Obama Hires VP Advisor

Barack Obama has hired John Kerry's vice-presidential vetter. Here's my questions:

  • Does Hillary want the vice-presidential spot on the ticket? Does she just want him to offer it to her so she can have the satisfaction of turning him down? Or, does she figure since she's promised to campaign for him if he's the nominee that she might as well still be campaigning for herself as well, even if it's just as the VP candidate?
  • Can Obama win without Hillary on the ticket?
  • Is serving as VP in Hillary's best interest -- or just Obama's?
  • Last, if Obama, who we know doesn't want Hillary on the ticket, offers it to her due to pressure from Democratic party leaders, what does that say about his message of bringing change to Washington? [More...]

Isn't it a sign he'll be just as beholden to party politics and the old style of doing business as everyone who went before him? If he can't even name his own running mate, what does that say about his ability to implement his ideas without undue compromise if he's President?

Personally, unlike Big Tent Democrat, I don't want a unity ticket. I don't think he should ride Hillary's coattails to a PA, Ohio or Florida win. If he is the nominee, I'll vote for him and support him, but he should win the election on his own. I also think the Dems need a more balanced ticket. Obama's best chance in November, in my view, is with a popular, older, male governor from a predominantly blue collar, Western or Rocky Mountain state.

Feel free to disagree or post your own questions and thoughts on the VP situation.

< Karl Rove Subpoenaed, Don Siegelman Files Appeal Brief | Electability Nevada Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He's on his own (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST
    He can pick his own veep. Don't care anymore.

    I'm with you on this, Catfish. Why should she (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    help him after all he and his campaign have done to her and the Democratic party?  She owes him NOTHING.

    Oh she should accept it (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    And she would out of duty. And frankly to be the first female v.p. isn't bad.

    I just don't think he'll offer it. And if I were him I don't know if I'd want her upstaging me.


    He won't offer it if he hasn't by now... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    ...it would have been the easiest way in the world to end this thing already. The party can't pressure him into anything at this point, by the way. He's got them by the short hairs and they all know it.

    It's just too insulting to think about . . . (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    I can't go there yet.

    Offering it to her, the (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    first woman vp, takes away from HIM the first aa president.ooooooo

    She owes the country (4.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    and she cares about the country.

    She's been working for the country (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    all along...she cares about the country...

    Not sure she owes it.


    Standing Ovation (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    from my library here at home.

    And the same rationale for why he should offer her the position.


    Sounds suspiciously like blackmail....she has (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    done more for this country that 50 people put together.  If she can run on the energy of her supporters, that will be good, but if she is tired and wants out after being slapped down repeatedly, the she should back off and enjoy some vacation time.  obama is the one who supposedly thinks he can lead this country...time for him to get to work, if he is the nominee.

    She owes the country? (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    I don't understand.

    What does she owe?


    But Obama said he would do whatever it took (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:30 PM EST
    for HIM to win.  Thus, I think to him it is all about HIM.  Why should Hillary help him get elected and then be relegated to doing funerals and tea parties.  She's already said she would campaign for him.  I think that's more than enough to ask of her.

    I'll go with your second choice (5.00 / 13) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    She cares about the country. I'm not giving you te first though. She doesn't owe anyone anything. Partiularly the morons that have spent more energy slamming her charecter than they hve discussing issues.

    The Democratic party owes her (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    In more ways than I can describe.  But most importantly they owe her and her voters some fairness.  It is silly for you to be putting the blame or telling her she "owes" anything.  How about what Obama owes?

    Why don't you say that Obama owes it to the country to pick Clinton as VP if he were the nominee?


    The Democratic Party... (2.33 / 3) (#90)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    ...owes very little to the Clintons.  

     That's what's so funny...a lot of her support comes from Bill's supporters, but he was an uconventional Democrat and the party was injured by his scandals.  He moved very far to the right, for a Democrat.  So I can understand why some supporters of Senator Clinton worry about Obama, but I don't think it is fair to say that the party owes them anything.  


    "The Clintons" (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    In my message I only talked about Hillary. Try again.  And they do owe her some FAIRNESS which is what is owed to any of our candidates in this so-called Democratic process.

    C'mon (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    there are plenty of Ds in Congress that are more conservative than Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.  We just cheered on a Rep in Mississippi for winning on a pro life, anti-gay platform, remember?  

    I don't think "the party owes them something" is the correct way to phrase it, but the thought of chasing the Clintons out is absurd.  The party certainly shouldn't do that - it owes them membership and respectful disagreement.  Not demonization.  

    Plus, in pop culture, a lot of the Clinton years are a credit to the party.  Clinton was seen as broadening American horizons.  Reagan didn't want to acknowledge AIDS; Clinton now runs an AIDS foundation.  

    As far as being a Senator and a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton mostly does the party a lot of credit and has been surprisingly liberal.  Plus they make more $$$ than anyone for the party.

    Grow out of them if you want, but I think Hillary Clinton's sustained focus on liberal issues, like healthcare and job creation, has made her newly relevant.


    I didn't cheer on Childers. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by alexei on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
    He is just a Republican who saw a chance to win running as a Democrat.  No way is he anyone that I support or even care that he got elected.  So what, he is just going to strengthen the part of the Party that is against the issues that I deem important.

    Just remember, he ran fast and hard away from Obama - that is what saved him.


    Right Wing Talking Point Alert (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:57 PM EST
    The Clintons is a Right Wing Talking Point. But Obama and supporters keep using it. Kindly stop. RIGHT WING talking point. HILLARY is the candidate. All by herself.

    Exactly Which Candidate Is Running To The (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:23 PM EST
    right in this primary?

    Social Security is in crisis and on the table  - Obama
    Harry and Louis Right Wing Attack Ads on UHC - Obama
    Will adopt a foreign policy like Reagan/BushI - Obama
    Republicans considered for both Sec. of Defense and State - Obama
    Republicans are better at government regulations - Obama
    In favor of abstinence only sex education - Obama
    In favor of merit pay for teachers - Obama
    Republican Hagel and Bloomberg are listed as VP selections - Obama
    Having a "cure the gays" minister campaign for him - Obama


    The party was NOT injured. (5.00 / 7) (#144)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:53 PM EST
    The party had power only because of Bill.  The party only got the Presidency two times in a row since FDR because of Bill.   The party owes them quite a bit. The fact that the party is so willing to spit on them now disgusts me.  Act as though they've done nothing for the party. It makes me absolutely sick.  

    What I will forever hold against Obama is how he's managed to turn Democrats against the Clintons with falsities and right-wing talking points.  Remember Gore? He LOST (in addition to being robbed in FL)because he tried to DISTANCE himself from Bill.    Bill and Hillary are the best thing that's happened to this party.

    You should all thank them. The fact that Obama and his ilk are so willing to throw them to the wolves tells me all I need to know about his "character."


    I'd say the country (5.00 / 13) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    owes her

    That's what I would say, too, Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:22 PM EST
    the country owes her

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#209)
    by alexei on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    What does she "owe" the country? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    She owes the country? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Foxx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:04 PM EST
    I think not.

    We all owe her.


    the country owes HER. (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:26 PM EST
    The woman has done more than enough for the party. In spite of being spit upon from every direction.  She deserves to go back to the Senate with her head held high. And Obama can lose it all on his own. I don't even want her to campaign for him.  But she's too good for this stupid Party and she will.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    owes the country nothing.

    The country owes Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    the presidency. How do we get her to run as an independent?

    Correction, Hillary has earned (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    her place to be president!!!!

    That would be (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    epic.  And the media firestormm that would follow.....

    Ludicrous and appallling (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    To think she "owes" the country after she has dedicated her adult life to serving it, such that she should accept the VP spot in order to "heal the wounds" created by the pretender to the throne (with the help of the DNC, the blogger boiz & the msm). H3ll to the NO! She does care about the country & the party, which is why she is trying to save it from itself, but if the Dems continue to keep their heads in the sand and give Obama the nomination, her continued service as Senator of NY is more than enough to repay her "debt" imo.

    If Obama were going to make the offer... (none / 0) (#170)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    ... is this a sensible way to go about doing it?

    Of course, I do notice some women on the list, so working on the theory that women are interchangeable...


    I flat-out dread (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    the constant media and blog harping on every little thing she says or does that would continue non-stop, probably even worse, if she were the VP candidate.  They'd see everything as a nefarious attempt on her part to undermine Obama so he would lose and she'd be in position to be the nominee in 2012.

    I actually think having her on the ticket would be MORE divisive in the end because of that.

    I just hate the whole idea more than I can adequately express.


    That taste-tester comment (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:02 PM EST
    somebody made a few weeks back, yeah. But despite all the awful media this primary, I am still glad she ran, she won over a lot of skeptics.

    I agree (none / 0) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:14 PM EST
    although only as a practical matter.  As a matter of principle, allowing the MSM's bad behavior to turn us off her as VP is analogous to giving into terrorism.  

    Mind, I don't think she should take VP, even if offered, because I don't think it's the best choice for her or the country.


    Jeralyn, do we really know that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:42 PM EST
    doesn't want Hillary as VP? That's what I think, but the evidence isn't direct.

    Personally, I think he'll want to win (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    And the evidence from the past year is that he'll associate with the people he needs to associate with in order to accomplish that.

    Hillary seemed to "off-put" (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    him at most debates. I don't think he really wants to deal with her and have her steal the spotlight, or prompt him from behind with answers like Nancy Reagan used to do with Ronny.

    You underestimate his ego (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    Obama doesn't believe for one second he needs Hillary to win -- imo, his belief that he "will get all of her voters" hasn't changed one whit.

    Let's hope so (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    It is difficult to really know that (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    since there are conflicting rumors just today about that very subject.

     Sometimes it seems like the media know no more about what is happening between the two camps than I do.  They, the media, seem to gossip as much as middle schoolers, so I'm not sure what to believe.


    the media doesn't know (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    sh1t.  they gave us bush43.  the iraq war. american idol. britney spears.  and now barack obama.

    west virginia and kentucky told the media in no uncertain terms that they don't know jack, either.


    I strenuously disagree (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    You win anyway it takes. I am of the strong opinion that a Unity ticket is the best path to winning in November.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, matters as much.

    Whatever it takes.

    we know you think that (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out my view since it's different than your's.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    I thought I had not mentioned it before . . .

    Fine, but there are very (none / 0) (#41)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:30 PM EST
    few voices out there in the blogosphere (or whatever you call it)  advocating for the Unity Ticket.  So those who do support it can't say it enough, imo.

    And around here in Lake County, Indiana strangers stop me in the grocery store, Target, Borders Books, the antique mall in Crown Point (I always wear my Obama button) and ask if I think he'll chose Hillary.  And they want that.  They think it is a good idea.  Both the ones that voted for him and the ones that voted for her.  

    I've never seen such an interest in politics before.  These candidates, this race, have excited and interested people even in red Indiana.  Why not take advantage of that?


    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by nell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:36 PM EST
    Because my experience in Lake County has been very different. I have met many women, in particular, who do not want a joint ticket as they see it as insulting to her. Since this is a viewpoint I share, I suppose it is possible that I am more likely to be in circles with people who share similar views. Then there are people like my parents, and according to them, almost all of their friends who are either for Hillary or McCain but do not want Obama anywhere on the ticket because they do not think he has enough experience....

    Obviously there are people who want a unity ticket, but I just think it is interesting how people can walk away with very different feelings even in the same community depending on their own biases.


    Also I support Obama and like Hillary too (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    They are both great candidates.

    He is just my first choice.  When people approach the subject I have good words to say about both of them, so maybe that gives them to go-ahead to talk about them teaming up.


    Agree with your last comment, but if (none / 0) (#192)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:28 PM EST
    that many people are against Obama in Indiana, then she would have won the state by a lot instead of 1.whatever percent.  

    I really have been surprised by number of strangers who have approached me to talk about the election.  And, lately the "hope they get together" comment has been a frequent mention.

    Heard it tonight at my daughter's ballet recital practice, from another mother and good friend.  She is an Obama supporter though.

    Would you agree that the primary has energized Dems and brought a bit of excitment to this area?  And do ya think we can ditch Mitch this November?


    I've had others report the same thing (none / 0) (#194)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    That's what CD, my colleague at Corrente, says.

    Obama has repeatedly (none / 0) (#241)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:14 AM EST
    trashed the Clinton administration, leading his young followers to believe the "evil" Clintons did nothing for the Dem Party and America. Young followers - that enjoyed the peace and prosperity of the 90s while living with their parents are now gleeful that a newbie senator took down a former first lady and senator. And that's what Obama's candidacy is all about - "beating the B---h!" And Obamamites get a Centrist nominee to the right of Hillary on most issues.

    Obama has done everything possible to negate Bill Clinton - the only 2-term Dem president since FDR.
    Republican candidates do not trash former Republican administrations.
    Obama could not win on his own merits without bamboolzing his followers to disdain the Clintons and Dem core values!

    But to Obamamites - FDR and Clinton represent the "old way" - and America is now leaning the American Idol way and only Obama can lead the way.
    Even Kerry says to vote for Obama because he's a Black Man. Well - Will Smith can raise money and draw big crowds too.
    Write in Will!


    winning at any cost is too great a cost (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Lisa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    My hope, if Obama is the nominee, is that Hillary returns to the Senate, where she will continue to outshine the Kerry/Kennedy faction who systematically attacked an overly qualified candidate who would have been our first female president, because of their own wounded vanity (and in the process, attempted to destroy the legacy of her husband, the only Democrat to be elected president in nearly three decades).

    Who is a good Democrat?  Who cares about party unity?  It was Hillary all along.

    It's an insult for Hillary to be second on a ticket to a flawed junior senator, to fight for him and withstand the heat on his behalf, after, what Geraldine Ferraro so rightly termed his "terribly sexist" behavior.

    Even Lou Dobbs described it this way:  "I have never seen in my career greater favoritism being applied in the national media than in this campaign on behalf of Senator Obama and against Senator Clinton."  

    What a terrible and damaging message to women and girls everywhere it would be to reward this.


    The Kerry/Kennedy faction (none / 0) (#214)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:20:32 PM EST
    as you call it is hurting the party.
    They are hellbent on destroying Hillary.
    Perhaps they are jealous that she would succeed where both of the failed?!?
    Or perhaps that faction is made of insiders and they want to control the POTUS.  The Clinton's are not insiders an are not easily controlled by the party machinery.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    Va polls show VP can matter (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    When John Edwards is with Obama it makes a huge difference in the polls in Virginia  (as opposed to Bayh or Rendell)  Clinton wasn't a choice.
    I was surprised because I did not think the vp choice makes a difference.  Clinton should not take the vp position and I think she should plan a very nice summer and fall vacation and not spend time helping people who called her a racist.

    A-freaking-men, sister! (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    And (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Emma on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    she should make it a family vacation.

    Edwards? Helping in VA? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:42 PM EST
    Yeah. Right.  Kerry lost that state to Bush.  Edwards was NO help.

    Ultimately they won't. (none / 0) (#129)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    To My Mind, obama Will Not Win With (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    whomever he picks.  Hillary is too smart for obama and he would constantly resent it; thus, I don't think he will ask her.  What I really want to see done, is for the dimbulbs at the DNC, along with the sd's to come to their senses and vote for the most electable candidate.  That would
    be Hillary!

    Why would she ever consider the Np. 2 spot (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by CE415 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:04 PM EST
    If you consider blatant sexism as a similiar social evil as racism how can one in good conscience vote for Obama at all. Just suck it up ladies??
    Why would she ever accept to be banished to the hidden VP house working for a sexist who will never listen to her rather than finish her term as a US Senator and run in four years.

    She is a good sport (none / 0) (#81)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    I see her doing it for the good of the party and the good of the country. And I see her smiling all the way.

    I just don't see President Obama being too happy.


    I sincerely hope she (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:55 PM EST
    is not a "good sport".

    She should never even think about the vp spot. It's degrading to even think of offering it to her. She is better on her own and she will help the country more without Barack Obama.

    I really wish this would stop.  It's embarrassing to hear Hillary for VP.......she's better than that.


    A bottom-heavy ticket would be awkward (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:59 PM EST
    I don't know. Maybe he could ceremoniously offer it to her and she...well I don't see how this can be resolved. I think she wants to be veep, I think she earned it. But I can see why he doesn't want to offer it.

    He will have a bottom heavy ticket (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    no matter what.  He has no experience.

    Even more bottom heavy than Dukakis... (4.50 / 2) (#212)
    by alexei on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:28 PM EST
    who was a Governor and did have executive experience.

    I'm for it (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM EST
    I'd be for either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, depending how the next several weeks play out.

    No matter what happens, we've got roughly half the party plus or minus a smidgeon for each of the two candidates, and a lot of offense taken by both sides. Without a unity ticket, whoever gets the nod will have a hell of a time unifying the party.

    (All of the above is just as true if Clinton wins it, by the way. If college students, the Pacific Northwest, and African Americans feel cheated, it'll kill us downticket. I'd rather not trade the presidency for the Congress. We need both.)

    Interesting. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:47 PM EST
    For all the New New New, Obama has no qualms associating himself with John Kerry.

    or Ted Kennedy, or Jay Rockefeller, or (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    Bill Richardson, or John Conyers, or Waxman...

    Don't forget Daschle! (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
    How could I ever....

    If only we could forget daschle... (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:48:35 PM EST
    I don't know that attacking Conyers and Waxman... (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    ...is helpful.  What problems do you have with them? That they're not corporatist sellouts?

    This isn't useful (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:40:41 PM EST
    Both candidates have supporters from every camp in the party.

    Except Clinton never stated she would change... (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by alexei on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    Washington and bring in the "new politics".

    Simply making the point, they are not new.... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:48:02 PM EST
    old school....take it down a thousand...

    I make no predictions... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    but I would not be surprised to see either Biden or Daschle if Obama secures the nomination.

    Disatrous choice (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    would be Daschle.

    Just awful.


    I'll bet you he thinks (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    he's bought and paid for the position, too.

    If Bill and Hillary can save us from a Daschle VP nomination, they should.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    and that's why I'm thinking it might happen [/s]

    lol! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    That's a good way to predict what will happen in the Democratic Party now.  Imagine worst case scenario and then bet big on it.

    In that case (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    I'm betting Chuck Hegel is the VP pick

    Can you imagine the spin by the Obama blogs (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by mulletov cocktails on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:05 PM EST
    after claiming the Clintons were no longer Democrats if something like this actually happened?

    Selecting A Very Conservative Republican (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    for VP is the one thing that would make me vote for McCain.

    Oh, I'd do more than vote (none / 0) (#211)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:57 PM EST
    I'd give money and run the neighborhood campaign office.

    how about Richardson? (none / 0) (#221)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:48 PM EST
    that will really sit well with Clinton supporters.

    Do not understimate... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM EST
    his relationship with Obama.

    Many of Daschle's operatives are intehral in the Obama campaign, so far as I recall.


    Daschle would become (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:24 PM EST
    his Chief of Staff maybe.  

    You don't pick a VP based on loyalty and friendship.  

    You pick a VP based on political strategy.


    Daschle as anything in an Obama admin (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:50 PM EST
    would be far more damaging to the "new kind of politics" meme than just about any other politician.

    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:13 PM EST
    by the time that he was hired as Chief of Staff that meme would no longer matter.  He would already be President.  

    Very few people care about White House staffers except for the Press Secretary. Karl Rove was obviously a notable exception to that.


    so the campaign meme (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:59 PM EST
    about a "new kind of politics" was just a lot of baloney?  obama's campaign rhetoric was just a cynical manipulation to get elected?  once he's elected, the issues that were central to his campaign won't matter?  you just said obama is a lying hypocrite, and i know i am reading you correctly here.  power spoke the truth about obama's cynical campaing deception vis a vis iraq; now you are saying we should not expect obama's campaign promise to be a "new politician" to acutally inform his policy?  what a tangled web we weave, when we first endeavor to deceive.  

    In a word (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM EST

    Have a great time (none / 0) (#222)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:42:29 PM EST
    acting disillusioned.   Doesn't matter to me one whit.

    Politicians say things to get elected.  Obama isn't lying.  He isn't being a hypocrite.  But he certainly will act differently as President than he what his campaign promised, just like every other past President.

    I'm sure you see Hillary as some brave soul who always speaks the truth.  She is truly the exceptional politician unlike all others.


    so when he promises a (none / 0) (#229)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:00 PM EST
    "new kind of politics" you say he is merely lying, that all politicians lie, and that it is unrealistic to expect obama to do anything other than lie to get elected.  that is what you are saying.  furthermore, you seem to like it.  

    Yup (none / 0) (#230)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:02:38 AM EST
    I like it because I don't have some naive notion of what new kind of politics means.  He's going to be bringing puppy dogs and bunnies to the White House.

    He is going to change the game to one where the Left makes the rules.  That hasn't happened in America for 40 years.


    That should read (none / 0) (#231)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:30 AM EST
    He is NOT going to bring puppies and bunnies.

    so he is not about unity (none / 0) (#232)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM EST
    but about the left making the rules.  i haven't heard him saying anything about the left "making the rules".  his claim was to be the unity candidate.  oh well, you have admitted your guy is a liar and a deceiver and that you like it.  that tells me everything i need to know thanks for playing.  

    The left making the rules? (none / 0) (#239)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:50 AM EST
    You have got to be kidding.

    Really, have you been paying any attention at all to this race? To think that Obama is some kind of covert leftist who is going to fight for progressive ideals as President requires the absolute suspension of disbelief. It goes against everything he has done so far in his political life.

    I truly do not understand Obamamania.


    Uh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Shawn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:58 PM EST

    I agree (none / 0) (#115)
    by Shawn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    I think Obama's veep selection is very likely to be Daschle or someone with the same basic profile as Daschle - an older white male Catholic from the Midwest. That's just my read on the Obama camp's strategic thinking. Expect Tim Roemer and Bob Casey to switch their position on abortion by mid-July.

    I don't think Casey will (none / 0) (#164)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    switch his position. Obama's position is unclear from what I've read. He says he would appoint judges sympathetic to women and gays! Will someone interpret that for me, please!!

    Yes, he can have Daschle (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    Great choice Obama--go for it!

    Biden's a great guy, but he is WAY (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    too gaffe prone to be a good candidate.
    Daschle would be a horrible choice. The worst Sen. majority leader in decades---a weak, vacillating appeaser---is not the right choice.

    You know what they say about Biden (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    on the Hill?  Biden has no speed bump in between his brain and his mouth.  :)

    No way he picks Biden... (none / 0) (#36)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    I live in Delaware.  We love Joe, but we're painfully aware that anyone from our lovely little state (best kept secret on the east coast) adds absolutely nothing from an electoral standpoint.  Biden would only bring three electoral votes.  That's right, folks.  Three.  Depressing, right?

    Joe would be a great Secty of State.  


