What's the latest Edwards/Obama could unite as an alternative Hillary vote?

[RiverStone]

After last night's narrow loss by Obama in NH, I was struck by how angry I got. It felt like an over reaction, given that we have 48 states to go. It did remind me just how deeply I don't want Hillary as our party's nominee. Y'all know the (why we don't want) Hillary mantra well - no need to repeat it here.

So my frustration was not as much that Obama lost a close one, it was that Hillary got a reprieve of sorts. As long as she is in the race, she could theoretically win. I was hoping for her early exit. It's not going to happen.

I go back and forth between Obama and Edwards and frankly, I'd be thrilled with either as our nominee! Edwards has said he is in it to the convention. Obama also has lots of steam and tons of money; I figure he is in it for the long haul too. If Obama/Edwards keep splitting the Hillary alternative vote - neither may get enough of a push to be a clear winner before the convention.

I can't offer a scenario that justifies one dropping out to unite with the other - who would fall on the sword? Yet I also hope that if the math is simply not there at some point for either Obama or Edwards to win as a stand alone candidate, that they would unite as THE CHANGE CANDIDATE.

Will there still be enough states left after Super Tuesday to forge an alliance? Could we wait it out and force a brokered convention?

Some here have quietly suggested that a deal between the two has already been planned as a default option. I have no clue, but I believe that with their respective supporters lined up together, who ever gets to carry the stick would be unbeatable!

I think they would make a great team!!! :pals:

[AX10]

1. I don't want to see Obama as the nominee.

.

[Kucinich4America]

2. If together they would block a Hillary coronation then they should do so.

Possibly the picture will be clear enough on Feb 5 to look at that, maybe not. I'm a big fan of "all the way to Denver" myself. And I don't see any way that Hillary walks out of a gridlocked convention as the nominee.

[Arugula Latte]

3. My Dreeeeeeeeeeam!

*swoon*

To me, stopping Hillary is priority number one.

[HILLBILL]

10. stopping Hillary!

It is fine to support one candidate over another,but the pure haterid people like you have about Hillary will make people like me stay home in November if she is not the nominee.

[postulater]

22. That response didn't sound like pure hatred to me.

It is OK that one expresses one's preference.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Um, HillBill, I want to stop Hillary because I think she will ruin Democratic chances --

not because I hate her. I want us to retake the presidency, not blow it by putting up a nominee who polarizes people like no one else and who will inspire Republican voters to crawl out of the woodwork to vote against her.

[HILLBILL]

25. Democratic chances

And by nominating a black man you think it would be less polarizing,tell me one red state he would win.

[Arugula Latte]

26. He's already getting strong support from independents.

He can win all but the very deep south (South Georgia, Alabama ... although you never know because they do have large African American populations) and a couple of the far right western states (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho). He'll turn "purple" states like Virginia blue. Plus, you should know he doesn't need to win all the red states. He just needs to win the blue states (which he'll easily do), plus a couple purple states.

Hillary? Hah! What a joke. She has ZERO cross appeal. ZERO.

[Kucinich4America]

29. Where exactly in Illinois are you from?

And why do I get the feeling it's Skokie??

[MADem]

4. Obama as Edwards' VP? That's the only alliance Edwards will accept.

No way JE will play second fiddle.

They'd make a lousy team, though--BO is too corporate for JE's populist themes and views.

JE needs a miracle, though--if he doesn't win SC, he's toast. That isn't meant unkindly, it's just fact.

As for Clinton, the more people crap on her for bullshit reasons, the more her support grows: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=all

[RiverStone]

5. Thats a good point

I don't think the Hil-haters are going to win many over by simply dissing her. There are many intelligent reasons why we don't want her, but ultimately either Edwards or Obama need to win offering the good stuff about them - not the bad stuff about her.

Hillary is a member of the old guard - just look at all the battle weary faces that stood next to her in her Iowa concession speech.

Obama and Edwards represent a new direction, but they must craft the message to appeal to hope and dreams of a better America - no matter how bad Clinton would be, unless we know how GOOD Edwards or Obama will be --- it won't matter. Hillary would win.

