WHAT A TICKET

[luckyleftyme2]

HILLARY AND BAMBA AS PRES AND VP,EDWARDS ,KERRY,ND THE REST OF THE CANDIDATES IN THEIR CABINET.
A CHANCE TO REALLY MOVE US INTO THE NEXT CENTURY.
THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WITH CLOSED BORDERS,BACK TO ROBERTS RULES AND A MEDIA THAT ONCE AGAIN HAS TO FIND ITS OWN NEWS!
THE FROSTING ON THE CAKE WOULD BE: ROVE,LIBBY,CHENEY,BUSH AND RICE IN HORIZONTAL PIN STRIPES
FOR CORRUPTION OF POWER,A SUMMATION OF ALL THE DIRTY DEALS THEY COOKED UP!

[mainegreen]

1. Just the frosting? It would be like a whole nother cake!

A big one too!

[RBInMaine]

2. Very, Very Risky!

Make no mistake, I like Hillary and Obama, but let's make sure not to let "celebrity" overshadow political reality. The Dem ticket MUST be able to win NATIONALLY, and that means expanding the map into the midwest, west and even the south. Hillary and Obama are VERY vulnerable. Too polarizing. AND, they'll be up against the likes of McCain or Guiliani, both of whom have a lot of appeal among moderates and I's. I think a ticket more along the lines of Edwards/Bayh or Edwards/Biden, or Edwards/Vilsack, or Edwards/Richardson, Edwards/Clark would make more sense, and then maybe look to Hillary or Obama for the cabinet.

[Shorebound]

3. What about

Al Gore? Although he did look a little chunky at the Grammy awards the other night, the man has made a huge impression with his documentary. I can't count the number of people who have seen Inconvenient Truth and said: Why couldn't he have sounded like that during the campaign? Even my daughter likes the idea, and she's a hard-core Hillary fan. Here's a scenario: IT wins an Oscar and Gore's acceptance speech ends with the sentence "And yes, I am running again." A Gore-Obama ticket would be unbeatable IMO.

And I agree that a Hillary-Obama ticket would be very risky. First, two senators; they would both be crucified for their lack of large-scale management experience. Two, both can be seen as divisive. Of course those same arguments could have been used for another two-senator team that had divisive elements -- Kennedy-Johnson.

[RBInMaine]

4. Gore is risky too though.

The risk I see with Gore is that he represents the past, something I also see with Hillary. I agree he has done great things with his environmental work. Would be great to see him win the Nobel sooner if not later. Awesome if he wins the Oscar. He is also starting a Live Earth concert event to raise money for the cause. I have seen An Inconvenient Truth. It was excellent. Christ, if only the Supreme Court hadn't appointed Bush. Gore won Florida, and they damn well stole it. It would be a very different world today. If Guiliani or McCain is nominated they will be damn formidable, especially Guiliani. I think our best bet is something like Edwards/Bayh or maybe Edwards/Clark. I'm disappointed that Bayh and Warner got out. I think Warner/Bayh would have been unbeatable.

[Shorebound]

5. Edwards

I guess I need to see more of the new Edwards before making a decision about him. I saw him in Lewiston back during the campaign and he was impressive, but frankly he was overpowered by Angus King (EVERYONE was overpowered by King; Edwards the least). What is it about Edwards that puts him at the top of your list? And I'm really interested in why you think the Republicans have a chance after eight years of neocon madness and dictatorship.

[RBInMaine]

6. Why Edwards.

Political reality is that we need a ticket that expand the map beyond 18-20 blue states into red states, especially in the midwest and west, and even into the south. Hillary and Obama are very risky on this reality. What red states do they turn blue? Indeed, there are close blue states that could even be lost. I just see Edwards as the most electable candidate in the Dem field right now and the one with the best chance to bring in the moderates and Independents, and even some Republicans, that we will need to expand the map and win. If the R's go with Guiliani and/or McCain they will still be VERY formidable even with the Bush problems. The vote for President is our most personal vote. People want a "strong" national leader, and like it or not they also look at tradition on race and gender. People don't want a leader seen as too "liberal". We learned that lesson with McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and to some degree Kerry as well. Americans are discriminating and analytical, but they also vote their heart and gut. They were willing to swallow Bush again in '04, albeit reluctantly, because he was seen as strong leader. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney all have cross-over appeal. If any combination of the above is on the R ticket they will be VERY well financed, VERY focused, and VERY formidable. Edwards is a white male southerner with a fairly moderate voting history, great personal appeal, and now a veteran of national politics but still enough of an outsider to appeal to a broad electorate. With a moderate like Bayh on the ticket and a solid campaign team (something Kerry sorely lacked) they would be tough to beat. We need a ticket that can beat the likes of McCain and Guiliani, a VERY tall political order even with the Bush liabilities, in
a nation-wide presidential election. (Again, please believe I'd love to see Hillary or Obama too as president, but just honestly think it would be a HUGE upward climb for either on the national scene.)

