Agree 100%. Kennedy needed Johnson and vice versa. If these two see a common goal as even more important that ego and personality mesh--any pair of politicans can. Just look at Bush and McCain now as well. I understand Major's concern for Hillary as the VP stirring up the Conservative right and potentially hurting the play for Independents. That said more and more I think that complete overswell from the positive turnout, machinery and groundforces she would bring are too strong to ignore. Even look at Texas--twice as many votes for Hillary than John McCain. Even before Supertuesday with the Rep had a contest both Hillary and Obama were taking huge numbers relative to McCain. If either Obama or Hillary are not on the ticket that will take a huge toll emotionally and organizationally on too many people around the country. In the end, Obama needs to ensure his best chance to win. He can set the tone as President just as Kennedy did with a politically powerfull and high ego VP, and just as Reagon did with GHB. Further, I think Hillary brings a lot of assets to the VP in addition to demographics (i.e., getting other minorities and non-AA women totally on board with the ticket) and party machine. She will be a strong debater, you know she has had her closet thoroughly looked over for skeletons, and she has actually become a very strong speaker and presence that connects with a lot of people. Finally, the Republicans will be confused on whom to attack (and attacks on the Clinton name/presidency won't play well to anyone but the hard right), and I think it is a little extra insurance for someone with thoughts of harm to Obama down the line.
I don't see how 4 is possible. It's generally agreed that she picked up 9 in Ohio, 5 in Rhode Island and lost 3 in Vermont for a total of 11. She will likely pick up 2 from the Texas primary, so she'd have to lose 9 in the caucus to make that possible, and I haven't seen any projection use that even in a worst case scenario. She'll probably lose 5 in the caucus, based on what I've read. As for Kos, that site is as biased as they come. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- pledged delegates are not an accurate manner to determine the will of the people. The only way to really do that is through popular vote. If she is able to do that, she will have the opportunity to convince superdelegates without winning every single state. The consensus right now is that she trails by 90-100 delegates. If she picks up a 60/40 win in Pennsylvania, there's 32 right there, cutting it to around 65. It's certainly possible for her to pick up 65 delegates between superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan, and then she'd only need to split among the remaining states. Is it likely? No. Do I think it'll happen? No. But to say she needs blowouts across the board isn't accurate. A big win in Pennsylvania combined with 10 point wins in Florida and Michigan would get her to an amount that is possible to overcome.
With all due respect, do you think the Twin Towers were blown up in an inside job? That's just wacked. The Clintons are, if anyone is, ardent Democrats. If she accepted the VP slot, no sure thing (she might not want it), they will go all out to win. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Impeach Bush.
I think the Kennedy/Johnson analogy is a fair one. I don't think GHB is relevant to this...he never had the kind of personality or strong will like we're talking about...or at least he was never perceived that way. He was anything but powerful and high ego from a political point of view.
With all due respect, I don't think the Twin towers was an inside job and I had 4 friends and one distant family member die at the towers thank you.
Is that so? I'm sorry for it, but it was the best example I could think of, not knowing that about you, of an analogy that compared to your conspiracy theory. Impeach Bush.
My conspiracy theory is just based on how the Clintons over the last 16 years have behaved. Look at how she's behaving now. You expect me to believe that after her throwing the kitchen sink at Obama that she's just gonna embrace the idea of answering to him. It's gotten personal between the two camps. I don't know how they will mend the fences. Her ego certainly won't allow it. On the other hand, we will see if Obama would be able to accept a VP role. I do think Obama would be ok with that role but do not believe Clinton can.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/ Potential Obama running mates: Q: If Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, who would you like him to choose as his vice presidential running mate? (Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents) Hillary Clinton 36% John Edwards 11 Bill Richardson 3 Joe Biden 1 Al Gore 1 Evan Bayh * Mike Bloomberg * Wesley Clark * Tom Daschle * Chris Dodd * Joe Lieberman * Sam Nunn * Colin Powell * Kathleen Sebelius * Ted Strickland * Jim Webb * Anthony Zinni 5 Other 11 It is up to him 5 No opinion 34 Granted this doesn't say which running mate would you least prefer or would any running mate make you switch your vote to the other side. But personally, I think people screaming that they would not vote for Obama if he selects Hillary probably come election day were going to vote for McCain anyway. I mean I am not found of the Clintons political manovering's either, but the idea that would change my vote when I have the candidate I want at the top of the ticket--get real. Just look at all the Reps who are in lock step now with former RINO A#1 enemy and if you asked them 5 months ago their least prefered candidate, John McCain.
