Regardless of how you feel about her, do you think Clinton is a good strategic choice for VP?

[Onlooker]

I think Clinton would be a good strategic choice for VP because she's established herself as tough, which will come in useful as the Republicans try to frame Obama as an appeaser. In addition, she has a large loyal following among women, Latinos, and machine Democrats. Plus, she can attract media attention and an audience far more easily than lesser known politicians. And her husband has built up a lot of good will among a number of constituencies, including independents, that could serve the campaign well. Both Clintons seem to be more popular than Obama in important swing states like Florida and Ohio. In addition, the Clintons could probably put Arkansas into play.

Her negative is that a black and woman ticket would be quite outre and might scare away some people, and the lack of formal military experience on the ticket might also dissuade some people. There are some leftists who won't vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket, but I think most people, even if they can't stand Clinton, won't want to punish Obama and the American people by helping McCain get elected.

It's hard to think of another VP candidate who offers as much as Clinton. Jim Webb would probably be my second choice, based on the fact the he has impressive Republican and military credentials in his background and has evolved into a populist. (See for instance, his op ed piece on class struggle:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246)

But, I don't think he's as well known or has as strong a base as Clinton. I don't think any other Democrat does, except possibly Al Gore (who I feel certain has no desire to be VP).

[TwilightGardener]

1. Being a former Republican is "impressive credentials"?

[Onlooker]

6. Strategically speaking

Webb can argue he's a Reaganite, and perhaps pull in Reagan Democrats. Meanwhile, Webb has, as the link shows, said some surprisingly progressive things since winning office.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

55. would not help Obama get elected and would contradict his no lobbyist policy

Say what you will about Dick Morris, he knows the Clintons and politics well.
Morris pointed out something most have overlooked, a segment of Hillary supporters who are
"racially motivated" and won't follow her to support Obama.

No Veep Slot for Hillary
By Dick Morris at Real Clear Politics. May 14, 2008


It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it's a hell of an idea!

Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life.
They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama,
but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama's connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama's links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn't follow her into Obama's camp just because she was on the ticket.

...If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill's income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra -- the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan -- and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?

...Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.

more at the link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/no_veep_slot_for_hillary.html

[RichGirl]

38. Yes........

Obama has said, just this week, he'll be a non-partisan president. So, we won't have a democatic president, we'll have the people's president. I'm sure he'll unite us all and have us holding hands in the first 10 days. He has also said that republicans have great ideas, even better than democrats. So he'll have Hillary to think back to her teenage years when she was a republican and pull up some of those damn good ideas and refresh his memory regarding his hero Ronald Reagan!

[saltpoint]

2. No. We need independents to beat McCain. She will repel many

independents.

If I were Barack Obama I would not want a 1990s duo in the vice president's office presiding over legislation in the Senate that would ultimately define my presidency.

[rocktivity]

3. Hillary as VP would make a mockery of everything Obama has accomplished

because she's DLC and he's DNC. She'd be the new Dick Cheney, jockeying her corporate ties to operate as the real power behind the throne.

:headbang:
rocknation

[elehhhhna]

4. No. Someone w/ foreign policy-diplomatic experience would be better...

like Richardson, imo.

[Sherman A1]

5. I can understand both perspectives

She might be, but then again perhaps not. She is not the choice I would make, but politics is a funny game sometimes and choices are made on that basis. I don't know of a "perfect" VP choice, all that I know of bring some good and some bad with them, so in the end I guess we will just have to hope for the best.

[eridani]

35. Democrats would like it, and I wouldn't object

There is the whackjob vote that we'd like to see stay home to consider as well.

[mmonk]

7. There certainly are some strengths to the choice, primarily

her dedicated supporters. My overall view on it is pretty much here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5994404

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Possibly. Pros and cons to it.

It's not like ticket mates have to like each other. Heck, look at Kennedy and Johnson. But in the end, they turned out okay, despite being polar opposites.

At first, I thought Hillary Clinton would not be interested the spot, but the more and more I think, it might be worth it to heal some wounds.

On the other hand, they are both senators. But again, look at Kennedy and Johnson.

I don't know if you'll ever come across an ideal ticket combo, but I'm not opposed to an Obama-Clinton ticket.

[Zodiak]

28. This quote disturbs me

"Heck, look at Kennedy and Johnson. But in the end, they turned out okay, despite being polar opposites."

Kennedy was shot and killed and Johnson replaced him as President, escalating the war in Vietnam. Many said that Johnson had a hand in Kennedy's death. I would not say that "turned out okay".

Want another example of ticket mates that hated each other? George H.W. Bush and Reagan. Reagan had an assassination attempt against him by the son of one of G.H.W.'s friends and business partners. Everyone knew Reagan wasn't running anything at all after that.

So ticket mates that do not like each other result more often than not in assassination attempts. Not comforting.

[RichGirl]

41. You are right.

Not only doesn't Obama not have to like his VP (Reagan hated Bush Sr., Kerry didn't want Edwards) but he doesn't do the picking. The party picks the person who can best balance his strengths and weaknesses and who can add to his electability. Hillary fits perfectly, anyone else is wishful thinking. If you add up Obamas and Clintons votes, they would blow McCain out of the water. Anyone else will be a struggle we can't afford in light of the type of swiftboating he will be getting. A relatively, unknown, light weight, like Sebellius will be a sequel to McGovern.

I think Obama does like Clinton. The hatred of Clinton is media inspired figment of the imagination. Obama, at least, is way too smart to buy into that crap. Too bad his supporters, for the most part...aren't.

[ChiciB1]

NO, NO, NO, NO... AND NADA!

As a former Clinton supporter WAY BACK WHEN, she has turned me off so many times lately!

Of course, I'm NO Obama supporter either, just my .99 worth (inflation you know)!

[Hepburn]

9. No, absolutely not.

IMO, it totally defeats Obama's message of change if she is on the ballot with him. She is one of the reasons for change as I see it.

[harun]

No.

[NC_Nurse]

10. I don't. Many of the reasons have been stated by others here. To go over

them again:

1. Nobody unites the Repubs like the Clintons - fairly or unfairly, the Repubs hate her.
2. She adds nothing in terms of foreign policy/military experience
3. She is another Senator, so no executive experience like a governor or even mayor would have.
4. She has said a lot of negative things about Barack which would come back to haunt them.
5. Her husband is a liability, IMO. Big ego, big mouth, bad memories of scandals, etc.
6. She has plenty of opportunity to make a difference in the Senate, or could look for other opportunities in NY (run for governor or mayor of NYC?)

[NotThisTime]

13. He needs Foreign/Military experience on the ticket to counter McCain

JMHO, I think she could have an interesting place in the cabinet... He could certainly announce his cabinet selections before the election to draw people in, again JMHO....

[NC_Nurse]

17. Exactly. She and Bill could have some official or unofficial positions with the

new admin. VP is not appropriate.

[lojasmo]

11. No.

No geographic advantage, no Military or foreign policy cred. High negatives.

Lose/lose.

[Demit]

12. No. Unless you want eight more years of Clinton obsession by the media.

It will suck all the air out of every room. We'll hear nothing but. Sorry. It might not be her fault but it's the inescapable reality as it exists.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. The best strategy would be for her to just go back to the Senate.

[goclark]

44. She could really make a difference in the Senate

and she would be able to be IN CHARGE of her State and her VOTE.

That is very important to her.

She doesn't take being second fiddle well at all.

[redqueen]

15. NO!

How many times does this need to be asked?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It is not a good strategy to tie an anchor to one's waist while swimming.

Especially a rusty anchor like the Clintons.

They're day is, thankfully, over.

[havocmom]

18. NO

Her negatives are too high. Her name on the ticket will assure a bigger GOP turnout. Lots of republicans are not impressed with nor enamored of McCain and are likely to sit this one out. The Clinton brand will get them to the polls just because they hate it so much and will want ONE MORE CHANCE to vote against the name.

I see little, if any strategic value to having HRC on the ballot. She does not bring any particular balance/strength but does carry loads of liability.

[backscatter712]

19. Fuck no!

Obama will be busy enough dealing with McCain without worrying about knives in his back.

[billyoc]

20. A down-ticket chainsaw massacre. nt

[newmajority]

21. Not a good strategic choice at all for two practical reasons

1) Two senators on a ticket is suicide.

2) You cannot campaign on CHANGE, win the primary on Howard Dean's 50 state strategy & people funded campaigns, and then take on a running mate who is the living embodiment of back to the 90's, DLC corporatist, top-down politics.

[SoonerPride]

22. No. It undercuts the "change" message with an eye to the past

It also would look like she muscled her way on to the ticket and that would make Obama look weak.

Another female or possible someone prominent in the Clinton camp would be enough of an olive branch.

[PATRICK]

23. Ordinarily

being so close in the delegate contest would make her nearly a mandatory choice. ALL things aside and looking at the basic rules in wise Veep selection, she is not a good match. She competes with Obama and is not going to be a compatible team player. More importantly, she harms the ticket among independents and crossover Republicans. Arkansas is not much to attract "balance". Dems already attract the women's vote. Hillary could try to undo the damage she has done there without being the VP nominee, but in the campaign it is not too clear what kind of help she(and Bill) will be in taking orders from the Obama camp and not being the willing or unwilling focus of extremely manipulative MSM attention. Automatic harm will be done in playing HRC off against Obama or distracting and enlisting GOP enthusiasm against the ticket. That alone is solid guarantee. Her "experience" touting has already taken major hits or derailing.

Obama is strong in his own right but really cannot afford to carry a continuing rival into the cheat machine and then to the WH where traditionally Veeps are buried alive, but in this case the MSM will likely continue to ferret out dissent and division and distraction. As for Latinos, this would be better served with the experienced Richardson who would not be particularly perceived as mainly a "historic" first. The woman issue, only with the help of Hillary disabusing her loyal base, could be served by Karen
Sebelius, but in any case the VP selection should be 100% compatible with Obama and be seen as a solid possible replacement and complement to the work needed to be done. With ALL the work to be done we need each cabinet member to be strong for the concepts and the team. The certainties of harm outweigh the maybes of benefit and the rivalries will be cemented in place instead of real healing beneath the show of unity.

Hillary's dilemma, which she did not want or plan for, is whether to continue a scorched earth pursuit of the number spot, now lost, seamlessly into the fight for number two- which has rarely ever been a fight at all and the choice of the presidential nominee. Such a fight will openly signal the beginning of a an "undream" ticket which will crumble all but her most fanatical support and worse in November.
She should waste no time herself in facing realities. She has little time or room to salvage anything from her efforts and the price she must pay upfront is the Veep selection AND enthusiastically undoing all the harm. Personally this is not much for her efforts, but much for the greater good of party and nation and world. In the end that would be to her greatest credit as well, something she has not seen all too clearly in the pursuit of the presidency.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Yes

I think, strategically, she's by far the best choice.

[Lucky 13]

26. Can you elaborate as to why you think that?

just curious.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. First and most obvious -

It unites the party, and creates not just a united party, but an enthusiastic united party. I think a lot of Obama supporters underestimate how many people in the party enthusiastically support Clinton. To read this board, you'd think she was widely unpopular in the party. That's just not true - she's about as popular as Obama.

I think she could out-debate ANYBODY the republicans put up for VP. She's brilliant in debates.

Whether it's politically correct to say so or not, she DOES do well among demographics that Obama falls short with. She'd help carry Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia. She'd also help the ticket a lot in Michigan and Florida. Could help carry Arkansas, too.

Having Bill campaign vigorously for a united ticket would help - don't underestimate his draw.

[Lucky 13]

25. Honestly, objectively, the answer is NO.

Just a few reasons why:

1) Foreign policy. Barack has stated that he wants to talk to our enemies as well as our friends. He wants to explore diplomacy with Iran and other governments that are in conflict with the US. Hillary has talked of obliterating them! I think it would weaken his ability as President to reach out to Iran specifically, and more generally anyone with differences with the U.S. A foreign policy wonk might be a better selection: Richardson?

2) Her own actions once again blowing up in her face. Do you know how many times Hillary's comments would be played? It would be an endless loop of: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" The Republican's logical attack: "His own VP pick believes McCain would be a better President... and so should you!" He needs someone who has believed in him from the beginning.

3) She's utterly polarizing. I think as many democrats love her as hate her after this primary. And many MORE Republicans FUME at the idea of another CLinton anywhere near the White House. It would diminish Obama's ability to gain Independent and Republican votes. He needs someone that appeals to Republican and Independent voters: Hagel?

4) Obama needs a VP that is going to strengthen the ticket in the areas where he is weak. I don't see how her strengths do that for him in any real way. He needs someone knowledgeable about the military - an area where she is weak as well. Biden? Clark?

5) This one is just my opinion... I believe he needs a white male VP. The radical idea of a black Pres/woman Vice Pres may be too much for the ignorant in this country to handle. (And West Virginia proves there are more of those than I initially believed.) I think he needs a clean-cut, vanilla, white dude to balance him and reach the dumb-asses in this country that are downright phobic of anyone other than a white male running things. (Don't accuse me of being sexist here. If Hillary was the nominee, I wouldn't suggest Obama be her running mate for the same reason.) Edwards or Biden or Clark would fit this bill.

[sfam]

36. Agree with your reasons, but think we need a woman governor.

We want executive experience to hammer home the competency argument. We also don't want McCain to try to exploit the woman's vote difference if Obama picks a white male. Also, I think this goes to healing some of the rifts in the democratic party. We need to be aligned and focused more than anything else.

[Lucky 13]

56. I respect and agree with your argument, but think that impact will be small.

I believe the radical feminists now vowing to vote McCain fall squarely into 3 major categories with few outliers:

1) Those that are angry now, but once they gain a little distance and perspective from this brutal primary they will recognize Obama as the only logical choice to protect reproductive freedom and other feminist causes - REGARDLESS if there is a woman VP or not. A vote for McCain is shooting themselves in the foot and they will recognize this, regardless of who the VP choice is. Just think for 5 minutes about the Supreme Court justices McCain would appoint in the next 4 years. It could change the entire balance of the court and we very well COULD lose Roe v. Wade. THAT is terrifying to any feminist woman. No amount of anger or spite will allow reasonable women to make that choice.

2) Those that are so angry that they have already decided to vote for McCain out of spite. I believe this group is quite small in number. For these people I don't think adding a Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano would even make a difference. I think for these people, there's nothing, save a Hillary VP nom, that we could do to get their vote. This group is RADICAL and FEW in number. And again, no VP nom but Hillary will change their mind.

3) Those that are angry with the way Hillary has been treated and are thinking, "I won't vote for Obama in the fall... UNLESS there is a female, ANY FEMALE, VP." I have not spoken to a single woman purporting to subscribe to this line of thought. I think THIS group is even smaller than those mentioned above. And I think that, EVENTUALLY, they will move into the first category.

In short, I think the number of women we stand to gain simply by adding a female to the ticket is FEWER than the number of voters, male or female, we could gain by adding a white male that can speak to white America's skepticism about Obama.


Again... just my opinion - not that it's worth a whole hell of a lot.

[earthside]

27. If you want the General Election to be all about ....

.... Bill and Hillary Clinton, then she might be a good choice.

If Obama wants to be an after-thought in the presidential election, he can pick Billary to be his running mate(s).

So, obviously, the correct answer is "No!"

My conclusion of late is that Gov. Strickland is probably the most solid choice for VP.

[CK_John]

33. No, it would reinforce the everybody is a winner nobody loses, ie we can't make tough decisions. n/t

[tokenlib]

29. No, there are better options..need to go west..

Although Barack is from Illinois, the republicans will try to define him as equivalent to a NE liberal elite.
Therefore we need to go west of the Mississippi. Richardson or Clark would be good. But I am increasingly thinking Schweitzer of Montana--rugged looking, yet accomplished. has world exposure through business endeavors, knows the Middle East, has innovative ideas on energy. Pro-gun and individual rights.

Although an unknown--he is colorful enough to get to be known quickly.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Kitsune]

32. Are you kidding? Clinton = Albatross.

She brings nothing to the ticket. Her state's not going to go red in November. As an added bonus, nothing will motivate the right-wingers more than the prospect of a Clinton on a ticket, and nothing will motivate lefties to stay home than the prospect of having to cast a vote for her. There are several other Dem women I can think of off the top of my head that would actually add something to the ticket, instead of just being dead weight.

[eridani]

34. No. The right wing whackjobs will come out to vote against her in droves

Obama isn't really on their radar. Going by my brother here, mainly. He doesn't like McCain, and will probably sit it out unless Clinton is on the ticket.

[WinkyDink]

37. Sure, if you want to see the heads of Obama supporters explode.

[NRaleighLiberal]

39. absolutely Not!!!!!!!!!! You end up with the package deal - Bill (and Monica) come along as

baggage that is NOT needed right now. It is indeed time for change, and that would not signify change!

[Liberal Gramma]

40. No

The VP should complement the President by offering different strengths. Hillary brings votes to the table, but beyond that doesn't have experience that would bolster the administration. Richardson, Biden, Webb--all are more viable VPs because they have areas of expertise that would help Obama.

[BigD_95]

42. Im on the wall on this one

She does actually bring a lot to the table. She would bring a massive women vote & with the massive black vote that alone could win the White House. She also does bring a lot of the "working class" vote in Ohio & PA. Plus you not only have Obama & Hillary campaigning but you also get Bill Clinton helping out.

But on the downside she would unite the Republican party and probably help their fund raising. There might be too much focus on the Clintons instead of Barack and hurts the message of change.


I think with all the + & - weighed I would say no. But I believe its a hard call.

[BearSquirrel2]

52. Hillary brought corrupt union chiefs . ..

Hillary brought corrupt union chiefs to lie to their members and claim that she was for them. She is not. She is for free trade expansion. Her husband is out giving speeches for even more free trade that has ravaged this economy.

Ya think at some point, citizens might wise up and figure out that these union chieftains are paying political homage to the Clinton machine?

Now all the vote in these states showed was that Pennsylvanian and Ohio primary participants (including the Republican disruptors) preferred Clinton. In the case of the disruptors, I would agree they will not vote for Obama (neither Clinton). In the case of labor, I think it is a foolish argument point to say these same people will not vote for Obama.

[suston96]

43. Strategic? Better to maintain "strategic majority" in the US Senate.

The Vice-Presidency is a demotion for any US Senator and is "strategic" only if the Presidency has a sudden vacancy.

We don't want to go there.

[BearSquirrel2]

45. No, she is not ...

1) The GOP has video tape of her bashing Obama as inexperienced as compared to John McCain. She did this on two occasions.

2) Despite Faux News' recent calculated love fest, they will get the reruns out if she is on the ticket.

3) All those Limbaugh disrupters will NOT be voting for her in the general election. In my county Democratic ballots were going 2 to 1 and they were running out. I seriously doubt all of these were actually Democrats or people who intended to vote Democratic given my area is predominately Republican.

4) Hillary is a very polarizing figure from all the Hill bashing that went on in the 90s. So is her husband. McCain is a VERY dull, uninteresting and frankly polarizing figure within the GOP. Right winger DO NOT like John McCain and they see right through his recent dive into the right. If these people stay home for the general election ... good for us!!! However, Hillary is decisive enough that people will show up just to vote AGAINST her!!!!

5) Because of Hillary's close association with free trade advocates (her husband and most of her staff) it makes it really hard to sustain the veneer that you are against reforming free trade into fair trade.

Hillary Clinton is a landmine waiting to blow up. She is no good AT ALL for this party!!!!

[marlakay]

46. Not looking at personal like or dislike

but just from a will they win stance no. Why? The right has been holding a ton of stuff they are upset they won't get to use on her. if we choose her for vp they will LOVE it and pull it all out.

That's why it cracks me up to see some on msm pulling so hard for her to be the vp. Its so obvious they just want mccain to win.

[pbca]

47. No, just the opposite

Adding Hillary would cost Obama votes - there are many independents, potential cross-over republicans and even many Dems who hate Hillary, adding her to the ticket would cost more votes than it would add.

[graywarrior]

48. I did at one time.

Not now.

[ima_sinnic]

49. absolutely NOT--he wants someone to attract voters, not drive them away

--and how many times a day are we going to have to answer this question?
this must be on the list of memes to push, now that Hillary's chances of being nominated for pres are in the tank.

She is a backstabbing schemer whose allegiance is to Big Pharma, Big Media, and the rest of the corporate greed-heads who grease her palm so well. She is desperate to become president. If I were Obama, I wouldn't turn my back on her -- therefore, she would be the last person in the world I'd want as my second in command. She is a real turn-off to voters, with more than 60% disapproval.

I for one would instantly lose all respect for Obama for making such a dumb, status quo choice. UGH! I could NOT vote for that! She has done everything she can to weaken the Democrats and to mock and belittle Obama. I can't stand her, and neither can a great many others. Independents will gladly vote for Obama, but NOT FOR THAT WEASEL FAKE "DEMOCRAT." Repukes will come out in droves to VOTE AGAINST HER. They salivate at the chance to have her running against McCain -- why do you think so many repuke trolls are on this board pimping for Hilaary?

so NO, NO, a thousand times NO, she is NOT going to foul up Obama's ticket with her lies, pandering, noncommittal whichever-way-the-wind-is-blowing sleazoid backroom dirty dealing BCCI bank cover-upping, Senator from Punjab job giveaways, infrastructure sales to Dubai, deals with Uribe BULLSHIT.

[book_worm]

50. No because 1) she has already said Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief

while McCain is--that clip will be used over and over. 2) Obama is about attracting independent voters and she isn't helpful there. 3) Polls show Obama doing about as well in the GE vs. McCain among women as Hillary would be. 4) Obama represents the future and Clinton represents the past.
5) Electorally I don't think she adds much--NY will go big for Obama.

[cliffordu]

51. NO NO NO NO NO

[olkaz]

53. No x 1000000.00

1. She galvanizes the Republican base.
2. She and Bill are too dominant a presence for a vice president.
3. She and Bill undermine the "new politics" message.
4. She does not offer a significant expertise that Obama has a weakness in; She is not complementary.
5. There is too much bad blood between the campaigns.

I could go on all day.

[cjsmom44]

54. RE: VP

NO End of Story

[Hutzpa]

57. Hell Noooooooooooooooooooooo eom

[Lisa0825]

58. I think her posiitves are canceled out for the most part by her negatives.

so, no, I don't think she's strategically a good choice, even though I do admit she does have some strong positives. It's just that the negatives are big too.

[BlooInBloo]

59. She would completely doom the ticket.

[dkf]

60. no no no no no no no...

I can't say it enough.

OK, I'm off to the Obama website to tell him I simply won't stand for it.

[Clear Blue Sky]

61. Nyet...

[Terran]

62. Honestly, no.

We already have a 'risky' candidate in Barack. He needs to choose:

1) A white male
2) national security creds
3) very experienced in government

I know that sounds like falling back on "old" politics, but I think he needs this kind of counter-balance to help him win some people over. And basically, Hilary doesn't fit the profile, and not just because of her gender.

Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Sam Nunn would all be good. Clark would be my #1.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Of Course She Is. It's The Best Scenario Out There For Us. Those Saying Otherwise Use Foolish

emotion which clouds their judgment, in making their call.

[karynnj]

64. No - a VP doesn't typically have that much impact

but in HRC you have everything that Obama's message isn't. She also starts with very high, FIRM negatives.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Are you freakin' nuts! Obama will lose a lot of votes if he takes Hillary as VP. . .

There are SO many better choices.