Comments on: Well, It Could Be Hillary, Couldn’t It?

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:45:35 +0000

"George W. Bush hasn't had a problem with his father being a former president"

I have stated this, too, and noted additionally that this is a closer relationship (that didn't become a problem*) than Obama and the Clintons, who aren't related at all.

* I had also said that given how things have gone, if anything, the public would like to see the elder Bush intrude or even take over, or similar words to that effect.

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:43:25 +0000

I'd say if Clinton is sought as VP she should hold out for not only the position but also payment of the rest of her campaign debts. (Where's Marc Rich when she and her husband need him? Ha, ha, ha.)

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:42:26 +0000

Clinton could very well “settle” for the Vice Presidency because the Presidency is now almost certainly out of her reach (in her lifetime). Having Clinton as VP makes perfect sense; she has experience — she has been co-President already. Having little actual power as VP is not something to expect, as Cheney illustrates.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:03:41 +0000

I'd say the bigger problem facing Obama should he tap Hillary will be the droves of right-wingers who aren't enthusiastic about McCain suddenly becoming very enthusiastic about defeating a Clinton. Besides, strategically speaking, Obama needs Hillary Clinton in the Senate, preferably as Majority Leader, to really push a Democratic agenda through. As VP, she would have little actual power and would have to continuously set Obama's agenda above her own.

And for Clinton, it makes little sense to settle for VP now. If McCain wins this time around, she'll be in excellent shape to challenge him in 2012. If Obama wins and has a rough 4 years, she can take him out in the 2012 primaries. And if he has a great 4 years with Clinton as VP, they'll get re-elected and in 2016 she might be considered too old to run for President. Not to mention, Obama would get all the glory from their successes. She's better off as Majority Leader, setting the schedule for votes, promoting legislation that matters, and keeping the next President on his toes.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:11:44 +0000

It's not so much who Obama will pick, but rather who will accept.

I said before that he is going to face a lot of "thanks but no thanks". Of course we won't hear about that or why that is until after August because it is harmful to his image as a "winner". [see: The Obama Trap]

Here's the reason people he thinks of as potential VPs will pass up his offer like a hot potato:

O'Reily and the late Tony Snow seem to know something [as far back as February] that has been agreed to stay under wraps until??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPuVJwWg-Q

Is it Obama they're talking about? Why does "everyone in journalism know this story is in play, [note he doesn't say "a bunch of BS, but rather "in play"] but isn't reporting it?" Are they waiting for until after the Denver convention? You be the judge..

By: LS51

LS51 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:58:10 +0000

I think it is just a convenient excuse to not support Hillary for VP because of her husband. George W. Bush hasn't had a problem with his father being a former president, and I don't think Bill has that much time on his hands to be that involved. The fact is, if Hillary is not selected, there will be angry folks who will never get over it. By not selecting Hillary, Obama will be creating enemies and energetic supporters for McCain. I don't think you can say that about any of the other possible contenders for VP, if he didn't select them. The Democratic Party will never heal unless Hillary is brought on the ticket.