02/10/2008 02:22:34 AM EST

Hillary for Veep???

posted by sunsawed

Hillary for Veep.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

It seems the Obama/Hillary divide in the Democratic Party can only be resolved by a National Unity ticket of Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary.  If so, Obama/Hillary is the better choice.

Keeping Obama off the ticket will alienate a lot of Black voters.  Keeping Hillary off the ticket will alienate many Women, especially Early Boomers.

Hillary has a lot of negatives against her.  48% of people in a poll said they would NEVER vote for Hillary for President.  That's TOXIC to a national campaign.

But a lot of Hillary's negatives turn into positives if she is Vice-President.  Hillary's a total WONK.  She doesn't inspire people.  Instead, she's focused on the details politically.

But Hillary is a seasoned FIGHTER.  She knows the GAME and learned from Bill what to fight for and how to get down and dirty.

As President, she would SUCK because the Senate would filibuster every piece of legislation she ever proposed out of SPITE.

But as VEEP, Hillary could be the policy Wonk, run stuff up the flagpole.  And if it got defeated, it wouldn't be a reflection on Obama as President.  It could be a Bush/Cheney presidency done the RIGHT way, with Hillary pushing the strongest agenda, while Obama could stay above the in fighting.

In most Democracies around the world, they seperate HEAD OF STATE from HEAD OF GOVERNMENT.  In Britain, it's the Queen vs the Prime Minister.  The Head of State is supposed to be above the dirty details of politics.  That's the Head of Government's job.

In each niche, Obama is clearly the best Head of State, while Hillary could be the best Head of Government.

< Uncommitted | Micheal Savage >
 Display:
Hillary for Veep??? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
No way (none / 0)
There is no way in hell Hillary is going to be second banana.  That is not going to happen.  I would put a thousand dollars on that bet without hesitating.

by bfaul on 02/10/2008 11:35:40 AM EST

Prime Minister vs. President (none / 0)
Your analogy with the Queen vs. the Prime Minister is almost correct.  The Prime Minister of Britain also is the "head of state", since the Queen is simply a symbolic figure with no power at all.

The true distinction can be found in those countries which have both a Prime Minister and a President.  You can observe in those situations that the parliament continually tinkers with the relative powers of those two offices, either to strengthen the Presidency in order to threaten the Prime Minister, or to weaken the Presidency in favor of the Prime Minister.  Either way, that situation leads to much instability and unpredictability -- not a good thing if you're looking for a place to invest your money.

Anyway, I think you've proposed a spectacularly bad idea.  Hillary and Barack need to be at opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue:

1) So they don't kill each other,
2) Keeping each other honest, and
3) Making sure that whichever is President doesn't become too powerful.

It is not guaranteed that the Democratic wimps who are in Congress right now can accomplish nos. 2 and 3.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/10/2008 02:26:32 PM EST

Don't buy the logic. (none / 0)
I don't think you want a person with a 48% disapproval rating to be vice president.  I don't think women will have any problem voting for Obama.  Even in you believe that women prefer to vote for women, McCain isn't a woman so there really isn't an issue there. 

I haven't especially been impressed by Hillary as a fighter.  I think she's an average fighter, as politicians go.  Who has she whupped? 

by adamandruth on 02/10/2008 06:23:28 PM EST

AFAIK.... (none / 0)
The only person or issue that she has really tried to "whup" is Barack Obama.  Oh, if only that energy had been aimed against Dubya, he'd be in prison now!

by Juarez Traveller on 02/10/2008 06:59:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
untried whup-ness (none / 0)

"Oh, if only that energy had been aimed against Dubya, he'd be in prison now!"

That's a telling statement. And to lots of other Democrats in name only. 

As this Frontline says, they just want to last out the game: here

 

by toosinbeymen on 02/11/2008 07:05:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm beginning to believe they want more... (none / 0)
...than simply to last out the game.  I think the next president may want to keep the power that Cheney has given them, and that our Constitution will become unenforceable.

Have you heard Obama or Clinton talking about how Bush has violated the Constitution and how we need to restore the People's power?

Me neither.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/11/2008 07:15:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Basic premise says What? (none / 0)
"It seems the Obama/Hillary divide in the Democratic Party can only be resolved by a National Unity ticket..."

What utter nonsense! Sounds like a Fox Noise strawman.

Who says the 'divide' needs to be healed? This is what primaries are supposed to be like. THere should be a divide and a brolered convention. We've had too many years of bland candidates running bland races and being annoited months before they ought to be.

