Obama is NOT the nominee yet. Hillary Rodham Clinton would BE his best choice for VP. It will not only be Obama's choice, it'll be also the DNC's. The DNC can influence Obama to pick her. As an example, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson didn't get along at all, but the DNC heavily influenced JFK into picking LBJ as his running-mate. Hillary is the best choice because she can win states that Obama cannot and vice versa and she can win areas that he can't etc.

I agree with you 100%. She is winning in a lot of areas that Bush won in 2004 so she can pull those conservative areas if she is put on the ticket.

Personally, I am fine with either ticket Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama...but I want them to run together. And I do believe Hillary and Obama get along depsite the contested and somewhat heated campaigns.

I think the DNC is heavily favored towards the Clintons so, if Obama is the nominee and needs a VP, they can play an instrumental role on influencing him to pick Hillary. After all, he needs her supporters in order to win and is only getting a third of them so far. How does he get 100% of them? Add her on as vice president and, in eight years, she becomes president

I agree with you 100%. She is winning in a lot of areas that Bush won in 2004 so she can pull those conservative areas if she is put on the ticket.

Personally, I am fine with either ticket Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama...but I want them to run together. And I do believe Hillary and Obama get along depsite the contested and somewhat heated campaigns.

I think the DNC is heavily favored towards the Clintons so, if Obama is the nominee and needs a VP, they can play an instrumental role on influencing him to pick Hillary. After all, he needs her supporters in order to win and is only getting a third of them so far. How does he get 100% of them? Add her on as vice president and, in eight years, she becomes president

I personally like hillary clinton, and don't get all the dislike of her. I think she should be obama's vp, but its not up to me.

I personally like hillary clinton, and don't get all the dislike of her. I think she should be obama's vp, but its not up to me.

I don't get it either. Compared to other campaigns I have seen, she has not gotten as bitter or smear happy as some of the others I have seen.

I think both should run together and either way is fine (Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama). I might also prefer she be VP first so she can be the first woman VP and the first woman president!

I am truly amazed all all of this. The best of Hillary has turned into what so many of her foes expected. She went from a leader to a self-serving me or nothing person in the matter of weeks. I thought she just needed a while to adjust and accept that she needs to let it go. Instead, she is continuing her campaign with the attitude that if she can't be president, then she will make sure that Barack Obama is not either. The flaw in her approach is that she is closing the door on any future bid for herself. She thinks if McCain gets elected, she will be the front-runnrt four years from now. She is committing political suicide and she is doing it on live television.

I don't think she cares anymore. Like what we have been talking about, it's all or nothing for her. If she has to destroy the party, so be it.

And the fact that she wants to steal these two states, when the panel was loaded with her and her people who all voted to strip these states.........laughable. Now she needs them, and will say or do anything to get them.

Oh well. I don't know what she thinks, nor do I care. She lost this campaign for many reasons, not the least of which is that she ran a bad campaign. Maybe she'll see that one day, maybe she won't. Hope she'll be happy with herself over what she's done.

I was afraid of that. Her tactics will hurt Obama's candidacy, it will hurt the party and it will destroy her future as a leader of the party. The Republicans predicted everything that is now happening and I'm sure they are loving it.

trust me, he has done that enough on his own...

From Times Online:

Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world's labour market been destroyed - as in the end we're told all women's efforts inevitably are destroyed - by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?

To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.

Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.

And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?

In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.

The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.

As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.

These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.

She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.

This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.

Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.

To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.

Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.

Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Starts Search for a Running Mate

Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race.

Barack Obama hasn’t officially declared victory in the long Democratic presidential primary. But that hasn’t stopped him from looking for a running mate.

Democratic officials told the Associated Press Thursday that Barack Obama has begun the process of vetting potential running mates (Associated Press)

The Associated Press reported this morning and the Obama campaign did not deny that the Democratic frontrunner has begun the vetting process of potential vice presidents.

The shortlist, according to Democratic operatives: Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names that have been dropped are Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and New Mexico Sen. Bill Richardson.

One name that didn’t pop up as a likely option: Hillary Clinton.

Speculation has flown that the former first lady is staying in the race—even though she faces an insurmountable gap in delegates with Obama—because she wants to negotiate the vice presidency.

While choosing Clinton would help Obama attract the strong coalition of white women and lower-income voters who have rallied behind his rival, there’s one big (as in 6 foot 4 inch) problem with choosing Clinton. Namely, her husband.

