I can’t imagine he’ll just finish out his term as Governor and fade away, especially after his little get together with Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg, though I suppose that’s a lengthy topic for elsewhere.
Clinton/Obama (or vice versa) is not a good combination. Obama’s strength as a uniter is not strong enough to counteract Clinton’s weakness as a polarizer.
I agree that they’ll need a white male to bring it home. Clinton will need someone with a likeable, charismatic personality to balance out her cold, calculating image. Obama will need someone who can make the Reagan conservatives feel comfortable and safe. Joe Lieberman comes to mind, but I confess to not knowing a whole lot about how self-identified Republicans perceive him.
The thing is, I think Obama has a better shot at finding a VP who meets the needs of his candidancy. I don’t know of anyone who has what it takes to offset Clinton’s image problems. If Bill Clinton can’t do it (and he can’t), then who else could?
In terms of policy, Clinton and Obama have always voted the same way. The “sniping” has been blown out of proportion by the media, which are always scraping for conflict. However, if Obama gets the nomination, he might choose someone like Richardson to fill out his lack of foreign policy experience.
The sniping has not in any way been “blown out of proportion.” They’re saying some very, very personal things out there. This is not normal campaign behavior. I think it really started when Clinton (unwisely) started whining about Obama’s kindergarten essays. That’s not only childish (ironically so, too 
) but seriously WRONG. And Obama basically told her to ‘stuff razor wire where the sun don’t shine, you diseased hell-harpy.’ I may have paraphrased a bit.
But yeah, I don’t see this being “politics as usual.” Yes, you can open up a little on your opponent. But this is serious, constant, and bitter. I’ve never actually seen anything like it in modern politics, which is pretty cold sterile. But I’ve heard of some similar things in the past, and it doesn’t come to a safe conclusion.
I’m going to cast another vote for “blown out of proportion.” There’s some bitter stuff, but it’s not so horrible. It just makes for an interesting story - more interesting than the criticism between the Republicans, for some reason.
It is Edwards for either one of them.
Well, Edwards certainly seems to be gunning for the role of kingmaker. Don’t know if he can accumulate enough delegates for that.
You’re kidding, right? Joe Lieberman? You don’t actually think any Democrat would pick him as a running mate after the last year and change, do you? The man endorsed McCain and Collins, for heaven’s sake! No amount of making Republicans ‘comfortable’ is worth being associated with Lieberman in any way.
And yes, I realize that several Democrats campaigned for him in 2006, including Obama. I don’t think that makes any difference by now.
I know liberals aren’t fond of Lieberman, but I’m thinking Obama wouldn’t have to worry about alienating them. It’s pulling in the moderates and conservatives.
I mean, it’s not like an anti-Lieberman would rather vote for McCain, if their problem with Lieberman was that he endorsed McCain.
It has to do with the depth of it. The Republican candidates may yell over policy, and laugh at Huckabee because he’s an arse, but it’s not personal. The Clinton-Obama issue is very, very personal. That’s what’s different about it.
Some of it sounds pretty personal to me, and I think this story from today’s New York Times has some examples that back me up. It quotes McCain comparing Romney to a pig; I’d say that’s pretty personal. There’s been some personal stuff from the Democrats, and there’s some bad feelings over some of Bill Clinton’s comments, for sure. The drug stuff, too. But it happens on both sides.
It does seem a bit more personal than usual, and Clinton is, I think, one to hold and nurse grudges. It seems very, very unlikely that she’d pick Obama as a running mate. And if she did, he’d probably be totally frozen out and marginalized once in office as VP, so what’d be the point? On the other hand, she’s polarizing enough, and her ego is big enough, that I’d be amazed either if Obama picked her as his running mate or if she accepted.
