August 7th, 2007
05:22 PM ET
15 years ago

Giuliani predicts Clinton-Obama ticket

Giuliani predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket Tuesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The presidential nominations for each party won’t be determined for at least another six months, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is already predicting which candidates will ultimately compose the Democratic ticket: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - in that order.

Giuliani told the Daily Telegraph, a London newspaper, on Tuesday that he thinks Clinton will win the nomination and choose Obama as her running-mate because he "has had such a good showing and it's going to be very hard for her to deny him a place on the ticket."

Giuliani, who holds moderate stances on hot-button social issues such as abortion rights and gun control, also told the Telegraph he is the only GOP candidate who can beat Clinton in the general election.

"If you want to defeat Hillary Clinton, I would be the best person to do that because I can make this campaign nationwide," he said. "We can build it to have a chance of winning in New York and in New England and in California and Oregon – these are states where Republicans haven't even had a campaign for a long time."

Giuliani made the comments while campaigning in Iowa Tuesday.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential GOP presidential candidate, also predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket last week.

- CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

soundoff (65 Responses)
  1. Bill, Alabama

    Giuliani does have a dysfunctional family because he deserted both wife and his children, and while he was still married, moved his girlfriend into the mayor's mansion. That should make any family dysfunctional to have a husband and father like he is.

    August 7, 2007 04:11 pm at 4:11 pm |
  2. Michael, Oceanside, California

    I guess Rudy Guiliani listens to The Savage Nation because Michael Savage made that claim months ago.

    August 7, 2007 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  3. Tee, Minneapolis, MN

    I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be a very formidable one- one that blunts Clinton's presumed unfavorability rating and Obama's presumed inexperience. And how about making history: first woman/minority candidate?

    Even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time beating this ticket. Who is 911 Rudy Toody Fruddy again? He'll be lucky to get the Republican nomination. Stats show that 57% of republicans are unaware of his stance on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Once these fundamentals realize, Rudy will share the same fate as Howard Dean. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!

    August 7, 2007 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |
  4. kim portland, oregon

    dream on, giuliani, we oregonians are WAY too smart to believe all that America's Mayor!

    August 7, 2007 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |
  5. C.D. Jones

    if former Guiliani is predicting Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama....who is he predicting for himself? DUH!!!!

    August 7, 2007 04:31 pm at 4:31 pm |
  6. David, Columbus Oh.

    Giuliani is a sleaze ball, and will be lucky to even get the GOP nod with his background. I don't see how any GOP candidate can make it back into the White House in 2008 without having the election fixed after the putrid taste that dubya is leaving in everyone's mouths. We all know that can never, ever happen here in the U.S. of A.

    August 7, 2007 04:39 pm at 4:39 pm |
  7. crystalball

    You are a republican candidate. You want to win your party's nomination and ultimately the election to the presidency. Strategically, it would make sense for you to support the candidate that you think you would most likely defeat. In this case, Giuliani's prediction is a tacit acknowledgment that he believes his most formidable competition would be Obama. It would not make sense to make any predictions about a rival party's ticket unless you were trying to influence the outcome of their primaries to your advantage. For every prediction by a Republican (candidate or otherwise) of a Clinton-Obama ticket, it is a tacit admission that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be the least desirable primary outcome. Therefore, the collective consensus reality is indicating that an Obama-Clinton ticket is most likely to occur and the strongest outcome for the Democratic primary that would ensure election to the presidency.

    August 7, 2007 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  8. Kevin, Orlando, FL

    Hillary will not win the nomination.

    And Obama will not choose her and his VP.

    August 7, 2007 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  9. Lance, Monrovia, CA.

    Why must Hilary Clinton be the defacto candidate? If you ask me, Guiliani is scared of Barrack Obama, a force much more capable of bringing out a massive voter turn out than Clinton. Clinton would promote voter apathy and keep politics in the shadows instead of the mainstream, which is where the Republicans always strive.

    August 7, 2007 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  10. Patrick New York, NY

    I've lived in New York under "America's Mayor" for 8 years. Be sure, he's the ONLY candidate (of either party) who could potentially be worse than Bush. America can't afford another single-issue (terrorism) demagogue right now. His own family doesn't support him. He looks and sounds great on TV, but the truth is he's a poor decision-maker and if elected, will continue to push this great country even further in the wrong direction. Enough already.

    August 7, 2007 04:50 pm at 4:50 pm |
  11. Asad, Atlanta GA

    I predict a Cheney / DeLay ticket.

    August 7, 2007 04:50 pm at 4:50 pm |
  12. Sam Hensel, Northbrook, Illinois

    Rudy Giuliani (and Newt Gingrich, the other week) aren't paying attention. Obama said on David Letterman's show that he isn't interested in running for vice-president. Hillary Clinton may be winning by a large margin in national polls, but Obama is winning in South Carolina, barely in Iowa, and he is tied with Hillary in New Hampshire. These are the states that matter most. When Obama finally wins these three states, we will see a domino effect on all the states that follow. I'm confident Obama will win the nomination, and I hope he picks Russ Feingold or Tom Daschle as a running mate.