Look at it this way - if H or B were suddenly to get the right number of delegates today, the Republicans would have close to 9 months to bash the nominee. By not announcing for sure who it is until the end of August, they can only run generalized "Democrats are bad!" type ads until the announcement is made. Why give them an advantage?

Besides, Obama should choose Russ Feingold as a running mate.

by MedfordTim on 02/10/2008 08:04:20 PM EST

Too true (none / 0)
"...bland candidates running bland races and being annoited months before they ought to be."

That's how we ended up with -- it's unbelievable! -- Dubya.  I think he was actually crowned the Republican nominee in 1998.

(What I want to know is, how come nobody told us how utterly stupid this guy is?)

But how can we avoid making such horrible mistakes in the future?  A lot of folks (me included) want to shorten the primary/campaign season by several months, but wouldn't that increase the chances of getting another idiot?

I'm not so sure.  Our friends in the British Isles have put some highly intelligent people (even if you might disagree strongly with them, such as I do with Thatcher) into the Prime Minister's office with very short campaign seasons. But their leaders always already hold elective office and are high officials of their parties. In other words, they've already been vetted by the party (I say screw John Nobody in Podunk, New Hampshire, who thinks he's doing us a service by having every candidate in his living room.  It's his fault that we got stuck with Bush because he was to dumb to know how dumb Bush is.)

But there's no denying that Democrats do not win as many elections as do Republicans.  How can that be?  We know that Republicans are liars, and that they seek to help the filthy rich at the expense of everyone else, and that they trash the economy everytime they get into power.  How is it that they win so many Presidential elections?

Because the Democrats spend too much time fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting the true enemy.

I'm convinced of that.  I await an argument that that isn't at least a substantial part of the reason.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/10/2008 10:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 0)

Interesting.

"What will the Obama supporters think about the Clintons? Think they’ll be ready to reconcile in the name of party unity?"

Not according to the most recent Newsweek poll.

They don't hate Hillary. 

Link. 

Basically 84% of all Dem voters like Hillary or Obama.

"And what about the independents and moderates, the 30% of the voting population who are sick of partisanship and game playing? Think they will vote for Hillary, or the “Maverick Independent”, John McCain?"

They are sick of Bush's and Republican game playing. Bush keeps on championing policies that are wildly unpopular with most Americans and threating a temper tantrum if he does not get them. That explains his 30% approval rating. The one that looks like a 180 degree turn from Bush will get their support. Over the next 9 months, I don't like McCain's chances of keeping that image up.

Meanwhile, McCain's base can't stand him. 

Ken, turn off Limbaugh and pay attention to what's really going on. 

by z1p101 on 02/11/2008 12:24:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)

you can keep saying that he has done his damage to your beloved Republican party all the same.

Why do you think the only person in the Republican party that has a chance to be elected is the one with a "maverick RINO" image?

George W Bush does not care about you, your tax breaks, the Republican party, the "conservative movement" or anything else like that. All he cares about is that he made his family and friends a lot of money on our (the taxpayer) dime. He is about to run out of the White House after accomplishing that saying "thank you" to you while waiving his middle finger right in your face.

Even your favorite conservative hero and man crush Rush Limbaugh is rooting for Hillary to up his bottom line. 

God, why are Republicans such easy marks. Sorry Ken, I hate to be the one to break this kind of news to you again.

by z1p101 on 02/11/2008 01:22:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK Ken (none / 0)

Now it is facts time.

"Democrats who love Barack and hate Hillary is a far larger number of voters than Democrats who love Hillary."

I already sourced mine with the 84% number. 16% of these people will vote for McCain or not at all. Sucks for McCain.

"Republicans who hate Hillary."

I believe they hate McCain also and yes I sourced it.

"Independents who love McCain"

Source that also.

I do know that facts and neo cons are like oil and water but it would be nice if you can come with something else than Yahoo Answers. Aren't you some kind of engeneer. Do you not believe in numbers?

by z1p101 on 02/11/2008 02:14:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

More talk

"I have seen polls indicating the Barack Obama is very attractive to independents, while Hillary is very unattractive."

Link me and I am not a Limbaugh 24/7 member.

"But you've seen what Democrats in this forum think about Hillary. Granted, it's an unscientific poll, but it's an eye-opener."

Once again I could spend a whole day linking to what conservatives think about McCain but I do not feel like waisting my time so stop being a goof. If you think that any of those people who you quoted are going to vote for McCain over Hillary you are sadly mistaken.

"I can't find many Democrats talking about how much they hate John McCain, but it's not hard to find Republicans who hate Hillary...."

Do you actually read anything that anyone posts here?

"I'm pretty sure that you would agree that John McCain has little chance of defeating Obama, but a pretty good chance of defeating Hillary, especially if the Clinton's destroy Barack."

Anything could happen between now and November but McCain's chances suck regardless of who he is running against because everything works against him and not for him.

Considering the fact that Republicans are going to loose seats in the House and the Senate and McCain is against your tax cuts, it seems that even if McCain the long shot wins it will be a hollow victory for you.

Sorry man, I warned you for over a year this was coming and you didn't want to listen.

by z1p101 on 02/12/2008 12:40:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0)

Thanks once again for all the out of context quotes but I was talking about what they think of McCain.

Anyway, if the big plan now (since all your other ideas have fallen through as predicted) is that McCain will win just because everyone hates Hillary I think you are in for another big disappointment.

You also did not address my hollow victory statement. Interesting. 

by z1p101 on 02/12/2008 08:30:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
C'mon Ken (none / 0)

with the out of context quotes. I an already on the record saying that McCain can win but everything has to go perfect for him from here on out. Once again, if you think that regardless of what happens from here to November Hillary will loose just because no one likes her (I already provided evidence to the contrary) you are sadly mistaken.

Karl Rove agrees with me and I am still waiting for your proof on your statements. 

by z1p101 on 02/12/2008 10:58:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OOOH (none / 0)

A propaganda speech.

Ken, facts count. I already showed you that 84% of Democratic voters will get behind Hillary regardless.

Keep coming. 

by z1p101 on 02/12/2008 11:39:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea, Yea, Yea (none / 0)

The economy tanks, the war re enters the news cycles, conservatives continue not to buy his story, who he is running against continues to drag out and a bunch of other things can happen and he is done.

It will not matter if he is running against Hillary or not and you know it.

I'll remind you, you were linking to those same polls showing Rudy winning just a few months ago. 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 01:20:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you (none / 0)

for conceding to the fact that Hillary is not necessary a walk.

Oh yea, if the economy is good, does he still beat Obama?

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 01:51:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)

I just book marked it.

Ken says if the economy is good McCain will beat all comers. 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 02:14:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain was a flip-flopper, remember? (none / 0)

It's a trick.  First, get Ken to tell you whether he thinks the economy is good right now, otherwise this whole prediction becomes rather unscientific.

Hmmm, if only there were a way to show everyone McCain's tragic tendency... 

by OneHitKill on 02/13/2008 03:13:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The oracle is broked (none / 0)

Thanks for reminding me.  About all those "predictions" you've been making:  There is a hit-miss spread.  You gotta get outta the hole before you can get off the ground.

I know you know what I'm talking about.

by OneHitKill on 02/14/2008 08:31:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yea (none / 0)
and I believe that 84% number came post Karl rove propaganda speech. And yes both the Rove article and the 84% number come from the same source.

by z1p101 on 02/12/2008 11:48:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yahoo Answers? (none / 0)
Ken, your kidding me this time. Aren't you?

by z1p101 on 02/11/2008 01:32:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally (none / 0)

someone else who gets it. C'mon people, these are Republicans we are talking about and they do not know how to run on their own merits they only know how to bash the other guy. McCain's problem is he can not bash both Obama and Hillary because he most likely will need to try to pick up one of the two's supporters later.

I don't think the decision should wait until the very end but a few months can help the Democrats. Basically McCain can not make a move, he can not even pick a running mate for VP until he knows who he is running against. A few months of McCain looking like an indecisive deer in headlights can only work for the Dems if they play it right.

by z1p101 on 02/10/2008 10:34:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
billary (none / 0)

I'm all for a good fight, but this stuff about Edwards endorsing Clinton is scary. (who will prove to have been the total douchebag I thought he was all along if he does this.)   We can only hope people will see what a silly political ploy that is and it will have little effect on results. 

 

But like I said, my feel is that Hillary supporters will fall in line with Obama, but many many Obama supporters are behind him simply because he's a Clinton alternative.  People in the under-40 age group are sick of retreads on our government.  A Hillary nomination is like handing the election to the Republicans on a silver platter.   

by schmoab on 02/12/2008 12:22:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hillary for Veep??? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: