VP Thoughts
Aug 22
I keep heairng two names being thrown out as vp candidates, neither of whom make any sense. Why would Clinton or Gore want to be Vice-president? Gore has found a calling and a vocation. If he becomes Vice-president, his effectiveness in that roll is severly limited. He would be treated as just another politician and his issues would be treated as just another partisian football. gore has done amazing work convincing people on boht sides of the aisle to start taking climate chnage seriously. Why would he throw away a chnace t build the strong consensous that he needs to take quick action on climate chnage by becoming just another Vice-president?
As for Clinton, there aren’t very many lions of the Senate left any more, especially on the left. Clinton, from a safe seat in a liberal part of the country and part of a party that should retain control of the senate for at least the next handful of electoral cycles, is perfectly positioned to dominate the Senate for two or three decades or more. She could easily become the most influential Senator of our generation and build a legislative legacy that will outlast any President’s.
I understand the allure of both names and it is certain that both names would make a huge splash, perhaps a splash big enough to dampen the coverage of the GOP convention. But I don;t understand why either person would want to be another man’s second fiddle.
So is it going to be? I dunno. Probably someone safe. Obama is, at his heart, a consensus building centrist after all.
#1 by Tom willis at August 22nd, 2008
| Quote
How could you possible characterize Obama as a centrist?
#2 by Steve Plonk at August 22nd, 2008
| Quote
If Obama is smart, he will offer Hillary Clinton the
Veep position. She can still cast a deciding vote
and will probably run again for senator after she completes
her term. Gore has ruled out being a Vice President again.
Hillary has said she will do anything she needs to do to
get Obama elected including being VEEP.
#3 by Kevin T. Keith at August 22nd, 2008
| Quote
Hillary is clearly the best of the bunch, but that doesn’t decide the issue. She sounds like an unworkable choice for Obama. He’d be looking over his shoulder for 8 years, besides which she’d eclipse him during the campaign. I still wish it had been Clinton/Obama, but I don’t think it can be the other way around. I’m not sure it makes sense from Hillary’s point of view either.
It would be great theater, though! She can basically ignore McCain’s VP and work with Obama to double-team McCain himself. I’d love to see McCain debating Obama some night with Hillary holding a press conference outside ripping him a new one every time he opens his mouth, or seeing Obama and McCain holding separate campaign appearances, then Hillary shows up at McCain’s event to list all his inadequacies in a loud voice. There’s no question she can mop the floor with McCain or anyone from the GOP’s weak bench, which means that she’d basically be a free lance during the campaign, ready to go anywhere and say anything without having to worry about what the GOP was doing against her.
#4 by Ron E. at August 22nd, 2008
| Quote
In 8 years in the Senate, what has Hillary done other than voting for the Iraq war? Being a lion of the Senate doesn’t seem to be of much interest to her. She wants to be President. It’ll be easier to become President having served 4-8 years as Obama’s vice president and thus having actual experience instead of 35 years of making up being shot at in Bosnia.
#5 by gattsuru at August 22nd, 2008
| Quote
Clinton would be a horrible choice, but I think it would be the Democratic party’s best bet for keeping a lot of women voters in the party for November. There are going to be a pretty big number of the female persuasion pissed off about how Obama treated her throughout the primaries, and that’s going to hurt. They’ve been long and loyal voters, the biggest source of votes that you’ve got, but this is a punch to the gut.
It’ll also get hard questions like abortion off the table and on Obama’s side. Mostly a female voter thing, but it’ll be the difference from shoring up the base and being able to straddle across the middle.
She’d take it because I can’t see there being much left for her in the Senate. A sizable portion of her campaign funding came from her Senate fund. So did a lot of her political capital. If Obama wins in November, the best her New York yes-men can say is that she
ungracefully let the better candidate in. If he doesn’t, she’ll get a hell of a lot of blame. Either way, not good for the papers. She can’t do much from a Senator’s seat, either. It doesn’t get in the public eye, she’s got enough bad blood that she’s better off pawning off bills to other Senators, and she doesn’t have much in the way of committee power nor is she likely to get much soon.As a conservative, I personally will enjoy hearing the ranting moonbats call Hillary Clinton a tool of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, one whose racist attack ads took out the
secondfirst African-American President. I don’t think either individual here is willing to deal with that.#6 by Big U at August 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Just a thought…would Clinton prefer to see Obama lose so that in four years her camp can use the “if you had chosen me to lead we would have won?”
It appears to me that since losing she has been almost sulking. Again this is only from what I have read and only a bit of intuition but it doesn’t strike me that she is that interested in seeing Obama win.
#7 by Steve Plonk at August 23rd, 2008
| Quote
Well, kind folks and gentle people, all this is now a
“moot point” and rhetorical question because Obama just
announced Joe Biden as his running mate…A great second
choice, in my opinion, as a Hillary supporter. May they
win the ultimate victory: POTUS! and Veep! Yes!