    Just saw Tom Carper on Amtrak (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    this evening. I passed through most of your state. ;-)

    Yeah, it probably took about 7 minutes (none / 0) (#242)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:35:04 AM EST
    including stops in Wilmington and Newark.  :)

    Small, but mighty.  It really is a great state - beautiful beaches, low property taxes and no sales tax.  


    No way should she accept the VP (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    position and allow the Obama idiots to ride on her coattails....She won't wish to be associated with such an administration IMO....

    in her speech after Kentucky... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:57 PM EST
    Hillary said she will support the nominee, whoever SHE is.

    What is it that her supporters like Jeralyn didn't get about that statement?  She plans to be the nominee.


    There is only one good reason (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:23 PM EST
    that Clinton would take the VP position and it is an good one. And that is to put the first WOMAN ever within a heartbeat away from being the President. That would be an accomplishment.

    No one, and I mean no one, can bring the votes that Hillary could as VP. But it isn't going to happen if it is up to Obama, he is that stuck on himself.


    It's just so odd (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:27 PM EST
    to be having these conversations interspersed with poll stat reports showing her so much stronger in the GE.  

    Remember what was said about (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:22:25 PM EST
    Teddy Kennedy the other day? He was so effective because he allowed other people to take credit.
    Hillary can do the same thing here.

    Obama would never offer VP to her (none / 0) (#163)
    by felizarte on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:32:01 PM EST
    He would be too afraid she might accept.

    Could Nancy Pelosi, (none / 0) (#165)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:35:57 PM EST
    uncommitted (Ha), be an Obama supporter be considered? If they lose, she goes back to being Speaker!!!

    He's throwing Hillary in the mix (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    with the others? She's got to stand in line for consideration? I find that pretty demeaning (big surprise).

    The other explanation is that the discussions have already occurred and there is no "Unity" ticket in the cards.

    I'm for Clinton as the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    Let Obama waste time fantasizing about VP choices while ignoring what's happening to voters in Florida and Michigan.

    But if he must, how about Edwards as VP? smirk...

    Discursively this is an interesting story (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    in that it offers a distraction from the fact that he's not actually the nominee yet...and offers the "planners" and pundits something to chew on whilst ignoring the fact that he's not the nominee yet.

    It's part and parcel of the victory lap that he can't talk about because he is not the nominee.

    In other words, it's a trap.


    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    That's what I posted below.  My thoughts exactly.  Yesterday the headlines were about McCain VP-shopping.  Today, Obama VP-shopping.  

    and who falls right into the trap? (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    Way too many so-called Clinton supporters.

    Just when Hillary is getting the wind at her back and building a movement, there is no reason to give in and start adopting the Obama frames.

    Where is the psychological fortitude?


    It's destroyed by the hatefulness (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:38:32 PM EST

    Here... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST

    ha, thanks for the virtual hug (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    I didn't mean it to sound that whiney! I just meant that it has been a long and sustained season of hateful CDS out there and I think most Hillary supporters have long since given up and realized that the nomination just will not be an option for her. That's what I'm sorry about - the having given up part.

    it's a testament to Hillary's strength (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:00:10 PM EST
    that SHE hasn't given up.  I don't think many other humans could have withstood this barrage.

    I know that as Commander in Chief she will be able to handle anything.

    I understand what you're trying to say now Dr. Molly, but studies have shown that one of the most common traits found in successful individuals is psychological aggression.  I guess mental tenacity would also qualify.  I hate to say it but I think we see signs of this truth when we look at the tactics that the Republican party employs.  They love to follow the CEO/military/wealth-building model that borrows from that school of thought.

    Message to Dems: toughen up your mind and hold firm to your convictions and maybe, just maybe you can get your way.  Capitulation is the opposite of this.  Somebody tell Pelosi.


    Falling into that place is easy... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:56 PM EST
    Staying there is even easier.

    Pulling yourself up and out of that space is hard...but worth it.

    You have a background in rhetoric...not just teaching the 5 paragraph theme.

    Use it.


    on this topic? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:41:43 PM EST
    Obama campaign employs a lot of smoke and mirrors.  Look how hard the media and his bloggers are pushing to make it seem like he is the nominee.  Lots of manipulation of words and headlines and ignoring of inconvenient rules while stressing the others.

    When I ask where is the psychological fortitude it is my way of asking why so many Hillary supporters are so willing to be co-opted into accepting the manufactured stories and lies that are told to control the populace?

    Anyone read the book "The Voice of Knowledge" ?


    Maybe not "willing" (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    I think it's an effective technique. This is a variation of marketing technique, a heavily researched area in psychology. Our poor minds are hardwired to be swayed by constant repetition and dispute. Look at some cereals marketed to children. Why is it even considered food?

    I haven't read it... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    But I'm pretty good with rhetorical analysis.

    And oddly enough...shooting pool and dealing with opponents who engage various tactics to psych out the other person has been very helpful in understanding bluffs.


    "impervious" (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    That is the word. Hasn't destroyed her, shouldn't destroy you.

    My saying I would vote for her as VP (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
    is in no way, shape or form meaning that I think she should give up trying to get the top of the ticket(where I think she belongs).

    I'm just saying that Hillary on the ticket anywhere is appealing to me. I admire the woman. She's shown grit and determination that I'd thought was almost extinct within the Democratic Party.


    I would be fine with her as VP (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    for the record.

    I would be fine with Obama as her VP as well, unless there is some further information that is about to emerge about his past or his associates that would render him radioactive.


    Yeah me too (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:11 PM EST
    I was trying to answer Jeralyn's questions.  

    My girl's gonna come through.


    I'm still in it (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    and still donating.  I like discussing what ifs... if Obama is the nominee the only way I would vote for him is if Clinton is on the ticket.

    I'm for Clinton as the nominee (none / 0) (#88)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:18 PM EST
    and so am I and maybe there is still hope. There was a news conference today and we will hopefully get a Youtube of it soon and so if interested go here and check it out if you haven't already.



    It's waaaaaay premature (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Firefly4625 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:02 PM EST
    for him to be "VP shopping" and oh so arrogant, IMO. But then again, he IS oh so arrogant, so it's all just true to form.

    And, of course, it's the next step in the "it's over" propaganda that he and the corporate media are smothering us with. Democracy in action!

    Exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:04 PM EST
    That was precisely my first thought when I read about this -- how surprising is it that it 'leaked' immediately, and Obama, of course, knew nothing about it?  I expect to hear that it's the doings of one of his staffers shortly.

    I should no longer be surprised by the utter presumption of this man, but he still leaves me outraged on a pretty regular basis.

    Has McCain even publically started his VP selection process yet?


    First to Ambinder, then to Pickler... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:12 PM EST
    ... who promptly labels it "top secret"! Do they think we are children of six?

    Speaking Only For Me (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    I don't think that Obama will offer the VP slot to Hillary. I do not think being Obama's VP is in Hillary's best interest. I think that Obama will have to do the work to convince people he has what it takes to be a president for all not just a few. If he can do it, he wins. If not, he loses. His VP selection will not win this for him.

    NO (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:52 PM EST
    No and no and no.  Did I mention NO?

    Excuse me, but is this thing over?  Until yesterday we were posting about Denver, today we're discussing this?!  Nice way to change the rhetoric (from Obama camp.)  Anyway, let him win/loose on his own.  

    PS: I bet he's hating this part of the process (VP-picking.)  Since when did the Messiah need a VP?!  

    Could Obama be his own VP? (none / 0) (#188)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:22 PM EST
    A quick scan of Article II talks about offices, but is there anything to say that the two offices can't be held by the same person? Or Leader?

    Joint ticket (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:30:02 PM EST
    IMO She's either running to set an example that you don't quit, or she wants the VP.  Too odd to think she's trying for anything else.  I'm an outsider, I think this was her chance.  

    Obama has serious problems without Clinton.  I believe he'll gain more votes than he will lose.  Clinton has improved with the campaign.

    VP in Clinton's interest.  A strong person is not limited by a job title or job description.

    If he doesn't want her on the ticket, he can dig in his heels.   He is party politics.  If people are buying him as 'new' they won't when the Repubs are done.

    If Clinton hadn't run for President, would a nominee consider her for VP?  She's got the balanced image: strength, experience and economy.  If she was a man, I think he'd take her.  

    The only way I would vote for him is if she was on the ticket.  The party doesn't exist for me any more.

    Great post. My favorite line: "If she was (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    a man, I think he'd take her."

    If Obama were a woman we wouldn't be here.  He never would have even been considered.  What a joke.


    This ain't right (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:03 PM EST
    Fair weather friends of Hillary, has she shown you any indication that she is about to quit?

    Obama's VP choice will be irrelevant.  He is unelectable.

    Unlike WAY too many of my friends on this blog, I am not going to pretend that Obama has a realistic chance to win in November nor that he has "won" the nomination.

    That Obama feels the need to once again prematurely engage in a victory lap is laughable.  He is looking for a VP?  Hmm who could possible be the best person out there for that??  It's sort of like someone who already has their eyeglasses on their face looking around the house to find them because they think they're lost.  Hello!! It's Hillary.  Clinton's demographic strenghts are pretty much exactly what Obama lacks.  It's a no brainer.

    Hillary Will Be the Nominee (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Missblu on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, the most brilliant, the strongest,the long time loyal democrat, and the only candidate that can beat McCain.  She will end up convincing the country and the delegates that this is true.  If the Democrats are to win it has to be Hillary Clinton.The map of our beloved country tells the story.

    Clinton would be a huge help to Obama (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:16 PM EST
    I know I'm flip-flopping, but I've changed my mind. The #1 issue in November will be the economy and Obama's #1 weakness is lack of experience and a thin resume. What better than a Clinton on the ticket to remind people of the booming 90s and what better than the Clinton brand to quell any inexperience concerns?

    yeah except obama cr@pped all over (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    the clinton brand, and clinton's experience, and clinton's record on the economy already.  maybe he shouldn't have done that.  but then again, if he hadn't, what would be the point of him running in the first place?

    Boy, Jeralyn, when you ask some questions, (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    they're doozies... :-)

    Does she want it?  I think she can't answer that question yet - to consider it means taking her eyes off the prize, and I don't think she can afford to do that - nor do I want her to.

    I think she has far too much class to want to be asked so she can say no - that's the kind of pettiness I would expect from Obama, but not from Hillary.

    Part of me thinks that Obama is just vain enough that he probably sees Hillary as being useful to him just as she is - she's out there working hard, making the Democratic case even as she's making her own - problem is that his vanity, his oversized ego, reveal him to be a user of epic proportions, and he is happy to be using her however he can - as long as it benefits him.

    I do not believe he can win.  Period.  Regardless of who is on the ticket.

    Only Hillary knows what is in her best interest - would she be content to just be a VP, knowing that she might be considered to be too old to make another run at this in 2016?  Would she allow herself to be seen as diabolical and evil if she decided in 2012 to challenge him?  Only if she thought it was in the best interest of the party and the country.  If we could see into the future, these decisions would be so much easier, but I have confidence that whatever Hillary decides, it will be something that allows her to sleep at night with a clear conscience.

    Finally, no one who has as many party insiders, veteran pols, failed presidential wanna-bes on his campaign should be claiming to be the candidate of change - there appear to be tens of millions of people who know that Obama is a product, packaged and advertised to a fare-thee-well.  What does that say?  Caveat Emptor.

    [And can I just say that Grey's Anatomy is outdoing itself tonight?]

    I'm watching too (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST
    It's also Hillary's favorite show. She loves Patrick Dempsey. (Who doesn't?)

    Great ending (none / 0) (#118)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:00:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn, it's worth an open thread ;-)

    Don't think she should take it (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    I doubt he'll offer it to her anyway.

    But she'll be a lot less effective as VP than she would be as a Senator.  He's be sending her off to attend minor dignitary funerals on Mars most of the time (ok, so not really Mars, but I didn't want to offend anyone's country of origin).

    And as I said in another thread, it does nothing for her, not really.  If he loses, she loses.  If he wins and only makes it one term (which is a reasonable probability, given the mess the economy and the war are in), it taints her.  If he wins and goes 2 terms, being VP doesn't help that much when a person goes for the big office (it certainly didn't help Gore).  Lots of risk for little gain.

    I think the problems facing this country will take long hard work from someone with a very practical outlook, and that's Clinton.  If she's VP she won't be dictating policy.  If she doesn't get the nomination then I think it's time to start thinking toward 2012, toward a longer term view of the health and welfare of the whole country.  She may be better positioned to effect actual change and get the country on the right track by not accepting the VP spot now and going for it again in 2012.

    No way (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    No way is Obama considering her for VP - it is so clear that he holds her in contempt.

    Frankly, I don't see how Hillary has any good position at this point. If she were to run as his VP and they lost, it will be her fault. If she doesn't and he loses, it will be her fault. Every bad thing that has happened already to the democrats is her fault, and every future thing will be.

    JFK and LBJ (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    hated each other.  

    You aren't picking a drinking buddy.  You're picking  the person that can best help you win the election.  Doesn't matter if you hate that person.


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    I still can't fathom it though. Were their supporters this venomous towards each other?

    It just doesn't seem right because (none / 0) (#136)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:05 PM EST
    she would do all the work and he'd be off writing some book. (Sounds snarky, but it's how I feel!)

    This is campaigning (none / 0) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:00:45 PM EST
    Before they started campaigning, he did like her, she was a mentor to him and gave him advice when he got to the Senate.  She campaigned for him.

    Nah, let this guy help sink Obama -- (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    after all, this is the same guy who searched high and low across this great land of ours, vetting pols for possibilities by the hundreds, and who did he come up with for Kerry?


    And we all know how well that worked out for the Dems.  Make that Dems minus the VP pick by this guy.

    That would be hysterical (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST
    Can you imagine what would happen at Dkos if Obama hose Lieberman as his running mate?  I can picture collective heads exploding.

    Stop it, you're making me giggle.


    They Would Twist Themselves Up In Knots (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:40 PM EST
    justifying that choice. In a matter of minutes, they would be saying how totally totally brilliant Obama was for doing it.

    actually the spin on that might be predictable... (none / 0) (#219)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:36:17 PM EST
    It will help Obama in that regard.  Oh God, it's already starting to sound good in my mind.  Damn psy-ops on my own brain...

    Um (none / 0) (#150)
    by janarchy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    Kerry ran with John Edwards. Lieberman was Gore's VP. Unless I missed the part where Lieberman was suggested as Kerry's VP too.

    Sorry! (none / 0) (#235)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:25:41 AM EST
    Of course.  The hundreds of white guys on major-party ballots for centuries must all begin to blur and look alike to me on a foggy day.  (I ought not type after a night with little sleep, a long day with an ill relative).

    LOL (none / 0) (#238)
    by janarchy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:39:00 AM EST
    No problem. Of course, as much as I'm annoyed by Edwards recent weasel-like behaviour, he is hardly in the same league as Mr Joementum. And John Kerry is no Al Gore.

    I still believe that if we'd had a different VP in 2000, Gore might've considered fighting longer and harder. Although I blame Donna Brazile for that debacle as well as the current one. Do you think she's got a special antipathy towards Florida?


    What? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    Edwards, not Lieberman.

    C'mon, this was all of four years ago. Lieberman was Gore's VP pick, not Kerry's.


    Sorry, see above (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:26:37 AM EST
    and somehow, as long as these latest months have been, four years ago seems like even longer.

    Why are we discussing this now? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    I'm questoning the timing. Isn't the race for the nomination still ongoing? If so, why are we indulging Obama's presumption that he is in a position to be looking for a VP? Doesn't our indulgence on this issue contribute to the perception of his inevitability?

    I may be in over my head with this analogy, but it feels a bit like handing down a sentence before the suspect has been charged with the crime. Hell if I know the difference between the perp and the victim in this scenario.

    I just love how the Obama boys hereabouts are saying, oh by all means let's have her be his VP. My 2cents: I'd rather eat glass than see her be SUBORDINATE to an inferior candidate.

    Disucssing this now (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:44 PM EST
    to try and make people believe that Obama is the nominee.  He is not the nominee yet and I hope he never gets it.  However, if by psy-ops you come to accept it then it's all the better for Obama and his cadre of gutless DC elites and blogger boyz.

    Why? (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    The question I have to ask is "why would Clinton want to be VP?"

    SHe's already done that job for eight years -- "representing" the administration and cheerleading for its positions -- even when she doesn't agree with those positions.  

    For the last eight years, Hillary Clinton has gotten a taste of what it means to speak her own mind, and to represent herself only.... I can't imagine anyone who had had that freedom returning to the "political spouse" role that the VP really is.

    It would be a glass ceiling broken (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    It is no small feat to be the first woman VP.  Especially for Hillary Clinton, after all she has had to fight through to get there. She has earned it and she should take it and make it into a great job.  She could do it.

    Her nomination for president is in the hands of the most cowardly beasts roaming the earth - congressional Democrats.  They are not going to turn down the guy with all the money.

    I have come to believe it has always been all about the money.

    If she can be VP she should do it and see where it leads. I think she will.


    Excellently put. n/t (none / 0) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#147)
    by pantsuit chic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    Please stop (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by nell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    Why are we buying into this smoke and mirrors? The nomination is not over yet. When Obama has achieved the required number of delegates, certainly greater than 2,026 and perhaps as many as 2,210, this will be over. Until then, I think it is INCREDIBLY arrogant for him to be parading around picking vice presidential choices. It only makes me like him less and it makes me harden against him more. This 'aint over until the lady in the pantsuit says it is and I deeply resent him trying to end it before that happens. If he is so inevitable, he could have been respectful and waited until after June 3rd to go down this road. He did it because he wanted a PR story, he wanted to be at the same place as McCain, and it frankly infuriates me. It is an act of arrogance and disrespect to Hillary and her supporters.

    And for the record, if she wants it, I want it for her, but in my view, it would be a bad idea. I don't want him riding in on her coattails. He would take credit for everything, while she does all the work. No thank you.

    Please stop (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:04 PM EST
    Bravo, Bravo, I am with you on this. Total arrogance He has got so many states to win over he is going to be very busy. Just think of how many that are in the Appalachians, then you have Nevada, Pa, Florida, Ark., and maybe 10 more. Busy, Busy man.

    Nell, just in the nick of time: (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM EST
    I wish I had said this, but I didn't, so I'll repeat it:

    "This 'aint over until the lady in the pantsuit says it is..."

    Here's what I would add: This ain't over until the voters tell the lady in the pantsuit that it's over.


    No Way No How Nuh uh (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    WHY would Hillary Clinton take the VP slot knowing this guy will lose Dukakis-style?  She can leave herself open to a 2012 run w/o being tied down to a foreseable loser like Obama.

    Let him get some military hawk Dem to run with him.  McCain is already attacking his ZERO military experience. And Barack ain't Bill Clinton...he won't be able to dance his way outta that one too easily.

    Here's a suggestion:  Rev Wright offered his VP services...AND he's a former Marine.  THERE YA GO!

    Good idea about Wright (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    maybe he could pick Ayers, that would be a winner with moderate democrats  :-)  Seriously, if he's the nominee, and I hope he's not, it doesn't matter to me who he picks for a VP.  McCain has my vote against Obama hands down.

    Right there with ya (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
    I highly doubt that Senator Clinton would be his VP.  He doesn't deserve her as his VP.

    He's such a bada55 let him win it on his own.


    that sounds like such a bad idea (none / 0) (#217)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:31:11 PM EST
    it just might work.  Soledad O'Brien and Roland Martin are golf-clapping right now.

    Bah (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by xdemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    1. Obama veep discussion = measuring for drapes.  Unseemly and prematurely stillborn.
    2. Wouldn't vote for him if he put my mother on the ticket.  
    3. And say...when's the Rezko verdict?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:40 PM EST
    your mom! that's rich!  gotta love it!

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by cdalygo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    She doesn't need him on any level. She will either return as Senate majority or minority leader and attempt to salvage the Dems hopes in face of upcoming GE debacle.

    Hiring this VP "consultant" is more of his arrogant posturing. All it does is relieve her of the responsibility to offer it him if she clinches nomination.

    One final thing . . . Kerry's VP consultant??!!! Can he paint even a bigger L on his forehead for LOSER.

    Some advice... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by mrmobi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    I'm still not voting for Obama even if Hillary is the VP. I know that she really doesn't want him to win and I don't either. This man is dangerous and not worthy of the Presidency. Anyone can see that he is lying about his views and would take this country into places I don't think we can even imagine. Be afraid, be very afraid of Barack Obama.

    Please adjust your tinfoil hat before attempting to operate any heavy equipment. Homeland security has determined that improperly adjusted tinfoil hats cause a disconnect with reality. That is all.

    no vp for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by macondo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:54 PM EST
    Hillary should not be the vp because Obama will sink that ship. And why should she settle for 2nd? At present Hillary is the most powerful person in the Democratic Party. She has 17 million voters and the fat swing states the Dems need to win the WH. The polls back up her argument that she is the more electable candidate.

    If the FL/MI fiasco is not resolved Hillary has said that she will not deem the nominee/process legitimate. And so why should she help an illegitimate nominee? She has quite some leverage and the Dems can not win the WH without her.    

    This is about the direction of our nation (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:51:55 AM EST
    not just about Obama and Clinton. How do you marry the differences between Obama and Clinton- you bring their supporters together with a joint ticket. Half of the party is not a mandate for one side or the other, it is a call to join forces.

    This is an "ask not" moment for each candidate and their supporters. These two candidates need each other at this point. We can complain about one another's choice or we can rise above our individual views to see the bigger picture. If the Dems want to win and if Obama is a true leader he sees what Clinton has to offer and extend his hand in respect so both can heal a divide by believing in each other, so we all can believe in them.


    Mixed feelings (3.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pantsuit chic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    My feelings on the unity ticket are mixed, though 75% of the time I am against it. I think VP is a lame job, and I don't know why Hillary would want it. She could really make a name for herself in the Senate, a la Ted Kennedy. And if Obama loses, she'll get blamed (though it will somehow be her fault no matter what, per The Clinton Rules).

    That said, I think he is more likely to win with her on the ticket. That is the only way I'll consider voting for him. I don't believe in all this "balancing the ticket" talk. If both the people on the ticket are skilled pols, it doesn't matter where they are from or what they look like. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be balanced in terms of the coalition they both bring, and that is much more important.

    However, I still hold out hope that all this will be irrelevant and Hillary will be our nominee.

    disqualified herself (1.80 / 10) (#50)
    by diogenes on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:09 PM EST
    She is playing the nuclear option right now.  No one in his right mind would trust her as his second in command; if she's stabbing him right now, she'll stab him when he's in office if it serves her purposes.  This is not someone who will take one for the team.  
    Someone you'd want is someone who would WITHDRAW now for the sake of the party and let the grassroots pressure Obama into picking her rather than someone who tries to destroy Obama in order to force him to pick her.

    400 .... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:25 PM EST
    This is exactly why I don't want her to join the ticket.  You people make me sick.  

    You've disqualified yourself, IMO. Go away. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Angel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:43:31 PM EST
    How long did it take you to make (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    "nuclear option" up? Step away from the Kool Aid. Continuing to campaign when no one has gotten the amount needed for a win is not going nuclear.

    nuclear option (none / 0) (#244)
    by diogenes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    Taking it to the convention is mutual assured destruction.  Surely she isn't dragging this on and running against Obama from the center (by white voters, not policies) to try to HELP him get elected.  The only chance she has is to WEAKEN him to the point that the supers decide that she is the better candidate.  Sure looks like backstabbing to me.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    stabbing? taking one for the team? stepping down?

    why in the heck should she?  get over yourself.  


    It's like they're bots.... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    ... All they can do is string phrases together, like the machine Winston Smith worked with.

    Nuclear option is when the Republicans change the Senate rules by a simple majority to eliminate the filibuster which requires a super-majority.

    This idiot is just using the word "nuclear" because it sounds b-i-i-i-i-g.

    Hey Mom! Bring some Cheetohs down to the basement, wouldja?


    Look, I support Obama, but (none / 0) (#70)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:40:14 PM EST
    I wouldn't say she is playing the nuclear option right now.  The delegates should be seated in some way.  There are still a few more primaries and I think the people of SD and Montana would feel cheated if they got left out.  

    Let's wait and see what happens May 31st.  Then wait and see what she does on June 4th.  Perhaps your worry is unwarranted.  

    I'm willing to assign the best motive to her until I am proven wrong.  I wish that HRC supporters would do the same for Obama.


    Please explain your use of the word, stabbing (none / 0) (#142)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    While I personally don't believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:17:22 PM EST
    that the Unity ticket is the right way to go I would be completely fine with Hillary as VP if that is what they think is the right choice.

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:49 PM EST
    ... that Obama should be forced to select Hillary if he doesn't want to campaign with her and work with her for the next four years. But I think he does need to reach out to Hillary's supporters by selecting either her or someone in her camp (Clark, Rendell, Bayh, etc.). Trying to double down on his insurgent credentials and giving the back of his hand to the other half of the party would be a big mistake.

    Picking a Clinton supporter (4.66 / 6) (#80)
    by sander60tx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    does nothing for me... I don't get that at all.  If for example, he picked Rendell, who was an extremely loyal, hardworking, and effective Clinton supporter in Penn, and Rendell accepted, I would consider Rendell somewhat of a traitor.  That combination just doesn't make any sense to me.  It wouldn't make me want to vote for Obama any more.  It wouldn't make me feel any better about Obama winning.  It just doesn't do anything for me at all.  

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by pantsuit chic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:06:37 PM EST
    In fact, I'd be even more pissed off that he picked one of her supporters and not her. And God forbid if he picks a woman... I will honestly FLIP OUT. What a slap in the face that would be. "Well, you can't have Hillary, but here's another person with ovaries. Vote for me, sweeties!"

    Pat Schroeder was interviewed (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:20 PM EST
    Thurs. on All Things Considered (NPR).  The topic was sexism during this campaign.  She sd. she had really hoped to see a woman president in her lifetime and for her daughters and granddaughters and who is more qualified than Hillary Clinton.  

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    Did you listen to the interview? (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:10 PM EST
    I included a link as the last comment to BTD's sexism post.  

    I don't want to listen to it. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:09 PM EST
    That's just depressing.  The role of first lady is just under VP.  She's in her second term in the Senate.  She's been on the Senate Armed services comm. for 5 years.  She is incredibly qualified.  And look who she is running against.  It's an insult of the highest order.

    I listened to it just after reading BTD's (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM EST
    sexism post today.  Schroeder is quite well-spoken; talks about what she's seen and heard during this campaign and gives her opinion as to why Clinton has chosen the ways she chose to deal with it.  

    But she exceptionally qualified. (none / 0) (#198)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:31 PM EST
    And, look at her opponent.  That just makes no sense what so ever.

    Well, we can see it. Why can't everyone? (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:02:30 PM EST
    A puzzler.

    I just listened (none / 0) (#224)
    by suisser on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:21 PM EST
    to the interview and did not hear any comment suggesting that a different woman would be more qualified. In fact, she said that HRC was "the whole package"  I'm quite sure you misheard her comment.  It was a very postitive interview, though she dodged the question of HRC supporters rejecting Obama in masse.

    You are absolutely right. Did I misstate (none / 0) (#225)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:49:03 PM EST
    what Schroeder sd.?

    Just a (none / 0) (#233)
    by suisser on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:03 AM EST
    wee bit :-)
    Liked listening to her, happy not to see the overpresent smile though. Always had trouble getting past that.

    I apologize. I didn't get that (none / 0) (#234)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:56 AM EST
    impression from what I wrote, but, then, it is my brain, afterall.

    Got my hands dirty tonight (none / 0) (#166)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    poking around the places I don't go anymore.  Supporters in Obamaland want ABC (Anybody but Clinton).  Names mentioned frequently were Sebelius, Webb, Warner, Richardson, Edwards, and Hagel.

    Disasters all (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    Hillary is the only VP that guarantees a win.

    Well, iut would probably depend... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:39 PM EST
    ... on whether Hillary wanted it. If she does, it would put Obama in a tough spot.

    I'd rather see Rendell challenge specter... (none / 0) (#137)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:08 PM EST
    Rendell would be great in the Senate (not to mention that he removes the threat of Chris Matthews getting that seat).

    Rendell would make a great VP for Hillary as well.  

    Although, at this point, I want to see Hillary run as an independent, with Huckabee as her VP.  That line up could actually win in November....


    Oh, please, please, not Huckabee (none / 0) (#200)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:02:51 PM EST
    He's a total creep!

    But a new NWP? At this point, I'm ready for anything.


    Someone in her camp wouldn't..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    ...do it for me. Should he become the nominee and he asked Hillary, even though I have some reservations about how it would work out, I would probably support him with enthusiasm. But if he picked "someone from her camp" and nothing else changed with regard to the Democratic Party leadership attitude towards the Clintons, I guess it would just feel like one more "Clintonista" jumping ship. Been there, done that.

    If Hillary joins the ticket (none / 0) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    and thinks she can do some good there then I may hold my nose and vote for him. I think that if SHE can get past all the crap that his campaign has done It'd be petty of me not to. I' not holding y breath though. This the first time I haven't been overwhelmed by the arrogance of his campaign.

    "a more balanced ticket" (none / 0) (#54)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    Jeralyn, can you elaborate on this a bit? When you describe the traits you would prefer for Obama's VP pick, you specifically listed "male". Are you saying that you don't think a black man and a woman together is a safe ticket?

    I'm sure we share the same belief that skin color and gender should be irrelevant to whether or not a candidate is qualified to run, but of course, others don't (and they vote!), and I'm wondering if that's what you were getting at.

    I've been wondering if this is relevant or not. I have a vague sense that the people who would vote against a black man just for being black overlap almost entirely with the group of people who would vote against a woman just for being a woman. But I don't really have anything concrete to back this up.

    Where's Kathy when we need her? (none / 0) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST

    It's in Her Best Interest (none / 0) (#109)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    Question: Does Hillary want the vice-presidential spot on the ticket?  

    She wants it. It affords her the best of all possible vantage points going forward.  Because if he bombs, she can just step in next time around. It's a win win for her, not necessarily for him. But, he can certainly implement changes without throwing out the tools he'll need to do it. The idea that he can't make changes without a coup of sorts, is absurd.

    Question: Can Obama win without Hillary on the ticket?
    No. When it comes to a General Election, moderate Dems will switch, will not entrust the country to him. Many people who voted for him early on have now been able to see him decline in is appeal, while she has become the better spokesperson for her party. He is appealing to the ultra liberals like OR, the party is just not solely made up of progressives. He's in an awkward position, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, pick her.

