The unfortunate reality of Hillary for Vice President

[grantcart]

If so many Clinton supporters have been able to cross the line and embrace Senator Obama it is only fair that Obama supporters return the favor and consider Senator Clinton for Vice President.

I tried to put forth the best possible argument for Senator Clinton here:http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/79.

Basically she has all of the qualities that one is looking for. She also has electoral strenths that do blend well with Obama, especially in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The best argument though is the passion that many of her strongest followers feel for her. It doesn't matter why they feel it but at some point she became a great historical icon for some of her supporters.

The problem is that unfortunately there is always so much drama with the Clinton family. Between Hillary and Bill there are dozens of sub plots and high voltage stories. They can never be vetted because the fascination with them is beyond precident. It is a combination between circus, soap opera and CSpan on steroids. It would be an absolute disservice to any President to have that always bubbling underneath the surface.

Its unfortunate really. While there are excellent reasons to have Senator Clinton on the ticket there are also many others that point the other direction. The reality is however that this single question of Clinton hyper press makes it impossible for them to ever be considered for anything in a secondary roll. Its unfortunate really.

[davidinalameda]

1. if it was Hillary versus anyone else, would she have won in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc?

the answer is a big NO

if it was John Edwards, he would have mopped the floor with her

the only reasons she won was because she was running against Obama and a good chunk of voters in those states would never vote for a black candidate

[grantcart]

2. I believe that the reasons for her victories in Ohio and PA versus places like

Indiana, Wisconsin and Texas where she either tied or lost big was not so much race but that in OH and PA she had the benefit of the local machine by two effective old style pols Gov Strickland and Gove Rendell.

[MaraJade]

8. Pennsylvania people are smart enough

to see Obama's inexperience and naivete. That's why we didn't go for him. We're
farmers and working class and older folks. We are smart. That's why. Local machine
had nothing to do with it.

[Radical Activist]

13. haha Naivete?

Naivety is trusting what Bush said about Iraq and giving him authority to start a war.

Hillary started with a huge lead in PA that whittled down to very little. I realize that many people vote based on familiarity and name recognition. Given more time in PA, Obama would have won there, just as he won in Iowa where people know how to spot a fake.

[philkd]

14. You just described Illinois

Except for Chicago and east St. Louis, Illinois is mostly farmland with manufacturing / Ag industry scattered throughout. I guarantee he understands the issues facing rural communities. He was definatly off his game during the Penn Primaries but I wouldn't write off his abilities to connect with these voters in your state.

[Beacool]

17. I campaigned hard for Hillary in PA and race never came up.

The main reason given for not voting for Obama was his inexperience and his connection to dubious characters: Wright, Rezko, etc. People also questioned his patriotism due to the flag pin issue and "bittergate" was the gift that kept on giving. Ergo, Hillary won the entire state by large numbers, except Philadelphia and some of it's suburbs and the Harrisburg area. This despite 6 weeks of being out financed 3 to 1 by the Obama campaign.

Every question brought up by the now much maligned ABC debate had already been brought up by people when we knocked on doors. Every item except for Ayres, plus other things like all the people who thought that Obama was Muslim.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. OMG I can't wait for tomorrow.

Can't wait.

[Beacool]

34. Why?

Reality too hard to handle?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Sorry, can't hear you. The dog whistles from your previous post are too loud. nt

[paulk]

67. maybe you and the rest of the Obama bullies

should start paying attention instead of trying to shut up every criticism (and critic) of Obama. Criticism is not necessarily a bad thing. An analysis of why Obama lost PA is worthwhile, and I'm sure the Obama campaign itelf is asking these questions. We need to win this November, and you don't win by ignoring your weaknesses. You win by acknowledging them and moving to shore them up.

[Beacool]

69. The problem is that they don't want to hear it

and don't get that most people who dislike Obama don't do so due to his race. Most of them have legitimate questions about his leadership and experience. Yes, there's a 15% of people nationwide who will probably never vote for a minority, but that's a small percentage of the population.

The Obama campaign can choose to ignore people's concerns at their own peril.

[Liberal Gramma]

94. The question is...

are those concerns things that can be fixed or are they endemic? I don't think his leadership is in question, he's proven to be an effective leader in the primaries, but the experience meme is bound to come up. There's no way he can get more experience between now and the election, so it becomes a matter of showing that experience isn't necessarily a prerequisite for election. For some people, 45 years of experience boils down to one year's experience 45 times, because they dont' learn from it. Obama has demonstrated that he DOES learn from his experience, and that he is open to receiving advice and information from others more experienced than he. For the 15% who won't vote for him because of the color of his skin, that cannot be changed and so we have to resign ourselves to losing those votes. On the up side, new registrations and increased turnout among young voters and AA voters make up for the 15%

[Labors of Hercules]

97. You know, the real issue is people who make judgments

based on factual inaccuracies, ignorance or just plain prejudice.

People can be prejudiced for many reasons, not just race.

For example: Calling Barack "inexperienced" shows prejudice against his age: The FACT is, he is FAR more experienced than most anyone his age, and his judgment has proven time and again to be excellent, and NOT NAIVE. In addition historically, Presidents who were relatively YOUNGER have proven to be the MOST EFFECTIVE in office.

[ej510]

81. Race is a factor in Western PA. Those people ar very

similar to the people in West Virginia.

[mcctatas]

28. And I'm sure you disabused them of the notion that he was

a secret muslim, right?

[Beacool]

33. Actually, yes. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. Yeah right. nt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

20. delete by me

oh forget it.

deleted.

[Indenturedebtor]

37. Yes Penn was the only state that counted

The majority of the country that voted for Obama is entirely comprised of stupid latte sipping morons. :eyes:

If he's so Naive and Inexperienced then why did he win?

[WinkyDink]

54. PA. NOT "Penn".

[Indenturedebtor]

86. Heheh I know what the abbreviation is n/t

[Beacool]

70. The majority of the country is a little too much.

Do you mean several of the states won in caucuses and primaries which normally go Republican in the GE? Hillary won the biggest states and by wide margins in most of them. Heck, even though the MSM was harping all day how she was going to concede that night, she won SD by 10%. A state that even our own internals had Obama winning by a small margin.

So, choose to ignore the other half of the party if you wish, but millions of people voted for Hillary.

[Indenturedebtor]

88. Yes millions did vote for her, most voted for Obama.

And this arguement about these states that tend to go puke in the GE is extremely flimsy. If they tend to go puke, then they'll likely go puke. It's a primary, etc etc etc. Gore and Kerry I'm sure lost states in the primaries that they won in the GE and the other way around.

These sorts of arguments are designed for what purpose? Are they designed by GOP operatives who want you to stay home or vote for McBush? :shrug: Seem like it to me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. No, in PA, she won in large part due to negative campaigning...

Her 3 A.M. commercial worked. Her lies about not supporting NAFTA worked. She went entirely negative and she had her governors there to reaffirm that. Ed Rendell planted the seed of racism when he said that white people aren't ready to vote for a black man. It reminded people that Obama was black when he was trying to run a post-racial campaign. It worked.

[Beacool]

68. That's not so.

Face it, not everyone is as enthralled with Obama as some of you are, not everyone thinks that he's the best thing next to sliced bread. That happens to all candidates.

Trying to blame others is not it. He lost the entire state, not just pockets of it, except for Philly and Harrisburg.

[dailykoff]

3. Well, the unfortunate reality

is that the more she campaigns, the less support she gets. Look where she started here at DU (popular favorite for president) and where she ended (something like 740 to 14 against her being veep).

[MaraJade]

10. Here in DU I didn't expect her to be popular. . .

After all, this is where someone said, "I'm not voting for her because she reminds
me of my mother." (Very respectful of mothers here, aren't people?)

[dailykoff]

21. Her campaign was a disaster. She basically lost on day one

and kept compounding the error. Is there a single state where she actually did BETTER than expected?

[Recursion]

53. New Hampshire nt

[dailykoff]

92. She had more comebacks than Britney Spears

but not once did she ever gain the pledged delegate lead.

[SwampG8r]

76. i respect my mom

but i wouldnt elect her POTUS

[Beacool]

71. You are using DU as an example???

Too funny!!! DU is just as bad as KOS and Huff., which are all in the tank for Obama and have been so for months.

Hillary lost support? Where? She won most of the primaries after Feb. and by wide margins, except for IN. Even until the last day she was winning. She won SD by 10%, a state that Obama was expected to win.

[SwampG8r]

77. you are right

she finished a strong SECOND

[dailykoff]

87. She'd won before it started until it started, then she lost and never recovered.

After February she should have been campaigning for Obama, and no, I won't "forgive" the Clintons for knifing their own party in the back.

[Zhade]

4. My hatred of her proven lies aside, strategically it's a stupid move.

It hands mcLame ammo in the form of the Tuzla video (he easily proves clinton a liar) and the endorsement-of-mcLame video (which is already being used in mcLame's campaign ads).

[cliffordu]

5. DING DING DING We have a winner!!! Exactly right.

And, K and R cause I like Grantcart....

[Zhade]

12. Thank you. That's the first time in a while anyone got it.

NT!

[grantcart]

6. all examples of the drama that is the Clintons - unfortunate really

think how nice it would have been to have Obama/Clinton with all of the competence and none of the drama - just too bad.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

47. love them or not, the Clintons are larger than life

and just aren't made for the number two spot.

[sendero]

61. Exactly..

... HRC put the last nail in her own VP coffin with that ridiculous comment about McCain and experience.

Just like when you are chasing a member of the opposite sex, if you want it TOO much you will blow it.

[MaraJade]

7. Hillary would be a FOOL to accept the VP

all hell is going to break loose in this country by this time next year, and I
don't want her to be a part of it. She needs to stay in the Senate, sit back,
and watch the disaster unfold. I don't want her anywhere near anyone who will
blame her for what is about to happen.

[DangerousRhythm]

9. Out of curiosity... can you elaborate on that, please?

:)

[Radical Activist]

16. This is the only elaboration necessary for this poster.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

22. yes...

she can.

and will.

You sexist pig you.:D

[foo_bar]

26. just a bad case of sour grapes

I hope they do end it soon. . .

because if it's Obama, we Hillary people can plan our vacations for election day.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XTM6uNjoDc4J:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all (March 26th)

Good Luck with the GE without US. . .

You people DON'T GET IT. You are too blinded by your own arrogance
and vainglory.

(Why do I keep saying this. . . after all, I am dealing with teenagers
and callow youth not much older than my daughter. Suchlike ones don't get
anything until it's too late---grr!)

Good luck with the GE (without the Hillary supporters) anyway. See if you
can win anything at all without US!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5002427 (March 11th)

And if Hillary loses these primaries, most of her supporters won't

vote for Obama. They'll defect right over to McCain. So I agree with you.

It'll be McCain as our next POTUS.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:k3nXlvsopk0J:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all (March 4th, the day before the Texas/Ohio primaries)

[leftofcool]

11. I agfree!

[Hugabear]

75. Hmmm - sounds like you actually want to see Obama fail - set up for a 2012 rematch?

You've already stated in another thread that you will not vote this election, and that your hubby and his friends are going to vote for McCain.

Let me guess, you'd love nothing more than to sit back and hope for Obama to fail, and then have Hillary challenge him in 2012?

[Radical Activist]

15. No thanks. I'd like to win.

Few public figures have higher unfavorability ratings than Hillary. People don't like her. She loses the ticket more votes than she adds.
The fact that she stated this race with every advantage (more money, more fundraising connections, high name recognition, a popular former President on the campaign trail, experience in a national campaign) and despite that she lost badly to a relative unknown. That tells you all you need to know about how electable she is.

[Beacool]

18. Lost badly???

Counting MI she won the popular vote and he was only 127 pledged delegates ahead of her. The super delegates selected him, he never closed the deal.

[Radical Activist]

24. Only third rate dictators claim the popular vote when they're the only name on the ballot.

And she only got 55% of the vote in MI even while being the only major candidate on the ballot.
The primary was effectively over in mid February. It was clear then who had won. The fact that she didn't show enough political sense to bow out then with her reputation in tact is another example of her poor judgment.

[Beacool]

27. No it isn't .

To many of us Obama is still the lesser candidate with a razor thin resume.

[mcctatas]

29. And to the rest of us...

he is the nominee. Will you continue to question his legitimacy and abilites for long?

[Beacool]

32. His abilities definitely.

His legitimacy is about the same as Bush with Gore, but that's water under the bridge for now.

[Radical Activist]

35. I think I understand now why Hillary lost.

If she had been the only name on the ballot in EVERY state she would have done just fine. Why not, since you think its OK to count states where people had no choice?

Just out of curiosity, who won the popular vote if you assign the people who voted for "none of the above" in MI to Obama? Have you figured that one out yet?

[Radical Activist]

31. No, what' isn't?

You'll have to explain what you're referring to in your subject line.

And what does Obama's resume have to do with my points about MI and Hillary staying in too long?

PS Obama has more experience in elected office than Hillary.

[Beacool]

36. Being a state senator?

Please.........

Hillary may not have reached the pledged delegate number, but she won most primaries after Feb. and by large margins, except for IN. She even won SD by 10% and our internals had her behind by 2%. She turned out to be a much better campaigner than at the beginning of the race and she will be back. Hillary is not done, she'll come back and pursue it at a future date.

[Radical Activist]

40. Obama won the most primaries.

That's what matters. What's with this "She won the most primaries AFTER February" baloney. Please.
Maybe if you count states where only she was on the ballot, take out four other states, stand on one toe, tilt you're head a little to the left and quack like a duck then Hillary is the winning candidate!

Is you're strongest argument for Hillary really that she won in the states where Obama had the least exposure over time and people voted based on the familiarity of her last name? I'm having a hard time believing you're a real Hillary supporter at this point. Your last sentence sounds eerily similar to the old cry, "The South shall rise again!"

[Beacool]

73. There's no point discussing anything with you.

You only see through Obama blinders and diminish her accomplishments.

Fine, choose to ignore that she did win most primaries after Feb. and by wide margins.

The South comment is too funny since I live in NJ. Hillary is not politically dead, she will do just fine in the future. There are plenty of elections to come.

[Radical Activist]

85. You haven't responded to a single point I've made.

When are you going to START discussing things with me beyond repeating a few talking points?

[dailykoff]

90. I was noticing that too,

But when you think about it, there's not a hell of a lot of to defend, and never was. The Hillary campaign had no rationale beyond Hillary, and that wasn't much.

[polmaven]

58. She was NOT

the "only major candidate on the ballot". There were 4 of the original 8 candidates still on the ballot in MI.

[Radical Activist]

89. Kucinich and Gravel were the only other candidates on the ballot.

I'm not taking any more lies and spin from Hillary supporters. Stop it.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=MI

[polmaven]

95. I think the supporters

of Congressman Kucinich will disagree that he was not a major candidate. And, even though he had withdrawn ofly a few weeks before, Chris Dodd's name was also on the ballot.

You are not "taking" any more? What is it you plan on doing? I see NOTHING in the rules that says we cannot correct misstatements by DUers about Democrats.

I am supporting Senator Obama, and will continue to admire Senator Clinton and defend her from smears on this board.

[Radical Activist]

96. Correcting a mistatements is what I just did.

So your argument is that Kucinich was a major candidate? That kind of constant spin and dishonesty is what people are sick of. Its why Hillary lost. People are sick of being lied to.

CNN doesn't seem to think Dodd was on the ballot.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=MI

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. Counting MI and discounting 4 caucus states.

And I'm sure you never had a problem with SDs until they started going for Obama.

[Beacool]

30. Counting MI and the 4 caucus states she still wins the popular vote.

Real Clear Politics:

Popular Vote Count

State Date Obama Clinton Spread

Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI)** 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Does the fourth count give the uncommitteds to Obama?

I don't think so. Nice try.

BTW, there is no "popular vote" in a primary that lasts several months, and includes several caucuses. It's a non-existent metric.

[Indenturedebtor]

42. Um care to post a useable link so we can see what chicanery you used there?

Please? Or did you quite simply give Obama 0% of the vote in MI? Hrmmm?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. She gave Obama 0%, of course. She has no problem with Stalinist elections. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

60. How many votes did Obama get in Michigan?

The cold reality is he got zero votes, and by his own choice. It's not stalinist, it's not soviet, it's the fact that if you don't run in a race, you can't win it. He made a political calculation and that's the result.

[SwampG8r]

79. here we go again

the rules said no participation
who participated in the election and broke the DNC rules?
do not try to say that havin you NAME on the ballot is not participating

[Beacool]

74. Go to Real Clear Politics and see it for yourself.

I didn't manipulate any figure.

[SwampG8r]

78. i lost the link

but its a page where they counted the numbers 6 ways and obama won 4 of them
shes posting the 2 that they counted usin hillarymath
which they included as a joke to show how out of touch her claims at the time were

[Recursion]

55. Counting only WI, SC, and HI...

...the election was a complete blowout in favor of Obama. What's your point?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. BTW, Per CNN exit polls, 206000 of MI voters would have chose Obama if he were on the ballot.

Vote if All Candidates Were On Ballot Clinton Dodd Gravel Kucinich Uncommitted
Clinton (46%) 97% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Edwards (12%) 30% 2% 0% 11% 57%
Kucinich (2%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Obama (35%) 18% 0% 1% 2% 79%
Richardson (1%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


35% said they would have picked Obama. There goes your popular vote margin w/MI and the caucus states.

589984 total votes

35% of that total = 206494

[polmaven]

57. Almost 18,000,000 votes

is not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, losing "badly".

[anonymous171]

19. ...

[Asgaya Dihi]

43. Umm, no

I'd be glad to consider her for a position in the cabinet or in other places but to consider her for VP is to throw away everything from change to new tone to any possibility for a productive Presidency.

If she had won and done it fair then yes, I would have voted for her for President, but the two of them don't work well together and don't belong together on that level. Call it a personality conflict or whatever else you'd like, but it's still a bad idea. Going for a bad idea that is sure to do damage to all of us isn't exactly the right way to say "thanks".

I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6265263&mesg_id=6265328">wrote a post shortly after the last primary and before she conceded in answer to a pro/con thread on the subject, detailed some of the high points on why I think it would be such a bad idea. It isn't personal, it's just bad for our chances to win, our chances to get past the partisan divide in this nation, and I'd bet to our chances to be productive if somehow they did get past the baggage and get elected. I see no "pro" to it and I have honestly looked for it.

[SwampG8r]

80. i write to the campaign daily and say

no hillary anywhere as long as her shills are pushing any kind of "i really won" meme

[symbolman]

46. Definately Secretary of Hillary

accept no substitutes :)

[charlie]

49. *snort*

:thumbsup:

[CakeGrrl]

48. It's just never going to be a good idea for Obama - he has to look BEYOND the election

And consider who he's inviting on the ticket.

All these reasons still stand, regardless of Hillary's concession and 'release' of delegates:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html

And let's look at the motivations of the dead-enders: Why must it be 'VP or I don't vote' for some of her supporters? What do they want for her, especially those who are still bashing Obama as the less qualified?

Why would they want her to serve behind him, unless they harbored hopes that she would somehow be able to take over #1? What do they think she can accomplish in that role, if VP is essentially a background, supportive figure unless something untoward happens to the President?

When one of her higher-profile state supporters think she can gain "the catbird seat" as VP, I take notice of the implications.

Nothing in Hillary's makeup or the aggressive negativity and single-minded, debt-inducing persistence of her campaign indicates that she'd suddenly be fine and dandy being a #2 after she used the night of Obama's win to remind her supporters that she felt she was really the better choice.

"I'm in it to win it."

I'll say again: When Pat Buchanan and his ilk are pushing it, there's nothing ultimately good in it for the Democrats. Why are some of these people lobbying so very hard for her to take a backseat to the candidate they don't think is good enough to be President?

If I'm Obama, no damned sale. If her "I'll vote for McCain" faction of supporters cannot accept that she is not the best pick on the merits (truly, apart from mollifying the dead-enders, how does she complement his credentials, and how do her lies and voting record HELP him?), then he needs to soldier on regardless of what they threaten to do, and focus on GOTV and working the Independent/Repub crossover.

This is one time the squeaky wheel should not be greased. It'll try to roll over him.

Consider it "considered" - but rejected by many as a bad idea.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. Hillary would get Obama more votes than anyone else, but McCain still more

I don't think Senator Clinton would be a sensible choice of running mate. More people would probably turn out to vote for Obama with her than with any other running mate, sure, but she'd bring out even more voters for McCain.

Bill Clinton was the Republican's worst nightmare - a successful 2-term Democratic president. They've never forgiven him or Hillary for that, and with her as running mate they'll turn out in droves.

I hope Obama gives her some other senior role in his administration if he does win, though.

[Prophet 451]

51. Don't see it happening

There are several good reasons to include Hillary on the ticket and you mentioned some of them but I think they're cancelled out by her very high negatives (and I'll be the first to agree that most of those aren't her fault). The right have been salivating over the prospect of a Hillary run for years, they've been demonising her constantly for sixteen years now (more, in some cases) and they've been very frank that she'd be the best GOTV ploy they ever had (and sadly, my own interactions bear that out).

The number of votes she'd bring to the ticket is negligible (consisting entirely of the idiots who insist they'll vote McCain or stay home otherwise) and, I suspect would be cancelled out by the number of people who loathe her with a passion and would make a special effort to get out and vote against her.

I can easily see several Cabinet positions Hillary would be well suited for but VP isn't one of them. Besides, I doubt she'd take it.

[dansolo]

52. Your best argument works against her

People like to extol the passion that her followers feel for her, and yet you completely ignore the passion that Republicans have against her. Believe me, there are probably a lot more people who will specifically vote against her than would be specifically voting for her, so it is a net negative. We are looking at very low turnout on the Republican side. Why do we want to energize their base?

[JCMach1]

56. I would humbly suggest to Obama supporters to accept the

same position that I have about the nominee.

She's better than McCain.

[musicblind]

59. As a Hillary supporter who now 100% supports Obama for the GE

THANK YOU for that well balanced and reasonable post regarding Hillary as a potential VP candidate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. If that is the case, then we will most assuredly lose this election! n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. What Camille Paglia has to say...

Camille Paglia at her nastiest:

Hillary for veep? Are you mad? What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show? If the sulky bearded lady wasn't biting the new president’s leg, the oafish carnival barker would be sending in the clowns to lure all the young ladies into back-of-the-tent sword-swallowing. It would be a seamy orgy of scheming and screwing. Hillary could never be content with second place. But neither could an alpha male like Obama. The vice-president should be an accomplished but subordinate personality. An Obama-Hillary ticket might tickle party regulars, but it would be a big fat minus in the general election. Republicans have shrewdly stockpiled a mammoth arsenal of past scandals to strafe Hillary with. Only a sentimental masochist would want to relive the tawdry 1990s.

[Maddy McCall]

72. You're quoting Paglia on DU? Do you even know who she is?

:rofl:

[XtraProudDem]

82. Do you claim some kind of ownership on "knowing who Camille Paglia is?"

Seriously, do you really believe that because someone is an Obama supporter that it means that they are so out of touch with women's issues that they wouldn't know who she is?

Can you hear yourself?

I'm a man and an Obama supporter and I know who she is. I saw her speak at my university and shook her hand.

Can I join your "club?"

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Paglia, Sullivan, Kristol, Novak, fucking Drudge

All purveyors of gospel troof in the world of Brave New Politix.

[tpi10d]

65. I strongly suspect this is being polled by Obama surrogates

It would be negligent not to do so.

Background-I'm strong Obama supporter since Iowa. And yes I have many of the same concerns re: Hillary as posted above.

Yours and David Zepher's thoughts are very reasonable IMO. Hillary as VP is an option worth considering if it shows a reasonably clear increase in the odds to Obama's path to presidency.

An example would be LBJ/Kennedy- something like .3% separated them in popular vote (vs. Nixon/Lodge). LBJ/Kennedy were like oil and water-but a strong case could be made there would have been no Kennedy administration without LBJ on the ticket (carried Texas).

Re: Hillary- the situation is unusual enough to warrant serious study of the VP matter. She has very deep loyalty among her followers, her followers and Obama's tend to reach different demographics, there is potential for some older republican/independent women to support her, her followers tend to be older (reliable voters), and her followers could be as enthusiastic to vote for her as VP as they would be if she headed the ticket.

Whether the points in the above paragraph are true-this is what needs further study, polling and analysis by Obama's excellent strategists.

Remember most presidential elections are close-less than 3% in the last two. 3 people out of a hundred. If thorough reliable polling indicated the addition of Hillary adds 3% to Obama's ticket compared to any other choice- are you sure you want to give that up?

[greguganus]

66. Um no. She would cause repubs to vote in droves, even dead ones. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. Ronnie Reagan would emerge from his grave to vote for McCain if Hillary's the VP! n/t

[paulk]

93. I dont think this argument holds water

HRC always did better than Obama in head to head and electoral vote matchups vs Mccain.

In her last Senate run she won red upstate NY counties that hadn't gone for a Democrat in 50 years. Republicans voted for her, not against.

[AJH032]

91. I think it would be smart to choose her

Too many Democratic voters who supported Clinton in the primaries have said they will either vote McCain or not vote at all. The reality is that we need these votes, and it seems that choosing Hillary is really the only way to do it. I don't really buy the argument that she would drive away independents and Republicans. Most general election polls (the hypotheticals that put her against McCain) showed her winning. There's nothing to backup the claim that she'd somehow bring Obama down. There is, however, plenty of evidence to show she could help him.