I know. The whole list isn't my point. But there were a handful of people who were directly connected to the Clintons, were in a position to hurt them, and had an unexplained or dubiously explained death right before they had that chance.
Damn I would love to see Webb on the ticket with Obama. Webb is exactly the type of guy who can walk into Ohio and PA and deliver votes. Not only that, he called the war a disaster before it started so he is a true anti-Iraq war politician just like Obama.
I like Webb. I'm concerned about hanging on to his Senate seat, however. Also, it could be argued that he is another person on the ticket without a great deal of experience in government. Still, I'd love seeing him on the stump. He'd be a good choice, absent the concerns I have. Impeach Bush. Leave Him in an Empty Room with Jim Webb!
Amen, A3PO. Fantastic Post. Isolated opinions do not implicate others, and too often those few fringe wingnuts are magnified/empowered by the other party's pundits as representatives for the entire party. Sidestepping the issue. Deckard is right though, when the Clintons were in power, there was a larger representation of hatred towards them, mostly because people didn't trust them. All we needed was Bush to put infidelity in perspective, show us how a real man deceives his country.
I've always thought this man would make a great veep, and seems like more than a perfect Obama fit to me.... Spoiler
I see what you are saying, and if that were the case, I would like to see a different list about the topic. It's just that the list hurts in own credibility with a lot of the stretches it makes, so I'm not sure what to make of it.
I agree that relatively few folks believe the Clinton's have killed opponents. We do see some on this bbs. It is enraging. I'm not sure we have such a great majority of Democrats on this board as you claim. It is true that the extreme conservative types like Rush are just wanting to keep the Democratic campaign going, not that they don't hate Hillary. It is true that for moderates and liberals and even a few conservatives the Clintons have looked better and better the more we have had of Bush. It is true that Bill is more popular than Hillary. My problems with Hillary is that she was a big Iraq War supporter, when she knew better. I don't like some of her other policy stands. I don't have a problem with her personality. I still think that Hillary gets unwarranted grief because she is very focused and sort of aggressive by nature. Many folks don't like this trait particularly in a woman. I don't think these traits are bad for a president, though I would not probably want to work for her. I admire Hillary's energy and how she keeps fighting. I have hated a lot of the divisive stuff she has done in attacking Obama. It makes me think more poorly of her and her husband. I wish the superdelegates would just end this asap for Obama.
As you may assume, I think for Obama to maximize effectiveness, he needs to align with a blue dog type...I looked at Sam Nunn's credentials...I like the fact he is at least moderate on some particular issues and sound on defense, while being liberal on areas I can live with (social programs to some extent, helping those in need)...The problem is he looks the part of lacking charisma...You know I think highly of Ford Jr., but I unfortunately think Obama could see Ford Jr. as not too complimentary...or even a threat to his standing on the platform...(IMO) If Obama chooses to compliment with a blue dog,...who else are the choices?...Is charisma that important like I think it is? It can be argued Obama's strong game is the charisma, therefore he doesn't need that in addition, but I think he does need a blue dog type to galvanize those on the fence, and in my mind...a blue dog type with charisma who can get people talking is the best course...
How suck would it be to have a guy who beat you be your boss for four years? And to go from former First Lady to Vice President? Some president said the vice presidency is like a bucket of warm piss. She should just chill and run again in four years.
It's been brought up before, but if Lyndon Johnson could be the VP of Jack Kennedy, I think anyone could handle just about anybody. Johnson, who thought the Kennedys were a bunch of privileged dandies, was running a hard campaign for the Prez nomination himself, and arguably took a step down in power, a BIG step, when he left the Senate to be on the ticket. There's a story, that wouldn't surprise me if it were true, to the effect that Kennedy offered the VP slot to LBJ because he was led to believe, for whatever reason, that Johnson would sooner be dead than accept. To Jack's astonishment, LBJ accepted. In a very, very, very tight race, the Kennedy/Johnson ticket won, in no small reason because Johnson helped carry Texas and other states that looked askance at a young liberal Yankee candidate for President. Anyone who believes Obama wouldn't benefit from Hillary Clinton on the ticket needs to consider which voters she would pull in. A united Democratic Party, with all the new voters both of these candidates would bring in, the different regional, ethnic, gender appeal of each, their fundraising magic, and Obama at the top of the ticket to appeal to moderate-conservative Republicans and independents would win in a walk, in my opinion. Of course, others may disagree. Impeach Bush.
I'm not saying Obama would lose if he chose Hillary, but it would not make him stronger in November. It's been said before there are other candidates who could strengthen his demographic weaknesses as much as (or more) than Hillary. The subject of Hillary's radioactivity among many independents and Republicans has been minimized recently but it still rings true as ever. Choosing her would destroy Obama's credibility about "change" in several ways and cost him a lot of good will and benefit of the doubt among non-Dems. Lastly, if Obama was running for President of the Dem party, Hillary would be a great choice because she would help "unify the party". But since he is pursuing President of the United States, she isn't a very attractive choice at all.
But did Johnson really enjoy his role as Kennedy's employee? Probably not. What you said is beneficial for whoever wins the Presidency, not the Vice President. The Vice Presidency is a lame role. In fact, the two people who can detonate a nuclear missile are the President and the Secretary of Offense. The Vice President has no business in important matters. Truman didn't know jack about the Manhattan Project until he became President. Hillary should just bow out and not ask to be Obama's running employee. Plus, what is so cool about the Presidency anyways? Even Bush has white hair now. Bush has stress too? I didn't know he could think.
Excepting women, in every single demographic where Clinton does better than Obama, McCain does better than Clinton. She helps him pretty much zero % except with women. And where else are women going to go? There is at least one and possibly two seats opening on the Court in the next president's first term. If there are women who hate Obama enough to vote McCain in the face of that, having Hillary as VP won't change that. In every other area she's supposed to help (low-income voters, no college, "hard-working, white" voters), he's better served by Webb, Kaine, Warner, Clark, Vilsack, Rendell, Edwards, etc. and at least equally well served by Sebelius and Richardson. Hillary as VP would be a nightmare if Obama is elected. And it's a total myth that she would help him to get elected. He's going to be running against Bush's third term in John McCain. The ugliness of the primary season will disappear in the face of that for anyone who's ever considered voting Democrat and for many who haven't.
This, to me, was the biggest flaw in Democratic strategy the last two elections. If a certain region or demographic didn't appear favorable to the Democrats, they generally ignored it, instead focusing on shoring up the base and on turnout in their strongholds. Would having Clinton on the ticket put Obama over the top against McCain in some of those demographics? Absolutely not. But if Obama could lose, say, 58-42 instead of the typical 65-35 in rural areas, that would be a huge advantage. You're taking far, far too broad a view here. It's not only about focusing on demographics in which Obama could straight up win. It's also about narrowing the gap in traditional Republican areas. Clinton has made in-roads with some of those groups unlike any Democratic candidate in years, and I have a very hard time seeing someone on your list having both the name recognizability as well as the track record to have her level of success in those groups. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but it seems doubtful.
This post would be perfect if Obama were routinely winning the rural, non-traditional Democratic areas and Clinton was the traditional Democrat winning the standard base. Unfortunately for you, it's the complete opposite when you look at the map as a whole. I'm sure it's true for your own personal bias, but you need to be careful when generalizing for the country as a whole, because opinions have definitely shifted.
hillary would not win the areas either in the general against a military hero white male. what is the traditional democratic base? unions, minorities, women, they only when generals when a white southern male can pull some of the poor southern white vote. hillary's not gonna pull jim bob's vote even more than obama. so the next key is independents.