    August 7, 2007 04:52 pm at 4:52 pm |
  13. Lance, Monrovia, CA

    Why did EVERY Republican candidate for President, including Guliani bash Barrack Obama at their latest "debate" Sunday?

    Because they know he's got the most inevitable shot at being the next President. They want him out of the way.

    However, their response to Obama's comments shot themselves in the foot the same way Clinton did when she responded to him. They said that his comments about going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden whether Pakistan agreed to or not were "naive". They made themselves look like a bunch of whimps on their own favorite subject, the bogus "war on terror." I guess they all, including Clinton, were saying that they WOULD NOT go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, THE DUDE THAT ATTACKED US, without the permission of Pakistan.

    They look weak, Obama looks stong, actually, he looks like the only candidate with his head correctly screwed on.

    August 7, 2007 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  14. Simon, Richmond, VA

    The media wants Clinton to be the de facto candidate, Obama the movement candidate, and for them to get together in a big ol' celebrity candidate fluff-fest without ever discussing what either of them actually stand for.

    August 7, 2007 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  15. Kathe Oakland California

    HEATHER: Right on Ron Paul he is the MAN.
    And who is Giuliani to predict anything? And why not Obama-Clinton. And where do they get these polls. I have never been polled on any political issue. And I think it is funny CNN always put Clinton ahead no matter what.

    August 7, 2007 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  16. Jim, Reno, NV

    Ahh, the Republicans worst nightmare:-) I hope Rudy's right and then watch as Hillary and Barack leave the Republican sacrifical lamb in the dust. I hope the pro-war, pro-Bush neo-cons have a long, long, long eight years just as we who believe in honesty, truth and faith in our government have had.

    August 7, 2007 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm |
  17. Lance, Monrovia, CA.

    To Simon, just above this post...

    Have you not been paying attention to the debates and the various books of the various candidates you can get at the local library? (Yes, Republicans have failed to ban libraries, yet.)

    Read Audacity of Hope, read Clinton's book. Listen to the two of them speak. You'll start to notice key differences.

    Hillary is trying very hard not to upset the existing system. She believes in taking money from lobbyists and she agrees with several tenets of the "war on terror."

    Obama shuns lobbyists because as a newcomer to the Senate he's seen what tremendous money being thrown at politicians is doing to control the issues discussed. He has repeatedly, for years, since before any other candidate DARED to talk about it, said that the "war on terror" is a fear mongering tool to control the masses. He has said, quite correctly, that 9/11 was a heinous CRIMINAL ACT, not an Act of War, as Hilary has said.

    That right there is the fundamental difference between the two. Obama realizes that you cannot go to war in the conventional sense with terrorists, who have no loyalties to borders and no infastructure.

    On the flip side, Clinton is still exibiting a 90's sense of cold war mentality, the same US versus THEM mentality that Bush has crowed from every building top for six years.

    It is the difference between YESTERDAY and TOMORROW. A huge difference in cultural thinking and a world mentality versus an isolationist mentality.

    You cannot simply treat terrorists like we're at war, because the danger of being perpetually at war is the elimination of our rights, for good... not to mention the stress caused heart attacks of thinking that THE ENEMY is going to jump up from any rock.

    Clinton would be either intentionally or niavely drawn into the use terror to control the population and her agenda, Obama would use common sense to change the stereotypes and get people thinking rationally and constitutionally again, that's the main difference in my mind.

    August 7, 2007 05:18 pm at 5:18 pm |
  18. Anonymous, California

    Rudy has about the same odds of winning California in the general election as he does winning the lottery.

    It ain't going to happen.

    August 7, 2007 05:19 pm at 5:19 pm |
  19. Ken Cohen, Stamford, Connecticut

    If Giuliani were wise, he'd keep such opinions to himself. By opening his mouth he further demonstates that he has no class. Americans are tired of that. Clinton and Obama are formidable and knowledgeable candidates, superior to anyone on the Republican side and capable of leading this country back in the right direction, but in my opinion, the best of the group is John Edwards.

    August 7, 2007 05:24 pm at 5:24 pm |
  20. Micki Santa Clarita CA

    Hillary Clinton would be the absolute worst choice for the Dems to run as president. Not sure about Obama yet. I'm hoping that we can get some new blood to run who can bring this country back to what it once was and to honor what we stand for. I'm sick to death of the war in Iraq, the Social Security mess, the health care crisis, immigration, education and the lack (still) of rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These are all issues that need to be addressed and WHO is talking about them. I'll be listening!!

    August 7, 2007 05:30 pm at 5:30 pm |
  21. Trevor Wilson KC-MO

    Is the Republicans attempt to predict who the Democrat ticket is going to be some sort of shocker?! No, it is pretty obvious Hillary is 1 & Obama is 1a. The Republicans need to quit predicting & get down to business before our country goes to Socialism in front of our very eyes.

