I don't think Obama needs to chose Clinton. She did not win, and she can't dictate who he choses. It's true she's done better with the "white working class" vote, but there are a number of other people who would appeal to those candidates as much if not more. I think Jim Webb for one. Some women's groups may be happy to have her on board, but I think their loyalty is misplaced. Even if Obama doesn't chose her, they won't be better served by McCain. Obama could also choose Sebelius who would nip the sexist accusations in the bud. I like the idea of Sam Nunn if he would accept. He'd help with that "white working class" vote. He shores up some of the perceived lack of foreign policy experience, and nobody could deny his qualifications. I think all he needs to do to show good will to Hillary is help her raise some money for her debt relief.
I'm not so sure this is correct anymore with everything we have been through including 8 years of the failed and very unpopular Bush/conservative rule. The Clinton years look increasingly good to most folks. Also I think Hillary's long campaign has defused her dislike among independents and the Reagan type Democrats. Only the hard core haters, who are very unlikely to vote Democratic anyway still hate her so much. I think that most of us Obama supporters do not hate her enough to vote for war and McCain. I do think the most important thing is for the super delegates to wind this up. Obama can win with Hillary and probably without her if they just don't go to the convention, fight it out and make a mess.
Given the so-called attacks on Obama from the loser right-wingers, I should have seen this coming. "We don't care about the real facts, we want to lamblast the man for what we conveniantly think might be true!" Idiots.
It would be wise not to put yourself in any position where a Clinton can obtain more power through your death.
You've got to be kidding me right? The loser left-wingers have hoping for McCain to pick Romney haven't they? Why? VP is the least powerful position in Washington!!!!!1 VP may not be the most important thing, but it certainly is important. And when your whole campaign is about change, the perception that you are willing to take a VP that you have lumped in as part of the problem could be damaging. Anyway, I'm not a loser right-winger and I'm not an idiot. You are being silly about this.
While I actually agree with this statement, if this ticket got elected and Obama were assassinated, who in the country would NOT look at Hillary suspiciously?
Even this is misnomer of a sort. Oregon is very much a white, working-class state and he did fine there, and he won that demographic of voters. As are many of the western states (the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc). His problem seems to be very much restricted to white, working class voters in the Appalachia region - which, of course, contains some important swing states like OH and PA. Jim Webb or Bob Casey would be good choices to help address that issue.
I think Dick Cheney would beg to differ. I think the VP spot has increased in prominence with Gore and then especially with Cheney. It's also looked as a big stepping stone to a future nomination now (due to Bush Sr and Gore). Plus, she's one of 100 senators, but could be the first female VP. For someone with such a need to be relevant, I think that's a very appealing thought.
I think this is the key to it all. Obama's entire campaign is about doing things differently, getting away from the hyper-partisanship of the past, etc. Putting the person who claims a "right-wing conspiracy" and is about as crazy-partisan as it gets on the ticket destroys any message he has. At that point, he goes from "might actually be something different" to "same old crap".
I apologize for the tonality. Seriously. But: 1) I completely don't care who McCain chooses for VP unless it's something insanely outlandish. 2) Perception is subjective. You could just as easily say that choosing Hillary could be precieved as branching out to another segment of the popualtion, or working towards unifying his "change" with the powers that be (compromise), or even just plain old "putting aside historical animosity for the greater good". See? The point of my post is that the natural reaction from every right winger (and I should be saying "wingnut", a category I would not place you within) is to percive this, like wright, like his wife's (repeatedly taken out of context) statements, and even the lapel-pin asshattery as tangible and real impact to Obama's credibility. That's impossible to actually ascertain, and disproven easily by his statements following each "perceived" problem. You could proclaim those statements and actions as false or poltically motivated - but that's a dangerous path to take given McCain exponentially more observable flip-flopping. Perhaps I should just call it "bias" - but it's not even strong enough to be that, IMO. It's more of a subtle shift to change the topic from Obama (who is quite difficult to attack directly) to people around him. I find that disengenuous. If I say McCain is a wanker because he's an economic kindergartener and a flip-flopping political stooge - I could at least provide evidence and statements that reflect upon the man himself, not some silly person in his entourage.
Well of course McCain shouldn't want to go down that road because he's a political snake, but that's besides the point. Part of the appeal of Obama is the idealism associated with him. The "above the politics" persona. I don't know how damaging taking Hillary would be, but I see the potential that it could be damaging and I don't see many benefits to it. Edit: And I wasn't really trying to say anyone was a loser left winger on this site, just copying your phrase.
Exactly. The GOP would have a field day with Obama and his supposed "change" campaign if he put Hillary on the ticket.
