[ QUOTE ]
Comment from Castro on CNN today:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...et-invincible/
A number of articles have been written about this in the past:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...1211/11gop.htm
So, two questions.
1: How realistic is a Clinton-Obama ticket?
2: What are the chances of winning if the ticket is Clinton-Obama vs. Clinton-[white male] vs Obama-[white male]? Rate them in order of how likely each would be to win the White House.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obama-[white male]
Clinton -[white male]
Clinton Obama
President David Palmer was the best thing that ever happened to Obama. I don't think they're a terrible combination, but Obama doesn't bring anything specific to the table for her. Edwards or some Compassionate Dude would fire up the liberals more at this point. Or, if the GOP does go with the experience issue on her, maybe she feels some General would help with that. I personally think Compassionate Dude is better for her than General. I think the campaign works better with Hillary as the tough guy, personally.
But mainly, it's because of the reports that she doesn't like Obama. Supposedly she's been ignoring him on the Senate floor. Hillary is endlessly practical, so that's not a big deal, but she can't run with rumors that she and the VP candidate don't like each other. It puts her in a whole different light.
I do think Hillary gives the best chance to the GOP. There are people that hate the Republican party right now but would never vote for Hillary, and that's a problem. But she does make one good point when this comes up. She notes that any nominee will get attacked and have high negatives. In 2004 I remember talking to someone who said, yeah, she thinks Kerry sounded better in the debates, but she won't vote for him because he flip-flops. Won't vote for him because he flip-flops?!! Who says that?