[comradebillyboy]

8. I don't know

Edwards was kissing Obama's ass quite vigorously last Saturday while treating Hillary in a rather insulting and condescending manner. looks to me like he wants to be Obama's boy.

[MADem]

15. I would bet a substantial sum AGAINST that happening.

JE has already been there, done that, and bought the lousy tee shirt. Edwards is actually the more experienced campaigner. He's done this drill once before.

[comradebillyboy]

19. maybe so but

I think he has given up on the big prize and is looking to make the best deal he can with Obama, who he sees as the likely winner or because he has burned his bridges with Hillary.

[MADem]

24. They don't MATCH though. Their platforms and priorities are totally different.

BO is a corporatist, JE is a populist. JE might as well team up with McCain for all they have in common.

You'll see BO as Mike Bloomberg's VP before you see JE as VP to Obama.

[sjdnb]

9. If, for a moment, I thought JE was back room dealing with

Obama, I'd vote Clinton in a heartbeat.

And, while it may seem attractive to some, relinquishing standards, beliefs, and ethics - just to create a 'winning ticket' will, in the end, benefit no one - not the candidates, America, or the world.

That's what Rove/Bush/Cheney and their GOP lackies do -- we must remain better than that.

[sjdnb]

6. Obama is no Edwards

And, if I suspected for a moment some sort of back room dealings between the two of them was going on, I'd switch to Clinton in a heartbeat.

While a naturally occurring Edwards/Obama ticket would be acceptable, any political gyrations/manipulations, especially given my high expectations of Edwards with regard to ethics, would make me want to sit out 2008 entirely or just throw my vote to Hillary.

Leave the tag-teaming for the WWF crowd.

[HILLBILL]

7. Obama is no Edwards

Get real Edwards would'nt even win his own state.

[sjdnb]

11. Only because he wants to do what is right for America/Americans

and that does not 'jive' with winning in today's brainwashed America.

Those in power, and, those who have put them there, have hard working Americans thinking they are greedy for wanting fair wages/benefits and that poor people needing some assistant (Social Programs are a minuscule percentage of the Federal Budget), Veterans, etc. -- just normal folk -- are looking for 'handouts' -- while all the time the government is handing out hundreds of BILLIONS in welfare, no-bid contracts, and subsidies to the wealthy and corporations - even those who have been found guilty of fraud and corruption.

[comradebillyboy]

12. Did you watch Saturday's debate where Edwards just

fawned over Obama. It was really quite nauseating and ended any respect I had previously held for Edwards. I can't respect or vote for a man who grovels at the feet of his chief rival. Obama has certainly moved ahead of Edwards in my preference. Edwards is off in some fantasy land where he has detached himself from reality. Populism is nice but ya gotta deal with them that has power, cuz they ain't gonna just roll over when John stamps his pretty little foot.

[dorkulon]

13. There is no "Team" in "I"

The hard part about that is that VP has no real power, so it's a huge power discrepancy between the two.

[sjdnb]

14. And, from my vantage point

Obama's all about the I/me.

[comradebillyboy]

16. they all are nt

[Marrah_G]

17. I like my candidate more then I dislike Hillary- so no thanks

[kelligesq]

18. When Obama has Neocons as advisors? & lobbyists? UNLIKELY

n/t

[jannyk]

20. If Edwards does that I'll vote for Hillary - I'd see it as...

a betrayal. But it's ok 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

:grr:

[comradebillyboy]

21. congrats to all on this thread

a relatively civilized and reasoned debate compared to most of the nasty DU flame wars of late.

and I admit that I am as much of a snarky asshole as anyone, with a few exceptions, who shall at this time remain nameless.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Each candidate's ego will likely prevent this--one of them would have to be VP

[Dumak]

28. The Democrats select their candidate by a plurality of delegates

Since the convention election process is a simple plurality vote, it is up to the individual voter to decide which candidates are viable at each primary, and only vote for one of those. The primaries have been spaced over time for that very purpose.

So, while my initial preference was Kucinich, had I been at Iowa I most likely would have voted for Edwards. Now that it is clear that Edwards is out of it (come on, lets be real), if I were at South Carolina I would be voting for Obama. Why should I let my vote be wasted?