherings, etc?

    After all, the job of being the President of the US is unlike any other in the overall scheme of things. I am not completely sold on the “experience” mantra, as a result. I feel that feel that people need to look very carefully at what that really means and whether that is sufficient in terms of making their determinations about the role leadership plays in their own personal and collective development, notwithstanding slogans like these.

    So, to turn attention to the question should they run together? No. I think their politics is too radically polarised, if even terms of their basic philosophical differences about their own unique brand of leadership, as we see it played out on the campaign trail.

  14. 14 viola anderson
    April 24, 2008 at 01:13

    I can’t see either candidate graciously stepping aside for the good of the party. They both represent constituencies that have already waited 200+ years for this moment. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be effective against John McCain, but it boggles the mind to think the constituency embodied by Rodham-Clinton would, as usual, approve of cheerfully stepping aside for the male because it’s “for the greater good.”

    Maybe Clinton’s speechwriters need to come up with a “gender” speech as good as Obama’s “race” speech.

    On the other hand, maybe neither race nor gender are issues. I doubt they are for the candidates.

  15. 15 steve
    April 24, 2008 at 02:16

    @ Janet, that IS the role of the VP. The VP only does that and is the President of the Senate, and only there votes when there is a tie. John Adams described the office as””the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”” Think HIllary would agree to do that with her sense of entitlement?

  16. 16 Justin
    April 24, 2008 at 08:14

    For me the priority is seeing the democrats in power and that is not just for 4 years but potentially for 16 years.

    The problems we face globally are not short term and we all need a strong and just American administration if we are to overcome them.

    Both Hillary and Obama are strong candidates but to secure a 16 year democrat administration I feel that Hillary as President and Obama as VP for 8 years and then Obama as President as the most promising scenario to secure a 16 year democrat run.

    Justin Göttingen, FRG

  17. April 24, 2008 at 10:01

    I think it would be great if hiliary and barrak ran together. But the chances of that happening seem very slimxx

  18. April 24, 2008 at 14:42

    it is a totally absurd suggestion [clinton would never take being vice pres ][but if she did it would only be on the understanding of doing a ford [like ford did for jfk ,ie become pres by default]
    in short obama would be bumped off by some neo con jack rubie

    better would be for clinton to win [as she seems likely to do as was done by the neo con two party farce in philly]via the die-bold voting fraud computers]
    and obama form a joint ticket with ron paul [or nader][if obama gets it ron paul [or nader] will be worse
    see how the little people get their hopes up just to have the neo cons expand their intrnched neo [new] order’sss

  19. April 24, 2008 at 15:03

    It can be possible if Barrak Obama and Bill Clinton agree to swap wives. Hilary and Obama married for convenience, they can agree to share power for the duration of their political marriage.

    Seriously, for them to run together will pose a challenge as they can’t obviously agree on who should be the presidential candidate and who should be the vice president candidate. Both have apparently different political views. So it will be hard for them to change them to look harmonious without losing their potential voters who will see them ready to change their principles just for their personal advantages. As it is, the race should continue between them. The final judge will be the delegates who should reflect the will of those they represent.

  20. 20 judy
    April 24, 2008 at 15:49

    What about Obama/Edwards?

  21. 21 Sue Riley
    April 24, 2008 at 16:12

    Absolutely not. Hilary would damage Barack’s chances and would never be able to take a back seat. Barack would damage his political future if he was VP to Hillary. He has many years left in his political career and would be better served waiting four more years.
    Besides that I cannot see them coming together it just does not seem feasible.

  22. 22 George Gad Enimil
    April 24, 2008 at 17:04

    I think that Obama and Hillary can make a very good pair considering their background and philosophy in the American politics. Both of them have very good policies for the development of US.

  23. 23 Joel Salomon
    April 24, 2008 at 20:16

    Orson Card pointed out (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-02-10-1.html) why Obama should not take Clinton as a running mate, or be her running mate if the offer is made:

     “If Hillary is the nominee… Obama would be the most-ignored vice-president since Dan Quayle. Hillary’s real vice-president would be Bill Clinton. Obama would be lucky to be invited to the inauguration.
     “…On the other hand, if Obama is the nominee, he cannot have Hillary on the ticket. … She would bring all the same negatives to the ticket that kept her from winning the Democratic nomination.
     “…If Obama won and Hillary was, for some reason, his vice-president, she would be uncontrollable. She would make her own foreign policy. She would act as though her press conferences were more important than his.”

  24. 24 Shakhoor Rehman
    April 24, 2008 at 22:10

    It is already arranged “behind the scenes”t hat they will run together with Clinton as the presidential candidate.

  25. 25 David
    April 25, 2008 at 02:48

    I can not see a combination that can work without Obama heading America as its President. However I am sure, having observed Obama for so long, he can work with any one to produce results for this world.

    As for experience, give me a break! Obama has probably more real experience than the rest of the other presidential hopefuls cobined. I want you to think very deeply of what I am saying.

  26. 26 David
    April 25, 2008 at 02:54

    I am not an American, but I can see peace in this world if Barack Obama was American president tomorrow.

    Let us promote peace on earth, let us love each other and we will not go wrong.

    For those people who think they are better than others because of their colour pigments I say they are wrong and I pitty them.

  27. 27 Alan
    April 25, 2008 at 04:41

    This question is a microcosm of America. Hilary and Barrack, like the rest of America, cannot get along.

  28. April 25, 2008 at 15:29

    That would be a disaster for America if these two get together! But that would be good for the Republicans because they are going to win anyway.

  29. April 28, 2008 at 09:22

    Clinton always touts her 35 years of expeirience as being superior to Obama’s and I cannot see how she can work alongside an ‘inexperienced’ man like Obama.

  30. 30 Rodger Rossman
    April 30, 2008 at 01:07

    Good God No! If Hillary gets into the white house it will be Billary as president and the vice president will be worse than nothing and the scapegoat for everything that Billary does wrong. If Obama gets the top pick then Billary will be a complete disruption as Vice President.

  31. 31 emy
    May 2, 2008 at 18:41

    Obama should not stoop that low to be VP to a woman. Taking Clinton as his running-mate is also a problem as he will not be able to control her.
    Emy from Nigeria

  32. 32 Jens
    May 2, 2008 at 20:14

    i don’t get this hillary experience thing. just because my wife is married to me does not make her experienced in cell biology, nor am I an expert in gardening because i am married to her.

    she has 2 more years as a senator that is it, with zero years as a state legislator.

    i seriously belive Obama has as much if not more experience

  33. 33 Dennis Young, Jr.
    May 11, 2008 at 01:49

    Should Obama and Clinton run together?

    Maybe it should be Obama and Edwards!!!!

    Dennis from Madrid, United States of America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: