DREAM TICKET Who ever says it first wins the candidacy!

[Ian_walker]

That it will be a Democrat who is next President of the USA there is no doubt.

But it has become a quick draw competition, to see which one says the magic two words first:

DREAM TICKET

Obama and Clinton Supporters should read Chris Weigant's article in the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-obama-could-wrap-it-u_b_85595.html

That speech can be made by either candidate at any time and by making it they win the Democratic Candidacy.

Because the polarize-able supporters are decided and wedded to their camp. Obama-ite or Clinton-ite. Those will stay with their candidate.

THE people contest is now being fought over are the vast majority of unity Democrats. They sway one then they sway the other.

What sways them most is punishing those who attack Democrats.

Howard Dean said it only a few days ago he does not want to be at the Democratic convention mediating the candidate.

And Voters showed in New Hampshire and Michigan what can happen to a candidate or camp who is not out to unite.

The first Candidate to say they will take Democratic party down the unity road to the DREAM TICKET will win all those voters in the middle.

Because; what true democrat, would be satisfied with just Four or Eight years of Democrat Rule?

That is the reason NeoConMen are Terrified of two little words:

DREAM TICKET

Why do the GOP have nightmares about it?

Why is DREAM TICKET the thousand pound guerrilla sitting among all the breakables in the dainty GOP room?

Why do NeoConMen glance at it and then hold their hands up to blinker their eyes, muttering "Can't see it, Can't see it, Can't see it." hopping that will make it go away?

Because as any loyal Democrat can see, it is not just a single candidate or a mere 4 or 8 years of presidency.

It means a raft of candidates for both presidency, congress and senate; and time enough in office that they can bring about true change and the dawn of a New Democratic Age for America.

It means Democrats at their convention with the next two winning candidates already lined up and shouting "16 years, Sixteen Years, SIXTEEN YEARS!"

Because voters throughout the country are now hungry for change.

They are sick of the Republicans damaging the US economy. They are sick of the Iraq war. They are sick of the American image being dragged through the mud. They sick of rising gas at the pump. They are sick of the dollar in their pocket being worth half of what it was. They are sick of it all. Most of all they are sick of the NeoConMen and their lies and deceit. And they are hungry for change.

If McCain has the GOP nomination over the Conservative Huckabee it just proves voters want a liberal in charge.

McCain just means the Democrats have already won the next election and that voters even former Republicans are hungry for change.

Voters hungry for change are not going to go for the half fat.

If you want a liberal in charge your going to VOTE THE FULL CREAM and vote Democrat, Obama or Clinton.

BUT frighten a NeoConMan today with just two simple words.

DREAM TICKET!

Because that would not be just a tactical victory of a four to eight year presidency. That would be the STRATEGIC victory of a Democratic Age.

That is why "Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket." is the Ticket that gives the NeoConMen nightmares.

And the first Candidate to articulate that they will move the Democratic party to the DREAM TICKET will win that candidacy.

No If Buts or Maybes THE CANDIDATE WHO SAYS IT WILL BE the Democrat Candidate and the next President of th United States of America.

[Ian_walker]

1. The winning speach

Below I have rewritten the quick draw competition version of the Chris Weigant speech (follow this link for the original version of the speech)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-obama-could-wrap-it-u_b_85595.html

THE TACTICAL WINNING SPEECH
The Candidate who first makes this speech wins the the unity and undecided voters of the Democratic party and with this middle ground the Democratic nomination for President.
"I would like to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.

Our party is now pretty equally divided between myself and Senator (Obama/Clinton). The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but I don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions -- but I'm proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.

So I would like to take this opportunity to offer Senator (Obama/Clinton). the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should I be nominated for President. Should they be nominated, and should they offer the same to me, I am publicly saying I would accept that as well. I think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. I challenge my opponent to do the same."
Cue Instant pandemonium! Among loud cheers and a few groans from supporters of the candidate that did not make the speech.

I wonder if Pelossi, Howard Dean, Chris Redfern, George Stephanopoulos and the growing number of other Democrats are mediating how the deal can be done? A joint non aggresion pact of not putting out tactical version of the Chris Weigant speech instead to put out this strategic version of the speech.

THE STRATEGIC WINNING SPEECH
This version of the speech leaves the contest open but runs it without internecine war and unites the whole party
"We would like instead to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.

Our party is now pretty equally divided between ourselves. The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but we don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions -- but we are proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.

So we would like to take this opportunity to offer each other the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should we be nominated by the party for President. Should the other be nominated, and should they offer the same to me, We are publicly saying we would accept that as well. We think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. We challenge our party to do the same."
Cue very long standing ovation

The choice is there for the candidates to take.

