I like Hillary well enough, but I do not want her as Obama's veep

I think both Clintons did a bit of shark jumping this cycle. True, enough, this whole notion of a former first spouse running for the top job is uncharted territory, as is a woman doing it, as is a non white person doing it. So we have no real benchmark to know what's right and what's not. Both camps acted like ..... well ...... political campaigns. The candidates stood on the high road and had their surrogates and operatives fling shit.

But the Clintons went a bit over the top. And in my view they came off as pathetic.

So now we have various serious groups, camp followers, court jesters and village idiots ginning up a Hillary for Veep campaign. The logic is all over the lot, but the most sensible of it holds that it would help unite the party. This is the only argument that I can even start to buy into. I can't go all the way with it, but I can start to buy it.

So lets follow that logic out a bit. The underlying concept is that the party needs healing and a ticket that represents both camps will help with that.

I don't think so. It seems a very thinly veiled forced attempt at placation. So thin as to be seen easily as a sham.

If the notion of a healing ticket that represents both camps is what we need (I'm not sure it is), then we would be far better off with other than one of the principals. A Clinton supporter would be a good idea.

But who does she have left? Most of them have bus tire marks on their backs.

But the idea of a Clinton surrogate as Obama's veep is not such a dumb thing.

For me that keeps coming up Wesley Clark.

I had the highest respect for him until he chose to endorse Clinton. I saw no upside whatever to his having done that and his stock in my eyes went down a bit as a result. But he's still the same guy. A member of every 08 candidate's short list, going back to the very early days when we had a whole gaggle of 08 candidates.

If not Clark, then the veep needs to be someone outside Clinton's circle.

And at that point, all I know is .......

...... anybody but Sibelius.

Sebelius? Anyway, I didn't know until just recently that her father had been governor of Ohio. That's one point in her favor IF she could bring Ohio into the dem column.

I also like Richardson.

Republicans always said, and it really hurts to admit that.

Would that effect your vote?

Not mine. It's really only a recent development that VeePs have any real power... Cheney isn't what a VeeP should be.

I'd still vote for Obama, if he gets the nom and if Hillary is his choice for VeeP. Their platforms aren't all that different... I'm sure he could find plenty of things for her to do that he would be in agreement with.

I don't think it's such a big deal.

I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican

despite reservations posted by others on this site.

doesn't realize the pitfalls. If he does go with her, it would be a shock. I'd question his motives and sanity after this campaign.

When Clark jumped aboard, it was just months after he'd concluded he couldn't raise enough money for his own campaign. Why didn't Clark jump in anyway (a la Biden or Dodd) and run an upstart campaign? Because that isn't his style. Clark is a winner; he has a winner's mentality. When it came time to join up or get out of the way, he went with the most likely winner. Remember that 8 months ago the common wisdom was that Clinton's lead & money made her advantages all but insurmountable. Clark, true to form, went with the winner.

For people like him--a bureaucrat by training, not a risk-taker--political choices are about getting things done. The only way to affect the outcome is to sign up with the winner. That was how he was going to get his agenda met: a safe country, a secured national reputation, a restored Bill of Rights. I faulted his choice, but never his motives, never his character. I disagreed with his candidate, but his politics were responsibly risk-averse and well executed.

Unlike, say, Representative Ferraro, Clark has conducted his advocacy of Democrat Clinton for being our shared party's nominee with dignity, charm, vigor, and character. He never lost perspective even while the Deans and McAuliffe's of the party were eager to see a decision closed. He's kept faith with the core principles of a deliberative democracy. We have an adversarial process and Clark has played his part in it well.

Like you, I think the math keeps coming up "Clark for VP." I'd welcome it, even if my gut tells me it's not very likely.

Here's another radical suggestion: Hagel for VP. Then we'd have Diebold on our side this time.

I pretty much agree with it.

We are in complete agreement!

I better go find me some dinner...