Ok, so Obama/Clinton- Yes or No?

I don't mind- let's finish this damn race once and for all and offer her the VP spot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on the Clintons during the '90s, calling them murderers. It's as vile as any of the nonsense Pat Robertson peddled.

Obama needs her to win in November. Whether or not she's on the ticket -- and I believe his best chance of winning the GE is to have her on the ticket -- he needs her support, and her supporters, to win the GE.

And this sort of post by one of his supporters does not help.

He would never be able to turn his back on her.

:headbang:
rocknation

Both candidates are corporate-friendly centrists. If anything, the biggest disadvantage of the compromise ticket is because they are so similar. Obama/Murray or Obama/Webb might be equally good.

NO! It would betray all those who really demand change.

we don't need to worry about what she'll do next to get the presidency,
especially when Obama is in that office.

For many different reasons that I can think of.

But to be nice, he needs a really experienced running mate. For all the "experience" that Hillary claimed, she really doesn't have what he needs to help him.

And that's my *nice* reason. :-)

with the race baiting and the Obama bashing and Obama wanted her on the ticket, I could see it,otherwise Hell No!

The nominee gets to choose the runningmate.

There are a lot of good pragmatic reasons for Obama to choose Hillary, but it's his choice.

.

It's important to maintain the moderate and conservative members of the party. She represents that. She's got brand name and would be a decent successor for Obama.

Absolutely, yes.

No Clintons on this ticket, or any ticket in the future. Cut the head off the DLC snake and watch it die.

Edwards strengthens Obamas numbers among white, middle class, rural, conservative Democrats.
And, it helps to refocus his campaign on THE most important issue for most voters...their pocketbooks.

Edwards' progressive populist message blended with Obamas time for change/a new kind of politics would utterly destroy McCain.

Edwards will help Obama focus on the issues and not get distracted by the um.. well.. distractions

Clinton and Obama do not stand a chance against the GOP spin machine.

Due to the ignorance of Democrats who have stuck their heads in the sand during this campaign, we have dwindled down to two people who will guarantee a huge Republican turn out to keep "that woman" or "that black man" out of office.

I'm hearing it now. The Republicans do not like McCain, and they do not want a continuation of the Bush Administration, but they will vote for him to ensure a Dem does not take office.

Instead of doing what's best for our country, we decided to make history instead. And we certainly will, but it won't be a bright spot in history, that's for sure. Some of us know better, those of you who are so gleeful over Obama's success enjoy it while it lasts. You're going to be licking your wounds in November and wondering WTF happened.

The reason "negative campagning" has any impact whatsoever is that it feeds voter antipathy, not voter empathy. Even on DU, we hear the repeated refrain that we're supposed to vote AGAINST McCain. (I've yet to see a ballot with an 'AGAINST' column.)

Over and over and over again in 2004-2005 I heard folks say "but Kerry would be even worse." Cheney/Bush is an indefensible choice. People voted their antipathy. Swiftboating worked.

Thus, a sizable portion of the electorate looks at a ticket and combines the NEGATIVES - their "unfavorable" opinions - NOT the positives. Baggage ... it's cumulative.

I wouldn't want to do that to Obama.

We need a VP that compliments Obama's positives, strengthens his appeal and boosts him in areas where he has less support .

of everything he stands for and the change we all want to see in D.C. She is a dangerous liability.

In addition, this would be another EIGHT years of Clintons.. then she would run for President again. Do we REALLY want to add another 16 years of the terror and Division of Clintons? I think not.

for aaaalllllllll the reasons cited in this thread. it is worse than jfk/lbj.

would neuter her effectively in D.C. VP's don't have all that much power and they are forced to live in an observatory...it would remove her from the Senate except in ties.

to a nice soft room.

...if they could convincingly bury the hatchet and acquire some unity.

But I'm not a big fan of Clinton herself, and even less so of dynasties, so I would prefer another veep.

seems closed minded. Elaborate.

Their style of politics is too different. No.

1. She has nearly bush-like negatives.

2. She has shown she has NO PROBLEM with the politics of personal destruction. Putting her on the ticket is impossible.

chances are she would be a drag on the ticket.

Quote by Nance Greggs.

Hillary on the ticket would do damage to Obama's chances in the Fall.

Wesley Clark would be a good choice. Hillary supporter, brings a lot to the table re national security/military affairs.

Hillary as VP would mobilize the crazies in the GOP nearly as much as if she were at the top of the ticket.

- as

his own campaign message.

.

and then not have a change VP.

Sebelius is the most logical choice.

she would bring to the ticket. There are plenty of "Democrats" that haven't scorched the earth.

wants to feel cold steel in his back for four years. :shrug: He would be insane to make her VP.

We need to clean house, and the Clintons come with too much baggage and proably owing too many favors from Bill's escapades.