It's Not Even Close: Obama Should Pick Clinton for VP

[IowaGirl]

By Bob Beckel

"It's not even close. Compare Hillary Clinton to all the names being floated for Barack Obama's running mate and the conclusion is beyond obvious Senator Obama, you are a very smart man which makes me confident you are ignoring the advice of the Washington chattering class who are strongly opposed to you putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket .

The chatterers are nice people but let's face it, most have never been involved in a campaign, know nothing about targeting, or persuadable voters, or analyzing polls beyond the match race and favorability ratings. They are people who harbor negative feelings towards Hillary Clinton formed years ago and who stubbornly ignore the evidence of her political maturation.

On the outside chance Senator you are listening to this uninformed conventional wisdom I offer the following rebuttal of the chatterers arguments and the case for choosing Clinton. For the record I did not support Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination."

more..... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_not_even_close_obama_shoul.html

Okay, before you shoot the messenger, as a Clinton supporter I have had a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around this idea myself but he has made some valid points and I actually have thought of a couple myself. One of which being, among the hardest things for the Clinton supporters to forgive is the painting of the Clintons as racists. If they were united on a ticket, that image would surely be obliterated. Obama is considered sexist by quite a few women, believe it or not. With Clinton as his vp, that image would probably disappear. This could help both candidates financially quite a bit and bring Obama some votes.

The African American community that has had to suffer because quite a few really do still like the Clintons wouldn't have to feel so torn. One third of the CBC did support Hillary. We could have change married with SUCCESSFUL experience. (There is a difference) Parents and children could once again be united in who they were voting for and not yell at each other across the dinner table. Grandparents and grandkids wouldn't feel like they were on opposites of the Grand Canyon politically. (My DH and I could get along again,sigh.) I'm sure if y'all put on your thinking caps, you could come up with many more good reasons.

Ultimately, as a Clinton supporter, I've had to wrap my mind around the idea that my candidate, who I felt was superior, is not going to be president. I would respectfully request that Obama supporters try to wrap their minds around the good aspects of a joint ticket. :grouphug:

[shadowknows69]

1. Not happening

It's the surest way to lose the GE.

[JoFerret]

57. Shadow

s/he know future. Know whats best.

(You may be right but I very much doubt it. Although why she would want the job is beyond me.)

[Zhade]

129. I know one thing - it would hand mcLame easy ammo in the form of two videos.

With the Tuzla video, he easily proves clinton's a liar.

Then, he continues - as in, he's already doing it in his campaign ads - using her endorsement of him over Obama to undercut the ticket.

Strategic disaster.

[paulk]

99. Hillary consistantly polled better than Obama

in both face to face and electoral college matchups versus McCain.

So I'm wondering what you base your prediction on.

[shadowknows69]

104. Wrong

I saw just as many different polls suggesting the opposite so I don't know what you're basing your statement on.

[pnwmom]

109. Are you saying you wouldn't vote for the ticket if HRC were on it? n/t

[greguganus]

121. I'd leave it blank and vote down ticket. Obama preached change. She is not change. n/t

[pnwmom]

124. Then you're no better than the HRC supporters who are threatening not to vote

for Obama.

[greguganus]

125. Obama ran on change. If HRC is his VP then he is a liar. I will follow my conscience. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

2. Bob (Promoter of the "Michelle Said Whitey" Smear) Beckel?

Fuck that asshat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

LOL

:crazy:

[Max_powers94]

3. NO

[newmajority]

4. You don't get CHANGE from years 28-32 of a Bush or Clinton in the executive branch.

Hillary is not on this ticket. Nor does she need to be to "unite" the party.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Binka]

88. Your Concern Is Noted

Get over yourself of course he is in this to win. Farking dumbass.

[Franks Wild Years]

5. The problem....

...with Clinton is that she guarantees that Obama cannot win by any more than 51-49, and that's if he's lucky. It's not entirely fair, but Republicans have a hatred for her which is beyond rhyme and reason.

It's all very well saying that she puts this state or that state into play - If we take her numbers in isolation, sure. But we are not factoring the amount of additional Republican voters she will bring into the McCain camp. If it's a proven fact that she'll bring elements of her own base while not forcing Obama to cede some independents and bring lethargic, uninspired right-wingers to the polls then sure, she's okay. But that isn't the case.

There's a place for her, but not as VP.

[bunkerbuster1]

15. Nah, that's not the problem.

The problem is pulling a democrat out of the Senate. That's why I don't really want Biden or Webb, either. We need them, we need their votes.

Also, it's tough enough running one guy on the ticket with a record of Senate votes that can be twisted by the other side. Why risk it with two?

Seriously, really, truly--I don't want Hillary on the ticket not because she's Hillary, but because she's a senator.

That said, I tend to trust Obama's instincts, and I'm sure whatever choice he makes, he'll make it work.

[lyonn]

17. I like your explanation.

She has always had a hard time breaking the 50% approval ratings. After being in politics all her adult life she has proven she lacks the ability to get the swing vote.

[lojasmo]

6. Hell no.

Independents would flock from the ticket in droves.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Of course, if Obama decides to pick Clinton, I'll still vote democratic, but I know LOTS of people who will not.

[Peacetrain]

7. Nope...not a good fit

[IowaGirl]

35. That is what I thought, but now I'm not so sure....

[Peacetrain]

78. I would feel the same if Hillary was the top of the ticket..

Obama would not be a good fit for vp for her..

[IowaGirl]

128. Actually, though when it looked like Hillary could be at the top of the

ticket, they did talk about having a dream ticket with Obama so apparently she was willing to suck it up for party unity.

[bunnies]

8. Bob Beckel.

Now theres a man who has Dems best interest at heart. Yesiree. Bob Beckel and Karl Rove. Dem lovers. :eyes:

[redqueen]

19. Heh.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for the "helpful advice", but NO THANKS.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Oy.

[scheming daemons]

10. Will not happen. Obama wants to win...and more importantly... NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO GOVERN

Cant do that with Bill Clinton having an office down the hall.


It's time to turn the page on the past 28 years.

[FourPieRun]

50. hillary would help him win more than any other candidate. nt

[Richard Steele]

69. Sheer codswollop. Her name on the ticket is the only thing that could make him lose.

nm

[JoFerret]

98. In your unsupported opinion and odd universe.

.

[Richard Steele]

102. No, in the world where Hillary Clinton is the single MOST DISLIKED FEMALE amongst US voters.

AKA, "the world we live in".

Those folks who voted for her in the primaries?
Those are the only folks who would vote for her
anywhere, ever, under any circumstances. And there
aren't enough of them to win a GE in a nation of 300 million.

My Bible-thumping, rural repub MOM is voting for Obama in November,
despite the fact that she's hasn't voted for a Democrat since Carter,
and she has a serious fear of brown people.

Why is she doing that?

Because she sees how badly 8 years of Republican douchebaggery have screwed
this country...
and because he ISN'T Hillary R. Clinton.

If Hillary had won the Nomination, she'd be staying home come election day,
just like tens of millions of other voters.



Hillary Clinton LOST the primary race. She will never be President of the USA.
It's a fact.

A fact you need to deal with, like an adult.

[JoFerret]

106. I disagree with your view.

.

[IowaGirl]

11. I'm not getting the feeling that anyone is even reading the article or

my comments.

[crankychatter]

18. lol.... I'm totally busted

you got me

I'm laughing at my sloth... just working the phone here and posting snark for entertainment... like playing solitaire

I'll read it now....

jeez

[crankychatter]

25. OK... I have a counter argument for every one of those points and then some

But I know you dig Hillary and I'm not going to do it

... Obama gets my vote and support no matter who his VP is

But I believe this writer is completely wrong and the AA community will balk... as will many other Obama supporters

not for one minute will there be a hesitation to scrutinize Bill Clinton's business dealings

Clinton's PAC influences negate Obama's message of diminishing the power of lobbies on policy matters

THIS is a HUGE selling point, that will win us the election

I'm sorry

best of luck with this one... you can read my post below if you like...

in any case, peace out... I know you're for real and decent, even if I disagree with you

:-)

[IowaGirl]

31. Thanks...

"in any case, peace out... I know you're for real and decent, even if I disagree with you" :pals:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

34. The article is written by

a fucking asshole. Not the best ammunition to pursued most of us here.

[WeDidIt]

40. I won't read the article. Beckel wrote it

and he tried to smear Obama by spreading the unsubstantiated "whitey" crap.

He now has ZERO credibility with NO CHANCE of ever regaining credibility.

[LostinVA]

101. I don't think so either, Iowagirl

And, if you do a search, you'll see I said months ago that the ticket should be HRC-BHO/BHO-HRC for many different reasons. I think some posters just react to a subject header.

Kudos for trying!

[rodeodance]

12. same here............

............
Ultimately, as a Clinton supporter, I've had to wrap my mind around the idea that my candidate, who I felt was superior, is not going to be president. I would respectfully request that Obama supporters try to wrap their minds around the good aspects of a joint ticket. :grouphug:

[CakeGrrl]

14. Plenty of us have weighed the positives against the negatives

...and the negatives outweigh the positives. You dismiss the ability of Obama supporters to have made that consideration. Not everyone is a knee-jerk reactionary Hillary hater. Hillary's own words and actions have helped to take her out of the running.

I've personally cited several sound reasons she's not a good idea, and those do not magically disappear because she says something favorable about Obama or looks good standing next to him.

[rodeodance]

43. I dismiss

nothing. so stop making assumptions.
To say I dismiss o. supporters is silly and divisive.

[CakeGrrl]

53. So to rephrase,

Consider that the VP question has been around long enough for Obama supporters to have considered the positives long ago. As well as the negatives.

Aside from votes that Obama will mostly get because Dems will largely vote Democratic out of their own interests, I'm interested to know what people who are strongly behind Hillary for VP believe she will bring to the ticket.

[rodeodance]

63. for me. experience.

[cascadiance]

92. There's plenty of "experience" in Washington. Not ALL of it is good though!

You need to qualify it more and in less "generic" terms. Obama arguably himself has more *legislative* experience than Clinton does!

[davidinalameda]

140. you took the words right out of my mouth

Hill brings nothing to the ticket except the fact that she will unify the repugs faster than anything

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Obama should pick Hillary if he feels that she should be President...

If anything were to happen to him. Otherwise I think the conventional wisdom about about strategic VP picking is a load of crap. And not just in this article.

In the 21st century people do not vote for the Vice President and certain politicians can't "deliver" a constituency for the nominee if they are on the ticket. The biggest asset the Vice President can bring to the table is to strengthen the ticket as a whole and to make people like the ticket better and the best way for that to happen is for the nominee to pick the best person to succeed him if anything were to happen.

If Hillary is indeed that person then Obama should pick her and it will be a strong ticket.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

72. I have no problem

with her as VP. Unless in some way she harms the ticket. A lot of conflicting info is floating around on the topic. But I have always said I would support an Obama/Hillary ticket. I think a good ticket would include Jim Webb or Joe Biden.

I do think 2 senators is problematic. Would you like to see her appointed to the supreme court? How about Hillary as Secretary of State? There are plenty of jobs for her where I think she could do more than being the VP.:shrug:

[comradebillyboy]

94. well, my friend, I would prefer that Obama select

someone other than Hillary or any other democratic senator to be his running mate. Obama has already selected the VP candidate's chief of staff, and that person is in no way compatible with Clinton. I think Obama wants a VP candidate who has substantially less stature.

[lyonn]

13. I don't believe the Clintons are racist, but, they used it against Obama?

They did it in a way that wouldn't seem to help the cause of minorities. Bill made head scratching comments?! Didn't sound like the compassionate Bill of years ago. Hillary chose to diss Obama even to comment that McCain had more experience!! I wish she had explained how McCain was more experienced. His big thing was election reform that he flip flop on. He got snookered by the Keating scam. Many were POW's from Viet Nam. That doesn't qualify them to be a president, let along a politician. They are to be respected for what they went through while obeying our govt.'s orders to march off to war.

Bill was a damn good President. He didn't get everything right but we were all better off during his presidency after 12 years of Reagan and Bush. People didn't lose their jobs and homes during Bill's terms.

[crankychatter]

16. Obama's biggest selling point is the reduction of Special Interest influence

PAC contributors and President Clinton's business affilliations make this selling point, utterly impotent.

Absolutely NOT, NO, no way in hell, forget about... we need to grow the Party and keeping it small, so that old influences and insiders retain dominance is....

counter intuitive... to say the least

[lyonn]

26. Ugh, so true, I don't want any more lobbyist writing our laws

No more corporate control. We the people have been lost in the shuffle. For one thing, among many, the cost of student loans is a disgrace. My husband had one 50 years ago and it was real cheap. the govt. got their money back and no one was a loser with a system that appreciates educating the masses. Another issue that rankles me is the legal system. The average person has the deck stacked against them when it comes to getting justice. Our prisons are full of druggies and dealers. We don't need to lock them up for eternity. Our prison system seems to be a backwards situation. No real effort for rehab. rambling again......

[IowaGirl]

49. Hillary doesn't have that much PAC influence....

See factcheck.org: "In fact, only about 1 percent of all Clinton's funds have come from PACs or from current or former lobbyists, making the claim that her ads are financed by "lobbyist money" about 99 percent untrue."

Bill doesn't have to disclose his funding until Cindy McCain discloses her finances. In the meantime, he would campaign in the Appalachian mountains with a vengeance for a Obama/Clinton ticket and then O would sweep those states.

[Kool Kitty]

55. Bill may not have to disclose his funding 'til

Cindy discloses hers, but what do you think the media will harp on day after day, night after night until that happens? Not on Cindy's non-disclosure, I'll tell you that. It would be "all Bill Clinton, all the time" until election day.

[IowaGirl]

64. Bill Clinton has been attacked so much it's practically the

norm, and he still got re-elected as president. The country is used to it. He still has many, many fans.

[Kool Kitty]

105. I know that Clinton has many fans, that was not

the point I was trying to make. They really can't damage Bill Clinton anymore. But if the MSM does nothing but focus on Bill Clinton, they won't be covering Obama. It would be the ultimate distraction, is what I was saying.

[DFW]

20. It would be a smart move on Obama's part to OFFER it to her, BUT:

It might or might not be smart of her to accept.

Say he picks her, she accepts, and the ticket wins. Then what?
Obama can then decide if he wants a VP in the vein of Al Gore,
or one in the vein of Alexander Throttlebottom (look it up if
you're too young, have some fun in the process!). That would be
Obama's call, not hers.

On the other hand, if she says thanks, but no thanks, he can then
pick someone from her camp that is not really beholden to the Clintons,
such as Wes Clark, and get all of the benefits and have none of the
perceived (rightly or wrongly) baggage. Hillary is then free to pursue
a position of real power, such as Senate Majority leader, and if she
works her ass off to get Obama elected, she should get the post. The
post of Senate Majority leader under a President of your own party
is potentially a far more influential position than VP, and she knows
her way around Washington well enough to realize that. It's just a
question for her to decide which glass ceiling she wants to bust through.
Either way, she gets to make history--the question is does she want the
position with the highest prestige for the history books (VP), or does
she want the position where she can wield the most influence?

[comradebillyboy]

96. I think you just might be right however,

I don't think that being VP has as much prestige or power as the Senate majority leader. Dick Cheney has been the only exception and I don't expect to see a VP with that kind of power, influence and autonomy again in my lifetime.

I also think the Obama-Clinton chemistry is just not good at all, they really don't like each other.

[Zhade]

133. Harry Reid Part 2? Fuck that.

No way.

[Median Democrat]

21. Clinton Senate Years + Obama Senate Years < McCain Senate Years

I can understand other aspects of Hillary that might make her attractice as a VP, but experience is not one of them. If you add Hillary on the basis of experience, then McCain should win, because he has more experience than Hillary and Obama added together.

The think that Hillary really needs to bring to the table is foreign policy and military experience to complement Obama or increased Demographic appeal. Finally, Hillary does have some baggage, which we need to be realistic about.

[book_worm]

22. Clinton is popular with Dems, but the party is uniting behind Obama already where she hurts him is

with independents and we need those to win.

[IowaGirl]

23. Maybe I should have said, think about it and get back to me tomorrow,LOL.

[msongs]

24. NO - the new guy needs a new team and leave the baggage behind nt

[IowaGirl]

27. Seems like everyone he considers has some baggage. At least

Clinton could bring a few voters to the table and her money bundlers would be more amenable to helping BO. Whatever you say about the Clintons, they are masters at fighting the right wing attacks.

[rock]

28. Obama is caught on a catch-22

1) it's a bad fit (and I'm agin it)
2) it's probably a winning maneuver

[TBF]

44. I agree 100% - that is the catch.

I've talked to people here locally in Texas who just loved both candidates and "want them both". I think there are other candidates who are better, but it sure would take care of the unity problem.

[Lerkfish]

29. so if we don't think she's the best choice, it's due to some flaw in ourselves?

aren't the primaries over?

[IowaGirl]

30. Not a flaw, maybe just some angles you haven't considered....

[Lerkfish]

38. believe me, I've considered all the angles.

thanks for your concern, though.

[Raineyb]

32. Absolutely not!

First of all, what we need is a break from the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush thing. For as long as I can remember there's been a Bush or a Clinton in or around the White house. It's not healthy.

Second, Clinton is still DLC and the last thing we need on the ticket is another DLC Democrat.

And frankly, my memory is not so short as to so easily forget what was said a mere 4 and 5 months ago and I do not want any one on the Democratic ticket who is willing to go there. I don't like the attitude it represents and I don't like the not so subtle insult to my intelligence.

BTW I did read the article before commenting and the author of the piece is a political analyst for Faux. While he did work for Mondale, even a Democratic political analyst for Faux is suspect. Faux only likes wishy-washy spineless so-called liberals or DINOS. There is no credibility there.

Regards

[IowaGirl]

47. It seems a little harsh to lump the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years in

with the war and economic recessions of the Bush clan.

[Raineyb]

82. I was talking about what looks like dynastic tendencies.

In a democracy where in theory anyone who meets the criteria listed in the constitution should be able to run for office it is not healthy to have sons of presidents, or wives of presidents running for public office with their name recognition pushing them up to the fore.

However, if we're to discuss policies, the Clinton years, while not as bad as the Reagan or Bush years, were not as great as some of us would remember them. I'd argue that the Clinton years were an 8 year respite (for some) from the inevitable economic disaster that Reagan's policies were bound to bring us. (Said economic disaster being exactly what we're dealing with now.)

Meanwhile, Clinton helped set the stage for some of this disaster with his Republican lite policies. It was Clinton who signed the law repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 and Clinton signed the law that opened up the Enron loophole and he certainly did not have to press to pass NAFTA which is also responsible for the abysmal state of our economy today.

Alan Greenspan, another person to whom we can look when assigning blame for our current economic difficulties, had said of Bill Clinton that he was the best Republican president we ever had. Based on Greenspan's political leanings, he's probably correct. I do not want a Republican president running on the Democratic ticket. I want a Democrat and based on her record I see no evidence that Senator Clinton is any less a DINO than is her husband. For that reason alone she need not be on the ticket.

Regards

[Zhade]

134. Yeah, peaceful and prosperous - unless you were Iraqi.

Or a nonviolent drug offender.

Or an American worker - or overseas worker - reamed by NAFTA's lack of worker protections.

I could go on, but you get the point.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Keep trying.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. There's something about people that were involved in the Mondale campaign

That makes them incredibly stupid. First Geraldine Ferraro and now this guy...

I have no problem with Hillary on the ticket but much of this is factually inaccurate and the conventional wisdom form a guy who starts off bashing conventional wisdom.

The Democratic Party is already unified and Barack Obama is polling at 60% with Hispanics.

West Virginia and Kentucky would be red states if we ran Jesus Christ on the ticket. Beckel doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of how the voting patterns of these two states (particularly West Virginia) have changed over the past 30 years and even more so over the past 10 years. Granted his candidate lost 49 states so I can understand why he might be having some trouble understanding which states are competitive and which aren't.

If Obama feels that Clinton is the person he wants to run the country should anything happen, then he should by all means pick her. But the strategic reasoning in this article is a bunch of crap.

[lumpy]

86. Bob Beckel was heavily involved in Robert Kennedy's

campaign also.

[WeDidIt]

37. I would actually consider what Beckel wrote

if he hadn't tried to spread the "Michelle said Whitey" smear AFTER his candidate had lost the nomination.

[redqueen]

61. Wow...

he was in on that? :puke:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. Absolutely!

[BayouBengal07]

41. No.

I'm not going to let the media drag the three ring soap opera out through November. We'd NEVER hear about McCain because it would all be about the Obama-Clinton "odd couple."

That and she has too much baggage.

Not just no but hell no.

He can put someone with more foreign policy and military experience on the ticket.

[FlyingSquirrel]

45. At this point I just have to put my faith in the man.

He's a smart cookie and he'll do whatever is the best thing. If he chooses Hillary, I'll assume he's considered all options and this is the best one.

Personally, though, I think Clark is the one. The situation has not changed much from 2004, and I think Kerry would have won if he'd chosen Clark.

[grantcart]

131. I agree with you Flying Squirrel

[snooper2]

46. The same Bob Beckel who got fucked by a prostitute

twice, once the old school way, and the second time by blackmail :rofl:


GOBAMA!

[IowaGirl]

52. LOL, I don't keep track of other people's sexual escapades...

I have enough trouble keeping track of my own!

[martymar64]

59. you have escapades?

I should be so lucky, but then it's always different for girls. ;(

[Ino]

51. We need only 1 President at a time... not 3 (n/t)

[IowaGirl]

54. What's the matter? Not sure your candidate can really lead?

Because if he can lead, there will be only one president in the white house, Barack Obama. If he can't then we will have back-up.

[Kool Kitty]

56. Yes, we're sure he can really lead.

I don't think we need a back-up, "just in case". Do you?

[IowaGirl]

58. I am not the one expressing concern about too many presidents.

[Kool Kitty]

60. Neither am I.

My reasons for not wanting Hillary for VP have nothing to do with a co-presidency concern. I just think that the Clintons bring too much baggage and I want a team that is new. Sorry if I sounded snarky.

[IowaGirl]

62. No prob, Kitty. It's been a hard primary season for everyone

and we all may have to bend a little, sigh.

[Lerkfish]

66. is this kind of crap even allowed now? trashing the nominee in favor of CLinton?

I thought we were past that bullshit. I guess not.

[Ino]

87. I'm not sure yours can follow.

I would not look forward to 4-8 years of "President Obama said such-&-such today. BUT WHAT DOES HILLARY & BILL THINK?!" I don't think the media could resist the temptation to pit them against each other, and I don't think HillBill could resist the limelight of speaking their own minds rather than supporting the President.

[merh]

100. Shouldn't that be "our" candidate.

He is the dem nominee. That's just a typo I'm sure, the "y" is a mistake.

[butterfly77]

65. I have a problem with this sentence...

The African American community that has had to suffer because quite a few really do still like the Clintons wouldn't have to feel so torn. Bullshit! as far as I am concerned..

[IowaGirl]

68. So what's your problem?

You don't believe that any of them like the Clintons or you do want them to suffer?

[butterfly77]

77. Them who?

[Raineyb]

122. So do I

Plenty of us have been suffering but it sure isn't because we're torn between Obama and Clinton.

Ending racism, improving the employment situation, funding our schools, and universal health care will do a lot more to ease suffering than putting Clinton on the ticket.

In fact, Clinton's presence on the ticket will not ease anyone's suffering except for Clinton. Personally, I've got slightly more important things to worry about than Clinton's suffering.

The outcome of this election is far too important to put it at risk by putting Clinton on the ticket.

Regards

[Blondiegrrl]

67. ... and kiss all the independent votes away? No, thanks.

Hillary Clinton adds nothing to the ticket. The vast majority of Dems will vote for Obama no matter who the VP is. But the vast majority of independents and moderate Republicans will abandon their support for Obama if Clinton is his VP. We have more to lose with her on the ticket.

Obama needs someone with military experience on the ticket to counteract the Rethugs' swift boat attempts. That's our best bet.

[JackORoses]

70. Survey says.... Hell No!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

71. Nice try. Next time use a source who's not an obvious RW tool.

Best piece of advice I ever got: Do not take advice from someone who wants you to lose.

How are things over at Capital Hill Forum?

[IowaGirl]

73. I consider the merits of advice given besides just who gives it.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

75. And a broken clock is right twice a day.

Still, I'd rather have a clock that works and a squirrel that can see.

And HELL NO to Hillary as VP.

[salguine]

74. Pardon my French, but Fuck. That. Shit.

[IowaGirl]

76. Not into unity??

[geek tragedy]

79. Um, people who post at your McCain-loving website

really shouldn't come over here and lecture real Democrats and progressives about unity.

[CakeGrrl]

81. Why does "unity" have to equate to "put Hillary on the ticket"?

If Hillary just isn't a good long-term fit for the way Obama wants to govern and he picks otherwise, is this going to be another opportunity for another wave of supporters to threaten to take their ball and go play with McCain?

[salguine]

138. if it means Clinton on the ticket, then no, I'm not.

[geek tragedy]

80. If he trusts her and will help him win, fine.

If not, he should pick someone who fits those criteria.

[BlueJac]

83. Wake up

[Zachstar]

84. No

[Political Heretic]

85. There is LESS reason for Obama to pick her now than ever.

[zulchzulu]

89. Beckel is correct that it's not even close...

...there is no way Barack will pick Hillary for VP.

I will wager $1,000 NOW that it doesn't happen.

[cbayer]

90. Well, your OP brought out all the usual suspects, didn't it?

I am and have been in favor of an Obama/Clinton ticket since the beginning. If it does not happen, I will be disappointed but I will understand and still back the ticket. However, for me, this is the winning ticket.

[LostinVA]

103. Yup, agreed

[opihimoimoi]

91. They are both waiting for each others choice/ announcement....

the naming of the #2 is obviously important enough to weigh options...

POKER...waiting Game......

[onetwo]

93. It doesn't play well on DU, but an Obama/Hillary ticket will be IRRESISTIBLE to low info voters.

Once in the booth, most won't be able to help themselves from pulling the lever for Obama/Clinton (D). Clinton on the ticket guarantees victory.

Of course, Obama will have to deal with yet another temporary hit by the 'netroots'...

[Zhade]

136. Yes, those who don't know SHIT about how to actually fix the mess we're in like the idea.

The problem is, their type of ignorance is exactly why this country's so fucked right now.

[Guaranteed]

95. The "big name" argument roars its ugly, loser head again.

On very first glance, Clinton would look to be a powerful VP choice.


On second, third, fourth, etc.- when one actually takes the time to think about the consequences- it becomes a really bad idea.

[GalleryGod]

97. Think her husband can get past Vetting? I think NOT!

Obie One Obama....needs a help not a side show on his left rear flank Bill's campaign in the boondocks
All they want is the effin' $$$$.


Exit. Stage. Left.

[tucsonlib]

107. Re: Obama Should Pick Clinton for VP

Only if he wants to lose the election. The Repugs would rejoice at such a blunder.

[davidpdx]

108. I read the article, but disagree

No one is entitled to the VP spot as it should be up to the nominee to choose freely who he thinks would be the best candidate. After reading how well things went at the so called "unity" rally, I pretty much have stuck with the same opinion I've always had. I don't think an Obama/Clinton ticket would help attract independents and liberal Republicans. It has nothing to do with "Hillary bashing" as some would like to make it out to be.

[polichick]

110. Well, of course he'd say that - he's a supporter...

The truth is, she doesn't fit a movement that's all about people taking back their power and changing Washington.

[IowaGirl]

111. Even if she just helped take it back to the peace and prosperity of the

90's, that would be a big change from what it is now.

[polichick]

114. First of all, we need someone who can help the change movement WIN...

...not someone who will inspire the Republican base to come to the polls ~ and, secondly, Obama needs a veep he can trust and is happy to take a back seat. Hillary will do important work in the future, and may even hold a leadership position in the administration (healthcare perhaps), but she won't be chosen for veep.

[Raineyb]

123. Obama doesn't need Clinton

to govern and improve the state of this country. I'm not even sure where you're coming from with this.

Regards

[Zhade]

137. You mean the peace half a million dead Iraqi kids "found" thanks to her husband?

NT!

[IowaGirl]

141. ????????Huh????????

[Raineyb]

142. I believe she's referring to the half million Iraqi children dead

because of the sanctions that Madeline Albright said was "worth the cost."

If I'm mistaken feel free to correct me.

Regards

[Imagevision]

112. Wrong-Wrong, Hillary is being compenstaed for supporting Obama and

Bill is already giving us an idea of what to expect from his future"support". Hillary. ok pay off some of her debt, VP.? like Obama said we need new youngblood in Washington politics...

[gmudem]

113. A recipe for electoral disaster

Clinton on the ticket is just not worth the risk. If Democrats wanted her on the ticket, she would have been the nominee.

[Colobo]

115. Obama/Clinton is a good ticket.

[mnhtnbb]

116. NO! Wrong decision and wrong signal to send regarding change.

[dkf]

117. Not if her husband thinks President Obama needs to kiss his ass.

[IowaGirl]

119. That's just a foreign newspaper trying to stir up trouble.

No true sources given so who knows what was really said.

[iowabill]

118. K&R

:kick:

[Kahuna]

120. Fat chance. nt

[iowabill]

126. Agreed - think about it

After long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Obama should pick Clinton for VP. My reasons are a little different from those in the article.

First, take a deep breath and repeat to yourself “The primaries are over.” The question now is how to best beat the Repubs. The Dems have too often beaten themselves by engaging in dumb arguments about who is the most ideologically pure. Admit that Clinton and Obama are BOTH more “pure” than McSame and then set about deciding how best to beat him.

I liked Bill Clinton but this year I was very convinced that the county is ready for something new. The country is no more in the mood for a third Bill Clinton term than it is for a third Bush term. Because of this I was slow to warm to Hillary. THIS WAS MY MISTIAKE.

Over the course of the primary campaign Hilary carved out her own “brand” separate and distinct from Bill’s. Her brand is now just as new as Obama’s brand is new. She has inspired previously alienated people to come into the process just as he did. They both became “movement” candidates. If these two movements can be joined there will be a Democratic tidal wave.

[Neshanic]

127. Not happening. She's not "Changey". You know like keeping Gates stuff.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

130. Bob Beckel....

The Fox News douche who just got done trashing Wes Clark for criticizing McCain's military record.

:puke:

[Stephanie]

132. I am sure Obama will take advice from realclearpolitics

I have no doubt they have his (our) best interests in mind.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. I would worry about her fabrication of events like Bosnia and her persistant criticism of Obama

no

[Zhade]

139. Indeed. Proven liars - with video that proves the lies - don't play well with others.

People tend not to trust them, either.

[SuperTrouper]

143. Chrissy Matthews agrees: It should be Hillary as VP

Sebelius: Maybe..it will offend Hillary's supporters
Richardson: Good prospect but not a great candidate in Primaries and not rough enough to bring McSame to pieces
Dodd: No way...
Nunn: They did not like him too much either, even if he may bring GA

[shayes51]

144. Agree!