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. Don

    I think that Obama on the Clinton ticket would hurt her chances. I certainly would not have a problem with a Black President or Vice President for that matter, but this country still is still racial divided on this issue.

    February 5, 2008 04:21 pm at 4:21 pm |
  2. jp

    Obama is so much more "presidential" than Hillary. And he has as much experience as Bill had when he first ran.

    February 5, 2008 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  3. Adam S

    So, the Hillary campaign does not think Obama is ready to be president, but he can be a vice president????

    Now, if something were to happen to President Rodham-Clinton, it would be okay to have this man, who is not ready to be presdent, become President?

    February 5, 2008 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  4. Please.

    It's like if last week they asked Eli to be Brady's backup. I don't think so.

    February 5, 2008 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  5. Dale

    We would expect nothing less from some political hack who is still on the Clinton payroll.

    February 5, 2008 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  6. Jeff

    Hey Media,

    How is it that during the last presidential election military experience was the most important issue of the day? Millions were spent by 527's to destroy John Kerry, and Dan Rather gave up his career y being caught red handed forcing false documents on the public aimed at George Bush. ( Geez Dan, nobody on your crack staff realized they didn't have laser printers 30 years ago?) All we heard was military, military, military. Yet now, no one ever mentions the word. Gee, I wonder why? "Uh, Senator Obama, can you tell us about your experiences during the war? Uh, ok well Senator Clinton, maybe you can tell us what you did during the Tet offensive?" This can not be buried forever, beleive me McCain will be polishing his medals with Hillary's scarf in no time flat.

    February 5, 2008 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm |
  7. G

    Yahhh, I think we would sooner see a McCain/Obama ticket before we see a Clinton/Obama ticket. NO worries, though. Looks like this race is going to kill, or at least incapacitate Hillary and Obama will be the nominee. Hillary can't stop crying or coughing. What next, uncontrollable vomiting?

    February 5, 2008 05:16 pm at 5:16 pm |
  8. MJ North Mississippi

    Dear arains.

    The democrats lost the election after Clintons" 8 years because there was no candidate except for Al Gore.

    February 5, 2008 05:19 pm at 5:19 pm |
  9. Taco32

    Hillary = Socialist, Scheming, mess
    Don't vote for someone just because of their gender

    Obama = Cotton Candy, No substance, was handing out tractor licenses
    a few years ago=no experience. But he wants Hope and Progress and
    Sunshine-show me something, what are we hoping for? How will you get it?
    Don't vote for someone just because they speak well!!!

    February 5, 2008 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm |
  10. Hard Core GOPer

    Why would a "true believer" like Obama want to cover himself with all that sleaze from eights years of non-stop scandal? It's time to send a final blow to the Clinton slime machine. Vote for Barack and end it!

    February 5, 2008 05:29 pm at 5:29 pm |
  11. Bonnie NYC

    There goes the Clinton handlers' arrogance again. The Clintons are overrated and people forget all the shady things they did the last time they occupied the White House. Please free us of these 2 scourges Please....

    February 5, 2008 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  12. Bonnie NYC

    Barack would have to be very deluded to ever be on a ticket with her. She would him the job of carrying her water and luggage. He is much too talented to wanted to be anywhere near those 2 frauds.

    February 5, 2008 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  13. Rudy C

    Hillary (via her henchman Terry) is pretty much telling Obama: "Get to the back of the bus, boy".

    February 5, 2008 06:08 pm at 6:08 pm |
  14. TomW

    I keep seeing talk of "change," "hope" and "experience" – these are just buzz words that mean nothing.

    Change what, exactly? Not all change is good. Change needs to be defined somehow.

    Hope in what? Just generic hope? I hope I don't get hit by a meteor? I hope this presidential candidate with NO experience won't screw up the country too bad?

    Experience? PLEASE... neither of them has any experience. NEITHER. Mrs. Clinton's experience is she was married to the President. That's like letting your surgeon's wife cut open your chest because she hears him talk about it all the time.

    February 5, 2008 06:18 pm at 6:18 pm |
  15. Hugh Jorgan

    McAuliffe is a fraud. He wants to be Commerce Secretary and will say and or do anything to get the job. He should not be taken seriously.

    February 5, 2008 06:18 pm at 6:18 pm |
  16. mike

    no more Clintons, no more Bushes!!!!

    February 5, 2008 06:35 pm at 6:35 pm |
  17. christine

    oh please, of course clinton, inc would say that cuz they're LOSING now. I doubt obama would ask her to be his VP....she would try and take over the whole show from him.

    February 5, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  18. Mike

    Man there is some hate going on in this thread. I love some of the comments being made, research not being done and the most heinous grammatical errors I have ever seen. Barack is spelled this way, Hillary is spelled this way and Bush is spelled this way. We love to fight over the do's and dont's of our leaders but we can't even spell their names. All of you need to read, do a little research and stop watching television. I love hoe "informed" decisions are being based on what CNN said today or what AOL said yesterday. If you really want to know what each candidate is about, Google the National Archives and look it up, it's all available under the "open records law" of our country. If anyone is concerned about the political spin of CNN, MSNBC or any of the countless others you need go no further than who owns those companies. Ted Turner for 1 has been a DNC supporter for 50 years. There was a post further back about Trent Lott taking over something or another. This is exactly what I'm talking about, any informed person would know he retired about 4 months ago. And the constant bickering back and forth over who has experience, give me a break. If you people were really concerned with experience, which is what Clinton's camp seems to be riding on, you would all currently be deciding between Richardson and Biden. Wake up people and smell the coffee. This election is going to go 1 of 2 ways. It's either going to be McCain against Obama and it's going to be a tight race or it's going to be McCain against Clinton and it's going to be a blowout. Let's look at the facts. Obama is a democrat's democrat, inexperienced yes but follows party lines. With Obama you get (nearly) all the democratic vote and a large majority of the Independent vote and can pull off this election. With Clinton you get the Right leaning Democratic vote but you lose the left Democratic vote, the crossover Republican vote and the majority of the Independent vote. There is not enough disparity in numbers between the Rep party and the Dem party to make that a winnable election for her. McCain is the achilles heel because he crosses party lines and will pick up some Dem votes (as seen in this thread) as well as the Independent vote and all of the Republican vote (in all seriousness his shallow conservative stance will not keep his party from electing him over her). Now you can disagree with me all day long but the facts are the facts.

    February 5, 2008 06:51 pm at 6:51 pm |
  19. steve

    Obama as a VP with Clinton, what a way to distroy any chances now if people thought that was a posibility he is done-for. He is a lot smarter than a mad dog street fighter like Clinton.

    February 5, 2008 07:21 pm at 7:21 pm |
  20. Al

    Obama/Clinton?? Lets see, far left and further left? Dems really dont want the White House do they? Both are extreme left, dont dems ever learn?

    February 5, 2008 07:25 pm at 7:25 pm |
  21. thc

    yeah stalin and hitler running on the democratic ticket could not even dream of things these two are suggesting. but why not, neither of them live in the real world, they live in fantasy government world. plus the clinton body count isnt that high yet, what 30 some people including body guards all end up dead who were close to the clintons?
    google "clinton body count"

    February 5, 2008 07:34 pm at 7:34 pm |
  22. G


    I take issue with your post. Those who make the biggest issue out of spelling and grammar always seem to lack any real substance and don't inform much. Of course we can inform ourselves fro CNN, MSDNBC, Fox News...etc. We don't actually have to go to the National Archive. But it makes sense that someone who zeros in on spelling and grammar would want to attempt to appear uber-informed by name dropping the "national archive.

    Also, the word "how" is spelled H O W, not H O E.

    I also doubt that your use of the "Achilles Heel" phrase was appropriate. Give that an Achilles heel is defined as a fatal weakness in spite of overall strength, actually or potentially leading to downfall. So I'm not sure McCain could be that for the reason that you specified.

    It really is important to bring more to the table if you want to criticize the thread participants at large.

    February 5, 2008 07:47 pm at 7:47 pm |
  23. Sen. Macapinlac(D-CA)

    It wouldn't be wise to pick a VP who would overshadow the top of the ticket...

    February 5, 2008 07:49 pm at 7:49 pm |
  24. koffi101

    To Rechi I guess I could be incredibly loyal, to Obama that is. First question, how can you get experience if no one employs you? second question what does experience have to do with it, eg. Bush 2 term, Bill Clinton's 2 term, both were huge dissapointments. Third question when you get promoted to a new postion how do you know you are ready for the job? answer, you don't, point is you never know what you are ready for until you embrace the task. I'm down for Barack all the way,I mean what is the worst he can do? steal from another country and cause a fight, ooops Bush already did that. GOOOOOOOO Baaammmma

    February 5, 2008 07:51 pm at 7:51 pm |
  25. John, Kansas

    If we truly wish to beat McCain in the general election, it has got to be someone who has the "experience" working with Washington, i.e. Sen. Clinton, not someone who is running without the knowledge and experience of working within the system. Think about it, the last time we tried that was Jimmy Carter, and to be honest, that didn't go so well for the Democratic party.....we ended up with 12 years of Republican rule, plus 8 more years on top of that because of the residual power that Bush swayed. This being said, Sen. Obama would, at this point, make a wonderful number two on the ticket and a great heir apparent for Clinton.

    February 5, 2008 07:53 pm at 7:53 pm |
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