I'm not sure she really wants the job. If she really, really wanted it, she could have taken nearly half the delegates and 18 million votes to the floor of the Convention, considering that Ted Kennedy did the same with no chance to win anything.

But we'll see, won't we?

i'm an obama supporter
as you know corky

but i would LOVE to see an obama/hillary ticket

earth shattering

I have a feeling she doesn't really want it. There are more influential roles she could play, even some that are not dependent on Obama winning in Nov., such as Majority Leader. As I mentioned yesterday, I think that would be great. She could have a big impact on health care from that spot, or possibly as Obama's Health Care Czarina in the Administration.

Keep selling the crap Corky. Hellary would be the worst thing Obama Could do. You would have Bill grandstanding and overshadowing the current(If Obama wins) President. You would have an eggregious liar for a Vice President and 3rd it would be another Clinton in the white house. We need change TOTAL and complete change. Not a retread.

Larry Mohr

Oh and You would have to completely vett Bill Clinton and He ain't going for that.

Larry

Well, we can see who didn't read the article. But if Larry is agin' it, it may have merit.

Does anyone think that HRC would be satisfied with an Al Gore, or Dan Quayle style Vice Presidency? I sincerely doubt that she would.

Now, if Obama gave her a Dick Cheney style VP offer (whick I HIGHLY doubt), she'd be a fool to refuse. Otherwise, she would have more freedom to do as she likes in other arenas.

One does not need to read an article by You Corky still trying to sell Hellary Inc. Bout like a SnakeOil salesman selling a weight loss formula to some fat bastard who GAINED 200 pounds by taking the formula.

Larry

We need change TOTAL and complete change. Not a retread.

Posted by LarryMohr

Well then, Larry, you should be voting for someone else, because Obama's plans are no more unorthodox than alot of ideas that have been discussed amongst dems for years.

-One does not need to read an article

rofl! And here I was only guessing.

Yes they have been discussed Hagbard Celine but have they been IMPLIMENTED??

Larry

Hagbard, did you sell Larry that weight loss formula, eh?

You are right, though. Obama and Hillary offered basically the same boiler plate Dem policies that we have been trying to get passed since George McGovern first offered them in 1972.

Neither had any really new proposals, but Obama may have to come up with something that at least sounds original for the fall.

Ahh, I see, you speak in hyperbole when you use the words "TOTAL and complete."

Well, okay then.

I would not vote for Obama/Clinton. It would be a dumb move.

How about addressing the question Hagbard Celine??

Larry

btw Celine

I know you are an Indie, but, at the insistence of a young environmentalist family member, I did this yesterday.....

So, Pirate. Perhaps you could point out, possibly retorting something Bechel said in the article, how it would be so dumb?

"I would not vote for Obama/Clinton. It would be a dumb move.

Posted by Pirate"

So are you saying you plan to vote FOR Obama unless he selects Clinton as Veep?

It ruins their platform.

If Clinton thought Obama was too inexperienced to be POTUS, why would she want to be his second in command?

If Clinton represents politics as usual, why would Obama pick her to be his second in command?

"If Clinton thought Obama was too inexperienced to be POTUS, why would she want to be his second in command?"

cause she realizes he's not

"If Clinton represents politics as usual, why would Obama pick her to be his second in command?"

cause obama is still the boss

Obama needs help to secure the Presidency. Hillary brings more to the table than any other candidate. Can Obama be elected without Clinton? Yes. But current polls show it is close. Clinton would asssure a win, and bring the party together.

So are you saying you plan to vote FOR Obama unless he selects Clinton as Veep?

----

No, if Obama picks Clinton as Veep, I will not vote for them. I might vote for Obama if he chooses somebody else.

I agree with that statement Pirate. Clinton banged away at how inexperienced and bad Obama is that for her to run as second to him doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is the rabid support she has, and he could use more support (who couldn't?).

bob

personally to me its not about the win

obama can win withot hill

and if the tables were turned

hill would win without obama

but together they are an image of true change
and both are powerhouses to be reckoned with

For Obama to pick her as Veep would show that he didn't mean what he said about her.

For Clinton to accept would show that she didn't mean what she said about him.

I want somebody who means what they say, especially when they say they want to change the style of Washington.

You scare them, she scares them, together you are their worst nightmare.

True, but I am tired of the nightmares.

Keep Hillary off of the ticket and let's start to awake from this horrible dream.

Having a Clinton on a ticket of CHANGE would be about as dumb of a move that any contender for office has ever made.

