Name me a VP possibility that offers a bigger constituency than Hillary.

[olkaz]

Seriously, there isn't one.

I've been an ABC voter in this thing from the start, but at this point, there is only one clear-cut way to win; Make Hillary the VP.

It's not about her deserving it, it's not about satiating anybody, it's not about comprimising the message somehow. It's about winning.

I URGE my fellow Obama supporters to consider her constituency and how they can help us win (the crazy ones are 1/10 of 1/10 of 1%, so relax about that) and RESIST THE SCHADENFREUDE over the next few days.

That is all.

[stray cat]

1. But she also offers Bill.........Hillary alone I think would be ok

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Outside of DU

democrats LIKE Bill.

[leftofcool]

5. All over the world and Hillary too

[stray cat]

9. Most of us like Bill but many of us even outside of DU don't want a return to the soap opera

I like what he has done policywise and since his presidency - but I don't want a return to the Clinton years. Liking someone and wanting them in the WH don't always go together.

[Iceburg]

137. And yet you support the 24/7 Obama drama?... trust me, the series has only begun /nt

[MarjorieG]

186. Obama is known as No Drama Obama, by military and his team.

Hillary is the Sybil of this contest.

[LakeSamish706]

11. It's got nothing to do with liking or disliking Bill, it's got to do with his interference...

into the White House operations. It would be very difficult to bring change (as Barack has stated he wants to do) with a Bill and Hillary Clinton there.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. But that's a problem you guys invented

Not once have I ever heard ANYBODY claim that Bill has in any way played a role in Hillary's senate career. Never.

There's nothing to make anyone believe he'd be different if she were VP.

[Fovea]

179. This will probably be the only time you see me agree

with Monkey Funk. Bill has lots of interests in central Asia and elsewhere that will occupy his time, and I hear he is a long list candidate for SCOTUS.

Bill Clinton would not be an impediment to an HRC Veep slot.

There are other reasons not to choose HRC, such as the high negatives, the Arkansas Project, etc.

Also, if Obama were to choose HRC, it would be a signal that he was ready to reduce the level of civility and risk alienating the cross over wide stancers.

HRC has crazy Attack Fu. McSame would have a snarling veep-a-date attached to his leg until he went down like an old antelope on the Serengeti.

But I am not sure that matches Obama's plan to rebuild an American consensus.

But either way, we won't be seeing a lot of Bill for a while. He has lost the political edge, and he feels the weight of that heart attack too.

[redsoxrudy]

210. You said exactly why Hillary as VP

is a good idea. She perfectly fits the role of VP on the campaign trail. Let Obama stay above the fray while she repeatedly bashes McCain over the head.

[greguganus]

228. Yes there is. Interns. n/t

[PoliticalAmazon]

166. No. Hillary. As. VP. .....

1) She and Bill will be constantly trying to undermine Obama, and torpedo his chances for reelection in 2012.

2) Obama has made as his foundation politics of change and changing the politics in D.C. Hillary and Bill are one of the foundation stones for the status-quo, and have embraced the divisive Bush/Rove politics. He would be telling the world his campaign was based on a lie if he chose Hillary.

3) Hillary and Bill are pig-slop politicians, using Bush/Rove tactics. They will continue their pig-slop politics, undermining Obama.

4) Bill has a tendency to put the best interests of his dick ahead of the best interests of our country. Obama's administration would be tainted by the stench of Clinton's future dick-gates. He alreadly appears to have a girlfriend (Belinda Stronach), and there are already rumors of his inability to keep his hands off of women. With Bill Clinton on the scene, if he hits on staff/interns, it is a potential sexual harassment litigation. There is no reason for Obama to associate himself with the filth related Bill Clinton's dick.

5) Hillary has used assassination as a campaign strategy. She should not be allowed to be within 2 city blocks of Obama.

7) Bill and Hillary have alienated African-Americans with their bigot-pandering. Obama cannot afford to be associated with them and their racially divisive ways.

Please, no more talk about Hillary as VP. She is not qualified and would be a great detriment to Obama.

As another DU poster so wisely put, making Hillary the VP running mate would be like telling Obama, "Do you want to go for a swim? Here's an anchor for you."

[WeDidIt]

14. The problem with Bill is he's such a huge figure

that he could outstrip the candidate at the top of the ticket.

I think it's still doable, but Bill would have to be kept under constant control because he's sucha major figure in American and global politics.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. We can like him and think he's too volatile at the same time.

[olkaz]

225. Exactly. His temper is an issue now as well.

[NorthCarolina]

21. I don't agree with that

eom

[ElsewheresDaughter]

82. EXACTLY! but some DUers think this is the only world

[olkaz]

6. I know. And that could be a problem.

But I am confident President Obama could find a way to keep him busy and not interfering with his agenda.

[stray cat]

15. You may be right and come to think of it Hillary might help keep him in line.

[olkaz]

26. The key would be to give him some sort of pet cause.

Let him work on rebuilding his legacy with work on poverty or foreign relations.

He'd eat it up.

[leftofcool]

35. Bill is pretty busy with his charity work

[blm]

52. Bill's busy counting the millions he receives from BCCI thugs he protected throughout the 90s.

Charity - always a great cover for the fascists working to push BushInc's agenda.

[truebrit71]

2. Nope. The biggest constituency she offers is energized republicans...

...no thanks...

[papau]

7. Love the unity

[Crunchy Frog]

65. Simple statement of fact.

[olkaz]

8. Without her at the TOP of the ticket, the bogeyman is much lessened.

I'd be concerned if she was the main candidate, but as VP, it's not going to fire up the Republican base as much.

[Andy823]

16. I agree with you

We need to win in November, and we don't need the republicans coming out in record numbers to vote "against" a ticket with Hillary on it. As you said she will "energize" them to come out to vote, when many would have stayed home, or even voted for Obama if she were not on the ticket. I have talked to many republicans that simply would sit home in November because they don't like Mccain. The "only" way they say they will vote is if Hillary were on the ticket!

[billyoc]

4. She's a downticket Three Mile Island. No idiot would nominate her for anything.

[olkaz]

12. It's the VP slot! OBAMA is the headliner!

And people are winning with Obama!

Seriously, it's just the VP slot. Why are we so worried?

[ORDem]

168. Because she brings huge drama with her. We don't need her as a distraction.

And, really, why do you want her for VP if as you say it's "just" the VP slot? Don't you think a woman of her talents would be better placed where she can actually do some good?

:dem:

[billyoc]

188. I'm worried about the Toxic Shock Syndrome effect on downticket races the name Clinton will have.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. 17+ MILLION DEMOCRATS DID!!!!!

[billyoc]

187. EhwheresmyFather! I forgot all about you languishing in that Ignore list.

I am SO glad I emptied it out to watch you all convulsing in your insanity to the very end, with a particular interest in you, since you're the one that called me a repuke-lover.

[SeaLyons]

20. How dare you say that.....

not only is that a very stupid comment, it continues to insult the 17+ million (more than Obama has) that voted for her and want her to be President. How DARE YOU!!!!!

She is too good to be on Obama's ticket. He does not deserve her support at this point, but I know she will give it because she is an incredibly committed woman.

I say go to hell to anyone that feels the need to put her down like that.

[LaurenG]

42. She's too good for Obama's ticket?

Ok - you have an opinion that reeks of elitism or some ism. :rofl:

[Independent-Voter]

59. Do you realize that putting her on the ticket is the GOP's wet dream? Do you?

[olkaz]

77. Having her be the HEAD of the ticket is their wet dream.

How do you demonize a ticket based on the VP?

This is about Obama.

[PBS Poll-435]

79. That is not nice.

And you still have time to edit out the unnecessary nastiness.

[Independent-Voter]

95. It's harsh, but so is reality sometimes. HRC has no business being anywhere near the ticket.

You don't think whisper campaigns with Vince Foster and Ron Brown won't immediately come out if Veruca is on the ticket? Please don't be that naive.

[PBS Poll-435]

98. No longer needed

Thanks IV

[Independent-Voter]

102. OK - that was way over the top. I'll try and edit that now.

[PBS Poll-435]

108. Thanks.

I really do appreciate it

[spartacuslives]

144. "She is too good to be on Obama's ticket."

"She is too good to be on Obama's ticket." Fine. I'll graciously concede your point. Have it your way. You win. That settles that. Moving on now - Bill Richardson for VP anyone?

[billyoc]

189. Clinton supporters will fall in line in November like everybody else.

Her 15 minutes are over, stop grandstanding, nobody gives a fuck.

[leftofcool]

38. Are you just totally ignorant or have you not seen the

nomination returns? 17+ million people voted for her including some Obama will not get without her.

[billyoc]

190. Whatever the number of scorched-earthers who won't vote Democratic without Clinton on the ticket

they're not worth losing all the downticket races that will be lost with her on it.

Arithmetic doesn't seem to be the Clinton supporter's strong suit.

[BlooInBloo]

10. She offers no constituency that Obama can't already get.

[olkaz]

19. I've agreed with you throughout this thing, but on this, you're wrong.

As much as I loathe Hillary, she has an effect on older women that shouldn't be overlooked. With those older women voters working for Obama, it could be big.

Are you assuming those voters are already in the bag?

[leftofcool]

41. The older female voters are alleged to be the largest voting bloc

[BlooInBloo]

88. I think Obama will get 85%-95% of the Democratic vote without Clinton on the ticket.

[40ozDonkey]

101. Exactly. The Repubs who stay home because there's no Clinton will more than compensate.

And the Indys and Repubs who vote Obama on principle will just be added security.

And Bob Barr the ringer. :D

[wileedog]

Can get yes, to get ENTHUSIASTICALLY though is different

Hillary's supporters may 'come around', but that is a big difference than having 17 million people actively participating, donating, dragging friend and family to the polls, etc.

35 million people who have already pulled the lever once for one of the candidates is an INSANE way to go into the GE.

Its worth considering.

[leftofcool]

39. Wrong!

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Except the crazy aunt in the attic constituency, and I think we can live without that one.

[BlooInBloo]

85. Touche.

[Auntie Bush]

106. You talking about me?

:evilgrin:

[Crunchy Frog]

122. If the shoe fits...

:evilgrin: :pals:

[NJmaverick]

18. Webb- He has the poor, the uneducated, the white vote

the military vote, the Southern vote. That's as big or bigger than Hillary's

[PBS Poll-435]

22. The southern vote

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Be serious.

[NJmaverick]

29. VA isn't a southern state?

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

In the "Blue Wave" year of 2006,

Webb capitalized on a gaffe from his opponent and won in a squeaker.

Not exactly opening up new frontiers for us...

[frickaline]

49. but not the female vote n/t

[NJmaverick]

54. Obama had strong female support, when he ran against a woman

imagine that support when he runs against Johm "my wife is a c**t" McCain

[frickaline]

78. I think the choice of Webb would be perceived by women as a slap in the face

Not really something we need imo.

I mean this is just from wikipedia, think what the blogs would do:

Five women graduates of the United States Naval Academy held a press conference, decrying a 1979 article by Webb, titled "Women Can't Fight". The women said Webb's article contributed to an atmosphere of hostility and harassment towards women at the academy. Webb was later endorsed by nine military women who stated that Webb is a "man of integrity" who "recognizes the crucial role that women have in the military today".<22>

In October 2006, the Allen campaign issued a press release quoting several passages from Webb's novels with sexual content, including graphic references to female anatomy and purported pedophilia, homosexuality and incest, citing a passage in which a Southeast Asian father ritually places the penis of his young son in his mouth. The press release said that the passages showed a "continued pattern of demeaning women".<23> Allen's campaign refused to tell a local radio news station, WTOP-FM, whether it in fact had issued a news release on the matter.<24>

Given the current climate, I see Webb as an impossible choice likely to further alienate women and GLBT from the Obama ticket.

[NJmaverick]

109. I think you highlighted the wrong passage

this is the key one

Webb was later endorsed by nine military women who stated that Webb is a "man of integrity" who "recognizes the crucial role that women have in the military today

[frickaline]

117. You can't possible believe that would play well

The women that are alienated from this campaign already believe that sexism served a major role. If Obama selects a running mate with a questionable record toward women he will be confirming their worst fears. They will NOT give him the benefit of the doubt.

And like I said, that was just wikipedia. Think of how many Clinton supporters have believed the Obama campaign has already been sexist (for reasons we can't seem to uncover). Now you have someone with real proof of past sexism. This is a suicidal ticket, honestly.

[NJmaverick]

121. People who think sexism played a major role in the campaign are delusional

and beyond reason. It's better to appeal to the rational voters.

[frickaline]

124. No they aren't, sexism did play a role in the media.

It's undeniable.

While it didn't cause her to lose the election, claiming sexism wasn't there is what is totally delusional.

[NJmaverick]

130. I will concede that sexism was a motive for a good number of Hillary's supporters

but that really didn't hurt Hillary, did it?

[frickaline]

134. I don't know if it hurt Hillary or not, probably it helped as much as it hurt

but I think it hurt her supporters more than anything. And I think that is the point here.

[NJmaverick]

139. Those supporters are going to have to come to their senses

There is little Obama can do to solve their problems. If Obama panders to the sexism crowd, he will end up losing the election. Obama needs to do what's right for the Country as a whole, not pander to special interest groups.

[frickaline]

146. I don't think taking seriously a response to a recent outbreak of sexism is pandering,

nor is sexism 'special interest'. Women aren't even technically a minority when you consider pure numbers, particularly in the democratic party.

I think if he fails to show concern over this, he will alienate a lot of people. Many women would decide they have no candidate that represents them and likely vote for an Independent or write in Hillary.

[NJmaverick]

151. A good number of those screaming sexism, are guilty of that very offense

others are trying to exploit this real issue, for political gain. Nothing good can come from pandering to people like that.

[frickaline]

157. It is true that many have faulted Harriet Christian for racism and failed

to point out her obvious sexism, which I find amazing. However I think since you are so close to the race and are seeing mainly the extreme Clinton supporters, you are missing what I'd believe to be the silent majority.

I believe there to be many women out there who watched as many men expressed a belief that Hillary threatened them in a gender-based way. Whether it was Tucker Carlson having to cross his legs to protect himself, the infamous nutcracker, or just someone at work who mentions, "I'm not sexist but I just don't want a woman President", there is something real here that many, particularly the media would love to ignore and sweep under the rug. Most women would, and should, take serious offense to that. In fact, most people should. Which includes Obama.

I don't think Obama has done anything sexist in this campaign. However, if he fails to represent the views of American women and supports people with questionable women's records, he doesn't deserve votes from them.

[Hugabear]

156. Sorry, but that is a dumb, sexist statement

Women won't vote for anyone but a female VP?

[frickaline]

162. An odd interpretation, something I never said.

Perhaps you should read further.

[Hugabear]

197. Your reply inferred that Webb would not be able to get the female vote

Why?

[frickaline]

198. if you read further down the chain you will see that he's

got a bad reputation on women's issues from some past writings.

particularly here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6238793#6239226

[LaurenG]

23. I already posted in Rabrrrrr's thread (in the lounge a week or two ago) that he'd pick her

I have only been furious with her once and that was during the "June" statement, otherwise I'm fine with her. I'll take her as VP - and then lets just go forward.

[nebula]

24. And Obama's constituency would evaporate overnight

if Clinton is the VP.

[olkaz]

27. That's ludicrous.

You think Obama's supporters are so wishy-washy as to withdraw their support at the simple choice of a VP?

I think more of them, honestly.

[nebula]

51. The same way it would evaporate if he were to pick, say Joe Lieberman for VP

the choice for the second spot can be a VERY critical decision.

[olkaz]

74. Well, sure, you can't be ridiculous on your pick...

But it's not like picking Hillary is an act of lunacy.

I'm saying that the amount of increased support, momentum, and money, far exceeds any increased GOTV for the Republicans.

[Recursion]

105. If by "wishy-washy" you mean "ardent"

For all the "cult" BS that gets thrown around, his constituency are people who seem his a credible agent to kick out the entrenched elite that have been running Washington since the end of the Cold War. Offering to do that with the name "Clinton" on the ticket is a non-starter.

You don't run a "change" campaign with an establishment VP.

[Critters2]

216. They hate her more than they support him?

That's not much of a constituency.

[George_Bonanza]

25. It's not as if ALL 17 million of her voters are going to die by her

It's just the Harriet Christians, of which there is probably only a small handful.

[olkaz]

30. You're right, but....

It's not just about getting their votes, it's about getting them to work for the campaign and donate, which they are much more likely to do if they have Hillary involved.

I'm telling you, it will add momentum to the campaign.

[Khaotic]

28. bigger constituency

What kind of constituency are you talking about?

Are you talking about the huge population of people who hate Hillary?

Yeah, there's no one else Obama could pick who would energize and embolden the right and the independents to come out and vote against Obama than picking Hillary as VP.

She's like cancer.

[olkaz]

36. The people who hate Hillary *that* much are Republicans anyway.

And I don't believe Obama supporters are going to change their vote on this issue.

It's just the VP slot. Obama already appeals to independents. This isn't going to change that.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. It can make the difference between them staying home in indifference

and them getting off their asses to vote. Hillary will be a great GOTVer for the Repukes.

[olkaz]

150. This is completely unsubstantiated conjecture.

Hillary has already had millions and millions of people vote for her.

That, versus the truthiness that her being VP becomes a HUGE GOTV gamechanger, well, I'll take my chances with the millions.

[Goblinmonger]

31. If your platform is centered around "Change"

then Clinton is not the obvious choice because she represents more of what we have already had and there are plenty better than Hillary to fit the concept of CHANGE.

[olkaz]

37. This point is so exaggerated at this juncture, honestly.

Seriously, a ticket of a black man and a white woman isn't change?

I mean, think about that for a second.

[Goblinmonger]

45. Well, since you bring that up

Don't you think that a black man and a woman would be a double whammy. Or do you think that those that won't vote for a black man are EXACTLY the same that won't vote for a woman?

And if the woman represents the last democratic presidency, then NO it isn't about change.

[olkaz]

61. So wait, hold up.

Is it not change or too much change?

The fact is that I am confident a President Obama could find a way to utilize them within the framework of his vision. Their abilities should not be reckoned with, and Obama could do a lot with them.

Remember, it's Obama in charge. I think he could handle it.

[windbreeze]

141. Yes, it is, and historic too...but...

I wonder if there hasn't been too much vitriol, too much water under the bridge? IF Hillary had gotten out a while back, and not run her campaign into debt(I'm reading close to $40 million)...and ran an...it's me...it's me. campaign...I don't know if that does Obama any good, or whether it harms him...sure we can all come together, and forget the shit that's been said and done yes, we can say we will...BUT...is it really forgotten??...

Perhaps it would be the smartest thing to do, since she did have a strong showing where he didn't...maybe that's what Obama was looking at, when he took the high road most of the time, and said his supporters weren't to do this or that?....he didn't want to add fuel to the fire and burn his bridges, while she had to keep going to show him she could grab the half he didn't....I don't know, it's all been too strange...I guess only he knows where his mind is...I think it would be the smartest thing to do, and yet, if you really want change, she showed us a lot of * tendencies here in the last few weeks, that make me uncomfortable.....LOL...sure happy I don't have to make the decision...wb

[gmudem]

183. Her gender is different

But that does not mean she actually represents a policy change. She is very much a part of the DC corporate establishment, which is exactly what Obama is running to change. She only represents change in a very superficial manner, but does not represent any substantive change.

Clinton would be a disastrous choice and fortunately Obama is wise enough to know this.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

32. Someone on the radio just said

with Hillary on the ticket, it would be the first time he votes for a Democrat and a Republican at the same time. Hmmmmmm......

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Bill Richardson!!

You presume that Hillary will win over "hard-working" whites. Newsflash: neither her husband, nor Gore, nor Kerry won those voters in the GE. They were largely Republicans. Her Bigot Vote will be diffused by Obama's winning coalition.

Here's the winning coalition: Hispanics and blacks; westerners and Latte-drinking liberals; Republicans and Independents.I also believe that Jews and yes, many white women will come home.

Independents are going to decide this election. Obama doesn't need Hillary. Hillary would drive those Independents that Obama has won over right back to the Republican camp.

No thanks. We don't need Hillary. Too polarizing.

Obama has a much larger constituency that Hillary. Just because the Clintons and the media say the opposite doesn't mean it's true.

[leftofcool]

46. Bill Richardson

has some problems in his past. Not good

[butterfly77]

207. He would weaken the ticket...

I know they say he has foreign policy experience he just doesn't have what it takes and I believe that even more after watching him in the debates...

[butterfly77]

208. Biden..

[olkaz]

226. I'm very excited about the possibility of an Obama/Biden ticket.

Wow.

[Capn Sunshine]

219. Right, saving Bush's ass in North Korea is insignificant

Glad you did your homework

[olkaz]

48. I am not assuming that. I'm talking about women.

White men are never loyal to the Democratic party. Women are. And they have shown incredible support to Hillary Clinton.

We need that support.

And independents are not going to drop their support for Obama based on the VP choice.

[wileedog]

55. 17 million votes in a Primary is historic, even if she lost.

Bill Richardson doesn't bring close to that kind of dedicated base in.

Granted it gets messy after the election, but the OP is right - there is no one you can name that will not bring more and more enthusiastic voters into the fold.

Not even remotely saying we can't win without her - we can. And she certainly brings out some Republicans too that others might not.

But you could conceivably have an 70 or 80 million person turnout for the Dems in the GE with that ticket, which would simply over-run anything the GOP tried to do.

[lapfog_1]

34. No.

1. It negates the whole campaign concept of "change"

2. Nobody would motivate a GOP GOTV more than Hillary.

3. Does anyone want her a heartbeat away from the Presidency with her deranged supporters running around believing that she deserves to be President, especially after she has "green lighted" such thoughts?

4. It's time to bury the DLC, not reward it.

5. We already have the racists voting against the ticket, do you really want the sexists to vote against the ticket too!

[Eurobabe]

40. No, no, no. Obama is smarter than to take on these two ball and chains.

[NC_Nurse]

43. If a lot of her constituency is Repubs, they will vote McLame.

[olkaz]

57. That number is not significant enough to be a factor.

Considering only a fraction of the voters that vote in the GE vote in the primaries, it's not a factor.

Please consider how much of a difference it could make if we have the two sides united. The sheer amount of momentum would be impossible to stop.

[goletian]

172. it most certainly is. plus she gets bigoted votes.

everyone knows that if youre dumb in one area youre dumb in another. people who voted for her because shes white will vote mccain because hes a man. a large part of why shes still arguing shes got a shot is all the moron support shes gotten from the right.

[futureliveshere]

44. You CANNOT have TWO powerful dominating personalities in the WH

And with Bill tagging along make it three.. .and with Mitchelle make it four.

Oof... that will be a recipe for disaster. Its not only the winning that counts, it also the running of the country after.

[olkaz]

53. You don't think President Obama can manage that?

I do.

It's about handing out responsibilities and providing the overall vision. President Obama can and will be able to offer that vision and the Clintons will find ways to use their tactical abilities to work within that framework.

[rucky]

70. A President shouldn't have to manage the VP. n/t

[olkaz]

87. I think it's completely reasonable for the President to give assignments.

I mean, isn't that what this is all about?

I mean, it was all the free reign that Bush gave to lunatics that got us in all this trouble in the first place.

[rucky]

125. Task-wise, she'd be great at arm-twisting Congress

that would be a big asset. It's managing the personality that the sub-topic was addressing.

[harun]

99. The current VP manages the president, but I guess that hasn't worked out so well (n/t)

[rucky]

119. I think it's the other way around in that case. n/t

[futureliveshere]

84. I agree that he can manage that, but why should he?

You think he can't manage to win the GE w/o HRC on his ticket? I think he can.

Besides why would he not select someone who is a natural counterfoil and completely trustworthy? With the Clintons I doubt that is possible.

[olkaz]

96. You're making perfect the enemy of the good.

We have a greater chance of winning the GE with the Hillary supporters in line. Period.

Sure, Hillary's policies and behavior has been BS. I think Obama can work out getting her to work with him in a positive way.

It's about confidence in Obama.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. Only a small fraction of voters vote in the primaries

even with record turnout this year. Her popularity among a certain segment of Democratic Party members isn't reflected in the rest of the electorate. To the contrary she has negatives going through the roof. The percentage of jilted Hillary supporters that will vote McCain instead is tiny. Too much downside to try and pick them up. As Chuck once said, don't believe the hype.

[TBF]

50. Bill Richardson can bring hispanics. Hillary just brings high negatives

with moderate and independent swing voters.

[havocmom]

58. Offer up a candidate who would GOTV for the GOP more than Hillary?

Seriously, there isn't one.

[olkaz]

63. A VP doesn't GOTV for the opposition, ever.

If she was the headliner, sure. But as VP? Are you serious?

[havocmom]

81. In the case of the name CLINTON on a GE ballot.... YES she can

The negative impact is that high.

[olkaz]

129. That is speculation, period.

It's impossible to gauge that point for the General, but we do know that millions and millions of DEMOCRATS have already voted for Hillary.

I think I'll go with the millions.

[havocmom]

173. As is the hope that she would benefit the ticket. Speculation!

Why is it that any negative re Hillary is disregarded as speculation or worse, while any possible positive is touted as a sure thing?

If her positives DID outweigh her negatives like her 29%ers insist, why is Obama the top dog in this? If HRC's positives were so friggin high, we would have stopped hearing the name OBAMA long ago in this race.

I think I'll go with reality.

[jzodda]

60. I think we should take her as VP

Despite the negatives, I think her followers+Obama's would overwhelm Repubs with high turnout this fall. This way we unite the party and FORCE her to have to campaign vigorously for Obama. It also would help Obama with all the demographics that he is having problems with. I would then put her to work day one when we win with overhauling our broken health care system. Its a win win for the party and the nation.

I am very concerned about the split in the party right now and the anger of women toward the Obama campaign. We can keep them energized and get the all the fund raising connections she brings to the table also.

We would sweep McCain aside like a F5 Tornado

[olkaz]

67. Thank you!

It's hard, I know, but thank you.

[jzodda]

94. I want to win far more then be angry

I see the combined force of the Obama/Clinton campaigns as a force to be reckoned with. With regards to money and turnout. We all know that she works hard and so she would be a great asset as a campaigner and advisor to the campaign. So would President Clinton. What we don't want is the Clintons and their supporters sulking on the sidelines thinking about 2012.

We need them more then most folks would admit. Without her on the ticket I doubt she will campaign very hard for Obama. We can go back to recent history for examples of close primary seasons where the loser didn't work hard for the winner and the winner lost in general. 1980 Carter/Kennedy, 1976 Ford/Reagan. In 1980 Reagan was smart to take Bush and heal the wounds of their primary and he won. And this primary was closer then all of those. The closest ever most likely. We can't ignore the almost 50% who lost. That would be arrogance of the highest order.

[Bread and Circus]

62. I can't argue with your main premise. I think a good female gov would be a good choice too.

[dailykoff]

64. Bitter boomers are going to vote for McCain anyway.

Apart from Harriet Christian types, she doesn't HAVE a constituency.

[wileedog]

75. No, she has an army

15 million people voted in the ENTIRE 2004 Dem Primary. She get 17 million by herself this year.

That's not just pissed off crazy ladies.

[dailykoff]

111. Where the f are you getting those numbers?

Please.

[jzodda]

118. Those numbers are easy to come by

Go here for one of many places

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/index.html

[wileedog]

128. Just CNN

[jzodda]

97. She received over 17 million votes

We can argue over who got more popular votes, her or Obama but whats clear is that its either the 1st or 2nd most popular votes in the HISTORY of any presidential primary.

So you are on crack if you think she does not have support

[dailykoff]

112. Sure she did. She won!

Not.

[wileedog]

131. No she lost, but still got several million more votes than everyone combined in 2004

The point is an enormous amount of people voted for her.

Doesn't make her a better candidate than Obama or more electable or any of that crap, just means she can bring an insane amount of enthusiastic voters on to the team.

Its not something to blindly dismiss, despite personal feelings.

[dailykoff]

132. Can you tell where you're getting the 2004 primary totals?

Thanks.

[wileedog]

149. Got those from WIki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2004

You'll have to copy and paste that URL into your browser, not working from some reason in the post

[havocmom]

174. And SHE WOULDN'T HAVE THEM if those primaries were held today

The more we know her, the less most of us want her.

[panhead1961]

66. Howard Dean

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. since you just had to ask: I believe Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana would

(my apologies to those who have read already my post on this)

The Democratic Party's weakest points in a general election is in small towns, rural areas and mid size cities. In the state by state counting that Obama would need in order to win a general election this would play out very differently than exclusive Democratic Party caucuses and primaries in places like Wyoming or North Carolina. For Sen. Obama to win I cannot see how he can do it without broadening his appeal in the West, the South and border-states and making a respectable showing in small towns, rural areas and mid size cities. So from my point of view, the V.P. candidate needs to be a populist Southerner or Westerner or border stater who appeals to small towns, rural areas and mid size cities.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

My personal favorite would be Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He is a populist rancher from Montana who is generally populist and progressive on most issues - except gun control where he is strongly supported by the NRA. That speaks for his region. And frankly that would remove a huge electoral liability in the South, the West and in rural and small town America. However he is a strong environmentalist and was vehement vocal opponent of the Iraq War even calling for withdrawing the Montana National Guard from Iraq.

--- And get this he lived and worked in Riyahd for seven years and speaks perfect fluent Arabic. Just imagine what it would do for the world and for the interest of peace in the Middle East if the President of the United States had the name Barak Hussein Obama and the Vice President spoke perfect fluent Arabic!

And take a look at the image that he portrays that helped him sweep Republican Montana with 70% of the vote -- would this sell in small town America and among working class people and in the West and the South and border states?





From the actblue website: "Brian Schweitzer is a different brand of politician who has earned our support based on his willingness to speak truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

A businessman first, he understands Main Street issues at his core, fighting for lower taxes, better health care and education, and the creation good-paying jobs.

A soil scientist by education, Brian lived in Saudi Arabia for seven years, speaks Arabic, and created the largest dairy farm in the Middle East.

As Governor, he has become the nation’s strongest voice for sensible energy policies in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while protecting the environment from the dangers of global warming.
Brian understands that energy security will create new jobs and technology for export, expanding our tax-base, reducing our trade deficit, and saving our
environment.

An opponent of the Iraq invasion from the start, he further understands that you can’t win a war when you’re funding both sides of it."

[rucky]

69. Oprah?

honestly, we can't ignore the point you're making.

[olkaz]

71. Thank you.

Pass it on. Time to get fired up for the GE.

[Ian David]

73. Al Gore, Oprah, Jon Stewart...

[CoffeeCat]

76. I have no problem with Hillary supporters....

80 percent of Hillary supporters are salt-of-the-Earth, decent people. Many of
them have attachments to the Clinton era. Some really wanted to see a woman
President, (and rightfully so!). Some were attracted to the populist appeal
that Hillary honed toward the middle of her campaign. Others believe she has
a terrific health-care plan.

The majority of Clinton supporters are wonderful. I'm a delegate and I've met many of them
at my state's County and District Conventions.

My problem isn't with the majority of her supporters--it's with Hillary. She is running
a campaign similar to George Bush ran in 2004. She's presenting himself as something he's
not. Someone you can drink a beer with; a regular person with a typical agenda. Blue-collar
white voters in the Dem party are the Evangelicals in the Republican party.

Hillary found a pathway to them. However, she cares about them about as much as Bush
cared about Evangelicals. They're both demographics to be culled, in order to win
elections. Period.

I'm sorry, but Hillary is a neocon. She has also been nearly silent during the Bush Administration--
as the neocons have dismantled our democracy, taken away Habeas, tortured, wiretapped illegally
and waged this illegal, lie-based war. She is a warmonger. She votes with them. She's
also intertwined in the corporate corruption that has a stranglehold on our government.

She's part of the problem. The problem is--she's a great campaigner. She's a nice, fluffy
face with a historical name--but what's behind that face is someone who has been folded into
the elite establishment in DC.

Look at her war votes. Iraq. Kyl/Lieberman. Levin Amendment.

She's not Progressive. She's DLC. Obama is not DLC. Party Progressives (Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry,
Richardson, Pelosi, and others) will ensure that she's not the vp--in the kindest, most gentlest of ways.

The Progressive wing of the party just wrestled away power from the DLC (neocon) faction of our
party. There's no way they'll install Hillary as vp.

[AngryAmish]

80. Jesus

[olkaz]

91. You got me.

Thread over.

[Abacus]

86. It's not that simple; you have to consider the size of the anti-Hillary constituency as well

Hillary may net us 5% in the GE only to increase McCain turn out by 10%.

[olkaz]

90. I don't think it's possible to quantify that in any real way

But putting Hillary on the ticket DOES unify the party with enough time to establish a lot of momentum toward the GE, ALONG with ending the possibility of a floor fight.

And honestly, I think it's just not true that a VP Hillary increases Repub GOTV over the amount of increased support from Hillary supporters for the Democratic Party.

[wileedog]

92. Based on the Primary numbers, I don't think that would be the effect

Usually you start a campaign with 12 or 13 million voters who have already voted for the candidate and thus have some emotional investment already.

We would be starting with 35 million.

That's over half what Bush won with in 2004 when he got 62 million in the GE, and that is before we have spent a nickel campaigning.

She will bring much, much more than 5%, albeit the 10% number might be accurate for Repubs.

[OneAmerica]

89. Al Gore

[ORDagnabbit]

93. Edwards and Gore come to mind. Having her on the ticket would kill it.

[ej510]

100. From the polls it would be John Edwards.

[frickaline]

120. I thought Edwards already came out saying he didn't want it and

would prefer Attorney General.

[Hepburn]

103. No on Clinton ~~ the negatives are way too high...

...and that applies to both her and Bill.

JMHO

[stillcool]

104. No thanks.

time to turn the corner on all of this shit. Cut her loose and move on.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

107. You're right. She'll bring out more voters for Obama AND McCain than anyone else.

[Quixote1818]

110. The Beatles. nt

[newmajority]

165. If only John & George weren't dead.

John being the political one, and George being the spiritual one. I'm not sure what Paul would bring to the ticket, other than possibly legalizing pot.

[reflection]

113. Sebilius. n/t

[JimGinPA]

114. Joe Biden

[Butch350]

115. Governor Kathleen Sebelius

Very Impressive woman! But it won't be a woman. Maybe Governor Edward G. Rendell?

[olkaz]

127. Hillary has already had millions and millions of people vote for her.

Most people have not heard of Sebelius or Rendell.

Pretty easy choice.

[Duke Newcombe]

116. Gen. Wes Clark.

National security credentials, genius, southern gentleman.

Nuff said.

Duke

[Crunchy Frog]

126. Wes Clark, Jim Webb or Bill Richardson.

We need somebody with FP creds.

[Dinger]

135. Word (nt)

[lojasmo]

123. But Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama

With a constituency like that....well, I think Obama would be better off without Clinton on the ticket.

Aside from that, Clinton has sky high negatives, and will drive away moderates and indies.

[hokies4ever]

133. Hillary offers the biggest constituency turnout for the Repukes

They will gladly reschedule their golf game to put the smack down on a Hillary V.P. possibility. :rofl:

[loyalsister]

136. So, you want to trade?

Obama's message is about change. While he would not lose votes, he very well could lose the volunteers you say he would gain.
Zero sum.

[NYC_SKP]

138. She would diminish the Obama brand.

She's a fine candidate on her own, but she is so different from him in her manner and approach that it's just not the right fit.
Sorry.

[Peacetrain]

140. Too much drama

This latest bit coming out.. it is never ending and continual.. I thought I could support Senator Clinton as vp, I had huge doubts, but we cannot afford to have the continual drama of not only the Clintons but of the team around her..

[KittyWampus]

142. Brian Schweitzer.

[invictus]

143. No thank you! McCain can have her Harriet Christians and that woman with the fake bruises. n/t

[invictus]

145. Imagine that! McCain's angry old white man vote + Hillary's angry old white woman vote. Neither base

... conveys progress. Obama's base does.

[LucyParsons]

147. Webb or Clark

or maybe even Richardson

He needs someone Southern/military/foreign policy

[krispos42]

148. I don't think Hillary would be willing to sit on the sidelines

The veep only has as much power as the president lets her. The veep's constitutional duties are to manage the senate and be first in line of succession. Everything else is gravy.

Is Hillary going to be low-key, or is she expecting a Bush/Cheney-like co-presidency? If Obama denies her co-president status, how will she behave? What kind of problems will this cause during the next four years?

The potential is alot.

The smallish handful of angry Hillary supporters that would go McCain if Hillary is not on the tickel will most likely be counterbalanced and then some by the large number of Clinton-hating conservatives that would rally to McCain. In other words, putting her on ticket might very well put more votes on the Republican side than she would attract on the Democrat side.

[Kitsune]

152. Does Hillary really need a fucking consolation prize?

She's a goddamn US Senator, that should be enough for anyone who isn't in it solely for themselves.

Hillary cannot be the VP. She is the antithesis of everything Obama is running on. She personifies old politics, especially after the shameful Rovian campaign she's run. She brings no positives and a shit-ton of negatives. She'd be an albatross around Obama's neck.

It never ceases to amaze me how my party constantly tries to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[gcomeau]

153. You mean for McCain?

And that's completely serious. Put Clinton on the ticket, solve McCain's base problems for him and screw Obama out of a large share of the independents and especially crossover voters. Instantly. And no, Clinton does NOT bring in enough support to balance that out, because I don't count the voters who voted for her in the primaries but will vote for Obama like sane people in the general whether Hillary is VP or not, because she doesn't bring them in, rational thought brings them in. Or the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries but will NOT vote for the black guy in the primaries whether Hillary is the VP or not, and we sure as hell know they're out there too. And you knock out those two groups and what she actually brings in is a LOT smaller than those "17 million voters" certain people keep harping about and we all know that.

[olkaz]

171. That's a whole lotta speculation you got going on there.

Millions and millions have voted for Hillary. Lots and lots and lots of people.

I would like to get them all rounded up and working toward the goal in the most efficient way possible, and I think this is it.

[gcomeau]

177. Name ONE bit of "speculation" in my post.

One.

Are you trying to claim that 100% of Hillary voters will refuse to vote Obama is she's not the VP? Was that speculation on my part to say otherwise?

Are you saying NOBODY voted for Hillary instead of Obama based on race which means there's no chance in hell they'll turn around and vote for the black guy based on the VP pick? I have polls that say otherwise, what do you have that says 100% of Hillary voters WILL vote Obama if she's VP? You know that is as absurd as thinking none of them will if she isn't.

Are you saying Clinton ISN'T a polarizing figure that will motivate republican base turnout if her name goes on the ticket and throw up a massive roadblock to the prospect of crossover voters? Was THAT the "speculation" part? Because some of us have been living on earth for the last 15 years and not under a rock and thus don;t consider that 'speculation'...

So WHAT? What was the "whole lotta speculation" in my post?

[olkaz]

180. speculation-o-rama

Put Clinton on the ticket, solve McCain's base problems for him and screw Obama out of a large share of the independents and especially crossover voters.

I realize that this may seem self-evident to you, but it's speculation. Unless you can point me to some sort of poll that proves it, it's truthiness that you're referring to.

And no, Clinton does NOT bring in enough support to balance that out, because I don't count the voters who voted for her in the primaries but will vote for Obama like sane people in the general whether Hillary is VP or not, because she doesn't bring them in, rational thought brings them in.

Again, you can't prove that. Speculation.

Or the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries but will NOT vote for the black guy in the primaries whether Hillary is the VP or not, and we sure as hell know they're out there too.

/yawn. Yes, there were an amount of racist voters, particularly in Appalachia. Whether they will or won't adjust their vote based on a VP is not provable.

And you knock out those two groups and what she actually brings in is a LOT smaller than those "17 million voters" certain people keep harping about and we all know that.

I'm sorry, but saying "we all know that" doesn't make something true. It's an old-as-the-hills method of trying to establish a certain frame without scrutiny. I think minimalizing that many voters is perilous, regardless of the circumstances. And, again, you can't prove what you're saying.

My OP is calling for a way of unifying the party in a short amount of time. Having a floor fight is a historically proven way of losing the GE. I want to avoid that at all costs.

[purji]

154. name one who has higher negatives. n/t

[olkaz]

169. Cobra Commander?

We're talking about her constituency. Getting them back into the fold quickly is **very** important. This is the most effective way of doing it.

[Milo_Bloom]

155. Richardson, Clark, Clarke.. anyone who didn't vote for the war..

just to name a few.

[CaptJasHook]

158. Edwards, Richardson, Gore (not gonna happen),

If you are going to base the decision on political questions like this, why have a candidate at all, why don't we just have a gigantic write in election?

The election process is about candidates making the case for their leadership on the issues, from their they gather supporters.

If you want Hillary because of the votes, why don't we just ask Lieberman, he has the pro-war, white guy vote. Or maybe Jeb Bush, he has a lot of supporters as well. How about Hu Jintao, he has billions of Chinese, many of them already own this country.

[Fovea]

159. Name me a Veep that has higher negatives.

Really, she would energize the Republican noise machine to a crazy overdrive. Mouth breathers everywhere would stagger, zombie like out of honky-tonks and bars in droves to vote against her.

The supporters of HRC who won't vote for Obama as president are not legion. Nor are those voters ones that we much need.

We are running against the least competent, least likable Repug with the worst platform since... Hoover? Only Americans with Stockholm syndrome approve of McSame.

So tell me again why we need the Radical Clintonian voters again?
And how many do they outnumber Billy-Ray Dittohead by? I have been waiting to hear a Clinton slam McSame like they do Barack.

America is in the deepest crisis since 1929. It is going to be bad. McSame will make it exponentially worse. The Dem president in 09 will be forced to be pro-populism, pro-socialism and hard as hell on big pharma, big finance, and big oil. Free trade is as dead as tax breaks for the rich. I predict that after 2012 there will be no NAFTA, no WTO, and very little legal immigration for a decade or more. There will be no H1B visas, and those on them will have to leave.

NAFTA, CAFTA, etc rely on international trade. It will no longer be economical to ship loads of plastic, unsellable crap to the US from afar. We will not have the oil to be the farmer for the world, we will be having problems feeding ourselves by 2012, present trends continuing.

Would a Clinton agree to dismantle all this? Unlikely.

We are electing the next FDR. The veep will have to be able to be the next Truman, gods forbid. The rebuilding will take a long time, because we are now as I type this, entering The Long Emergency (google it).

I agree on one thing. Were Hillary inclined to turn her crazy kung-fu skillz on McSame she would damage him. But the question is, would her doing that be a greater help than her appearance on the ticket would do as an incentive for the mouthbreathers and fear junkies to drive their SUV's to the polls rather than cowering in shame and new-found poverty.

We beat them down this time, they will stay in their trailers for several more cycles.

Would Hillary help beat the mouthbreathers and fear freaks down?
Maybe, but it would be ugly and not go well with the Obama olive branch approach. But that approach may or may not survive this campaign. Certainly HRC on the ticket would be a sign that the gloves have come off.

[RiverStone]

160. Bill Richardson!

[olkaz]

164. Hillary had millions and millions vote for her.

Richardson's constituency is not that big.

And honestly, even among hispanics, I'm not sure he beats her.

[newmajority]

161. Change is not possible without disabling the DLC first.

And you don't disable the DLC by putting their poster girl on the ticket.

[frylock]

163. turd sandwich

[sam kane]

167. Spongebob Squarepants. nt

nt

[goletian]

170. no. hillary as vp is a death sentence for obama. no, no, no.

[WA98070]

175. John Edwards would bring in more net votes than Hillary! When the shouting stops...

the majority of Hillary supporters will go to Obama. Then there are some that won't. Many Hillary supporters will not accept her as VP so they won't vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket either. But Hillary negatives will bring out more anti-Hillary voters than Hillary voters that would vote for her as VP. It's all about NET votes in the GE not primary votes.

[berni_mccoy]

176. Are you talking women or racists as a consituency?

Just asking.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. There are arguments for, and against. I don't want her on the ticket, but I'm supporting the

nominee, regardless.

I think Richardson makes the most sense, on a lot of levels.

[Buzz Clik]

181. Name me a VP nominee more poisonous than Clinton.

Good luck.

[WA98070]

192. There must be a more polite way to say this, even if it's true.

[Buzz Clik]

202. no doubt.

[gmudem]

182. Her and Bill have more baggage than O'Hare

Putting her on the ticket means the floodgates are going to open up wide. It will be a disaster in addition to giving many Republicans a reason to come out and vote against Obama.

[dsomuah]

184. Strickland

[Imagevision]

185. there is only one clear-cut way to win? - I believe Obama can easily defeat McBush...

[olkaz]

194. Of course there isn't just one way.

It's this DU'er's opinion that it is the quickest, most efficient way to unify and mobilize the party toward victory, and salvage what we can even though we're behind.

That is all. Just my .02$.

[dana_b]

191. of course I'd keep an open mind to Hillary.

Like you said, she has brought in a lot of voters however, I believe it should be Obama's choice. It may not completely be so, but it should.

My biggest concerns with her are 1) how she plays (as demonstrated by this campaign) 2) Bill and his baggage 3) I don't think she's been too vetted yet. There's all that talk of mysterious donors and other countries. The Repubs would probably have field day with that.

[crankychatter]

193. the presumption that every Clinton supporter is not a Democratic "constituent" is erroneous

false predication based upon BS demographic analysis from the War Profiteer owned media

try door number two

Bill Richardson could enhance Obama's support more than Clinton

Johnny Edwards could enhance Obama's support better than Clinton

the list goes on

Carol Mosely Braun could enhance Obama's support better than Clinton

how do you like THAT shit?

of course... I have no voice over Obama's VP selection and I'm a Democrat so in MY case

there is NO VEILED THREAT of voting GOP or staying home... unlike...

SOME PEOPLE I won't name

[2rth2pwr]

195. Obama.

[HeraldSquare212]

196. I think she's lost a lot of supporters over the last few months.

[Doityourself]

199. Who's gonna control the big dog..he over shadows Hillary..think he won't try to out

president and second guess Obama, if she is the VP?

[MadBadger]

200. My mother and father are both independents who will both vote for Obama...unless Hillary is Veep

Those are the kinds of people Hillary will alienate: The Independents and moderate Republicans who like Obama but dont like Hillary.

[BlooInBloo]

201. My left testicle has lower negatives that Clinton.

[scheming daemons]

203. Half of Hillary's constituency are McCain voters that will NEVER vote for a Democrat.....

[olkaz]

223. Not proven, but, you're probably right.

I think I've had enough.

[olkaz]

224. you're probably right.

I've had enough of her.

[Xenocrates]

204. Is there an echo in here? Bill Richardson! (nt)

[Dawgs]

205. 100% correct.

[Fox Mulder]

206. John Edwards.

[cloudythescribbler]

209. Sen Barbara Boxer, also Stabenow, possibly Richardson or Mark Warner, Bob Graham ....

and none with the baggage and high negatives among NON-RWers that Hillary has

[Orsino]

211. I am not a commodity to be offered.

While we're looking elsewhere than Clinton for a VP, though, let's look for one who will win a big constituency, rather than a candidate who comes with one already attached to the same old corporatist.

Sen. Clinton is the easy way. I'd like to see Obama and the rest of the party build a better juggernaut.

[quakerboy]

212. Name me A VP

That draws more instinctual dislike from the Right?

Recall the reason that We were favored so highly this election cycle? The really crazy right don't share a candidate with the Republics. And the Republics are none to impressed with their own candidate. And they are discouraged by the way their last choice Royally F'd us all. So they stay home or vote for Barr.

What could change that? I fear that Hillary could. She is a Democrat, she is a Clinton, and she is a Woman. All things the RW Crazies hate. And their Crazy wing outnumbers our Crazy wing.

[olkaz]

214. At this point, I think they're more freaked out by Obama.

Warning: This is just from my experience.

It seems to me that many conservatives are now seeing Hillary as a moderate. Not exactly the most desirable (ie McCain), but not as awful as that "god-awful marxist national security threat" Obama.

This past year has made her more likable to Republicans and less likable to progressives.

[quakerboy]

220. There are those who sway with the propaganda

Eg, last night the next table over at dinner time: "Obama is the most liberal senator out there, even more than Hillary". I find it remarkable that the aged and experienced(looked to be in their 70's) couldn't see right through that and remember last time where Kerry was magically the "most liberal ever". But there are people, an unfortunate number of them that buy it every time. Interestingly enough, 2 of the three still thought they might vote for Obama, just because McCain is so singularly unimpressive.

That said, Obama is new. He freaks certain people out. The conservatives of my acquaintance care less about her "moderateness" and more about 18 years of having Whitewater and Lewinsky crammed into their brains. Even my Father, the conflicted Republican, who adopted Bill Clinton as "the best Republican president we have had" is dead set against Hillary, blaming her completely for any manufactured story he has ever heard.

There will be many more months of the right trying to whip up their followers, not to support McCain, but to hate Obama. And it will work with plenty of them. But they don't even have to try with Hillary. I am concerned about what her presence on the ticket will do for Republic turnout. I think we will still win, but I think it will make the fight harder.

[IsItJustMe]

213. Anybody, damn near, but Hillary.

[weezie1317]

215. It's not just about contiuencies. I think HRC could be good at it, but she has negatives, too....

1. Bill
2. Ticket is still weak on military and foreign policy experience
3. Both are from northern states that are typically democtratic anyhow
4. With prejudices the way they are in the US, the ticket is probably stronger with a white man.

This is just off the top of my head.

[olkaz]

222. You're probably right.

I've changed my thinking on this since she refused to concede last night.

[jespwrs]

217. Name me a VP that offers a bigger bunch of negative baggage than Hillary.

Can't be done

[mod mom]

218. Jim Webb-Military folks, distraught Republicans, Virginians, "Scot-Irish's"

Most Hillary supporters will vote for Sen Obama regardless-only the militant angry ones willing to overlook what is best for this country for a flawed candidate will stay home.

[robertpaulsen]

221. Jesus Christ 2.0

Then again, if someone named Jesus Christ declared himself a Democrat, the Pharisee-Fundegelicals would probably crucify his ass again. ;)

[saltpoint]

227. Obama can choose from a long list of available and qualified souls

and does not need a particlar choice to win against McCain.

Polling in Missouri and Ohio, for example, demonstrate that John Edwards brings a bigger boost to Obama than other veep choices.

Richardson brings the heft of a gleaming resume and a world-class talent in energy and negotiation.

Gov. Sebelius is a blue female in a red state and the daughter of former Ohio Gov. John Gilligan. That represents an expansive demographic across more than one criterion.

The issue with HRC as veep is less whether Obama chooses her or not than it is who she repels, not which demographic base she attracts. McCain is perceived as a "maverick," as ridiculous as that is, but that's the perception. He wins if significant numbers of independent voters choose him as the "maverick." Clinton would reinforce McCain's "maverick" posture. Other Democrats as Obama's veep would draw those independents from McCain.