George's Bottom Line on Clinton for Veep

[ckramer]

Source: abc

Clinton Might Be Negotiating Spot on '08 Ticket, George Says
May 7, 2008

CHARLES GIBSON: Is there any discussion of what kind of an exit strategy there would be?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: There are various exit strategies right now. Number one would be, go out on a win. So stay in until West Virginia where Sen. Clinton is the likely the winner and Kentucky on May 20 and after that bow out. Two, negotiate for the imposition of Michigan and Florida to get those delegations seated, declare victory on that and get out. But the big one, Charlie -- and this is what some people close to the Clintons are talking about: Is there a way to negotiate a settlement with Barack Obama to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket?

CHARLES GIBSON: And what do they think?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's hard to know. I mean, first of all, would Sen. Obama go for it. Can he get over the bitterness of this campaign. Can he be convinced that it's the strongest ticket. Third, of course, would Sen. Clinton take it. I think if it was offered in the right way, yes.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com//Politics/story?id=4808341&page=1

---

Should Hillary be on the VP position?

[loveable liberal]

1. Hilly for VP!!

Killer ticket; WH in democrat hands for the next 20 years. Its ours to lose i guess....

[here_is_to_hope]

3. No you and your candidate already lost it thanks. n/t

[loveable liberal]

7. My candidate is Obama, ASSumer.

wtf?

[here_is_to_hope]

12. If your candidate is Obama, why do you want to tie Hillary around his neck? n/t

[here_is_to_hope]

2. No. Never. Not. Wont. Cant. Dont. Want.

Or something.
Just go away Hillary, let the adults have their turn.

[Submariner]

4. People are voting for Barack in part because he is not part of the

big political dynasties (Bush/Clinton), so it would be defeating to his approach to have the Clinton machine working in the background of a system he wants to change. It should be someone like Gen Clark for VP, with the military experience.

[mitchum]

29. Exactly (n/t)

[islandmkl]

5. dear george: you are on the wrong side, this time...

second place is a tough position to negotiate from...

only one question: What's in it for Obama and the party to have hillary on the ticket?

Does she get REWARDED a VP slot because she stayed in the contest, arguably damaging both THE CANDIDATE and THE PARTY?

I would hope not.

[movonne]

6. No, never, never,never.....

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I see what's in it for her. I don't see what's in it for him. nt

[peacebird]

9. NO NO NO NO NO NO. Just go back to the Senate, the thought of HRC on the ticket makes me queasy.

[elocs]

10. A simple, but very emphatic "NO". n/t

[MessiahRp]

11. The last thing we need is the Bush/Clinton dynasties one lunatic's gunshot away from the WH

No to Hillary.

Rp

[ckramer]

13. The Psycho Ex-Girlfriend of the Democratic Party

It's 2:31 AM. The Democratic Party is sleeping peacefully when it hears its phone buzz on the night stand. It rolls over and sees "Hillary" on the caller ID. It pauses briefly, considering pushing "END" and not dealing with this shit tonight. The thought is appealing but the Democratic Party knows that if it doesn't take this call, another one is only minutes away.

DEMS: ...Hello?

Hillary: Hey baby.

DEMS: C'mon Hillary. Enough with this.

Hillary: Don't you get it? You NEED me.

DEMS: No, I don't. It was fun while it lasted but I'm with Barack now. I made my choice, it's done.

Hillary: You can't really mean that. How can you say that after all the good times we had?

DEMS: To be honest, I started hanging out with you because Bill's pretty awesome.

Hillary: But I'm just like Bill!

DEMS: No, you're not. Bill is charismatic, inspiring, and gets me really good weed.

Hillary: Fuck you. You're elitist!

DEMS: I'm going back to sleep.

Hillary: No, no, wait. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. Listen... there's still got to be a chance. Remember when people told George W it was all over. When the numbers were against him?

DEMS: Yeah but...

Hillary: Remember?! And remember how everyone said America didn't really want to be with George W? But they stuck it out anyway?

