Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« From the Ashes | The Hillary Haters »

Monday, February 4, 2008

Obama for VP

posted by on February 4 at 16:39 PM

Suggests Clinton’s campaign chairman.

RSS icon Comments

1

Nice tactic. But maybe Clinton should consider a job as Obama's VP?

Posted by bma | February 4, 2008 4:43 PM
2

The Audacity of Hope...

Posted by Street Smart | February 4, 2008 4:44 PM
3

Ha! McAuliffe is one of the reasons I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by Christian | February 4, 2008 4:48 PM
4

Rolling on the Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off

What a tool...

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | February 4, 2008 4:52 PM
5

McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie seem a bit like clones bland, boring, crappy clones

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 4, 2008 4:53 PM
6

@1 - Agreed.

Posted by Hernandez | February 4, 2008 4:54 PM
7

Traditionally, the President goes out to sell new initiatives, get people on the bandwagon, and drum up excitement for legislation. The Veep is normally there to attack enemies, break kneecaps, and keep the back benchers in line. Am I right?

I wonder who would be most qualified for these two jobs.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 4:58 PM
8

I'm into it...

Posted by Amelia | February 4, 2008 4:59 PM
9

I'd love a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket! Let's do the damn thing and beat the fucking Republicans!

Posted by Suz | February 4, 2008 5:00 PM
10

Sadly, after South Carolina I don't think it would happen. Obama knows the real VP is Bill, he wouldn't want to be the third in that hornet's nest.

Hillary would never take the second banana consolation prize at this point.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 5:02 PM
11

The sorry truth is that if Clinton gets the nod, the VP is bound to be a very, very boring (albeit safe) choice.

Posted by bma | February 4, 2008 5:07 PM
12

Hot ticket is Obama/Edwards

Posted by call me a snot | February 4, 2008 5:09 PM
13

(droplets of sweat forming on the Hillarians?)

Posted by Andy Niable | February 4, 2008 5:11 PM
14

id still vote for mccain. fuck uncle tom status.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:13 PM
15

Not a good idea. If she offers, he should graciously decline. Edwards made the mistake of running with Kerry. We all know how that turned out.

Posted by McCain FTW! | February 4, 2008 5:14 PM
16

No way does Obama pick Edwards. What would Edwards bring? The Carolinas? Puhleeze. Eloquence? "I grew up the son of a mill worker..." The trial lawyers? Obama'd pick a southern or western governor.

Only way it's two Senators is if it's Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:18 PM
17

I read that the actress from "Joan of Arcadia" who is stumping for Clinton on campuses, etc in CA is telling people there "is a 16 year plan, 8 Clinton and then 8 Obama". Sheesh.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 5:19 PM
18

Wow Big Sven I totally agree with you!

My prediction for VP from either candidate is Richardson or Wesley Clark.

Posted by jason | February 4, 2008 5:21 PM
19
Not a good idea. If she offers, he should graciously decline. Edwards made the mistake of running with Kerry. We all know how that turned out.

Assume for a second that Clinton wins the nomination. Do you agree that she would be stronger with a Clinton/Obama ticket than Clinton/anybodyelse?

So in that situation, would you have Obama play a spoiler and help assure a Clinton loss, hoping that in four years he could defeat INCUMBENT President McCain/Romney? Is that what you are really suggesting? Is your hatred for Clinton so strong that you would propose handicapping the party like this?

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:22 PM
20

Big Sven is correct.

Posted by gnossos | February 4, 2008 5:23 PM
21

What if McCain decides to invite Hillary to be his Veep?

Posted by monkey wrench | February 4, 2008 5:26 PM
22

@1
Yes, why doesn't Obama put out feelers for that?

Unity. Beating the GOP. Historic ticket that looks like change.

@7
The VP is also the president of the Senate, in addition to the jobs you mention in your unkind and snarky way.

Putting someone with HRC's wonkish skills in that slot makes perfect sense.

@10:
You are insane if you think Obama wouldn't take VP. Refusing would be Mr., Sore Loser, and would help the GOP and let someone else be VP and next up for president. U.r. totally insane and illogical.

Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason.

@11
No, I think she would be very focused on getting all the Obama suporters back on the bandwagon. Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason.

@13
Why be snarky about it? We all know it will be a tight race and this is a rather generous feeler to put out there. It's also not typical politics as usual.

Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason. A more uplifting and inspiring reaction would be to stop gloating and more thoughtful of unity and the overall interest of the nation in beating the GOP.

@14
You're voting GOP?

Go fuck yourself. But I don't need to tell you that, it is clearly a wish you already have.

Aren't you Obamatons for unity? Defeating the GOP? You can't even be gracious and unity minded within your own party.

Please correct this divisive, old style approach to politics to be consistent with your main man's philosphy.

Thanks!

Posted by unPC | February 4, 2008 5:26 PM
23

@1
Yes, why doesn't Obama put out feelers for that?

Unity. Beating the GOP. Historic ticket that looks like change.

@7
The VP is also the president of the Senate, in addition to the jobs you mention in your unkind and snarky way.

Putting someone with HRC's wonkish skills in that slot makes perfect sense.

@10:
You are insane if you think Obama wouldn't take VP. Refusing would be Mr., Sore Loser, and would help the GOP and let someone else be VP and next up for president. U.r. totally insane and illogical.

Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason.

@11
No, I think she would be very focused on getting all the Obama suporters back on the bandwagon. Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason.

@13
Why be snarky about it? We all know it will be a tight race and this is a rather generous feeler to put out there. It's also not typical politics as usual.

Your snarky anti Clinton passion is getting the better of your reason. A more uplifting and inspiring reaction would be to stop gloating and more thoughtful of unity and the overall interest of the nation in beating the GOP.

@14
You're voting GOP?

Go fuck yourself. But I don't need to tell you that, it is clearly a wish you already have.

Aren't you Obamatons for unity? Defeating the GOP? You can't even be gracious and unity minded within your own party.

Please correct this divisive, old style approach to politics to be consistent with your main man's philosphy.

Thanks!

Posted by unPC | February 4, 2008 5:27 PM
24

After you, Gaston.

No, after you.

No, you first.

(chuckles)

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 5:27 PM
25

Theory:

Edwards knew he was dead after Iowa -- well before he dropped out of the race. So, why did he stay in? Because his presence in the race stole a significant chunk of the white southern vote from Billary in SC, and virtually guaranteed a big victory for Obama going into Super Tuesday.

Corollary:

Edwards and Obama were in collusion concerning the timing of Edwards' departure from the race, with a VP nod for Edwards being the inevitable result.

I don't think the idea is ridiculous.

Posted by A Non Imus | February 4, 2008 5:31 PM
26

@22 As an Obamaton I don't want Bellevue Ave included in our numbers, @9 is exactly correct we need party solidarity no matter who the nominee is or who the VP is

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 4, 2008 5:32 PM
27

"should be strongly considered"

You guys just fall off the turnip truck?

That's not the Silver Medal. That's an Honorable Mention.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 4, 2008 5:33 PM
28

I do not hate Hillary. I just don't think he should run with her, and no way in heck should she be a VP on his ticket either. It is not a winning ticket. I agree that a a Southerner or Midwesterner would be a good choice, especially if it's a governor. So, calm down...McCain still wins!

Posted by McCain FTW! | February 4, 2008 5:33 PM
29

unPC, i like obama more than clinton, and mccain more than clinton. i dont play party politics. sorrrrrrrrrry. obama gets independent voters like me. sorrrrrrrrry.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:34 PM
30

@ 19 Yes Sven

That is exactly what I'd be advocating. Anything or anyone is better than Hillary.

And there are 10's of millions of others who strongly agree with me.

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | February 4, 2008 5:37 PM
31

Bell Ave, you are correct. It's odd how so many on SLOG assume that everyone is a Democrat. I, too, am an Independent.

Posted by McCain FTW! | February 4, 2008 5:39 PM
32

and anyone chatting up party solidarity has to be aware democrats arent going to be enough to put you over the top of an anti hillary ticket.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:40 PM
33

it's still rude of you to say "fuck uncle tom status."

