Post your reasons pro and contra for Senator Clinton as VP

Pro: She brings her voters to vote for Obama
Pro: She knows the business in and out

Contra: She brings out the Repubs to vote for McCain because they don't want any Clinton in the WH anymore. The Repubs that might stay home if she isn't on the ticket.

I really don't know if I would want her on the ticket or not.

Also, she energizes the republican base and brings along a mountain of baggage that contradicts the Obama message of a new kind of politics.

she is the antithesis of his message of change. In her quest to hamstring Barack, she has raised her own negatives exponentially such that she will be a lightening rod to motivate the GOP base. And Barack will demand those in his administration be open to scrutiny, and the Clintons will be loathe to release donor lists for the Clinton Library.

Barack has plenty of talent to choose from on the Democratic bench, people who would actually augment the ticket and he can trust to not stab him in the back.

That seals it for me.
show the Clinton's the door.

that was really low.

She's a proven opportunist and liar

Other cons:

* Voted for IWR; undercuts Obama's higher ground over McCain

* Said several times that McCain had crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" while Obama had nothing but "a speech" - now being used in ads against Obama by the Right

* Contradicts Obama's message of 'Change' - she's the old Washington politics to the core

* Unbelievable Clinton baggage/past scandals - appears to be plenty of oppo research for Repubs to use

* Higher polling negatives than either Obama or McCain

* Doesn't help him much with states that aren't already solid Dem strongholds. Other VPs can help him carry states where he's weaker

* The MSM and the likes of Rush Limbaugh/Operation Chaos and Pat Buchanan advocating for her. Very bad sign.

* She wants it TOO much for what the position itself affords her

*"Assassination" on her mind enough to mention RFK at least 3 or 4 times and use the a-word twice during the campaign

Biggest Pro: IT WOULD FORCE THE MEDIA TO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MAKING HILLARY VEEP!

Honestly. She does have some skills and might have a roll in helping to get health care reform passed or other things, but as VP? I see no advantage.

Cons.

She brings fewer voters to the ticket than it seems. The Supreme Court is likely to lose 1 to 3 members in the next few years, enough to shape the future and direction of the court for a generation. Either the repubs get a majority we can't touch and everything THAT means or we hold the line, no middle ground. The cost of a gesture is too high this time. For every one of the few holdouts she would bring she'd drive away at least as many crossover and independent voters who wouldn't believe she stands for or can be any part of change, she's dead weight or break even at best and that's before we even consider how she'll energize the repubs in both fund raising and in turnout. We can do better.

She has said too many things, we need to talk about the future and not deal with the past. The press would never allow it. "Do you still think Obama isn't ready?" "Do you still think you and McCain love your country but he doesn't?" "How and when did he pass your commander in chief test?" "How can you work with him after the accusations of sexism?" We'd do little but deal with garbage and it's time to move on, she said too much already to be able to do that with her along for the ride.

She hasn't been vetted like some think. The vanity fair article aside the Scottish press had an article recently as well, others have too. It's not just a matter of before it's also a matter of what they've done and with who after they left the White House. The controversy they bring with them hasn't decreased an inch over the years and there's lots of new ammo to toss at them. Just because Obama had too much class to do it that doesn't mean it's not there and we'd see it in the general.

Even if we got past all of that and somehow they did get elected we're still in trouble I think. Nothing in this campaign suggests she'll take a back set to or stop for anyone once she sets her mind to something and the VP CAN NOT be fired, they are an elected official just like the President is and impeachment followed by conviction is the only way to fire them. With the power the VP office has and her recent history the chances if her trying to run things from the VP office and turn him into a puppet like Cheney did with Bush is too high. No, I don't think he'd allow it but he can't stop her from trying either, it's an almost assured four years of explosive conflicts and us looking incompetent which of course would lead to another 4 or 8 years of repubs because the public would quickly tire of the drama.

Not only no, but hell no, no fucking way no, I would stay home instead no. It's not personal, it's just that she's such a poor choice and so assures we'd just leave the public sure we're dysfunctional that we might as well just toss the election this time and have a chance at real change in just four years rather than having to wait eight to twelve for it.

Without HRC, the election is lost.
Con: HRC may NOT want to take the chance of being involved in an election loss.

Contra: I am not sure that she and bill can have her in that position without trying to make everything all about them Contra: she lacks the much called for foreign/ military expertise necessary to help us get out of the war.

A winning ticket with Hillary as #2 would open up a U.S. Senate seat from New York, and having one Clinton as VP while another Clinton is in the Senate would be the media's (and the GOP's) wet-dream.

I believe Sen. Clinton will be challenged for that seat if she stays.

I'm ready to send a check to Robert F. Kennedy Jr if he should decide to go for it.

