He doesn't have credibility among people who's opinion on the matter I con't accept or respect.

This all brings to mind another JC who was not only shunned, but he was crucified. I'm not religious, but I can't help but admire the subsequent influence of some who lacked credibility in their time.

Your arguments only increase my support of the current earthly JC, so go right on.

Actually it's a tribute to his [lack of] credibility. This guy can't get arrested on US network TV because he is so unpopular nobody watches. Probably because of his looney-tune moves like a windfall-profits tax & 55-MPH national speed limit, etc, which have etched him as the single most unpopular POTUS since Harry Truman [and JC had less than four years to achieve that dubious honor, as opposed to HST & GWB in more than seven].

He was about to file for bankruptcy in his peanut business, but someone picked up the tab to avoid disgracing the Dem party even more than it had been for nominating such a clown. The reason he refuses “to attend to his personal wealth” is that he was too incompetent to amass a personal fortune—-he lives off the Carter Foundation at Emory, kind of a timecard-punching job.

And as for helping those in need, two years ago he parachuted into Ethiopia, declared an election “fair & legal” and levitated back out, while real monitors declared the process totally flawed and riots broke out afterwards killing hundreds of people.

JC doesn't have any credibility even with the NGO crowd he's supposedly “helping.”

Hillary Clinton is as far left as Obama, just posing as more safe and sane to snatch as many swing voters as possible (even though her and his agendas are almost identical). Obama could choose her as VP and say “she's a strong choice, as strong as Cheney in that role while I'm even stronger in mine” but I think the far-lefties (who have adopted Obama) would have none of it. (Do they really fall for her “centrist” masquerade?) Clinton would want too much power (in the 1990s she was already worse than Cheney has been, not counting things done outside this nation's borders) and would she be willing to take orders? The only reason for her to take the job is to find something useful to go to after leaving her Senate seat, as she never did “represent” New York (just exploited the E-Z-Exploitable there) but just got that Senate seat as her Presidential springboard. The Vice Presidency is the other traditional springboard besides a governorship, and who wants her to be governor? (Not even New York, I suspect.) As VP she still can seek the Presidency again, though it's a long shot. Note that it's not beyond (or beneath) her to run against Obama four years from now. (How that would affect Presidential-Vice Presidential relations in 2011-2012 would be interesting.)

Other than staying a Senator (Why?), or becoming Vice President, what else would Hillary Clinton do? As oversized Washington's “machine” consists of an unofficial, unelected community in power, the answer probably lies there rather than in an Obama adminstration. A Cabinet post, any Cabinet post, just looks like a demotion of the Queen, a forced abdication. She could become a lobbyist, but I don't think this is what is going to happen. Instead, she might find a long-term future in the Washington establishment in power where it counts in another arm of the unofficial government in DC. That is, replacing Howard Dean to lead the Democratic Party. Something that powerful (if unofficial) may be her only choice.

Reagan took down the panels and canceled the tax credits for consumer “good carbon behavior.”

And he's right about Obama/Clinton. Combining their negatives does not make sense. Better to give her a role in the new administration consistent with her talents, perhaps Health and Human Services or Ambassador to Israel.

I commend the 'failed peanut farmer' (even though he continues to successfully farm) for his refusal to attend to his personal wealth in favor of trying to help those in need.

That Carter is not often interviewed adds to his credit. I wouldn't rely on the likes of movie stars and self-promoting screaming pundits for anything. of importance.
Should we ask George Clooney to set our foreign policy?

Sometimes failure to sway is more a reflection of those someone fails to sway,
In many ways, Carter has simply been ahead of his time, and the dinosaurs revolt.
Conservation. Humanitrian aid by nations. Insurance for mental illness, etc.

When I see a dinosaur herd on the march, I go in the opposite direction.

i have no particular beef with Bush, Sr, but I do note the contrast. He has looked up from managing his investments (in oil) only when his son's reputation needed a boost.

I do agree in the end, however, with Morris [and neocon] that Bill would be the walking-talking skeleton in an Obama Administrations closet if Hillary were up the road in Observatory Circle.

But now the Obamaniacs have to play whack-a-mole with both McCain [who is sidling centrist-ways] and Hillary's fierce partisans who think she was robbed. And who votes percentage-wise more than Obama's partisans…… Hillary's.

Jimmy Carter’s greatest stature has come in his role as a caring former President who has worked to help the poor and whose image improved once he lost office.

Hmmm…..I have some well-watered land just west of here I'd like to sell the author of this sentence.

Does anyone note that networks & even cable news [except Larry King] won't even interview the failed peanut farmer [among other resume stumbles] nor will any US paper give him an interview? He has to go to the Guardian or Independent to pop up out of his hole & spew more silly blather.

In addition to his objections to a Clinton VP post, I would add that this would make it a troika presidency, 2 Clintons hogging the show, plus a diminished Obama.fighting to get attenton.
A vey bad scenario for Obama and for Democrats and for the nation.

Obama: 1,750

Clinton: 1,624.5

Neither candidate won the number of delegates needed. Hillary won the popular vote by a smidge I understand. Obama won more states and early on she was hurt bad by GOP'ers who just wanted to be sure she was not the next president. However in states where the Democrats are strongest she won and won big.

Now the leaders of the party are showing up and saying vote for Obama. Pelosi and Reid and Dean. It is perfectly clear that the party wants to swing farther left and that they have grown weary of Clinton.

There is no way Obama picks Clinton. The party itself is more divided then is the gop. The war stupid. Remember the war. Every candidate to ever seek office has always had the same message….

Hillary does not exemplify Barak Obamas message of change and that the DNC has embraced. They want the Clintons gone.