I am now a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[mckeown1128]

As many of you know... I've shown little to no love fore Senator Clinton. I've had posted many a post criticizing her actions in the primary. BUT, I know am fully convinced that she is what is right for the VP position. In my opinion she is THE only real choice for VP.

Before I list my reasons... I want to say that the PUMA's have nothing to do with this decision. They aren't bitter over Hillary's defeat. They are using Hillary's defeat as an excuse to not vote for Obama. (For whatever ageist, sexist, racist, etc reasons) Most I believe are Republicans, trying to stir up an anti-Obama sentiment in the Democratic Party. Their effect is negligible. The only harm they cause is that they give the media an excuse to do countless segments on "Obama's struggle to even get support in his own party." The PUMAs are all hiss and no bite(corny I know.)

My reasons for supporting Hillary:

1. She polls well. She doesn't help Obama with Indies or Republicans... but she greatly helps him grip Democrats. The demographics that supported her in the primary are clearly the holdouts in polling. (except for Hispanics..which Obama is winning 2-1 over McCain) Older, non-college educated, rural, and women are the groups that aren't behind Obama as much as they should be. She brings them. They for whatever reason (I suspect a few..but won't list them) don't trust Obama. They know and trust Senator Clinton. They will view her on the ticket as a sign that she is there to take care of things behind the scenes. (Even though Obama is fully capable) Obama clearly pulls the intellectuals from the right, center, and left... Hillary pulls the "working class" Democratic vote.

2. Money, Money, Money. I know, Obama has the BEST fund raising team in political History. But Senator Clinton's money is from different and untapped sources for Obama. Remember Hillary has had the second best fund raising team in political history... Imagine how much money Obama could raise if he could combine fund raising lists with Hillary. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

3. She is disciplined. Her campaign failed because of her message people (Penn and the like) NOT because she was incapable. She said everything perfectly, she held up well under pressure, and she stayed on message. Obama will not have to worry about Hillary making a major gaffe. She was without a doubt the best debater out of any on either side this past year.

4. She has the aura of being vetted. Which keeps the media from digging too deep into potential scandals (such as Clinton Library donors) They will do what they did in the primaries and just assume that everything about her is known. They will continue to ignore the Dick "toe sucker" Morris type books of faux scandals about Hillary. She comes with media scrutiny immunity. I know they will continue to obsess over what she is wearing or what her favorite earing is... but even the petty semi-sexist media coverage on Hillary will be beneficial. If the media is reporting BS stuff they don't have time to try and sink the campaign. I want the media to be good and distracted.

5. It messes up the right wing attacks. They have been nailing Obama for being new and naive. The second Hillary is on board they will switch to claiming that the Obama/Clinton team as "washington insiders who aren't real agents of change"... this will run against their claims up until this point of "we don't really know Obama" Dem's will just have to ask which is it are Obama and Clinton unknowns or typical washington... This will send the poorly organized right wing smear machine spinning in different directions. (They have only just recently gotten into harmony with their attacks on Obama) This sets the smear machine back.

6. African American and a woman... come on that just screams of 20,000 media segments on how much of a 'Change' it is. It undercuts McOld-white-man's attempt to be the "real agent of change."

These are the things that Obama needs in a VP. I have no doubt she will be able to do the job well. But this is what we need to win as Democrats. These are things that no one else can bring to the campaign.


I'm a proud Hillary for VP supporter. HILLARY :applause: HILLARY

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Here's my reason for supporting her for VP:

FISA!!! At least one of the two we send to the whitehouse needs to have the right idea on that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html

[emilyg]

2. I'm with both of you.

Alas, I think it will be Biden.

[jobycom]

9. I don't think it will be Biden.

Biden is a favorite of the media, but a lot of voters don't like him as much. Plus, Biden is an old-school senator, and that's what Obama is trying to campaign against, in some ways. I don't think he'll pick Biden, I think that's just the media's preference.

Clinton appeals to the long-timers in the party, but she's still new and exciting enough to not rock Obama's change boat. He's got to have her on his short list, at least.

[mckeown1128]

11. I thought that I heard somewhere that she is being vetted...

so I guess that means she is on some list. lol

[Hamlette]

34. Biden has been in the Senate for a long time but he is not what Obama is campaigning against

Biden can throw punches but he is not a partisan hack.

What Obama is campaigning against is treating every problem in political terms. Biden has been out there with solutions, not just saying "its all the republican's fault" (duh, we know that).

[jobycom]

104. Well, that's true, but that's not exactly what I meant.

I just mean that Biden's image doesn't match how Obama has been campaigning. He doesn't have the energy and the appearance of change that Obama has campaigned on. He's like matching a wool tweed dinner jacket to a gray silk suit. Both work fine, but they don't look good together. Clinton, for instance, has the same energy and appearance of new as Obama, yet she can still appeal to old-school Democrats. Plus, her experience would ease some concerns about Obama, and there's a sort of unwritten truism of politics that previous attacks by a candidate's running mate don't stick, so she might even immunize him to some of the "inexperience" accusations.

Plus, Biden's not as solid or knowledgable as people seem to think. He's quite flaky when he campaigns, and is always sticking his foot in his mouth. He's made some old-fuddy-duddy comments that border on racism, for instance, and older Dems haven't forgotten his plagerism from when he ran for president back in 88. That alone might make Obama nervous, because of his speech flap during the campaign. Plus, Biden has been inconsistent on Iraq, to the point of appearing to go where the poll winds blew him, even if he did so in a somewhat statesmanlike manner. The Republicans will dig those clips out and play them over and over. Biden at times looks statesmanlike, and at other times looks confused and addled. A lot like McCain on both of those points.

I think if Obama choses him, he'll weaken the whole image of change and energy around his campaign, he'll open up more attacks on flip-flopping and maybe even plagerism that will be hard to defend (even if they aren't true), and he'll risk Biden sticking his foot in his mouth.

Not knocking Biden, he's a decent bloke. I just don't think he'd be a good choice.

[Hamlette]

136. I agree, the image isn't great

I love Biden and recognize he has some faults.

It will be an interesting pick. Clinton picked another young guy and that worked.

I'd kill to see Obama's spread sheet for the general election. I bet they're running the numbers with a whole bunch of names/types.

I'd love to think it would be someone exciting.

[TheFarseer]

181. Plus Biden doesn't want it

He's fairly adamant on that point.

[Rene]

13. Biden should be flat out rejected because of his long time ties to financial industry and the

harsh bankruptcy laws.

[NorthCarolina]

55. Had she been the presumptive nominee she would not have voted the same way on FISA though

as it was, it was a safe "No" vote for her since she knew it would pass anyway.

[Butch350]

67. That's because she feels quilty for voting for Bush Lites War!

[jobycom]

105. Yes she would have. nt

[emilyg]

117. I don't agree with you.

[BooScout]

146. And you know this because you're a mind reader?

:eyes:

[NorthCarolina]

157. No, not a mind reader, but I know her conservative voting record

on issues such as this, and I think I have the mental capacity to figure out what makes the most sense and why. Nobody has to agree with my assertion of course, but as you can above see I am also not the only one who believes this to be the likely case. Because she was not the presumptive nominee, and because she was well aware of the fact that it would pass without her apparent "support", she had the luxury to vote "with the will of the people" and gain some amount of "mileage" from that vote. Had she been the nominee there (in my opinion) it seems pretty obvious she would have likely voted in favor of the legislation. Regardless of how much you may personally like her, remember that she is first and foremost a DLC Democrat. How did the bulk of the DLC vote on this issue? That should give you a clue.

[BooScout]

186. She has one of the most Liberal voting records ....

You apparently don't do your homework.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[MasonJar]

162. And you know this how?

[Beacool]

167. Hillary co-sponsored Dodd's bill.

She voted exactly as she said that she would vote months ago. Please don't try to excuse Obama's vote on this issue by second guessing what Hillary would have done if she had been the nominee.

[jobycom]

3. Interesting. I was a Clinton supporter who thought Obama should not pick her as VP

because I didn't think the ticket could win.

But I've come to think as you have, and for a lot of the same reasons. I've spoken to a lot of people here in Texas who think that her popularity with Texas Hispanics could help Obama carry the state. Some of these aren't ordinary voters, either, these are people who make a living handling campaigns and predicting outcomes of elections.

[Liberal Gramma]

73. Wouldn't Bill Richardson be an even better choice?

For bringing in the Hispanic vote? And he has foreign policy credentials second to none.

