# Obama VP Selection?



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

What do you think?

The WSJ and NYT both report the obvious that HRC has volunteered, which puts a lot of pressure on him. To select someone else is an obvious rejection of her. She apparently thinks that he can be pushed in that direction to gain the support of those in her camp.

She asked for her supporters to email her with their views of what she should do. (www. hillaryclinton.com , if you haven't responded, yet). Many think that she will use a massive response to publicly put more pressure on Obama.

Both journals point out the disadvantages to him:

Makes him look weak, and easily intimidated by her. People like Chavez and Mamoud would probably think that they could easily roll him, if he couldn't overcome pressure form HRC.

His administration could be a shambles with HRC out in front on a lot of things, like healthcare, with views that differ from his.

Bill Clinton has significant disaster potential, with the possibility of giving frequent press conferences with views that differ from Obama's.

Strong possibility that Bill Clinton would not reveal items that would have to come out in the vetting process, such as donors to his library, and details of financial deals that he has participated in.

According to Franklin & Marshall survey about 45 days ago, 20% of HRC backers said they wouldn't back Obama, however, many doubt that this would actually be the case in the general election.

Mrs Obama might have to be heavily sedated before she would campaign with the Clintons. Apparently not a lot of love going on there.

A lot of you follow the political scene closely. It will be interested to see if many think that he will select her, and if now, who he might choose. Should be fascinating to watch.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

IMHO There's no way. 

No one would want to put up with the spouse of their VP like Obama would have to with Bill.

Then you add in Hillary ... 

If Obama picks her ... Well, IMHO, proving he's that stupid should DQ him from being President. Hillary should get Reid's job. He clearly can't do it.

I think he should/will pick Gov. Richardson, Gov. Stickland, or Wesley Clark. 

There's an outside chance he could pick Edwards, but I think that would equally prove him to be functionally incompetent and politically weak.

Obama almost needs to pick someone that hasn't been mentioned/pushed by the media just to prove he's an actual leader of some kind IMHO.

If I was him I would pick Strickland. He's been mentioned, but he's not the odds on favorite. Everyone EXPECTS him to pick from the candidates that ran - Richardson, Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd ...

I think Biden is a non-starter because they are too alike. 

Perhaps Dodd has a chance as well.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I always love it when somebody has to start walking his walk. The potential future VP of the USA is being determined by Caroline Kennedy.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

It would be almost impossible for Obama to continue to bill himself as an agent of change from "old" Washington with a Clinton on the ticket. Actually it would be two Clinton's, but that's another matter entirely. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I always love it when somebody has to start walking his walk. The potential future VP of the USA is being determined by Caroline Kennedy.


She's as qualified as Obama. IIRC she was very cute in that picture under the desk in the Oval Office. :devil:


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think he should/will pick Gov. Richardson, Gov. Stickland, or Wesley Clark...
> 
> Obama almost needs to pick someone that hasn't been mentioned/pushed by the media just to prove he's an actual leader of some kind IMHO.


I'm starting to pick up a Clark buzz, definitely, and that would be going head-on with McCain in a very interesting way.

Richardson has his pluses; he would lock the Hispanic vote, which is important. And Strickland would probably lock Ohio.

I think Hillary is more likely to be offered a Supreme Court seat than a Cabinet post. I actually have no problem with that. Despite the many unattractive aspects of Hillary that this campaign has highlighted, I think she would be a first-rate Justice.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

Would the perception that Bill Richardson "backstabbed" HRC to endorse Obama hurt his chances as a potential running mate because of the negative feelings the endorsement engendered from the Hillary voters?

Edit: I guess that backstabber list should include John Edwards, also.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

topbroker said:


> I think Hillary is more likely to be offered a Supreme Court seat than a Cabinet post. I actually have no problem with that. Despite the many unattractive aspects of Hillary that this campaign has highlighted, I think she would be a first-rate Justice.


Harriet Miers, Part II. I thought we had decided someone had to have actually been a judge once before we put them on SCOTUS?

If we are going to offer the smartest Clinton a concession SCOTUS seat at least give it to Bill. IMHO she's done nothing to earn a Cabinet post. She's a half-rate, junior Senator and a failed Presidential candidate. That makes her more qualified than Reid to be Majority Leader, but not by much.

Just out of curiousity, which part of the government would you suggest she could actually administer and why?


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Senator Webb, Gov Richardson, John Edwards, a Southern Governor, etc...

There are many choices, and better choices, then HRC.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> She's as qualified as Obama. IIRC she was very cute in that picture under the desk in the Oval Office. :devil:


Wasn't that John-John?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think this story/scandal would keep her from confirmation for SCOTUS. She needs a post that is does not require Senate confirmation. I don't thnk even an Ashcroft-type confirmation would get her through the scrutiny.

It was reported quite a bit, but to no real effect in the primary. I think it would be different on National TV for a confirmation hearing.

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut

Then their would be travelgate, et al. No one wants to hear that all over again do they?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

fenway said:


> Wasn't that John-John?


Sheesh, that's all she had and now you took that from her! LOL

Ok, well, she was there, sometime ...

Camelot! Camelot! :devil:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

According to the local water cooler here:

--HRC might be offered a cabinet post (Health) but will likely stay in the Senate to be the Top Dog in power brokering the Obama agenda, including major health care reform. She'll also be in a position to maximize the Obama good vibes and take swift advantage of his shortcomings to prepare her second Presidential run in 2012. In the meantime, Bill has a second coronary event, dies, and becomes a "martyred" hero to many, boosting HRC's chances the second time.

--Biden offered Secretary of State.

--Clark offered the VP spot but might go with Secretary of Defense instead.

--Edwards and Richardson offered the VP spots, either being seen as a good choice in the general election.

--Caroline Kennedy named Chief of White House Protocol and her first act is getting all the Texana removed from the family quarters. She then proceeds to hide under the desk where her late brother played and whispers secret instructions from [insert favorite secret worldwide conspiracy here] to the President.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

This varies with the intended goal. The only reason to pick Clinton is to appease Clinton. While the party wants someone that can attract illiterate white males, the demographic Obama can't please, there are others such as Edwards who can do this while actually bringing usable skills to the office, will work with the Prez instead of against him, and is not as self centered.
I am voting the ABC ticket. Anyone but Clinton. If she is on the ticket I am looking elsewhere. 

Ultimately I would pick outside of all of the obvious choices to find someone with skills that would form a symbiotic relationship.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Sheesh, that's all she had and now you took that from her! LOL
> 
> Ok, well, she was there, sometime ...
> 
> Camelot! Camelot! :devil:


Oh happy Democratic day that they've gotten even you to talk about this Kennedy-Obama connection even in jest! The powerful machinations of the Kennedy family are still a wonder to behold. They bend the minds of many to their will.

Keep repeating it....Kennedy-Camelot-Obama.. :devil:

Cordially,
A.Q., mightily attempting to resist the New Mantra.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

arbitrage said:


> Would the perception that Bill Richardson "backstabbed" HRC to endorse Obama hurt his chances as a potential running mate because of the negative feelings the endorsement engendered from the Hillary voters?
> 
> Edit: I guess that backstabber list should include John Edwards, also.


It's a factor, and one that favors Clark and Strickland, as Clinton loyalists.

I certainly think Webb is in the mix as well.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Harriet Miers, Part II. I thought we had decided someone had to have actually been a judge once before we put them on SCOTUS?


Fiddlesticks. This is politics.

You don't need to be an attorney to be a judge, and you don't need to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice -- all of which I think is good, by the way. The legal establishment controls quite enough in this country. I would like to see the percentage of politicians who are lawyers continue to drop.



> If we are going to offer the smartest Clinton a concession SCOTUS seat at least give it to Bill. IMHO she's done nothing to earn a Cabinet post.


Again, politics! Obama has to neutralize her *somehow*. Otherwise she continues to be a distraction.



> Just out of curiousity, which part of the government would you suggest she could actually administer and why?


I'm not a *huge* Hillary fan, and my regard for her has diminshed in recent months (true of many, I think). But she is very smart, and I think a better Senator and politician than you give her credit for. So I do see her as qualified for a Cabinet post, a Supreme Court seat, or the Majority Leadership in the Senate.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Obama/Hagel '08?

https://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/23/11439/5120

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/chuck-hagel-takes-on-mcca_n_102775.html


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

topbroker said:


> Fiddlesticks. This is politics.
> 
> You don't need to be an attorney to be a judge, and you don't need to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice -- all of which I think is good, by the way. The legal establishment controls quite enough in this country. I would like to see the percentage of politicians who are lawyers continue to drop.


Zooks! You mean to say that you don't fully believe in the alleged benevolence and benign intent of the last self-regulating, vertically-integrated monopoly in the United States?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Obama/Hagel '08?
> 
> https://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/23/11439/5120
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/chuck-hagel-takes-on-mcca_n_102775.html


Nah. They'll stay within the party.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> she's done nothing to earn a Cabinet post. She's a half-rate, junior Senator and a failed Presidential candidate. That makes her more qualified than Reid to be Majority Leader, but not by much.


As a right leaning conservative I certainly do not support Hillary Clinton; however, the fact is that she has earned fairly high marks as a Senator. She is well respected by many of the Republican Senators and also has received favorable reviews from the Pentagon folks for at least listening and making an attempt to educate herself on their concerns. She has not been nearly as liberal in the Senate as some others, including Obama.

If it just weren't for that expensive health care plan and her propensity to draw sniper fire. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

It is a sad situation, and somewhat cynical perhaps, to consider that HRC's enthusiasm for the VP spot might be because of the perceived likelihood of the VP being elevated to P because of assassination. I hope that this thought didn't really play a part in her calculations.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I wake up to find nieghbor's cars missing caps and gasoline. I looked over the HELP WANTED ads and pass on delivering inflateable bouncing amusement rides ( no truck.) And all I heard on the news was Obama promising to be staunch friend of Israel. You know, right now I really don't care a whole lot about Israel, and Befo dis representative of Black America is wrapped in leopad skin and I shout MYET-A! he betta go fight white bwana McCain first and tie two goats to my door knob. And I don't want white woman docta from UNICEF giving me shots wit dat wide eyed smile of hers. She scary, probly responsible for AIDs and all those poliemans dead in Arkansas. I vote probably Nader, good arab merchant who warn about bad tings.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Wesley Clark 1:2
Ted Strickland 2:1
Bill Richardson 4:1
Jim Webb 6:1
John Edwards 50:1
Hillary Clinton 100:1


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I have to go with the pack and think Richardson must be at the top of Obama's list. I think the last thing he wants is to share the Presidency with Vice President Clinton and President Clinton.

The only thing more ghastly than a Hillary to VP appointment would be a Hillary to Supreme Court appointment. 

Of course, that's where Obama is set to do his greatest damage to the country... Supreme Court appointments. Hillary or no, it's going to be ugly.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Of course, that's where Obama is set to do his greatest damage to the country... Supreme Court appointments. Hillary or no, it's going to be ugly.


Depends on your politics, of course.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

8 years ago people were predicting Bush would pack the Supreme Court with neocon, born again, pro life judges, start numerous wars and make sweet deals for his oil buddies. Dark days indeed, by what stretch of the imagination could the flip side of this Junk Bond political duopracy of the mediocre be any worse?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

topbroker said:


> Depends on your politics, of course.


Very true. I know that those on the (far) left will be ecstatic.

I don't hold out much hope that I will be pleased with any of his nominees (and there will likely be several). Just, please, not HRC. Have some mercy.

I think her best spot is just where she is now - senator from NY.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

topbroker said:


> Fiddlesticks. This is politics.
> 
> You don't need to be an attorney to be a judge, and you don't need to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice -- all of which I think is good, by the way. The legal establishment controls quite enough in this country. I would like to see the percentage of politicians who are lawyers continue to drop.
> 
> ...


I think her best option is to cut a deal for Majority Leader now and not an Obama adminsitration job, then hope McCain wins and that will set her up nicely for 2012.

I really don't see her as "qualified" to administer anything or write opinions. I think we just have to reject that sort of talk without any specific qualifications the same way as Obama. Neither has any "qualifications" for executive or administrative positions IMHO. I'm a Conservative and I think Bush did enough of that too. Some of his people I wouldn't hire to be file clerks.

Clearly Bill has the academic background and more than proved he understood the most subtle distinctions of law and language when he argued the meaning of "is." LOL


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think her best option is to cut a deal for Majority Leader now and not an Obama adminsitration job, then hope McCain wins and that will set her up nicely for 2012.
> 
> I really don't see her as "qualified" to administer anything or write opinions. I think we just have to reject that sort of talk without any specific qualifications the same way as Obama. Neither has any "qualifications" for executive or administrative positions IMHO. I'm a Conservative and I think Bush did enough of that too. Some of his people I wouldn't hire to be file clerks.
> 
> Clearly Bill has the academic background and more than proved he understood the most subtle distinctions of law and language when he argued the meaning of "is." LOL


This whole notion of "qualifications" bears no relation to reality and is frankly inane. I'm all for competency and intellect, too, and I liked Bill Clinton's policy wonkiness. But the only qualifications that *truly* exist in politics are the abilities to get elected, and to exert power and influence. That's it.

Besides which, there would never be and could never be any agreement as to what the "qualifications" for the presidency might be, apart from the ones specified in the Constitution.

I do agree with you that Bush privileged a bunch of losers, but such is the game. At times I think it's unfortunate that we don't have a parliamentary style of governance, in which a government that isn't delivering the goods can be* pulled down*. The electoral cycles we're stuck with seem very trying sometimes.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Very true. I know that those on the (far) left will be ecstatic.
> 
> I don't hold out much hope that I will be pleased with any of his nominees (and there will likely be several). Just, please, not HRC. Have some mercy.
> 
> I think her best spot is just where she is now - senator from NY.


We don't have a "far left" in any meaningful sense in this country. Hillary isn't far left. Obama isn't far left. Mao Tse-Tung -- now, *that's *far left.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

If we're talking "qualifications," by the way, I don't think that Bush himself would be "qualified" to be a committee chair in my Rotary Club. Except for an accident of birth, we would never have heard of him.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I'm with ksinc that Stickland or Clark would be good choices.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about either candidate this year, but I think Obama is the stronger one, especially if he has a good VP pick. For me, things come down to economics- as it impacts *everything*- and McCain has admitted a lack of knowledge in this area. Given the University of Chicago's famed economic approach, I think that it would be fair to expect quite a few of that faculty in advisory positions.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

topbroker said:


> If we're talking "qualifications," by the way, I don't think that Bush himself would be "qualified" to be a committee chair in my Rotary Club. Except for an accident of birth, we would never have heard of him.


True, but that can be said for HRC if you replace 'birth' with 'marriage'. She's definitely intelligent in her own right, but she ran her campaign on a "Back when "I" was in office" nostalgia platform, which is what leads me to that conclusion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

topbroker said:


> This whole notion of "qualifications" bears no relation to reality and is frankly inane. I'm all for competency and intellect, too, and I liked Bill Clinton's policy wonkiness. But the only qualifications that *truly* exist in politics are the abilities to get elected, and to exert power and influence. That's it.
> 
> Besides which, there would never be and could never be any agreement as to what the "qualifications" for the presidency might be, apart from the ones specified in the Constitution.
> 
> I do agree with you that Bush privileged a bunch of losers, but such is the game. At times I think it's unfortunate that we don't have a parliamentary style of governance, in which a government that isn't delivering the goods can be* pulled down*. The electoral cycles we're stuck with seem very trying sometimes.


Now I think you're confusing the President with the cabinet. We were talking about a cabinet position for if you recall. Yes, I think people should have actual job qualifications to be on the cabinet.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

topbroker said:


> If we're talking "qualifications," by the way, I don't think that Bush himself would be "qualified" to be a committee chair in my Rotary Club. Except for an accident of birth, we would never have heard of him.


I'm not a huge Bush supporter, but the man isn't the intellectual lightweight that he is made out to be. True, he is a poor public speaker and often gives the appearance of not being the sharpest knife in the drawer; however, I have heard far too many describe him as being a very intelligent and witty person when he is one on one or in small groups. The man just can't give a good speech. There are probably some smart people here who can't give a good speech either.

The comparison I like to draw it between Bush and John Kerry. Kerry was constantly being described as the intellectual that Bush is not, and yet despite taking essentially the same courses in college Bush graduated with a higher GPA than did Kerry. And then when you consider that Kerry has been described as a "bookworm" in college spending most of his time in the library studying while Bush admits that he partied his way through college never meeting a keg he didn't like, it makes you wonder even more about the intellectual capabilities of the two men. In other words, even when hung over most of the time Bush got better grades than a very studious Kerry.

My point is that we shouldn't let the media so strongly influence our opinions. For example, Obama is portrayed by the media as being more savvy about the economy than McCain. Before you buy into that hook, line and sinker take a close look at some of the things he is proposing. By that I mean go beneath the surface and see the real effect they would have. I have serious doubts.

Cruiser


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Obama is more economically-savvy than McCain. I don't mean that by way of criticism, but simply based on their responses regarding economic issues when in direct conversation. Now, my opinion about this means little, but I think it is significant that my father agrees (he used to be an economics professor). McCain seemed to try to make his lack of knowledge about the economy and the way business works as a "plus point" over Romney - much like Hilary "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists" Clinton tried with Barack Obama.

I respect McCain's honesty in admitting a lack of economic understanding, but that does not excuse it. A president cannot succeed without economic proficiency - no matter how qualified the advisors.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Now I think you're confusing the President with the cabinet. We were talking about a cabinet position for if you recall. Yes, I think people should have actual job qualifications to be on the cabinet.


It would be nice, wouldn't it?  But it's hardly required, as we have seen.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

topbroker said:


> If we're talking "qualifications," by the way, I don't think that Bush himself would be "qualified" to be a committee chair in my Rotary Club. Except for an accident of birth, we would never have heard of him.


I should add that in the real world I'm trying to ground my comments in, that accident of birth *is* W's qualification. It is what enables him to exert influence and power, and to get elected.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not a huge Bush supporter, but the man isn't the intellectual lightweight that he is made out to be. True, he is a poor public speaker and often gives the appearance of not being the sharpest knife in the drawer; however, I have heard far too many describe him as being a very intelligent and witty person when he is one on one or in small groups. The man just can't give a good speech. There are probably some smart people here who can't give a good speech either.
> 
> The comparison I like to draw it between Bush and John Kerry. Kerry was constantly being described as the intellectual that Bush is not, and yet despite taking essentially the same courses in college Bush graduated with a higher GPA than did Kerry. And then when you consider that Kerry has been described as a "bookworm" in college spending most of his time in the library studying while Bush admits that he partied his way through college never meeting a keg he didn't like, it makes you wonder even more about the intellectual capabilities of the two men. In other words, even when hung over most of the time Bush got better grades than a very studious Kerry.
> 
> My point is that we shouldn't let the media so strongly influence our opinions. For example, Obama is portrayed by the media as being more savvy about the economy than McCain. Before you buy into that hook, line and sinker take a close look at some of the things he is proposing. By that I mean go beneath the surface and see the real effect they would have. I have serious doubts.


I concede some of what you say, but by the standard you're applying, I'm smarter than Bush or Kerry -- I'm a Yale grad with a way higher GPA than either of them -- and you may be, too, but neither of us is President.

And I really never have seen *any *evidence that Bush is an especially thoughtful man. I could find twenty who are more thoughtful just by doing a random sweep through the halls of my company. Next to Obama, McCain, either Clinton, his dad, his wife, and everyone else within stone's throw, he does seem pretty darn lightweight. Without people to protect him, he could never keep up with the people around him. It's not just a question of speech-making, although his speech-making admittedly sucks.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

JibranK said:


> True, but that can be said for HRC if you replace 'birth' with 'marriage'. She's definitely intelligent in her own right, but she ran her campaign on a "Back when "I" was in office" nostalgia platform, which is what leads me to that conclusion.


Not quite the same case. Marriage isn't an accident. Being born into wealth is luck, marrying into wealth is strategy; and the same is true of political power. Hillary married shrewdly for her own ambitions -- not that Bill had the political power yet, at the point of marriage, but he clearly had the political gift that could get him (and her) there.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I'm aware of that. I was referring to the dynasty concept as opposed to how dynasty entrance was gained.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My crazy aunt was a functional illiterate. She graduated High School via numerous boxes of candy my grandmother sent to her teachers.My aunt could have been a bonesman for all I know.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

topbroker said:


> I concede some of what you say, but by the standard you're applying, I'm smarter than Bush or Kerry -- I'm a Yale grad with a way higher GPA than either of them -- and you may be, too, but neither of us is President.
> 
> And I really never have seen *any *evidence that Bush is an especially thoughtful man. I could find twenty who are more thoughtful just by doing a random sweep through the halls of my company. Next to Obama, McCain, either Clinton, his dad, his wife, and everyone else within stone's throw, he does seem pretty darn lightweight. Without people to protect him, he could never keep up with the people around him. It's not just a question of speech-making, although his speech-making admittedly sucks.


What you are saying is what I hate about all three of them. I wouldn't trust any of them to lead me out of a burning building.

The truth is: they all make the obvious better choice painfully more obvious. Romney. If not for a bunch of moral majority types and fundamentalist bigots voting for Huckabee we wouldn't be stuck with the Senator.

God willing he will be VP and be in charge of Domestic Policy while McCain hunts down Osama. Romney was the only competent person to run for President. The "big lie" was he was too much of a politician. The way the establishment took him down in Florida proved he's far from it. Amateur politics at best, but I want him reorganizing and reforming the economy, taxes, the budget, and the entitlement programs.

McCain needs money desperately and Bush's "Rangers" haven't ponied up yet. McCain has to pick Romney to get the money flowing he will need just to 
keep close to Obama.

I have a great slogan for McCain if he does the "right" thing.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

McCain and Huckabee based their alliance on a disdain for Gov. Romney, so I doubt that would happen.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> McCain and Huckabee based their alliance on a disdain for Gov. Romney, so I doubt that would happen.


No, Huckabee based his on disdain for Romney. McCain based his on being a ruthless SOB. He has already done a 180 on Romney.

McCain used Huckabee like the dope he is.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I really hope he doesn't go with James Webb. I find that man rather disturbing, and I can't believe he's getting all this national attention.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The job pays pretty well. Is he taking resumes?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> I really hope he doesn't go with James Webb. I find that man rather disturbing, and I can't believe he's getting all this national attention.


Well I've gotta agree...a democrat with significant military experience is a pretty rare beast but, I wouldn't let it disturb me!


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

HRC's very public VP feelers are an ingenious ploy to damage Obama. If he accepts her, he's damaged goods. If he rejects her, he reduces the support from her supporters. Does anyone really think she's given up on being the POTUS? She's eyeing 2012 and a run against a Republican.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Droog said:


> HRC's very public VP feelers are an ingenious ploy to damage Obama. If he accepts her, he's damaged goods. If he rejects her, he reduces the support from her supporters. Does anyone really think she's given up on being the POTUS? She's eyeing 2012 and a run against a Republican.


And if Obama wins? She's **** out of luck, worse than damaged goods, persona non grata along with Bill. The Clintons are smart, but not *so* smart that they are incapable of being damaged. They have been damaged this year, and it could get worse.

A lot of power has shifted to Obama, perhaps the most naturally gifted politician since...well, Bill Clinton. The Clintons ignore that shift at their peril.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

One question (the answer for which I know nothing) is whether Obama's popularity and votes have or will translate into an institutional power base. As time goes on, certainly more people will owe him something. I wonder whether there will be anything resembling the personality cult of Kennedy or Reagan, however.


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

topbroker said:


> And if Obama wins? She's **** out of luck, worse than damaged goods, persona non grata along with Bill.


Exactly the opposite. Offering to be the VP does not make her a persona non grata because it looks like she's offering to help Obama. But Obama's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't in accepting/rejecting her. Her "offer" brings the issue to the fore.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Droog said:


> Exactly the opposite. Offering to be the VP does not make her a persona non grata because it looks like she's offering to help Obama. But Obama's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't in accepting/rejecting her. Her "offer" brings the issue to the fore.


I strongly disagree. I think most people see right through her ploys. And are getting darn tired of her.

If she graciously accepts what she can get and moves on, she helps her image.

Besides, what I meant was: if she tries to play hardball now, and Obama rejects her, and then he wins -- a completely plausible scenario -- where is she then? Nowheresville, man.


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

I don't think offering to "support" the party by offering to be VP is playing hard ball. It's actually a velvet glove. However, be that as it may, what will be most telling is the manner in which she campaigns for Obama.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

topbroker said:


> I strongly disagree. I think most people see right through her ploys. And are getting darn tired of her.
> 
> If she graciously accepts what she can get and moves on, she helps her image.
> 
> Besides, what I meant was: if she tries to play hardball now, and Obama rejects her, and then he wins -- a completely plausible scenario -- where is she then? Nowheresville, man.


Can't agree with the "most people" part. She split the Dem vote with Obama down the middle. If her supporters haven't long ago seen right through her ploys, there is no reason to expect them to now.