I agree with Doctor Who and you with the face that either the first-ever Democratic female nominee, or the first-ever black nominee, is going to want a safe, uncontroversial but politically-helpful white guy as running mate. I like Mark Warner a lot, but he probably will want to run for, and almost certainly win, a Senate seat. Bill Richardson underwhelmed me. Joe Lieberman has practically become a DINO and did little to help Gore in '00. John Edwards is yesterday’s news, did little to help Kerry in '04 and was perceived as disloyal, and has come across far too angry this season to take the VP nod again. Not gonna happen.
A week is an eternity in politics, let alone five months. Either Clinton or Obama are going to have to think hard as to who would be the best running mate when the time comes to choose.
Yes, that was a pretty petty thing to say, but when the media repeat it over an over again, they’re just blowing it out of proportion. That’s because in terms of policy, there isn’t much to distinguish the two.
I think that when that is the worst thing you can say about someone, you really aren’t getting very personal. It’s a “token” personal attack. She did say something about his being a lawyer for a slumlord; that’s probably the most personal thing she’s said about him, but it was to compare what she was doing at one point with what he was doing.
And what exactly has he said about her that is so personal?
Maybe she’s said something worse, but I can’t think anything. (One of her campaign workers said something about drugs, but he had to resign.)
If you think this is really personal, compare it to what Bush said about McCain in 2000.
I can’t see either one “settling” for VP.
Politics makes for some strange bedfellows, and if you peek under the sheets you may see some very evil things indeed. If Hitler could team up with Japan to push his agenda of Aryan superiority, I don’t see why Obama and Clinton couldn’t team up.
Obama and Clinton will never share a ticket.
**Phil Bredesen** for Veep '08!
No matter who gets the nom, Bredesen will fulfill everything the prez candidate needs:
White? Check.
Male? Check.
Executive experience? Check. (Governor, mayor, started a successful business)
Southern? Check.
Baby boomer? Check.
Moderate? Check.
Popular in his state? Check.
Not a filthy, stinkin’ lawyer? Check.
From a state the Dems would love to pick up this fall? Check.
I’m beginning to think that the Clinton/Obama spat is little more than a dog and pony show, carefully designed to shut Edwards out of the news, while allowing Clinton and Obama to shore up their support. I heard an extended portion of the last debate the other and both of them really seemed to be softballing one another.
Obama goes after Bill for saying things that “aren’t factually correct.” now, it seems to me that Obama’s not the kind of guy to speak in euphamisms. If he was seriously bothered by them, then I’d think that he’d call them “lies” (but not necessarily call Bill a liar). Hillary get’s to shoot back that she’s the one running, not Bill. (While proving that Bill does give a damn about her, and thus that their marriage is not the sham, it was often claimed back when Bill was in office.)
Obama jabs Hillary that she used to work for Wal-Mart, while Hillary counters that Obama worked for a slumlord. When the commentators dissect these claims, what do we find? Obama did a couple hours worth of work on a public housing project which happened to involve the slumlord, and Obama gave back the contributions given to him by the slumlord when the slumlord ran into legal troubles. Hillary, OTOH, served on Wal-Mart’s board of directors where she pushed for them to hire more women and minorities.
Now, I don’t know about Obama, but we all know that if you want to fling dirt about Hillary, there’s plenty of ammunition just laying around, and this is what he picks? 
Seems to me that if he really wanted to go after Hillary, he could pull something a little stronger out of his quarrel.
When I listened to the clip, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the '92 VP debate, with Clinton and Obama taking Quayle and Gore’s roles, and Edwards being forced into that of Stockdale. The rest of the week, the media talks about Obama and Clinton, while nary a word is said about Edwards. Awfully neat and tidy if you ask me.
According to this analysis, the relatively civilized tone of the 1/31/08 debate compared to previous ones may open the door to the possibility of a joint Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket just maybe possibly.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be worthless in my opinion and certainly wouldn’t be an acceptable “consolation prize” for Obama supporters. If Clinton is president, her “Two For The Price of One” co-president will be Bill Clinton. The only role Obama will have to play as VP in her administration is filling a Constitutionally mandated slot in case she chokes on a pretzel. For that, I’d much rather he remain in the Senate where he will at least have some power and influence.