Considerations for Senator Clinton for Vice President

[grantcart]

On May 20th we may have a very good idea if Hillary Rodham Clinton is to be considered for our Vice Presidential Candidate.


I) Preface: Considering Clinton for Vice President should be no harder for Obama supporters than for Clinton supporters to consider Obama for President.

If you want Clinton supporters to accept Obama as our party’s leader for the next 8 years is it not reasonable to consider without rancor Senator Clinton as our Vice President for the next few minutes?

There is always time to go ape shit later

If you want Clinton supporters to reconcile then a civil response to this idea will be helpful, very helpful.

Of course you are completely free to explain in detail why the writer is a fucking idiot – that will cause the Clinton supporter no remorse.




II) May 20th is the decisive day.

Obama will win the pledged delegate majority, he will have the super delegate majority, he will have the Pelosi deluge. He will have money and delegates and he will be in Oregon turning his guns on the Third Bush Turn. There will be no matrix the Clinton campaign can call upon to change the reality of that night.

The next day the Clinton campaign faces the disclosure of April fund raising numbers that will show financial problems and, most likely, the $ 10 million day as a rather ambitious exaggeration. From that point on the Clintons know that they will be answering only questions about them and they will be on the defensive.



III) Hillary’s speech in Kentucky

My guess is that before Obama speaks in Oregon Clinton will give a speech in Kentucky. If that speech is about her campaign and her supporters then she will have gone out on top. If, however, we hear a speech that includes passages extolling the candidacy of Senator Obama, outlining how he has created a new possibility for the Democratic Party then there is a pretty good chance that consideration has been given to her as VP.



IV) The Case for Hillary as Vice President.

Let us put away all of the passion of the last year.

Let us consider this question simply with one factor in mind – will it help us in the General Election? Nothing else matters. The war, the destruction of the middle class, the oppression of the poor, the use of the military instead of diplomacy, the systemic collapse of environmental systems require that we put our personal feelings aside and look at the bigger picture (and it is exactly what we have been yelling at the Clinton supporters to do for weeks).

1) Why Hillary would want it. Hillary now wants, I believe, to establish a place in history as a unique contributor to the Woman’s movement. This is not a bad thing. We don’t criticize Jackie Robinson for this ambition and we shouldn’t criticize her for it either. Returning to the Senate as one among many does not fulfill that. Becoming the first woman Vice President does. There is a different type of attitude between Executive and Legislative types. Hillary prefers an executive rather than a legislative role which depends on so much collaboration.

2) The person most likely to become the 45th President is the next Vice President. She may be 61 now but she doesn’t look or act like it and in 8 years she still will be completely capable of running hard for President. Are there any Obama supporters who can argue that she doesn’t have the energy. The idea that it would be impossible for her to run in 8 years is absurd.

3) Obviously it would solve the healing problem for the party.

4) It would show that Obama is not petty. That he never took the assaults on him personally. That he is a person capable of thinking beyond himself.

5) The fact is that while I believe that Obama is going on to a massive historic win Hillary does carry certain demographics in certain states at a significant rate. For example:
















I frankly don’t consider these polls that significant when it comes to Obama because the campaign hasn’t started yet and I know that Obama is going to go up. What is significant is that Hillary, despite a fairly strange and ineffective campaign has retained higher numbers than McCain.

6) Campaign tested. It’s a tough grind doing what these two have done. And no Republican has done it. She knows the grind and she can take it.

She can debate. She has had 21 of them – or more – some of the debates she was debating 3-4 people at the same time.

The Republicans haven’t had anything like it.

7) She brings even more contributors.

8) She creates a very difficult problem for McCain. If the Republicans nominate two white males the juxtaposition is going to be telling. African Americans, Hispanics, Women all are going to be highly motivated to say, you guys have had your turn.

Who is McCain going to appoint to counter that? If he picks a minority or a Republican woman then it is going to smack of symbolic and not substantive choice. Hillary Clinton isn’t the woman candidate, she is the candidate who happens to be a woman.

9) She brings Bill as a campaigner. Used in the right situations, small towns and in the south he can be very effective, especially when he isn’t emotionally tied to it.

10) She can help Obama be even better prepared for Day One. The fact is that we have seen Obama improve with this campaign. He has a terrific learning curve. The huge minutiae associated with running the government requires experience, which he will hire. Senator Clinton and her husband will have a significant contribution to offer.



Summary:

If Hillary Clinton’s speech on May 20th is a concession speech and it extols the many attributes of the next president of the United States, it would indicate that consideration is being given to Senator Clinton as Vice President. Today Senator Clinton indicated that the two campaigns are in daily conversation.

For many of us this is going to take some time for us to consider in a rational unemotional way. Many of us, myself included have alluded to the feeling that if she is on the ticket we might not support it. Well we all know that is just not true. We got our candidate for President. We won. And now we have to start communicating like we are victors and not as if we are still in the trenches.

There are, I am sure, many ways to criticize the points above. I will probably agree with many of them.

However how we treat the question of how we consider Hillary as a Vice Presidential candidate will have an impact on how the Clinton supporters react to Senator Obama as the Presidential candidate, and how they act in DU.

Therefore it would be very considerate to the Clinton supporters in DU to agree or disagree in a polite dispassionate way. If you want Clinton supporters to help heal the party and rebuild a united front to the McCain apostasy known as BUSH III then some restraint would be a strategic advantage

Of course calling the writer of the OP a dickhead or anything else would be completely understood, entirely accurate and would in fact delight many Clinton supporters as well.

[LakeSamish706]

1. NO! n/t

[Zachstar]

2. Fuck no

[grantcart]

5. a polite response would have conveyed your meaning without insulting Clinton supporters

[davidinalameda]

12. double fuck no!

and that's as nice as I'm going to say it

[grantcart]

33. well if you double it up it makes complete sense - thanks for that

[lligrd]

3. If Obama Chooses Her I'll Vote For Her

But she wouldn't be my recommendation. Hillary no longer appears to share my morals or fits the character requirements I would like our candidates to possess.

[grantcart]

25. and of course every single person who objects to it will as well

and given that no one is really going to listen to us on the issue it cannot be disadvantageous to atleast consider it.

[DerekJ]

4. No. NO WAR ENABLER VP. n/t ...

[grantcart]

15. Unfortunately that will eliminate 2/3 of the party leadership

[DerekJ]

20. Yep, so be it. That's the main reason I'm supporting Obama (like many), and that's his best argument

against McCain grantcart. but a war enabler VP, and you lose this one, especially someone who didn't even apologize for it. If Hillary sincerely apologized, it would have been a different story.

[grantcart]

36. The lack of an apology is a major problem I also have with her

it probably cost her the nomination

[babylonsister]

6. Out with the old, in with the new. NO! nt

[Cha]

74. Thanks..this kind of talk is insane..

Obama is the future..hilary is the ugly past.

She will not be the VP on Obama's ticket.

[dubeskin]

7. I read through it and you bring up some good points, but

I think to just make Hillary the VP because of her primary campaign is a little spontaneous, and I think a lot more consideration needs to be given first. There are many qualified potential running mates that could be a better match with Obama in the general election. Hillary is strong in many areas - she brings quite a bit to the table, often times too much than what we want to eat. In addition, she carries quite a bit of baggage - luggage she's going to have to carry with her for another 5 months. Obama is relatively clean on all aspects, forget Wright, and for his campaign to go down because of his VP choice's actions would be disgraceful.

Also, look at the Republican party. Remember their upset when McCain became the presumptive nominee, and all the cries of "I would never vote for him in the general election?" They have largely put aside their differences and, to some degree, united again Obama. Those Hilary supporters who claim to never support Obama are just spur of the moment comments, and we WILL unify to beat McCain.

In summary, Hillary is not the only candidate to can unify the party and bring policy. However, she could be a potential choice for Vice President, and there is no reason to completely overlook her.

[grantcart]

10. I agree 100% and simply suggest that she should be given consideration

of course there are serious problems raised with her campaigns tactics.


It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 days.

[flowomo]

8. I've said it repeatedly.... this would be a good ticket....

I'm on the record predicting it will be the ticket and I'll stand on that until he chooses otherwise:

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/04/25/opinion/columns/rich_lewis/doc4811edc6da97b648228914.txt

[newmajority]

9. Two senators on a ticket is suicide.

Hillary on this ticket, doubly so.

[grantcart]

11. Two Senators would be a problem

[flowomo]

24. why would it be a problem?

JKF/LBJ wasn't too bad; LBJ/Humphrey did ok; and a lot of DUers think Kerry-Edwards won in 2004, so that wasn't exactly a bad ticket either.

[grantcart]

31. Its not a deal breaker but very few Senators have been elected Pres

One of the problems is they usually have long records and have too many controversial votes.

The other criticism is that Senators don't have any executive experience where somebody like a Governor would have.

[newmajority]

43. "JKF/LBJ wasn't too bad"

JFK might argue that with you. And the only other "unity ticket" in recent memory was Reagan Bush in 1980, which had a similar, but not as permanent outcome.

And no, I'm not accusing Hillary of anything, but given that we are two for two on "unity ticket" shootings, its a chance I'd rather not take. The Bush Crime family might decide to do Hillary a favor with or without her consent.

[grantcart]

44. JFK wouldn't have been elected without LBJ but I don't agree with that here

althought the polling results in PA OH and FL were different than what I expected. I would be interested in almost any Democrat that could bring in a lock on all three states.

[no1dolo]

80. Did either of those VPs announce to the world that the Pres was not qualified. Clinton has. How

does that play out in a combined ticket.

[mystieus]

13. Watch your back Obama if you do..

[Tinksrival]

42. exactly.....

taste tester indeed!

[MonkeyFunk]

48. You know

a lot of people have had posts deleted for implying that Clinton would murder Obama. It's over the line.

[Zhade]

14. There is no case for a well-documented compulsive liar whose own lies can be exposed...

...by McLame playing undeniable video evidence that proves she's a liar.

I don't want someone like her anywhere near the White house.

Thankfully, she won't be.

[4themind]

49. Self-del

[Triana]

16. Nooooooooo. n/t

[AZBlue]

17. No, no, NO! And here's why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5922436

[grantcart]

22. rather than argue all of the points in a lengthy thread

what do you consider to be the most important point(s)

[AZBlue]

41. Good question.

I'd have to say it's a combination of the dirt that the GOP has on her (why else would we have Operation Chaos?) combined with the absurd position it would put Obama in. Both would weaken the Dems too much - and I think that includes races for the Senate and the House too.

[Secret_Society]

18. VP needs to be an attack dog

Love her or hate her, HRC can do that. I am a huge Edwards supporter, but he didn't do enough of this in 2004. Whatever you say about "old" politics or "new" politics, attacks still work and HRC as VP would fit that role perfectly. She is a fighter while Obama can be the high minded above the fray idealist.

[grantcart]

23. and Hillary has been on the stage and gone through the crucible of fire.

The Republican ticket has not. Anyone we pick hasn't had the pressure on them that Hillary has.

[Secret_Society]

34. Exactly

[genna]

54. Attack dog? What part of different kind of politics don't we get about this election cycle?

Just because Hillary can be more vicious than anyone I've ever seen, does not mean that someone else can't be assertive, likeable, and get to the heart of the matter.

John Edwards ate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama up during the debates. His ability to tussle and draw contrasts was NOT THE SOLE FACTOR in being effective.

This isn't a winning quality.

[phrigndumass]

19. It's worth considering. Both Obama and Clinton are comparable on many issues ...

And yet they attract different demographics. If we are to consider the election war as a whole, then this scenario would definitely merit some study, alongside other scenarios for running mates.

:thumbsup:

[sfam]

21. I no longer see this as a realistic possibility...too many negatives for the combination..

McCain can parrot back all Hillary's "McCain is more qualified than Barack" greatest hits.

Hillary's negatives are now above 50% and rising. Her believability is at 60% negative

The bad blood between the two campaigns - mostly between their surrogates - would lead to a really bad working relationship in the GE

Hillary's knocks on Barack's patriotism and his potential Muslim background, "as far as she knows" really does give credence to the Republican smear campaign.

Hillary unites the Republicans far better than McCain does

The way which Hillary is choosing to go out is not benefiting Barack. She may be trying to force her way on the ticket but the whole "poor racist white democrats who support me just won't vote for a black guy" comments really do sort of put the final nail in the coffin for this idea.

[grantcart]

28. Many of your points are valid and may be deal killers

and the issue about negatives is the most telling

That is why I found it very surprising that in some key states she was polling much better than McCain than Obama.



Florida for example. I thought for sure that we were cooked in Florida but she is doing quite well there.


The Obama campaign has of course much more extensive polling. It is possible that there polling shows that she has a strategic advantage in enough key states to over look the other points.

In terms of chemistry and what not - it will be very interesting to see the tone that is set in the next 10 days.

I agree that most of her surrogates have been terrible and would be flushed immediately.


The point of the post however is not really so much to advocate her candidancy but have a civil discussion about it and thank you for your intelligent points.

[saltpoint]

26. In the historical wake of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, politics

is usually excused odd or even surreal ticket pairings.

Marriages often seem to run on the same model as strange political bedfellows, or as we have learned this past year or so, there are often components to marriages which aren't readily visible and which are uncovered later. Eliot Spitzer, Mr. Clean, hired hookers. Dave Vitter, Mr. Far Right Family Values, also hired hookers, the better to soil diapers with.

Both Spitzer and Vitter are politicians. Who knows which the hooker-hiring will jeopardize most -- their marriages or their political careers?

Not surprisingly, you put up a respectful and thoughtful post, grantcart, and an immediately useful one besides. I hope many DU readers will save it to refer to later in this election cycle but also as a model of how groups of disparate supporters might work toward a widening circle. It's stressful but necessary and I really like your posts on DU as blueprints toward that end.

Obama is in a position where he can incur damage from the Clinton camp, as it has reached a critical point where her staying in damages her more than it does him, given the flow of former Clinton supes to Obama and McCain's increasingly illuminated incompetence and stupidity.

Like LBJ and JFK, these two don't like each other. It's the pragmatic triangulating 90s versus the inspirational futurist model, with one key difference (among others) that the futurist model has prompted a truly historic new-voter registration. County Dem chairs know who's bringing home the bacon in this race.

If HClinton is named our veep nom I will support the ticket.

But less enthusiastically than if it were Richardson / Bradley / Biden / Edwards / Sebelius / etc. instead.

[grantcart]

38. well put. It will be interesting to see how she demonstrates the number one

quality a VP must have - loyalty over the next 10 days.

May 20th will bring a great speech by Obama but frankly I will be a lot more curious about Clinton's.

[saltpoint]

40. Hi, grantcart. Agree on all points. The next couple weeks or so

are going to decide a lot of people's future.

[wileedog]

27. You bring up some great points, and I will say this in all sincerity

There is no one better *qualified* to be a VP currently out there.

She would rule in the VP debates. She would perfectly play the role of attack dog, keeping the Pres candidate clean. The very tenaciousness that is vexxing us Obama supporters now becomes the thorn in the Repub side.

I'm just concerned with how badly this cuts into Obama's message. "Bringing change to Washington" has brought a Chicago lawyer out of nowhere, but teaming up with the ultimate Washington insider family doesn't seem to support the Mission. Not to mention the incessant attacks on viability, electability, experience and qualifications that Clinton herself has mentioned that McCain has that Obama doesn't. How does she spin that to the press and electorate?

And we're not even touching on Clinton's HUGE negatives, and her ability to mobilize the Repub base in a way McCain NEVER will. Half his own party would happily send him to Guantanimo, but they just don't have anyone better. But a Clinton to vote against? Oh hell, sign us up!!!

