Minotaur029 wrote:My worry is about Hillary Clinton. She might actually want to be Obama's Veep. She would totally undermine his administration along with Bill. Obama doesn't need a bunch of bad press for not picking her (and he doesn't need the Clintons on his ass 24/7 for nine years)...remember what Rahm Emanuel said, "how the loser loses will determine who wins in November"...

A majority of Democrats want Obama to pick Hillary as his running mate. How do people not see what a bad idea that is? Democrats are as stupid and shortsighted organizationally as Republicans are stupid and shortsighted on the issues.

What do you guys think?

Clinton is obviously trying to force Obama's hand and get on the ticket somehow, by continuing to split the base and use her supporters as bargaining leverage to crowbar her way in.

tmidgett wrote:It's probably a winning ticket. I know HRC's negs are high, but there's a case for sticking all the Dem votes from the primary together and saying 'beat that.'

I was under the impression that a rather significant number of Clinton voters weren't pro-Clinton but rather anti-Obama. I don't think that the general election Democrat votes will come close to equaling "Clinton primary votes + Obama primary votes."

alandeus wrote:I was under the impression that a rather significant number of Clinton voters weren't pro-Clinton but rather anti-Obama. I don't think that the general election Democrat votes will come close to equaling "Clinton primary votes + Obama primary votes."

I doubt we'll ever know, but I think he would lock up almost all Dem primary votes if he picked her.

These are people voting in the Democratic primary--the massive turnouts were mostly back when the GOP nom was still in doubt, which negates this goofy Limbaugh factor.

I think just about anyone who had it in them to vote for HRC will be psyched if she is on the ticket.

The problem is, however, that whatever he does not get due to hardcore anti-Obama sentiment, he will decidedly NOT gain back from moderates, too many of whom hate HRC and always have.

Even if it's 5% or something (I think it is a small amount, mostly in states that aren't going blue anyway), it may be enough to be sorta troublesome, given that you're telling anyone to Clinton's right to fuck off.

Rick Reuben wrote:Even if you also think that these allegations of dual loyalty are 'wholly unmeritorious' , you can probably see that Obama is not going to stir up the hornets that he just got finished putting back in the nest after the Jeremiah Wright situation.

I was figuring you'd chime in, RR.

I don't think enough people care about those statements to make a difference.

tmidgett wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:My worry is about Hillary Clinton. She might actually want to be Obama's Veep. She would totally undermine his administration along with Bill. Obama doesn't need a bunch of bad press for not picking her (and he doesn't need the Clintons on his ass 24/7 for nine years)...remember what Rahm Emanuel said, "how the loser loses will determine who wins in November"...

A majority of Democrats want Obama to pick Hillary as his running mate. How do people not see what a bad idea that is? Democrats are as stupid and shortsighted organizationally as Republicans are stupid and shortsighted on the issues.

What do you guys think?

It's probably a winning ticket. I know HRC's negs are high, but there's a case for sticking all the Dem votes from the primary together and saying 'beat that.'

That said, the Clintons both have OCEANS of baggage that hasn't even been sniffed by the Obama campaign.

And I highly doubt he wants to saddle himself with any of that, or the general drama that goes along with those two.

You know what, I'm going to predict, right now, that he'll ask Colin Powell to do it. If Powell demurs, we may never find out that he asked. But I think he'll ask.

I don't think he'll ask Colin Powell. It's an interesting theory, but 1) he's a Republican sort and Obama doesn't need to compromise Lincoln style, and 2) it's another black guy. Obama needs to get away from this smart elitist thing and pick somebody who is a bit more "salt of the earth"...and white.*

tmidgett wrote:I know HRC's negs are high, but there's a case for sticking all the Dem votes from the primary together and saying 'beat that.'

In terms of getting elected, yeah there's a case there...but if Obama got elected on such a ticket, he's opening himself up for four or more years of complete hell. The Clintons are too influential and pushy...how could Obama exercise any semblance of control with two Clintons constantly plotting to undermine his authority? It would likely divide the Obama Administration down the middle between Clinton loyalists and Obama loyalists.

Fuzz Bob wrote:Clinton is obviously trying to force Obama's hand and get on the ticket somehow, by continuing to split the base and use her supporters as bargaining leverage to crowbar her way in.

