cjsmom44
(496 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-16-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message |
| -Regardless of how you feel about her, do you think Clinton is a good strategic choice for VP? |
Onlooker |
May-16-08 09:18 AM |
#0 |
-
Being a former Republican is "impressive credentials"? |
wienerdoggie |
May-16-08 09:19 AM |
#1 |
 -
Strategically speaking |
Onlooker |
May-16-08 09:22 AM |
#6 |
  -
would not help Obama get elected and would contradict his no lobbyist policy |
WillYourVoteBCounted |
May-16-08 10:51 AM |
#55 |
 -
Yes........ |
RichGirl |
May-16-08 10:06 AM |
#38 |
-
No. We need independents to beat McCain. She will repel many |
Old Crusoe |
May-16-08 09:20 AM |
#2 |
-
Hillary as VP would make a mockery of everything Obama has accomplished |
rocknation |
May-16-08 09:20 AM |
#3 |
-
No. Someone w/ foreign policy-diplomatic experience would be better... |
elehhhhna |
May-16-08 09:21 AM |
#4 |
-
I can understand both perspectives |
Sherman A1 |
May-16-08 09:21 AM |
#5 |
 -
Democrats would like it, and I wouldn't object |
eridani |
May-16-08 10:02 AM |
#35 |
-
There certainly are some strengths to the choice, primarily |
mmonk |
May-16-08 09:22 AM |
#7 |
-
Possibly. Pros and cons to it. |
PeterU |
May-16-08 09:22 AM |
#8 |
 -
This quote disturbs me |
Zodiak Ironfist |
May-16-08 09:50 AM |
#28 |
 -
You are right. |
RichGirl |
May-16-08 10:14 AM |
#41 |
-
NO, NO, NO, NO... AND NADA! |
ChiciB1 |
May-16-08 09:24 AM |
# |
-
No, absolutely not. |
Hepburn |
May-16-08 09:24 AM |
#9 |
-
No. |
harun |
May-16-08 09:25 AM |
# |
-
I don't. Many of the reasons have been stated by others here. To go over |
NC_Nurse |
May-16-08 09:25 AM |
#10 |
 -
He needs Foreign/Military experience on the ticket to counter McCain |
NotThisTime |
May-16-08 09:29 AM |
#13 |
-
Exactly. She and Bill could have some official or unofficial positions with the |
NC_Nurse |
May-16-08 09:32 AM |
#17 |
-
No. |
lojasmo |
May-16-08 09:26 AM |
#11 |
-
No. Unless you want eight more years of Clinton obsession by the media. |
DemItAllAnyway |
May-16-08 09:29 AM |
#12 |
-
The best strategy would be for her to just go back to the Senate. |
Gidney N Cloyd |
May-16-08 09:30 AM |
#14 |
 -
She could really make a difference in the Senate |
goclark |
May-16-08 10:36 AM |
#44 |
-
NO! |
redqueen |
May-16-08 09:30 AM |
#15 |
-
It is not a good strategy to tie an anchor to one's waist while swimming. |
Tierra_y_Libertad |
May-16-08 09:30 AM |
#16 |
-
NO |
havocmom |
May-16-08 09:32 AM |
#18 |
-
Fuck no! |
backscatter712 |
May-16-08 09:33 AM |
#19 |
-
A down-ticket chainsaw massacre. nt |
billyoc |
May-16-08 09:33 AM |
#20 |
-
Not a good strategic choice at all for two practical reasons |
newmajority |
May-16-08 09:35 AM |
#21 |
-
No. It undercuts the "change" message with an eye to the past |
SoonerPride |
May-16-08 09:35 AM |
#22 |
-
Ordinarily |
PATRICK |
May-16-08 09:39 AM |
#23 |
-
Yes |
MonkeyFunk |
May-16-08 09:41 AM |
#24 |
 -
Can you elaborate as to why you think that? |
Lucky 13 |
May-16-08 09:46 AM |
#26 |
-
First and most obvious - |
MonkeyFunk |
May-16-08 09:54 AM |
#30 |
-
Honestly, objectively, the answer is NO. |
Lucky 13 |
May-16-08 09:45 AM |
#25 |
 -
Agree with your reasons, but think we need a woman governor. |
sfam |
May-16-08 10:03 AM |
#36 |
-
I respect and agree with your argument, but think that impact will be small. |
Lucky 13 |
May-16-08 11:06 AM |
#56 |
-
If you want the General Election to be all about .... |
earthside |
May-16-08 09:50 AM |
#27 |
 -
No, it would reinforce the everybody is a winner nobody loses, ie we can't make tough decisions. n/t |
CK_John |
May-16-08 09:57 AM |
#33 |
-
No, there are better options..need to go west.. |
tokenlib |
May-16-08 09:51 AM |
#29 |
-
## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ## |
DU GrovelBot |
May-16-08 09:54 AM |
#31 |
-
Are you kidding? Clinton = Albatross. |
Kitsune |
May-16-08 09:55 AM |
#32 |
-
No. The right wing whackjobs will come out to vote against her in droves |
eridani |
May-16-08 10:01 AM |
#34 |
-
Sure, if you want to see the heads of Obama supporters explode. |
WinkyDink |
May-16-08 10:04 AM |
#37 |
-
absolutely Not!!!!!!!!!! You end up with the package deal - Bill (and Monica) come along as |
NRaleighLiberal |
May-16-08 10:06 AM |
#39 |
-
No |
Liberal Gramma |
May-16-08 10:07 AM |
#40 |
-
Im on the wall on this one |
BigD_95 |
May-16-08 10:21 AM |
#42 |
 -
Hillary brought corrupt union chiefs . .. |
BearSquirrel2 |
May-16-08 10:44 AM |
#52 |
-
Strategic? Better to maintain "strategic majority" in the US Senate. |
suston96 |
May-16-08 10:32 AM |
#43 |
-
No, she is not ... |
BearSquirrel2 |
May-16-08 10:36 AM |
#45 |
-
Not looking at personal like or dislike |
marlakay |
May-16-08 10:39 AM |
#46 |
-
No, just the opposite |
pbca |
May-16-08 10:39 AM |
#47 |
-
I did at one time. |
graywarrior |
May-16-08 10:40 AM |
#48 |
-
absolutely NOT--he wants someone to attract voters, not drive them away |
ima_sinnic |
May-16-08 10:42 AM |
#49 |
-
No because 1) she has already said Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief |
book_worm |
May-16-08 10:43 AM |
#50 |
-
NO NO NO NO NO |
cliffordu |
May-16-08 10:43 AM |
#51 |
-
No x 1000000.00 |
olkaz |
May-16-08 10:47 AM |
#53 |
-
RE: VP |
cjsmom44 |
May-16-08 10:48 AM |
#54 |
-
Hell Noooooooooooooooooooooo eom |
spokane |
May-16-08 11:07 AM |
#57 |
-
I think her posiitves are canceled out for the most part by her negatives. |
Lisa0825 |
May-16-08 11:08 AM |
#58 |
-
She would completely doom the ticket. |
BlooInBloo |
May-16-08 11:09 AM |
#59 |
-
no no no no no no no... |
dkf |
May-16-08 11:10 AM |
#60 |
-
Nyet... |
Clear Blue Sky |
May-16-08 11:10 AM |
#61 |
-
Honestly, no. |
Terran |
May-16-08 11:16 AM |
#62 |
-
Of Course She Is. It's The Best Scenario Out There For Us. Those Saying Otherwise Use Foolish |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME |
May-16-08 11:16 AM |
#63 |
-
No - a VP doesn't typically have that much impact |
karynnj |
May-16-08 11:23 AM |
#64 |
-
Are you freakin' nuts! Obama will lose a lot of votes if he takes Hillary as VP. . . |
InAbLuEsTaTe |
May-16-08 11:24 AM |
#65 |