[luckyleftyme2]

7. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER

WE OUT NUMBER THE REPUBLICANS,AND MANY OF THE RED STATES WILL SWING BLUE NOW THAT THE REPUBLICAN UNDER BELLY IS SHOWN TO BE CORRUPT!

[RBInMaine]

9. I hear what you're saying, but...

With Nixon, Reagan, and the first President Bush registered D's outnumbered the R's nationally. Still we got crushed because our candidates and their teams were "weak" on several fronts compared to the R's. National elections for President are different than local and state elections. If we are able to hold Congress, then it will be an extra hurdle to get the White House since America has also traditionally gone for divided government to balance things out. Again, political reality is that Hillary and Obama have severe electability problems NATIONALLY. If either is at the top of the ticket the R's will attack them relentlessly, and the attacks will be effective. There are already huge blocks of voters who outright refuse to vote for either Hillary or Obama under any circumstance. It's just too risky in a year when we can and should re-take the presidency. But we must be willing to go with tough reality on who we nominate rather than going with what some of us might "like" to see. We need to nominate who can win. Again, even if many Americans feel that the R party is "corrupt," that doesn't mean they'll extrapolate that to McCain, or Guiliani, or Romney. They'll look at the big picture and will compare who the R's nominate COMPARED to who we nominate, they will be affected by campaign tactics, and they will indeed hold their nose and vote with the R's for President IF they don't think we offer the right alternative.

[luckyleftyme2]

10. MCCAIN

MCCAIN IS NOT ELECTABLE,THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NO ONE TO RUN THAT HASN'T BEEN TAINTED BY THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION. LIKE HIS FATHER WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE OR REGEAN JUNIOR COULDN'T GET ELECTED DOG CATCHER IN HIS HOME TOWN.
ANY DEMOCRAT WHO MAKES THE TICKET INCLUDING HILLARY WILL WIN BY A LANDSLIDE-THE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN HOW CORRUPT THE RIGHT HAS BECOME-AND NO AMOUNT OF SOUND BYTES WILL CURE THAT!

[RBInMaine]

11. I agree with many of your posts, but here you are a bit off here.

With all respect, I think you are just a bit off on this one (although I agree with much of what you say on a number of topics in this forum). Again, you need to think about what will happen in Louisiana, Montana, Arkansas, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, New Mexico, and other red states in '04 that we can only win (and MUST win) with the RIGHT ticket this time. There are too many PRESIDENTIAL voters that won't swallow Hillary or Obama no matter how "corrupt" you think the R party is. Remember, this is the country that elected Tricky Dick twice (the second time in a huge landslide), Reagan in two landslides, Bush #1 in a near landslide (even after Iran Contra), and Bush #2 twice. It happened, in many of these races, with TONS of help from registered Democrats. Americans COMPARE individual candidates and are moved by effective campaigning. Hillary and Obama are huge electoral risks, plain and simple. We need a ticket that can win NATIONALLY; one that can expand our existing margins in the blue states and take back some red states. Right now in the polls every Democrat running for President loses to Guiliani and most lose to McCain. With every respect, please see beyond your passions and subjective opinions and understand the objective electoral reality here. Many thanks.

[mile53]

12. Richardson

The answer is Richardson.

[Shorebound]

8. Agree

that a candidate seen as too "liberal" will fare poorly against a moderate Republican. I remember the ads that Nixon ran against McGovern, simply devastating in the way they painted McGovern as a weak-kneed anti-defense appeasement monkey. (Yes, in those days Nixon was seen as "moderate" compared to Neanderthals like Goldwater.) And Dukakis never recovered from that photo of him wearing an oversized helmet in the hatch of a tank.

I'm not a big personal fan of Hillary running for president; she would be extremely divisive, and she could actually push some swing states into the red column. Obama needs more experience. He would be the ideal VP candidate IMO, with the idea that he would run on his own in four or eight years. Since my last post Gore has reinterated his statement that he is not a candidate for president, and he sounds like he means it. Damn. So perhaps an Edwards-Obama ticket is the viable alternative.

[Maine-ah]

13. I agree w/ your assesment of HC

and though I don't know much about Obama, he just raised a boat load of cash, something like 1.2 mil the other night. CNN was saying that what he made per plate (over 2k) was what a sitting president gets.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/barack_obamas_h.html