She's simply making the "unity" offer to put Obama in a tough spot. And it's going to work. Now way he offers the VP job to her, and that will really tick off her supporters (esp the feminists).

Hillary desperately wants to be the President and what she has to do to get there matters not.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Perhaps he can trump her by offering a spot on SCOTUS. Hard for her to say no, hard for the Senate to reject, and it puts her out of politics for a long while.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Perhaps he can trump her by offering a spot on SCOTUS. Hard for her to say no, hard for the Senate to reject, and it puts her out of politics for a long while.


That's my solution too. Gives her a separate sandbox and a ton of power within it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Interesting tidbit I heard through a family member about a family member I don't speak to ( nephew's wife, who, at the mature age of 22 and fresh out of college with a PolySci Degree lectured me on voting for Gore.) She was hired by Hilary for the campaign and was just laid off. She hasn't been paid in 3 weeks and Hilary informed her former staff "They would have to wait, she didn't have the money." ROFLM ( GREEN) AO.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Perhaps he can trump her by offering a spot on SCOTUS. Hard for her to say no, hard for the Senate to reject, and it puts her out of politics for a long while.


I agree that the Senate will be much inclined to agree on Hillary. Do you think the Rose Law Firm/Whitewater controversy won't be too big of an issue to overcome? Never charged, or course, but lots of issues, especially for a candidate for the Court.


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Rossini said:


> It is a sad situation, and somewhat cynical perhaps, to consider that HRC's enthusiasm for the VP spot might be because of the perceived likelihood of the VP being elevated to P because of assassination. I hope that this thought didn't really play a part in her calculations.


Vince Foster might have an opinion on that. Someone should ask him.

Oh, yeah.......


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The whole concept that a seat on SCOTUS would be an acceptable spot for as power hungry a person as Hillary really bothers me.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The whole concept that a seat on SCOTUS would be an acceptable spot for as power hungry a person as Hillary really bothers me.


Well, sure, she is Machiavellian; very perceptibly so, with little attempt at disguise. (Bill at least smooths it out with the famous "charm.") But power hungriness is a pretty much universal defining characteristic of politicians, high court judges, high level government administrators, CEOs, etc. -- how else would they get where they've gotten? They may be highly competent, but competence isn't enough. To obtain power, one usually needs a taste for power. These days, power is seldom thrust upon anyone.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ One also finds such observations in _The Twelve Caesars_ by Seutonius, a very important book to know, still, in today's power-chasing world of politicians and those with that taste for power.

Every judge I've ever met, read or studied that was on the Supreme Court was at the very least decidedly ambitious and anxious to wield our country's ultimate appellate powers. I can't see Mrs. Clinton sitting still that long, though, even if isome see it as the perfect corral for her in terms of future political ambitions. One wonders what was actually discussed in that recent hour in Senator Feinstein's living room.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

topbroker said:


> Well, sure, she is Machiavellian; very perceptibly so, with little attempt at disguise. (Bill at least smooths it out with the famous "charm.") But power hungriness is a pretty much universal defining characteristic of politicians, high court judges, high level government administrators, CEOs, etc. -- how else would they get where they've gotten? They may be highly competent, but competence isn't enough. To obtain power, one usually needs a taste for power. These days, power is seldom thrust upon anyone.


I never thought of SCOTUS Justices in my lifetime as particularly power hungry except for Rehnquist. Alito and Roberts don't strike me as anything like a power hungry politican, but perhaps I am just out-to-lunch on that one.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I never thought of SCOTUS Justices in my lifetime as particularly power hungry except for Rehnquist. Alito and Roberts don't strike me as anything like a power hungry politican, but perhaps I am just out-to-lunch on that one.


I think Roberts was the real deal and Alito a bit more of the idiologue. Not quite power hungry, but certianly not as open minded.

I could be the model middle voter in this election. Socially liberal, fiscally more conservative but more libertarian on many Constitutional issues.

-spence


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I think something that justices need to realize (yet don't, on either side) that party affiliation should not play even a slight role. They need to understand that their job is to provide constitutional appraisal - not breaking new ground on the basis of "progressiveness" or "morality". Maybe it will happen - who knows?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> I always love it when somebody has to start walking his walk. The potential future VP of the USA is being determined by Caroline Kennedy.


In other words, she's on the committee. At least we can be pretty confident she won't pick herself.


----------

