Who would make the best VEEP for Hillary? (compare, contrast, compliment, and complete)

All the local Dems are behind HRC for 2008. Some Dem leaders don't even like her, but see her election as inevitable. The local GOP is insane with their anti-Hillary tripe - they know that they can't beat her. They can't even compete with Hillary! And the GOP knows that Big Dog and Hill Dog are gonna best them at every turn for the next 8 years.

As a liberal progressive I am not thrilled with a Hillary presidency. But I am wildly enthusiastic compared to the GOP / neo-cons.

SO who would make the best VEEP for Hillary? Compare, contrast, compliment, and complete.
Compare the VEEP to Hillary.
Contrast the VEEP with Hillary.
Compliment each other (VEEP and Hillary)
Complete each other (VEEP and Hillary)

Who is the best match for Hillary Clinton? Which VEEP will get the job done?

I wouldn't be counting chicks until they have hatched. I have a feeling that this race will not be decided by the primaries.

Vince Foster (posthumously)
Monica (Lewinsky, not Goodling)
Janet Reno (won't go there)

If she's looking like she's going to be nominated, hold tight for the 'jokes'.

Oh please the Big Dog and Hill are not going to do more that collect outrageous fees for lectures and stay in the Senate while doing a fair job. The polls show across the board that that the Republicans will beat Hill with just about any candidate-- read this mornings L.A. Times for a sample of the thinking. This is not going to change, so take your money and support and put it else where unless you are a Republican/Rove working to ensure another victory for the Rove machine.

We are still allowed to criticize Hillary here, and I agree with most of your comments. Will you still support her if she wins the nomination?
Edited to add that I see you've been a member since 2001, with only two posts. That's very unusual.

As a long time reader of DU, and general supporter of its ideals, I have not made many comments in the past because I felt that eventually folks touched on the key points in the debate, but this time I feel the progressive moment is threaten by Hillary's run and want to speak against it. This morning Biden made more sense and as he pointed out he has far more experience than the other candidates. In truth I would favor a Gore/Obama ticket.

Because the ones I've seen don't say that. Any of them.

And what, precisely, is your problem with the lecture fees? What is it you think Bill should be doing after decades of public service? How poor would he have to be to be acceptable to little you?

Or do you just eat your guts over the fact that Bill Clinton is in international demand and people still cheer when they see him?

Me, I think living well is the best revenge, personally.

I was referring to front page L.A. Times story published this morning. Clinton doesn't brother my guts, just my sense of reason- for me he failed his potential to become a great president and continues to do so as a lecture hack, and suck up to the rich.

and sent to state funerals. Nobody will be able to get through to her about the 80% of the people in this country who are not doing well.

Senator Clinton and maybe half or so don't think she's our inevitable nominee.

But going with your scenario and leaving ideology and preference aside for a moment, if she does become the nominee, the ticket could be enhanced electorally by a veep nod to a Southerner or Westerner (Bill Richardson, Wes Clark, John Edwards, Brian Schweitzer) or a Midwester if she wanted to solidify those states and maybe compete for Indiana (Evan Bayh, Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack).

Some of those who'd enhance a Clinton ticket won't take the veep slot, even if offered. If she wins the nomination, her veep choice may hinge on either of two considerations: Will a choice of say, Richardson, Vilsack, Bayh or Obama help her in the South as well as their respective regions of the country, and Is Michael Bloomberg going to run an independent campaign that would draw progressive votes from the Dem ticket, which would suggest she'd maybe choose a more liberal veep. If Clinton is nominated and chooses Evan Bayh, she has a shot at Indiana's meager electoral votes, and regional appeal in the Midwest, as Bayh is fiercely uncontroversial and mediagenic. But if Bloomberg runs and is to the left of our ticket on social issues as well as more vociferously opposed to the Iraq engagement, that may draw significant votes -- enough to tip New Hampshire back to red, enough to put states we'll likely win now back in play (Ohio).

If Giuliani somehow shoots the gap and wins the GOP nomination (I don't think this will happen), it's conceivable you'd have 3 New Yorkers running for the top job. The very conservative Far Right fundies would be stuck with a choice of Hillary Clinton, Rudolf Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg. They'd almost be forced to run a 4th ticket of two nutcases -- say Sam Brownback and some other yahoo. Otherwise, their people won't show up in near the numbers they did for Dubya and their "Chrisitan" voice will fall silent in the 2008 race.

It's going to be a damn wild ride in any case.

I think Mark Warner from Virginia would do very well. He is a fiscal expert. George Allen and Jim Gilmore run the finances of Virginia right into the ground they were almost bankrupt. In just two years Warner turned it around and they were running well. That's why another democrat won in a predominately republican state. Mark Warner is a rag to riches story. His family was plain old middle class but he built himself into a millionaire with his business and financial plans. So he would be a good candidate. He ran a state with mostly all republicans and he got them to come together. So there are two things in his favor.

Jack Murtha would be another one but even tho I am in my 70's I think he is too old.

The trouble is, Sibelius is such an inspiring speaker, put
the two of them up on a podium together, and everyone would
leave after Sibelius spoke, and poor Hillary would be left
with a half-full house. Sibelius is a hard act to follow.

One thing is for sure, she would chew up whoever the Republicans
put against her in a VP debate and spit them out like a camel's cud.

Speaking for Sibelius: smarts, experience, great popularity as
an effective Democrat in a Red state, and a no-nonsense speaker.

Against: two women on the ticket? In a race as close as this might
yet still be, I think that many men would get nervous about the
gender issue, even though 99% of them would never admit it unless
they talked in their sleep.

a serious answer though? Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson. I can't see Edwards being a good choice for her.

:kick:

That way the corporate media won't have anything to bitch about...

If Hilary gets the nod whomever the GOP nominates wins. Period.