Skip Nav
Romantic Comedies
8 New Romances on Netflix in February
Books
23 Books You Should Read This Winter
Valentine's Day
20 Sexy Gifts For Your Significant Other

Obama Says No to Dream Ticket

Barack Obama emphatically said no to running as Hillary Clinton's vice president. Speaking at a town hall campaign event in Mississippi, Obama said, "I don't know how somebody in second place is offering the vice presidency to a person who's in first place." Obama pointed out that he was ahead in popular vote and delegate count and had won twice as many states as Hillary Clinton.

Obama also exposed an inconsistency in the Clinton message. She has said that Obama would not be ready to be commander in chief on day one, yet would still be a responsible VP choice. He went on to say that Clinton was attempting to "hoodwink" voters, and that they should not be confused into thinking that they can have both Clinton and himself on a dream ticket. Voters, Obama said, must make a choice.

Around The Web
Sanders's Comments About Clinton Running Against Obama
Hillary Clinton Asked About Being Woman During Debate
Chloe Grace Moretz Quotes on Hillary Clinton
9-Year-Old Syrian Refugee at State of the Union 2016
Becoming an Adult During Obama's Presidency
Hillary Clinton's Comment About Being a Woman For President
Obama's Speech on Gun Control Executive Action

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
NYFashionista NYFashionista 7 years
Wow- I have to admit, I do side with one candidate more than the other. However, you have to remember, Clinton and Obama don't differ that markedly on policies. In fact, they agree 88% on more than 81 policy issues (http://whereistand.com/BarackObama/HillaryClinton). What they do differ on, however, are judgment, character, and vision. They represent two fundamentally different worldviews on the nature of the battle ahead. With that, although I am a huge advocate of Obama, I must remember not to alienate myself from the democratic nomination (even if it is Hilary, who has shown a serious lack of good judgement and character in the recent past). I'm sad that the media is right and that this nomination process is splitting the democratic party (or "liberal voters) to the point of no return. In the end, I cannot allow myself to vote for another Bush into office, even if the other choice is Hilary. I will still support her should she win this nomination. We must think with our heads rather than our emotions. Not only is our country depending on our votes, but so is the rest of the world.
NYFashionista NYFashionista 7 years
Wow- I have to admit, I do side with one candidate more than the other. However, you have to remember, Clinton and Obama don't differ that markedly on policies. In fact, they agree 88% on more than 81 policy issues (http://whereistand.com/BarackObama/HillaryClinton). What they do differ on, however, are judgment, character, and vision. They represent two fundamentally different worldviews on the nature of the battle ahead. With that, although I am a huge advocate of Obama, I must remember not to alienate myself from the democratic nomination (even if it is Hilary, who has shown a serious lack of good judgement and character in the recent past). I'm sad that the media is right and that this nomination process is splitting the democratic party (or "liberal voters) to the point of no return. In the end, I cannot allow myself to vote for another Bush into office, even if the other choice is Hilary. I will still support her should she win this nomination. We must think with our heads rather than our emotions. Not only is our country depending on our votes, but so is the rest of the world.
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 7 years
I agree completely onabanana. :)
onabanana onabanana 7 years
I'm very surprised that the NYT article even ran. What was the point? Being lost on the hill and trying to figure out what's going on is a reality of a new congressman/person. Does that mean we should vote new people in? There is a certain culture on the Hill that is very difficult to overcome. If you're new or young, it's very difficult to get things done, regardless of efforts. Those who have been in congress a long time are very territorial and its frustrating for a new congressman/person to get work done. It seems the Obama did what he needed to do, was willing to listen, learn, work with others, support the party and at times pick the battles he needed to fight. What's wrong with that? Being in awe your first day as a congressman/person is nothing to be ashamed of and if more of our congressmen/persons continued to feel that way, perhaps they would work more instead of taking leave all the time. The NYT has really got to Sh*t. As for the "dream ticket," it's really an absurd idea. The Clinton's have a fantastic way of motivating republicans to come out and vote and support the opposite team and considering how much trash she has been talking about Obama, that campaign would implode. If HRC looses it is highly doubtful that she would run again in 8 years, she would be older (not saying too old, just that campaigning takes a lot out of you and good for McCain for keeling over) and the awe of having the first possible woman president would have faded. Obama on the other hand might be in a good position to run again if he doesn't win this time. He would only be in his 50's, he would have the "experience" that everyone is touting about and so long as he doesn't royally screw up in the Senate, Obama 2012 or 2016 isn't too far fetched. And frankly, it is obnoxious and condesending that the number 2 person is telling the number 1 person that she would consider him for VP. He knows better than to take the position. He would be bored out of his mind. She wouldn't seek advice from him. he would be sitting in his office staring at that damn chandelier.
onabanana onabanana 7 years
I'm very surprised that the NYT article even ran. What was the point? Being lost on the hill and trying to figure out what's going on is a reality of a new congressman/person. Does that mean we should vote new people in? There is a certain culture on the Hill that is very difficult to overcome. If you're new or young, it's very difficult to get things done, regardless of efforts. Those who have been in congress a long time are very territorial and its frustrating for a new congressman/person to get work done. It seems the Obama did what he needed to do, was willing to listen, learn, work with others, support the party and at times pick the battles he needed to fight. What's wrong with that? Being in awe your first day as a congressman/person is nothing to be ashamed of and if more of our congressmen/persons continued to feel that way, perhaps they would work more instead of taking leave all the time. The NYT has really got to Sh*t. As for the "dream ticket," it's really an absurd idea. The Clinton's have a fantastic way of motivating republicans to come out and vote and support the opposite team and considering how much trash she has been talking about Obama, that campaign would implode. If HRC looses it is highly doubtful that she would run again in 8 years, she would be older (not saying too old, just that campaigning takes a lot out of you and good for McCain for keeling over) and the awe of having the first possible woman president would have faded. Obama on the other hand might be in a good position to run again if he doesn't win this time. He would only be in his 50's, he would have the "experience" that everyone is touting about and so long as he doesn't royally screw up in the Senate, Obama 2012 or 2016 isn't too far fetched. And frankly, it is obnoxious and condesending that the number 2 person is telling the number 1 person that she would consider him for VP. He knows better than to take the position. He would be bored out of his mind. She wouldn't seek advice from him. he would be sitting in his office staring at that damn chandelier.
Jillness Jillness 7 years
No worries! ;)
Jillness Jillness 7 years
No worries! ;)
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
Sorry, Jillness, I didn't mean to imply that you said Obama's experience in the Senate is equal to McCain's. I know someone on this post did, though. And my original comment about knowing "how the ropes work" in Washington was in response to that.
Jillness Jillness 7 years
I didn't mean to insult you. As someone who has volunteered before for his campaign, I was really blown away by the large network he has built for his volunteers, and how many of them there are. I didn't expect that everyone would know that. " Politics is and will continue to be, at least for awhile, largely about pr." By definition, PR includes the public. Public Relations. "If you look at election maps from a lot of different states, you will see that he did very well in larger cities and not as well in rural or suburban areas." This is not supported by facts. He won rural states by landslides: Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. He also won Texas, even though Hillary likes to ignore this. I never said that Obama's experience equaled McCain's in the senate. I was never trying to make that point. I just think he could be a very effective President. I know things won't change over night, but I do think he could change things for the better.
