Is Hillary the worst possible choice? [Updated title]

The discussions about who Obama will pick as his running mate are heating up the closer we get to the convention. While this happens every cycle, it is even more heated in this one, primarily because of the closeness of the primary race.

While no one really knows who he will pick, everyone has their own preference. Where it really gets complicated is when it comes to Hillary supporters.

Many Hillary supporters say she is the only choice. If she isn't on the ticket then they won't vote for the Democratic nominee for president. These are the 'pick Hillary or else' crowd. Other Hillary supporters don't think she should accept even if offered the slot. Their argument seems to be that it would be a step down for her. These are the 'top-spot or nothing' crowd. Still others will accept someone other than Hillary as long as it isn't another woman. I guess these are the 'Don't insult Hillary' crowd. Lastly, there are Hillary supporters who are planning on voting for Obama no matter who he picks for his running mate. These are in the 'I just want to win' crowd.

Like I said, it gets really complicated.

What makes it even worse is that no one really knows who is on the short list. Every pundit and news organization has their own idea of who is on the list. Few of these lists agree with each other. However, some names are common to all of the lists and can be considered real possibilities.

Any list that leaves Hillary off is not likely to be an accurate list. The same goes for Governor Sebelius. These are the two women most likely to get the nod. We all know the arguments for and against Hillary. On the other hand, Sebelius is unknown to a lot of people. She has many pluses and some minuses. I don't think it really matters.

There is is a definite reason why I don't think Sebelius will get the nod. I don't think the Obama team can choose another woman for this slot. It's not primarily a matter of insulting Hillary, although that plays into it. I think it's more a matter of seeming to pander by choosing a woman.

There is also the matter of the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. By choosing an African-American as their candidate, the Democratic Party is already pushing the envelope. Adding a woman or another minority to the ticket could be viewed as an unnecessary risk. The only place I don't think this comes into play is if Hillary is picked. It would then be apparent that she was picked on her own merits and not just because she is a woman.

Some of the names on the list are intriguing. Governor Kaine of VA is a good match for Obama, both in philosophy and age. He has the added advantage of being from outside the Beltway. He strengthens Obama's image and does not contrast too strongly with Obama's strengths nor does he emphasize Obama's weaknesses. He is currently considered to be one of the top 3 on the list.

Some of the other names on the list are probably there as feints by the Obama team or because of idle speculation by the media. I think Sam Nunn falls into that category.

Some of the other front-runners are Bayh, and Biden. Each has strengths and weaknesses that I don't really feel like going into. I don't think either one is in the top 3. (Hey, I get to pull stuff out of my a** too. That's where everyone else is getting their list.)

I find it interesting that the intrade markets (search for "vice" give the nod to the field at 35%. Sebelius and Kaine are both included in the field and not listed individually. Among the individual names is Bayh at 25%, Biden at 14%, and then Hillary at 6.3%. The traders here obviously don't agree with me. Then again, they had Hillary as a 2-1 favorite over her nearest competitor on Feb. 15th, so maybe they don't always know what they are talking about.

If you've read this far I will now grace you with my guesses. I've posted these same names in just about every VP discussion over the last month. I still think they are as good a guess as any other.

Number 1 on my list is John Edwards. The recent scandal is troublesome, but may amount to nothing. Bill Clinton had far stronger rumors against him during his first primary and still won not only the primary, but the GE as well. The only person Edwards needs to convince that the story is false is Obama. They could actually use the story to their advantage. They could let speculation run rampant and then not long before the election they could release the results of DNA tests that prove Edwards is not the father. Let the right-wing hang itself with what people finally see as a false smear campaign. The backlash against the Right could be quite large.

Number 2 on my list is Wesley Clark. I think the idea that he somehow hurt his chances because of his remarks about McCain's military career is nonsense. In fact, I think it strengthened his chances at getting the nod. He brings so many good things to the ticket and very, very few negatives.

Number 3 on my list is Hillary Clinton. Yes, she has some negatives. But she also has tremendous positives. I think everyone who is not totally against Hillary would love the choice. Would it energize the base of the Republican Party? Perhaps, but then again the Republican Party is smaller than ever. Would it energize the Democratic Party? Certainly among those who supported Hillary and have expressed doubts about Obama. I think it would bring more good than bad to the party.

There, now you have my 2 1/2 cents (gotta consider inflation) worth.


Poll
Who is your #1 pick for VP?
Hillary Clinton
Biden
Bayh
Sebelius
Kaine
Edwards
Clark
Reed
Nunn
Someone else

Votes: 32
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Veep Stakes - Hillary, Kaine, or someone else? (none / 0)

I still like Clark, though I generally prefer someone who's not a Senator/Representative to fit with Obama's outside DC theme.  

I like Edwards, but I tend to think it sends an odd message to the voters...something along the lines of "you guys really fucked up in 2004"...and I'm not sure that will play too well.  People don't like being blamed.

If it's someone who isn't known nationally, like Sebelius or Kaine, there needs to be a big upside.  With Kaine, that upside could be carrying Virginia, since Warner is running this year and should get a good turnout.  We aren't carrying Kansas, so I don't see the sense of Sebelius, unless numbers suggest that she'd really solidify the women's vote or improve upon what Kerry got in 2004.  

Bayh is the same gamble as Kaine, but in a slightly smaller state that is perhaps slightly tougher to win...AND you sacrifice a blue Senate seat.

Biden hurts the theme, but if they want a contrast and to massively bolster FP cred. then he's probably the guy.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:50:06 PM EST

Re: Veep Stakes - Hillary, Kaine, or someone else? (2.00 / 1)

^Also, if Richardson could help carry NM, NV, and CO, that would go a long way toward getting us to 270, sans Ohio.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Veep Stakes - Hillary, Kaine, or someone else? (2.00 / 1)

You are right. I should have put Richardson in the poll instead of Reed.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno... (2.00 / 1)

I can't see Obama picking either. I don't think Reed's looking for VP, and Richardson may be even MORE gaffe-prone than Biden... And he has absolutely no charisma and not much charm.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sebelius is a fantastic pick (2.00 / 1)

for what a veep is supposed to do.

Pick up the fucking pieces.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Veep Stakes - Hillary, Kaine, or someone else? (2.00 / 1)

I fear Edwards, he always seems to poll well but he did nothing to shore up Kerry in '04 in any key state and has a developing reputation of losing (deserved or not). I like the Clark pick. The Hilary pick will never make sense to me, for either of them. First, 2 alpha dogs (possibly 3 with Bill) will not work well together, she can do as much good, if not more, leading from the senate, it completely kills the change mantra for the most part, etc. Kaine or Clark would be my 1st 2, with Sebelius well deserved but difficult due to the dynamics of the ticket.


by Dog Chains on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST

Already shot down (none / 0)

Hillary made her best case, and Obama politely declined.

I agree, that is too many top dogs, and too many different alliances.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PUMA'S (none / 0)


   will screech that Hillary is the only choice. Problem is, Obama picks Hillary, then they spend the next 3 months whining that it's not Hillary/Obama.

  Hillary is probably the worst choice for Obama. He's left Clinton far behind, he's getting good coverage and is running his campaign well. Why would he jeopardize that by picking a defeated foe who was quite bitter about that defeat? It doesn't give him a regional advantage, it doesn't give him a demographic advantage (most Hillary supporters will vote for him despite the predictions of doom by those idiots at PUMA).

  Hillary Clinton brings nothing to the table as far as a Democratic victory. It would be a bad move on Obama's part to pick her.


by southernman on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:10:32 PM EST

Read my comment below... (2.00 / 1)

I obviously disagree with your assertions.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read my comment below... (none / 0)


   Which comment? Your signature or is there something else you posted? if so, I missed it. I'll be happy to debate w/ ya!!
by southernman on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This one... (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/7/29/1 54316/017/6#6


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, MS-01! (2.00 / 4)

We agree on 2 of our top 3! Let me show you how I rank my faves:

1. Hillary Clinton: Why? Same reasons you mentioned, in addition to her being a wicked-smart policy wonk who can help Obama formulate good policy, a wise DC player who can actually work Congress to get stuff passed, AND she can help Obama enough with Latinos, women, and blue-collar voters to turn red states (like Arkansas, West Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico) blue.

2. Wes Clark- Same reasons you mentioned.

3. NC Gov. Mike Easley- While I like Edwards, I think this North Carolinian may do more for Obama as VP. He has executive experience running the state, he's still quite popular there, and he can help Obama carry additional Southern states.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:12:12 PM EST

Re: Wow, MS-01! (none / 0)


   Ah, I see. Sorry I missed it.

  Well we'll have to agree to disagree on Clinton. She is a smart policy wonk no doubt. Polls show that Obama is crushing McCain amongst Hispanics. He's also winning Hillary's strongest demographic, unmarried women. Blue collar voters in red states likely won't vote for the ticket with Clinton on there anyway. Especially in WV, where it's true, the voters seem to despise Obama.

  Obama's winning in NM and OH right now and doesn't seem to be going in the opposite direction there.

  I just don't see where Clinton helps him enough to warrant him rewarding her with the V.P spot.


by southernman on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two words... (2.00 / 2)

BLUE. COLLAR.

As I mentioned upthread, Hillary can help Barack solidify leads in places like Ohio & Pennsylvania, where there used to be a large manufacturing base. She can also make competitive Southern states like Arkansas, Kentucky, & West Virginia- states that Bill carried in 1992 & 1996. And finally, I can see Hillary solidifying Obama's lead among Latino voters enough to where they can win BIG in Nevada & New Mexico while Florida flips from red to blue.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

just how much of her fortune (none / 0)

is she willing to dump to get WV?

I don't buy anything that doesn't have a pricetag.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can live with Clinton as VP. (2.00 / 1)

She wouldn't be my first choice, but she wouldn't be my last choice (hello Evan Bayh).


by Geekesque on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST

Re: I can live with Clinton as VP. (2.00 / 1)

Got to agree with you that Bayh is my last choice.

Why does no one mention that Bayh also destroys "The change mantra" since he is an ex DLC president.  You can't get more DC insider than Bayh, son of insider Birch Bayh, and ex DLC CEO.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&a mp;subid=85&contentid=3010

Not to mention he is charisma challenged, overly conservative, and will cost a Senate seat.

I'm good with Clinton, Clark, or Biden.


"There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up" --Rex Stout
by LIsoundview on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even worse: (2.00 / 2)

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/7/ 29/93220/6384/65#c65

Check this out, from the group's press release on February 14th, 2003 (via Nexis):

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

Evan, Joe, and John.

Barf.


by Geekesque on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even worse: (2.00 / 1)

that block paste has made me nauseous.  remind me never to eat the block paste


by KLRinLA on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even worse: (none / 0)

You're right.

Maybe Bayh will be McCain's VP nominee, given that story.

I now like Bayh less than any member of the Dem caucus other than Lieberman.


"There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up" --Rex Stout
by LIsoundview on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can live with Clinton as VP. (2.00 / 1)

How does a member of the US senate since 72 not destroy the change matra? I agree about the senate seat though.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i keep going back and forth.... (2.00 / 3)

on this one - and right now do not think HRC should be on the ticket because i think she is better served in the senate.

but somehow its far too quiet out there on this issue.  and if obama is the politician he has shown to be - she is the one.

that said - i think all the names you mentioned are good.  now if mccain goes with palin and obama kaine.  i think there's trouble.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM EST

Re: Is Hillary the worst possible choice? (2.00 / 1)

I think that Mitt Romney would be the worst possible choice.

The best possible choice, would be me!  ;-)


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:19:54 PM EST

Seems like my one and two matches many here... (2.00 / 1)

1. Wes Clark

  1. Hillary Clinton
  2. Gen James Jones (Hey, I like the really shocking picks...)

Obviously, I think I am not going to get any of those, unless the Obama team has been running a total feint, and been vetting Wes behind the scenes.


On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST

Re: Seems like my one and two matches many here... (none / 0)

your 1 and 2 are in line with mine, I am at a toss up with Biden/Kaine at 3rd spot.


by KLRinLA on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The worst is... (none / 0)

Dick Cheney.  Clearly.

The best possible choice is Bruce Campbell.  He's the only one experienced with counter-deadite operations.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM EST

That really would be Chins Across America! (none / 0)

OK, now you got me sold!

Bruce!  Bruce!  Bruce!

Ever read "Chins Across America"?  Great book.

(for the unfortunate souls not familiar with Mr. Chin, Bruce Campbell is the ultimate B-movie actor.  That's him in the tribute video...)

CHINS FOR VP!


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Diarist has a label for every type of... (2.00 / 3)

...HRC supporter...conveniently making insulting statements and mass generalizations about tens of millions of individuals.

Perhaps, while the diarist is at it, they could manage to place a label on those Hillary-haters (quite a bunch of them resurfacing today with the V.P. pick/announcement imminent...and it's real fucking ugly around here, as a result of this reality, too) that masquerade as "typical Obama supporters" here and just about everywhere else in the blogosphere.

Here's my stock comment, which I'm reprinting more times than I can believe possible today...but it's saving me so much time! <sick grin>

This situation today is REALLY quite saddening for me.


So much residual Hillary hate... (2.00 / 1)

...so little time.

There's a name for people that supported Hillary that don't support Obama. They're far fewer and due to their sheer lack of numbers, quite unworthy of the attention they receive, IMHO. But, here we have a cadre of Hillary haters ranting about it...given the least iota of an opening.

So much hatred from so many people here masquerading as "typical" Obama supporters, when nothing could be farther from the truth!

Your mere presence, hiding behind bogus screennames and acting as if you represent a much larger group of damn great Democrats is a travesty.

You're not "typical" Obama supporters. You're the most vindictive, hate-filled, disaffecting, masquerading, divisive group of miscreants supporting our Party's nominee today.

You are far worse than those self-styled PUMAs. At least we know who those fools are.

Look in the mirror!

NOTE: I realize that some of the statements in this block quote do NOT pertain to this particular diarist; but, this has been an especially "thick" day around MyDD...


by bobswern on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM EST

Re: Diarist has a label for every type of... (2.00 / 1)

Whoa, I think you are way off base here. I pointed out that there is no such thing as a typical Hillary supporter. At least, when it comes to this issue. Also, none of those labels was intended to be demeaning. They were more descriptive than anything.  I could do the same with Obama supporters. Maybe I should have considering your response.

Will this make you feel better?

Obama supporters fall into several groups when it comes to Hillary. There are some who want her kept as far from the White House as possible. These have long been called the "ABC" (anyone but Hillary) crowd. There are other O supporters that have come around to the idea of Clinton on the ticket with Obama. I call these the "If she helps us win" crowd. There are some Obama supporters who don't care who is on the ticket. I call these "I'm focused on November" crowd.

Happy now?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Diarist has a label for every type of... (2.00 / 2)

I guess all labels are demeaning because it takes away from our snowflakiness and myriad of various qualities, kins, and quirks, and not one of us indivduals could ever be fully defined by a  label -but I disagree that this was mean-spirited attack on HIllary supporters.
 I think you may be a bit sensitive to all the other trash floating around here, but this isn't it, in my opinion. This is a true, and accurate, description of some posters positions on the VP selection.  Quite frankly, it IS the HIllary supporters who are making the most VP noise on this issue, and quite naturally, because they have something to gain from it.  I don't think that is negative, just a reality and something that is obviously occuring and being talked about.
by KLRinLA on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta agree with my co-responders (2.00 / 1)

on this one, Bob.  I don't think the diarist was being mean-spiritied at all.

BTW, I'm a "don't really care" BO supporter.  As long as the VP pick doesn't screw things up, I'm sure whoever it is will work out fine.  In the history of US politics the VP has rarely meant much to anyone (quick!  who was Wilson's VP?  no peeking!).  

Before Obama became viable I didn't care who was going to be Sen. Clinton's running mate, just so long as we changed out the DC crowd.  Still feel the same.

-chris

PS - your blockquote I do agree with.  All through my involvement in this race I have been flinching at the morons posting filth in the name of Obama in comments on the intertubes.  Still think some of them are purely pretending to be supporters (sure as shit don't reflect a single actual supporter I've ever had contact with) and the rest are just not paying attention to what the guy is actually about.


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:29:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary the worst possible (2.00 / 1)

It's amusing the Obama extremists always deny that there's any chance of serious dissension if Clinton is not chosen as VP. And yet do a little research on this site. What is just about the most incendiary diary issue. Obama's VP pick. Now to the extent that this site is a microcosm of the wider world and it is to some extent, this should tell you this is potentially a hugely contentious issue. Deny it if you like but you're in dreamland if you think it's not potentially divisive.    


by ottovbvs on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:54:12 PM EST

Re: Is Hillary the worst possible (none / 0)

Funny cause if Obama doesn't pick Hillary and then loses its 100% his fault.

The kos movement dies.

The dean movement dies.

It really is a risk EVERYTHING move to not pick Hillary.


by dtaylor2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Will you two ever blow your Profundity (2.00 / 1)

out your blow holes?

You don't know any more than anyone else what will happen, but you're always quick to make these absolutist statements like you're gazing into a crystal ball.  If, unlike the several billion other folks trying to think about what choices might have what future impacts, you really were able to forecast the future with perfect clarity you'd spend one day on the stock market and retire as (still annoying) billionaires.  Sure, you both know for a fact that if a given butterfly doesn't flap its wings a certain way then every progressive movement in the universe will die and twelve round rocks will just happen to balance perfectly in the desert the following Wednesday.

Feh.

Your complete incapacity to ever internalize a single byte of data from any of us here as to the contemplative workings we all go through trying to discuss decisions and choices which we cannot forecast the effects of is among the least flattering of your characteristics.

This is what us Mere Mortals do.  We think about things.


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will you two ever blow your Profundity (2.00 / 1)

Another comment that I wish I could mojo multiple times. I guess I could if I registered some sockpuppets like some of the more annoying people on this site do.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary the worst possible choice? [Updated (2.00 / 1)

He won't pick Hillary because he wants to be president, not co-president.  She won't accept because she wanted (wants) to be president, not second fiddle.

He won't because he doesn't want to feel like he needs her, her voters, her experience, or her cojones.  It's an alpha dog issue.

I want her to stay away from his White House.  If he  does it right and turns the country in the right direction again, then the Clintons should recede into history.

If he fails, I don't want him to take the party down with him.  I want another power center ready to take over if he falls.  If she stays separate from him that is doable.  


by spoot on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:11:50 PM EST

Re: Is Hillary the worst possible choice? [Updated (none / 0)

She's out of the running because she said Obama wasn't qualified to be Commander in Chief. Why would Obma give McSame the chance to use that quote against him?


by venician on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a pretty sad reason to reject HIllary (none / 0)

because of something she said during the primary.  

And does he really fear McCain's attacks even now?  It's obvious now that McCain is getting no traction with his attacks.  

But I'm with you, I don't want Hillary and Obama together.  It doesn't work for me.  Maybe it would work for the election but it wouldn't work for the next four years.  


by spoot on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hate the title, like the diary (2.00 / 1)

But even though I'm a Hillary supporter, I think she is much better off in the Senate than in the WH.
So my first choice is Biden- he's strong on foreign policy, he's a good attack dog (though gaffe prone), and he's good on the issues. As cons, he's gaffe prone and been in the Senate a lot longer than some people would like, so I understand the dislike for him from the netroots.
Second choice would be Clark or Edwards- Edwards because I think Obama needs a strong progressive voice very close to him, and Clark because of his military and progressive creds.
I live in Kansas, and am enjoying Sebelius' second term, so please don't pick her! She'll be running for US Senate next, and I'm looking forward to that!
I would be thrilled if he picked Hillary, but I don't think he will, and I'm hoping he doesn't.
Bayh, Nunn, yuck, for reasons already mentioned. Kaine is another young, inexperienced politician and not what we need on the ticket, IMO.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM EST

Titles are marketing (2.00 / 1)

and this one works.  I've been slow to learn that in my own diaries.

Seems that many (most?) Clinton supporters would rather have her take a different role, so I think the not-VP backlash would be primarily a PUMA thing, and ten of those thirty folks may actually vote Dem anyway once the convention is over (or would not vote Dem anyway, or, moreover, who cares what they do).

I think Clark is my first pick, with Clinton second.  Just a gut feel opinion, based I suppose on Clark's weight as a staid white-guy military genius creds.  The diarist's points about "too many firsts on the ticket" feels to have some validity, and the counter to that is someone very much not asking folks to bend their minds any further (which is a small part of my reason for thinking Richardson might not work, though I like him).

I would put Edwards second, but I really don't think he would take the job.  Think he would be great at it, though.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm part of the (none / 0)

if Hillary's not on the ticket, he doesn't get my vote crowd.

I would lose all respect for someone that claims to be for Party Unity, then picks another candidate that won't unify the HRC supporters.


by nikkid on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:10:07 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.