disassociated.com Flickr photos

Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both?

Posted by John Lampard on Friday, 8 February, 2008 to the comment subset

Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both?

The question has certainly been asked before. Here’s how it could work. Clinton for president. Obama for vice president. After Hillary Clinton’s two presidential terms, Barack Obama could, I believe, still run for president for two terms in his own right.

Here’s a quick rundown of the many advantages the Democrats enjoy at this stage of the 2008 campaign. Voter turnout in most states is running well ahead of that for the GOP. Democratic fund-raising continues to break all records - even those set previously by Republicans. The Democrats’ issues cupboard is fuller than it has been in a decade and a half. And voters have narrowed the field to two wildly popular candidates, either of whom would make history if nominated, much less elected. Given the embarrassment of riches, it was only a matter of time before Democratic voters looked at the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and asked the question, Why not both?

You’ve got to love the possibilities, no matter how remote. Australian politics just doesn’t get this interesting. Even with John Howard now in retirement.

Tags: , , , ,
Permalink | Contact | disassociated.com

Comments are welcome, please keep them relevant to the topic at hand. If you want to talk about something else, please contact me. Spam, SEO keyword "names", and crassness will not be tolerated.