    August 7, 2007 05:55 pm at 5:55 pm |
  22. Julian, Winstonville, MS

    I agree that the Republicans are "predicting" a Clinton-Obama ticket as a strategy of keeping it in the media to achieve this desired outcome because they know that it would be the easiest ticket to beat. Clinton's high unfavoribility ratings would alienate crucial swing voters that would otherwise vote Democratic due to backlash against the Bush administration and the Iraq War. This implies, however, that John Edwards, not Barack Obama, as the ideal candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. I attended a forum with a group of campaign managers from Republican presidential campaigns and other Republican pundits and political professionals. They harped on Clinton and Obama constantly, but when I mentioned the prospect of Edwards gaining the nomination because of his strategy to take Iowa (where he leads in most polls) and to win subsequently in the other early primaries and caucuses, thereby giving him momentum for Super Tuesday, it was like I farted in the room. A large hush fell over the room, and Chip Saltsman, campaign manager for Mike Huckabee and others reluctantly admitted that an Edwards candidacy would be deleterious to their chances for the general election. Not only does Edwards have the more relevant and articulate message with the policy specificity to back it up, most caucus goers deem him as the most electable, and he is running the type of moderate populist campaign that most Democratic insiders predicted would win the nomination (which is why Sen. Evan Bayh opted not to run and is why Hillary Clinton's triangulation strategy will fail). He leads in most polls in Iowa, where if he wins, it will have a domino effect like John Kerry's win in 2004 because the primaries are so close together. And no disrespect to Obama, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. The fact that a huge majority of Democrats and liberals (read – primary and caucus voters) believe a white male will get the nomination, the fact that the percentage of people willing to elect a black man as President has dropped precipitously since January, and the fact that Obama's inexperience is very legitimate as demonstrated by his posturing on issues and his vague policy preferences, call his electability into grave question. Besides, and I know nobody wants to hear this, but there will be people who simply won't vote for him because he is black, further affecting his electability. It's better anyway. He sacrificed his principled reasoning and judgment (at first, he was going to fulfill his full Senate term believing that he needed to focus on the needs of his constituents and the country and that his celebrity was an illusion and that he was not ready to run for higher office) for ambition. He is simply not ready to be President. But John Edwards is, despite what the "unbiased" media and the Republicans say.

    August 7, 2007 06:12 pm at 6:12 pm |
  23. Julian, Winstonville, MS

    And by the way, the national polls and some of the state polls can be misleading. Those polls are based primarily on name recognition, which is why Clinton and Obama are so far ahead. And also, the majority of the voters polled are still trying to decide on their choice. Take New Hampshire, for example. 64% of New Hampshire primary voters are still trying to decide on their choice. But when polls are conducted to see which nominee voters would choose, only 9% mark undecided. That is because the way the polling is done, voters who are undecided are more likely to choose the person they know when asked who they would vote for. So don't believe the hype.

    August 7, 2007 06:17 pm at 6:17 pm |
  24. Lance, Monrovia, CA

    Trevor, you just posted, "The Republicans need to quit predicting & get down to business before our country goes to Socialism in front of our very eyes.
    Posted By Trevor Wilson KC-MO

    Goes to Socialism? In what sense? Are you talking about socialized medicine?

    What about socialized law? Every criminal has a right to an attorney, why shouldn't every family have a right to a doctor?

    What about socialized mail? Have you recieved a letter lately Trevor? Pretty damn social, isn't it? Yep, that damn Post Office is down right communist.

    Oh, let's not forget The Fire Dept. That is the epitome of Socialized goods and services provided by the goverment.

    I think maybe you're right Trevor, let's de-socialize the fire dept.

    I just hope you live in Beverly Hills instead of Compton, because Beverly Hills would get all the good fire engines and the rest of the city would burn for lack of funds.

    That's basically what's happening to our health care system. I know this first hand that your health all comes down to profits and how much money you have to care for yourself.

    The fact that we live in the richest country on the planet and people are constantly losing their life savings because of illness, is a crime against humanity.

    I say do what Obama or Edwards suggests, let the private insurance companies compete with a "socialized goverment medical system."

    If you want to keep paying an arm and a leg for coverage you can never use for fear of such rates going up or being canceled, go for it. We'll see which system wins out.

    Bottom line, you're living in a socialized system, the scary kind, when you can't take a day off or get hurt for fear you'll lose your job and be homeless. That's scary!

    August 7, 2007 06:19 pm at 6:19 pm |
  25. JMP, Chicago, Illinois

    Giuliani is playing the race card. It is the Mafia's best way to tell Americans that "look here folks, it is a Woman and a Black man" going to lead this country, even though he knows Clinton will never pick Obama for running-mate. He is going to loose to Thomson.

    August 7, 2007 06:38 pm at 6:38 pm |
1 2 3