I can see your point Jolly Roger but I think it’s really bad form on this board to alter anything within the quotation marks even while making clear that one has done so.
chokes on popcorn
WHAT?!
Not gonna happen. Period.
A) He’s a Republican. A so-called moderate Republican, yes, but that’s mostly for show…he talks a good game against the excesses of the Bush administration but when it comes down to a vote he almost always votes with the rest of the Repubs.
B) He’s in poor health. I’ve heard that his cancer is back and he’s undergoing treatment. That’s not someone you want as the understudy for the Top Dog. Look at all the speculation about Cheney.
I can respect that opinion and I apologize for it.
No need, but thanks for the courtesy. 
Dorothea Book Hillary and Bill have a history. They are powerful people who have their own agendas that can be implemented from within the White House, whether or not they agree with Obama’s policies. I cannot see them being team players. Her scorched Earth willingness to hurt the party shows that. She is not a team player. She has a sense of entitlement and thinks the Presidency belongs to her.
Her experience is almost entirely a myth. She doesn’t have appreciably more experience than Obama’s. Obama’s experience in the Senate pound for pound is much more impressive than hers. She authored very little legislation, and has done little for New York. As opposed to Obama who has done much for Illinois in the time he had as Jr. Senator. He has drafted a lot of legislation that crossed the aisle in terms of getting cooperation from Republicans. Her campaign shows that she is a completely and totally inept executive. Since her campaign is the only executive experience she’s ever had, it shows what her executive chops would be like.
In short, it would create a question as to who is really in charge in the White House. It would be a constant power struggle between Obama and the Clintons. Who needs that?
I really think the people who say it’s a “no brainer” or “the best strategy” have not been paying that much attention to this primary season. The major theme to the Obama campaign has been saying goodbye to the “Old Politics”. Nothing is more Old Politics that chosing a running mate based* solely * on what a candidate thinks will get them elected. And I say solely because of the way she has taken every opportunity to be the anti-Obama during her campaign. There is no way picking Clinton as VP adds to his message. It only says “I’m willing to sell out everything I have been talking about for the last 16 months because I think it will get me elected.”
Maybe if Obama had run a typical campaign like we have seen over the past few election cycles, it *would * be a no brainer. But he hasn’t, and because of that it makes no sense at all.
From here on out, Obama doesn’t need to focus on attracting Democrats to his ticket. He needs to focus on undecided, independents, and liberal Republicans.
Clinton would probably bring him some additional Democratic voters, in November, but I’m guessing the numbers are actually not that large. What he really needs as a running mate is someone more center. Someone to attract the “I mostly vote Republican, but I’m tired of the war” people.
This is why it will never happen. Can you imagine Hillary and Bill Clinton shutting out the lobbyist money? Ever?
Exactly. I’m an independent voter. I like Obama because he offers an alternative to the bitter, ugly partisan sniping of the 1990s and 2000s. The Clintons, like the current administration, represent a way of doing politics that says you must try to destroy those with whom you disagree. You might not know it from the Internet–which attracts folks who do love a good fight–but a lot of us out there are sick of that game.
It’s more than really bad form, it’s not allowed, and I suspect a Mod will be here soon to say so.
Well, I already apologized so theres nothing more for me to do than take my just deserts.
If I may take a slightly different view from the Democratic grassroots, activist, netroots perspective there has been a huge upheaval in the Democratic party since 2004. The rank and file finally had enough of the failure prone Democratic machine, losing the WH to GWB a second time, as well as the congress and the generally anemic performance of their party. Howard Dean, perhaps the biggest grassroots supporter in the party since Truman, lit a match and the numbers of volunteers began to swell. Especially after the netroots helped him secure the DNC chair. Their coffers have filled from people who donate less than $200 a year, beyond corporate funding. And the 50 state strategy couldn’t have been put in place at a better time than for the 2006 elections when the general malaise for Republican leadership set in.
