Obama-Clinton 2012?

[jefferson_dem]

Should have been in 2008. Could it be in 2012? I, for one, would love to see it. ... no offense Joe.

Obama-Clinton Ticket Possible

Bob Woodward says in a CNN interview that it's a real possibility that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be President Obama's running mate in 2012.

Said Woodward: "It's on the table. Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012."

Under the scenario discussed, Vice President Joe Biden would swap jobs with Clinton "to gin up excitement among what appears to be a depressed Democratic base."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/10/05/obama-clinton_ticket_possible.html

[onehandle]

1. Won't happen. That would be a very unusual move.

I like Hillary and would have been fine with her as VP (or P) the first time around, but this would be unprecedented in modern times without a scandal.

[DCKit]

3. These are unusual times. n/t

[onehandle]

8. Not on the Democratic side of things.

Little has changed for decades.

I think that this switch would make us look unstable. That's the opposition's image.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Frankly...I don't care how unusual it is or how much the idiots scream.

They will scream anyway.

This is the ticket. Bring it.

[Ken Burch]

70. You're just doing this because you STILL think that Obama had no right to be nominated in '08

And that HRC was somehow cheated.

She wasn't. She just didn't happen to be what the majority of the party wanted.

We would not be in a better position if we actually had gone with the "alternating ruling families" thing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. Not just an unusual move but a stupid one. Obama's too smart for that.

[paulk]

42. why would it be stupid?

explain

[karynnj]

59. Because no one changes a working combination

Not to mention, Biden is very good reaching out to the very people that purportedly can be reached by Hillary. He is a product of the middle class. In addition, Biden has looked like he has enjoyed campaigning and is better at connecting with people.

Remember that Bush 1 did not swap out Quayle, who was a liability and Bush 2 did not swap out Cheney to get someone who could run in 2008. There is no reason for it to happen.

The key here is that either Woodward is making stuff up - or Clinton advisers (his stated source) are again going after their dream.

[paulk]

82. FDR had three different Vice Presidents, so I don't see

your argument as particularly compelling. Extraordinary times, etc.

And really, Biden has been pretty much a non-entity as VP. I just don't buy that argument, either.

----

I doubt Woodward is completely making this stuff up - I'm sure that there is talk of this, and there will be more talk - especially if the economy stays bad and Obama's numbers fall.

[Ken Burch]

In FDR's day, the vice president was totally irrelevant

At least at the start(it was John Nance Garner, FDR's FIRST veep, who coined the phrase "not worth a bucket of warm piss" to describe the unimportance of the office in his day).

The question of who was veep didn't have any importance at all until FDR's campaign for a fourth term, when the hacks, Southern segregationists and antilabor types forced out Henry Wallace, FDR's sitting vice president, and replaced him with Harry Truman. They did this because it was considered almost certain that FDR wouldn't live through a fourth term, and they didn't want FDR replaced with anyone who still supported the New Deal(Those who did this were probably mildly disappointed, since events forced Truman to be a little more liberal than the anti-Wallace faction would have wanted).

Nobody thinks THIS president isn't healthy enough to survive a second term, and we've established it as a pretty firm convention in U.S. politics since 1944 that a president seeking re-election doesn't change running mates(the last time it did happen was 1976, when Gerald Ford appeased the far right in his party by dumping Nelson Rockefeller). But Ford was running as an unelected incumbent against a growing ideological opposition in his own party. That situation doesn't exist in this party, since Obama and Clinton agree on most issues, with HRC just being a bit to his right on a handful, none of which are making her more popular than he is at the moment.

[karynnj]

91. Had to back over 50 years to get that

Biden has not been a non-entity as a VP. Even on foreign policy, Biden has played a role that is as least as significant as Clinton's. He was the one that represented the US at an important NATO meeting in early 2009 and he was the lead administration person on Iraq. It is fair to say that his "areas" there are at least as important as those the secretary of State is dealing with.

He also has been very good getting the message out on rail and other needed infrastructure needs. In addition, he has been a very positive person campaigning for Democrats. The fact is the media pushed a meme of "Biden gaffes", but the fact is that anyone watching could create an equally long list of HRC gaffes or missteps. One difference is that Biden is less polarizing - which is a good thing.

We just had months of people insisting that HRC was more popular than Obama - only to see that Obama beats her easily in getting the nomination. If there is talk - it is coming from two sources. The RW which started the HRC will primary Obama nonsense (and not out of love for Clinton) and some people still longing for the promise of a HRC Presidency.

[Inuca]

2. IMHO

it would be politics at its worst.

[DURHAM D]

4. No way.

Biden has done a good job.

And Hillary wants to play with her yet to be produced grandchildren.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

71. You shoulda just let it go at the first line.

I can't believe you went there with the "wants to play with the grandchildren" thing, dude.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. That will absolutely be the ticket

You can bank that.

I've been saying this since pre-convention. Biden is a placeholder. He can't run in 2016, which leaves us dead in the water. They'll switch in Clinton, now beefed up to the ceiling with foreign policy gravitas, and she'll run in 2016.

This is going to happen, people. They're sending out the feeler a la Woodward, but this has been the plan since July 2008.

[Ken Burch]

72. Sense of entitlement MUCH.

Why even do this?

We don't need to switch the party FURTHER to the right in 2016.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. The what now?

That's gonna be the ticket. Bookmark this and see.

[AtomicKitten]

6. FFS. Here we go again.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

73. well put.

You'd think they would also remember that a sitting veep hasn't won the presidency when nominated to succeed the president he served under since...1988. And THAT president lost after one term.

[AtomicKitten]

103. They could use a reiteration of that history lesson.

Apparently the theory is that making her VP in 2012 will make her a shoe-in for the presidency in 2016, all the while oblivious to the tracks going straight over Joe Biden.

[juajen]

113. I admit, I am a nit-picker sometimes, but this error is a pet peeve

It is "shoo-in" not "shoe-in. AFAIC, Hillary should be President or nothing. Just sayin'.

[AtomicKitten]

118. Right you are and I stand corrected.

I'm afraid since the dawn of Spellcheck and having leaned on an editor back in the day, my expression of the English language has turned to shit.

AFAIC, HClinton will have to get there on her own two feet and not as a result of her more, um, enthusiastic (reads pushy) advisers jamming the process. Just sayin'. :hi:

[Blasphemer]

7. Woodward is trying to sell his book. I can't imagine this ever happening. nt

[Renew Deal]

9. I was an Obama supporter in the primaries and I would happily support this.

I'm not sure if it would have worked in 2008, but it would in 2012.

[Pirate Smile]

18. Me too. I like the idea of breaking that glass ceiling.

I love Joe and think he is a great Veep. If he would be happy with the switch, then I'm fine with it.

I'm fine with how it is now. I'd be ok with that switch too.

It would add some of that "historic break-through" excitement to the 2012 election like we had in 2008.

I feel so easy. I'm ok either way. :)

[Radical Activist]

32. I'd prefer to see the glass ceiling broken by a progressive who

can run in 2016 and have a shot at winning. That isn't Hillary.

[Pirate Smile]

35. Who would be a good one? I'm not having many pop into my head. A Governor

would probably be better then a Senator but nobody is really standing out.

[Radical Activist]

65. Democrats do need

a larger field of women serving as Governors and Senators. Personally, I'd like to see Hilda Solis or Susan Rice. Patty Murray would be good too.

[comtec]

80. Women are not some commodity you pull off the shelf and toss into the race!

That's the kind of thing that the gop does!
Perhaps it's because women are smart enough to realize that high political office is a family killer?
Perhaps they value their families, or perhaps they're currently working their way up the ladder!

Would I like to see more women in congress? sure, but only if their platforms are ones I agree with.

I'm not going to blindly vote (in the primary) for someone because it's the "correct" thing to do.

I'm going to vote for the right person. male, female, red, white, yellow or Excentrica Galumpits from Eroticon 6.

If they're qualified, and have the ideas I support, they get my single vote.

[Radical Activist]

87. That was an ugly comment that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

So you're opposed to more women serving as Governors and Senators?

The point of my post is that I'd rather see a woman on the ticket who I agree with, not just any woman. You have an insulting way of agreeing with someone.

[Ken Burch]

96. Excentrica's running? KEWWLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

:thumbsup:

[onpatrol98]

50. Hmmm...

I like Secretary Clinton...but, I don't see this as a way to move the ticket "left".

[Ken Burch]

75. Breaking the glass ceiling is fine...but NOT with HRC

A hawk can't bring in feminist policies anyway. War is always only good for men. Bombing Iran could only be good for men. And using the World Bank to impose more austerity on the third world could only be good for men.

Those are the kind of policies HRC stands for. She's NEVER been a feminist. To be a feminist, you have to be anti-militarist.

[Ken Burch]

74. Why? wouldn't it look pathetic and desperate?

And could we really win if the 2012 ticket sent the implicit message that "she'll make sure he remembers his place"?

An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a sharp swing to the right, and that couldn't possibly help us in 2012. People who hate Obama now, and were for Clinton last time, aren't GOING to come over to us this time. All the PUMAS voted McCain-Palin in 2008, and they'll all vote GOP next time.

[juajen]

114. Absolutely not true! Got something to back that up, Buddy?

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. I don't think adding Clinton is going to cure what's wrong...

... with Obama.

If anything it's going to exacerbate existing problems. They're ideological twins. Obama I is Clinton III.

Obama has to figure out how to interest the *base*.

We can't use the word "fire-up" in that sentence any longer. It implies that the base is still interested; just not wildly enthusiastic. Trouble is, a lot of us are no longer even *interested*.

Ms Clinton's becoming veep is not going to help.

[Renew Deal]

13. That wouldn't interest the "base?"

Do you consider yourself part of the "base?" You're clearly not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. I'm glbt, unionized teacher, pubic school parent and antiwar activist.

Call me what you want but Obama sucks on all four issues.

And , frankly , so does Clinton.

So call me the base or don't call me the base but it's people like me who donate $$ and cross state lines from safe states to battleground states to canvass door-to-door in the Octobers before national elections.

If you want to put forth a *thunderously* mediocre ticket of Obama/Clinton as an alternative to whatever the party of evil comes up with , expect me to pull the lever but you're dreaming if you think I'm doing more than that.

"Excited" i shall not be.

[polmaven]

29. Well, sure....

And it is absolutely, positively guaranteed that a President Romney, of President Gingrich, etc, etc, etc, would be soooo much better for you on all or any of those issues.

[Number23]

63. Hey, kids in pubic (sic) schools need love too...

:hide:

[Ken Burch]

78. It's not Clinton on the ticket or certain defeat.

n/t.

[polmaven]

92. I don't even know

what that means......Where in my post did I even mention SoS Clinton? From where did you get the idea that I even think she should]/i]be on the ticket? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

95. Your use of the "so, you want a Republican president, then?" gambit

was what led me to that conclusion.

[polmaven]

101. And it was

the poster's Call me what you want but Obama sucks on all four issues that led me to the "gambit".

[NorthCarolina]

112. I would say that Smarmie Doofus is absolutely part of the base. It is the

right-of-center DLC New Dems that consider themselves as the base, but in reality they clearly are not.

[jefferson_dem]

15. What?

Sorry. There's no way this ticket *would not* fire up the Democratic base.

Perhaps you're confusing "base" with the small handful of serial complainers who rant and whine about their (supposed) own party from behind the comforts of his or her keyboad.

[Mass]

17. No, he is not. This may fire part of the base, but it will certainly demobilize a part of Obama's

base who did not want her in the first place. So, it is at best a wash.

This reminds me the rumors of Bush replacing Cheney by Rice. Not that there is anything comparable between the two women, but it is DC's idea of excitement.

[paulk]

45. you're saying that a part of Obama's base actually

supported Obama because they were anti-Hillary? And they'd be "demobilized" even though Obama would be heading the ticket because their dislike, for want of a better word, for Hillary is that strong?

[Mass]

46. If you want to love the stupid village rumors, feel free. There are more important things at

play than the latest Village rumors.

Also, do you mean Hillary's supporters will not vote and work for Obama without her on the ticket? Because this is the implication of what her advisers seem to be suggesting to Woodward (whoever these unnamed advisers are).

[karynnj]

58. Actually - if you said have misgivings about Hillary - yes

I will admit that I supported Obama mostly out of a process of elimination. Edwards was absolutely unacceptable, I had problems with many things the Clintons did over the years and none of the second tier candidates came close to being real possibilities. I supported Obama. That's how it goes some years.

I don't think this was typical - I have three 20 somethings - all were extremely excited about Obama. I was far happier with Kerry - and would have been with Dean in 2004 than I was with any of the 2008 candidates.

Now before the Clinton people attack, this is what my preferences were - and the Clinton people in the media were among those who fostered the ABB nonsense in 2004 - nonsense because AB (anyone) makes little sense in the general elections - as in ALL elections there are many that are almost certain to vote one party or the other.

[Renew Deal]

21. You're 100% correct

The screamers in the Democratic party are a small minority whether they realize it or not.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Jennicut]

62. I am a strong supporter of Obamas and it would turn me off. I am not

a serial complainer here at all. I just prefer Biden as VP. I respect Hillary but I trust Biden more. Look back over what led to the escalation in Afghanistan. Hillary is very interventionist for my tastes. Biden used to be but seems to have learned from some of his mistakes.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Obama even surrounded himself with Clinton's posse

Very little difference, if any - both dedicated to triangulation.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. Exactly. Just who is going to be "excited" by more of the same?

More of the same people. More of the same policy.

[Radical Activist]

31. Clinton deregulated. Obama re-regulated.

Clinton caved to conservative values. Obama advances progressive values.
Clinton gave up after a failure on health care. Obama keeps fighting for his agenda, like an energy bill.
Clinton did almost nothing on climate change. Obama has already done more than Clinton and Carter combined.

I've seen a certain subset of progressives approach Obama like they thought he was Bill Clinton from day one. I suspect some of them will keep believing that no matter how many more progressive accomplishments Obama piles up.

[ClarkUSA]

102. +1000

Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-05-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #11

31. Clinton deregulated. Obama re-regulated.

Clinton caved to conservative values. Obama advances progressive values.
Clinton gave up after a failure on health care. Obama keeps fighting for his agenda, like an energy bill.
Clinton did almost nothing on climate change. Obama has already done more than Clinton and Carter combined.

I've seen a certain subset of progressives approach Obama like they thought he was Bill Clinton from day one. I suspect some of them will keep believing that no matter how many more progressive accomplishments Obama piles up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=466711&mesg_id=466856

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Hillary would get the base motivated alright-to look for another more progressive ticket.

[Mass]

14. Biden is great in this job. But Woodward can only produce more Village talk.

Bob, is your book so boring that you want to repeat more talk without basis,

And Hillary's advisers of course are pushing that. Because all we need right now are more noises of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

[onenote]

22. i suppose we'll just have to bookmark this and see what happens

Personally, I don't see it happening, but then again I try to avoid making predictions about what will happen next week, let alone two years from now.

[Lyric]

25. Well it would certainly get the base excited.

As we are constantly told, we "leftbaggers" are NOT the base--our more centrist brethren are--and goodness knows that the centrists love the Clintons.

:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

85. I *know* I am not part of the base and could give a rat's ass. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

36. I couldn't stand Hillary during the primaries...

but since SHE got over it and became a "good soldier" and is working in his administration, IF, for some reason, BIDEN would want this deal (and would want to be SoS), I think it would be a winning ticket and I'd have no problem with it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. I don't understand. Joe Biden has been a fantastic VP. Is this flamebait?

[old mark]

28. I was thinking more like Biden for President in 2016,,,,nt

[karynnj]

61. I think Biden would have as good a chance as Hillary

Those who write him off as too old, should consider that Hillary is not that much younger - and she actually looks like being Secretary of State has taken a toll on her. Biden looks happier and more energized than he did as senator.

[Radical Activist]

30. Oh, this again. Every couple of months or so this is floated by someone.

Of course her advisers think it's a possibility. No one else does.

[ClarkUSA]

56. "Clinton advisors" would never keep pushing this meme w/o approval by the Clintons themselves.

It's pretty obvious that despite protestations to the contrary, Hillary and Bill are still yearning to be co-presidents again, Joe Biden be damned.

Biden better watch his back.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. It is GOING to happen

And I am 135.28% on board.

[Radical Activist]

64. Hillary IS 44.

Sorry, but your comment brought back that memory.

[AtomicKitten]

83. "Hillary is 44" is busy promoting teabaggers.

http://www.hillaryis44.org/

[karynnj]

97. Wow - wonder if Trelleuian (or however it was spelled) is still there

They really are pathetic.

[AtomicKitten]

100. I have yet to comprehend how a person goes from

supporting a Democrat straight to supporting teabaggers. That caliber of sour grapes should be studied by scientists for possible use as insect repellent or variant of ipecac.

[karynnj]

106. I don't understand it either

It even makes me wonder if they were ever really Democrats. Could they have not really ever been Clinton supporters - but posing as such to create havoc?

[Ken Burch]

79. You're on board with ANYTHING that moves the Dems further right.

You're probably secretly hoping for another 1994 this year just to make sure Obama's reduced to the nothingness of the last six years of El Perro Grande.

[PBS Poll-435]

107. Nah. Just like Hillary.

And I have been campaigning my ass off.


Get bent.

[CakeGrrl]

34. Gin up excitement? How?

The only way I can see that happening is if those who wanted her as POTUS in the first place can envision her as Cheney to Obama's Bush.

Are the shots still his to call or not? Will it still be Obama's war in Afghanistan, Obama's Justice Department depending on the decisions that get made?

Oh, the speculation.

:eyes:

[Arkana]

37. Bob Woodward has started drinking wood varnish, I see.

[Citizen Worker]

67. Or sniffing the kerosene used to clean the printing presses

[polmaven]

98. Really!

I doubt that she has any ambition to be VP. She is more effective right where she is.

[Nancy Waterman]

38. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No way.

[book_worm]

39. It won't happen because in 2012 Obama will be unbeatable

We are now seeing economic conditions, according to a variety of reports in the last month, indicate that the slowdown in the recovery is beginning to speed up. By 2012 the recovery will be in full speed such as it was for Reagan in 1984. It's the economy that has hindered dems this year more than anything and by 2012 things will be much better. Secondly, despite everything Obama has managed to keep an approval rating that isn't bad considering 9.6% unemployment--averaging 45%. That is better than Clinton or Reagan had at comparable times and seems to indicate that overall Obama has a overall solid supporters. Third, Dems are not the problem for Obama--every poll indicates he is strong with them. It's independents and independents don't particularly care for Hillary. Fourth, Obama is loyal and he will not dump Joe Biden--it would look too crass and political.

It will not happen.

[ClarkUSA]

54. I agree, book_worm.

It won't happen because in 2012 Obama will be unbeatable... We are now seeing economic conditions, according to a variety of reports in the last month, indicate that the slowdown in the recovery is beginning to speed up. By 2012 the recovery will be in full speed such as it was for Reagan in 1984. It's the economy that has hindered dems this year more than anything and by 2012 things will be much better. Secondly, despite everything Obama has managed to keep an approval rating that isn't bad considering 9.6% unemployment--averaging 45%. That is better than Clinton or Reagan had at comparable times and seems to indicate that overall Obama has a overall solid supporters. Third, Dems are not the problem for Obama--every poll indicates he is strong with them. It's independents and independents don't particularly care for Hillary. Fourth, Obama is loyal and he will not dump Joe Biden--it would look too crass and political.

It will not happen.

[Exilednight]

43. Will not happen.......

Dumping Biden will make him look weak and could be construed as an admission of a mistake in running partners in the prior election.

[DCBob]

44. I like it too... sounds like winner,,

It would definitely generate quite a bit of excitement.

[yurbud]

47. if anyone in the white house thinks that will gin up enthusiasm in the basen they need to wash

Rahm's shit out of their ears. The only replacement that would generate less enthusiasm is ;oe Lieberman.

[golfguru]

48. It's the economy stupid

If recovery makes it's presence visible in 2012, Biden stays.
If economic malaise is going on in 2012, look for for a change.
It is as simple as that. Duh!

[Ken Burch]

76. Why would anybody think changing the veep would help the economy?

Does Biden have any influence on economic policy? Actually, does he have any influence on anything.

We haven't really heard that much from the guy(although he was good on AutoTune The News.)

[golfguru]

109. A change of VP offers the perception that

something is being done to help economic recovery.
Especially the name Clinton is synonymous with a marvelous economy.

[Beacool]

49. After reading the litany of responses,

I'm sure glad that the "base" of the party are not those who post on DU.

:-(

[jesus_of_suburbia]

51. Same here.

[Beacool]

52. Hi, Jesus!!!!

:hi:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

53. Hi, Bea!

:hug:


I haven't seen you in awhile... glad to see you!

[Beacool]

55. I don't hang around here much.

Although it's always nice to see friends.

:pals:

[juajen]

115. Hi, Bea. I've missed you also. Personally, I would rather

Hillary run for President in 2016, and just take some years to prepare and set up a great campaign. I don't want her to be VP, and I believe four years as SOS is enough. It will be difficult for anyone to question her foreign credentials after these four years.

[Beacool]

117. Hi, how are you?

Nice seeing you on the board. I think that Hillary was more than qualified to be president in 2008, I wouldn't have supported her otherwise. Furthermore, I still think that she would have been the better choice. Who knows what will happen in 2012? It will all depend on the state of the economy. If unemployment is as high as it is now, all bets are off. As far as 2016, it's too far away to predict.

Take care.

:pals:

[applegrove]

57. I like it. I'd miss her as secretary of state though.

[Jennicut]

60. Sorry, not into this. Hillary pushed more for the escalation in Afghanistan, Biden argued for a

lesser presence. Tell me which one I should prefer as our VP? I don't dislike Hillary but I don't want her as the VP and Obama was smart to put her as SOS. With Biden, he does not have to worry about someone more interested in the VP as a stepping stone then a job where the main purpose is to give support and advice to the President. I would think less of Obama if he did this.

[krawhitham]

66. That is the only thing he could do to lose my vote

[BlueIris]

68. I'm sure I'll be thinking about this post in one month and be laughing.

Or crying. Not sure which. Either way--absurd (on both counts).

[Ken Burch]

69. Not really worth it.

Obama was never OBLIGATED to offer HRC the running mate position in '08. And there's no reason to think it would help now.

In fact, it would raise some weird issues about gender politics in this administration and how that plays out with electoral results:

To back an Obama-Clinton ticket in 2012, you'd have to believe that the administration is in trouble because HRC has a job that is too important. Switching her from SoS to the vice presidency, in terms of influence, would actually be a demotion.

There's another implication about the demand for HRC's inclusion on the ticket, but I won't go there because it's too disturbing. Anyone who's wondering can pm me about it.

[cleveramerican]

84. I don't believe it for second

[AngryAmish]

86. I don't think Michelle would ever let him

She loves him too much.

[Beacool]

89. What the F**CK is that supposed to mean?????

x(

[Metric System]

120. Clinton Derangement Syndrom is alive and well. I hate these VP threads because they just give an

excuse for the regulars to spew their venom. When I read through a thread like this it makes me never want to return to DU. And it's the same damn handful of posters dating back to the primaries. They see a Clinton conspiracy in everything. I'm sick of it.

[Beacool]

121. I understand how you feel.

I lurk, but post very little anymore.

:-(

[CakeGrrl]

88. Hillary responds to Woodward's assertion:

Not interested

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/hillary-clinton-vice-president_n_752556.html

Will people believe her?

:crazy:

[AtomicKitten]

90. There's a bit of a disconnect because her advisers keep regurgitating the idea over and over again.

From Woodward's book: "Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012."

Go figure. :crazy:

[CakeGrrl]

93. All the more reason Obama shouldn't even consider it

If it's Woodward talking out of his butt, that's one thing. But if this is more mixed messaging from the Clinton camp, it's just bad juju. The President has enough REAL stuff to deal with.

Then again, I've wondered what that little post-primary closed-door meeting brokered by Feinstein was about. Bleh.

[Aramchek]

104. every single PUMA thinks they are a Hilllary adviser

[juajen]

116. Bullshit!

[gkhouston]

94. Smells like a shiny thing. It's nothing more than another way to push the

"depressed base" meme and make it seem that voters won't respond to Biden's campaigning efforts for Dems. From the clips I've seen, he's been pretty damned effective on the stump.

But hey, if the MSM covers this non-story, it's a way to use up their obligatory "we talked about Dems" time without discussing any actual races where Dems are doing well. }(

[hughee99]

99. Why would Hillary want to be VP?

She would go from being a "serious person" taking the lead and discussing serious international issues, to a person who's full time job is to promote the president's agenda (whether she agrees with it or not).

[NoPasaran]

105. I'd prefer Clinton-Obama

:hide:

[treestar]

108. So ridiculous that this keeps coming up

And the newest explanation is silly. For one, the voters are not 'depressed". And 2010 is two fuckin' years from now!

And why would it make such a big difference? :rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

110. Jeebus, I hope not.

The last thing I want to see is a Clinton, or ANY DLC New Dem for that matter, running for POTUS in 2016. I'm way beyond tired of Conservative Dem/GOP pro-corporate politics.

[Imagevision]

111. Does anyone in this room believe in Obama's transparancy pledge?

Oil Spill Panel: White House Blocked Federal Scientists From Releasing Worst-Case Scenario For Gulf Disaster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/oil-spill-panel-white-hou_n_752612.html

[Ozymanithrax]

119. That would not happen unless Biden stepped down...

to spend more time with his family.