You are correct Don!! They will not be running as a ticket together regardless of which of them gets the Democratic nomination. And THAT is FAR from being a done deal either!!
Contrary to what so many here seem to think (a mean person made a commercial) YEAH !! Guess what folks this is HARDBALL politics w no holds barred w the Presidency w all of it's POWER & influence at stake !!! This isn't played out like a friendly "game" where the second place finisher can expect to be VP because it's only fair , or would be "nice"
The nominee picks a running mate based upon what they offer in respect to winning the November election, & the nominee's trust & respect for the potential VP's compatability on issues the President believes in, & the likelyhood of the VP being a "team player" w the Pres on ALL issues w no potential liabilitities.
2007-03-23 20:07:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by SantaBud 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the democrats best bet is to have a friendly but serious campaign for the presidential nomination and he/she who gets it should choose who comes in second for that nomination for their vice presidential candidate, the two of them combining there supporters for the most possible votes.
2007-03-24 02:58:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Stan S 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
As I don't like the war, I don't like Hillary. Being independent allows one the flexibility to be consistent no matter which party is the topic of discussion.
I don't foresee an anti-Iraq war candidate (Obama) running with a pro-Iraq war candidate (Hillary). That is until the war became blatantly unpopular making Hillary switch her position.
2007-03-24 02:46:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
I dont think she would accept. I am not so much of a Clinton supporter myself anyways. I could see a Obama / Edwards or Edwards / Obama ticket. Anyways...I just would like to see Obama somewhere, as President or VP.
2007-03-24 03:17:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jessy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
As far as I know, this is not what the Democrats or Republicans typically do. I'm not sure why other than the parties typically pick Vice President from states culturally different from the Presidential candidate. Of COurse Bush/Cheney defied this.
2007-03-24 02:46:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
neither one of those will happen bc in the news today is a story about the mean person who just made an anti hillary commercial who is reportedly was also one of Obama's past staff members I think or something like that. It's a brewing controversy.
2007-03-24 02:51:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by mark [mjimih] 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Nope, if she can not be the President, she would not. She is power hungry, and thinks the Presidential seat will make her God, so she would not accept anything less. Both of those two alone or together amounts to nothing but bs.
2007-03-24 02:49:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by zack 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
That's a good question... for my money, she should, just as he should, depending on how the vote goes. They are both popular and if they each get a lot of votes.. it seems it would be a good idea.
I think you should throw Edwards in the mix too...
2007-03-24 02:48:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
If she did and Barrack became president, and if I was Barrack, I would watch my back.
Remember poor Vince Forster and several others that were the Clinton's circle, they found that life expectancy around them is short.
As for the deal it's a done deal. Count on it.
2007-03-24 02:50:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sgt 524 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'd give anything to see Gore on the ballot w/ McCain as VP.
2007-03-24 02:50:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by H M 3
·
1⤊
1⤋