[Ian_walker]

2. Hillary is getting ready to draw

Hillary Clinton is getting ready to make the Dream Ticket speech

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14789.html

[Blarch]

3. Nope.

That ship has sailed, that window has closed.

[Ian_walker]

4. No such word as never

At least not in politics

[musicblind]

5. I am sorry, but the rest of the world outside of DU doesn't feel that way

that is why the media is salivating. that is why any mention of a dream ticket gets thunderous applause. It is untrue that SO many people, outside of the peopel on DU and their friends, would be SO unsatisfied with Hillary OR Barack. Here are the numbers from CNN’s exit polls.


Ohio
73% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
66% of democrats would be satisfied if Obama is the nominee

Texas
71% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
65% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

Rhode Island
75% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
63% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

and now… in Vermont… which is extremely hostile territory for Clinton and very pro-Obama…

Vermont
70% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
82% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

[Ian_walker]

7. To me these figures say Democrats and country want the Dream Ticket

All a matter of interpretation: to me these figures say Democrats and country want the Dream Ticket

Ohio
73% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
66% of democrats would be satisfied if Obama is the nominee

Texas
71% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
65% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

Rhode Island
75% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
63% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

and now… in Vermont… which is extremely hostile territory for Clinton and very pro-Obama…

Vermont
70% of democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee
82% of democrats would be satisfied with Obama as the nominee

To me those figures say that there are Clinton and Obama fans but what most Democrats are is Democrats. Any real Democrat does not just want 4 or 8 years they want a Democratic age. Any real real Democrat wants a minimum 16 years to put right what wrongs the the Repugs have done wrong and for Hillary it would mean 16 years for Democrat health plan to bed into the very bedrock of US society.

[calimary]

8. Well I certainly wouldn't mind seeing one.

Wrote about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4908836

BTW - Welcome to DU!!! Glad you're here. Now get to work.

[Ian_walker]

11. Dream ticket is getting increasing traction in the Press and the Party

Check it out Dream Ticket is the big story in the press

http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLR_enGB247GB247&um=1&hl=en&resnum=1&ct=title&q=democrat+%22dream+ticket+%22&scoring=n

[calimary]

12. I think it's our only reasonable way out.

I would just hate to see all these new voters, young voters, newly-energized other voters, pissed down the drain because we made the wrong choice. They're all fired up for Obama. And we're going to need every last one of them to win back the White House. It would be quite literally dreamy to see this happen. I wrote about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4908836&mesg_id=4908836

I frankly don't care who's on top - Hillary OR Barack. We win, EITHER WAY.

If Hillary is, wonderful! First woman president. And Obama as first black vice president. Obama then becomes anointed as heir apparent and leader of the new generation of Dems. And he's young enough to be able to run for the top job in eight years. It would innoculate him permanently against the only real problem he has in this campaign: by then, NOBODY could slam him for lack of experience, either.

If Barack is, wonderful! First black president. And Hillary as first woman vice president. SITTING vice president - which would indeed be an historic first. She'd be only the second woman to RUN as vice president (after another Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro), but the difference is, she would WIN.

EITHER WAY, this one is a winner. Something for everybody. EVERYBODY goes home with something. NOBODY leaves empty-handed, AND we stack the deck for the future in a really solid way if Obama is the Vice President.

One other thing, too: if THAT were the direction this goes, it would ease Obama into the PERCEPTION of capability for the highest office. There are still plenty of racists out there, and people who might feel irrationally jittery about seeing an African-American elevated to that kind of power position. Putting him in as Veep would shut them up a little by taking the teeth out of their argument (for crissakes, he's only the VICE president! WTF you bellyaching about??? Get OVER it and STFU already!!!). ANYTHING that shuts them up a little is a good thing.

I'm liking this more and more, the more frequently I think about it.

[Ian_walker]

13. It is not just winning, it is winning 16 YEARS!

The key factor about the dream ticket is not that it means a certain Democrat win. It is the fact that it makes possible 16 years of Democrat presidency. Not only that but if argued correctly it makes it possible to piggy back 16 years of Democrat Congress and Senate too.

The argument that needs to be made is that for the first 4 or more years, most of what the Democrats will be doing is putting right the mess the Repugs made of the USA. That the real benefits will take about a decade to bear fruit.

The argument that needs to be made is that voters have to be in this one for the long haul. That they have to vote for a democrat presidency, congress and senate and that they need to commit to it for at least 16 years if they really want change.

