February 4th, 2008
09:30 PM ET
9 years ago

Clinton chairman: Obama would be good running mate

(CNN) - One of Hillary Clinton's top advisers said Monday Barack Obama could make a good running mate if the New York senator is the Democratic Party's nominee.

Appearing on NY1's "Inside City Hall," Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe praised Barack Obama’s ability to “excite people,” adding that Clinton “needs to make sure the next, whoever the next vice president is, could take over if anything happened to her” - though he said it was too early to seriously discuss potential vice presidential picks.

When he was asked directly whether adding Obama to a Clinton ticket would be a good idea, he responded: “Sure it would. Absolutely. How could you deny consideration of someone who has excited so many people?”

NY1 is owned by Time Warner, the parent company of CNN.

At CNN's debate in Los Angeles Thursday, both candidates were asked about the possibility of a joint ticket, regardless of who held the top spot – a suggestion that prompted cheering from the audience. Both suggested it was too early to discuss potential running mates.

-CNN's Alexander Mooney

soundoff (702 Responses)
  1. Pennsylvania

    If Obama gets it, MCCAIN HAS MY VOTE!!!!!!!!!

    February 5, 2008 12:24 am at 12:24 am |
  2. Rob

    Some of you Hillary-idiots are sipping this Kool-Aid. Obama won't subject himself to Hillary and Bill's domineering and dysfunctional issues for 4 yrs.

    This is a ploy to get you dummies to vote for her, thinking Obama will have a VP shot, then she switches to Sen. Evan Bayh or Gov. Tom Vilsack. The 'safe' compliant white male that can't be picked out in a crowded room.

    But nevermind that, she has to get the nomination 1st. And by the look of things.....not gonna happen. With more time, people will remember what she and Bill really are.

    February 5, 2008 12:26 am at 12:26 am |
  3. Melissa

    I just received a nasty automated phone call from the Obama campaign saying completely false things about Clinton. For a campaign that claims to be taking the high road, this is really disgusting. This convinces me that Obama is even sleazier than the rest, particularly because he pretends to be so morally righteous.

    February 5, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  4. Claire (Albany NY)

    A criterion I use when selecting a presidential candidate is to ask myself "Which one would I most trust to handle a crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11? When our very survival as a nation is at risk, whom do I think would have the best grasp on the situation and the temperment to best handle it?

    February 5, 2008 12:30 am at 12:30 am |
  5. me

    To Rechi and all of the others who speak of Obama's lack of experience...he has MORE experience than the chameleon he is running against. He has 11 years of elected experience – she only has her senate years as experience – being First Lady doesn't count. Remember she was shut out when she made her big power play during HIS presidency.

    As someone who hires people on a regular basis and is very successful with the candidates I hire, I will always hire someone with less experience and the desire and drive to succeed over a know-it-all with experience.

    I truly believe Obama will win this nomination as time goes on. He deserves the chance to unite this country – she cannot do it and is too sure that she is right about everything to even try. She will try and bulldoze her "perfect" opinions through congress and get nowhere. We do not need another narcicist as president – George Bush was enough.

    February 5, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  6. Steve

    You know, all of you Obama supporters better wake up and realize that if Hillary DOES get the nomination, she's going to get trounced by McCain in the general election. That is, unless she has Obama as a running mate. My point is, if Hillary gets the nomination and names Obama as her running mate, you have a choice to make; Hillary or another Republican. Unless you want McCain as your new president, don't NOT vote for Hillary just because she's married to Bill.

    February 5, 2008 12:33 am at 12:33 am |
  7. Mati

    Lade February 4, 2008 9:38 pm ET
    it would be alot better if Obama as president and AL Gore as Vice rather than Clinton…

    Lade, aren't you something? Gore the VP for Obama? Are you all idiots? If America ends up in another 4 years of darkness, the Clintons and Gore should just go and do anything else than public service in a country of idiots. If so many of you cannot see the policy emptiness of Obama, there is no hope. This guy is an orator not even capable to write his own speeches.

    February 5, 2008 12:35 am at 12:35 am |
  8. Obama "Groupies" are absolutely nauseating

    Hello, All – I’m an African American, college educated woman who is ABSOLUTELY flabbergasted by the shear insanity of the “Obama skewed” press coverage that I’ve witnessed for the past 3 weeks!!! Moreover, I’m TRULY disgusted with the CNN and MSNBC since they’ve all but coronated Obama – Why should we even bother to vote??? The media has already determined that Obama will be the Democratic nominee…
    However, I’m even more sickened by the droves of mindless “Obama lemmings” who are lost in the rapturous, sickeningly flowery rhetoric that Obama spews about “changing politics as usual” – Although his Senate voting record is almost IDENTICAL to that of Hillary Clinton’s. So exactly what change is Obama offering ???
    Secondly, it was Oprah Winfrey who initially played the “race card” by comparing Obama’s message (and deeds?) to Martin Luther King. Clearly, Oprah’s either lost her mind, or she has forgotten the GENUINE PERSONAL SACRIFICES that Dr. King made in order to shape the history of our country. You see, Dr. King was inspirational, but he was also a man of ACTION whose struggles pale in comparison to the pitiful record of public service that Obama has displayed thus far. Moreover, it was the “Obama camp” that kept stoking the fires regarding the “race card”. More specifically, didn’t any of you “Obama drones” notice that not a single prominent African American Leader or Politician speak out against Bill Clinton’s “supposed” racially offensive statements??? Please note the following:

    1. Jesse Jackson said that he DID NOT find any of Bill Clintons remarks offensive

    2. We didn’t hear any vigorous outcry from Al Sharpton (a perpetual media hog)

    3. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, we heard NOTHING from the members of the Black Congressional Caucus – AND THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES…
    So once again, CNN, MSNBC, and the Obama spin doctors managed to “bumped your heads”, and you fell for it…How sad and pathetic.

    Thirdly, I’d love for one of you brain dead “Obama groupies” to enumerate his supposed qualifications for being President…Thus far, all that I’ve heard is his monotonous repetition of his initial opposition the Iraq war. Is there anything else??? If so, then I’m equally qualified to be President, since I also opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning…

    Consequently, I invite each of you “Obama droids” make your case for Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency of the United Sates…Please compare his (glaring) sparse accomplishments to those of Senator Clinton, and explain your twisted, moronic rationalization for supporting Obama.

    Finally, I’m absolutely nauseated by the fact that “60 second sound bites” from CNN and MSNBC, along with Obama’s poetic rhetoric has replaced critical thought and careful review of Obama’s qualifications…Please, try to start thinking for yourselves instead of making decisions based on “60 second sound bites” from CNN and MSNBC.

    February 5, 2008 12:35 am at 12:35 am |
  9. UWBizKid

    Once again I know you won't post this because you never do...

    Two years ago the company I worked for hired a guy to be my boss because he had a lovely degree and no experience. Today he is looking for a new job because despite that lovely degree he had no experience which is what the company needed. Now they want me to do that job. The answer to that is NO THANK YOU! Burn me once shame on you Burn me twice shame on me.

    Hillary Clinton has the education, background, experience, wisdom and YES MORAL AUTHORITY to take office. We know nothing of Obama. CNN ran nothing about the connections according to the New York Times on his contributions from Exalon and the watered down legislation he touts regarding the self policing of nuclear waste dumping! The out and out misrepresentations he is making regarding the Maytag and Whirlpool employees and the Unions who are frankly fed up with his USING them.

    Then there is his talking ot of both sides of his mouth on the gun issue to people in Idaho on the stump. And what about his saying well I can't be responsible for a form my "staff" filled out when he clearly said in a debate he will abdicate his responsibility to staff beause he is just a "cheerleader." Wash't George Bush a cheerleader? Didn't we just have that and don't we want to get rid of that? Are people so blind?

    Today I listend to Jack Nicholson who is a brilliant actor and these people always stay out of hte fray. Why? Because they don't want to mix into politics when it matters that people have the opportunity to make up their own mind. But why did he stand up for Hillary Clinton? Because he sees it as it is. A bunch thoughtless ignorant reporters who couldn't get it right during Iraq, and you know what, Barack Obama, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS GIVE A SPEECH.



    February 5, 2008 12:35 am at 12:35 am |
  10. Fernando

    Obama/Edwards would be the true ticket. I believe that those two really want change. I'm not a Dem., I'm in Independent and if Hillary wins then I'll stay home during the general elections. I believe a lot of people will be to. So if the Dems really want the White House they better wise up and nominate Obama because he is truly the only one that can get there because he has the support of not only Dems, but of Independents like me and moderate Reps.

    February 5, 2008 12:36 am at 12:36 am |
  11. Daniel B

    Barack could say he'd have to ask Al Gore for advice on that one . . .

    February 5, 2008 12:37 am at 12:37 am |
  12. livingstone

    That will be the best thing that will happen for the democratic party – Clinton/Obama ticket – Patience is the key Obama , accept the VP and wait for your time. you are not yet experinced .

    February 5, 2008 12:37 am at 12:37 am |
  13. Lynne

    There is a big difference between a dream ticket and a winning ticket. While Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton might be a dream ticket in the minds of Democrats, it is a completely unelectable ticket from a regional perspective. Whoever gets the nomination needs a southerner as the VP. There are plenty of southern governors and senators to choose from. Clinton and a popular southern male governor would be a winning ticket, not an ivy league white woman and an ivy league black man from the northeast/midwest. We need the VP to be an up from his bootstraps southerner.

    February 5, 2008 12:37 am at 12:37 am |
  14. a

    Obama supporters are such babies. I keep hearing if their candidate does not get the nomination they are voting republican. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Maybe these people are stupid or just ignorant.

    Have you taken a look at Obama's and Hilary's voting records? They are practically identical. If you actually read about their views on different issues, there isn't too much of a difference. Sure they have some plans that differ slightly but their main views are very similiar.

    Voting for McCain or Romney is a complete switch from voting for someone like Obama. I actually like Obama and Hilary and think both offer a fresh perspective. I will support whoever wins the nomination because I know they are both good choices. I also know that they hold alot of the same views.

    February 5, 2008 12:38 am at 12:38 am |
  15. puzzled

    Its interesting to me how the clinton tactic of pitting experiance vs. inexperiance is working with the public. has anyone ever stopped to think what exactly she is talking about when she says "35 yrs of experiance?" As what? First Lady? does that qualify her for the presidency anymore than Obama?

    fired up, ready to go

    Obama 08

    February 5, 2008 12:38 am at 12:38 am |
  16. Mike

    Obama reads a nice speech, nothing more, nothing less!

    February 5, 2008 12:39 am at 12:39 am |
  17. Susan L.

    No way. I highly doubt Barack Obama wants to play 3rd wheel to Hillary's real running mate, Bill Clinton. The talk of getting Obama on the ticket as a running mate is condescending, arrogant, and not going to work. The idiots (sorry, that really is what you are) who go on about Obama not having any experience at all should take a look at his years as a community organizer, his years as a civil rights lawyer and Constitutional Law lecturer, his years as a State Senator, plus his years in the U.S. Senate. All totaled, Obama actually has MORE years in elected office than Hillary Clinton who's experience is about 80% by osmosis from hanging around Bill.

    Listening to the Clinton supporters lecture and talk down to people is a major turnoff. If I would ever even have considered voting for Hillary in the general election, your condescending and snotty behavior would convince me to stay home or vote 3rd Party. Hillary Clinton will lose in November, no matter what happens during Primary Season.

    February 5, 2008 12:42 am at 12:42 am |
  18. Wil

    Why are so many Obama supporters responding withOUT reading the whole article? There are so many comments about how the article marginalizes Obama and how the Clinton Campaign keeps throwing cheap shots. If you RE-READ the article you will see that it states "When he was asked directly" – which means the interviewer kept pressing for an answer. I am a Democrat who will vote for McCain (or even Mitt Romney) in the unlikely event that Obama gets the nomination. And it will be for the simple reason that charisma is not enough reason to hand over the presidency.

    February 5, 2008 12:42 am at 12:42 am |
  19. jon

    Wow, Clinton is just as slick as her husband. Do Americans really fall for this stuff? Her main argument against Obama is that he's too inexperienced....and yet apparently he's ready enough to take over the job if something should happen to her?

    February 5, 2008 12:42 am at 12:42 am |
  20. Mike

    Yeah baby, vote for the Clintons 'cause you'll get Obama too! This is what a manager would do, hire an employee who can manage better than he (or she) can...

    February 5, 2008 12:43 am at 12:43 am |

    the fact that people would change their vote from obama in the primary, and then vote for mccain if hillary wins is STUPID! are you even listening to what they have to say? hmmm 100 more years of war draining our country of money and resources or leaving asap – clinton and obama have similar ideas, and it is just plain ignorant to say anything else.

    read their platforms. get beyond the warm and fuzzy and read the platforms. be informed voters, and then if you hate the policies, hate the candidates, but enough of the tit for tat hatred.

    and women, i'm not saying you have to vote for hillary, but just take note of everything being said about her – emotional, not a strong leader, blah blah blah – and they will say it about the next woman running...and the next woman running. think long and hard on why you don't like hillary – and if it's just b/c it's trendy to hate her, then think again. she's strong, smart, and super capable. all she needs is our votes to transform this nation. YES SHE CAN

    February 5, 2008 12:43 am at 12:43 am |
  22. jon

    Dear Rechi...you must be either so loyal that you're willing to distort their records of experience, or you're just as incredibly stupid as you claim Obama's supporters are. The record CLEARLY shows that Obama is at the very least just as experienced as Clinton, perhaps more so. If you genuinely don't know this, please do a little research, google this: "Obama experience" and see what you find.

    February 5, 2008 12:45 am at 12:45 am |
  23. Lucy

    The thing is, it's possible for Obama to be Clinton's VP, but an Obama-Clinton ticket would completely fall apart, because of their respective messages. Obama has campaigned thus far saying that experience is somehow contradictory to change, and therefore could not elect Clinton as his VP without contradicting himself. However, Clinton has campaigned differently, saying change is possible and even benefitted by experience, but has not said that a fresh perspective like that of Obama's would counteract her experience (that just doesn't make any sense after all).

    My point: If you want the "dream ticket" vote for Clinton.

    February 5, 2008 12:46 am at 12:46 am |
  24. brian

    If you were getting a root canal, would you go for someone who had trained a little bit, or would you pick someone who had done some root canals. Would you pick someone who decided on his own, to perform a root canal in an untested way that he says would be better? Or would you go with the dentist who has done many, tried different methods, and found the best way to do it? Would you go with the one who says "let's hope it works?"

    February 5, 2008 12:46 am at 12:46 am |
  25. livingstone

    I question those who claim they will vote for the republicans if Obama does not get the ticket or is choosen as a VP . it shows that most of them are not true democrats. How many of the Clinton supports have you heard saying they will vote for the republicans if she does not get the ticket. this shows the level of insincerity and level of commitment of most of us in the democratic party. let true democrats rise up to the challange and vote for substance and reality and nort rehtorics . Nobody should fall peril to statments like cross voting . we will win in Nov all thanks to George bush and the economy .

    February 5, 2008 12:48 am at 12:48 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29