[treestar]

74. And also for his experience

The "Obama doesn't have enough experience" meme is well underway. Bill R. has an excellent resume of well rounded experience.

[awoke_in_2003]

126. I'd like to see Richardson, too

for the reasons you mentioned. Plus, I get enjoyment out of watching freepers heads explode (Oh no, a black man AND a hispanic man)

[cbc5g]

4. Good reasons all ... i'm down with any good center/progressive candidate

[ruggerson]

5. My only worry is Bill

if they can somehow get him under control, maybe send him on a fact finding mission to Myanmir for the duration, then, yes, she is the single best Veep he could find. In fact, she blows everyone else out of the water.

But, in my mind, Bill remains a problem.

And make sure she uses Obama's political strategists, not the lame ones who ran her campaign in the primary.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. Former President Clinton is not and will not be a problem. nt

[Mojorabbit]

23. I think he would be a problem

Any thing he does will be a circus in the press and overshadow what Obama is doing. I can picture it now, Bill says something, the press goes into their overreact mode, Obama at a press conference being put in the position to have to disclaim or put a positive slant on what he has said instead of dealing with the questions about the immediate issue he is focusing on. Breathless talking heads on tv speculating on what Hillary is going to do to keep Bill in line, etc

I am fine with her being on the ticket but Bill will be a distraction no matter how hard he tries not to be. The press will see to that.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

91. I'd be ok with it too if they recognize that Obama is calling the shots.

I'm a bit worried that Hill and particularly Bill will be out there doing their own thing.

[JeanGrey]

188. How do you figure? He has been a tremendous problem

already!

Picking her would be a major mistake, sorry.

[undeterred]

130. Bill is a huge problem.

You cannot have a former president on the ticket- especially this one. For better or worse, he overshadows everyone.

And besides, Obama's message is CHANGE, not a throwback to the nineties.

[Skip Intro]

6. I am falling out of my chair.

I may need 911.

[mckeown1128]

10. shocking eh? lol nt

[grillo7]

7. At this point, I fully agree

I was disgusted with her tactics in the primary, but I believe she would be the best choice for all the reason you outlined so well. We just can't lose Ohio or Pennsylvania, or Florida or Michigan, this year.

[napoleon_in_rags]

22. In retrospect, the "kitchen sink" had its advantages...

Obama came into the battle against McCain a lean mean fighting machine, and he probably owes at least some of that to the fact that he HAD to be to beat Hillary...

[musicblind]

8. Excellent, well thought out post. I really hope people actually read it

before just spewing crap at you. Wonderful job!

[csziggy]

12. Hillary would also scare the stew out of the Repukes

Think of all the power that Cheney has been investing in the office of VP - in the hands of a Clinton. It might even scare them enough to roll back the office to be compatible with the Constitution.

[dansolo]

77. Enough to get them to vote for McCain instead of staying home?

There is absolutely no enthusiasm for McCain. The reason you give is probably the biggest reason to NOT pick Hillary as VP. Why pick someone who will energize the Republican base? With low voter turnout on the GOP side, we are looking at a landslide, not only for Obama, but for congressional races as well.

[csziggy]

175. I would be worried about the Repubs' response.

The hate they have for the Clintons was one reason I did not support Hillary even though the major reason I voted for Bill in 92 and 96 was that I liked her. I just felt that that hate would increase the divide between the sides.

Obama has the potential to be a uniting force if the majority of the country can learn to ignore the percentage of hard ass haters that are the core of the neo-cons.

What does scare me is how the neo-cons seem to still be planning for their permanent hold on power. So we need to be sure to win, and win big. And be prepared to fight if there is any suspicion the elections are crooked.

As for VP, I don't know many of the possible candidates other than the top names. I think Obama has saavy enough advisors to make a good choice.

[JeanGrey]

189. The neocons would love for her to run. Let's not be stupid.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Good God. No.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. A fantastic, well thought out post.

You are getting a K&R because you backed up your statements with sound logic.

Good on ya.

[barack the house]

17. I am a lot more open to the idea now she has shown herself a team player. I'll put the primary down

to over competitiveness.

[Radical Activist]

18. A lot of Democrats don't like her. Independents too.

And I don't believe she's liked in rural areas. Especially in the midwest. There are good reasons Obama beat her in almost every Midwestern state. She will drag down the ticket and make Obama lose.
And Hillary did make some gaffes and stupid comments. So did Bill. Obama doesn't need their drama distracting from his message.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. Um....Look at the results from PA, MI, OH, MO

She overwhelmingly won the rural areas. In most cases, Obama won the urban and Clinton won the rural areas.

[Radical Activist]

24. There's no evidence that translates into the general election.

Obama won MO. PA, MI and OH are a mix of Eastern and Midwestern in character. And you can't count a state where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Other than a tie in Indiana, Obama swept all the other Midwestern states including rural areas. Iowa, NE, WI, MN, KS and so on are all rural in character. Hillary doesn't do well in those areas (and with many others) because she doesn't come off as an authentic person who will stand by her convictions. Obama doesn't need that dragging him down. You think the flip-flopping talk is bad now? Just add a Clinton who plays right into that caricature.

[PBS Poll-435]

25. You are forgetting that the states you listed were caucus states.

And they for all intents and purposes tied in MO.

[Radical Activist]

26. Oh not more of that crap.

I got so tired of hearing about what states don't count for this or that silly reason a long time ago. And no, not all Midwestern states were caucus states.

There's no logic for picking a running mate with high negatives who will lose you votes and energize the base of the opposition like Hillary will.

[PBS Poll-435]

27. You missed the point entirely.

With the exception of Wisconsin, the states that you listed were caucus states.

Nebraska's non-binding primary showed results a lot closer than that of the caucuses held months earlier.

You claim that you can't use primary results to forecast general election results.

I will put forth the suggestion that you can't count caucus results to forecast general election results. Unless you think Utah and Idaho are going to end up in the blue column...

[Radical Activist]

31. You don't seem to have a point.

It looks like we agree that caucuses and primaries don't guarantee the same result in November. That really has nothing to do with the fact that Obama did much better in the Midwest than Hillary. Caucus or not, they were voters. They were people. It happened. And I'm really not interested in arguing the bullshit people trotted out to deligitamize Obama's caucus victories. Its disrespectful to every Democrat who showed up to caucus. Their votes counted.

If you start to ask why Obama did better in the Midwest then you'll figure out why Hillary has so little appeal in the region, either in the primary or general election. She was the wife of a former President and one of the most recognized public figures in the country with a huge fundraising base. She should have won easily.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. Just wow....

We will now de-construct a few of your previous statements and analyze them point by point...

And I don't believe she's liked in rural areas. Especially in the midwest.

Indiana:


Kentucky:


Missouri:


Ohio:


South Dakota:



Hillary doesn't do well in those areas (and with many others) because she doesn't come off as an authentic person who will stand by her convictions.

Hillary did very well in the rural areas. What are you basing this outrageous statement on?

I got so tired of hearing about what states don't count for this or that silly reason a long time ago. And no, not all Midwestern states were caucus states.

Wasn't saying the states you listed "didn't count." It is much easier to determine who did well in the rural areas when you can prove how many voted and for who.

If you start to ask why Obama did better in the Midwest then you'll figure out why Hillary has so little appeal in the region, either in the primary or general election.

Once again...how can you prove that Hillary has "so little" appeal in the Midwest when the data says otherwise?

[Radical Activist]

43. Once again I can prove Hillary has so little appeal because

she did so badly across the entire region.

We're talking about the Midwest and you've resorted to showing pictures of two border Southern states (one of which Obama won despite it bordering Arkansas), a border eastern state, and a state they tied that was the focal point for the Klan and the right wing militia movement. Not much of an argument.
And why post a pic of SD where Obama obviously won a number of rural counties?

I'm sorry your devotion to Hillary is making you blind to some basic realities about the appeal of conviction politics and what people in the Midwest look for in a candidate.

Try to understand why that is sometime instead of making excuses for it and you'll be better off for the effort.

Why on earth would Obama pick someone who starts out with nearly 50% disapproval ratings?

[PBS Poll-435]

44. Yikes

According to Wikipedia, Ohio and Kentucky are often included in maps of the Midwest because of many similar characteristics.

They didn't "tie" in Indiana, yet another Midwest state. She won by more than 14,000 votes and was awarded more delegates. Missouri can be considered a tie because they were each awarded 36 delegates and Obama's margin of victory (in the popular vote that doesn't exist) was less than 10,000 out of more than 800,000 cast.

