Hillary Clinton as VP = Presidential Sandwich.

Seriously, as the trickle of "Obama Needs Her" concern threads (and other posts relating various reasons he should choose her) turns into a flood, let's pause and reflect.

Hillary Clinton, relatively powerless in the Oval Office, sentenced to four years of reminders of what might have been, on the one hand answering to Barack Obama and on the other having to put up with Bill and his inevitable machinations.

Hillary Clinton, former first lady and respected senator, forced to exist between two presidents, wondering what she did to deserve this.

I don't believe she wants it.

If you love Hillary, you would not wish this on her.

Discuss.

:patriot:

It's not surprising that some posts here are promoting the idea, but earlier I was thinking about the division of the hard-core supporters.

Some say POTUS or nothing, others say if he disses her by picking someone else all hell will break loose.

I wonder (in that voyeuristic way, like slowing down at an accident) how they're going to reconcile among themselves with the outcome.

What little power the PUMA types have will, I think, sort of evaporate after the convention since some will like the VP other will not.

:patriot:

Whereas Biden executed the perfect strategy to get the V.P. nod. He took one of his greatest perceived weaknesses and tried to show that it wouldn't be a problem. Everybody knows that his mouth can be a problem at times, so he's been very tight-lipped. He's also taking his greatest perceived strength and playing it up big time. Just got back from Georgia and came up with a policy proposal that Obama has embraced. On the other hand, Hillary's greatest weaknesses have been exacerbated if anything at all. Anyone get the sense that Obama comfortable with the idea of Bill Clinton in the White House? I don't. Did Hillary sufficiently address her criticisms of Obama during the primary season? Nope. The quote about Hillary and McCain having a lifetime of experience but Obama only having a speech he gave in 2002 is still out there. That imaginary Commander-in-Chief threshold that Hillary put forth is still out there as well.

NT!

Hillary supporters planning to cause problems at the convention.

Once the convention is over, I am hopeful that the primary wars will really be over.

Until then, however, we will see an increasing number of HRC related articles and posts here and elsewhere.

:hi:

HillaryMcCotton* supporters planning to cause problems at the convention.



* http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6660035&mesg_id=6660051

Not really concerned, by the way, just tired of deadenders who don't seem to have confidence in the candidate.

Some of them haven't gotten over his FISA vote, did you know that?

:hi:

The Supreme Court. I guess no one is recognizing Big Dawgs birthday today. And I mean no one LOL!

So, stop gloating.

And the board is slow today because real people are not on the Internet this time of year.

:shrug:

combining to create an echo chamber where more and more people think Obama and his team are apparently sitting around with their feet on their desks while McCain goes on the attack, so...Hillary to the rescue! It's the only way we'll win!!!!!!!

I think there's actually a plan in place from this campaign, but that's me.

:eyes:

Everybody, even pollsters, compare this campaign and this year to years and campaigns of the past.

Not paying attention I think, this is differently run, a different approach, a difference in timing, everything.

It's as if everyone has forgotten how unlikely his success was, and they're attributing it to dumb luck or something.

I dunno....

:shrug:

to tackle health care again.

:rofl: :rofl:

It must be STOPPED! STOPPED, I say!

:rofl: :rofl:

LOL, what a sham.

I want Hillary to be president some day and VP would put her foot in the door. Also, I feel that she's the only one (other than Gore) who could excite and unite the party.

Some here insist that the only ones who she would unite are the conservatives, but that is utter B.S. Check the RW sites, they absolutely fear and detest Obama and would have rather have had Hillary as president than Obama if they were going to be stuck with a Democrat. I have read post after post from people who say that as much as they have hated the Clintons, they prefer Hillary over Obama. Furthermore, they think that Hillary on the ticket is the only guaranteed way for McCain to lose and are hoping that Obama doesn't choose her.

On the other hand, I don't know if Hillary is interested in the gig.

as Obama would pick Hillery. With her he can win and she would be a great asset. She is a fighter and that is what he needs including the womens vote.

She would also fight to the bitter end for what she believes.

I really can't tell if it would hurt or help, and anyone who claims to know America that well is, I think, full of it.

I deliberately avoided making such assertions and instead wondered how hard it would be for her.

I do think she has the strength for it, but I don't imagine it would be an easy place to be and heaven only knows if it could get her in the white house later on.

If she wants it that badly, I support her going for it in any legal and ethical way she can, but I'm not sure how she feels.

:shrug:

On another note, I had the very fortunate task of going to the middle of Kansas last week to spend one full day with all the students in the town of Greensburg, which was hit dead-center by an F5 tornado in May 2007.

I saw no political promotions anywhere there, or in Wichita, and it made me think about how little Americans might be thinking about the details of this race compared to you and me.

But mostly I was awestruck by the people who, despite having lost loved ones and the 95% destruction of the town, are happy and positive and a pleasure to be with!

My hats off to the citizens of that little town, and to you! :toast:

I'm glad that you got to go to Greensburg. Yes, the American spirit always triumphs. We are basically a nation of good people, sometimes misguided, but essentially good. I like our fighting spirit. When we are down, we get up, dust ourselves off and give it another try. That's one reason why I always liked Hillary, she's scrappy and feisty, and to me she represents the American spirit.

Frankly, the more I talk to Dems. around here and in neighboring states like NY and PA, the more I think that Obama needs her.

Last night I met by chance someone I hadn't seen in months. We decided to go to dinner and chat. She has worked at City Hall in my town for many years. It's a Democratic town and of course we talked about politics. I was floored at what she said about our local pols and most of the City Hall staff. She said that they would go through the motions because they had no choice, but that most of them were not going to vote for Obama. She said that only a handful of diehard Dems. who normally vote Democratic regardless of who is the candidate, will vote for him. The rest were either going third party or actually planning to vote for McCain. I asked why, I have never seen anything like it in other elections. She said that the feeling was that he was too inexperienced and that they didn't trust him. I should clarify that they all supported Hillary, as did the entire county pols, except for the mayor of Jersey City. So, I don't know what to think, this is one crazy election.

How's Ginger?

She's been spending a lot of time with my mom and dad while I travel around.

It's a tough call, twenty years ago or more, Obama wouldn't have gone very far and it might not matter much if we got a Republican or Democrat for one term.

You and I both know that America has been so ruined by this last administration that we may be beyond hope with McCain, and that might escape middle America.

I wish those folks you speak of could understand that presidents don't run the country single handedly, and that an important skill is knowing how to find good people and how to take advice and give up control to those around you, and I think Obama has these skills.

Dick Cheney and GWB had lots of experience and where did it get us?

Still, I know what you mean. People vote their fears, myself included.

Here's hoping that this time we don't screw it up and lose!

:patriot:

Sorry, I least I got the "G" right. LOL!!!

I understand what you say about advisers, particularly when a candidate has such a thin resume. My brother is much older than I am and is an economist for France and Spain. He has two PhDs, has written several books and even has a morning radio show in Spain on Saturdays. He's very liberal.

I have a friend in NYC who is married to a topnotch economist. He assesses the economic plans of nations and always has some president or prime minister angry at him. He's fiscally conservative.

When Hillary, Obama and McCain were still in the running, I asked them who they thought had the best economic plan. They both said Hillary. My friend's husband even voted for Hillary in the primary, the first time he voted Democratic in his life. A week ago I called my friend and her husband answered the phone. Since he's always traveling, I took advantage of the opportunity and asked him what did he think now that we only had two people in the race. He said that he didn't care for McCain's plan, but that he was very worried and concerned about the economic advisers Obama had around him. So, since I know and trust his judgment (he's been pretty accurate over the years), I feel that we are screwed no matter who gets in.

Hugs!!!

;)

But I've never called her that. My dad calls here Jeannie, he's near deaf!

So, Ginger works fine!

But I call her Ginny.

Two thinks I love about Obama come from things he's said that are refreshingly frank.

The first was that he called the gas tax holiday idea stupid, which it was, and it was not politically wise but it was honest.

The other is this:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes
on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other
countries are going to say OK."

Similarly, it was not a popular kind of thing to say. But it is real and these are things Americans need to understand.

I hope it's an indication of an ability to lead by making tough choices and making tough statements that people may not want to hear.

That, and a bunch of other stuff.

Be sure to visit the puppy post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6669778

:hug:

Very cute critters!!!

Take care!!

:pals:

If she thinks something might come up that helps McCain win, she won't accept because she doesn't want to be on a losing ticket.

NT!

You're like the raven......"nevermore".

The voice of negativity.

NT!

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

I won't name any names though.


By the way, Hillary is the ONLY way we have a 99% chance of winning in November.

:eyes:

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

One can never be sure...

:hi:

:hug:

:hi:

thanks for the :hug:

That translates to "she hurts his chances".

Not going to be her. Will you still support Obama when he chooses someone else?

:rofl:

I love frankness!

or something like that.

I keep saying that it makes no difference what she brings to the campaign-- the real problem is that if he wins, she's the Veep, and Bill is sitting there with the perfect chair to kibbitz.

Isn't the job of President tough enough without a former President you have to constantly look over your back at?

since FDR looking over your shoulder such a bad thing?

Having someone around who knows how the executive branch works is a plus, not a minus...

I really don't understand this anti Bill attitude.

current Presidents or tell them how to do the job. And Vice Presidential spouses are not to be heard from-- even less than Vice Prsidents.

And, not only would Bill Clinton likely not be able to keep his mouth shut about Obama's job, but he just might be involved in conflicts with White House policy when off on his own business.

Nope, it's a potential mess best avoided. Even if there were a good argument for Hillary being on the ticket, that just gives the two of them more leverage to tell Obama how to do his job.

watching over his back? What worked for BC, won't work for Obama. It's a different time and a different era and further more, BC was dependent on his cabinet who would be more fruitful to Obama's Cabinet (not on the Cabinet) but as consultants and advisors. So BC would again prove to be unnecessary.

piffle! I agree with you, as always, vabarella.

He served two terms, big whoop.

I didn't care for him then, I care even less now and wish he'd go away.

:hi:

are Clinton's two terms described as "big whoop".

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-index.html

He sold out unions, american middle class jobs, he is a disgrace, he is without honor and my guess is that few sitting democratic senators with integrity have much respect for him.

But I understand that you're fond of him, I don't expect either of us to change the other's opinion.

it would fit right in...

I said we could disagree, but nooooooo, you had to go all freeper on me.

get lost, stay out of this thread if you don't like what you read and can't take an opinion that doesn't match your pie-eyed Bill is god world view.

...since this isn't our first encounter, you might consider putting me on ignore.

your Clinton hate needs to be shown for what it is

irrational

and counterproductive to the goals of our party

"our" is, of course, a presumption on my part.

the 1990's tech bubble is loooong gone...

that is so purely the right wing take on Clinton's presidency

sometimes I wonder about you Clinton haters

it's amazing the shit you are willing to wallow in order to discredit the Clinton presidency....

edit:

clinton had an above average presidency, but he also signed a bunch of republican bullshit into law. You guys think he is the Sweet Little Baby Jesus(tm)

I know you all think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread who's going to sweep away the old and CHANGE everything - but the reality is he's only halfway through his first term in the Senate, and Washington isn't going to change at the whim of some rookie.

Because he would be new at it so that means he would need former President Bill Clinton? That's the most inane statements I've read.

Would you like to know why? Because I don't remember Fomer Pres BC being born President. He was also NEW at some point or another. He came from under the helm of the original Bush Admin, so why don't you say that because BC was new he should have former Pres Carter over his shoulder?!

Carter was the last Dem before BC and Carter did some good. Hell no, you wouldn't ask, you'd hope he would do better because he brought something fresh and new to the table. Obama is trying to bring somethign fresh and new and I don't think he really needs BC on the helm to get that done.

He's going to go in there with a very strong and significant cabinet and sure there will be mistakes but I'm also sure Obama will do what he can in order to make the best decision that he can.

That's what can be hoped with any president and I don't think a helping hand is needed by the former Pres.

argue against what I said, not what you wish I said.


I said that having a former President to advise on how the executive branch/Washington works would be a plus, not a negative. Especially considering Obama's lack of experience in an executive role. It also would be a plus, not a negative to have a President as popular as Clinton was (and still is, believe it or not) on your team.

I never said anything about Clinton being "at the helm". That's another strawman on your part. He would just be another adviser - one whose insights - having held the same office - have the potential to be particularly valuable.

If it comes down to representing the interests of the people, he failed in many ways.

There is nothing HRC can provide that no other candidate trumps her in. Even the demographics she claimed to have, if they are true Dems won't vote for McCain and would vote for Obama, because they will vote for the Democractic elect.

That being said, what is so remarkable about HRC (besides this forever push that she's the first female prospective presidential candidate to get as far as she did) that Obama would need her as Veep?

In the last week of May, two national surveys showed her beating McCain by a wider margin than Obama would.

But I don't think Veep is a good place for her and I think Obama can find a better choice for the job he's more comfortable with. He should get someone HE wants to work with.

or really because of her name and the legacy her husband left in the White House and still carries today.

This is not denying also that she had people who really believed in what she preached, but much like the others listed above there were those who voted for her because she was a woman, one with a large chance. This is not to marginalize her success, because she her self was and is a worthwhile candidate who is extremely intelligent.

However, as I stated, there is nothing she can really provide to Obama. Most of the issues she'd alleviate are mainly smoke screens propped up by MSM and GOP big money with big agendas. Other than that, I don't see anything significant.

All in all, to summarize a lot of her votes are, and I'll be blunt---and this is found with many politicians and the citizenry voting, are superficial reasons for their choice. This is of course not counting the very sincere.

than Obama's. So did Paul Krugmann.

Please don't insult me by accusing me of being naive or shallow.

Obama would be sailing along.....

Hillary would still have been popular, but I'm not sure that she'd have gotten so far and she sure as hell wouldn't have the same pseudo-feminist following.

I don't think she wants it as badly as Bill wants her to have it, but it's really hard to tell.

10:33PM BST 18 Jul 2008

Sources close to the Obama campaign indicated that Mr Clinton's reluctance to disclose who has donated money to his presidential library and even concerns about possible extra-marital affairs mean that his wife would not pass the vetting procedure all potential running mates have to undergo.

"It is absolutely standard operating procedure that vice-presidential candidates today must be fully vetted," a Democratic official close to the Obama campaign told The Daily Telegraph. "That means their finances and everything about them.
"Bill Clinton's not going to submit to vetting. He has not released details of the contributors to his library or his personal finances.

"Everything has to be disclosed to the law firm overseeing this process."

"There's a questionnaire. It covers everything, including, 'Have you got any girlfriends?'"

Last week, Mr Obama told a prominent supporter of Mrs Clinton that he viewed the former president as a "complication" that made it more difficult for him to choose the former First Lady, who has made clear she would like to be on the Democratic ticket with him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection20...

So what if Bill won't disclose financial statements? Neither has cindy -- so I doubt they can make too much out of that.

To overlook her because of her husband is implying she can't or won't separate her marriage from her job and that her husband wouldn't respect those boundaries. That seems sexist because you don't hear the same things about the wife of a candidate -- oh, don't let so and so be VP because of his wife. Oh, god. We don't want her in the WH.

Are there issues? Sure. but nothing that people can't work out if they are so inclined. Boundaries would have to be set. One would hope people who can set world policy can also set an internal WH policy and respect the chain of command. As an aside, unrelated to HC as VP, I hardly think Obama would be hurt by hearing from Bill every now and again -- the man was a great president.

