September 26, 2007

Would Hillary Choose Obama For Veep?

Roger Simon at the Politico says no, but goes through a lot of reasons why Hillary Clinton might select Barack Obama as her running mate once she wins the nomination. Simon mentions the need for unity after a fractious primary, Obama's draw among black voters, and his organizational skills. Simon waits until the concluding paragraphs to give what he sees as the countervailing argument (via Memeorandum):

So why wouldn’t Hillary put Obama on the ticket?

There are two unbreakable rules for picking a running mate: Never pick anybody who might overshadow the top of the ticket, and never pick anybody you cannot completely control.

So Obama might be eliminated on both counts.

Then there is the Rule of Firsts. The Clinton campaign does not want to force too many “firsts” on the American electorate.

Electing the first woman president will be challenge enough. Electing the first woman president and first African-American vice president at the same time? Forget it; they don’t need that kind of problem. (The same reasoning might prevent New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is Hispanic, from getting the vice presidential nod.)

I don't find either argument compelling. The Rule of Firsts must have been passed just recently, as it has never been an issue before this electoral cycle. The only first that either party has offered in the last couple of generations has been the nomination of Geraldine Ferraro as the running mate to Walter Mondale in 1984. Mondale didn't exactly represent a complete break from history in Democratic nominees; he was a former VP and long-time Senator.

Simon's argument about control doesn't make much sense, either. Barack Obama hasn't exhibited any noteworthy variations from the party line, except in his insistence that he runs a different kind of campaign. Simon's suggestions actually get much worse, especially in his inclusion of Jim Webb, an infamous loose cannon. Evan Bayh has his own strong constituency and family tradition, and would be much less malleable by the Clintons than the first-term Obama. Even Dan Quayle had more seasoning than Obama.

There is one good argument for Obama as VP, and two good arguments against it. Obama has built an organization that rivals Hillary's, and combined they could be tremendously effective in the general election. The two arguments against Obama are really one with two parts. Obama adds nothing in terms of votes to the ticket. Hillary will carry Illinois with not much difficulty, given the Republican disarray there, and she'll carry the black vote 9-1 regardless of running mate. Obama won't help in the South; Simon seems to forget he doesn't come from there.

I'd expect to see either Tom Vilsack or Bill Richardson as the VP. She needs regional balance that both men can provide, and she needs executive experience on the ticket that she lacks. Obama can't provide either of those qualities.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Would Hillary Choose Obama For Veep?:

» Links Of Interest To The Blogroll from Right Voices
Here are some links that I found to be of interest. I gave you excerpts, but hope that you take the time to read the entire piece. Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Algeria from Little Green Footballs~ Five dead and five injured today in a series of... [Read More]

Comments (45)

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 12:02 PM

Who cares?

Besides, now's a good time for a "history" lesson; because I remember all the hate that was spewed towards Nixon by the left; in 1968.

What good did it do?

Nixon won in a landslide.

As for "today's news," I'll leave that to DRUDGE. How has a front page, column left, picture of Chelsea; and a link to a letter her dad's counsel wrote. On very fancy, gold embossed, letterhead. (Well, it could'a been done in "astro-turf," and it would more resemble Bubba. But he's going for the fancy stuff.)

And, this headline? Chelsea allowed herself to be photographed with the restaurant owner. And, this photo is now in the restaurant's window.

As if you've never seen celebrity photos of famouse people "having dined there, once."

Perhaps? If the media wanted to dig deeper; they'd find Bubba now wants FREE MEALS AT WILL.

Or? There's gonna be a pasta-fazoo lawsuit to follow.

If you owned the restaurant, what would you do?

Now. There's today's headline. Let's discuss.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 12:06 PM

Obama's not gonna be veep. Probably, Hillary will offer him a cabinet chair?

And, if he's smart he's gonna want one she's already stolen. Rather than wait, with baited breath, for pigs to fly.

Richardson, I'll bet, will probably make it up to the ticket. Either in first place. Or second. But in the contests, ahead; and, yes, the Bonkeys are having them, now, too. I suspect Algore will be back. He just doesn't want to exert himself, just yet. He wants his Nobel piss prize, first.

The europeans are stuck on influencing us. And, it's not just george soros.

Posted by Teresa | September 26, 2007 12:18 PM

I think it is idle speculation at this point, but I wonder if Hillary won't pick some moderate Republican in an effort to prove that she wants to move beyond partisanship.

(And, yes, I realize everyone here will say that it would be an entirely fake effort.)

Posted by Corky Boyd | September 26, 2007 12:26 PM

A couple of more reasons Hillary won't pick Obama. She develops a visceral hatred for all who oppose her. This goes especially for those who takes "her" campaign money. Additionally, she will get the black vote anyway. No democrat has gotten less than 85% in prior presidential elections. The Obama campaign may try to blackmail her into believing the black vote defect or stay home if she doesn't pick him, but her campaign people know better.

She needs help among white southerners. Obama is not the answer.

Posted by fdcol63 | September 26, 2007 12:42 PM

1) Hillary will do ANYTHING to get elected.

2) Hillary will then do ANYTHING to "fix" the problem caused by #1.

Posted by John Wilson | September 26, 2007 1:00 PM

The X-factor is Mayor Daley in Chicago. I'm betting that he wants Obama in and will push them together. Then there is David Axelrod who svengali'd Obamas campaign. I bet he'll cut a deal with the best of them to stay at the table with his guy going nowhere in the polls.

I hope they do team up. They will be highly beatable in the general election. He's a lightweight and she's wooden. Both of them have issues with campaign finance shenanigans and she can't do anything on her feat while he's all glib all the time. He'll outshine her and she'll stab him in the back. Get the popcorn.

Posted by Trubador | September 26, 2007 1:24 PM

As it gets closer and closer to the primaries, and it becomes more and more apparent that Hillary will get the Dem. nomination, I would not be surprised to see Al Gore do one of two things: either enter the race late as a Dem. (like a knight on his white horse to "save" the day for the nutroots), or will enter the race as the Green Party candidate - with Gore choosing Obama as his running mate in either case. The nutroots so-called "dream team" (I see these bumper stickers EVERYWHERE out here in California) is Gore-Obama '08.

Posted by Honky | September 26, 2007 1:28 PM

We know the media will be in the tank for the Dems '08 ticket. But I imagine they will be even more so for a Clinton-Obama ticket. Can you imagine how many stories there will be about the historic possibilities (woman pres, black VP)? Everyone who votes against them will be called racist.

Posted by arch | September 26, 2007 1:41 PM

Obama's recent foreign policy address, recommending cut and run in Iraq in favor of attacking Pakistan, has ruined his chances for either end of the ticket.

Posted by bio mom | September 26, 2007 1:45 PM

Obama will not be the VP. She only needs one more big state to win, assuming she holds all of Kerry's states. She will go after either Florida with someone from there or Ohio. Also it could be Evan Bayh becaue he could bring her Indiana and also effect some nearby midwestern states that are wobbly.

Posted by bio mom | September 26, 2007 1:47 PM

Also, why would Obama accept a cabinet post? Leave the senate? That is the cushiest job in the country with almost guaranteed job security.

Posted by John | September 26, 2007 1:52 PM

The problem with Obama is that, while the big media outlets would swoon, unless you think he has the potnetial to bring in some swing voters wanting to feel good about themselves by voting for a historic ticket, his up-side as a voter draw when people get into the polling place is limited.

Since Hillary could put Jim McGreevey on the ticket as her VP and still get 85-90 percent of the African-American vote, adding Obama offers no advantage on the racial politics side. Richardson, on the other hand, could help Hillary with Hispanic voters, who lean Democratic, but at nowhere near the level of black voters, but may have some, ahem, character issues similar to those of Hillary's husband.

If Clinton believes she's got the racial demographics sewn up by next summer -- i.e., if the Republicans alienate Hispanic voters to the point that Hillary sees them as given her far more of a plurality than either Gore or Kerry received against Bush -- and the netroots have nowhere else to go, don't be surprised if she actually panders to the disaffected white male demographic and picks someone like Evan Byah as her VP pick

Posted by exhelodrvr | September 26, 2007 2:00 PM

The recent history of Senators being elected is miserable. Hillary doesn't fit the standard mold of a "Senator running for President", but that is still something of a negative. Adding Obama pushes it further in that direction; adding a governor to the ticket would balance that out somewhat.

Is that an issue, or does the fact that she is Hillary and he is black overcome that?

Posted by jay | September 26, 2007 2:07 PM

1 Hillary needs to appease the looney anti war left

2 Hillary needs to win Ohio or Tennesee

Hillary will pick a nominee from one of those States. It will be Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich.

I realize either of these picks will be nuts. However, the people she needs to win are also nuts.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 26, 2007 2:13 PM

The x factor is Iraq. Hillary backed MoveOn and Kos rather Petraeus and American soldiers. She is toast and it looks good on her. It doesn't always pay to do the wrong thing.

Posted by FedUp | September 26, 2007 2:14 PM

we could have skipped another 'First'... Nancy Pelosi... heir apparent to the throne

Posted by Teresa | September 26, 2007 2:54 PM

The immigration debate will push Hispanic voters into the Democratic base for the next twenty years. Hillary has no need of Bill Richardson -- not to mention the inevitable "Hillary & Bill" jokes.

Posted by Christoph | September 26, 2007 2:58 PM

Good analysis, Plus, she thinks Obama is a moron and that doesn't help.

Posted by alex | September 26, 2007 3:05 PM

Lieberman, the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Democrats in 2000, was the first Jewish, major-party, national candidate, and thus the most recent 'first'.

Posted by Gregory | September 26, 2007 4:03 PM

Reminds me of a bit from comedian Chris Rock. He said a white president would never have a black vice-president because brothers would be lining up to kill the president.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 4:12 PM

Now, Gregory, that's really funny!

It seems lots of decisions go into the "veep" slot; and one of them, made by the president, is to prevent the assassination attempt. That's why Nixon pitched to Agnew.

ON the other hand, I really, truly, do not believe we are seeing "all" the candidates.

Obviously, Newt's there. Behind the screen.

And, so is Algore.

Each to his own, screen. While McCain? Well, he could be lurking around Hillary, ya know?

Maybe, they've made a "let's make a deal, deal?" And, if Hillary is named the top of her ticket, she'll pick McCain. While he would do vice versa. Not that I think he even comes close to getting the republican nod.

So far, though, there's no video game, like you get for fantasy baseball. With names of real players. And, their statistics. I guess programmers don't want to be bored?

Posted by Honky | September 26, 2007 4:16 PM

I thought Chris Rock said the first black president had better have a Hispanic VP to prevent his own assassination. "If you shoot me, then it's open borders!" Maybe he said both.

Posted by viking01 | September 26, 2007 4:21 PM

It all depends on how much of Obama's FBI file that angry Hillary may have obtained. If she's gathered enough dirt to make Obama tap dance on command then maybe she could figure him in as her personal Jocelyn Elders.

Al Gore was about as qualified for VP as a box of waffles so the lack of substance probably wouldn't disqualify Obama.

Posted by jack | September 26, 2007 4:24 PM

What about a popular, relatively nonpartisan Southern governor with excellent managerial skills? Phil Bredesen of Tennessee fits the bill, and if he were to become Hillary's VP nominee, it would achieve regional and cultural balance to the ticket, while solidifying her centrist credentials. It would also make the Republicans defend their Southern base, which would put the Democrats at a significant advantage in places like the upper midwest and mountain states. Just sayin'.

Posted by Corky Boyd | September 26, 2007 4:28 PM

For thise who think Gore would be an asset to Hillary in the South, think again. He couldn't even carry his own state in 2000. No, Gore might throw hs hat in the ring for the #1 job.

There would be big Hollywood money he could pick up, but he won't move unless Hillary stumbles, or there is a major Hillary scandal. Don't count on either.

Posted by Terrye | September 26, 2007 4:39 PM

If Hillary has any sense, she will pick Evan Bayh. SShe needs someone midwestern and sensible.

And I although I am not happy about it, I think Teresa is right about the Hispanic vote. That of course is what Soros had in mind when he bought all those Mexican flags and set that whole "spontaneous" march up. The Anchoress has an interesting post on that. Yep, Soros played the right on that one.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 6:21 PM

bio mom said:

"Also, why would Obama accept a cabinet post? Leave the senate? That is the cushiest job in the country with almost guaranteed job security."

Actually, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Barry Hussein Obama move back to Hawaii and run for the Senate seat of 83 year old Dan Inouye, who's held the seat since John F. Kennedy was President. Talk about job security...

Obama is treated as a God by the Kool-Aid drinkers out there, who would re-elect him until he was older than Sheets Byrd. In other words, Barry would be Senator until 2050, at least. And why live in Illinois, when you can do the exact same job representing a Democrat-controlled island chain in the Pacific?

Posted by Teresa | September 26, 2007 6:34 PM

Del -- Is there a reason why you insist on calling Obama by "Barry Hussein Obama"? I see a lot of Republicans do this and am wondering what inference we are supposed to draw from it.

Posted by F.Igwealor | September 26, 2007 7:10 PM

Would Obama choose Hillary for the VP spot?


Posted by F.Igwealor | September 26, 2007 7:13 PM

Any Democrat that votes for Hillary in the primary, is wasting this chance of taking the White House from the Republicans.

If Hillary is nominated, the dems would not only loose the White House but also both houses of the congress.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 7:46 PM

Teresa said:

"Del -- Is there a reason why you insist on calling Obama by "Barry Hussein Obama"? I see a lot of Republicans do this and am wondering what inference we are supposed to draw from it."

"Barry" is short for "Barack".

"Hussein" is his given middle name.

Your point?

Posted by GRS | September 26, 2007 8:01 PM

As to Veep nods, in addition to Vilsack or Richardson, I'll add two more names to the list: Indiana's Evan Bayh (same regional argument, but whereas Iowa is purple, going Gore in 00 and Bush in 04, Indiana is more brightly red having gone for Bush both times) and General Wesley Clark. The former NATO commander endorsed her recently, and he would certainly give her some national security credibility (which is of course any oxymoron with any Democrat).

Posted by kingronjo | September 26, 2007 8:14 PM

If Hillary picks Bayh for VP, she will not win IN.

If Hillary picks Bredesen for VP, she will not win TN.

If she picks Obama she wins 93% instead of 90% of the black vote, the extra 3% coming from states she is comfortably going to own anyway.

If she picks Richardson for VP, she may win NM (she may win it without him tho). However, Richardson has some major problems that make Giuliani look tame (ask his Lt Governor,a female Dem, about them).

The days of needing a VP from another region are long over in the days of instantaneous communication. So its about individual states, the two most important being OH and FL. Hillary has her own brain trust so I am sure they are looking at putting FL or OH from in play to her advantage. They have Nelson in FL, and a 2 year Gov and Sen in OH

I think the VP choice is much more important for Giuliani than HRC cuz he needs to counter, or should I type, blunt HRC's first woman thingy. Perhaps he can pick a Hispanic or female running mate? OUTS:

Martinez in FL is ineligible (born in Cuba), Collins/Snowe are no go's, Kay and Liddy from fairly safe states and too old? so they're out, Palin not enough experience, a female Representative would be a pander ala Ferraro (Miss Unqualified if there ever was one), Whitman give me a break.

OK, here are some possibilities:

Lingle Gov-HI a definite possibility, her and Rudy have campaigned together puts HI into a small possibility, maybe not conservative enough. Probably the best choice if Rudy goes for a female.

Rell, Gov-CT hmmmmmmm? from Rudy putting CT in play to taking it (prob wont anyway) won't help in the conservative regions tho.

Murkowski R-AK not enough experience and from a safe state so prob a no go also.

How about Joe Lieberman, Republicans favorite liberal. Rudy and Joe have a great relationship, Rudy campaigned for him in '06 so who knows? That might bring over some more conservative Dems and make Kos' head explode for an added bonus. (SHHHHH, dont tell the Dems but that would make the Republican governor {Rell} pick his replacement unless they have some crazy law).

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 8:44 PM

Oh, funny, funny, Viking01.

Algore does compare to a box of waffles.

By the way, today, at Drudge, he's given headline space to Katie Couric's complaints "that women aren't taken seriously." Lucianne runs this with a photo, as well.

And, its interesting, to me, that the affirmative action crowd, (made up of females who've been elevated to top spaces); aren't facing up to having mare's and filly's, as race horses.

Seems there's a lot of denial going on ...

While, even here, you have people who don't know that Hussein's Obama's middle name. FER REAL.

Not ready for prime time.

Since pigs can fly at Columbia. And, Dan Rather thinks he's gonna get both Bush presidents depositioned for his case against C-BS; (per a Drudge headline); it seems the media completely misses the mainstream.

Again, the Internet gets to discuss this stuff.

But I can't believe hillary gets the nomination. She's not even Adlai Stevenson. Ah. In the past the eggheads didn't see it coming. The way Stevenson got swamped. Twice. Americans, as a general rule, don't get impressed with intellectuals.

I'll guess they really don't get impressed with female bosses, either.

Posted by Carol.Herman | September 26, 2007 8:59 PM

Viking01, have you ever had a female boss?

Your comment towards the end of a dead thread, where you had the 109th comment. THIS ONE:

"At, PBS and NPR board meetings is it proper protocol to address Hillary as "Comrade Clinton" or "Fellow Bolshevik"?"

It dawned on me that it paid to ask. Because I've worked for a female executive (at Ted Bates), and I found out, then, that others HATED her! She just couldn't get troops to rally round.

Heck, Mary Mapes wasn't the only female who had a roster of people working for her, ya know? And, from the way things fell out? She wasn't liked. Especially by the suits. Like the Aztecs, she was cast off as a sacrifice.

Then, you have Martha Stewart. GREAT MAGAZINES! But you'd want to work for her?

Leona Helmsley. Another.

And, what's lacking is a parade of people who celebrate their bosses.

I'm not kidding. Women, as a general rule, even when they're super-bright, just don't attract the same "teams" to their side.

It's easy to compare: What if I said, "compare this to Ronald Reagan. And, the devotion he drew from others?"

We live in a free country, ya know? I don't see people purposely picking "Comrade Hillary." As a "bro" people would defintely prefer tazing her.

I just don't see the popularity there, that's necessary to carry and sustain a national ticket.

This whole thing is more like a scarey movie. Hillary produces the emotional comparible to JAWS.

Posted by Teresa | September 26, 2007 9:44 PM

Del -- Well, it just seems a bit odd that you don't use:

Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani

Willard Mitt Romney

Freddie Dalton Thompson (Freddie by the way was on his birth certificate)

when you talk about those canidates, but you always make sure and call Obama "Barry Hussein Obama."

I would have thought with a name like Delmonte, you probably got teased a lot in school (Pineapple Breath?, Carmen Miranda?) and would be sensitive to names -- after all people have very little choice over what their parents named them, don't they?

But maybe you are just trying to be formal, huh?

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 10:15 PM

The best name change in the book belongs to ULYSSES S. GRANT.

His parents named him Hiram Ulysses Grant; because his dad LOVED the Greek hero, Ulysses.

When Grant wanted to go to West Point, though, it was by an act of his member's House of Representative, representative. Who sent the application into West Point, on the day before he left office. Making Ulysses S. Grant "official."

The "S" was for Simpson. His mom's name.

Grant tried to change the official record. But couldn't. He got into West Point as Ulysses S. Grant. And, U.S. Grant it became and STUCK.

Ah, to "get into" West Point, you need to have a COMMISSION.

History is so much better at facts, than name teasing.

And, Barak Hussein Obama's name does contain a number of facts. Just like Tiger Woods; not "all black," either.

Posted by kingronjo | September 26, 2007 10:28 PM

no teresa, it would seem odd if he used

Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani

Willard Mitt Romney

Freddie Dalton Thompson

when he talks about those candidates. Your point is it seems odd he uses Obamas full name. You think it's odd to do that yet you think it wouldn't be odd to use Repub's full names. Surely you can come up with a better argument than that. And maybe Del was called names, assuming his name is Delmonte and not a posting handle. As an adult I would look at anyone making fun of anyone's name as on them, not on me.