And even if they win, can you imagine Bill roaming around the White House as the THIRD most important person? Maybe less really, when you consider he is not really as important as First Spouse as most of the Cabinet Members? Does anyone see him dociley accepting the "Tea with the other leader's wives" role? (and what mischief comes out of that role!) :)

I don't know, this has awkward written all over it. As someone said we don't get votes out of it, we merely prevent defections. In a year after 8 of George Bush and against a guy who is stupidly clinging to Jr's policies, I'm less worried about that.

[grantcart]

46. Iits an awkward response because we are in an awkward situation

We may wake up and find that is exactly what we have.

But to the larger point we have shown that we can discuss it without rancor.

[wileedog]

63. True to both points

I just feel like the Republican party is feeling pretty dazed and on the ropes. Their policies have failed miserably, and all except the most diehard admit Bush sucked. What they really wanted was a guy to the RIGHT of Bush, not left, so its like an extra kick in the teeth for the Faithful. Instead they got a guy that authored a dreaded Amnesty bill with a Hated Kennedy. Ouch.

The last thing I want to do is give them an issue to forget all that and make sure they get out there and vote, donate etc, and IMO a Clinton on the ticket will do that for many of them. And it cuts into a lot of Obama's potential cross-over appeal as well.

If it happens, it happens, and we'll make the best of it - as I said I think she will be very good at it, and an asset in other ways. But push comes to shove I'd rather get a strong Hillary supporter like a Wes Clark that also brings some positives in experience and Security and hope that's enough to appease the majority of Hillary's base.

[anonymous171]

29. I wish she could be the VP.

But her negatives are so high that she would be doing more harm than good by joining the ticket.

[GetTheRightVote]

30. I do believe at this time for party unity a Obama/Hillary ticket is ideal

so we can defeat the real enemy, McCain and repubs.

[SoCalDem]

32. Like getting a hot fudge sundae..with shit sprinkles on top

NO THANKS..

[PM7nj]

35. I would rather not have her on the ticket, but could live with it.

I think she may hurt the ticket more than help though. She has some great positives but astronomical negatives.

[dorktv]

37. It solves two problems:

1. Getting the other side's votes.

2. Getting someone to be tougher then tough. Sorry but I have yet to see Senator Obama be the heavy. Nor could he be the heavy. She, on the other hand, has what it takes to be nasty as the day is long. And you do not think she is not looking forward to a major fight?

She pandered with the gas tax but frankly, I do not see her doing it any more.

[SwampG8r]

39. no

she is too personally flawed in my opinion to be allowed that close to serious power

[Usrename]

45. She'd be an excellent candidate, and an even better VP.

She'd be perfect in that role, and a real asset, as far as the election and governance are concerned.

But I keep thinking there is a problem, a very large problem, a continuity of government problem.

I don't see how she could possibly take over the reigns effectively in the event of something happening to Obama. She has a trustworthiness problem already. Add that to all the talk about the Kennedy/Johnson relationship, I just don't think she could govern.

If anything ever happened, it would doom the party to yet another period of total devastation, one that would last another generation.

I don't think it's worth the risk.

[debbierlus]

47. No. It would be the one reason Republicans may show up in November

To vote against her....

I don't think it is a good idea.

[Overseas]

50. Sorry-- the race-baiting turned many former supporters off

Sorry to say that Hillary supporters don't realize how very much her team's race baiting crushed the hearts of many Democratic women who had admired her. I don't understand how they can ignore the fact that thousands of us really lost a lot of the respect we had held out for her. I really don't understand why her supporters are not more agonized over what she and her team have done. It has been so ugly and anti- Democratic. Can't see making her a VP after that.

[genna]

57. AGREED

I really don't understand why her supporters are not more agonized over what she and her team have done.

We aren't as liberal/progressive as I thought our party was.

[4themind]

51. My biggest concern would be the one pelosi had

Which is that she implied that she didn't believe he had reached the Commander in chief "threshold"("critical criterion" ) and that Mccain HAS. All the repubs have to do is just say "roll the tape". It will be problematic regardless but even worse if your own vice president is saying that. Now she can parse it and say at that "point it time" but surely people are going to ask her what changed her mind over just a period of 4-5 months, and simply being the winner, isn't going to seem like a genuine answer to many in my view. (Or it'll be viewed as circular perhaps) I'm not saying this makes the ticket impossible in my view, but her own reckless(imo) comments don't help the effort.

[genna]

52. Politics as usual

He has built up the image that he is not going to approach politics as a divisive game. No race-baiting, no finding a boogie man to be against.

Hillary has made a caricature of women.

[WA98296]

53. She is NOT interested in VP, she signaled that by crossing the Rubicon.

As far as Obama's campaign, it would morph his message of "change" into nothing more than a slogan.

I respect her supporters, however Obama has earned the right to select the VP which best enhances HIS campaign, in his opinion. The job is up to the both of them to bring the party together, and her CHOOSING to fight on, and continue to take on Obama's positions (as of yesterday campaigning at least) SHE has the larger responsibility to bring the party together.

[NC_Nurse]

55. No, thanks. nt

[grace0418]

56. I understand the consideration. I just feel like the Clintons (both of them) would

use a return to the WH in any capacity as an excuse to set forth their own agenda, bully people around, and act like they are still running the place. I think Obama can handle it, but with all the work he'll need to do, who needs the added hassle? I just don't see Hillary (or Bill) sucking it up and gracefully taking her role seriously and with the proper amount of respect to the President.

[crankychatter]

58. After JFK, Johnson rolled over on Vietnam

man, do YOU remember?

Before he could bring it to an end and save tens of thousands of lives... sadly.... RFK was assassinated.

Before he could merge the Civil Rights movement with the movements for Economic Justice and an end to Neoliberal Imperialism... MLK was assassinated.

Grant, I respect you... but you MUST try to understand.

The Corporate Transnationals as represented by the neocons and the complicit, corporatists in the Democratic Party WANT GLOBAL DOMINION.

Will you please listen? This is not a conspiracy theory... it's a conspiracy fact.


edited to include: "when we strain at a gnat, we swallow a camel."

[crankychatter]

59. When will your polls include the MILLIONS of people that are cynical non-voters?

that WILL VOTE if given a good reason

don't you think Obama is a good reason?

I do.

[femmedem]

60. If Clinton were our VP candidate, the press would continue to focus

the relationship between Clinton and Obama. "Does she really think he has what it takes?" "Will they be able to work well together?" "Did he pick her because he had to, or does he really believe she's the best qualified." Etc. and etc. With a different VP choice, the press would more likely focus their attention on the battle between Obama and McCain.

[Andy823]

61. She represents everyting

Obama is trying to change in DC, it would not be a good idea to have her as a running mate. The republicans will use everything she has said about Obama in the primary against a ticket with her on it. They will also be able to get the many republicans that can't stand McCain, and plan on staying home, to get out and vote because republicans do NOT want the Clintons so close to becoming president!

Nope it is just a bad idea all the way around if we really want to get a democrat in the Whitehouse this year, and this country can not afford to have four more years of Bush 3 in charge of things!

[Egnever]

62. You are a gem

Thanks for hanging out here Dickhead.

I do think clinton would be excelent in the upcoming debates. I truly do worry though about what it would do to his message.

It would take some serious manuvering and I would never really be comfortable with it. However I can see strategic advantages to that ticket.

[grantcart]

65. well they are not actually going to ask us

and not going to look at our poll - thank god

It might be that there is absolutely compelling reasons in the polls to do so.

In that case we need to take a positive attitude.

[IDemo]

64. On Super Tuesday, the night of our caucus, I was able to dream of a turnaround in our neon red state

I know, it was probably a delusional dream, but there was a time in this state when Democrats had an honest chance of winning elections, and did. The feeling that we may have a shot at turning things around this election was unmistakable after the incredible Obama rally and an arena full of screaming Dems on caucus night three days later.

But make no mistake, if there was ever even a sliver of a chance of that happening, forget about it if Hillary is anywhere close to the ticket. I'd hate to see that happen more than you can imagine.

[H2O Man]

66. I trust Obama

to make the best choice. I'll support whatever decision he makes.

[berni_mccoy]

68. Well said. I will too, even if that decision includes Clinton. I believe Grant has laid the best

case for her that an Obama supporter can.

[grantcart]

70. And that of course is the real point of the post

If the geometry forces it then we embrace it.

[H2O Man]

71. Right.

It is also possible that Obama and Clinton would find another position for her that works better than VP.

[grantcart]

75. I don't think so I think that what is compelling the Clinton's is their standing in history

the idea that 200 years from now school children will be studying about the first woman president. Now only one way remains through the vice presidency. Whoever becomes vice president will have the inside track. Their willingness to play chicken to the end of the race is motivated by more than a desire to be Secretary of State or Ambassador to the UN. Also if there is an 'October' surprise or another attack by Bin Laden, or some other unforseen event that effects 2008 they will be back in the front row(in their mind).

[oxbow]

67. I want the OVP to have limited powers.

Much less than it has now. I think that the combo of Bill and Hillary will make that improbable, and eventually cause many power struggles in the Obama administration. Basically, the Clintons' egos are too big to accommodate the OVP as I believe our founders intended it to function and as it has traditionally functioned before Cheney. That being said, Obama is his own man and deserves to have the VP that he wants. He's the one who's gonna have to work with the guy/girl!

edit for forgetting to spell check. :)

[NewHampshireDem]

69. Great post, as usual, GC

I don't think it would be the end of the world to have Hillary as VP. Not my first choice, as I'll explain below, but not the equivalent of Obama/Satan 2008.


Nor do I fear anything that she said during the primary being used against an Obama/Clinton ticket during the GE. I don't believe any negative attack is necessarily any more effective than any other negative attack, but one like this is particularly weak because it insults the intelligence of the electorate by assuming they don't understand that candidates argue during the primary. And, as a plus, there's plenty of wonderful stuff that McCain's 'friends' in the Republican Party have given us: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5923409

Clinton will have Obama killed? Well, I think Jay-Z wrote a couple of songs whose lyrics I could cite, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea about anything ... so, I'll just say this: :rofl:

So, why not Clinton? I think there are several candidates who are would make a better VP--though the electorate clearly didn't think any of them would make a better president. When I go out to dinner and I can't decide between pizza and Chinese, I don't go out and get a Chinese pizza. I pick one, then find a side that complements my choice. Egg Foo Young and egg rolls, pizza and beer. Egg Foo Young pizza? No thanks. (Yeah, you probably got it three sentences ago ... sorry.)

1. Regional balance--Illinois and NY? Yeah ... who's the elitist now? So I'd want Clark or Richardson or someone else from anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line.

2. 'Real' experience--Two lawyers on the same ticket? Yeah ... who's the elitist now? So I'd want Clark or Webb or whomever in our party has a C.V like Mitt Romney's C.V.

3. Iraq War--Someone who voted for it and someone with (perceived) weak FP experience? SO I'd want Clark or Webb or Richardson or (please, god, no) Biden who can come up with a realistic and, more importantly, CREDIBLE plan to get us out of Iraq.

4. The X-Factor--Let's face it, we need to give the few perpetually-outraged HRC supporters (not a dig, a label, and maybe a poor one, for those who want *more* of a reason to vote Obama over McCain) a reason to come back, as well as provide 'cover' for people who might not want to or be able to support Obama openly to not only vote but actively support the ticket. So I'd want Clark (HRC, military, southerners in the loosest sense), Sibelius (HRC, midwesterners, Catholics), or someone else who I haven't considered yet.

(FWIW re: #4--I always believed that HRC at the top of the ticket would necessitate Clark at the bottom of the ticket for the same reasons. I'm not trying to bash anyone. I think sometimes people need to be able to say to their friends, co-workers, or family, 'Well, I don't really like X, but I think Y would be a great person to have as VP.")

[williesgirl]

72. NO FUCKING WAY

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. It might make strategic sense

but I think the train is leaving the station.

It has all to do with some comments... recent comments

We might see her have this offered, but I mostly expect it be pro forma

She is in the short list... there is no doubt of it... and if she should accept, this is even more of a historic ticket

ironic, watching Air Force One this morning was kind of interesting

[TheDoorbellRang]

76. I think there are more reasons NOT to have her as VP

In no particular order:

1) Americans will already be pushed out of their comfort zone voting for an AA man. For that reason a white male as a veep choice would be reassuring. There are several choices Obama could make that would appeal to the demographics Clinton appeals to.

2) She has not been vetted for whatever has gone on with secret donors, business deals, and whatever hankypanky Bill's been up to since 2000. I'm sure the GOP has been chomping at the bit to pull this stuff out during the GE.

3) Many voters for Obama cannot stand Hillary; many voters for Hillary cannot stand Obama. Put them together and it's possible we'd lose many from both camps in the fall.

4) She is not a team player. I don't trust her to work together to achieve common goals with Obama, but rather, undermining him whenever she can.

5) She and Bill are drama queen and king. I don't want to watch their soap opera lifestyle unfold for another 4 years. It was tortuous enough the first time around. We won't get much done for the country if we're distracted by their antics.

[IndependentDem]

77. your not a dickhead or a fucking idiot...

all the points you have made are valid... my biggest beef with the "unity" ticket is: Clinton not admitting that the IWR vote was a mistake sucks and having Clinton on the ticket goes against his "change" message--- but then again, as others have pointed out, these two points disqualify a shit load of democrats.... Honestly, I'm down with whatever-- If we trust him enough to be our president we should trust him enough to pick a good vice president.

[Radio_Lady]

78. See my current journal page. You've done a great job on this post.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Radio_Lady

"I am a Democrat and I will fully support the Democratic nominee -- whoever he or she may be."
Posted by Radio_Lady in General Discussion: Primaries

Wed Apr 23rd 2008, 09:44 AM

This is from an original response in February 2008. (Link) I'm going to add to this today. I hope these two excellent candidates see fit to form a united ticket. "The people, united, will never be defeated..." Either O-C or C-O works for me. The Democrats absolutely have to unite to work against the Republicans during the short weeks between the August Democratic Convention and the General Election on Tuesday, November 4. (MORE AT LINK>>>)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to K&R your page.

It's way better than the piece of crap at the top of the heap with my name on it.

We'll see how smart the Democratic Party can be.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[graycem]

79. I realize that I may be

welcoming a tongue lashing, buttttt, I happen to agree with much of what you posted. If we scream absolutely not, we are no different for those screaming absolutely no to Senator Obama as President. We are all viewing the ugly tactics through the bias of our support for our candidate, with little consideration for what the other side has put up with, if we don't at least consider it. After all is said and done, this IS politics, and according to many who are more of an expert in the field, there have been way nastier campaigns in the past. I even heard it said that Reagan and Bush hated each other, yet they managed to put that part aside, and go on to win.

I know all the arguments against the idea, I've made some of them myself. I've struggled with the range of disappointment versus pity versus anger, and though I have been quite disappointed with the Clintons on more than one occasion, I do not hate them. And, she does have half the votes. We need those votes. Unity would come more quickly, and no matter your opinion of him, Bill Clinton is still a very popular former President in our party and probably still has a higher approval rating than the moron sitting in the office right now. She has taken on a lot of attacks and she is still standing, and she can dish out the attacks as we know all too well. I believe that she and Bill would both campaign much more vigorously if they had a stake in this too. It has already been said a thousand times their platforms are similar, and the point, first and foremost of this election, should be to like, you know actually win. This is no time to purge the party of anything. We can reclaim our moral high-horses later. Plus, I think a few apologies would heal much of the animosity people feel towards them right now, that and a little bit of time. I'm not saying I have made the best argument, but I think we should really at least consider it, since the big prize is November, and if it takes having her as VP to bring her supporters around, it's better to swallow that pill, as bitter as it might be for some, rather than cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Hurt feelings can wait. Getting out of the war cannot. So even if you say it would be hypocritical to have her on the ticket, especially with Obamas new politics motto, it is still politics.

I also like Clark as VP. But I'm open to anyone who will help us win.

[catgirl]

81. Hillary was hostile to a fellow democrat (and a nice guy)

She hurt her chances of becoming the VP. I don't see it
happening.