Pro

1. She knows the business in and out


Con

1. Given her assassination comments, it's a little ghoulish having her as VP.

2. Having 3 "presidents" in the White House (Obama & 2 Clintons)will be difficult if Bill and Hillary can't keep their mouths shut when they disagree with Obama.

3. Bill's private life will be under the microscope once again.

4. Obama's message will be diluted with Hillary as VP.





Obama needs a low key, low profile VP with lots of Foreign Relations experience, which Hillary dosen't really have.

I think Bill Richardson, or Jim Webb would both be excellent choices.

And the only way she could get it is if you died.

Nope, I don't think so.

The only "pro" that I see is that it would mollify the zealots who claim that they speak for women (I really doubt that they do.)
There are many "cons."
She voted for the Iraq War Resolution. She would (her words) "obliterate" a country, men, women, and children, in the right circumstance.
She is "old school" when we all want a new perspective.
Her campaign has been mean.
Many of the neocons like her.
She lied about Bosnia (what else?).
Bill Clinton's involvement her her Administration; his time is over.
We would suspect that Obama was being "strong-armed" by the "powers that be." And more.

But here's the big one: If anything happened to Barack Obama, as referred to in her own words (Shudder!),the conspiracy theories would never end, and she'd have a miserable time leading the country in a very challenging time when we really need to feel good about our leader.

Repairing the damage done to Constitutional government requires a functional administration.
Look past the election, to the reason that there is an election: the nation needs to be worrying about competent governance.

Biden, Edwards, Sebelius, Webb, Clark to name just a few.

She spent the last six months praising McSame and saying how the two of them would be much better presidents than Obama. She and her husband spent the past few months appealing to the racist tendencies of some Americans (remember "hard working Americans, white Americans?)

No, the Democrats do not need a Goldwater girl or a former Wal-Mart board member on the ticket.

If the Democrats want to lose then they will pressure Obama to have Hillary as the VP candidate.

I would rather her be a supreme court judge or something.
Good morning :)

sullying up his presidency.

Con: Obama may not want his presidency to be overshadowed by a former President and First Lady.

Con: Obama may not want to be seen as being manipulated into naming Hillary Clinton or as someone who is unable to make his own choices.

Con: Obama may not want his Presidency linked to the Clinton's in any way, shape or form.

Pro: Her husband's finances would finally be exposed.

because of some personal baggage she's carrying. She has some serious ethical issues.

Pro: her supporters will maybe vote for the ticket

Con: Already has baggage from her years being assailed by the right wing (all of this is not deserved, imho, but it is there and has swayed independents and Republicans who might otherwise not vote McCain against her)

Con: The way she's handled this campaign-like saying McCain is better able to be President than Obama--the GOP is already using her words against us.

Con: Many Dems want real change, and not a continuation of dynasty. I know of folks who will be glad to vote Obama-unless Clinton is on the ticket. Then they'll vote third party.

Puke candidates to come along in ages.

He and his pre-Eisenhower vision of the world are ripe for being bulldozed.

In the general election we do better correspondent to how many independents support the blue ticket.

Obama lays claim to a significant % of that independent vote. Clinton repels a significant % of that independent vote. Crazy Bob Barr is running and will drain still more indies from the GOP ticket. Why toss a huge advantage with independents overboard?

McCain is pro-war. Clinton has not apologized for her support of Bush in Iraq. Why toss a second advantage overboard?

It's in our best interest to select a veep nom on traditional criteria of regional/electoral gain, or demographic gain across regions.

I don't see that Senator Clinton is more "working class populist" than any number of other Democrats and I don't think we need to battle for New York.

his base is not solid.

it would cause some of the most obnoxious people on the fucking planet to suffer a fecal hemorrhage followed by a cranial explosion.
But, as gratifying as that might be, I still don't think he should do it.

And improving every day.

They always have. It doesn't matter if she the VP candidate or not, they've got the lies lined up & ready to go. And they'll work because a large percentage of people actively hate her.

Con: She hasn't even acknowledged she's lost yet. Some of her "supporters" are still under the delusion that she can win, or if not, that the nom was stolen from her - and she's encouraged that thinking. She has to shut down that shit IMMEDIATELY and work to repair the damage she's done. Until she does this, she has NOTHING to offer. The party has to unite AND IT HAS TO UNITE BEHIND OBAMA.

Contra: She needs to be in a more impactful position-She'd make a great supreme court justice.
Pro: Her supporters

I'm not sure how he could reconcile that.

I'll stop there ...

>Her racist voters will not vote for Obama even if HRC is on the ticket.
>Rep voters who were attempting to disrupt the Dem primary won't vote dem in Nov.
>Some of her supporters will not vote for Obama simply out of spite, or men-hatred.

>She does NOT know the business - she squandered a huge lead in $, name-recognition, and polling. She hired incompetent staff and campaign chiefs, and couldn't manage them effectively to prevent internal dissention. She couldn't control irresponsible spending. She embraced an extremely poor strategy, and was tone-deaf in running on a 90s Clinton WH record when the country wants change.

Your CONTRA is correct, she WILL cause many repubs to turn out to vote against her, when otherwise Repubs may stay home b/c of their indifference towards McC.

Further Contras:

>Why bring aboard a VP choice who has greater than 50% negatives (and those #s aren't gonna change)?
>Why bring aboard a running mate who has the propensity to stick her foot in her mouth with fabricated stories? (Bosnia, named after Sir Edmond, Chelsea and 9-11, on and on).
>Which of HRCs incompetent staff will she bring to the ticket? You KNOW she'll demand to bring some of her people aboard... Obama simply cannot afford to have Penn and Solis-Doyle on the team.
>What to do about Clinton's debt? And, she's proven to be a poor fundraiser.
>The Clinton's haven't been fully vetted since they've left the WH - can an Obama campaign afford to have the RNC, 527s, and the Media looking into Clinton's "business" dealings, the $109 million, and the Presidential Pardons and Clinton library donations? - I don't think so...
>HRC as VP gives CPR to a DLC that's on life support. They're all but dead and discredited, and they're gonna be given recessitation? Thats just gonna cause a lot of problems.
>BC is completely incapable of quietly staying in the background - sooner or later he's gonna open his yap - this goes for the GE Campaign AND a Presidency.

This is just starters, but there's plenty of contras just in my list alone...

Bill, she will bring out the Republicans in droves, she would be impossible to govern with (along with Bill).

was on the ticket?

and their vicious, disgusting supporters.

Here is what I think, the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton as the running mate:

PRO:

- Strong base of support
- Name recognition
- The best opportunity yet to put a woman on the ticket

CON:

- Inept campaigner
- Too polarizing
- The "Wild Bill" problem
- Distracts from Obama
- Change can't happen if we keep on voting for people named Bush or Clinton
- Too greedy
- She needs Obama more than Obama needs her
- Her ego will get in the way of Obama's campaign and message
- Most of Clinton's supporters will vote for Obama anyway
- It's time for a new era
- Clinton on the ticket will hinder Obama's efforts to make his own mark
- She'd be an anchor weighing him down
- Many Republicans really despise her, but seem a bit warmer toward Obama
- Too much bad blood
- Her campaign and surrogates were quite nasty toward Obama
- Obama owes her nothing, except recognition for giving him the ultimate warmup for the general election

To sum it all up, I say no way to Hillary as running mate. He doesn't need her.

If he takes her now it looks like she was able to strong arm her way on to the ticket, not as a sign of 'unity'.

That is no way to start an administration with a demonstration that you can't even control who your VP is.

I firmly believe there were good arguments for it yesterday. She threw them out the window last night.

Con: Obama would probably have to pay off 20 million dollars of her debt. Which he would be better off using against McCain.
Con: She motivates the Repub base more than anyone else.
Con: The things she has said against Obama will be used by the Repub's against him. Being the VP would give them more legitimacy.
Con: It would look like she pressured herself in to the spot. Making Obama look weak.
Con: She's runs contrary to Obama's message for change, she is establishment.
Con: She is DLC. Enough of the public have moved leftward to where we don't need to run Repub Lite candidates.
Con: She voted for ceding the authority to go to war in Iraq to the president. This runs contrary to Obama's message of restoring the authority of the constitution and having a president that abides by it.

Pro: Her surrogates would stop going on MSM shows and saying she should be the nominee.
Pro: Her surrogates would start going on MSM shows and saying McCain should not be president.
Pro: Her pot banger supporters might vote for Obama.

Pros cont'd:

Ultra historic ticket: First African American nominee, first former first lady on the ticket (all good for generating excitement among the electorate)

HRC made good points about the states she carried, the fact that she won the popular vote. She does bring strong stuff to the table which it would be a mistake for Obama to ignore or downplay (and I doubt he will, contrary to what the drooling and frothing gasbags all over the media claim).

Despite the widespread belief among frothers in the media that the winner of the nomination should have the princely right to do whatever the fuck he wants, he really has neither that right nor that luxury--nor should he. He has to consider the political consequences of his actions. If he seems to be tossing HRC over just to get her out of his way, he has to consider how that will play in those crucial states that *she* won. Might New York and California and Ohio and Florida come harder if he doesn't have Hillary firmly on his side? Might he not want to make them come as easily as possible, and can he be sure to do it without her firmly on his side?

Cons:

Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton. (But he'll be around no matter what.)

Keep your trap shut; head-down, campaign your butt off; and take the first SCOTUS appointment!
:patriot: :yourock: :applause: