Two things: 1. Voter for the loser of the primary and not having that person on the ticket doesn't mean someone was disenfranchised. Edwards voters are not going to disenfranchised if he's not on the ticket, and nor would Hillary's. 2. He does want to unite - but it's not like that's his only goal. He also wants to govern. And having Hillary on the ticket makes it less likely he can build a coalition involving Republicans and moderates. It helps unite the Dem party, but takes away from his ability to unite the broader population and govern effectively. On a separate note, this is all election-related. Then there's the actual governing. What happens when you have a crisis and Bill Clinton is sitting there with his own ideas of what to do? You think he's just going to stay silent and out of the way? Or what happens when Obama pushes his health care proposal without mandates and has a VP firmly against it? If Obama is trying to "chart a new course", there are just too many logistical problems with having a former President and former First Lady with very strong opinions right there behind the scenes, unless they are willing to take a back seat - and everything in their history suggests that they wouldn't.
Sorry for the harshness but the two bolded statement are patently ridiculous. Firstly, Hillary is the most divisive political figure in America today. If only Dems voted in November, choosing her might make some sense. But you (and others with the same opinion) should remember that Dems aren't the only voters out there. Your comment on being disenfranchised is from Mars. Secondly, if you honestly think Hillary is going to publicly admit she is "ready for change" and will "change her stripes", you are delusional. She won't even admit her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. It isn't in her nature to admit anything.
Tsongas never had anywhere near the support Hillary has. She's got a loyal following and do you really honestly think those blue-grass voters are going to come out and vote for Obama? I don't think they will unless their choice - hillary is on the ticket - and they may switch to mccain. These are conservative dems, and they will identify more with McCain then Obama. A VP selection may not be enough to make a difference - heck, even Al Gore couldn't carry his own freakin state.
first, not true. IF Hillary got the nomination i'd vote for mccain unless she put obama on the ticket. So there you go. Many might feel that she deserved to win the nomination regardless. second, no, i don't think hillary will ever admit that - but that's what would have to happen for her to get the veep
What do you base that if offered Hillary will accept? The only basis I can see her doing so is if there was a pressing "good for the party" argument which I don't think that will happen. Further Clinton understoods that her being VP she will be as marginalized in the presidency as LBJ was by JFK. She will wield more power remaining in the Senate and building up seniority or getting a high profile cabinet position. That said stranger things have happened in politics and in the realm of strange an Obama / Clinton ticket will be far from the strangest.
Joe Wilson recently pointed out why she need not admit to this being a mistake anymore than Kerry did as the wording of the resolution wasn't a war resolution.
You are just as biased towards Hillary as the most wooly-headed Obama-lover is towards him. I just don't get casting your lot toward a candidate and digging in to deflect criticism of them no matter what. John Edwards had the guts to admit he made a mistake because of what it led to. I applaud him for that. It's pathetic that Hillary (and I guess Kerry, who was an awful candidate himself) won't own up to it. I don't admire stubbornness in her any more than I admire it in our "decisive" catastrophic disaster of a current president. How many times does she have to be asked, "If you knew then what you know now..."?
A_3PO: Kerry did ultimately own up to the mistake; he just did it far too late. The reason Hillary couldn't is that it would have made it impossible for her to claim to have been against the war before Obama was (LOL) and for Bill to claim that the two of them were always against the war (LOLOL) or for Bill to claim that Obama claiming he had always opposed the war was "the biggest fairy tale," etc. etc. The Clintons don't believe in admitting mistakes because they know it doesn't poll well and they don't believe in telling the truth because it doesn't help them get elected, which they clearly care more about than any other thing the world and which they very obviously care more about than electing a Democrat in the fall to end the war, pursue universal health care and on and on and on. I have felt this way about Bill Clinton since 1992 and have been disappointed to find I was right again and again. It was very disappointing to find that Hillary shares in these sad qualities though. Before the last year, with the exception of her unfortunate Iraq war vote, I honestly thought she was different.
I would imagine he bases it on the fact that George Stephanopolous said he thought she would just yesterday. He does, after all, have a history with her that would make him a pretty good guesser on what she might do. There's also the question of why she's still in this if she's not jockeying for something since her entire campaign knows she has no chance of winning.
Well, you're right that that wouldn't happen as it would be anything but "good for the party." But you're entirely wrong that that approach would move her since she's clearly demonstrated that the good of the party is the last thing on her mind.
1. Willie Nelson (never too old - he's only 4 years older than McCain!) 2. Dennis Kucinich 3. Ron Paul
Typically, being a Senator is a much more powerful and prestigious political position than Vice-President. Cheney made the position powerful because Bush was always intended to be a talking points dummy for the Rove/Cheney power brokers behind the scenes of the RNC. Think about it, when he was elected he had nothing but the Bush name, the ceremonial position of Texas Governor and a squinty eyed persona that offered an antithetical image to the Clinton embarrassment. So I think Hillary would rather keep her bully pulpit in the Senate than be marginalized working under Obama. (it's still sadly hilarious that the savvy schemers could efficiently consolidate so much power and mandate and yet proved to be so inept at governing) No one knows what the role of VP would be under an Obama administration. I don't even think we know who would be his chief policy architects. But I do know he will have to hit the ground running since the Republicans will do everything they can to stonewall him and brand him as 'overmatched' in the job in 2012. For that reason he needs to be assembling a team of the most competent people he can draft; right now (one more reason for Hillary to get the hell out of the way). I think Bloomberg and Clark need to be in there somewhere, Commerce and Defense? As for VP, I don't think Bayh offers enough geographic diversity and I think Edwards should stay in reserve for 2012 should McCain win. If I had to guess I'd guess Richardson as the conventional, politically expedient choice. It seems to me like he has been angling for the job too. It's not just anyone who would want it.
My money is still on a governor in the Mountain West, but hre is more talk about Rendell... The Weekly Standard Obama-Rendell? That's the ticket. by Fred Barnes 05/07/2008 1:08:00 PM The NOTION THAT BARACK Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate is crazy. She passes the first test of a veep selection: she's a plausible president. But she fails the second. She doesn't qualify as a partner on the Democratic ticket (and possibly in the White House) that Obama would be comfortable with--far from it. But there is someone who does meet these two requirements, plus a third one and maybe a fourth. That person is Democratic Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania. Yes, Rendell was the leading supporter of Clinton when she trounced Obama in the Pennsylvania presidential primary last month. But he's a smart, tough, and respected politician who would no doubt embrace Obama eagerly, fully, and loyally. Now that Obama has all but locked up the presidential nomination with his landslide victory in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana on Tuesday, pressure is building for Clinton to drop out of the race and, when the time comes, emerge as Obama's running mate on a Democratic dream ticket. In truth, this would be a nightmare ticket, both dysfunctional and illogical. Opposites usually don't mesh in politics. Sure, LBJ helped JFK win the presidency in 1960. But Clinton isn't LBJ. Rendell comes closer to the LBJ model. What would Rendell, 64, bring to the ticket? As governor of a major state, he's automatically a national political figure. He's also a former general chairman of the Democratic national committee, which means he's a party man who gets along with Democrats of all types. Though he backed Clinton, he's not identified with any Democratic faction or constituency group. So it doesn't take a flight of fancy to imagine Vice President Rendell's functioning effectively with President Obama. It does in Clinton's case. Rather than defer easily to Obama, Vice President Clinton would be the ambitious leader of a rival camp. Harmony would not prevail in the White House. There would also be the Bill problem. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, would be her chief adviser, strategist, and co-conspirator. He'd probably move back to Washington and reside in the Admiralty House, the vice presidential mansion. It would become Clinton headquarters, a safe house for members of the Clinton diaspora. Obama should recall what he and everyone else learned (once again) from this year's presidential race: when Hillary and Bill get together, it's all about them and getting their way. The interests of other elected officials or politicians are secondary, if that. More often than not, vice presidential running mates have little effect on the outcome of the general election. But they can sometimes bring their own state. Rendell would, just as LBJ brought Texas in 1960. He would assure that Obama wins Pennsylvania against Republican John McCain in the general election. This is critical. A Democratic presidential nominee cannot win without capturing Pennsylvania. It's no more complicated than that. Obama starts from a weak position in the state. In losing the primary, he fared poorly among Catholics, working class women, and downscale white voters. Rendell would corral them for Obama, most of them anyway. Even if Clinton aided the ticket in Pennsylvania, she clearly wouldn't help as much as Rendell. And she would detract in many states. The fact that at least half the country dislikes her--and has for years--is hardly a talking point in favor of selecting her as running mate. She has another drawback that Rendell doesn't. Clinton is the leader of a large faction in the Democratic party. She wouldn't be dependent on the president for power and influence and a political future. That alone would guarantee disagreements and struggles between her and President Obama. The media would feast on this. One final thing. A vice presidential case can be made for another Democratic governor, Ted Strickland of Ohio. Like Rendell, he's popular, a Clinton backer, and governor of an important state. But Strickland has been in office for less than two years. He might bring Ohio, but he's not a plausible president. LBJ was. So is Rendell. Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. © Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/072cgxqb.asp
I think that Rendell is going to get serious, serious consideration by Obama. He'll probably be one of the final choices.
if he takes hill as vp, i won't vote for him. why should he aquiesce to hate and ignorance. he would be going against the CHANGE that he has promised. it would signify politics as usual.
I agree with you. This is the kind of person Obama needs on the ticket. I'm not sure Bob Casey would approve, but maybe it would remove Rendell from PA so Casey could become governor.
I don't know much about Rendell, but what little I've heard about him is that he shoots his mouth off a lot and is a bit of a moron. I'm not sure he's VP material - but I admittedly know very little.
