I defy you to show me a more impressive VP than Hillary

[virtualobserver]

There isn't one.

[speedoo]

1. Lots of independents disagree with you.

And so do I.

[Skink]

2. Bill Clinton

[virtualobserver]

4. I'd pick her over Bill, any day of the week.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I would too n/t

[TheKentuckian]

48. I don't see any particularly overwhelming strengths

Take away the "18 million voters" from the equation and you're left with little that makes the administration stronger in governing or electable to be in such a position.

Overall experience-nope
Military background-nope
Foreign policy experience-nope
Fiscal leadership-nope
Balance on platform type issues-nope
Just a wise and different perspective-nope

I also don't think she has done anything to really demonstrate real executive ability, including her high debt campaign. I'm far from saying she has nothing to add but rather that there are several others who bring greater depths of experience and knowledge to a ticket.

I don't think she makes the nominee more electable. In broad terms she is even less trusted than him and she isn't someone considered to be an expert at anything.

I think the SC is the place for her if she doesn't want to grow into being the new Ted Kennedy. I think she is a weak national candidate. She's viagra for righties and is not seen positively by most independents and even a significant percentage of her own party.
She's not unelectable but it's close. She's not a map changer and has the smallest margin for error of any serious candidate we've had in my lifetime.

I'm not a hater by any means but I can say that no candidate has ever disappointed me more and I'm by far not the only one. In my circles her supporters are about as disappointed in her goal post moving, kitchen sink tossing, party damaging, and rabble rousing campaign. Most of us though, aren't big personality people but are center to progressives that understand the value of the party, reflective representation, and understand that if we don't like rules we speak on it up front and work to make changes rather than to derail the entire functioning of the party.

Clinton, in many democrat's opinion should not hold executive office because of how she campaigned this year. If Obama taps her for the job then I'll suck it up but my feeling is she needs to work tremendously hard for the party to not have serious opposition for her Senate seat.
She's two shades from Lieberman for me but redeemable. Still, if her people don't show up in November, I think she should take the hit. She incited riot into the party.

Keep in mind that I'm not a hardcore Obama partisan. I like his skill set and who he is connected with inside the party. I'm a Democrat and tend to be pragmatic one, versus an idealist. I think she went to far in her attacks which I believe that the Repug smear machine could use only at great peril, if she hadn't made the charges but I can accept that in a heated contest, what I'm disappointed in to the extreme is the rebellion against our process after the fact and her hardheaded fighting which undermined the party in two swing states.

The hypocrisies of the Michigan and Florida situation are extreme. My respect for the way that was played is negative 10 trillion on a 1-10 scale. Screw Obama, I'm talking about the party here. She played the game of herself above our common needs and goals.

So, I can say that a number of people can be of more use both in governing and with winning.
Biden, Cohen, Kerry, Webb, Clarke, Gore, or a surprise Powell for instance bring more heft and ability to the table than Hillary from practical standpoints.
Of course I'm the person that thought we should have offered none of the top three candidates but should have instead went with a Bayh (that I don't even like) with credible experience in the Senate and by most measures a very successful run at being a governor in a conservative state. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (who I actually like and supported) are the least experienced slate of candidates ever on either side of the aisle.

I assure you people that a guy like Bayh would have been a slamdunk for us, even while none of us have the least bit of passion for him because to the general electorate he is the very definition of electable. A candidate like that wins elections. We suffer from idealism.

[lumpy]

68. Obama might just fit those negative descriptions you cite:

Overall experience-nope
Military background-nope
Foreign policy experience-nope
Fiscal leadership-nope
Balance on platform type issues-nope
Just a wise and different perspective-nope

What is to be gained by this continual bashing of Hillary Clinton?

[IowaGirl]

70. That's a good point...

[CakeGrrl]

3. Disagree.

I can cite over and over many reasons she's not a good idea. I'll just throw out one for starters: Voted for the IWR.

On what basis do you think there's no one better?

[virtualobserver]

10. I said more impressive......I'm not saying that he is perfectly aligned with her

she still wants us out of IRAQ.

[CakeGrrl]

21. She may be impressive as a politician in her own right, but

that doesn't imply a good fit as VP.

I suspected that a good speech and a few nice-looking camera shots together on the Unity tour would have all the VP talk swelling again, but John Edwards and Al Gore have given what, in my opinion, are more heartfelt endorsements of Obama. Why not one of them, then?

There's too much water under the campaign bridge for these two to truly harmonize as a team. As a Democrat, I hope that Hillary can support the Democratic nominee given what we're up against, but Obama has to consider more than energetic campaign appearances when choosing his #2.

Does she offset areas where his resume is thinner? Does she truly attract crossover, or will she galvanize the RW? Would this be a "no drama" administration?

[virtualobserver]

27. I don't believe in shoring up the Presidential candidate with the resume of the VP

It is his job to capture the crossover votes, it would be her job to retain her base

[CakeGrrl]

36. She can retain her base (if she truly wants to) without being on the ticket; Obama

may LOSE crossover with Hillary on the ticket. Negatives of the joing ticket simply outweigh the positives IMO regardless of their appearance together.

[virtualobserver]

43. what you are saying may be true...........but it is hard to really know.

I do believe that VP's normally don't make any difference at all. She has the potential to help and hurt.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Sure there is

Biden, Clark, Webb, Tim Kaine, or a dozen other people. Anecdotally, Hillary on the ticket is a negative for many independents, a lot of whom I've heard say they'll vote for Obama unless Hillary is his VP.

[Araxen]

7. Wesley Clark

He's done more for Obama since she dropped out than she has herself.

[lumpy]

69. Uh ... Hillary is out stumping for Obama as we speak.

I agree Clark might be a good pick, also Biden and Clinton. Guess Obama will make that decision without any help from us.

[snooper2]

8. Wouldn't that be ..

show me a more impressive VP "candidate" than Hillary


As far as I know, Hillary Inc. has never been Vice President; unless your counting 8 years as first lady. But I thought Al Gore was VP? I get confused :rofl:

[SeaLyons]

9. I agree with you, but

you won't find too many that do on this board.

[TahitiNut]

11. Well, as my grandfather used to say, there ain't no accounting for taste.

:shrug:

[Imagevision]

12. I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet... theywould be strong together

[mod mom]

13. Jim Webb (military experience), Bill Richardson (foreign policy experience) John Edwards

(focuses on the people and is against excess corporate power), Chris Dodd or Joe Biden (foreign policy experience).

Hillary lacks concrete experience (sorry, Rose Law Firm working for corporate interest doesn't cut it for me and being first lady-w/o security clearance, doesn't as well) There are far more experience people than HRC.

[DemUnity08]

31. Hell no " Bill Richardson"

:puke: :puke:

Obama and clinton 08!:bounce: :woohoo: :applause:

[mod mom]

44. Obama has very enthusiastic volunteers, many are extremely angry w Clinton and it would hurt

he would hurt his strong core support by bringing someone who represents corporate interest into the fold.

[JoFerret]

91. They need to get over it and understand

that Obama is a mainstream politician.

That is who will be elected and who will govern. Not their idiosyncratic dream fantasy.

[cascadiance]

I think Bill Richardson is far more pragmatic a choice than Clinton...

He would help bring the western and latino votes in. I also think that one could argue that him joining Obama in his effort earlier makes him more of a team player.

And ultimately, the question of a VP isn't just about "getting votes". It is about who you want that will work WITH the president later and someone that shares the president's views/goals, and that if the president were suddenly taken out somehow (illness, death, etc.), that the VP stepping in would follow through on the same strategies and priorities. I just don't think that Hillary fits the latter category that well. Her assassination comments really create a liability for her if she were "suddenly made president" in those circumstances, and probably create even more rumors about her taking that power than LBJ has (and he has had a lot of those rumors too).

[newmajority]

64. Hell YES Bill Richardson!! (Hell no to any Clintons on this ticket)

Oh, and welcome back! :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Nope. Obama is campaigning on "change"

A Clinton is NOT change.

[Mudoria]

15. I think she would be a better

Presidential candidate as well :thumbsup:

[CBGLuthier]

34. Never Give Up. Never Surrender

I am waiting till late January and I bet we will STILL be seeing posts about her being better.

[jgraz]

63. You mean January 2017, right?

Even after 8 years of peace and prosperity under an Obama administration, we'll still be getting posts from these dried-up Harriet Christian wannabees that Hillary would have been a better president.

[greguganus]

16. There was a poll on here where a ham sandwich beat her out for president.

So I'll have to say an eggroll for VP.

[virtualobserver]

46. is the eggroll a skilled and experienced campaigner?

[MercutioATC]

17. Determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, aren't ya?

There are plenty of things that make her a horrible VP choice. These are the top two (my opinion):

1) She may be popular among Democrats, but she's reviled by almost everybody else. She'd turn off most Indys and crossover Repubs.

2) She spent 15 months telling the world that Obama didn't have the experience or judgment for the job. Imagine McCain debating Obama and saying "You just don't have the proper experience to be President. Even your own VP agrees with me.".

worst. possible. choice.

[CBGLuthier]

18. Bill Richardson

In fact he is my choice as he can counterbalance the bigotry of some of the hispanic community.

All VP is about is getting more votes. The job itself to quote Truman I believe isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.

[Fly by night]

51. Yes. Bill Richardson

On the one hand, we have a Hispanic Governor, former Congressman, former Cabinet secretary, former UN ambassador -- who admits to being civilized by the Indian elders in the Land of Enchantment.

On the other hand, we have a one term Senator with no other relevant experience (but TONS of baggage.)

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Richardson, bueno!!

[SwampG8r]

19. ever hear of a guy named thomas jefferson?

[Imagevision]

20. ya gotta a point, barack did say we needed to change in Washington poitics

[Occam Bandage]

22. Batman.

Equally likely.

[virtualobserver]

30. I don't know....Batman played by George Clooney has a shot.

[faithfulcitizen]

23. Wes Clark. Consider yourself defied.

:)

[shadowknows69]

24. Actually there's about a dozen I can think of off the top of my head

[woodsprite]

25. Biden n/t

[SoCalDem]

26. Here's one..

Janet Napolitano (b. November 29, 1957) is the current governor of the U.S. state of Arizona, and a member of the Democratic Party, originally elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.

She is Arizona's third female governor, and the first female to win re-election. In November 2005, Time magazine named her one of the five best governors in the U.S.

In February 2006, Napolitano was named by The White House Project as one of "8 in '08", a group of eight female politicians who could possibly run and/or be elected president in 2008.<2> Her placement on this list has also generated whispers of placement on the Democratic ticket for vice president.

In 1991, while a partner with the private Phoenix law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, Napolitano served as attorney for Anita Hill. Anita Hill testified in the U.S. Senate that then U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had addressed her inappropriately ten years earlier when she was his subordinate at the federal EEOC.

In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States attorney for the District of Arizona. As U.S. attorney, she was involved in the investigation of Michael Fortier of Kingman, Arizona, in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. She ran for and won the position of state attorney general in 1998. Her tenure focused on consumer protection issues and improving general law enforcement.

She won the gubernatorial election of 2002 with 46 percent of the vote, succeeding Republican Jane Dee Hull and defeating her Republican opponent, former congressman Matt Salmon, who received 45 percent of the vote. Napolitano was the first female US governor to succeed another. Some initially considered Napolitano to be a possible running mate for presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election but Sen. John Edwards was selected instead.

In November 2006, Napolitano won the gubernatorial election of 2006, defeating the Republican challenger, Len Munsil, by a nearly 2-1 ratio. In January of 2006, she won the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service.

She is currently a member of the Democratic Governors Association Executive Committee. Furthermore, she has also served previously as Chair of the Western Governors Association, and the National Governors Association. She served as NGA Chair from 2006 to 2007, and was the first female governor and first governor of Arizona ever to serve in that position.

more @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano

[lojasmo]

28. If you want an impressive loss.

[muleboy303]

29. after 8 years of the "Cheney" experience

there could be no more welcome a change

than in having a Vice-President that does what they're told

instead of the other way around.

(Richardson, hands down)

[babylonsister]

32. Please. No.

Nice event today, good to see them together, but no.

[virtualobserver]

45. OK....I'll call Barack and tell him to forget it, then.

[krispos42]

33. John Edwards

Russ Feingold

Bill Richardson

[cascadiance]

53. EXACTLY my list as well!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. Bill Brasky. n/t

[Thrill]

37. Tim Kaine..........Have you ever heard him speak?

He's very impressive

[dionysus]

38. ok, thats easy as pie;

Biden
Richardson

[scheming daemons]

39. Too numerous to mention........

You'll be glad to know that John McCain and his campaign share your wish that Hillary be named the Democratic VP nominee.

[scheming daemons]

40. If we want to steal defeat from the jaws of victory......

[highplainsdem]

41. You're right! K & R

[jgraz]

42. one second... I'm waiting from some random person to walk by.

Yeah -- that guy over there with the shopping cart who's talking to himself about aliens.

[Richard Steele]

47. Pfft.

nm

[crankychatter]

49. Webb - NT

[knixphan]

50. Smokin' Joe Biden.

yep.

[Lord Helmet]

52. Clark, Biden, Webb, and Sebelius for a start

[The River]

54. My List

Different order.

[Lord Helmet]

55. my order was random so it's all good

[monmouth]

56. Oh please, don't let this even be a rumor. She brings nothing. It won't happen..n/t

[scheming daemons]

57. How dare you defy me!

[virtualobserver]

73. would it be all right if I deify you then?

[Sinistrous]

58. Laughably easy ---

Wesley Clark.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Carrottop.

George Carlin's corpse.

The gum on the bottom of my shoe.

[Melissa G]

60. !

:rofl:

[greguganus]

61. LOL

[GeorgeGist]

62. I defy you to show any evidence that Hillary is a VP.

[Vattel]

65. the problem is that there is no one who looks really good

All of the ones being discussed have major negatives. Richardson? Give me a break: I've never seen a politician who presents himself as badly as Richardson does. He seems befuddled half of the time. Webb? Sure, if you want a right wing asshole who despises the left. Not to mention the likely loss of a Senate seat. Edwards? Adds nothing, cosponsored IWR, will have to watch the hair video played over and over again, doesn't add a lot of experience to the ticket, weak debater. Gore? I have to admit, that would be interesting: the press couldn't get away with their lies about him this time around, he's well-known, was right about the Iraq war, has experience, but, correct me if I'm wrong, his one big negative is that he doesn't want to do it.

[rodeodance]

66. I agree.

[hokies4ever]

79. Shocker

:rofl:

Wesley Clark.

[awoke_in_2003]

67. Here ya go

[Kaylee]

71. Clark. nm

[zulchzulu]

72. Has Bill been vetted yet before anyone decides?

Has he released his list of donors to his library to Obama yet?

The Repigs would love to have two Clintons to run against. And besides, a VP is actually not that powerful of a position and there is no way Obama would relegate the VP position like Bush has done with Cheney...

I would think that Hillary Clinton supporters would find her MORE talented than to be just a VP in an Obama administration.

[undeterred]

74. Russ Feingold, Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Biden, John Kerry

There ya go.

[Prophet 451]

75. Al Gore n/t

[Guaranteed]

89. Ding nt

[Raine]

76. Clark, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Gore

I could go on and on ... there is no lack of impressive talent in the Democratic Party.

[Faryn Balyncd]

77. Here's another . . . . . . .

How would Webb perform the Vice Presidential job of hatchet man, put the heat on the fearmongering GOP?


. . . VIDEO of Webb giving Democratic response to SOTU in 2007:

. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVXMU43Qhow


















Here he was in the WSJ, (before Webb was even sworn in):

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.
by JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.


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

:kick:



:kick:



:kick:

[hokies4ever]

78. Wesley Clark by a landslide

Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe vs. fantasy sniper dodging. Foreign policy and military credentials aren't even close.

Next! :rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

80. Feingold

[Evergreen Emerald]

81. You are exactly right!

Amen

[blm]

82. What did she do in her 7 years in the senate that impressed YOU? Closed government Dems don't

impress me at all. She and Bill are closed government Democrats who side with secrecy and privilege EVERY TIME they have been given the choice.

THAT impresses you? What they say in front of Dem audiences tells citizens nothing about who they really are when in a position of power.

[Radical Activist]

83. My pet cat.

She wouldn't lose Obama as many votes as Hillary.

[sniffa]

84. Easy - Lee Mercer, Jr.

If Chuggo were born in America, he'd be it.

[musicblind]

85. I agree. She would be the BEST option. Though there are other good options out there besides her.

Like Biden, and Edwards. But I do think she would be the best choice for VP.

[BlooInBloo]

86. HAHAHAHA!!!!

Good one.

[Robeson]

87. Horrible choice. Obama will have enough to battle as it is. His team doesn't need....

...to spend half their time dealing with attacks on Hillary and Bill, which would come fast and furious.

[Seldona]

88. Wes Clark, Russ Fiengold.

Those would be my picks, in that order. I think Clark completely removes this military hero/maveric bs McCain is hiding behind. And without that, he is nothing.

[JoFerret]

90. I've checked out the proposed alternatives

Including a fave of mine - Edwards. And other very worthy candidates. And NONE of them reach close to Hillary as an effective running mate/ VP? She should be able to write her ticket at this point given her achievements.

My question is: Why would she want it?