Jillness Jillness 7 years
I didn't mean to insult you. As someone who has volunteered before for his campaign, I was really blown away by the large network he has built for his volunteers, and how many of them there are. I didn't expect that everyone would know that. " Politics is and will continue to be, at least for awhile, largely about pr."By definition, PR includes the public. Public Relations."If you look at election maps from a lot of different states, you will see that he did very well in larger cities and not as well in rural or suburban areas."This is not supported by facts. He won rural states by landslides: Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. He also won Texas, even though Hillary likes to ignore this. I never said that Obama's experience equaled McCain's in the senate. I was never trying to make that point. I just think he could be a very effective President. I know things won't change over night, but I do think he could change things for the better.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
Ah. I left for the night and all of these new posts popped up! I honestly don't believe that Obama will be able to change Washington overnight, no. I do realize how vast his support is, but public opinion will not change the way things are done all that quickly. (And I have studied all of the candidates a lot, so please don't insult me by saying I don't understand Obama's support just because I don't agree with you. I'm not saying it was necessarily your intention to insult me, just that you did.) Politics is and will continue to be, at least for awhile, largely about pr. As long as politicians can keep their constituents thinking they are doing the right thing for them, they will be happy, regardless of how the politicians are playing the game. And, things can be achieved effectively through playing the game. Most constituents will look at the end, not the means. And I didn't mean to say that if only a majority of policy makers agree on something, then it should be passed. I was going off the idea that the Congressmen, Senators, etc. would be representing the interests of their constituency. Sorry, I didn't explain that well. As far as the FCC argument goes, that is one example. It shows that campaigns like that CAN work, but not that they USUALLY work. In addition, it wasn't really only based on calls from people. A lot of policy-makers influenced that, as well. Also, it seems to me that that particular campaign had extremely wide-spread support, whereas Obama has built up a coalition, but still has not built up a majority in terms of the entire population. And, Obama does do better in certain areas. If you look at election maps from a lot of different states, you will see that he did very well in larger cities and not as well in rural or suburban areas. Ohio and Texas are the two prime examples. It may be true of Hillary, but it's true of Obama, as well. And I wasn't saying that hard work and charm have to be mutually exclusive, just that the way you presented the argument didn't make sense. You should have said something originally that was a bit more like what you said in your further explanation; that's all I was saying with that. Anyway, since none of us can know definitely what will happen after the election (if Obama becomes president), we will have to agree to disagree on whether he will be able to change the way Washington is run overnight. Oh, and for the record, of the two Democratic candidates remaining, I prefer Obama. I just don't agree with the argument that Obama's experience in the Senate equals McCain's experience in the Senate. I know Obama has other experience (as a community activist, etc.), but I am talking strictly about their Senate experience.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 7 years
Ah. I left for the night and all of these new posts popped up!I honestly don't believe that Obama will be able to change Washington overnight, no. I do realize how vast his support is, but public opinion will not change the way things are done all that quickly. (And I have studied all of the candidates a lot, so please don't insult me by saying I don't understand Obama's support just because I don't agree with you. I'm not saying it was necessarily your intention to insult me, just that you did.) Politics is and will continue to be, at least for awhile, largely about pr. As long as politicians can keep their constituents thinking they are doing the right thing for them, they will be happy, regardless of how the politicians are playing the game. And, things can be achieved effectively through playing the game. Most constituents will look at the end, not the means.And I didn't mean to say that if only a majority of policy makers agree on something, then it should be passed. I was going off the idea that the Congressmen, Senators, etc. would be representing the interests of their constituency. Sorry, I didn't explain that well.As far as the FCC argument goes, that is one example. It shows that campaigns like that CAN work, but not that they USUALLY work. In addition, it wasn't really only based on calls from people. A lot of policy-makers influenced that, as well. Also, it seems to me that that particular campaign had extremely wide-spread support, whereas Obama has built up a coalition, but still has not built up a majority in terms of the entire population.And, Obama does do better in certain areas. If you look at election maps from a lot of different states, you will see that he did very well in larger cities and not as well in rural or suburban areas. Ohio and Texas are the two prime examples. It may be true of Hillary, but it's true of Obama, as well.And I wasn't saying that hard work and charm have to be mutually exclusive, just that the way you presented the argument didn't make sense. You should have said something originally that was a bit more like what you said in your further explanation; that's all I was saying with that.Anyway, since none of us can know definitely what will happen after the election (if Obama becomes president), we will have to agree to disagree on whether he will be able to change the way Washington is run overnight. Oh, and for the record, of the two Democratic candidates remaining, I prefer Obama. I just don't agree with the argument that Obama's experience in the Senate equals McCain's experience in the Senate. I know Obama has other experience (as a community activist, etc.), but I am talking strictly about their Senate experience.
kcross kcross 7 years
good for obama. i am sick of the clintons...
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 7 years
Blah blah blah...GO HILLARY!
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 7 years
Blah blah blah...GO HILLARY!
indielove indielove 7 years
"As I said to indie earlier, if Eva Braun ran for president, should we vote for her just because she's a woman?" That notion, the fact that you even thought of it, is still pretty hilarious to me. I just love how your mind works! :rotfl: I'm sick of hearing about us 'Obama mama(;)) supporters against the cause' bull that some people keep spewing. I have no respect for that WOMAN, she doesn't even deserve it. I was neutral on this topic just a few months back until she started Obama, feeding lies to the public just to get ahead. Bill is really no better, he helped put her in the precarious position she's in now. She's a devious little MONSTER. You think I'm wrong? Too bad, so sad. I have as much say in this as you do.
indielove indielove 7 years
"As I said to indie earlier, if Eva Braun ran for president, should we vote for her just because she's a woman?"That notion, the fact that you even thought of it, is still pretty hilarious to me. I just love how your mind works! :rotfl:I'm sick of hearing about us 'Obama mama(;)) supporters against the cause' bull that some people keep spewing. I have no respect for that WOMAN, she doesn't even deserve it. I was neutral on this topic just a few months back until she started Obama, feeding lies to the public just to get ahead. Bill is really no better, he helped put her in the precarious position she's in now. She's a devious little MONSTER. You think I'm wrong? Too bad, so sad. I have as much say in this as you do.
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 7 years
Here is more from CNN on the subject:"(CNN) — It's an idea that's increasingly getting kicked around, especially by one campaign in particular.The prospect of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama running on the same ticket has long been the subject of speculation, even before voters started weighing in at the polls earlier this year.But following Clinton's wins in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last week — a trifecta of victories that essentially salvaged her presidential hopes — the New York senator and her surrogates have repeatedly raised the issue themselves; raised it so often, in fact, that Obama made sure to shoot down the idea at a campaign event in Mississippi Monday."I want everybody to be absolutely clear," he said. "I'm not running for vice president. I'm running for president of the United States of America.""This kind of gamesmanship, talking about me as VP but not ready for commander-in-chief, that's exactly the kind of doublespeak, double-talk that Washington is very good at," Obama added.Obama isn't the only one who thinks Clinton has something up her sleeve when she raises the issue. CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley says the Illinois senator's campaign clearly recognizes its rival benefits from the increased speculation of a joint ticket."They understand that this is a way for the Clinton campaign to play some politics here," Crowley said. "If you suggest to voters, who might have some question about Barack Obama's experience, but they like his message of hope and change, that they could have both, and that maybe he could get eight years of seasoning, that's the suggestion here."Obama's comments Monday followed a week in which the prospect of a joint ticket was pushed by Clinton or a member of her campaign on at least four different occasions. Clinton herself raised the issue twice — once with a CBS interviewer on the morning after her March 4 primary wins, and on Friday during a campaign stop in Mississippi."I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you,'" she said. "Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 7 years
Here is more from CNN on the subject: "(CNN) — It's an idea that's increasingly getting kicked around, especially by one campaign in particular. The prospect of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama running on the same ticket has long been the subject of speculation, even before voters started weighing in at the polls earlier this year. But following Clinton's wins in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last week — a trifecta of victories that essentially salvaged her presidential hopes — the New York senator and her surrogates have repeatedly raised the issue themselves; raised it so often, in fact, that Obama made sure to shoot down the idea at a campaign event in Mississippi Monday. "I want everybody to be absolutely clear," he said. "I'm not running for vice president. I'm running for president of the United States of America." "This kind of gamesmanship, talking about me as VP but not ready for commander-in-chief, that's exactly the kind of doublespeak, double-talk that Washington is very good at," Obama added. Obama isn't the only one who thinks Clinton has something up her sleeve when she raises the issue. CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley says the Illinois senator's campaign clearly recognizes its rival benefits from the increased speculation of a joint ticket. "They understand that this is a way for the Clinton campaign to play some politics here," Crowley said. "If you suggest to voters, who might have some question about Barack Obama's experience, but they like his message of hope and change, that they could have both, and that maybe he could get eight years of seasoning, that's the suggestion here." Obama's comments Monday followed a week in which the prospect of a joint ticket was pushed by Clinton or a member of her campaign on at least four different occasions. Clinton herself raised the issue twice — once with a CBS interviewer on the morning after her March 4 primary wins, and on Friday during a campaign stop in Mississippi. "I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you,'" she said. "Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
</b>Sorry, that didn't post right--didn't mean for it to be all in bold!
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
Sorry, that didn't post right--didn't mean for it to be all in bold!
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
<b?"instantly be attacked by the Obama gestapo ready at the bat with quotes and articles."</b>With all due respect, those "quotes and articles" are being bandied about here because they are a) available, substantive evidence to back up Obama supporters' beliefs, and b) because the Obama supporters who bandy them about took the time to educate themselves about him, and hope to be able to educate others as well.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
With all due respect, those "quotes and articles" are being bandied about here because they are a) available, substantive evidence to back up Obama supporters' beliefs, and b) because the Obama supporters who bandy them about took the time to educate themselves about him, and hope to be able to educate others as well.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
<b>"For a woman centered website ya'll are some Hillary haters."</b>I've already said my piece on this in another post (and guestbook convo ;) ) but I have to say it again--the fact that she is a woman isn't going to make me vote for her just because she is a woman. There is enough in her record, her campaign strategies, and her past to disqualify her in my book, and not enough in her policy plans or record to get her over those humps. I don't dislike her because she is a woman. I dislike her because she has always seemed to me--and this is after taking the time to inform myself so that I would know which candidate I should support, based on my own beliefs of what will be good for this country--like nothing more than another dishonest, corrupt, secretive politician.The fact that she has gotten to where she is today primarily because of her husband, who in fact is a better campaigner for her now than she is for herself, also speaks strongly against the "vote for her because we need a woman president" argument, IMHO.<b>"I also think that people ignore/downplay the sexism against her."</b>I think there's actually been quite little of that, considering. Should she get the nomination, I'm sure we'll see much more nastiness--but do you remember how she was treated when she was First Lady? People mocked her figure (I remember quite a few "cankle" jokes), the way she dressed, that "baking cookies" bit she did--as far as being a woman candidate goes, she's actually being treated quite decently.Of course these are all just my opinions. But I'd think it's a little unfair to accuse those of us who are women and support Obama rather than Hillary of doing so because Hillary's a woman. I would be overjoyed to have the prospect of a woman president I could believe in. A woman president <b>I could believe in.</b> Not just any woman president.As I said to indie earlier, if Eva Braun ran for president, should we vote for her just because she's a woman? My lack of support for Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
"For a woman centered website ya'll are some Hillary haters." I've already said my piece on this in another post (and guestbook convo ;) ) but I have to say it again--the fact that she is a woman isn't going to make me vote for her just because she is a woman. There is enough in her record, her campaign strategies, and her past to disqualify her in my book, and not enough in her policy plans or record to get her over those humps. I don't dislike her because she is a woman. I dislike her because she has always seemed to me--and this is after taking the time to inform myself so that I would know which candidate I should support, based on my own beliefs of what will be good for this country--like nothing more than another dishonest, corrupt, secretive politician. The fact that she has gotten to where she is today primarily because of her husband, who in fact is a better campaigner for her now than she is for herself, also speaks strongly against the "vote for her because we need a woman president" argument, IMHO. "I also think that people ignore/downplay the sexism against her." I think there's actually been quite little of that, considering. Should she get the nomination, I'm sure we'll see much more nastiness--but do you remember how she was treated when she was First Lady? People mocked her figure (I remember quite a few "cankle" jokes), the way she dressed, that "baking cookies" bit she did--as far as being a woman candidate goes, she's actually being treated quite decently. Of course these are all just my opinions. But I'd think it's a little unfair to accuse those of us who are women and support Obama rather than Hillary of doing so because Hillary's a woman. I would be overjoyed to have the prospect of a woman president I could believe in. A woman president I could believe in. Not just any woman president. As I said to indie earlier, if Eva Braun ran for president, should we vote for her just because she's a woman? My lack of support for Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Latest Love
X