Hillary's return to the Senate this week made it clear that she will be a Senator for a long time to come. She will NOT be on Obama's ticket.

"Hagbard, did you sell Larry that weight loss formula, eh?"
Posted by Corky

No, the only weight loss formula I've ever tried to sell anyone was called Put Down That Burger, You Pig!

Change, change, change... I don't know... I'll believe it when I see it, and will be happy to say I was wrong.

"How about addressing the question Hagbard Celine??"

Posted by LarryMohr

I think corky did it for me at 11:32... but we'll see how much "TOTAL and complete" change the gop lets him get away with come January.

"I think one would look good on you, too."
Posted by Corky

I don't know, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy that if you need a uniform to know who's on your side, then you don't really belong. thanks anyway.

Having a Clinton on a ticket of CHANGE would be about as dumb of a move that any contender for office has ever made.

Hillary's return to the Senate this week made it clear that she will be a Senator for a long time to come. She will NOT be on Obama's ticket.

Posted by Manypaths at 2008-06-25 11:57 AM | Reply

Was the Clinton Presidency the same as Bush, or was the Bush Presidency a change from Clinton? Clinton did well---to do well again would be a change from the present.

"If Clinton thought Obama was too inexperienced to be POTUS, why would she want to be his second in command?

If Clinton represents politics as usual, why would Obama pick her to be his second in command?"

Because if Obama is remotely honest with himself about his limited resume, then he should welcome the assistance of someone who knows more about how the game is played. Yes, Clinton represents politics as usual. But politics as usual is what Obama will be dealing with his entire time as POTUS, not the clean slate his speechifying would have you believe will magically ensue as a result of his anointment, erm, election.

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be the best of all the current choices for America's future- his vision and charisma coupled with her smarts and balls. We could do a lot worse than that combination.

Unfortunately, we probably will do a lot worse than that combination.

Hagb

I just liked the tree on the T, lol.

"Finally, and maybe most important of all, McCain and the Right have only one hope of defeating you Senator, and that is to make you too nave and risky to be Commander in Chief.

Your vice presidential choice must reek of experience. The argument against Clinton is she represents the past and hurts your change message.

Sure the voters want change from what hasn't worked, but they embrace past success. Most voters recall the Clinton years (from a policy perspective at least) as successful.

A message of change combined with a record of past success is a more comforting message than change alone. Can another VP candidate provide that level of comfort? Not even close."

Clinton did well---to do well again would be a change from the present.

HE did do well.

What does that have to do with her? Just because they used to pound pee-holes doesn't make them the same.

THIS IS NOT BILL THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.....

This is Hillary Clinton, and the two are MILES apart when it comes to leadership, charisma and charm.

Hillary lost. Some of you need to work on getting over it.

Oh, and HC, the T is for my young environmentalist family member. Maybe if later there is an Obama/Clinton '08 version, I'll get one for me. ;^)

This is Hillary Clinton, and the two are MILES apart when it comes to leadership, charisma and charm.

Posted by Manypaths at 2008-06-25 12:09 PM | Reply

You don't know about her leadership, charisma, and charm. She had more EVs than Obama and won every blue state--states where Obama was second choice. The red states won't elect Obama, even though they gave him the nomination. There is nothing wrong with Clinton---you need to recognize her strengths.

Gee, let me think.
Sam Nunn or Hillary?
Who has accomplished more and brings more experience and gravitas to the job with fewer distractions?

-Hillary lost. Some of you need to work on getting over it.

Yeah! By a landslide, eh?

I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners are an angst-filled anomaly.

that is to make you too nave and risky to be Commander in Chief.

----

That was Clinton's argument too.

Gee, let me think.
How many Americans have ever heard of Sam Nunn?

Oh God Buffalo Bob is STILL spewing His BULLSHIT. God I swear. Calgon Take Me away.

Larry

I agree that Sam Nunn has the experience and gravitas, but he is 70 years old.

I would rather see someone with the potential, at least, of becoming President and the end of Obama's term.

Gee, let me think.
How many Americans have ever heard of Sam Nunn?

Posted by Corky at 2008-06-25 12:20 PM

Are you equating name recognition with qualification for the job? And, for those of us old enough to remember politics before the Chimpy Administration, lots of folk know who Sam Nunn is.

I also like Evan Bayh for the VP slot. Maybe he could loosen up enough after 8 years to be President. Hil would be good for 4 years, but I doubt she'd do a second term.

Any of you want to put you money where your mouths is, I am game!

Her role now is to be ``the very best senator I can be and to represent the greatest state in our country,'' she said.

Even Hillary gets it. Why some of you don't is........nah......it isn't surprising at all now that I think about it.

I don't dislike Hillary. She is going to be a great Dem Senator for a long time to come.

Oh God Buffalo Bob is STILL spewing His BULLSHIT. God I swear. Calgon Take Me away.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-06-25 12:22 PM | Reply

What BULLSHIT are you talking about? Is it BULLSHIT that Clinton was leading Obama by 51 EVs on her last day of campaigning? Is it BULLSHIT that Clinton won all the Big Blue states? Is it BULLSHIT that Obama won the nomination with the support of red states? Is it BULLSHIT that Alaska was given more weight in the primary than Ohio?

Exactly what BULLSHIT are you talking about?

"...but I doubt she'd do a second term."

Why?

Yeah! By a landslide, eh?

I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners are an angst-filled anomaly.
Posted by Corky

It's like bush winning in 04 claiming he had a mandate from the people.

The audacity of... audacity.

Forgot... I'm not stirring this pot anymore. sorry.

I am equating name recognition with getting elected. Besides, San Annie is right, he is old enough to be McCain's twin brother, which sorta diminishes that issue.

Besides, I remember when he could have run for President, but didn't..... mainly because of a thrill factor of -34.

"...but I doubt she'd do a second term."

Why?

Because she would need to have done a first term prior. And that just isn't looking likely.

"...but I doubt she'd do a second term."

Why?

Maybe she would, if it were going well and she still wanted to run for President at age 68-ish. But she did the ceremonial thing for 8 years as First Lady. If Obama's VP turned out to be more substantive work, she might stay on.

"I agree that Sam Nunn has the experience and gravitas, but he is 70 years old.

I would rather see someone with the potential, at least, of becoming President and the end of Obama's term."

If the VP candidate is going to be a centrist or conservative, it would be better to pick a 70 year old who won't run in 4 or 8 years.

What BULLSHIT are you talking about? Is it BULLSHIT that Clinton was leading Obama by 51 EVs on her last day of campaigning?

Exactly what BULLSHIT are you talking about?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-06-25 12:34 PM

Well I'll point out something here, there was no federal election, so there were no actual electoral votes. We'll see who get's actual electoral votes when there is the election coming up. You are looking at a practice, and then saying that judging by the practice such an such a team is going to win and by how much without actually playing the game. That is bullshit.

Yup. Still got it.

Yeah Obama make Hil your veep and paint a target on your back too.

Hell, buy her the gun and drive her to Dallas.

I plan on voting for Obama lama, but if he picks Hellary, I will not vote for him, unless McStupid picks somebody like satan or worse, cheney. I would be willing to bet most other liberatarians feel that way too.

he will loose every single red state vote he has worked so hard to get. So if you want the demos to loose, that's one way to do it.

Corky, please know that most people cannot stand hillary. It's not her qualifications or her background or her ruthless tactics, but it's her.
People do not like her personality.

Then you two have something in common, eh, Lippy?

Does anyone think that HRC would be satisfied with an Al Gore, or Dan Quayle style Vice Presidency? I sincerely doubt that she would.

Now, if Obama gave her a Dick Cheney style VP offer (whick I HIGHLY doubt)... -- Hagbard

I dunno. Clinton is a hard-core policy wonk happy to stay out of the public eye, and Obama shows no evidence of interest in policy and loves being the center of attention. If they could get past the ego problems, it could be a win-win situation. That's an awfully big "if," though.

There are more influential roles she could play, even some that are not dependent on Obama winning in Nov., such as Majority Leader. -- San An

But San An is right, here -- even without an extra title, as Senator from New York she could be the next Dan Moynihan.

Well I'll point out something here, there was no federal election, so there were no actual electoral votes. We'll see who get's actual electoral votes when there is the election coming up. You are looking at a practice, and then saying that judging by the practice such an such a team is going to win and by how much without actually playing the game. That is bullshit.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-06-25 01:02 PM | Reply

It is as much BULLSHIT as the primaries then, which are no more than PRACTICE.

In the primaries Clinton won all the big blue States--is that BULLSHIT?

If you add all the primary states up--Clinton won 308-230. Is that BULLSHIT?

In the primary Alaska was weighted more than Ohio. Is that BULLSHIT?

In the Primaries, Obama was shown to be the first choice in states that only have 108 EVs--he was second or third choice in all the other states. Is that BULLSHIT?

With all voters being asked the same questions, Clinton was ahead of Obama by 51 EVs on her last day of campaigning. The same polls so sacred today were invalid only 2 weeks ago. Now THAT's BULLSHIT.