Example
After the mess Margret Thatcher left UK in with: 10% unemployment, sterling in decline, GDP dropping through the floor, manufacturing gone; this long term of power argument is what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown sold the UK electorate. They are now looking at 2 Decades in power, and two decades where the British economy, jobs and their state have been on the rise, they even payed off their national debt. Ever since the British electorate will not even look at the other parties.

[calimary]

14. Um... just one thing as I also add: Welcome to DU! Ian - "...of Democrat presidency"?

I think the proper term is "Democratic presidency."

Sorry to nitpick, but that's a real red flag for some of us here (myself included). The enemy uses that diminishing term to diss us as Democrats. Won't even do the common decency thing and pronounce the name of our party correctly. Which is why I will then refer to them as republi-CONS, or republics or some other such verbal distortion. If they can't even get my party's name straight, how can they possibly expect me to do likewise with theirs? When they get it straight, so will I.

That was a nitpick, though. Your point about laying the groundwork for a 16-year Democratic rule is a good one. And it will probably take at least that long to rectify all that has gone wrong, fix everything these assholes fucked up, and reverse every horrible, regressive thing they've pushed down our throats. PLUS the Supreme Court.

But please: "Democratic presidency." NOT "democrat presidency." Otherwise people will start to suspect you're a troll (or, at least, that you waste a lot of your time listening to the wrong media people).

I hate to be prissy about this, but I try to debunk things wherever I can. I mean no offense. Just a hangup of mine, being anal-compulsive as I tend to be...

:hi:

[Ian_walker]

15. Democratic Presidency Congress and Senate for 16 years

Sorry for not saying Democratic Presidency but the key factor here is not just a presidency. A Democratic Presidency on its own would barely give time to correct some of the NeoConMen's dammage. What is needed is not short term tactical thinking. Democrats need to be thinking strategicly. Sixteen years of Democratic Presidency, Congress and Senate is what is needed to correct all the dammage the NeoConMen have done.

[calimary]

21. Yes, that's certainly true.

They're still so spineless that they need obscenely large reinforcements at their backs to get anything done. If they don't have the deck fairly-well stacked, they fold like pieces of paper. GREAT representation we have, 'eh?

:sarcasm:

[Ian_walker]

23. 69% of Democratic voters now support the Dream ticket News Week Poll

According to News Week Poll
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119953

[Ian_walker]

18. DREAM TICKET which Candi ate will say it first?

With only 0.1% between the candidates it will come down to the consciences of the Super Delegates and they will vote for the candidate that gives them the longest option of Democratic Party power. They are all long term Democratic Party members, what else would they vote for?

[musicblind]

9. i think you misunderstood my post

I posted that data ADVOCATING the dream ticket. I'm on your side. I agree with everything you just wrote. :)

[Ian_walker]

10. Sorry My bad

:blush:

Sorry My bad. So used to the Rove Trolls trying to bury the idea

[musicblind]

20. Oh no worry at all!

It's great to have someone on here who agrees with me on the unity ticket. Unity ticket supporters have a hard time here on DU because a lot of DU users don't see reality, but instead only see an isolated world view from inside of this messageboard filled with people who hate Hillary. This doesn't reflect reality. Most democrats like her just fine.

I feel very very strong in favor of having a unity ticket. I don't care as much which candidate is on top (though of course I have my favorite) because the bottom line is the good that a unity ticket, which ever way it goes, can do for the party! So stick with your belief in this ticket and keep spreading the word! And thank you for doing so! :)

[Ian_walker]

6. Original Article Hillary and the Dream Ticket

Here is a link to the original ABC article
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4394015&page=1

[Ian_walker]

19. 0.1% between the candidates.

The Super Delegates are waiting for the Dream Ticket Speech. Who ever makes it first wins the the nomination.

[Ian_walker]

22. For the third time now Clinton has said Dream Ticket

It is a quick draw competition and Clinton is going for the gun...

It is simple really either or BOTH candidates can make the UNITY speech

[anigbrowl]

16. Then why is Hillary saying things like this?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html

***
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
***

For the last week it's been 'I am great, Senator McCainis great, Senator Obama not so much.'

this is scorched earth, not a unity policy. If she can't have the top slot, she wants to weaken Obama's chances of getting it.

[Ian_walker]

17. There is a 16 year prize here for the taking

The Democratic Party and any Real Democratic Party supporters need to grab it with both hands.

[Medusa]

24. Which is why we need to have our best candidate as the nominee

and that's Obama, it damn sure ain't Clinton.

[Ian_walker]

25. Obama can make the UNITY speech if he has the courage

Either or BOTH candidates can make the UNITY speech

It is now a statistical dead heat and 69% of Democratic Party voters want the DREAM TICKET.