Did you see the kind of stuff between Romney and McCain or Bush and McCain in 2000--which drawfs the animisty between Barack and Hillary. And guess what, those 3 Republicans are on the same team now.
It took Bush and McCain 8 years to mend their fence. McCain never personally attacked Romney like how Obama and Clinton have been going after each other.
Here's the problem though - and better explained at that DailyKos link that I can do. Winning 60/40 in Penn won't net 60% of the delegates because of the way the districts are setup. Ohio has just a few less delegates than PA, and she won a net of about 9 with a 10% win (6% net gain in delegates). That's what the article was focused on - that those delegate calculators overestimate the pledged delegates Hillary will gain, except in the case of massive blowouts like Idaho and the like were where you pass some major thresholds in lots of districts. I do agree that there is a possibility - but like you said, it requires winning across the board (blowouts, in my opinion) *and* FL/MI *and* winning over superdelegates. If she goes that route, the party is going to be absurdly fractured and half the people are going to think the election was stolen from them with superdels (right or wrong). As we've seen in the caucus states, there is a passion gap favoring Obama, and those people are going to go nuts in the scenario you present.
Same team, yes. Same ticket? No (as of now, at least). The chances of McCain being willing to join Bush in 2000 was virtually nil, as a comparison.
McCain gave Bush a huge boost at the Convention in 2004. No I don't think the rancour in the Dem rivaled Romney with McCain and Huckabee. Unless Hillary and Barrack are 1000X better actors/less tranparent.
But then undermined Bush in congress by voting against his tax cuts. Obama will probably win the nomination and the Clintons in public will support the nominee, but I don't think Hillary would accept a VP role. I guess as long as Hillary gives Obama the boost at the convention then that is all Obama needs to win the presidency. She doesn't need to be VP to help Obama ensure the win.
For what it's worth, this is the Obama projection: http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/ OH: -9 RH: -5 VT: +3 TX(P): -4 TX(C): +9 Net: -6 I guess if you changed the TX(P) to -2, you'd have -4. I have no idea how/where they get their caucus number from, but it seems to assume a 56/44 win in the caucuses (unlike the primaries, the caucus vote should equal to the delegate split).
The worst thing is Obama and Hillary both going on a prolonged negative campaign against each other. They both lose and McCain could win. This is Rush Limbaugh's wet dream. As I understand it, even if Obama gets 55% of the remaining delegates up for election, he will need the superdelegates to win. The same is true with Hillary. This is probably true even if Michigan and Florida are replayed. If Obama wins by going negative, then he loses a lot of the fresh appeal of his new non -partisan style. If Hillary wins this way she loses some of the African American and much of the new voters who like the new non-partisan appeal of Obama. I think she loses more of the new voters, as more seasoned African Americans, know how much damage the GOP can do to them. I read one analysis that says the best thing is for each to agree NOW to be the other's VP if they lose and then to continue the race, but debate only on the issues and avoid negative campaigning. This would keep the focus on their campaigns and the issues without the both lose aspect of negative campaigning. This is definitely the ideal as it would allow lots of free publicity to the Democrat's ideas for months all the way through the convention. Will this happen? Probably not, but it would sure be for the best for the Democrats and those who want to avoid endless Bush-McCain war. To agree would be a bigger sacrifice for Hillary as she would increase the chances of losing the nomination. The plus for her is that it would solidify her reputation. Of course, the Hillary haters would still see her as caring only about power, still being devisive, etc. etc.
Ummm... Desert Storm? That took some big guts, don'tcha think? He also withstood many requests within the party to replace Dan Quayle as his Veep... a decision, sure, had he made it he may have served twice. But I'm pretty sure Mr. Thousand-Points-of-Light was a high ego type.
Clinton, when he first came in. Remember that SNL sketch where Hartman was playing Clinton in a McDonald's, and he kept on taking people's food...
I haven't read this thread so maybe it's already been mentioned. But in case it hasn't... Isn't the main (and really only) requirement of a VP that he or she be qualified to step into the presidency if necessary? What does it say about her judgment then that Clinton is hinting at selecting a VP she's spent the last two days saying isn't fit to be commander in chief?
