The difference is the Republican Party machinery seems practically dead in the Pacific Coast states. Also Scott Brown was a unique phenomenon combining the timing of his run and the fact that like Giuliani before him and TRUMP after him he had a strong appeal to ethnic whites.
[/QUOTE]
He’s also ideologically unreliable and ought to meet the same fate as Bukharin and Zinoviev not be Vice President.
Some general insinuations, like the ones we see here about Clinton so often, about corruption, not amounting to anything.
Why not? They’re the same people *she *knows and trusts. That includes Bill, btw - he has to keep a low profile for the campaign, but he’ll be *living *in the White House again.
But she’ll be picking the leading candidate for 2024 (when many people will already be voting who will literally have no memory of the President being a white man), so her choice needs to be someone who is not only ready for the job now, already one of her most trusted advisers but is younger and energetic. Obama’s choice of Biden wasn’t expected by, well, anybody, but was recognized as a good one, and Clinton’s choice would be similar.
Because she wants to be seen as President in her own right, not just a proxy for Bill. Obviously she can’t get rid of Bill himself but where she can draw a line between Bill’s administration and hers she will (although I’m sure there will be some overlap for the reasons you give).
But I agree that if she’s smart she’ll pick with an eye to the future.
He was just on NPR this morning, as it happens, commenting on Trump and predicting Hillary’s eventual victory.
Age aside, though, he’s got some issues as a possible VP pick:
Allegations and investigations, like any Democratic candidate could expect. The factual content is the same as usual, though.
If he’s who she wants, she should take him. The other stuff will just blend into the usual Republican smear campaign background she’s been the target of for so long.
Not all prospective running mates are created equal. Hillary has enough problems already without picking a non-squeaky-clean running mate.
It isn’t good statesmanship *or *good politics to let the opposition have veto power over your nominees.
For another thing, even seeming to appear like she’s acknowledging there is some basis for the steady stream of character insinuation from the opposition would only validate it. Best to be above it.
I remember Al Franken from Saturday night live, I haven’t thought of him in years but I remember him being really funny, oh it would be so great if it was him.
Who said anything about giving the GOP a veto? And presidential candidates often pick running mates to fill a gap in their resumes, demographic or geographic appeal, or public image. Hillary has some issues; why not pick someone who helps her with them?
That’s the source of the constant stream of allegations and insinuations. Are you willing to let them pull that shit on whoever they’re most afraid of? Are you willing to disqualify your own strongest candidates because the opposition is telling lies about them again? Are you willing to give those lies credence by responding to them?
That’s what I meant by giving the opposition veto power.
If it’s *policy *you’re referring to now, then fine. But you were just talking about picking someone whose ethics the opposition hasn’t been lying about (yet) just to try to dispel some of the miasma they have been creating about Clinton for decades. It should be clear why she shouldn’t go along with that game.
That’s what vetting is for. So that the nominee’s team can determine if there’s something to the allegations.
Well, then she should definitely pick John Edwards, who has been smeared unfairly by the GOP.
We have long since learned that there is not. You, however, loyally and doggedly keep trying to spread them, in spite of the laughter.
Harry Reid disagrees with you about Warren.
I’ve been against Warren as a running mate because, as you say, she’s from a blue state, and Democrats would be risking the loss of that seat, but he does have an interesting argument and I could be persuaded.
I’ve been involved with Bernie supporters and many of them, while dubious about Clinton, do like Warren; so adding Warren to the ticket may win over some who are threatening to not vote or to vote third party. Even if their votes weren’t needed to elect Clinton, they could help with the down ballot races, including Warren’s current seat.
On Bill Richardson? If you’re talking about Clinton, funny story from Game Change: Obama wanted to consider her for VP, and they talked about it, but she refused to be vetted unless she was definitely going to be chosen.
Yeah, Warren leaving the Senate would give Charlie Baker the right to appoint a Republican to her seat.
Yeah, but there’s also a special election, although that’s never a sure thing either given continued Dem turnout issues.
Still, unlike Sherrod Brown, Warren is such a blockbuster pick, it seems a risk worth taking. And Democrats are a lot more likely to lose Brown’s seat than Warren’s.
The more I think about it. The better I like this idea. She could help the ticket enormously.
Of course she may not even want it.
We’ll take your counsel for what it’s worth.
I highly doubt that, if she’s asked.
Hmm…if Hillary picked Warren, would her seat be contested in the general?
She actually doesn’t have to give it up unless she wins. Kerry was able to run without resigning his seat. I doubt she’d resign as soon as she was selected, just in case.