I can't be the only person warming up to the idea of Hillary as VP...

...can I?

She's very capable and, despite what people on the internets say, an Obama/Clinton ticket would be guaranteed victory.

Some are wary of her based on her behavior during this campaign (and with good reason), but the fact of the matter is that her campaign people (Mark Penn on backwards) did her a major disservice by making her appear to be worse than she actually may be. Even if she really IS who she appeared to be on the campaign trail, it's apparent that this monumental upset has sufficiently humbled her to the point that she can be properly serve the usual VP role.

Plus, I personally have never really had a problem with her policies (largely because they are 99% the same as Obama's at least in spirit).

Ignoring Clinton specifically to avoid looking "weak" is absolutely the wrong move and plays perfectly into the Republicans' wishes. Just as they did with the public financing fiasco, they're hoping that Dems care more about how we look while winning than winning itself.

Its all they have left to try to keep their unexpected ad revenues coming in.

They need strife, controversy, drama and division and McCain is sleeping through his cues.

It is like watching election night when there is a long gap between returns. They will make up crap just to keep people tuned in.

what they have done and will do. And nothin' for nothin', but they are wrong a lot.

nm

:) But seriously, I think it's spells disaster for the party.

681 DUers said they don't.

What you actualy mean is "you're not the only one, but I disagree with you", I suspect.

It would be bipolar to the ticket to send the mixed message out there.

1) She spent the last 16 months telling the world that Obama's not qualified and has poor judgment.

2) She said that McCain has the experience to be President. (I can see this in the GE..."Senator Obama, I don't understand your argument...your own Vice President agrees that I have the experience for the job.")

3) She still has roughly 50% negative numbers with Indys...even worse with possible crossover Republicans.

4) She's "establishment" old politics...not the "change" that Obama is endorsing.

5) Bill.


There are more, but these are my top 5. With so many other capable Dems to choose from, she's a horrible VP option, IMO.

record on funding the war in Iraq and all other Iraq votes was different than Hillary's once Obama became a Federal Senator - plus the ignoring of the Obama statement in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted in 2002 because he did not know if the secret intel given the Congress would have changed his mind.

There was no dump on those that supported Obama.

But there was the usual Obama's David selling the phrasing that you posted - which some of us called smear or lie.

But that is the past - and pointless to recall except when you try to use it to smear Hillary in the present.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192805/

snip//

Despite their candidate's victory, many Obama supporters are still nursing their own share of grievances over the course of the long campaign. Davelias12 feels genuinely insulted by the way Clinton spoke of her opponent's supporters:

What steams a lot of Obama supporters is the fact that Hillary constantly derided them as being delusional, and Obama as being "elitist" and inexperienced. When in fact, she embodies those adjectives so much more than him, and her supporters demonstrate the same "cultish" enthusiasm for her that they levy against Obama supporters.

Somehow Clinton has convinced so many people that she has all of this viable toughness and experience, except her record points to the contrary. She's the underdog? She had a double-digit lead at the outset and the media was calling it her coronation. She fought the dirty campaign, but Obama's the sexist.

It's the double-speak and the "up-is-down" that frustrates so many.

You had to go there...

Of Hillary Clinton saying Obama supporters are/were delusional, or are you relying upon this fourth-party characterization of her remarks?

Honesty is not that poster's strong suit.

Here ya go: http://youtube.com/watch?v=E7ldV4QxtAA

:P

When it happened, I remember posting that the RNC has their first ad.

I was right.

They did the same thing in 2000 and 2004 -- using the words of the primary candidates against the nominee.

Jay Leno did a monologue in 2004 featuring bash-quotes about Edwards with the punchline, "and that was just from John Kerry".

and keep the head buried in the sand.

This one has repeatedly stated that its support is directly tied to a VP bid and is clinging to all hopes of that.

I agreed with, or recognized. papau was one of them. But this over-the-top-to-the-exclusion-of-reality mindset is worrisome. I don't even understand why. It's a done deal.

I KNOW and recognize I'd be upset and disappointed had my candidate lost, like he did in 04, but not recognizing reality is a problem.

McCain as CinC - and at that point the polling showed that the public did not see Obama as CinC.

So now speaking the truth is bad under Obama ethics?

The GOP can take anything out of context - and will - and the Obama fans will have to learn to respond. It will not advance Obama's cause to dump on the speaker of the words that are being taken out of context.

(ironically enough, this comes in response to being asked about an Obama/Clinton ticket)

"I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-Chief than Obama," she said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/pelosi-joint-ticket-impossible/

...well, the quote from ONE of the FOUR times she said this...

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

That's not speaking about public perception. She's stating this as HER view.

In case you forgot...

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/clinton-mccain-and-i-hav_n_90310.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14809.html

Those were the first 3 links TehGoogles brought back on a "Clinton Commander Chief" search...

"She said she and McCain had traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together as she repeated a line that surfaced from the campaign trail. She and McCain “bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, Clinton said, while “Sen. Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002,” stating his opposition to the Iraq war as an Illinois state senator."

(that's from your first provided link)

that she indeed DID share that with the class.

If the question is "Is he prepared" and the answer is "I'm experienced, McCain is experiences and Obama has a Speech" then in Politician:English that means "no, we are but he isn't".

We agree on this :)


(I think you meant to respond to papau)

1am. I should go to bed.

What a day!

hang tough...great things are about to happen

They would use BO's against HIllary,as well!

...but some may be vastly underestimating the appeal of this ticket amongst that large segment called "low-information voters."

I trust Obama and his team to make the right choice. I simply wouldn't be surprised if it happens to be Hillary.

He's an incredibly smart man in a "good old boy" wrapper. He speaks intelligently without sounding "elitist".

Aside from the fact that I really like his views, he will appeal to rural America even more than Clinton does.

In honor of Barack Obama's nomination as President, we're serving Chicago style deep dish pizza tonight.....

I went to a bar to watch with Obama supporters and I don't usually like deep dish pizza, but I wanted to order Chicago style pizza for good luck but they only had New York style, so I decided to stay away from pizza that night. I made a point of eating cheese and pineapples the night of the Wisconsin primary and Hawaii caucus and we kicked ass in both!

He has to live with it after all.

Sorry

She's a really really bad idea.

Brian and Nancy Schweitzer

:thumbsup:

Can't figure out why they are not showing up. :(

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs&feature=related

Obama NEEDS to pick this guy!

I would not look forward to 4 years of...

"Today President Obama said blah blah. But what does Hillary think about that? (Former) President Clinton has no comment."

But not to worry, because if she is the VP choice, Repugs who would otherwise have stayed home would come out in DROVES to vote against HER.

I don't see why you think Obama/Clinton would be a guaranteed victory, or why you think she's "sufficiently humbled." She didn't sound that way to me at all.

It has nothing to do with who she is.


It is who she isn't.


- She doesn't close the holes in Obama's resume
- She doesn't deliver a state that Obama wouldn't otherwise win
- She motivates the GOP base to donate and GOTV


Bad mix.


Lobster is delicious. Tacos are delicious. But they don't go well together in the same meal.

Now that her image as a winner is tarnished,
she would not bring the appearance of winning ticket. Sorry

i trust whoever he picks. i think right now he just needs to focus on convincing people to vote for him as that will matter most.

after going over polls and other things maybe by the time he is ready to pick he can see what areas he needs help in to win the election.

if he is leading then i think he will pick someone that reinforces his message the best. if he is having trouble with certain groups he might pick based on that. if he sees he is almost even with McCain in some geographic areas he might pick someone who can put him over the top in that area.

are the media and Hillary's supporters. It would be one of the stupidest thing that could happen and would pretty much kill the chances of winning the White House in November.

but sadly your opinion is not shared among the minority of the democratic party that populates DU. This site is an unrepresentative sample.

I think Hillary would make a fine VP. As would Edwards.

Did you see the coverage on CNN after her speech? Bill loudly shouted to her "GO" after she hesitated on stage. She turned and obeyed.

The Media & the Repubes. Field day!

Go ahead and put her on the ticket and you'll see why.

Pull this finger...

I am with Carter on this one. One can get most of Hillary's positives while avoiding her negatives elsewhere. The upside risk is too small to balance out the downside. No one fires up the GOP base like a Clinton. The GOP base is depressed and demoralized. I suggest we leave them there.

As denial of the obvious goes, that wins some kind of prize.

FWIW, though, while I would like to see Clinton offered a cabinet post, I don't want to see her as Obama's running mate - I think she'd make a fine vice-president, but a lousy vice-presidential candidate because while she'd get Obama a whole heap more votes, she'd bring out an even larger heap for McCain.

nt

take that stupid VP idea and stick it! Luckily, Obama is too damn intelligent to pick a backstabber and serial liar for VP. So she gave a good speech. Big whoop.

in a very very small minority. i am definitely still rather cold to the idea of her as vp, don't seem to be thawing any.

doesn't really win brownie points to blame penn for her campaigns failure. mark penn did not make her say the things that pissed me off most.

and it's not that clinton would make obama "look 'weak,'" it's that she would make his message moot- she is the exact opposite of everything he campaigned on.

the differences in obama and clinton's policies may be somewhat subtle, but the differences are there, and when you place them together with her behavior this campaign season, and grassroots versus corporates, and when you examine the whole diplomacy versus obliteration thing, you get pretty substantial reasoning for NOT selecting her as VP.

it would be a stark disappointment to those of us who support him for promising change, and to those of us who reluctantly converted to obama from more liberal candidates, who didn't support hillary because of the DLC, because of IWR, because of her unapologetic same-ole-politicking, those of us who ultimately found enthusiasm when we started to warm up and trust and believe in that message of change.

could he still win? even with the indies he'd lose? perhaps, but more people would lose their enthusiasm than you who would giddily jump up and down.

About this, as well as other closely-held opinions on Clinton. You have to be very strong to square your shoulders acknowledge defeat with some measure of grace.

I take major exception to your remark about how she's been "properly humbled." That sounds a little too much like she's been put in her proper little subservient place, like a beaten wife or whipped slave of old. Want to reconsider how you said that?

She is who she is, warts and all. I have been more wary of Obama, simply because he has not been scrutinized as closely, with the same jaundiced and unforgiving eye, for as many years as Hillary.

They need each other, and Obama especially will need her through and during the first year of his administration, for who else can be quite the battle-tempered political partner he can turn to when the honeymoon is over?

So there's no way she's gonna be on the ticket. Obama isn't stupid.

Sorry, and no offense to Hillary but Bill just has way too much baggage. Way too much. And both the Clinton's bring too much drama. If she wasn't married to Bill, I think she'd have a chance but Bill's a deal-breaker.

I think she'd make a great Supreme Court Justice though and that is a FAR better job than VP. They are lifetime appointments and their word is the law or the land. She could change the way the court rules and have a lifetime affect on this country.

of being asked to join Obama on the ticket.

Beyond that she's made some HORRID remarks but that ONE is "the one" that sealed her fate to NOT be on the ticket.

This is really the problem. Like it or not, Obama successfully painted Hillary as the protector of the past. The whole "Turn the page" symbolism was about the last 16 years of hatred and backbiting in Washington. Hillary represents that to independents and conservatives, and now to many democrats based on Obama's successful defining of Hillary. Whether this is actually true or false, this makes it really difficult to reframe her as a change candidate.

So yeah, Hillary has lots of strengths. A relatively new strength is the quality of her oratory - she's a really good speaker now. I cannot imagine a better attack dog than Hillary (a traditional VP role to fill). But there is a lot of baggage there, even if Bill Clinton's library fund isn't filled with horrid looking skeletons.

this is the most important decision he will make before he is president. He needs a VP he feels is qualified to lead. He has stated that HRC is qualified to president. So the most important factor is there.

I hope the Obama campaign has this posted at all their offices...unless they penned it.

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html

The first easily proves she's a liar, the second undercuts Obama's ticket.

Not going to happen.

a VP that he/she can trust. Sadly, Obama can't trust Hillary (or Bill) as far as he can throw her.

and the clearest shortcut to winning over the most aggrieved Hillary voters, some of whom are pretty scary in defeat. There are drawbacks, but I'd rather win with some compromise than lose with purity.

This person has to complement his skills bringing something to the table where he might be thin on expertise. I don't see where Hillary helps him on foreign policy, for example.

Oh wait...they can play the Bosnia video up against John McCain's POW footage.

FAIL.

The gung-ho Hillary dead-enders and unrepentant anti-Obama racists can be offset with new voters and independents and Republican crossovers who would be repelled by Hillary on the ticket.

Hillary undercuts Obama's message and has supplied recorded talking points against Obama. At the very least, it looks very bad to have your own VP dissing your standing as Commander in Chief.

And bottom line, he cannot trust the Clintons. Period. He cannot fire his VP, so getting elected won't do any good if he can't govern effectively with a VP that's more of a liability than a help.

have won. He can't govern at all if he doesn't win. I want, first and foremost, for him to win, and it looks to me like he can't lose if Hillary's on the ticket. He can probably still win without her, but I'd rather not take the chance.

George H.W. Bush attacked Reagan's "voodoo economics" among other things, but all was forgotten when he joined the ticket.

His Books Are Cooked.

I think her chaos and negativity would be a nightmare anywhere in the vicinity of our nominee.

No thanks.

I would not object to a Hillary VP. I'd love to see how they interact together.
Indeed for the future of this party they need to be seen together ... laughing, talking, *touching*!