Former president Bill Clinton has been a controversial figure in this campaign and many Democrats believe he would be a third wheel in an Obama-Clinton White House.

There’s also the change problem. Obama has run a campaign based on breaking the Washington status quo. Choosing Clinton may contradict his message.

Sebelius could help him win over female Clinton supporters. Strickland, who campaigned vigorously for Clinton in Ohio, could also help bring in the voters who formerly backed Clinton. Dodd, meanwhile, would bring some white-haired experience to the ticket similar to the way Dick Cheney brought experience to George Bush in 2000.

While much has been made about bringing in former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to help with white blue-collar voters, most operatives agree his fiery populist rhetoric wouldn’t do much for Obama who is already perceived as being liberal.

I saw an article about Obama's search for a VP. The first suggestion from the article I saw was for Hillary Clinton

It's good he's not considering her. She doesn't need to be on the ticket.

I keep reading this, and many trulydon't seem to see this.

From AJC.com:

Don’t go there, Sen. Clinton

By Jay Bookman | Friday, May 23, 2008, 06:28 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

If Hillary Clinton presses a bitter rules fight for delegates in Michigan and Florida — and she’s making disturbing suggestions she may do just that — she will destroy the legacy built with her husband and confirm the claims of extreme ego and selfishness always levied by her worst enemies.

Clinton agreed long ago to the rules that she now insists be changed, showing no concern whatsoever back then for the right of Michigan and Florida voters to be heard, a right she now claims to believe is sacred.

And if that tactic results in a Republican victory in the fall, which it very well might do, she will be blamed far more strongly for that loss — by history and her party — than Ralph Nader ever was in 2000.

From Times Online:

She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.

I admittedly don't care for HC but I don't dislike or even hate her. She just lacks the quality of honesty to the point I find unacceptable in a politician. She somehow exceeds the threshold I have for politicians. I find the above disturbing and I don't know how to reconcile that with someone who claims to be for the people.

A lot of you people are giving the November election to John McCain based on your dislike or hate of Hillary Clinton which is utterly laughable. I'm sick of reading SON's political thread, have posted less and less all the time. Support Obama, I will if Hillary does not get the nom, but quit the mudslinging. Let this play out. All votes should be counted. The citizens of Florida and Michigan should not have to pay for the mistakes of Democratic party leaders in their state.

They broke the rules. They were told the votes would not be counted if they pushed back the primaries, primaries are PARTY events. Michigan and Flordia knew in advance -- well in advance -- the votes would not be counted and so did Hillary Clinton. The decisions was not made by one person -- it was a very well publicized and very well discussed decision that any state that pushed its primaries back would not be counted. The reason is a good reason. Primary season starts so early now that it drives up the costs of campaigns and forces candidates to begin running two years before the election. If the parties allow primaries to be pushed back any further, the presidential race will be starting one year after the previous one ends. Finally, early primaries deter candidate entry, limit the ability of many younger or less visible politicians to enter the race and discourage voter participation by conducting elections at times a great distance from the general election. It's a good policy to put an end to this practice of front-loading the primary season.

As far as a lot of us "mudslinging", the articles were in a newspaper and the critic was a Hillary supporter. Saying that Hillary is committing political suicide is hardly mudslinging.

Where were all the voices for the party not issuing rules in regards to party primaries prior to Hillary's Last Stand? Why did Hillary support the party rules until it was obvious she was at risk of losing the primary?

Hillary has come back from the dead more times that any soap character in this campaign. It's hard for her to accept that it's over now, but it is. That is the reason why her supporters are saying enough. Someone has to. She, as the candidate, doesn't want to let go. Not letting go is not helping her future or the party.

Edited May 23, 200817 yr by Jess

From CNN:

Hillary Clinton campaign "insiders" have approached Barack Obama's aides to make some proposals, CNN reported today.

Advertisement

Clinton staffers say that while she is not interested in being Obama's running mate, he may need to make that offer to her in order for the Democratic Party to move forward and to allow her to make a graceful exit from the campaign, according to the CNN report.

The CNN report is summed up this way in "On Politics," the USA TODAY political blog:

Clinton insiders say that they've told the Obama aides there are three possible scenarios:

• Obama could ignore Clinton, which might anger her supporters.

• He could offer her the vice presidential slot, she would say no and all would be well.

• The two of them could meet to work out some other arrangement -- perhaps he could pledge to support her if she wants to be Senate majority leader.

CNN reported that one concern among Obama advisers is that he if he made her the offer, Clinton might say yes.

I saw an article about Obama's search for a VP. The first suggestion from the article I saw was for Hillary Clinton

I hope that happens.

trust me, he has done that enough on his own...

How?

Granted this campaign has been tame compared to others. I agree totally with Devoted. However, taking the fight to the convention is a mistake and it hurts Hillary in the long run. She is very much looking like nothing more than a very sore loser.

Apparently her supports discussing in public their displeasure is starting to hit home. There are negotiations between the two sides.

Edited May 23, 200817 yr by Jess

One of the things that becomes clearer is that we have this very limited view on how we see things that seems to be zeroed in specifically on whatever it is we may want but there is a much bigger picture.

For the moment, the media may be fixated on pushing the idea that Obama (if he becomes the nominee) should offer Clinton the VP slot because of her angry women supporters. In so doing, they're not taking into consideration what Obama supporters may want and want some may do and perhaps it's because his supporters aren't taking out newspaper ads or mobilizing to make threats about what they will do if they don't get their way. Hers is not the only voice that counts in this and he is not in a position to be able to brush off any of his supporters that may have a problem with her.

In an ideal society you could have a black man and a white woman on the same ticket and it not be an issue but we haven't yet achieved the ideal. If we had then there would not be charges of racism and sexism within the Democratic party which is supposed to be above all of that. I don't happen to share the belief that any old Democrat or Democratic combination is automatically going to beat Republicans.

At the end of the day, the majority of the voters are more likely to give in to their discriminatory nature if they're two "problematic" candidates on the same ticket than they are to any major vital issues including the economy, etc.

This thing needs to end!

From Times Online:

Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world's labour market been destroyed - as in the end we're told all women's efforts inevitably are destroyed - by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?

To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.

Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.

And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?

In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.

The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.

As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.

These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.

She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.

This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.

Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.

To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.

Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.

Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Starts Search for a Running Mate

Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race.

Barack Obama hasn’t officially declared victory in the long Democratic presidential primary. But that hasn’t stopped him from looking for a running mate.

Democratic officials told the Associated Press Thursday that Barack Obama has begun the process of vetting potential running mates (Associated Press)

The Associated Press reported this morning and the Obama campaign did not deny that the Democratic frontrunner has begun the vetting process of potential vice presidents.

The shortlist, according to Democratic operatives: Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names that have been dropped are Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and New Mexico Sen. Bill Richardson.

One name that didn’t pop up as a likely option: Hillary Clinton.

Speculation has flown that the former first lady is staying in the race—even though she faces an insurmountable gap in delegates with Obama—because she wants to negotiate the vice presidency.

While choosing Clinton would help Obama attract the strong coalition of white women and lower-income voters who have rallied behind his rival, there’s one big (as in 6 foot 4 inch) problem with choosing Clinton. Namely, her husband.

Former president Bill Clinton has been a controversial figure in this campaign and many Democrats believe he would be a third wheel in an Obama-Clinton White House.

There’s also the change problem. Obama has run a campaign based on breaking the Washington status quo. Choosing Clinton may contradict his message.

Sebelius could help him win over female Clinton supporters. Strickland, who campaigned vigorously for Clinton in Ohio, could also help bring in the voters who formerly backed Clinton. Dodd, meanwhile, would bring some white-haired experience to the ticket similar to the way Dick Cheney brought experience to George Bush in 2000.

While much has been made about bringing in former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to help with white blue-collar voters, most operatives agree his fiery populist rhetoric wouldn’t do much for Obama who is already perceived as being liberal.

It looks like Gov.Richardson is lower on the list than he once was.

IMO the Obama peeps are worried about the white vote and feel they need a white person as running mate.

Bill Richardson will be SOS for sure but without him as Running mate the Hispanic vote is wide open.

Strickland would give Obama Ohio , but if he said anyting bad about Obama he needs to be off the list.

Chris Dodd is boring.

Sebelius is GREAT and the imo Hillary peeps will come back on board plus she's appeals to Red State voters but she's weaker than Obama on Defence stuff.

Sam Nunn is to old and the Gays have a MAJOR problem with him.

Tim Kayne?????????

My pick would be Richardson but if they feel they need someone white i say Sebelius and go for the shange vote but he should pretty much name who would be in his Cabinet and make it a who's who of top peeps during the race.

Unless theres another terror attack Obama/Sebelius will win.

If there's a terror attack McCain wins no question.