General Question

breedmitch's avatar

Who should be on Obama's ticket?

Asked by breedmitch (12136points) June 5th, 2008

So, we all know it wont be Senator Clinton, but whom should he choose? Does he go with a white male? Who would that be? Is Governor Richardson an option to bring the hispanic-Clinton vote back into the fold? Does he go with a woman to appease the outraged feminist camp? Am I crazy to think that Oprah would be a good choice? Imagine Vice President Winfrey on a Middle East goodwill trip!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

29 Answers

jrpowell's avatar

I’m hoping for John Edwards.

jlelandg's avatar

To answer your question: Politically experienced white dude who is more moderate.

Oprah is a crazy crazy choice, she’d be stupid to accept because she’d lose out on the money she’d make in the at least 4 years she’d be vice…especially in an election that the working white male is going to determine. Who’s going to vote or meet with someone that uses the word “vah-jay-jay” in her common speech.

AstroChuck's avatar

He picks Wesley Clark. That appeases Clintonites and puts some military experience on the ticket. I’d like Edwards but Obama has to have someone older to run with.

breedmitch's avatar

Clark has publicly stated that he would decline, however, that was while Clinton was still running. I like the idea, I’m just not sure the country would.

skfinkel's avatar

Whoever it is, I hope he gets it just right. And I have confidence that he will.

jrpowell's avatar

Edwards is 54. He was born the same year as my mom. He just looks like he is 40.

AstroChuck's avatar

54 and 46 is a young ticket. Of course Obama is about to turn 47.

breedmitch's avatar

Thanks phoenyx for the link. Please don’t say the Pope again. :)

soundedfury's avatar

Clinton, Clark and Edwards are all unlikely. Obama may take Clinton if he feels he has to, but he very clearly doesn’t trust her. Edwards wants to be a king-maker, so taking a VP slot doesn’t make sense. Plus, he’s already said he doesn’t want it, as has Clark.

Richardson, in my opinion, is a good possibility.

AstroChuck's avatar

Edwards will get AG.

breedmitch's avatar

Tonight’s news made it seem like Senator Clinton would get the AG nod with a plan of future Supreme Court Justice in the first term. I like it.

ezraglenn's avatar

What is AG?

AstroChuck's avatar

Attorney General

ezraglenn's avatar

oh that was dumb of me.

AstroChuck's avatar

Don’t be TH on YS!

seVen's avatar


Bigtechdude's avatar

Thinking…..... Thinking…..... Thinking…... Thinking….. I know Mr.T

nayeight's avatar

Why wouldn’t he pick Clinton? Its the “dream ticket” or whatever. If he picks Edwards, I will be highly upset. At this point, it doesn’t matter who he picks, McCain will probably keel over before November.

breanne's avatar

I also like Clark. He for one, would really be able to call Hillary on her Bosnia snafu. But, I also really like Richardson.

laudermale's avatar

if this election truly represent s the will of the people, he must pick Clinton. Here is why. He didnt kick her butt. They very much pliit the country. It was politics that gave him the nomination. Had it been votes, there is a scenario that gives her the edge in votes. Its sad that the super delegates can interfere with the will of the people. So I say let the people speak and those two have the most and the second most so let that be the ticket. Its not about Obama and Clinton. Its about you and me and we want them!

phoenyx's avatar

Could you explain to me how she has the edge in votes? I’ve heard this claim, but I haven’t been able to find anything evidence to back it up.

Trustinglife's avatar

Dick Cheney!
Hehe, just kidding.

laudermale's avatar

phoenyx. You asking what scenario gives her the edge? Go to CNN and look around. The funny Thing is you comment on the one thing in my comment that meant the least. She is number two and placed there by the american people. Gives us our number two.

phoenyx's avatar

Okay, so after digging around on CNN for a bit, apparently Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote if you include Michigan and Obama wins if you don’t include Michigan?

soundedfury's avatar

@pheonyx – The numbers are misleading since Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary went against the wishes of the DNC when she had her name added to the ballot.

@laudermale – The idea that the second place candidate should get the #2 position is how we originally picked our Vice Presidents. It was disastrous, and was quickly changed via the 12th Amendment. Read up on the squabbles between Adams and Jefferson sometime.

A presidential candidate needs to chose a running mate that they feel comfortable with, that adds something to the ticket and, preferrably, someone they can trust. This is Serious Business™. It’s not a popularity contest.

ezraglenn's avatar

@Soundedfury – actually, the original system was that the two major party nominees, (IE Obama and McCain) would be president and vice president, and that system was awful because then you have two people with completely different political views in office, expected to work together very closely. The 12th amendment changed the system so that each nominee could choose their own running mate, and run as a two person ticket. Obama choosing Hillary would be significantly less disastrous (and possibly great, IMO), than say, President McCain and VP Obama.

Also, this is a popularity contest. Just saying.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther