Clark considering Hillary as VP?

[ButterflyBlood]

if he is seriously doing this then I could be worried to the point where I'd solidly back whoever was beating him (almost certainly Dean). I don't have any problems with a woman VP, but as far as I'm concerned Lyndon LaRouche would be a better VP pick than Hillary.

the reasons:

1-for whatever unknown reason, she is still extremely polarizing to the extreme right wingers, and those pissed off at Bush over things like his immigration program and the Medicare bill will turn out to vote for him just to vote against Hillary.
2-We'd lose her Senate seat
3-She'd bring up the Clinton scandal nonsense all over again and the media will focus so much on that we can't effectively attack Bush.
4-It'd just add more to the accusations he's a puppet of the Clintons.
5-She'd be breaking her pledge.
6-She wouldn't add anything to the ticket. What state would she help us win?

Even though I find Mary Landrieu far too moderate, if he wants a woman VP I'd reccomend her over Hillary any day.

[Dookus]

1. I think this was brought up once before....

[Timefortruth]

2. God I hope not!

Hillary needs to keep her commitment to stay in the Senate for the full term. This election needs to be about Bush, not the Cliton luggage, unfair as it is.

I hope Clark or Dean or whomever the nominee choses Edwards as his running mate. The stronger the southern part of the ticket, the better. And Edwards comes off as such a nice guy.

[oasis]

19. Edwards a good choice. He's young and would deflate Hillary's chances for

a future presidential run should the Dems win in 2004. That alone would be enough incentive for many to support the ticket.

BTW, I love the Clintons, but on the opposite end of the scale, I hate this Bushista regime three times as much.

[Lungs]

3. I agree whole-heartedly!

And I'll go a step further: I don't think she's all that great.

She bungled healthcare reform, supports the DLC and voted for the war.

Three strikes and your out.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. that too

but I don't see the policies of the VP as more important than throwing Bush out. But for what you said I also don't understand the Freeper hatred of her, but I guess they need something to keep their insane anti-Clinton feelings going.

Might I also add, I'm not too fond of carpetbaggers on either side. Had she waited until 2002 and ran against Hutchinson, she would've won, as his defeat was the only Democratic pickup last election. However instead she had to take the NY seat thus keeping someone way more liberal out, and thus the Arkansas seat went to blue dog Pryor, who while way better than Hutchinson still pales to even her. So we'd have a fairly liberal Democrat for Arkansas in place and a very liberal one from NY, now we have a blue dog and a DLC centrist.

[Democrats unite]

4. It's amazing how many Democrats don't believ Hillary...

When she says I am not leavivg the Seante and will fulfill my term. What don't people here understand? Unless of course it's just to cause discourse.

[moz4prez]

13. oh no!1!! anything but discouse!!!

:o

[Eric J in MN]

17. defininitions of discourse and discord.

discourse=discussion

discord=arguing

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. Just because when Clark was asked,

Would you consider Hillary for VP, and he said something like "there are a lot of great people in the Democratic Party," the Hillary rumor keeps flaring up. I think the right wing is doing the most fanning of the flames, just as they were a month or two ago, trying to convince people that she still might run for President.

Hillary has said NUMEROUS times that she plans to complete her term as Senator. I don't know why people refuse to take that at face value.

And no, I wouldn't push for her anyway, because she's too polarizing a figure.

[hippiechick]

6. I concur 110% Butterfly ....

It would be a huge mistake at this point in time.
Hill has a future and I admire her more than any other woman on the planet but right now, she and Bill are still Freeper Fodder.

Let's hope Clark is truly 'his own man' as everyone claims he is and declines to put Hill on the ticket.


:hippie:

[TLM]

THis would prove in the minds of many...

That Clark is just a ringer for the clintons to get back in power.

Which would mean all those military votes and all those moderate conservatives votes would be gone the second Clark taps her for VP.


It is like Clark is TRYING to lose.

[mzmolly]

8. I agree that his cross-over appeal would be nixed if he chose Hil?

I like HC, but the Rethugs can't stand her.

[patricia92243]

9. I want a Clinton to beat a Bush ..again. Dean/Hillary !!

[the populist]

10. Hillary would hand the election to the Bush cabal

Sorry but only a minority of Americans like her. She is reviled to the extent that Joe Sixpack will actually bother to vote instead of staying home and watching porn with a Bud Ice.

I personally don't like Hillary Clinton at all. I;'d vote for any Democratic ticket (including Larouche), but Hillary would be a disaster with a capital "D".

[Lobo_13]

11. Sure, why not?

He's already killed his campaigns long term prospects, why not just kill it outright.

[janx]

12. Where are you getting this information?

Where did this possibility come from?

[Zynx]

14. I would hate to have Hillary on the ticket.

I know its blasphamy to say this, but I hate Hillary Clinton. I don't trust her at all and she seems to be becoming way too Hawkish on Iraq, too close to big business, and she is a complete opportunist. The same is true of Bill. I never liked Bill Clinton at all personally and I actually found my heart supporting Bob Dole in '96 because of it.

[Rowdyboy]

15. I would also hate to have Hillary on the ticket-its too soon...

It may be blasphemy to say, but I love Hillary Clinton. She's a brilliant, aggressive, opinionated, driven woman-and she terrifies many, many men and even some women. She also moves people. The same is true of Bill. I loved Bill Clinton long before he won the Democratic nomination (remember the Johnny Carson interview after Bill's 2 hour nominating speech for Dukakis?). I've followed these guys since 1976 (thats frightening-I'm OOOLLLLDDDDDD)

And, yes, I actually found my heart supporting Bill Clinton in 2000 because of it (though I cast my vote for Gore).

Hillary's time on the ticket is 2008 or 2012. And I will lead the charge to put her in the White House. She's a national treasure.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Doubt it will happen, and don't want it to.

Hillary Clinton would get the rightwingers to the polls to vote against the ticket.

Without her, Wesley Clark could get small but significant number of Republican votes.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton already has national name-recognition, and she's already told NY she'll serve 6 years as Senator, so I doubt she'd do it even if Clark asked.

[Padraig18]

18. Hillary will NOT accept.

She has said repeatedly that she will finish her term as senator---period. That's about as clear a statement as I can think of. :)

[Lefta Dissenter]

26. Pad, Pad, Pad...

It only took 476 times of her saying that she's not running for president before the rumor started to quiet down a bit. I'm sure that this VP one has only been floated 325 or maybe 326 times so far... So there's always hope for those who are trying to distract and derail the various Democratic campaigns!

For Pete's Sake, people, let the Senator finish her term!

[Shanty Oilish]

30. And whispering, 'I will ne’er consent,'—consented.

With apologies to Byron.

If asked to be running mate, she'll accept. Nobody over the age of twelve will have trouble understanding it.

She wants to be president. The vice-presidency maximizes her chances. If she were the vp, she'd skate to the nomination for presidency in 2008 (or 2012, take your pick).

IMO that is the ONLY scenario that gets her to the presidency. Where she wants to be and should be.

BTW Hillary Clinton has had more experience of the presidency than any other living person who hasn't actually been one!

[TacticalPeek]

20. Seems like a baseless and unproductive fantasy.

:shrug:

[maxanne]

21. I think Hilary

would be a great choice for Clark. He should announce this ASAP.

[jonnyblitz]

24. I agree!!

the sooner the better!! :thumbsup: <wink>

[ButterflyBlood]

28. see my post below

what does she have that's worth sacrificing her senate seat?

[mikewriter]

22. Clark is a puppet to the Clinton's

But I think Clark will pick Hil as the VP

[Skwmom]

23. And Howard Dean is not polarizing? e/o/m

[NV1962]

25. Bzzzzzzzt... Check the polls

Hillary Rodham is a nightmare for blowhard ultra-conservatives in the GOP, *not* all Republicans.

Also noteworthy: she still draws approval close to 50%.

Now think about what on Earth might have moved the Time folks to announce her as Most Admired Person...

Hillary Rodham is a lightning rod for neocons, fundies and the usual RW rantheads only. Let 'em, if she'd take the veep slot (which I'm not sure she'd take.) It'd prime her for President in 2012, after serving two terms in the Clark administration.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. and those folks are who might boycott Bush

it's not centrist Democrats who would boycott the Democratic nominee for not being far enough to the left, it's the folks like us. The reverse is true. The wingnuts who would boycott Bush for being pissed over his policies would never lose the opportunity to vote against any ticket with Hillary on it. aside from that, there is no counter to the fact that then the media would do nothing but concentrate on the Clinton scandals and breaking her promise, and that she would add nothing to the ticket worth losing her senate seat over. Might I remind you that her seat would probably go to Rudy, so we wouldn't be able to easily take it back.

[Walt Starr]

29. Chalk up another reason to forget about voting for Clark

like I needed any more. :eyes:

[John_H]

31. It's a tough balance

1) Most of the hillary haters won't vote for Clark anyway, but would it help mobilize chimp's base who may be otherwise disilusioned by his general un-populism and pandering to seniors and hispanics?

2)Would the women swing voters picked up outnumber the conservative dems who may be uneasy with a woman on the ticket?

3)Would the association with the second most successful President of the 20th Century neutralize the "Clinton's can't give up power so they installed a puppet" attack?

3)Would the "clinton scandal" rehash hinder or enhance our ability to raise bush and Uncle Dick scandals?

4)would the media be so pleased with the sudden hypability a Hillary choice that they'll create a bandwagon to keep the coverage going, or will they use it as a vehicle to attack the Dem ticket. (This would be a tough issue fore the media--the hoes wouldn't want to look like sexist hoes)

My gut answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, hinder, vehicle for attack.

While i personally would love it, I don't think we can afford the risk since media and money make the chimp a ten times stronger canidate than he ought to be even with the war.

[ButterflyBlood]

32. I agree except for #2

i would say the answer is no, simply because I can't see how anyone who would even think of voting for Bush would vote for a ticket just because of Hillary on it. Furthermore I don't think the problem with Dem voters who wouldn't vote for her wouldn't be that she's a woman, but that she's a Clinton. Then they'd wonder about how she's power hungry and can't give up power, and about the Clinton scandals all over again...

[the populist]

33. Because Hillary is such a populist

Nevermind the fact that she's a whore for the multinational corporations in their fight for (un)free trade.

Such a likeable woman.