Obama should get to pick his own VP and not be pressured into picking Hillary if he doesn't want her. Obama would be better off picking a VP with a strong military background -- like Senator Jim Webb (USMC Viet Nam war vet) whose son is fighting in Iraq. McCain is going to come out swinging saying Obama has no military experience and "in the war on terror we need a strong military leader blah blah blah." Jim Webb would help the Obama ticket immensely and bring in alot of military veterans' votes who would not have voted for Obama if he runs with Hillary as his VP.

"The same polls so sacred today were invalid only 2 weeks ago. "

No, Bob, you've got it backwards once again. The same polls that you believe are BULLSHIT today were sacred (to you) only 2 weeks ago.

I realize your candidate didn't prevail, and I realize the fact the current nominee is improving in all those pivotal Clinton states doesn't help your argument, but wanting to replay the nominating process at this point with different rules is...is...

...what's the word I'm looking for?

Corky, please know that most people cannot stand hillary. It's not her qualifications or her background or her ruthless tactics, but it's her.
People do not like her personality.

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-06-25 05:28 PM | Reply

Speak for yourself only. Reality proves you to be mistaken.

Remember: the candidate you vote for is as stupid as you.

"No, Bob, you've got it backwards once again. The same polls that you believe are BULLSHIT today were sacred (to you) only 2 weeks ago."

You are mistaken. The polls today are just as valid as the polls 2 weeks ago. YOU are the one who claims the polls showing Clinton ahead are invalid. I say all the polls are equally as valid.

"I realize your candidate didn't prevail,"

I don't care if it was Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. I am very happy with Obama as candidate. But speaking from looking at the stats--he is the second best candidate the dems could have put forth. The dem primary is flawed when it gives more weight to Alaska than Ohio. Clinton is not and never has been--"my candidate". My interest is that the dems put out the strongest candidat.

"and I realize the fact the current nominee is improving in all those pivotal Clinton states doesn't help your argument,"

You need to compare the two maps.

Only if she divorces Bill first. He can't be allowed to roam around the White House unattended.

But seriously - Bill is walking around like a sullen child. He has lost his power in the Dem party and he can't stand it. I actually feel bad for HRC now.

"Obama should pick Clinton"

~Corky.

No, he shouldn't.

It aint gonna happen anyways.

Get over it.

Obama/ Biden '08.

Be Well.

/She's already tried fer Veep over at the Finestein place the other night and was told no dice.
//No doubt she settled on another powerful but less high profile position in Obama's cabinet and some help with her campaign debts.
///That's a good deal fer her... considering.

Jim Webb would help the Obama ticket immensely -- CalifChris

Yeah, absolutely -- but he has consistently said he doesn't want to be VP.

I think there's a good chance he would have beaten both Obama and Clinton if he had run against them in the primaries, but that's another story.

Montana Gov. Schweizer is another prominent Dem who appeals to a lot of the voters Obama and Kerry don't reach.

"Montana Gov. Schweizer is another prominent Dem who appeals to a lot of the voters Obama and Kerry don't reach."

Posted by Phoenix at 2008-06-25 11:48 PM | Reply

I wouldn't want a dem candidate who appeals to voters Kerry and Obama don't reach.

~Corky.

No, he shouldn't.

It aint gonna happen anyways.

Get over it.

Arrogant, elitist, know-it-all tubers. There are three year olds that have more of a sense of reason than to just proclaim they know something as true.

I would say you should get over your self, but that would be a huge mountain of ego to climb.

-I dunno. Clinton is a hard-core policy wonk happy to stay out of the public eye, and Obama shows no evidence of interest in policy and loves being the center of attention.

Where's that Moment of Clarity Award?

put Clinton on the supreme court.

I wouldn't want a dem candidate who appeals to voters Kerry and Obama don't reach. -- BBob

I thought you were a Clinton supporter..?

You Hillary democrats are as self-righteous and as ignorant of the reality on the ground as the Bush-ites.

Look at who voted for her (except Put-a-cork in it), unions (which are dying and looking for entitlements), undeucated white people (who are looking for entitlements) and old women and men(who only care because she's a woman and who live off entitlements).

Which part of that is supposed to appeal to me, a professional white liberatarian who only wants to pull his own weight. Nothing. I'll vote for a woman, but one with less criminal inclinations and who is not married to Bill Zip-Your-pants-up Clinton.

In the general election she would be lucky to get 30% of the vote even against a turd like Mcshame.

Libertarian Lippy loses lunch lamenting lost lucidity.