Barack Obama has been the beneficiary of this coalescing movement. From the outside, many people see his supporters as fawning over him. But on the ground the truth is he represents a burgeoning wave of Democrats who want to take their party back from the machine. They are not cheering so much for him as for themselves and having someone they feel they can stand behind and give authority to. I think he realizes that he is being given extraordinary support from them, and there is nothing like that which allows a skilled politician to make huge strides in Washington.
And this machine is represented by the Democratic Leadership Council which included the Clintons as members. Many heavyweights from that organization ran Hillary’s campaign. Although much of the Democratic party is not part of it, their influence has set strategy if not policy for the party. The consultant class springs from there. The last thing that many of the activist supporters of Obama want is for him to embrace that machine. They view his independence from that machine as a strength. The spineless overcautious approach of the Dems for the last 15 years is probably what most voters want to get away from, even if they are not always sure where it comes from.
Clinton will need to be given a cabinet position or special support in the Senate for the sake of holding on to her supporters. But the VP position would be the kiss of death to those who were instrumental in helping him put together and running his campaign.
I must admit, I’ve seen some of the better reasons why Hillary would be a poor choice here than I have on some of the political blogs. There is simply too much baggage she brings to the process. She would be more efficient as a politician by blazing her own path.
Exactly. Let her go on to a long and distinguished career in the Senate, or run for President again in 2012 or later, if she wants. But if I had Obama’s ear I’d beg him not to give her any job, including and most emphatically the Veepcy.
I’ve heard that Lincoln is one of Obama’s heroes and has read “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin or other such texts and may intend to give some of those who ran on the ticket - and perhaps a couple Republicans - positions in his cabinet or support in the Senate or House.
He really must give Hillary some sort of reward - he’s already said she will be a force on universal health care - to bring together some of her supporters who will still be vehemently opposed to him in Nov. Against their own interests IMO, but be it so or not, with a Democratic White house and probably an expanded Congress as well, if he can get most Dems and many independents and even Republicans to come along with him, he’ll have time and some authority to make his administration work well.
It also doesn’t hurt to support yourself with a lot of experienced people (not necessarily Hil as I see it) to navigate your course well. Other than the Veep, he needs to give Hillary some props. Perhaps doing so, he can pacify the machine a bit too.
If he couldn’t do it for the sake of his wife getting the nomination, what makes you think he’d be able to do it for a third party? Besides, once they’re in office, that’s 4-8 more years of Bill’s mouthings having relevance because his wife is in the White House, as well as presumed access for both of them re their own interests and ways of doing things.
Yes, it could be a good strategy, including allowing Hillary a chance to rehabilitate her image and giving her a platform to run from in '16, if it came to that and if she were so inclined. But there are already too many known negatives to put her on the ticket at this point.
Yeah, but Cheney is still alive and you can’t say that Cheney wasn’t a very important part of the Bush adminstration.
That’s true. But Specter is no Cheney. He’s even one of my senators and I think it’s a bad idea and a political impossibility.
I don’t in any way think the Clinton’s are so evil, power-hungry, or insane that they pose any forseeable assasination risk to Obama.
That said, if the worst thing imaginable happens and Obama does catch a bullet, I believe a horrible cloud of suspicion would descend over Hillary’s head if she should inherit the presidency from the VP seat. Conspiracy theorists would have a field day. Reasonable, intelligent people would probably even look at Hillary askance and regard her as a possible suspect. The country would not be able to heal in anywhere close to a timely fashion with her at the helm. This would have dire consequences on the Dem party as well as the country. I’m talking four horsemen time.
I think for that reason alone, she would be a disasterous VP pick. Obama, please don’t do it.
As noted, modifying another poster’s statements inside the quote tags is strictly prohibited. You can quote them, then say “Here’s how I think that should have been worded. . . ,” but please do not actually modify the text inside the quote tags; this will prevent reraders from getting a distorted view of others’ posts and reduce friction among posters.
[ /Modding ]
Not absurd, but certainly not a good idea.