    Question: Is serving as VP in Hillary's best interest -- or just Obama's?

    It's in her best interest. She gets to position herself for 2012, if he doesn't perform; she is positioned well. That's a great incentive for  him to perform well.

    Question: Last, if Obama, who we know doesn't want Hillary on the ticket, offers it to her due to pressure from Democratic party leaders, what does that say about his message of bringing change to Washington? [More...]

    The people he has on his list for VEEP represent the same old, same old: Richardson, Webb, even a Hillary supporter, like Gov of PA, or senator from IN, they don't represent change. If he goes way out of the DC comfort zone on VEEP, than you'll have two OTHER types who will never win an election. No other candidate is going to heal the rift except her.

    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:45:19 PM EST
    If he gets the nomination and if he wins the GE and if he's weak enough in 2012 for her to mount a decent challenge (since incumbents do have a big edge, especially of the same party) then having been his VP only taints her.  If he's that weak she has to make all the arguments she's currently making AND distance herself from him.

    And whether he goes 4 years (assuming ifs above)or 8, the VP is not a position of strength in terms of building oneself up in the public eye or opinion.  It didn't help Gore, and that was in a decent economy.  

    The only way it could really help her is if you believe (and I certainly do not) that he will be a wildly successful president in terms of popularity, a la Reagan (and Bush Sr.).  It's not impossible but I just don't see it happening.


    WOW (none / 0) (#112)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST


    Of course it favors her to take it. (none / 0) (#123)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    If he wins, she is the next nominee.  If he loses, she is likely the next nominee.  I disagree with you completely.  VP's are about rounding out the apparatus, not bringing in voters.  People vote top of ticket.  Hillary is the one time I could see a VP bringing in voters.  If not her, he needs to at least consult her.  That's how it works when a race is this tight.  It's not old style, it's proper. I think Strickland or Rendell are the best choices.  He may go with Bayh.  But he needs to offer it to Hillary.  She represent about half the vote in this primary.  

    I still think she is clearly the strongest candidate and we ought to nominate her, but the super d's seem against it.

    She still would have to wait if he is the nominee (none / 0) (#155)
    by Saul on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:30 PM EST
    The chance you take is if she does not take it if offered, then she can run against him in 2012 but it would depend on how good Obama did in his first 4 years then she would be running against him again.  The incumbent president as a general rule has the edge.

    If she takes the VP then probably she would have to wait 8 years, but as a general rule the VP is almost the anointed nominee as Obama leaves.  The question is does she have 8 years to give until that day.

    They both will make history though, First black president and first female VP

    Back in Feb. (none / 0) (#167)
    by sander60tx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    there was an article in Newsweek that explained how RFK was JFK's "crucial ally" ...

    John F. Kennedy was the epitome of cool detachment, of effortless grace, of never seeming to try too hard while still accomplishing great things. He was elegant and eloquent, cerebral and witty, but a little distant. His brother Bobby was hot: fierce, scrappy, relentless, angry, soulful....

    ...JFK had something Obama sorely lacks: Bobby Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was able to float above the fray in part because he had RFK (or "Black Robert," as JFK jokingly called his moody little brother) behind the scenes, doing the grinding, sometimes distasteful dirty work of politics. All candidates have surrogates, but none has anyone so selfeffacing, so knowledgeable or so willing to do the nasty jobs as RFK was.

    So, I wonder, IF Obama wins the nomination, who would be his RFK? (Doesn't necessarily have to be the VP.)  Could Hillary be the one?  I'm not advocating that she do the "nasty jobs," but she does have the toughness that Obama lacks.  Recent VP's have had a fair amount of power (or even too much) so who is to say that Hillary wouldn't be be a powerful force as VP.

    Obama's consultant re VP (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    choices is definitely not a symbol of change, out with the old, "not a Washington insider."  

    That's just a posture. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:43 PM EST
    Poltiics is politics.  The newest politics I've heard is McCain's idea for Question Hour.  The rest of this is just fluff.

    Oh, now you tell me! (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    Does anyone believe (none / 0) (#204)
    by mg7505 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    that this campaign is about making real change? Even Obama supporters don't seem to buy that; it's just become about being the first Af-Am or woman etc. I wish the MSM called Obama on this.

    No on Hillary for VP (none / 0) (#210)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    it will be hard enough if I have to watch her campaign for him.

    If he had more experience and was more qualified than her, well, that's another story. Sadly, that's not the story.

    What about Webb? (none / 0) (#220)
    by mrmobi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST
    VP's are about rounding out the apparatus, not bringing in voters.  People vote top of ticket.  Hillary is the one time I could see a VP bringing in voters.  If not her, he needs to at least consult her.  That's how it works when a race is this tight.  It's not old style, it's proper. I think Strickland or Rendell are the best choices.  He may go with Bayh.  But he needs to offer it to Hillary.  She represent about half the vote in this primary.

    No, Kennedy chose Johnson because it helped him in the south. Kennedy did not like Johnson. (for that matter, lots of people didn't like him).

    Of course, even if Obama does not pick/or ask Hillary, he will consult with her. The political reality here is she is a powerhouse Senator from the state of New York, and a stalwart fighter for the progressive cause. Why wouldn't he  (at the very least) consult her?

    Finally, I'd like to cast my vote (if he doesn't ask Hillary) for Obama to tap Senator Webb for VP. He'd be missed in the Senate, but the governor of his state is a Democrat, and would undoubtedly pick another Democrat to serve out Webb's term. He'd help with the appalachian vote, and he's as tough a legislator/campaigner as I've ever seen.

    No, Kennedy extended a courtesy to Johnson. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    Johnson accepted.  It's not what Kennedy wanted.  He won him TX, which worked out quite well for him.  Webb is not ideal.  First, the Dem's do not want to give up that Senate seat.  Second, he's a bit of an odd duck.  

    Webb Will Wait for 2012 (none / 0) (#226)
    by cdalygo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    Like most other democrats with  national ambitions Webb knows not to take that slot. (Most know that Obama will not win in the fall. I seriously doubt Hillary will run again after all this BS, which is why I'm seriously ticked off over this election.)

    He's going either with a female candidate or a Republican. That fits his script of daring "new" candidate. Shrug. Like most scripts its fiction but it's been working so far.

    Of course, it's a much colder world in a "real" election -- i.e. not Dem primary -- but he's only had one real election in his lifetime. Having lost that "real" election he learned damn quick to avoid them. That's why he knocked off Alice Palmer and others. Then he positioned himself to run against Alan Keyes. This time he had DNC and others grease the skids for him.

    But too many people got to know him this election and the wheels will come off. (As they have been falling off since March 2008.)


    He won't go with a female (none / 0) (#227)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:55:08 PM EST
    unless it's Hillary.  There are really none out there that would strengthen his run aside from her.  Hillary will undoubtedly run again, IMO.  Webb won't win the nom if he runs.

    If there is a gas-bag present, it is you! (none / 0) (#228)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:43 PM EST
    disgusting troll

    Elections have consequences (none / 0) (#237)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:19 AM EST
    If Obama's power grab is successful -- and I should remind everyone that Hillary is still very much in this and I think she should still go all the way to the convention -- they should own it all the way to November and beyond.  Hillary should not accept even if offered; it's important that she be able to offer that more substantive alternative vision in 2012.  None of the credit for the hard work would accrue to her, and all of the blame for Obama's failures would.

    My Gut Feeling (none / 0) (#240)
    by bob h on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:46:23 AM EST
    is that while Obama will be anointed in June, by August polling will indicate that his run against McCain is not looking like a winner (as it does in many electoral college matchups now).  The Party will either turn to Hillary outright or press her to take the VP slot with Cheney-esq powers, in return .  The downside of the latter is that she will be somewhat Golda Meier-ish at age 68 in 2012.