Kerry/Rodham-Clinton ticket?

[Askia]

Matt Drudge sez:
[quote]So predicts a top Washington insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.

"All the signs point in her direction," said the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem."[/url]

Hmm. Chee. I remember her being vreally ocal about NOT being interested in a VP slot on 60 Minutes biographical piece a few months back -- though I suppose she just could've been coy.

Is this really likely? Will Hillary hurt or help Kerry? I gotta think conservatives would be salivating at the chops for a shot at retaking the White House and taking down a Clinton, too.

[elucidator]

Not a chance. Ralph Nader has a better shot at the VP spot next to Kerry.

Nothin' against Hillary, she's OK, pretty much, nothing to get all shook up over. But there are so many people, so very very people who hate her with a passion that blinds all reason, it makes no sense to bring on board someone who will actually hurt your campaign, without some countering advantage. Which would be what?

Edwards, if Kerry's got the good sense God gave a goose.

[GLWasteful]

Plus, Drudge is not what I would call a halfway decent source.

Now, Weekly World News. . .that's different.

[Munch]

Lord, not this again. Remember mid primaries when Drudge et al. where clamoring all over the place saying that if Hillary didn't enter the primaries she was going to be "drafted" by the DNC at the convention? Yeah, that didn't happen. Neither is her running for VP.

As a Democrat, I can't think of a single advantage she would bring the ticket. I doubt she'd be able to carry Arkansas, or help take Florida. She'd hurt Kerry's chances in Missouri and Ohio, and possibly New Jersey.

No, there are better candidates.

[Rashak Mani]

Slight Hijack: Why do I see some conservatives quietly cheering for Edwards as VP ?

Hillary is a bad choice I feel... not only her surname either.

[elucidator]

Carrot Top, for instance. Or Mr. T might bring something to the ticket....

[Debaser]

The biggest advantage that Edwards would bring to the campaign is the fact that he is a southerner. The thinking goes that he could help Kerry win votes in the south where they don't like liberals from Massachusetts.

However, Edwards didn't actually do too well in the south when he was still in the race. If Kerry's people look at the numbers they might not think it's worth it to bring him along unless he actually won some southern states against the other democrats, which I don't think he did.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Slight Hijack: Why do I see some conservatives quietly cheering for Edwards as VP ?....

You do? Wha? Who, what, where, when, how? And, of course, why?!!

[Cisco]

I doubt she would want it.

In any situation that Kerry wins this election she will be forced to wait until at least 2012 for her bid at the oval office. Hillary is praying that Bush wins this election and screws up for another 4 years. Then all she has to do is get her party's nod in 2008, by which time it will truly be anybody but Bush & friends!

[elucidator]

"Our latest poll has Jenna Bush running neck and neck with Insect Overlords in Ohio...."

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Slight Hijack: Why do I see some conservatives quietly cheering for Edwards as VP ?

I'll second the request for more info. I have yet to see any conservative want Edwards on the ticket - the only Dem I've seen conservatives want is Hillary. Edwards may not actually swing any southern states, but I think he would definitely make an impact in other swing states like Ohio and Missouri.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Nothin' against Hillary, she's OK, pretty much, nothing to get all shook up over. But there are so many people, so very very people who hate her with a passion that blinds all reason, it makes no sense to bring on board someone who will actually hurt your campaign, without some countering advantage.

Could anybody explain to me why so many people hate HRC so bitterly? Eight years she was First Lady, and I never could understand it.

[Governor Quinn]

Besides the reasons already given, there is another good reason why HRC won't get the VP nomination:

There's the concern about regions. In general, it is never a good idea to run two candidates on your ticket from neighboring states.

The handful of candidates that I have seen suggested for Kerry's VP choice come from Kansas, New Mexico, Iowa, North Carolina, and Arkansas.

[ElvisL1ves]

:Yawn...: The Beltway bunch is talking to each other again over beers, huh? Should venture out of the Green Zone once in awhile. That's where the Hillary talk always comes from, and so, I would offer, does the Edwards talk. Kerry was overheard a few months ago contemptuously observing that "He couldn't even carry his own state!" I think that is not only true, but probably reflects Kerry's thinking as well.

Look, they know each other well enough from the Senate. Yet Kerry was never more than cordial to him in the primaries, and furthermore Edwards stayed in, costing Kerry effort and money, long after it was obvious he was gone. That tells me there's some bad blood there. It also wouldn't help Kerry to pick another Senator - being a Washington insider and a nonexecutive himself, he needs a Governor to balance the ticket, and a moderate non-northeasterner at that.

[GLWasteful]

Originally Posted by Cisco

In any situation that Kerry wins this election she will be forced to wait until at least 2012 for her bid at the oval office. Hillary is praying that Bush wins this election and screws up for another 4 years. Then all she has to do is get her party's nod in 2008, by which time it will truly be anybody but Bush & friends!

This is the same crap that Safire keeps flailing away at. Do you have a source for this besides the voices in Bill's head? Or has this become a talking point?

[Leaper]

Why would Kerry want a VP more famous, attention-grabbing, and with a more forceful personality than he?

[silenus]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Could anybody explain to me why so many people hate HRC so bitterly? Eight years she was First Lady, and I never could understand it.

Honest answer from a conservative-leaning Doper: Because she is a power-grabbing liberal bitch. What was the first thing we heard after Clinton got elected? "Congratulations, you've got two for the price of one." Hill, I hate to break it to you, but America didn't elect you. Just because Bill got elected doesn't mean you count for shit. Shut up and disappear. Add to that the Travel Office fiasco, the Health Care debacle, and you have why I hate her with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Oh, yeah. Hill? It doesn't take a village. It takes two caring parents. So piss off!



BG, does that help? I do understand why a lot of people think the hatred is mindless and without cause. But believe me, to some of us there is great cause.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by Debaser

However, Edwards didn't actually do too well in the south when he was still in the race.

Which only proves that Democratic primary voters, as a rule, don't have a clue what will win in November. (Witness Mondale and Dukakis.)

I agree that Kerry won't pick Edwards, though. I sense some bad blood there.

Besides which, as was obvious early on, Kerry has written off the South (with the exception of Florida and maybe Arkansas). Bush ads play here fairly regularly, but I haven't seen a single Kerry ad since the primaries.

[choie]

Oh, for pete's sake. You can really set your watch by Drudge and the rest of these Republican lackeys. Bush is down in the polls? Time to trot out the big boogeyman, evil Lesbinazi Hillary Rodham "I hate Christianity and the military and apple pie" Clinton.

First, as Bill Clinton recently told Oprah, Hillary promised the good people of New York that she'd be our senator for the full term, and that's what she'll do.

Second, John Kerry and his team are nothing if not damn smart. For some reason unbeknownst to any sane individual, Hillary is absolutely hated by a substantial portion of rightwing America with a fervor usually reserved for traitors and serial killers. Not that Kerry cares what wingnuts like them "think" with what they are pleased to call their "minds," but he doesn't need to feed into that paranoia, coming from the same sort of people who call Kerry "Hanoi John."

He'll likely go with someone who's a great campaigner like Edwards, someone safe and uncontroversial like Gephardt (ugh), or -- if he's as smart as I think/hope he is -- someone who'll wipe the floor with the competition and makes Republicans quiver in their boots, like Wesley Clark.

In any event, Hillary's day will come, but it's not time yet and she knows it. And BTW, Cisco, there's no fucking way she or anyone on our side who isn't barking mad or whose name doesn't rhyme with Galph Fader -- but then, I repeat myself -- actually wants Bush to win.

[ElvisL1ves]

silenus, no doubt you wish Laura and Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan would shut up and disappear too. Right? No, friend, when we elect a President, we know he's going to depend on people he can trust, and we know that damn well includes his wife. We did elect them both, along with the rest of his inner circle. You voted for Laura Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, not just Dubya, in 2000. Hillary is no damn different, and you have no basis to say she is.

Don't flatter yourself. When asked for factual reasons to hate Hillary, you came up with the usual adjectives, the widely-popular health care policy effort (which was part of Clinton's platform and partly why he got elected - what, do you think it was all her doing?), and the discredited Travel"gate" (cute word) crap. Not gonna do it. Might as well have tossed in Vince Foster's murder. Now get the fuck over it already.


choie, you're right - it's like watching Pavlov's dogs at dinner time. Ring the bell, say the magic word "Clinton" or "Hillary", and watch the slobbering. Ever notice who the most-targeted members of the Clinton Administration were, btw, besides the big guy himself? Hillary, Janet Reno, and Madeleine Albright. They do have something in common, something many men find threatening and therefore hate-inspiring.

[vibrotronica]

Originally Posted by silenus

Honest answer from a conservative-leaning Doper: Because she is a power-grabbing liberal bitch. What was the first thing we heard after Clinton got elected? "Congratulations, you've got two for the price of one." Hill, I hate to break it to you, but America didn't elect you. Just because Bill got elected doesn't mean you count for shit. Shut up and disappear. Add to that the Travel Office fiasco, the Health Care debacle, and you have why I hate her with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Oh, yeah. Hill? It doesn't take a village. It takes two caring parents. So piss off!



BG, does that help? I do understand why a lot of people think the hatred is mindless and without cause. But believe me, to some of us there is great cause.

Well golly! Those eloquent, well-reasoned arguments sure cleared it up for me. Here I was thinking it was just pure sexism. Thanks for enlightening me!

[Patty O'Furniture]

What was the first thing we heard after Clinton got elected? "Congratulations, you've got two for the price of one."

Who did we hear this from, and who was he talking to when he said it??

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Kerry/Rodham-Clinton ticket?

[channeling John McLaughlin]

WRONG!
The correct answer is: Evan Bayh, conservative Democratic Senator from Indiana. Tony Blankley?

[/channeling John McLaughlin]

[Marley23]

Has Kerry had any meetings with Hillary? We know he's met with Gephardt, Edwards, et al. None of them are denying they're in the running at this point or saying they don't want the job. Hillary, on the other hand, is.

[rjung]

Personally, I'd like to see Hillary Clinton get elected President someday, just to drive tighy-righties like silenus crazy.

OTOH, if she's really smart, she'll never run for President, just to show that tighy-righties like silenus are crazy.

[dalej42]

I admire Hillary, but she won't be the choice. I believe it should be Bill Richardson.

Richardson can deliver New Mexico, will have a strong shot at Arizona (John McCain is going to not try too hard for Bush), and can make Bush work for Texas. Sending Richardson into Hispanic Texas will cause Bush to spend time in Texas.

Richardson can also help in Nevada. Kerry can concentrate on the Midwest and Northeast which will help him obtain victory.

Hillary doesn't add anything to the ticket. New York is in the victory column and I believe Illinois is as well.

[Qwertyasdfg]

Originally Posted by silenus

Honest answer from a conservative-leaning Doper: Because she is a power-grabbing liberal bitch. What was the first thing we heard after Clinton got elected? "Congratulations, you've got two for the price of one." Hill, I hate to break it to you, but America didn't elect you. Just because Bill got elected doesn't mean you count for shit. Shut up and disappear. Add to that the Travel Office fiasco, the Health Care debacle, and you have why I hate her with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Oh, yeah. Hill? It doesn't take a village. It takes two caring parents. So piss off!



BG, does that help? I do understand why a lot of people think the hatred is mindless and without cause. But believe me, to some of us there is great cause.

Those seem like pretty lame reasons to "hate someone with the white hot heat of a thousand suns," especially compared to some of the crap Bush has pulled. He wasn't elected either (except by the Supreme Court), and lied to bring the country to war. Do you hate him with the hot heat of a thousand suns?

[asterion]

Originally Posted by dalej42

I admire Hillary, but she won't be the choice. I believe it should be Bill Richardson.

Richardson can deliver New Mexico, will have a strong shot at Arizona (John McCain is going to not try too hard for Bush), and can make Bush work for Texas. Sending Richardson into Hispanic Texas will cause Bush to spend time in Texas.

Richardson can also help in Nevada. Kerry can concentrate on the Midwest and Northeast which will help him obtain victory.

Hillary doesn't add anything to the ticket. New York is in the victory column and I believe Illinois is as well.

Richardson has repeatedly said that he isn't interested. He wants to finish his first term as Governor, which will take him to 2006, and I won't be surprised if he's easily reelected. That'll take it to 2010, where he'll hit New Mexico's term limit, though I'm not clear if "two consecutive 4-year terms" means 8 years max, no matter what or if it is possible to run for another term after four years. And at that point, why not consider a run for President in 2012 or so, depending on what happens the next two elections.

While I kinda like the idea of my state being a bell-weather state (only wrong twice in 90 years) and a swing-state, 5 electoral votes is not a lot in and of itself. You're right that help in Arizona could mean a lot more, what with 10 electoral votes, and I can see the problems Richardson could pose for Bush in Texas, but I still have a hard time seeing Texas swing Democrat, at least with Bush as the incumbent.

However, Richardson can be attacked on what happened at Los Alamos, especially the whole Chan Ho Lee debacle (apologies if I spelled his name wrong), during his time as Energy Secretary, though I don't know enough about the relationships between the cabinet positions and the DOD and DOE to be willing to assign blame to anyone not actually working at Los Alamos. I don't know much about his time as a Representative (not my district) and I think we can probably ignore the time spent as UN Ambassador.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by GLWasteful

This is the same crap that Safire keeps flailing away at. Do you have a source for this...?

I don't know who Safire is.


What do you mean by a source? A source that HRC will have to wait until 2012 if Kerry wins, a source that she wants Bush to win, or a source that it will be easy for a Democrat to win in '08 if Bush wins in '04?

The first one is logical/factual. If Kerry wins in '04 he will run in '08. Win or lose is will be 2012 before another Dem can run.

The second one is purely opinion. If this is how she feels she would obviously NEVER admit it because of political reasons. I don't think it's very far-fetched though.

The third one is...mostly opinion. Like him or hate him, Bush is an "extremist." He's VERY religious, VERY, pro-war, VERY anti-abortion, VERY pro-business...etc. This will eventually turn off all the swing/undecided voters that haven't already been turned off by him and lead to a Democrat winner in the '08 election. If you think a lot of people hate Bush now, wait and see what this message board looks like in the summer of 2008 if he gets re-elected this year. Like I said, that's mostly just my opinion but I wouldn't be shocked if it was backed up by polls/statistics.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Could anybody explain to me why so many people hate HRC so bitterly? Eight years she was First Lady, and I never could understand it.

Her politics might have something to do with it:

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[GLWasteful]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I don't know who Safire is.

There are times that I envy you.

Safire is a columnist for the New York Times and he keeps claiming that Hillary is setting Kerry up to lose so that she has a shot in 2012. That was why Clinton supported Clark. Because Clark is a Clinton puppet who was a sacrificial lamb. And with the blood of a sacrificial lamb, then Clinton can open the portals of hell, unleashing zombies and other nasty stuff.

And I was wondering if you had a source for this:

Hillary is praying that Bush wins this election. . .

because that is precisely the sorta crap that Safire prints. Of course, he also uses a literary device of pretending to channel Nixon, so make of that what you will.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Cisco

This will eventually turn off all the swing/undecided voters that haven't already been turned off by him and lead to a Democrat winner in the '08 election. If you think a lot of people hate Bush now, wait and see what this message board looks like in the summer of 2008 if he gets re-elected this year. Like I said, that's mostly just my opinion but I wouldn't be shocked if it was backed up by polls/statistics.

If Bush is re-selected this November the hatred will only increase, it is true. However, that doesn't mean that the Demos will easily win in 2008. What if McCain runs then? He could probably beat any Democrat (except maybe Bill Clinton, but he can't run). The same would have been true for Colin Powell too, but he's blown any chance he had to be Prez by laying down and taking Dubya's immoral war-mongering right up the rear. SeeYa, Colin!

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by silenus

Honest answer from a conservative-leaning Doper: Because she is a power-grabbing liberal bitch. What was the first thing we heard after Clinton got elected? "Congratulations, you've got two for the price of one." Hill, I hate to break it to you, but America didn't elect you. Just because Bill got elected doesn't mean you count for shit. Shut up and disappear. Add to that the Travel Office fiasco, the Health Care debacle, and you have why I hate her with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Oh, yeah. Hill? It doesn't take a village. It takes two caring parents. So piss off!



BG, does that help? I do understand why a lot of people think the hatred is mindless and without cause. But believe me, to some of us there is great cause.

Sounds like irrational hatred to me...

It takes more than two parents to raise a child. And the rest that you heap solely on Hillary such as the health care debacle was torpedoed and turned into a trainwreck by the crafters of the Contract on America.

It is without due cause, and has always looked to me like a bunch of scared little boys afraid of a powerful, competent woman.