DEMS: Yeah and they're really fucked up now, Hillary.

Hillary: But WE'LL make it work. Forget Barack, baby. Just take me back and we can forget this ever happened.

DEMS: Look, I think you're a really good Senator... let's just keep it that way, OK?

Hillary: ...I'll see you at the convention.

DEMS: No! Hillary I told you...

CLICK

DEMS: Dammit. Crazy bitch.

http://madatoms.com/2008/05/edit-hillary-clinton-psycho-ex.html

[DeSwiss]

18. ROFL!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Bwwwaahhh! Easily, the best post of the night........

:rofl: :rofl::rofl:

[MJJP21]

14. No way

When I switched my affiliation from republican to dem this year I did so to support Barack Obama. At that time I said if he did not make it and Hillary did I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary. After what I have seen from her I could not vote for Barack with Hillary on the ticket. She is bad news from the start and I fear that either her or/and Bill would be scheming behind the scenes to torpedo efforts put forth from Barack. Barack should stay as far away from her as possible and let Hillary go back to NY and maybe run for governor if that is still possible.

[peace frog]

15. She must want on the ticket mighty goddamn badly

to send Mouthpiece George to publically plead for it. As the stomach turns,,,,

[DeSwiss]

16. NO. And here's why:

Given the stark differences, in what the two campaigns stand for (Change vs. Beltway), I'd say it would be a counter-productive match. Strength or no, we are left with the same potential outcome as it would have been had she been in Barak's current position. It would still be a oil and water marriage.

Pragmatically, from a governing perspective, it could depend upon what Barak believes that he can get accomplished w/o the DLC. So he may defer in the end, to pragmatism. Personally, I'd like to run the DLC bastards into the ground. They're nothing but empty suits. But in the end, that's what this question will come down to. And Barak runs the risk of discovering as Bill Clinton did, that its sometimes easier to get elected than to govern with a recalcitrant Congress.

But Barak would also have to convince this huge following and consensus of new people he's created and who are coming into the depths of the political process for the first time, that this is necessary. Being novices to the process, I think the younger folks would have a greater difficulty accepting her and could see such a move as a betrayal. And he'll need that youth and energy to make the changes that are needed.

Had Hillary run a more conventional campaign (meaning on the issues), it wouldn't be such a stretch. But her scorched-earth campaign cannot be now discounted. Nor can the Clinton legacy be overlooked as a negative. A legacy that has shown itself to be merely another opportunistic reign that ended up being a means for personal enrichment rather than having made any truly substantive changes that benefited the country. NAFTA doesn't count.

So I make the same argument now as was being made by the Hillary folks before, they wondered out loud if Obama was "electable," and I ask: is Hillary more of a strain on a GE campaign, offering more openings for Mc Lame and others to pick him apart for choosing her, rather than to pick someone of proven ability and experience? Real experiences, not the photo-ops and made-up crap. Someone who would provide the balance that many defecting Repukes and the Indies will respect and support?

Again, personally I think that experience is overrated. It is all well and good to have some, but it is just an indicator that a person has memories of what worked and what didn't. And it shows that a person can withstand the pressures and strains of high-level decision making and office. That's the good part. But experience alone won't cut it anymore. Not for where this country needs to go. Experience can be a greater drag than a benefit when it is time to make a CHANGE in direction. And that's what we need right now.

Hillary's ties to the corporacracy, and the DLC are the very ones who would be resistant to change and in particular since THEY ARE WHAT NEEDS CHANGING. And so somehow I can't believe that she'd be committed and loyal to such a platform. She would have to effectively turn her back upon the very entities that got her this far. And that have already enriched she and her husband. So I don't think she can be trusted with such a commitment, given what she already owes to others.

And I'm not prepared to provide a means for Bill to get any closer to the WH, except as a tourist. He's done enough damage to the Party.

[ckramer]

20. made sense

I bet Obama's wife wouldn't like Hillary being too close to her husband.

That alone would kill the deal.

[olddad56]

17. How about Jon Stewart for VP?

[I. J. Reilly]

19. Hillary as VP

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'd like to see her negotiate a spot on the Supreme Court (or as AG). I'd rather see a VP candidate who complements BO better (like Wes Clark).

[ckramer]

21. I would support Hillary to SC

She would be a good judge.

[DeSwiss]

23. On issues of civil liberty....

...yeah, I can see that. But she'd probably have to recused herself on just about every case that involves a corporation.

[ckramer]

25. But the SC doesn't deal with corporate case that often, does it?

The high level civil right cases like abortion, gay marriage, polygamy marriage, death penalty, unemployment benefits, free healthcare etc. Hillary would be the judge to the Left.

[DeSwiss]

27. And that's the catch....

...because the types of cases that get more airplay tend to be those which address civil liberty issues rather than the dull, mundane machinations of corporations.

And yet issues involving corporations (particularly corporate person-hood and accountability) when they do come before the court, may actually have a greater (yet subtle) impact in most people's lives. The sub-prime mortgage massacre is a case in point that illustrates the lack of corporate accountability and the absence of regulation.

And the issue of monopolies is one that hasn't been visited since we were told that we live in a global economy now so the old rules don't apply. But what we see now is that instead of national corporations being bought up and compressed into a bare few entities, we now have the same thing occurring on a global scale. But its still monopoly.

But as we continue to move forward in this global-economic world, changes will be necessary to avoid the problems where corporations are allowed to receive tax cuts at the taxpayer's expense, and then are allowed to raise the price of their products (oil), and the others who receive government largess in the form of tax credits, governemnt subsidies and crop price-stability payments, and then end up impacting the price of food without a care for how their corporate policies and decisions leave people starving.

All of these issues involve corporations. And I have to believe that an Obama Administration will not allow these sleeping dogs to lie...

[ToughLuck]

36. LOL, true!

[LuckyLib]

22. Please, no. It's time for fresh air in the WH and new faces at the helm.

The Clintons are yesterday. Pack up gracefully, with class, and call it a day.

[DeSwiss]

24. I'm more inclined....

...with the way you think.

For me personally speaking, I'd have a lot more confidence in Hillary in "some role" if she didn't have so much dead-weight still hanging onto her.

[susankh4]

26. He's the great "uniter."

This should be easy for him.

Right?

[DeSwiss]

28. Of people, yes...

...not corporations.

- Which is who Hillary stands with and for.

[susankh4]

30. Uh-huh...

just as I thought.

Few uniters there amongst his followers.

But, we'll see what Mr. Obama is really made of soon enough. Won't we?

[DeSwiss]

31. I think "we" already know.

At least some of us....

[dysfunctional press]

32. hillary burned her bridges as part of her scorched earth campaign...

but the repugs would LOVE that combo ticket- any assassination attempt, successful or not- could be blamed vince foster-style on hillary, and leave the ticket and the party in a shambles.

[earthlover]

34. Normally, offering a unity ticket might make sense except for one thing....

Hillary crossed the line in her negative attacks on Obama's character and his fitness to be commander in chief. When she basically said that McCain has dedicated his life to service to our country and, on another speech, saying McCain was fit to be commander in chief....while Obama just had one speech.....it was at this point where she made herself ineligible for VP. The Repukes would play those quotes into the ground....and say, don't just believe us, look what the VP candidate said about Obama....

It just doesn't make sense any more.

My inclination would be to compromise. But Hillary has made this option into a non=option.

I do think it would be a good idea for Obama to reach out to a Hillary supporter for his VP. And someone who would have a progressive view as well as foreign policy stature and experience. Fortunately, there is an almost ideal candidate for VP.....Wes Clark.

[ToughLuck]

35. All I can say is..I sure as hell hope not! Yuck to that idea.

when asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim, Clinton ends with "not as far as I know."

Fuck you Hillary.

[barnel]

37. it would be a never ending power struggle: Obama vs 'The Clintons'

he cant afford that