Rendell wants 'dream ticket'

May 15th, 2008, posted by RobHop

Gov. Ed Rendell — one of Hillary Clinton’s most vocal supporters — told CNN on Wednesday that Barack Obama should choose Clinton as his running mate if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president.

Obama would need a running mate who appeals to working-class voters and in swing states, and “there’s no question in my mind they should ask Hillary Clinton to be that candidate,” he said.

“I don’t know whether she would accept. I don’t know whether he would do it. But don’t settle for someone, a Clinton supporter. You’ve got the real thing, someone who has energized voters,” said Rendell, who has been mentioned as a possible running mate for either Clinton or Obama.

Acting as a virtual campaign manager, Rendell guided Clinton to victory April 22 in the Pennsylvania primary.
Source Link

Filed under:

dany

On May 15th, 2008 Anonymous said:

Gov Rendell has lost a great deal of credibility with his unwavering support of Sen Clinton’s losing campaign.

It is interesting to note that although he is credited with bringing in Pennsylvania for her, she lost in his two main strongholds: Philadelphia and Dauphin County.

IMO Sen Obama will never offer her the VP slot after all the dirty tricks she played during her smear campaign.

An interesting discussion on NPR yesterday brought up the thought that Obama will surely look for a more moderate VP than Clinton or himself. If his change theory is going to work and if bringing together both sides of the aisle has any chance of happening, he will need a middle of the road VP. Clinton is a very head strong candidate, just as Obama is and that will not fit well into his plan. Not exactly good cop bad cop, but someone that can soften his inevitable attacks when he becomes President will be a good fit.
JP

Poor Rendell

On May 15th, 2008 Anonymous said:

This guy so wants out of Harrisburg.

Worst of Both Worlds

On May 15th, 2008 Anonymous said:

A Obama – Clinton ticket will be the worst of both worlds.

It will energize the Republicans the same as if she were on the top of the ticket, and will make mincemeat of Obama’s “Change” slogan.

One Type of Dream is a Nightmare

On May 16th, 2008 Rob Byer said:

This would be a nightmare ticket. It also would be contrary to the notion of change. Hilary and Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse, even as a two-for-one Vice President, would not be change, but evidence of “plus ca change….”

As of now, disaffected Republicans and independents (like this writer) are leaning toward Obama. If he were to include the Clintons on the ticket, my vote probably goes to McCain.

Nightmare Ticket

On May 16th, 2008 Anonymous said:

Agreed.

I am also a disaffected Republican. I am strongly considering Obama. With Clinton anywhere on the ticket, I may campaign for McCain.

You are my nightmare

On May 16th, 2008 piltdownman said:

Sorry, but if you are truly willing to vote for Obama OR McCain, then there is a serious disconnect in your logic. Put aside the politics of personality and understand that we’re talking about policies here; McSame will just give us another Bush term (despite his recent protestations to the contrary) but both Clinton or Obama will bring Democratic ideals to the forefront.

I’m not asking you to love or hug Hillary, but if you are, as you say, disaffected, then I guessing that’s because your party has, over the past 7 years or so, completely besmirched the honor of our nation. McCain was a complicit in all that and will make his bones with the big boys by continuing to do so.

Pilt

Pilt, I am disaffected for

On May 17th, 2008 Rob Byer said:

Pilt,
I am disaffected for many reasons. The main reason that I am an independent is that I detest partisanship. And, frankly, both major parties are to blame and both leave much to be desired. To me, the Clintons represent a type of “me first” politics that I detest. I disagree with both Obama and McCain on foreign policy (and on other issues). But, both of them evince a maverick or even iconoclastic quality regarding party organization and influence that I think is necessary in order to get the country moving in the correct direction. The Clintons are the antithesis of what we need.

Why not partisanship?

On May 17th, 2008 Greg Palmer said:

What don’t you like about partisanship? I hear that a lot – that people don’t like the two party system, that they don’t like partisanship. I agree to a certain extent; right now we’ve got two parties who are hellbent on preventing each other from getting any work done. “Compromise” is the most feared word in both Harrisburg and Washington… unless it’s “Campaign Finance Reform.”

Politics is both

On May 17th, 2008 Anonymous said:

As Barney Frank has correctly observed, politics is both partisan and bi-partisan. There is a time and a place for both. Typically, a “maverick” or “iconoclast” has very little chance to make a difference precisely because both types tend to be uninterested in working with others or within a structured environment. Look around your place of work and see how many “mavericks” are in management or are called upon for their advice or wisdom when a problem crops up. The number is probably close to zero. These folks don’t tend to have friends or allies either, which is why they are unable to affect “change”.

As for a “me first” attitude, EVERYONE who thinks they should be president has that attitude regardless of how well or poorly they hide it.

Style over substance

On May 17th, 2008 Anonymous said:

First, PD, I agree with you completely. Well said.

Rob, I appreciate your point of view, I just disagree with it completely :-) Changing the tenure of political debate, if that’s what everyone is expecting from Obama, is a pipe dream. I’m not saying he isn’t a motivating speaker, it’s just that I don’t believe that, in and of itself, will be a game changer. The debate involves both sides of the political spectrum, whether the Dems control the WH or not…and I don’t see the GOP changing anything. That said, I think McCain, who voted in almost lock step with the Prez, is not a maverick at all, just a well-positioned “brand.”

And when it comes to partisanship, I can’t disagree that we’re in a trough of the swell right now, but there will always be a give and take; that’s the nature of the beast…and in many, many ways, it’s a good thing.

Pilt

Not good enough

On May 17th, 2008 Greg Palmer said:

But Pilt, I wonder if that’s good enough. Can we really just write off entire periods of time to the give and take. Right now nobody wants to work with each other and compromise so we all get screwed as a result. There’s a lot of work to be done – not only are new policies and advancements needed, but we’ve also got to clean up the mess made by 20-30 years of political stalemate. Don’t we deserve better than a continued stalemate?

Don't really agree

On May 18th, 2008 phillydem said:

I think a lot does get accomplished, but, of course when things are going smoothly, that’s news, but not the kind that makes the front page. I know when I tune in to PCN, I almost always surprised that the legislators generally have taken the time to really look into issues.

On the big issues of today – the war/defense spending, health care, social security, social programs, civil liberties, labor laws – there are major partisan differences. Personally, I don’t want Democrats compromising with Republicans on these national issues.

We have no choice...

On May 17th, 2008 Anonymous said:

....‘cause we’re not part of the system!

Greg. You are right, of course. The timbre of debate has turned sour and immovable over the past 15 years or so. Much of this, I believe, is due to the way politicians and their consultants utilize the media. Everyone is frozen in place, afraid that even a modicum of bipartisanship will be used against them in some upcoming, yet-to-be encountered TV campaign. “Candidate X voted FOR this…but AGAINST that. Can we trust him to uphold the values of the Monogahela Valley? (for example…)

We do need to untie the knot which has forced this standoff, I just don’t believe it will happen because Obama or Hillary wants it to. It takes two to tango, and if the GOP continues along the route it has chosen, we will be forced to deal with them in a most partisan of ways….

Pilt