In the '04 campaign the Swifties went after Kerry for his war record, a charge he could have easily refuted if he was correct had he fully released them as GWB fully released his. Instead, Kerry released them (supposedly) to his official biographer who said, "Nothing to see here, lets MoveOn". and the MSM dutifully said the charges were conclusively refuted. Insulting to anyone with any intelligence.

I didn't go off topic with that paragraph. Obama refuses to discuss his years in school in the Phillipines. There is evidence he attended a madrassa, a radical one. Again it could be easily refuted if he released his records. So far, he hasn't. Therefore I submit to you drawing attention to the "Hussein" is important (Barry is just a dig obviously, but if he makes a big issue of it, as he does his ears, shows a thin skinned temperament not suited for POTUS). Do Amercians want as President a person who attended a madrassa in their formative years? That should be an important part of the equation in the decision to vote for him or not.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 10:54 PM

Narration by John Cleese:

"And there's Nigel! Dead, but not necessarily out of it!"


First of all, I'm an ex-resident of Hawai'i who lived there right after Statehood and then went back for a spot check a few years ago, so I know first hand about how utterly corrupt our 50th state has been over thr past half century at the hands of the Democrat Party.

The only two US Senators who have been in Washington longer than Daniel Inouye are Sheets Byrd and Chappaquidick Fats. But that's not important.

I forgot to mention that Mr. Obama in fact called himself, and went by the name, "Barry". So anybody calling him "Barry Hussein Obama" is not wrong. You're the one with a problem, not him or me.

To add insult to injury, the Kos Kids busted him for calling himself "Barry" here almost a year ago, with photographic evidence.

Keep trying!

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 11:13 PM

PS, Teresa

I don't ever recall myself using a gratuitous personal insult like yours to respond in debate to a post-after all, you asked me why I used a certain specific name ("Barry Hussein Obama"), and when I accurately responded, you insulted my intelligence, which is the sure sign you couldn't credibly refute what I was saying.

If I were your college professor husband, I would give you a D minus.

to wit:

"you probably got teased a lot in school (Pineapple Breath?, Carmen Miranda?) and would be sensitive to names -- after all people have very little choice over what their parents named them, don't they?"

LOL!!! "Carmen Miranda"? I can't even dignify that with a response. Who gave you that talking point?

Please give a credible response to my argument, if you can, without calling me names. So far, as others here have said, you're "flailing around".

Now excuse me, I have to go put some more bananas on my hat. Ricardo Montalban and Rosemary Clooney and I are going out to drink rum together...

Posted by Carol Herman | September 26, 2007 11:14 PM

But, in the wacky "rule of firsts," where you list Geraldine Ferarro, and the disasterous run of Walter Mondale in 1984;

How could you leave out Algore's choice in 2000, of Joe Lieberman? The first Jewish candidate for veep, in any race in America. EVER.

Of course, Joe Lieberman, being a smarter-than-most politician ALSO kept running for his Connecticut senate seat. If he didn't? Ned Lamont wouldn't have shown the stupidity of pushing Lieberman into Independent status.


Well, from here, my view is that the Bonkeys manage to lose to Independents.

Which could happen, again, in 2008. If the mainstream gets really, really unhappy with both "offerings" up on the presidential stage.

Which is why Newt's not a candidate, yet. But "could be one," ahead.

And, the Bonkey's aren't through with Algore. Who is also "not running." (As yet.) Though he hopes to gain a Nobel.

Will a nobel for Algore do more than it's done for Jimmy Carter?

Yes, I'm amazed Hillary is considered a viable candidate. SHe's like Katie Couric. To get to "prominance," as a female "contendah," you need stupid suits.

Like those you'd find at C-BS.

Using C-Bs as my example, here; it's possible to run Katie Couric. It's even possible to give her millions. To seat her in an anchor's chair. That once saw (Ripley's Believe It Or Not), first place among news shows. But that hasn't been true in years and years.

You've also seen C-BS toss IMUS; losing money from advertisers, when doing so. And, IMUS got what? $70-million? Or is that Dan's idea of becoming a late night joke?

Wow. Is there a difference between wholesale and retail.

At the wholesale end, you're making decisions TO make money. When your suits fail to deliver on this "basic," you're business is doomed.

For C-BS? It's only in the ratings that you see the problem.

With Hillary?

Well, I just don't believe she's gonna be a contendah. There are too many people aware of her costs; that if she runs, she not only splits the party ... she splits away voters who wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole.

There's no mystery! Imagine Hillary as your boss? How long before you'd tell her to take her job and shove it? Don't answer this question if you're one of the few who actually watches Katie Couric "performing" out of her league as a news anchor. You wouldn't have a clue!

Even if Hillary approaches campaigning as a brainiac ... she's gonna run into Adlai Stevenson's rejections. When the polls closed on his two elections, he came in 2nd. Both times. Kapish?

In Europe, there's a tendency to make a big deal out of titles. Here?

BELDAR just cut a new one for lawyers who graduate law schools and begin signing J.D. initials after their names. LOSERS.

We're not into credentialling. And, in Adlai Stevenson's time, those credentials carried more weight than the lifeless affirmative action crowd is able to deliver, now.

Jargon doesn't go much further than that, either.

There were some dames in this country that did well. Margaret Thatcher had American fans. And, Jeanne Kirpatrick was in a class by herself.

There's a big difference between someone with stature and ability. And, the funky stuff from the affirmative action bozos. Feminazi's. And, their ilk.

Won't translate into retail sales. Not in my book.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 26, 2007 11:44 PM

And another PS to Teresa-

The DailyKos cite I gave about Obama using the name "Barry" came directly from the head man himself, Markos Kos. Either believe 'em or screw 'em, I always say.

Posted by jpm100 [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 27, 2007 5:53 AM

I predicted Obama would be Hillary's VP even before Newt blathered about it.

The advantage for Obama comes from two reasons.
1) He's still very young for a Presidential candidate
2) He gains better position for future elections. Basically he gains an increased perception of Executive experience whether true or not.

Even running as VP in '08 and failing gives him the air of experience and being Presidential. He can run again in '12

Running as VP in '08 and winning as well as '12, makes him the automatic heir-apparent for the Democrats and he gains the Executive experience he is lacking.

Running as VP in '08 and winning but losing in '12 still makes hime the likely candidate in '16 and still gains the Executive experience credential.

So he waits 4 years for slightly better position, or he waits 8 years to gain a substantially better position.

Not to mention that he can still try for the Democratic nod and become Hillary's VP. It would be a great way to "heal the party" and for Hillary to broaden her appeal.

Posted by Teresa | September 27, 2007 6:29 AM

Del -- I was trying to be sarcastic, but obviously it went over your head. I know exactly why you use the "Hussein" when you refer to Obama. You want to give the impression that he is Muslim. WHICH IS A LIE. And fuels people like kingronjo who spread lies about Obama attending a "radical madrass." You know as well as I do that the "Barry" part is not the problem.

If you ever bothered to watch anything other than FOX, you would see that in fact the news media investigated this claim and found it false. That the school was pretty secular and a common place for foriegners to send their kids when they were stationed in Indonesia.

And, since Obama never ran for office in Hawaii and stopped living there went he went to college, I fail to see what Hawaiin corruption has to do with anything. His parents were not political nor his grandparents who he lived with. By your argument, Del, you must be corrupt since you also lived in Hawaii as a kid.

Disagree all you want with Obama's policies, but making fun of someone over something which they have no control is just low. (And it sure seems to get under your skin when I do it to you -- thus proving my point.)

kingronjo -- Obama attends a Christian church in Chicago with his family and has for a long time. He talked about attending the Madrass when he was in first grade in his book Dreams of My Father. What "records" do you want released? That he got an "A" in finger painting?

Posted by fdcol63 | September 27, 2007 8:19 AM

With 300 million people, you'd think America could get a better pool of political candidates that did not include siblings (Kennedy & Bush), parents/children (Adams & Bush), or spouses (Clinton).

It's nepotic and incestuous, and quite frankly, a little Banana Republicish.

Post a comment