Did Kerry get to be Bush's VP because he won half the votes in 2004? NO!

[Yotun]

The 50+1 candidate chooses his VP, and what percentage the other candidate gets has nothing to do with it. Hillary Clinton has not won the majority of the popular support, and doesn't deserve, neither has she won, any right to anything. The nominee chooses whom he can work best with- that's that, get it through your head, and lets get over this nonsense.

[democrattotheend]

1. Good point. Although there was a possibility Lieberman could have in 2000.

If it had gone to Congress, they had the votes to confirm Bush in the House, but the Senate was tied, so Gore would have cast the deciding vote for Lieberman as VP (since Congress was back in session before Inauguration Day). Although theoretically the Republicans could have filibustered. Given his behavior since 2000, I think Lieberman actually would have done just fine as bush's vp.

[lisa58]

2. It used to be that way

[onehandle]

3. Anything is possible at the convention. Nothing is nonsense. nt

[Yotun]

5. It is nonsense to say that she has 'won' a 'right' to the VP slot. She has not. She can certainly

still be given it, but she has not 'won' it, and she doesn't deserve it because of her electoral performance.

[PATRICK]

4. That reminds one

of the early days of the country when the selection involved the number two guy, usually a bitter and ideological rival, taking the second spot, quickly resolving the divisions. At that time before party lines were drawn traditionally, in the small circles of selection and the immediate need for stability, these things easily happened. Yet they demonstrate firsthand that rivalry does not disappear and, plotting or no plotting, the VP faction would later emerge as the next Presidential party.

To talk of rights where there is currently none is blatant continuation of power politics and in fact a further challenge to the presidential nominee than ever existed in the early years of the nation. A morphing continuation of campaign belligerence into a DEMAND for a unity ticket is an irrational fallacy and a contradictory lie. To earn this consideration means not continuation of challenge but a brilliant submission and transformation, as sincere as possible that puts party and nominee first.

The nonsense meanwhile continues. The argument for a unity ticket is rationally acceptable, but is practically impossible when a faction remains a personal faction, just another demand for the winner to surrender to the loser. Time is running out with a vengeance for Clinton to make this case at all a rational or a legitimate one. She is still wrapped up in gaming her first lost battle. If the best she can do for using her bloc at the Convention is to quibble on floor fights over Florida and Michigan, her campaign and base has been squandered on useless nonsense and inevitable ruin. Rich donors trying to threaten and bribe SD's shows the persistent broken nature of this faction.