Clinton won South Dakota. She won 51 out of the 66 counties in the state. That is why South Dakota, a Midwestern state according to most maps that I have seen, was included. It was a primary state.

And posting a "poll" from three months in 2007?

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

WI, IL, MO, IA, MN, NE, KS, ND,

Its a lot easier for me to make my case since I don't have to play games with arguments about border states and caucuses. Its that kind of spin and BS that made people in the region vote against her.

[Beacool]

106. You are correct!!!

Hillary did very well in the rural areas. Obama did better in the big cities thanks to his 3 largest group of supporters: AAs, young people and upwardly mobile people. There are several states where she won almost the entire state, except for the big cities (TX comes to mind).

[PBS Poll-435]

151. Why can't ***Someone*** else get that very easy-to-understand point?

Instead they want to argue about caucuses in North Dakota(Red State) and caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska(2 more Red States) as proof that Hillary doesn't do well among rural people in the Midwest.

Which we all know by now is bull...

[musicblind]

165. They don't get that point because they don't WANT to get that point.

Sad but true. You cannot educate someone who is willfully ignorant. Period. Though I commend you for trying. :hug:

[Awsi Dooger]

39. "Obama won MO;" "Other than a tie in Indiana..."

Classic. Meanwhile, Hillary's margin of victory in Indiana was a few thousand more than Obama's in Missouri.

When you needlessly fudge something like that frankly it evaporates anything else you're trying to claim.

I've never pushed for Hillary at VP but she did do very well with rural Democrats in many primaries. In Missouri she dominated the traditionally red areas to build a huge edge then Obama overtook her with massive margins out of late-reporting Kansas City and St. Louis.

[RedShoes]

113. There's no evidence that it DOESN'T either. eom

[iamthebandfanman]

64. no use in trying to

use a primary result to make an assumption about the general election

[PBS Poll-435]

153. Or caucus results for that matter....

Primary results can be used to determine strength in rural vs urban areas though.

Pretty easy actually...

[iamthebandfanman]

156. no, they cant.

because in urban areas, most of these people will vote what they see as their conservative moral beliefs ... and thats been republicans for a while now.

the only thing the primary proved was what we already knew. rural white americans dont care much for democratic policy. you bring up guns, gays, or abortion and it isnt to their moral code youre done with. besides, they tend to vote for people they see as most like them. the so called guy/gal you can have a beer with or go to a BBQ. hence why they vote for a moron like bush.

so, once again, the only thing it proved was that white registered democrats with conservative values wont vote for the perceived 'most liberal' of the choices. wow, that wasnt a shocker.

so, if you honestly think all those people who voted for her would just automatically do it again in the general.... youre doing A LOT of assuming. some of thse so called 'christians' vote their religion and hatred versus whats actually good for their well being. im still amazed to this very day at the number of Bush signs i saw in 2004 outfront of trailors and run down buildings. how self defeating can you be.

[PBS Poll-435]

164. My point was that you could determine rural/urban support from a map in a Primary state.

That is all.

[iamthebandfanman]

176. and my point is that you can not.

because alot of people in urban areas are registered democrat because of tradition, not their current political beliefs.
you cant determine democratic support in a general election from a primary. the majority of those people will likely vote republican...regardless of our nominee.

i suppose one could make the assumption they would be less likely to vote for obama than clinton... since obama was painted a nasty liberal... but ultimately these people will and may always lean republican... simply based on religion and moral beliefs... even tho we all know republicans dont represent that...
like i say, its amazing to see people vote against their own self interests...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. That was during the primaries. You cannot compare her strength in the primaries

with the general. Those were also Democrats, many of whom weren't going to vote for Obama anyway because he's black. Her being on the ticket would probably not do much to change that. Winning the primaries does not guarantee that they will win in the general, especially since McSame appeals to those constituencies. Hillary Clinton is too divisive and too polarizing. She ran a despicable campaign. Going dirty helped her; that's why she did well. Negative campaigning is often effective.

[RichGirl]

82. Let's not forget...

She won California and New York. I'm sure Obama will too....still...he didn't win them in the primaries.

[SoCalDem]

150. Many of those people who voted for her will vote for mccain

and never would have voted in Nov for her or Obama.. Remember.. the republican nominee was decided already, and the Rush-scam was going full tilt.. playing racial/cultural politics like her campaign did, always brings out the zealots from both parties..

What she "won" in those races would not be assured in November.. in a democratic primary, a democrat will always win, and someone will always come in second..

In a general election, the bigots are free to vote against anyone, and given a choice, they usually line up republican :(

[Beacool]

30. Heck, there are plenty of Democrats who don't like Obama.

So, what? It just so happens that they each carried exactly half of the Democratic party.

Despite Bush's low ratings, the damaged Republican brand, McCain not being a good campaigner, the mostly positive media, his charisma, etc., he's still not polling very high. He's gotten a moderate bump from his trip, but will it last?

Hillary would be an asset to the ticket.

[PBS Poll-435]

32. When comparing the 2004 and 2004 elections...

If you flip just 5-6% of women voters?

You haven't just won, you have won BIG.

[Radical Activist]

33. You can't equate the two.

Sorry but the level of dislike for Obama among some Democrats is nowhere near the strong dislike of Hillary. There's just no comparison.

Hillary will energize the Republican base and alienate many independents. Rule #1 is picking a VP candidate who doesn't hurt your chances of winning so that disqualifies Hillary.

[Beacool]

36. I think that's a bit of a myth.

Hillary won more of the registered Democrats' vote than Obama. As far as the Republicans, read the RW sites. They would prefer Hillary to Obama any day of the week. They don't like either one, but think that she's the lesser evil. Yes, some Independents and more moderate Repugs may not like her, but are they voting for Obama?

You say that some people you know won't vote for her if she's on the ticket. Well, I can give you a list of people who will only vote for him if she IS on the ticket. It works both ways.

[Radical Activist]

40. Republicans wanted Hillary because

they think she's easier to beat. They're right.

I suspect feelings about her are a bit different in NJ than the rest of the country.

[Beacool]

45. The rest of the country?

Well, Hillary won most of the primaries after Feb., and won them all (except for IN) by 10% or more. So, I don't think that she's as disliked as you think she is.

[Radical Activist]

47. She lost.

She lost despite having much higher name recognition, more media coverage and a larger fundraising base at the start. Some people have a lower tolerance level for spin and BS. But I'm sure victories like the one in Ohio that were based on lying about NAFTA and Rush Limbaugh crossovers is something to be really proud of.

[Beacool]

109. Let me be blunt here,

you appear to detest Hillary, but Obama barely crawled through the finish line and that only thanks to the SDs. Neither one closed the deal, a little more humility should be in place.

So, you go ahead and keep believing that Hillary only won OH thanks to Rush and NAFTA. You must have not campaigned in that state to hear what some people thought of our nominee. Ditto in PA.

Face it, Obama needs Hillary and her supporters just as much as she would have needed him and his supporters if she had been the nominee.

[Median Democrat]

123. Will Hillary Come Alone Or Will She Bring Ickles and Penn?

I actually have no problem with Hillary personally, and I think she is incredibly smart. (see my journal discussing Hillary as a Supreme Court nominee). However, I wonder about Hillary's people. The blunt fact is that Hillary had a tremendous lead, and she allowed in-fighting in her campaign to fritter it away. It is odd that Hillary supporters make fun of Obama barely crossing the line, because that suggests that Hillary was a push over. She wasn't. She had tremendous advantages. However, her people (Penn and Ickles) blew it due to ego and infighting.

Mark Penn seems like Dick Morris-lite, and Harold Ickles never attempted to hide his disdain for Penn. They ultimately developed a fairly cohesive strategy of going negative on Barack Obama, which actually helped him for the GE in the long run, but the negative attacks then obscured Hillary's own message and vision. Like the McCain campaign, the Hillary campaign became all about what is wrong with Obama.

So, what is my point? That Hillary could be an asset if she can appreciate and complement Obama's strengths, including his ability to stay on message. This includes leaving the drama queen politicial advisors (Penn and Ickles) at home. The fact of the matter is that Hillary has not had a good history with choosing political advisors with Dick Morris being the worst example.

There is also one bit of baggage that is a side effect of the impeachment hearings. Bill Clinton's own impeachment. While I think the hearings are needed, I listened to these hearings, and a lot of it included rehashing the Bill Clinton impeachment. With Obama as the nominee, Obama does not really suffer due to these comparisons of the Clinton impeachment to the possible impeachment of Bush. However, if Hillary is the VP, then Democrats may be put in an awkward position as they use the low threshold set for the Clinton impeachment as a basis for examining the Bush administration.

Hillary has a great demographic following and she is one of the sharpest minds on the hill. However, is she willing to accept a VP slot without her posse of Ickles and Penn? Also, what impact would it have on the impeachment hearings, which the GOP would then use as a basis for re-examining all the negative issues that lead to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I think the impeachment hearings would need to be dropped.

[Beacool]

144. She will bring herself.

Why would she bring Penn or Ickes? I do agree that there were mistakes made by her campaign, hiring Solis Doyle and Penn were two of them. They mismanaged the money and did not do an effective job of organizing in the caucus states (which is where Obama gained his PD advantage).

I saw your nice thread, but the main reason why I would like Hillary to be VP is because I still hope that some day she will be president and the VP job is one step closer to that goal. One thing about politics, as in life, is that it's unpredictable and anything is possible. In 8 years she would still be younger than McCain is right now. So, why not?

As for impeaching Bush, it'll never happen. Obama, like Ford did before him, will let sleeping dogs lie and the majority of the Dems. in Congress will go along. Except for Kucinich and a few others, I don't see much enthusiasm in Congress to impeach Bush and his cronies.

[Radical Activist]

134. I did volunteer in Ohio and I only saw Clinton signs on the public median by the highway.

Which is illegal, by the way. Obama signs were in yards and windows put up by people who lived and worked there. Yes, I realize Hillary did better in rural areas where the candidates spent less time campaigning and she could glide by on her last name. That won't be the case in the general election.

It was obvious who the winner was going to be after the Potomac primary. Hillary dragging this out to satisfy her ego and ambition was a delusional disservice to the party. There were a lot of candidates in past elections who could have stayed in and dragged things out after there was a clean winner like Hillary did but they had enough respect for the party and the eventual nominee to step aside.

When this started my main problem with Hillary is that I didn't think she could win the primary or a national election. Now, like many Democrats, I completely lost all respect for her after the disgraceful and humiliating way she acted in this primary. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, and anyone who thinks she can come back to run again is fooling themselves. No one "needs" Hillary. It sounds like you share her overinflated sense of her own importance. The Republicans already hated her. Now half the Democratic Party hates her too. She's will be nothing but a drag on the ticket. If people really want someone who lies to them and insults Democrats then they can vote McCain.

I wonder how well Obama would had done if he had started the race with all of Hillary's advantages. If he had started out with high name recognition, a large national donor base, the most media coverage, and a former President campaigning for him. He would have mopped the floor and dominated the entire election, as Hillary should have done were she not such a piss poor unappealing candidate. She had every advantage from day one and couldn't close the deal and ended up being despised by half her party. Fucking pathetic.

[Beacool]

138. No, you are wrong!!

Hillary did not stay to "satisfy her ego". She stayed because she honestly thought that she was the better candidate and so did we her supporters. Why do you think that she kept winning primaries after February, and actually won most of them? Her supporters did not want her to quit, we thought that she would be the better president and many of us still do. Having said that, most Hillary supporters will now vote for Obama. After all, any Democrat would be better than a Republican.

As for "half of the Democratic Party hates her", that is an exaggeration and it comes from people who probably have never known Hillary. She's a remarkable woman, who is as compassionate as she is bright.

You despise her? I don't care, that's your prerogative.

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

143. lol

And why was she so convinced that she's such a better candidate than Obama that it was worth defying the voters and risking the party's chances in November to drag this out? Why did she hold on after her loss was certain when other candidates (who also honestly believed they were the best choice, and whose supporters also didn't want them to drop out) all stepped aside? Maybe because of her huge ego?

[Beacool]

145. Hmmm, I don't think that she's the candidate with the reputation of having a huge ego............

She stayed because thousands of her supporters asked her to stay and the fact that she kept winning primaries, and doing so by large margins, means that we were right. Unfortunately, it was too late to catch up to Obama on the PD front. BTW, he only ended up with 127 PD ahead of Hillary, not exactly an overwhelming majority.

I got to go, nice arguing with you.

See yah......

:D

[Radical Activist]

192. Every candidate has thousands of supporters who don't want him/her to drop out.

All of them. They all think they could have won if only that one thing had gone differently. But almost all of them still have enough respect for the party and the other candidates to drop out early without dragging things on after there's a clear winner.

Yes, Hillary won some more primaries in large states where she was able to use the popularity of her last name which is why she lead in the early national polls. She didn't win in states where there was more time to get to know both candidates better. More time wouldn't have helped Hillary because Obama's poll numbers always went up over time while Hillary's stayed the same or went down. It was the same trend throughout the entire campaign so it was pretty obvious who the public was getting behind once they examined both candidates.

[musicblind]

168. It sounds like you need to get over the primary and move on Radical Activist

[Radical Activist]

170. I will when someone else is picked as VP.

[karynnj]

89. My part of NJ is more like what you see

There are many independents and Republicans who are considering Obama, who would not have considered HRC.In fact, the Obama people called the non-affiliated and let them knoew that they could vote in the primary thus changing their registration. To my knowledge the HRC people didn't do this. Now, I called those people in my majority Republican town. Many happily said they would vote --- for McCain, but nearly as many were interested in Obama, though many had some guestions/reservations. It was great being able to give them good information on Obama. Many volunteered that they didn't want HRC. (Our instructions were not to give any validations to those comments as she was then our likely nominee.)

[RichGirl]

83. Exactly....

This isn't Junior High...we don't need to like our candidates. We won't be having a beer or tea with them.

I do like Clinton, but more so respect and admire her strength and preservance. Obama needs someone to fight the nastiness coming from McCain. He isn't. Hillary and Bill would put McCain in his place.

[Radical Activist]

137. That's exactly what he doesn't need.

Obama has figured out the best way to deal with Republican nastiness. Its his strongest asset as a candidate.
Playing the old game of returning nastiness with more nastiness is what people are sick of and its one of the reasons Hillary lost the primary. It turns everyone away by making them sick of the whole process and it ALWAYS ends up helping the Republicans. Its a losing game for Democrats. We need to inspire people to vote and participate, not drive them away with ugliness. Its part of the GOP strategy to make people get disgusted and stay home. We can't keep falling for that trap.

[newfie11]

51. I am in Nebraska and Hillary is still very popular among democrats.

The area I am in is very rural. When we had our caucus Hillary was ahead 2 to 1. The people that were for Obama were doing so because they felt he was more electable.
I am voting for Obama but it makes sense to add Hillary as V. President. Pukes rigging the election aside I think that would be a more winning ticket.

[polmaven]

119. 18 million voters

disagree with you re:
A lot of Democrats don't like her. Independents too.

While I agree that it may not be a good idea to name her as the VP candidate, it is not for the reason you give.

I just think that Senator Obama needs - and I really hate saying this - a white male in the VP slot. Two (perceived) minorities on the Democratic ticket will make WAY too many heads explode across the country, and that sound will drown out Senator Obama's message.

It is really too bad that so many here continue to have such hateful reactions every time the word "Clinton" is mentioned on this board. President and Senator Clinton are DEMOCRATS dammit.

[Radical Activist]

163. She should have acted more like a Democrat.

She earned my complete lack of respect for her with a lot of effort and shameful behavior.

[polmaven]

194. Again...

18 million people disagree with you. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[GarbagemanLB]

20. If Bill opens his donor lists and allows himself to be fully vetted, then sure.

[mcctatas]

28. I trust Obama and his team to pick the right person and will

support them in whatever they decide.....


Unless it's Hillary Clinton:evilgrin:

(no really, I don't care who they pick, I support the Democratic POTUS and VPOTUS nominees!)

[NYC_SKP]

29. It would be a blunder of unbelieveable proportions.

Pick your reason, but to be kind I'll just say this.

She is too strong and individual, the VP needs to be visibly subordinate.

It would be too much like having two, scratch that, three presidents in the white house.

One or the other, it cannot be both Hillary and Obama.

He's smarter than that.

:patriot:

[Political Heretic]

35. She is one of a couple choices that I think would be really good and make a lot of sense.

So if Obama picks her, I'll be happy and she and he will have my full support! But I could see a couple other options that also seem really good, and I would feel happy about those too.

Obama still has my support even if he picks someone I don't like, but there are about three or so people I think would be really powerful choices.

[Beacool]

38. Hillary is the only one who would bring excitement to the VP spot.

Who else would? Biden, Bayh, Richardson, Nunn, Hagel?

What a bore.......

:boring:

[emilyg]

173. My heart beats faster at the thought.

[redstate_democrat]

41. For some strange reason, I think he will pick her.

[davidpdx]

42. I personally don't buy into the Obama needs Hillary

meme that is repeated daily on DU. Those who are holding out and threatening to vote for McCain or not vote at all are not Democrats. Her campaign made numerous mistakes beyond just the one you highlight.

I have said over and over again, I'll be fine with whomever he picks as long as it's not Clinton.

[newmajority]

46. Enough Bush Clinton already.

Your arguments are somewhat reasonable, but this country simply can't continue the downward spiral of the last 28 years. I really want to see a ballot with no Bush and no Clinton on it, for the first time in my adult life.

It wouldn't make me stay home or leave the country like Sam Nunn or Chuckie Fraudboy would, but I would be very disappointed, and not have a lot of hope for the next 8 years. And fully expect to see Jeb Bush waiting at the end of that line. :puke:

[AtomicKitten]

48. The +/- aspects are debatable.

What is not debatable is the fact that she is the antithesis to his campaign on a number of levels and he is too smart to risk screwing with his (winning!) brand.

It is and has always been a terrible idea.

[RBInMaine]

49. No, Tim Kaine is a better choice. Hillary unites the R's. I WOULD like to see her in the cabinet.

[GalleryGod]

50. Here's My Reason for Taking a Pass on Hill:

BILL:argh:

[IndyOp]

52. Hillary supported her husband while he kept economic sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000's

of people... If she gets to lay claim to Bill's "successes" then we should lay blame for the horrors of his administration at her feet too.

UN (US/UK) SANCTIONS: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
August 1990 - March 2003

The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq since August 6, 1990. The international community increasingly views the sanctions as illegitimate and punitive, because of well-documented humanitarian suffering in Iraq and widespread doubts about the sanctions’ effectiveness and their legal basis under international humanitarian and human rights law. (2)

It is now clear that comprehensive economic sanctions in Iraq have hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, impoverishing Iraqi citizens and depriving them of essential income, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. People in Iraq have died in large numbers. The extent of death, suffering and hardship may have been greater than during the armed hostilities, especially for civilians, as we shall see in more detail below. Comprehensive sanctions in Iraq, then, are not benign, non-violent or ethical. (2)

A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. (1)

Over a period of about five years, serving an Iraqi population of 23 million, the program has delivered roughly $200 worth of goods per capita per year, including oil spare parts and other goods not directly consumed by the population. Allowing for domestic production outside the Oil-for-Food program and for smuggling, the result still appears to leave Iraqi citizens an exceedingly low per capita income which may be at or below the $1 per day World Bank threshold of absolute poverty. (2)

The measurement of deaths rests on the concept of “excess” mortality – those deaths that exceed the mortality rate in the previous, pre-sanctions period or that exceed a projection of the earlier trend towards further gains. (2)

All of these excess deaths should not be ascribed to sanctions. Some may be due to a variety of other causes. But all major studies make it clear that sanctions have been the primary cause, because of the sanctions’ impact on food, medical care, water, and other health-related factors. (2)

Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (2)

There are no reliable estimates of the total number of excess deaths in Iraq beyond the under-five population. Even with conservative assumptions, though, the total of all excess deaths must be far above 400,000. (2)

In the face of such powerful evidence, the US and UK governments have sometimes practiced bold denial. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office told a BBC interviewer on February 26, 2001 “There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.” When denial has proved impossible, officials have occasionally fallen back on astonishingly callous affirmations. In a famous interview with Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations, Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes said: “We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it? Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” (2)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/43

[madaboutharry]

53. I have come around to thinking that Hillary may

be the better choice. One of the things you say here is of particular interest and that is the thought that "the poorly organized right wing smear machine" will go spinning in different directions. Well, I don't know if they are really that poorly organized, but I do think they will have a real problem if the go retro and revert to the 90's in their attacks on Clinton. She has truly reinvented herself and is now a highly respected Senator who has most certainly proven herself.

[chimpymustgo]

54. The thing is, there is NO ONE who brings more than Hillary. The excitement factor is unsurpassed!

And she proved herself a formidable, smart, likable, admirable candidate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. Maybe you should stop hoarding all the Hillary excitement and pass some this way.

Because I'm sure not feeling it.

[saltpoint]

79. I think many Democrats can bring many things to the ticket.

Clinton is one person on that list, but certainly not the only one.

[JNelson6563]

56. I have confidence in Obama's choice, whoever it is.

I am completely open minded in regard to VP except for one thing, I think it would be better to choose a Governor over another Senator.

If he does pick a Senator, I'm ok with it.

Julie

[highplainsdem]

57. K & R! Thank you for this great, well-reasoned post!

[scheming daemons]

58. Point by point rebuttal

1. She doesn't poll as well as you think. Among Democrats she does... but among Independents and Republicans, she polls very poorly. This election cannot be won with just Democrats. We need a large chunk of Independents. With Hillary on board, all hope of winning those independents is lost.

2. Money? Hillary is hamstrung by her debt. Most of her donors will end up giving to Obama anyway, so her effect is negligible. Tying down Obama with Hillary's debt is counterproductive.

3. Disciplined? Said everything perfectly? Did you forget "as far as I know", "things happen in June", "I dodged sniper fire"? Please... get serious.

4. "aura" of being vetted? Laughable. The Clinton Library donors will be just the beginning.

5. Messes up right wing attacks? It's a right-wing dream. They have hundreds of attacks made just for Hillary Clinton.

6. We already have a monopoly on the change message. Adding Hillary is like adding tossing a bucket of water into the "change ocean".

Finally,

"this is what we need to win as Democrats"


We already have what we need. Having our candidate getting overshadowed by his running mate, and especially her spouse, will make him look smaller.

Bad idea.

Bad move.

Won't happen.

[NYC_SKP]

66. Thank you S.D.

I didn't have the energy to state the obvious for the umpteenth time.

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

90. Thank you. nt

:banghead:

[mckeown1128]

108. Thanks for your reasoned responses....

I have a few disagreements over them.

1. You are right that she doesn't poll well among Republicans or Indiependents... but, I really think that she will bring more Democrats than she will lose repubs and indies for Obama. The Republicans and Independents are voting for Obama because they are inspired by his message. I don't think Hillary will cause them to go running. I do think though that Hillary can heal some of the rifts in the Democratic party.. thus bringing in Democrats who may are willing to vote for McCain based on his being a familiar figure.

2. Her debt wouldn't be added into Obama's GE campaign finances. All his GE campaign can do is cut the 2300$ check. Her big donors have not been giving to Obama. My point is that Obama and Hillary pulling from separate donors could each by themselves out raise McCain... She brings the second largest donor list in political history to the Obama campaign. More money is more money.

3. I believe that "as far as I know" and "things happen in June" were things she wanted to say. They weren't gaffes they were political calculations. They hurt her campaign... but that was because the message was wrong. Her campaign took the risk of trying to get away with the statements and it didn't work. They weren't gaffes. The sniper thing was a gaffe. Your right. But it was the only real gaffe from her. It was no doubt a rarity in her campaign. She was a very disciplined candidate who happened to get bad advice on what to say.

4. They did not vet her at all during the primary. They were much more concerned with her pantsuits. What and why do you think it will change just for the GE?

5. She is going to be a big target for the right wing... good. Let the right wing spend all their time attacking the VP. The more time they waste with the tired old attacks on her the less time they have to smear Obama. A nice big distraction is exactly what Obama needs.

6. The African American/female story will get much more time than the african american story that the media has grown bored of. It buys at least a solid week of: "look at this unusual looking presidential ticket.


You listed the only real negative to Obama picking Hillary: Bill. Obama should pick Bill if and only IF Bill spends 4 months in an undisclosed location. He shouldn't campaign outside of a decent speech at the convention. Or if he does campaign, it should be an Arkansas only run. He should go to Arkansas and campaign for 4 months there, answer no questions, and never leave the script.

[Tarheel_Dem]

121. SD..you never fail to amaze, and put things into their proper perspective.

Thanks for being you. :thumbsup:

[scheming daemons]

59. Terry McAuliffe disagrees with you

[bunnies]

60. You can cross NH right off the list of Obama wins if he picks her.

We're a majority indie state and they are not fans of HRC.

[JTFrog]

61. He isn't going to pick anyone that voted for IWR and/or Kyl-Lieberman.

His entire campaign has been about having better JUDGMENT. He's much to smart to fuck it up by putting someone who would jeopardize that message on his ticket.

You can take that to the bank.

[chimpymustgo]

112. That went out the window when he voted for FISA.

[TBF]

62. I'm with you on this --

I've never much liked her, but she has shown intelligence, elegance and grace as of late. The Republicans are just as effective with their PUMA swift boat as they were against Kerry, and she is the choice that will lessen that effect. He needs her.

[crankychatter]

63. the proscription on criticism in "excess" has given you an imbalanced perception

possibly?

I don't know, but I definitely do NOT concur

[LostinVA]

65. The Apocalypse is upon us

:scared:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[catgirl]

69. Obama does not need Hillary in order to win

and she has not been vetted by the GOP. Bill is a major problem. Plus she and Bill were NOT disciplined during
(and after) the primaries. In my opinion, your reasons are a bit skewed. Several other picks would be better.

Obama will win without Ohio and Florida by winning a couple of southern and western swing states, some that
Hillary didn't fair well in.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

92. I think Rendell might be a better pick if the rust belt is their worry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. HILLARY LOST THE PRIMARIES!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, GET OVER IT!!!

BTW, Obama is winning Hispanics 4 to 1. He is winning all the groups that Hillary won except for older white women and men. Those groups will most likely vote for McSame in the general.

Please support our presumptive nominee and whatever choice he makes for VP!!

HE WON THE PRIMARIES FAIR AND SQUARE!!!

This thread is flamebait. Period!

[ruggerson]

84. Why are you getting hysterical over this?

Of course, the OP will support Obama's choice.

This has nothing to do with re fighting the primaries.

More often than not, the second place finisher in the primaries is a very strong Vice Presidential contender. Romney is under consideration, Kerry picked Edwards. It's natural that Hillary would be under strong consideration.

I think Kaine or Schweitzer is probably a better fit for Obama, and I voted for Hillary in the primaries. On her own, she is by far the best choice, but she comes with Bill, and Bill brings a lot of history and baggage.

You are letting your apparent hatred of Hillary Clinton get the better of your common sense.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. I'm sick and tired of people going on and on about Hillary being the VP.

She is NOT entitled. Please allow Obama to chose his own VP. I for one cannot wait until he picks the damn VP. I'm tired of all these threads about his VP. Let HIM decide who he wants.

[JeanGrey]

190. WE don't want Hillary. TONS of us. It scares me to think

of Obama having both Hillary AND Bill breathing down his neck! NO NO NO He doesn't need her.

[RichGirl]

87. This thread IS NOT about the primaries!

No one here is suggesting that she should be the nominee. This is about the VP. In the last election Edwards got the spot largely because he was second in the primaries. He wasn't any where near as close in numbers to Kerry as Clinton was with Obama. No ignore this is just plain foolish. Some of you seem to think that your precious opinions, likes and dislikes are more important than winning the election. THEY AREN'T...YOU AREN'T! Everyone needs to make compromises. Or it's another four years of Bush/McCain.

[mckeown1128]

114. You might want to do a search of my screen name....

I think you will see that I was one of the loudest and fiercest Obama supporters during the primaries. Check my journal. lol. I understand your response... I get over the top when I see some of the Clinton supporters that can't let go (there are much fewer of them now.) I have and always will be a 100% Obama supporter. I just think that he can benifit from Hillary in this campaign. That's all.

[ronnykmarshall]

72. I just saw a pig fly by my window!

Thanks!

I'm w/ ya 100% on this.

[saltpoint]

75. I figured she was still under serious consideration up until Terry

McAuliffe's comment this week on -- was it Kaine? Jack Reed? -- well, whoever he was promoting. Kaine, I think.

Anybody see A CHORUS LINE? If not, you should. One of the best musicals ever -- for people who don't like musicals. OKLAHOMA it ain't.

Anyway, I think Hillary Clinton, like Cassie in A CHORUS LINE, can't dance in the line. She's a solo dancer and can't subtract from her impulse to lead in the line, or as vice president. Just my take. It may be to her credit to be so strong a personality that she can't be 2nd banana to anyone else's administration, only executive chief of her own.

It's still relatively early, with some 4 and a half weeks to go until the Denver Convention. At this juncture, and subject to change, I think Obama's short list includes:

Kaine
Biden
Sebelius
Richardson
Schweitzer

--and despite his announcement this week, possibly Reed.

Somewhat longer shots: Clinton, Clark, Graham, Chafee, Edwards, Dodd.

People I'd love for him to include on the considertion list: Boxer, Feingold, Hart, Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Bill Moyers, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, RFK Jr, Tom Harkin, Henry Waxman.

Hart, Cuomo, and Moyers are a bit past prime years but why not have the benefit of their counsel for the first term, then move in a second term to a Schweitzer or a Sherrod Brown, etc.?

I hope that Nunn and Hagel are not being serously considered.

[Phx_Dem]

76. I don't want any Republican on the ticket,

but I'd rather have Chuck Hagel than Hillary Clinton. I don't trust her. At all. And having Bill at such close proximity would be a disaster for an Obama presidency. You never know what he's gonna do and the Clintons thrive too much on drama and themselves.

(Mrs Phx_Dem)

[polmaven]

131. Tell me again...

The members of PUMA are whom?????

[Phx_Dem]

154. I'm not sure exactly what that means,

but I suspect your likening me to a PUMA, which is ridiculous and not at all a valid comparison. Hillary is not the party nominee. Hillary is not a nominee of any kind and she isn't even up for election in the senate (and if she was, I wouldn't be able to vote for her since I don't live in NY). If she were the party nominee, I would vote for her. I might not be thrilled about it, but I would do it because she would be our party's nominee. If Obama does choose her as his VP, I will vote for Democratic ticket as I plan to do regardless of who he chooses. But that doesn't mean I have to like her or trust her.

[polmaven]

193. What that means is

that you specifically stated that you would rather have a Republican on the ticket than a Democrat. Hillary is not the nominee, but she IS a Democrat! So yes....prefering a Republican to a Democrat for vice president is by no means fostering party unity!

[Phx_Dem]

199. That's true, I would prefer Hagel

or just about any Democrat over Hillary but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for her if I had to. The bottom line is I DO NOT TRUST HER. I think she lacks integrity and honesty. Hagel may be conservative and hold many views I don't agree with, but I think he is trustworthy and has integrity, which is more than I can say about Hillary.

[polmaven]

202. Way to unite the party!

:applause:

[dontforgetpoland]

80. To be honest, I have no problem if Hillary is selected as Veep.

Note, that I voted for Barack in the Pa primaries.

Looking at the electoral map, there are pros and cons if he chooses Hillary.

(Purely strategically speaking.)
Pro:
I think rust belt states like PA, OH, WV, and MI will approve of this choice. Southern states like FL and AR will also approve.

Con:
Western states, Independent states, and most Southern states will not.

If Hillary is seriously being vetted, I sure that Obama committee are polling the number as of now

[hedgehog]

81. 1. She polled well in January, too.

2. Umm, who's up to her eyeballs in debt right now, again?

3. She's disciplined. What about him?

4. Aura is one thing, reality is another. Libraries are starting to become a hot topic.

5. Smear machines are not logical. They can make both smears simultaneously.

6. Female or not, Hillary is part of the old politics. See your Item 2.

[DFW]

85. There is plenty of precedent for this

Reagan picking Bush Sr., Kerry picking Edwards, probably others, BUT.......

Now that she will not become President, Hillary has to decide where she wants
to end up. A senate majority leader under a president of the same party wields
more power than a VP does, and has a hell of a lot more interesting life. I'd
bet she has her eye on that post, and would have a difficult time deciding
whether or not to accept an offer of VP, should Obama extend it. I still think
Wes Clark is a more obvious choice, although arguments abound for others as
well, including the OP's arguments for Hillary.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

86. Remember

"Shame on you, Barack Obama!"?

The DLC is yesterday's news, and so are the Clintons.

[karynnj]

88. My counter to your points

1) Polling - Obama will regain the one group you define as unwilling to go to him. Older, feminist Democratic women will ultimately vote for Obama - even if they are still unhappy - as McCain's almost misoginistic behavior becomes better know to them. We have yet to have the convention and they are slow to give up their hopes. Not to forget, this is the group that has made the right to chose something no Democratic nominee can step even slightly away from - are they really gonna now go to McCain? That is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

2) Money - Most of these big fundraiser will shift to the power in the Democratic party, which is Obama. (As to second best -I would say third - Kerry in 2004 was better and consistently raises money for others using his about 3 million email list. One of HRC's problems was NOT being able to raise enough money. In addition, some of HRC's fundraisers had major ethics problems - remember it was the 1996 fund raising that hurt Gore in 2000.

3) Part of the problem was Bill and Hillary. One, they hired and didn't fire the "message peopel". Second, thoiugh the media credited her with discipline and a flawless campaign - she was britle and dealt poorly whenever there was criticism. The first Philly debate itself was not bad - her (and Bill's) reaction to the others calling her on immigration was awful and highlighted a gaffe that could easily have been handled better. (She made it about gender - the guys picking on the "girl" and Bill raised the word swiftboating) This is the candidate that raised sniper fire in Bosnia 4 times! Imagine what the RW would do versus McCain, who was seriously injured and held captive.)

4> Aura of being vetted is not the same as being vetted. The fact is there are things post Clinton Presidency that were not vetted. There were also some things that were HRC, not Bill, that looked bad in the Clinton years that would resurface.

5) It messes up Obama's message more than the right wing message - for the reason you give.

6) Part of change is breaking away from the past - HRC is not just a woman she is a Clinton and Obama is better without their baggage.

[angee_is_mad]

97. Amen sista

I get so tired of hearing this crap about hillary as VP. If he chooses hil(he won't), it will piss off one of the most loyal base the dems have (blacks) and that will hurt the down ticket candidates in the red states we are trying to turn blue.

hillary as vp=losing NC, GA, VA, MISS, AL.

[Colobo]

93. Hillary Clinton is a great choice. Same with Kaine and Biden.

[tblue37]

94. I still have my fingers crossed for Wes Clark. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

95. A Clinton as VP? How much 'change we can believe in' would that bring?

Also: a black man AND a woman on one ticket? Enter president McCain!

[emilyg]

120. As much change as without her

on the ticket.

[DutchLiberal]

172. Cynical? I love that.

You ARE right. But still, having Clinton on the ticket contradicts Obama's 'message'.

[OmahaBlueDog]

96. The rightys had already geared for a fight with HRC

..so they have plenty of smear tactic ammo.

Also, with regard to money, I think her large donors are already giving to Obama, for the most part.

I agree that bring in Hillary solidifies our base, but it probably drives indies toward McSame.

I was a Hillary supporter. I think she'd have made a great President. However, I think Obama needs to pick a veep that won't hurt him. In the final analysis, veep's really don't help you win anything (see 2004 - Edwards, John), but they can certainly create negativity (see 2000 - Quayle, Dan).

The really safe picks would be people like Bob Graham and Sam Nunn. Ed Rendell and Bill Richardson are also pretty safe bets. My personal favorite is Governor Kaine.

[bvar22]

98. Two sitting Senators from Northern Big City States?

Not a good idea.

[L0oniX]

99. I am suprised this thread isn't locked.

[1Hippiechick]

101. That makes two of us. n/t

[ruggerson]

103. Why would it be locked?

it's Veep speculation. Very topical.

[mckeown1128]

110. Ummm..why?

It's just vp speculation.

[anonymous171]

100. But the media hates her. A lot.

[Beacool]

111. Yeah, that was evident ever since IA.

But, who gives a rat's tail end about those vultures anyway?

[TheWraith]

102. Oh holy hell no.

1. She does not poll well. Quite the opposite: she drives away the people we need to win elections. Registered Democrats are ALREADY going to come out and vote. That's a given. The last thing we need to do is turn off the independents who we need.

2. She's already turned over her fundraising lists.

3. Snipers in Bosnia... among other gaffes.

4. She has the "aura" of being vetted, without the actual vetting. Do you really think that that would last if she got the number two slot on the ticket?

5. No, it gives the right-wing new attacks: 15 years worth of attacks that have sunk into the public consciousness. Why do you think they were salivating so hard to run against her?

6. Obama's already quite enough change all by himself--he doesn't need a "booster pack."

[Top Cat]

107. I am now a Hillary Clinton supporter.

I appreciate your opinion but Hillary carry's way to much baggage. #1. Bill Clinton. #2. Her conduct during the primary she took herself out of the running then. She really did a bang up job trying to discredit Obama. How do you suppose she can be VP when she has said over and over again that he is not ready and she is on Day 1?

[RedShoes]

115. No. TRUE Obama supporters want HAGEL. lol

:rofl:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

116. The Clintons would be a monkey wrench dropped in the machinery of this campaign.

Obama will withstand the exodus of a few hardcore Clinton supporters and beat McCain handily. The Clintons' time has come and gone. :*

[JVS]

185. Yes indeed.

[Lord Helmet]

118. sorry to hear about your head injury

[Phoonzang]

122. I've changed my position on being against her

for the VP slot. While she's not my first choice I think she would be able to buckle down and take the second-banana position. My biggest problem is Bill. I think he has severe anger issues and would only cause trouble for the President. Unless he shows some signs of growing the fuck up and being reasonable, I don't think Hillary can be Obama's first choice.

[americanstranger]

125. The vetting process will make this proposal moot.

Remember, Hillary is tied to any of Bill's baggage. The library donor list, where he made all that money, who he hangs out with - it all comes into play as things to hang around Obama's neck.

They need squeaky-clean for a VP choice. Whether warranted or not, the Clintons are not that in the public perception.

Richardson, Clark, Sibelius are all better choices. Hillary as VP = boat anchor, IMO.

- as

[LostinVA]

174. She's completely vetted

[NorthAmerican]

127. IBTL. n/t

[Pisces]

128. It will not be Hillary. His message is the future not the past.

[antigop]

129. oh, yes, the DLC -- change we can believe in. Excuse me while I throw up. n/t

[anonymous171]

132. Hillary is actually the only DLCer I like.

Same with Bill. The rest of them are garbage (especially Harold Ford.)

[antigop]

142. The DLC -- all of them -- can take a hike. n/t

[Beacool]

139. You must have missed the FISA vote,

and many of his other "adjustments" in the last few weeks. He's starting to be that which many of you despise: a DLCer.

LOL!!!!!!!!

[antigop]

141. You must have missed the OP. This isn't about Obama. Nice try. n/t

[JackORoses]

133. you will be disappointed

[Guaranteed]

135. I think #5 is a real stretch. Wishful thinking.

I have to, ultimately, disagree with you. I think that at first thought Clinton isn't just a good choice but the obvious one. On second, third, fourth, and fifth thoughts- she is WAY too much of a liability.

[polichick]

140. He'd be insane to choose a veep who floated the idea of assassination multiple times.

[Beacool]

147. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known that she was referring to the time line.

But go ahead, keep repeating that fallacious notion if you wish.

:crazy:

[polichick]

149. That's ridiculous - there were other examples to use...

...but she chose to say it over and over ~ that's how desperate she was at the time.

Since the veep is a heartbeat away from the presidency, the Obamas would never seriously consider someone who had expressed such a thing.

[David Zephyr]

148. mckeown1128, that took some guts to write your OP. I applaud you for it.

As someone who went from admiration to frustration to anger with Bill and Hillary Clinton (see my journal), I am not close-minded to the possibility of her becoming his VP. My mind is open to this and there are a lot of solid reasons for it, many of which you have listed in your OP.

18 million people went to the polls throughout 50 states to vote for her.

She strengthens Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire and Arkansas. Obama is still polling weakly there and we are rapidly approaching November. Hillary on the ticket delivers those states.

As the economy drifts into the event horizon of a black hole, Americans still remember the Clinton years as a time of peace and prosperity and when 23 million new jobs were created, when budgets were balanced, when minority home ownership soared, when surpluses were building and when their futures seemed bright. That's not something to sneeze at now.

Her campaign has all the historic attributes to it that Obama's does in the macro.

I am less opposed to Hillary being VP today then I was. More and more, I can see her as a plus to Obama.

In any event, it took courage for you to post what you did and I admire that.

[Fluffdaddy]

152. I aways been a Hillary Clinton supporter.

And she is my choice for Veep.

A winning ticket we would have there boys and girls ;)

[quakerboy]

155. Interesting OP

I disagree with you on point 1, 2, 4, 5, most of 3 and I think 6 is irrelevant. Not even a theoretical McCainiac would believe McSames "I am change"(if one existed), so running the second major party female VP candidate in history is not really relevant to the change thing.