She's either right for the job or not right for the job. She can handle her marriage and her husband's involvement in her job just fine.

I think she'd rock. I would also like to see her on SC, Sec of State, etc. I have no idea what she wants -- but I am quite sure she knows! I do know she wants a dem in the WH and will do all in her power to make that happen.

I trust Obama to pick the right candidate:-)

and is not being considered by Obama in his selection process for VP.
So you are comparing Cindy McCain as a Democrat?
ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS, who carres what the crooked republicans do?



The facts are the facts, Caroline Kennedy and a group of lawyers have asked
a complete list of questions of perspective nominees. Bill Clinton refused.

"cindy is not being considered by Obama for VP" Really? You're really tearing my argument to shreds, here. BTW, Neither is Bill.

the comparison I made was spouse to spouse of candidates and it's a legitimate one.

and No, Cindy is not running for VP, her husband is running for President so it's even more relevant for them to disclose their financials if anyone is going to.

I don't get the attitude, yes I am "fricking serious" about my point -- which is that for people to say she shouldn't get the job because Bill might interfere strikes me as sexist.

Am I supposed to apologize for that observation?

I hate that things are like this on this issue. I thought I might venture an opinion and a point of view, but I guess it's not safe for dissent.

or ethics and neither should you.

I'm saying that Hillary was out when Bill refused.

- it's either a legit reason to exclude someone or it isn't.

This issue is often used by people who have an issue with the Clintons. When you take it apart, in terms of how it would impact the race, it couldn't be an issue when the Republican candidate is in the same boat.

it has nothing to do with adopting their standards. It's either an issue or it isn't. They vet VP's for reasons the other side would take them down, in large part. If the financials couldn't be used by the other side, the reason for it doesn't seem like a reason to not consider someone.

If that isn't the issue, then you're saying you suspect he is unethical and has something to hide which would negatively impact her ability to perform as VP.

There are people who make the argument that the Clintons been vetted plenty.

It's fine for you to have the standards you do, but you don't need to tell me that I should not have the standards I have, and most specifically, you don't need to compare my standards to Republican's standards. It's inaccurate and unnecessary.

If he can't participate and HRC is not abiding by it, then that undermines Obama's message and mission and that says something.

He doesn't need that as a Veep choice. Secondly, lets be realistic about this situation. Anything that affects the spouse affects the candidate. You know very well that people were searching far and wide and high and low to get dirt on Michelle so they could knock out Obama.

Even during the primaries the same were being done to HRC through BC, so don't sit there and try to exclude the spouse when we know the public or even others will not exclude them. And as I mentioned Obama is all about transparency and if you can't provide that or don't want too, then you really aren't providing to me that you are fully committed to my message. Especially a message that is utterly harmless for people to know. Plus it shows you have something to hide and that something to hide could come and chomp Obama on the arse later.

No worries though, it's virtually certain it won't be her on his ticket.

Polls show he doesn't need her, and in fact she hurts him with registered voters overall.

She should take a nice vacation to Bosnia (seriously - she's in no danger of being shot there).

First of all, I don't believe she was ever really considered for this. Please remember she's quoted on the record as saying McCain would make a better president than Obama. Why the hell would Obama ever put her on the ticket?

She's too much of a lightning rod, something the VP is not supposed to be. Bill and his refusal to be financially vetted. All the baggage of the Clinton years. The list goes on and on and on.

I can't wait until he announces, because then we can stop seeing these damn Hillary as VP threads. The ONLY place I even see this speculation anymore is DU. Anywhere else it would be laughed off the site. Hell, even the talking heads on TV don't mention it anymore--oh, except Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan et al who would LOVE to see Hillary as VP. Ahem.

Not only all that, but your points too: I don't think she even WANTS it.

It's never been a possibility. And it's never been a good idea.

I hadn't thought of it like that...no, come to think of it, Hillary does want to be #1...I seem to recall her saying when she was campaigning that she had wanted to be president all her life...don't I?? wb