Hillary as VP unites the Democratic Party...

[Johnyawl]

...Half the party will be unhappy that Obama is the nominee; the other half will be unhappy Clinton is the VP.

See? We're all be united in our unhappiness.

No. Really. This will work. Both sides can take credit for winning the election, and then we can spend the next 4 years ignoring the republicans and sniping at each other.

We'll bring a whole new ethos to the Democratic Party. Instead of being perpetual losers, always finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we'll win, but find a way to be miserable and unhappy about it.

[KansasVoter]

1. LOL.....Hillary has had the chance for 4 months and did not make any attempt. We don't need her now!

[Carolina]

16. don't need and don't want her or Bill

Remember Al Gore's speech at the 1992 convention with the refrain: It's Time for Them to Go?!

Well, the DNC needs to revise that speech and direct it at Billary!

And to the Shrillbots who claim she'll take all her primary voters with her, I say many already have buyer's remorse (California) and most are real Democrats who'll vote the ticket come November.

BTW: the ticket should be Obama and a strong White MALE with military or foreign policy credentials whose life's work is outside the US Senate.

[hendo]

2. Isn't Hillary as a VP slightly sexist?

Just another woman in a position lower than a man?

disclaimer: defining sexism the way HRC does.

[CoffeeCat]

3. She's a uniter all right...

She'll unite the Republicans and get them to the polls to vote AGAINST her.

No thanks.

She's run a disgusting, offensive campaign. It's Obama's decision to make
and I'm sure he can find a running mate who hasn't mocked his supporters,
lied for the past six months, and tried to exploit every one of Obama's
missteps, as an opportunity for personal gain.

NEXT!

[Cant trust em]

4. OK. Let's say that she's the VP. What would that working relationship look like?

I can't imagine a healthy working environment that with two people at the top who we know have existing animosity towards each other. I find the idea of Clinton being Obama's subordinate a little hard to believe.

[izquierdista]

5. Spelling error

Unties. As in unravels, causes to come apart, allowing things to spill all over the place.

[Carolina]

17. good call!

[blonndee]

6. No, Hillary as VP unites the Republican party.

[NC_Nurse]

8. You got that right.

[Richard Steele]

15. Exactly so. nm

[woolldog]

7. I don't want a VP

who has assassination fantasies about the P. Just doesn't work.

[Cha]

9. NO IT DOESN'T AND YES I'M YELLING.

GOD DAMN hilary and her fucking RFK assassination in JUNE talking points AS IF all her other history in this primary hadn't been evil enough.

<snips>

"Yet the assassination reference wasn't Clinton's only mistake. In the same breath, she maintained that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June. In truth, he did so in March with the Illinois primary. While California made his victory a mathematical fact, the outcome had not been in doubt for months.

She also struck discordant notes in January when she said Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and after her victory in the West Virginia primary earlier this month when she noted she was beating Obama among "working, hardworking Americans, white Americans."

In the current tempest over what Clinton said — and what she meant — the calendar may be the real culprit. She made a similar remark about the 1968 Kennedy assassination in March that received little notice then, probably because there were still plenty of state contests left and more uncertainty as to who would come out ahead.

Now, the longer the nomination race goes on, the more people are asking Clinton why she continues to campaign.

She insists she can win, but the mathematical explanations for how that can happen grow more fanciful by the week.

And without any clear explanation of how she can win, mentioning the Robert Kennedy assassination to some ears sounds like the last, desperate scenario of someone unwilling to admit defeat."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_remark
















And, here's bil's old ugly a$$ raggin' on Obama now.

[apocalypsehow]

10. Hillary will unite a political party alrighty - the Grand Old Party. n/t.

[undeterred]

11. No it doesn't

Obama should get to pick the VP of his choice and it won't be Hillary. Why would any president pick a VP who fantasizes about him being killed?

[cascadiance]

14. And if he DOES get killed, who are people going to suspect behind it?

It will KILL the Democratic Party in the subsequent election, whether or not Hillary had anything to do with or not, because enough will suspect it and she won't be able to get reelected then. Would she step aside like LBJ did? Likely not!

[immoderate]

12. I'd call it a bad fit.

If anything, Hillary has added to her negatives during this campaign.

--IMM

[PoliticalAmazon]

13. Obama's a nice guy but not an idiot. She would destroy his administration....

and undermine his attempts at reelection in 2012.

She's simply not able to be trusted. Her word is about as good as a crack addict's word, and she will stop at nothing to get what she wants.

Seeings how she's already evoked assassination, Obama would have to be an idiot to put himself in a position where he is the only thing between her and the prsidency.

[PATRICK]

18. This is the big legitimate

argument, but I would like to see all the likewise legitimate negatives dealt with more convincingly than the confident glow of victory. Many of those negatives call such a victory into question and many are not
going to be settled by imaginable change on HRC's part.

There are the cold criteria, fudged a LOT lately especially by the media so that Hagel can be slipped into the rational list and thus poison reason itself.

First is "do no harm". Carry few if any negatives, especially any that could distract from the presidential nominee. Second is compatibility,dynamic duo if possible(GOP won't do this for specific reasons) and someone who will be on board with the policies. Change is big as the theme and the need is also for experience and safe anchorage for the newness.

The old reasons, less cynical still look for a unifying fav who might influence a bloc a region or key state. It doesn't work at all if the top of the ticket flounders, but at least it is part of the harmonious big picture and mood of confidence.

Of all of them INCLUDING the easy(in appearance only) party unifying combo, the "do no harm" resonates sweepingly across the entire spectrum of qualifications. Hillary, unfortunately, might well be argued to be harmful across the board, even in the unification attempt and therefore SHE would do the party the best favor by getting up front behind someone else of Obama's choosing. Harm lurks everywhere in the mere possibility of her being VP, so much so one could kindly eliminate her own personal intent and motives and still easily eliminate her as a wise choice. People trying to blow by all this are offering
the other factor, that Hillary can force us to put the best face on the "unity ticket". That is not acceptable. Begin with blackmail, end with defeat. 2000 is being introduced to us all over again and then too the Dems participated by getting Joe L. on the ticket and sniping at Gore's weakness along with the howling liars of the GOP.

The post's point is valid on it's own face. There is a whole warehouse of other logic that must be examined.

[MJJP21]

19. No Way

Their is no way that Hillary and Barack are going to get together in this election. If Hillary wanted the VP spot she could have and should have SUSPENDED her campaign weeks ago. That would have allowed her to resume her campaign if her dark wishes had come true and all the bitter attacks against Obama which were way to personal would never have happened. Hillary should regroup now while she can because as I hear it NY may no longer be a safe haven for her and her political career.

[Medusa]

20. Hillary's negatives are in the 60-70% range. Saying she has 50% of support

from the Democratic party is a ridiculous notion. She perhaps, at the very best, has 25%. And I'm being generous. You need broad-based appeal to win a general election. With negatives THAT high, she ain't winning jackshit. And Obama is likely to alienate far more voters by picking her as a VP than he is to win with her.

And quite frankly if she was his VP he'd have to hire a full-time food taster.