On the other hand, I am giving Hillary a second thought for VP because she is not Hagel. I still think I would prefer a dark horse, something from left field that will really set the whole smear thing back because they will have to readjust for the totally unexpected. But Hillary ain't the devil. I just would prefer someone with fewer "debts" and burdens.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

158. Clinton as VP would mean lots more votes for Obama, but even more for McCain, I think.

I think that Hillary Clinton probably has all the skills to make a perfectly good VP if elected, but nevertheless I think she'd be a bad choice of running mate.

As you say, she'd help Obama with Democrats - she'd probably add more to his vote count than any other running mate. But I think she'd add even more to McCains.

Most Republicans already dislike Obama, but they *hate* Clinton - her husband was a successful two-term Democratic president (their worst nightmare), and also an adulterer (most DUers overestimate the extent to which Republican condemnation of that was motivated by opportunism rather than principle, I fear, especially among voters as opposed to politicians); the Republicans hate him, and hence her, more than anyone else.

The issue isn't so much that she'd cause people to change sides, but that she'd bring out people who might otherwise stay home to vote Republican, I worry.

I hope Obama does give her a senior role in his administration if he wins, though.

[IdClaire]

159. I would work for that ticket

I'm campaigning for local candidates but this would bring me back. Local folks need us. The national level is important but our backyards need tending to too.

[ProSense]

160. This post ignores a lot.

1. She polls well. She doesn't help Obama with Indies or Republicans... but she greatly helps him grip Democrats...

Democrats are going to vote for Obama. The ones who would hold out to the end using Hillary as an excuse are going to begin, once again, demanding that she be at the top of the ticket or denouncing Obama.

2. Money, Money, Money. Obama has the money...

Hillary's big donors can hold out, but they can't stop Obama from raising money from Independent, Republicans and even Hillary's primary supporters.

3. She is disciplined. Her campaign failed because of her message people (Penn and the like) NOT because she was incapable.

Hillary would bring in her own people. That's part of the issue with her negative campaign. As for gaffes, she made plenty of them---remember the assassination comment?

4. She has the aura of being vetted. Which keeps the media from digging too deep into potential scandals (such as Clinton Library donors) They will do what they did in the primaries and just assume that everything about her is known...

Huge can of worms.

5. It messes up the right wing attacks.

Gives McCain a reason to run Hillary's comments lauding McCain.

6. African American and a woman...

Any number of people could fit this bill.

Hillary is not Obama's ideal VP.

Oh, and who says Hillary wants the job?

[MasonJar]

161. IMHO if Obama wants to guarantee a win, he will select Hillary.

[JeanGrey]

191. Nonsense. He'd be guaranteeing nothing but GRIEF for

himself, good god.

[BlooInBloo]

166. That's just stupid.

[iconicgnom]

178. Correct. But there seems to be a lot of fungus between stupid and sensible.

[flvegan]

169. Good grief. Same reasons Oprah should be VP.

[DeepModem Mom]

177. I think I'm agreeing with you. I'm not liking our polling in the big swing states...

and I think Hillary on the ticket could help win them.

[Beacool]

179. Enter Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, she's apparently like morning sunshine.

Friday morning, NPR reported that McCain's numbers had recently ticked upward in four key battleground states, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado. These state-by-state numbers are really more significant than the national overall figure. After all, the fall presidential election is not a national popular vote election, not a plebiscite, but rather 50 different elections (plus the District of Columbia.)

Enter Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, she's apparently like morning sunshine.

A new Opinion Dynamics poll taken for Fox News tells the tale, but Fox buried a key finding. All they report on their website is the data showing "No Bounce For Obama from Overseas Trip," but question #3 in the poll (pdf here), shows Obama's slim lead increases substantially with her on the ticket.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/how-obama-can-finally-bre_b_114985.html

[highplainsdem]

180. I'm wondering more and more if he asked her and she agreed, and the search has been mostly a show.

As I've mentioned before, I don't believe Obama would dare leave Clinton waiting in suspense, if he was sure he didn't want her on the ticket. And I suspect that if he'd told her she would not be VP, she'd have made a statement by now that she wasn't really interested.

I've posted enough messages already about why I think we need a unity ticket to win. So here I just want to run down the list of possible reasons for appearing to go through a search for a VP even though the decision has already been made:

1) It lessens any possible impression that Obama felt pressured to ask her to be his running mate. (Personally, I think this is silly because I don't think it's weakness to include your strongest rival in the primaries on the ticket as a way of winning the GE, but this was brought up again and again here.)

2) It's very flattering for all the other Democratic politicians whose names have been floated as possible running mates. Useful, too. It directs national media attention to them.

3) The floating of possible running mates who are Republicans adds to Obama's image of being willing to work with Republicans.

4) It deprives the GOP of weeks of attacking Clinton, attacks that will begin if she's named as Obama's running mate, but which are postponed now while the McCain campaign hopes to win over her supporters.

5) Assuming the VP choice is Clinton, waiting to announce she's Obama's running mate gives her a break after a very long primary campaign. (Honestly, I wish there were some way to give Obama a break -- he does look tired.)

6) While a delayed announcement that Clinton will be Obama's VP might further alienate some of her supporters, for many who are unhappy that she isn't the nominee, and who needed some time to accept that, an August announcement that she will be VP will be more acceptable -- at least she'll be on the ticket -- than it might have been at the end of the primaries.

7) Speculation about the VP helps keep the media busy, which might also limit their potential criticism of Obama, while not being so urgent it gets in the way of coverage he wants.

And of course I could be completely wrong on all of this. :)

But I can't take recent rumors such as the one that the Obama campaign is considering Republican Ann Veneman at all seriously.

Nor can I take it seriously when Terry McAuliffe is touting Kaine two weeks after touting Biden as the most likely VP.

I believe we're watching the waters being muddied, very deliberately. Possibly until the convention. We'll see...

[scheming daemons]

183. Obama hasn't forgotten the "kitchen sink".... she won't be VP

[burythehatchet]

182. Can't stand her now, just as much as then. HELL NO!

[moondust]

184. Bill makes it too awkward.

You can't revert back to being life-size after you've been POTUS.

[JeanGrey]

187. Come on. She doesn't "poll well" and she doesn't "vet well".

Picking her would be a serious mistake. I can't imagine four years of Obama looking over shoulder every second at Hillary and Bill. He deserves better than that!

[Phred42]

195. Obama Will NEVER be able to trust the Clinton's at his back

Never.

The Clinton's as VP will assure a truly phucked up 4 years

[Evergreen Emerald]

196. bullshit

They are steadfast democrats. You have dehumanized her, just like Republicans dehumanize Democrats--based on faulty information.

[Phred42]

197. You are in denial and have not been paying attention

We need - must have - PROGRESSIVES now - NOT the old Conservative hard line - as in republican-lite DLC

When supposed 'Democrats' see McCain as the alternative to Clinton - we have fallen down the rabbit hole...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6547074&mesg_id=6547074

[Beacool]

198. Oh yeah, because Obama is sooooo progressive.

Fisa anyone? And that's just for starters...........

[Phred42]

201. Calm Down - And if you check my other posts and replies on this subject

you will see that I remind people when ever the subject comes up that Obama has never been all that progressive. I'm in Illinois by the way.

FISA was a huge disappointment to me. But Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, GAT, WTO, Telecommunications Act are part of why we are here to day.

The Clintons are Republican-lite DLC Conservatives. Conservative Democrats( DLC and Blue Dogs) have large part of being responsible for the mess we are currently in.

Hillary is even less Progressive than Obama.

We need change. We need a clean break from those that helped put us here. Not more Clintonian politics.

[Beacool]

203. Well, then neither Obama nor Hillary will fit your standards.

I'm a moderate, so I'm perfectly content with Hillary. Kucinich is probably more your speed.

:D

[Phred42]

205. Kucinich would be better than either for different reasons

But it is what it is.

My point is that we need a sharp LEFT turn to survive. The Clintons are Corporatists and cannot make that turn for us.
I don't know if Obama can make that turn - but he is the only change for it and - he will have a better chance of it without a Corporatist as VP.

[Motown_Johnny]

200. Snipergate disqualified her. you can't commit Valor Theft and then be on the ticket

She can't be the choice

[Evergreen Emerald]

204. Wrong

Both campaigns stretched the truth--Obama's was forgiven and ignored. Since, it does not disqualify for President, it should not disqualify for VP.