Why be so bitchy? Being VP after 3 yrs. in the Senate, being the first minority who is VP, being the first nonWASP w/ name ending in a vowel -- none of it is enough progress for you. You'd vote for McCain. Fine. 100 years of war, tax cuts for the rich, conservative supreme court judges, all adds up to this: go fuck yourself again.


Posted by unPC | February 4, 2008 5:41 PM
34

Reality Check:

That is exactly what I'd be advocating. Anything or anyone is better than Hillary.

Anyone? President Huckabee? Incredible. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:47 PM
35

unPC, you're just another nail in teh coffin for a hillary presidential run. obama could get more party unity and party solidarity than vice versa if he won. you want a democrat to win? vote obama. he gets my vote, he gets your vote regardless. it is win win.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:49 PM
36

if given the options i'd vote 3rd part if it was huckabee and hillary. fortunately we are bound by reality.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:50 PM
37

@18 - wouldn't you prefer Obama has Dodd or Richardson as his choices for Veep, though?

In terms of practical balance, both of them have way more foreign policy experience, and both would be far more likely to work well together with Obama.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 5:56 PM
38

this is why i cant vote for obama tomorrow. i have never heard a hillary supporter say that they would never vote for obama if he gets the nod. the kind of idiots that obama draws to support him that think that mccain is better than hillary shows me that he is all hype.

Posted by um | February 4, 2008 6:00 PM
39

dude, obama having dodd as veep is fucking my dream choice.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:00 PM
40

btw did anyone else see the video on yahoo where they asked the republican candidates if they use a Mac or PC. They all said PC except McCain who said he didn't know how to use a computer, looked confused, and said he makes his wife do stuff for him.

yah, he'd make a great president.

Posted by um | February 4, 2008 6:04 PM
41

um, dont you see how ridiculous your logic is?

1. obama will get a certain % indie votes if he is nominated, including all the people that would have voted hillary (because as you said youve never heard a hillary supporter saying they wouldnt vote for obama if nominate)?

2. hillary will only get those that were going to vote for her anyway, minus all the indie votes and all the votes agaisnt her because she is hillary?

you have nothing to lose by voting obama in terms of electability of a democrat.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
42

@38: I guess the "idiots" won't be voting for Hillary then, which means she will lose. Sheesh, you're a great representative for your candidate.

Posted by Think about it | February 4, 2008 6:11 PM
43

@41 i know lots of indies who will vote for HIllary, and I think they'll go her vs. mccain. so i have nothing to lose by voting for hillary. and i'll feel better about it.

Posted by um | February 4, 2008 6:12 PM
44

um, would these same people vote for obama? any votes she can get obama can get too. obama can get more votes too.

feeling good about your nom wont mean shit if a republican wins right?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:14 PM
45

@42 hillary isnt my candidate, but i'm voting for her vs. obama. i didn't know that automatically made me represent her. if obama folks don't vote for her in the general then they deserve mccain.

Posted by um | February 4, 2008 6:15 PM
46

Sounds like a "blink" to me. And here's what it means: Billary knows that Obama would bring her something in the plus column, while Obama knows that she would be a negative to him. Don't expect a similar offer from him to her (if he is seriouse about contending).

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | February 4, 2008 6:17 PM
47

Sounds like a "blink" to me. And here's what it means: Billary knows that Obama would bring her something in the plus column, while Obama knows that she would be a negative to him. Don't expect a similar offer from him to her (if he is seriouse about contending).

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | February 4, 2008 6:19 PM
48

um, as a Hillary supporter, please be quiet. 42 is partially correct. You are hurting more than helping. since you're a newcomer to the Clinton camp, you should let the folks who've been her supporters from Day 1 represent.

Posted by Thanks | February 4, 2008 6:21 PM
49

@23

I'm sorry it sounds unkind, but it's true. Presidents don't gain from looking mean, but when has it hurt an administration when the VP looks like a badass? Hillary would be an awesome enforcer and hatchet woman. She'd take Obama's critics out at the knees, they would hit back against, her, not him, and the President would go on looking damn good.

You're absolutely right that her skills would serve us all extremely well if she were President of the Senate.

I don't know of any reason why she would turn down the job: her chances to become president in 8 years are far higher if she accepts. She isn't an egomaniac. What's not to like?

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 6:22 PM
50

I think Edwards would be more interested in Attorney General than VP, and I suspect that came up in conversation with the other two.

If Obama picked Clinton as his VP, he'd never be assassinated by a right wing nut.

Posted by pox | February 4, 2008 6:28 PM
51

Obama should not associate himself with the Clinton ticket. That way, after four years of a McCain presidency, he could run without the stain of failure.

Posted by mikeblanco | February 4, 2008 6:37 PM
52

mikeblanco, why would you put up with 4 more years of a republican president if you are a democrat?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:39 PM
53

Why is everyone assuming that Clinton would be happy with a running mate who outshines her?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 4, 2008 6:48 PM
54

who outshines her and still doesnt save her ticket.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:53 PM
55

No way Obama would want to be the third wheel to Hillary and Bill. I'd love to see Obama/Biden.

Posted by blargh | February 4, 2008 7:04 PM
56

@55: And then Joe could be sure Mr. President went out looking clean and sounding articulate every day.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | February 4, 2008 7:55 PM
57

@49
Yes. In fact, I agreed with you the first time, implicitly to be sure, that the VP is the attack dog.

Where you go wrong, as is custmoary with Obamtons, is the fantasy that "Hillary would be an awesome enforcer and hatchet woman. She'd take Obama's critics out at the knees, they would hit back against, her, not him, and the President would go on looking damn good."

WTF? You guys are smoking crack. You think the GOP won't atack Obama, fine. WE've already discussed the $300,000 gift from the corrupt political fixer, the fact he has no foriegn olicy experience except "living abroad" and one speech in 2002 -- that'llhelp alot when there is an "October surprise" -- he took donations to soften the nuclear legislation, he did blow but thinks everyone else who did it should just rot in jail, he said pot helped him as a teenager, and on that 2002 speech -- he later said he did not know how he would vote had he been in the Senate at the time. And oh yes, he missed the vote on the Iran resolution because he was too busy campaigning.

McCain is going to look at that and go "hey, let's not attack him."

OK, I get you guys now. Please pass the crack pipe.

You're absolutely right that her skills would serve us all extremely well if she were President of the Senate.


God knows we need someone on the ticket who understands who to counterpunch the GOP smear machine.

Posted by unPC | February 4, 2008 8:07 PM
58

(1) Thanks@48: nice job nominating "um" as a newcomer. I've seen them many times on the Slog. Never heard of you. Nice job trying to suppress the Clinton supporters. And I agree with "um" (as I suspect many Obama supporters do) that the shrill Clinton Haters on the SLOG do Obama a disservice and turn off independent voters.

(2) I'm stunned at how many Obama supporters are making arguments about electability as if they never heard about *all* the polls in the last two days SHOWING that Clinton and Obama poll interchangably against the Republicans. How's the weather on Fantasy Island?

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 8:08 PM
59

big sven, 100 dollars hillary wont win the general.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:17 PM
60

the polls also showed some other things happening with obama beating hillary in NH. let the cards fall where they may. i just dont think democrats have taken the anti hillary hatred into account.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:20 PM
61

I predict Richardson or Dodd for VP with either candidate. Either one would be a great choice.

BTW, not all of us Obamaniacs are anti-Hillary. I will vote for Hillary in the general. And I will even refrain from saying "I told you so" when she loses to McCain.

Posted by RainMan | February 4, 2008 8:23 PM
62

John Mc Cain is a total war monger - his family is three generation brass Navy and he makes no bones about it. He went to the Naval Academy graduating 394 out of 399 - and only was accepted by family connection.

He is dumb. The Mc Cain hero rah rah and nice old guy hides a real zero when it comes to his politics.

His legacy would be the use of nukes.

Of course, they will only be used in the right war. Of course.

Fear Mc Cain with your heart and soul. Bush was just an ordinary stupid moronic crook after the jacket with gold braid and billions from the treasury for friends and family. Typical corruption.

Mc Cain is to be feared.

Perfect fit for the real neo con agenda of conquest and the new American century which looks so much like 1800' s colonialism.

Posted by Marty | February 4, 2008 8:38 PM
63

@57

I never said they wouldn't attack Obama.

I'm only saying that just because Hillary has been attacked before is not in of itself proof that she can defend herself. From what I can see, her critics are successful in making people hate her. Has she ever counterattacked and made herself more loved? No.

Hillary counterattacks and drags her attackers down in the mud with her. The net result is that they hate her and hate her attackers.

And all that doesn't get Hillary elected President. But what it can do is run interference for the sitting President. She has a lot to offer, and we should put her in a position where it can be put to good use.

There's much more she can do than wrangle votes in Congress and rip apart enemies. Her council would also be very valuable to Obama.

What she can't do is build a working majority in Congress to pass legislation without a filibuster. She also cannot inspire people across many sectors of our society. Obama can do those things and so he belongs as the President.

Again, what's not to like? And why would she refuse the job?

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 8:38 PM
64

unpc, everyone knows obama will be attacked. who cares? thats politics. all things being equal i think he has a better shot than hillary in teh general. and democrats who dont are happy to lose elections.

unpc, 100 bucks hillary wont win the general.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:39 PM
65

i find it hilarious that both elenchos and i agree on a politician we would vote for despite our fundamental difference in opinion in economic outlook. obama is a uniter.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:43 PM
66

Obama would be an idiot to run for Down-in-Flames Clinton's VP. Did First Woman Ferraro gain from running as What's-his-name's VP? Did First Jew Lieberman gain from running as Gore's VP? Furthermore, in the last I-don't-know-how-long, except for Big Bush, the only VPs who succeeded their Presidents did so because the President died or was hounded out of office. Running as HRC's VP is a loser move for losers.

Obama conceivably gains by having a white Southerner running mate. Uppity Negro meets Good Old Boy. Southerners respect the military, so Wesley Clark would help him.

Plus: Imagine a McCain-Colin Powell ticket. That would wipe HRC off the board.

Posted by obama fo' yo' mama | February 4, 2008 8:55 PM
67

Bellvue, just go to http://www.intrade.com and bet the farm. Sell Hillary short and then cash in your kids' college fun and sell against that too. No need to talk anybody into taking your money; they have this all worked out for you.

Technology. System. Profit.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 8:56 PM
68

And if we had a Marxist with a chance of winning, I'd vote for her. But I'm not some retard who votes for Nader and LaDuke or any stupid shit like that.

But some day? It's inevitable the capitalist system will fail. Just wait...

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 8:58 PM
69

I love it. although i expect my kids to have college fun regardless if i save up for it.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:59 PM
70

RainMan-

BTW, not all of us Obamaniacs are anti-Hillary. I will vote for Hillary in the general. And I will even refrain from saying "I told you so" when she loses to McCain.

Don't worry. Either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain in the fall. McCain has peaked way too early. Whereas the Dem nom won't get decided until the convention. McCain will seem like the old news that he is by then.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 9:21 PM
71

Obama should pick Nader for VP and then Edwards as his AG.
Or maybe vice versa.

Posted by hairyson | February 4, 2008 9:47 PM
72

@22 and @38

I am an Obama supporter who will not vote for Clinton. I will not vote for McCain or Romney either. I will vote for the candidate that best represents my views AND a candidate who doesn't use racism to win a race. That person is not Clinton. I'm not sure who it is, but I'll gladly vote for the Green Party candidate if s/he represents my views. For me it is not just about a Democrat. It is about a President whose policies I agree with. Obama barely gets my vote, at this point there is no way I could vote HC in the General Election.

Posted by Papayas | February 4, 2008 10:00 PM
73

Clinton for VP suggests the rest of the country...and reality. Go Obama go!

Posted by sprizee | February 5, 2008 9:11 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).