The thing is, as vice president, you're supposed to just be a figurehead...providing the ticket with a sense of balance. If Hillary wants to be VP, then that means that she and Bill want to become shadowy, de facto presidents in the vein of Dick Cheney. What use do the Clintons have for a position of zero power? Hillary could easily become Senate Majority Leader down the road...why else would she want the vice presidency if not to become 2008's Dick Cheney? (if she indeed wants it).


*Bill Richardson could also be an effective pick if he doesn't make any major gaffes.

tmidgett wrote:

ktone wrote:Reality? No.
Winning ticket? Huge

Real Balls would be selecting Chuck Hagel. An anti-Iraq war moderate Republican, Vietnam Vet, with tons of foreign policy experience who completely de-fuzes McCain.

Chuck Hagel is pretty conservative, with no neo- involved.

Fiscally real tight. Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights.

He seems like a decent human being, but he's not going to be on a ticket with Obama. Odds-on favorite for sec'y of defense in any Obama white house.

Actually, Obama's already mentioned Hagel's name for possible Secretary of Defense. I'd say it's kind of a "lock."

After reading this and perusing youtube clips of Obama campaigning for Webb in 2006, I'm starting to think Webb was always the plan.

IF Powell was picked he'd be a mighty useful tool in battering down the GOP. Imagine all the insider shit that that guy knows but isn't spilling!!

It'd probably be a double edged sword as he would have to admit publicly that he was played like a fucking banjo by Bush, Rove and Rumsfeld. That probably wouldn't reflect too well on his political savviness.

If you read back over his statements to the UN in the run-up to the Iraq invasion you have to admit that either he's a fool or a liar. Neither is an enviable trait, though in politics the latter is most likely seen as preferable.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Etc.

Ah, I really WAS asking too much.

Oh well.

Minotaur029 wrote:In terms of getting elected, yeah there's a case there...but if Obama got elected on such a ticket, he's opening himself up for four or more years of complete hell. The Clintons are too influential and pushy...how could Obama exercise any semblance of control with two Clintons constantly plotting to undermine his authority? It would likely divide the Obama Administration down the middle between Clinton loyalists and Obama loyalists.

Fuzz Bob wrote:Clinton is obviously trying to force Obama's hand and get on the ticket somehow, by continuing to split the base and use her supporters as bargaining leverage to crowbar her way in.

The thing is, as vice president, you're supposed to just be a figurehead...providing the ticket with a sense of balance. If Hillary wants to be VP, then that means that she and Bill want to become shadowy, de facto presidents in the vein of Dick Cheney. What use do the Clintons have for a position of zero power? Hillary could easily become Senate Majority Leader down the road...why else would she want the vice presidency if not to become 2008's Dick Cheney? (if she indeed wants it).

My point exactly.

connor wrote:

tmidgett wrote:

ktone wrote:Reality? No.
Winning ticket? Huge

Real Balls would be selecting Chuck Hagel. An anti-Iraq war moderate Republican, Vietnam Vet, with tons of foreign policy experience who completely de-fuzes McCain.

Chuck Hagel is pretty conservative, with no neo- involved.

Fiscally real tight. Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights.

He seems like a decent human being, but he's not going to be on a ticket with Obama. Odds-on favorite for sec'y of defense in any Obama white house.

Actually, Obama's already mentioned Hagel's name for possible Secretary of Defense. I'd say it's kind of a "lock."

After reading this and perusing youtube clips of Obama campaigning for Webb in 2006, I'm starting to think Webb was always the plan.

Webb would be a fine choice, although he could get nailed on experience and seems more likely than other VP candidates to make a big gaffe. Granted, I don't know much about Webb beyond his U.S. Senate years other than he's a Republican convert.

Check this out. Does it sound familiar, connor?

Political Wire on 05/14/08 wrote: In early 2000, Sen. Joseph Lieberman raised his national profile by writing a book, In Praise of Public Life, that helped position him to be Al Gore's running mate. The slim manifesto essentially showed he shared Gore's passion for good government.

Now, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has a new book coming out that just might help him be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.

According to the book jacket, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America "presents a clear-eyed, hard-hitting plan of attack for putting government to work for the people, rather than special interests, and for restoring the country's standing around the world."

Marc Ambinder notes the timing "is impeccable: right when Obama is starting to look around, ah, here's a guy who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security, is beloved by white working class voters, puts Virginia into play instantly, and has a charming way with the media."