Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Clinton as VP?

1

so, do i click on the network solutions banner to vote? is this a ploy for more clickthrus?

Posted by skye | May 7, 2008 9:58 AM
2

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bill Richardson as VP, groom him for the next presidency. He's even better than Obama.

Posted by NaFun | May 7, 2008 9:59 AM
3

This poll needs a third option: FUCK no.

Posted by AMB | May 7, 2008 10:03 AM
4

@1 - Some browsers (Safari, most often) have trouble letting go of the contents of iFrames, so sometimes a new one (like this poll) will show some content from an old one (an ad). Clearing the browser's cache or quitting and restarting the browser should clear it up.

If you're using a browser other than Safari, I'd be interested to know which one.

Posted by Anthony Hecht | May 7, 2008 10:03 AM
5

I think he should offer, though I don't know if she would take it. Just looking at the animosity on the slog of Clinton vs Obama supporters, pissing off Clinton supporters will send them off frumping. Whether or not they come back to Obama in the general is whether or not he wins.

Posted by John | May 7, 2008 10:04 AM
6

There appears to be a problem with your survey. I couldn't locate the HELLS NO button.

Posted by sprizee | May 7, 2008 10:06 AM
7

He won't and he shouldn't. It would blatantly contradict the whole notion of the break from the past that his campaign has been about.

Richardson would probably prefer Secretary of State to VP. I think he'd be a good president but he's way too much a gaffe machine on the campaign trail. The most likely VP candidates for Obama would probably be Govs. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Posted by bob | May 7, 2008 10:06 AM
8

Sibelius is an option, or even Christie Todd Whitman, who's just chomping at the bit to bolt the GOP. While Webb is a great choice (former Republican, oodles of military cred), I think Obama needs a woman on the ticket to mend fences with the Hillary folk furious their girl didn't get the nom. Question is will the VP's gender placate them, or are they more Hillary specific in their allegiance?

Posted by Andy Niable | May 7, 2008 10:07 AM
9

I'm coming around on this. I don't see what's in it for (either) Clinton personally but maybe she'd do it for the good of the country.

Not only could it pull the party together and pull the old identity politics constituencies back together she and Bill might be good bulldogs bringin the "white working class" voter for Obama. And bulldogs for defending him against patriotic/flag pin/bitter/elitist attacks on his character.

Posted by daniel | May 7, 2008 10:09 AM
10

My problem with Clinton has been and remains that she is short-sighted. Just using the extension to the general election as an example:
Run against Obama on "experience?" Bogus, and what about McCain? He'd bring it back up and destroy you.
Arguing that big states count more than Obama's? Gee, how will that work in the general?
Hoping to be elected over the general vote with superdelegates? What do you think that will show the public about how dems care about what "the people" want?
Using Eightbelles as an analogy? (too soon?)

Posted by MR. Language Person | May 7, 2008 10:13 AM
11

non issue. is silly chatter to even vote on this. she is not interested. that would be the wrong ticket.

one thing is clear, they need her supporters and they need to offer her a dignified way out. thats all that is on the table now.

senator obama is our nominee and is about time, but we need the clintons if we want to beat old man mccain.

put her on the supreme court.

Posted by SeMe | May 7, 2008 10:14 AM
12

BHO needs a Bubba on his ticket. Schweitzer is one, but Montana is too small.

John Edwards? Southern White Male, but not exactly a Bubba.

Posted by max solomon | May 7, 2008 10:16 AM
13

Why would she VP for someone she doesn't feel is qualified for president? That would only serve to point out how full of shit her campaign was.

Posted by w7ngman | May 7, 2008 10:18 AM
14

@9-The Clinton's campaign and sometimes win by being willing to play dirty and deal with negative attacks with more of the same, which is at odds with Obama's generally more civilized and highly principled style and image. I'm not sure he'd have a hope of pulling that off if his VP took such a different approach.

Posted by Beguine | May 7, 2008 10:19 AM
15

I'm using Firefox, and it ALWAYS shows some old ad instead of the poll. Ugh. Nothing more fun than blowing away my whole browser session (20-odd windows) just for this.

Posted by Fnarf | May 7, 2008 10:20 AM
16

Whomever he picks, he can't just brush off 47% of primary voters.

Posted by yup | May 7, 2008 10:20 AM
17

Clark for VP. And I'm with SeMe Hill as a Supreme.

Posted by Poster Girl | May 7, 2008 10:21 AM
18

He should for all the Hilary supporters who said they'd rather vote for McCain than Obama.
How else will they be swayed?
We'd rather let their votes go to McCain?

Posted by Bella | May 7, 2008 10:22 AM
19

I think it should be either Wes Clark or Webb. Obama needs to cover the foriegn policy base and Clinton does not provide that on the ticket.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | May 7, 2008 10:24 AM
20

This poll makes me wonder -- anyone think the VP candidates are going to be subject to much more scrutiny than usual, after 8 years of a VP who basically considered himself to be his own branch of the government? Cheney's choice of himself as Bush's running mate back when he headed up the committee to choose a VP in 2000 was more important and had more of an impact than anything than Bush did or said in either campaign. Is all that power hoarded to an executive sub-branch really expected to get swept aside, again?

Posted by Peter F | May 7, 2008 10:30 AM
21

There is a possibility that Bobby Jindal could be McCain's VP in order to go against a historical ticket on the democratic side. Making Obama's choice for VP even more crucial.

Claire Mccaskill sure has been on a lot of talk shows lately, maybe shes on the potential VP list? I still think Bill Richardson is the best option though...this election will be about defining the democratic constituency for the next 25 years. Richardson would really help the Democrats in making a home for Latinos.
Either way, Barack needs to stay away from New England "liberals", anyone his age or younger, and someone who voted or was against the war in Iraq (some economic experience would be nice too).

Posted by ClassicGlassock | May 7, 2008 10:31 AM
22

Are you talking about the 7% of voters that backed Clinton in Indiana with no intention of supporting her in the general? Not so sure we need to woo them "back".

Posted by ru shur | May 7, 2008 10:36 AM
23

Yeah, why would an Illinois senator need another northern/northeastern, urban senator on the ticket? He needs a mayor or a governor from the west or the south, preferably with military and/or foreign experience.

Posted by elenchos | May 7, 2008 10:38 AM
24

oops, i meant he needs someone who was against the war. need to start proof reading on here

Posted by mark | May 7, 2008 10:41 AM
25

I think it needs to be a current of former governor. I think Richardson is a good choice to help with the Latino vote. @8 mentioned Christie Todd Whitman, who I think would be a very compelling choice.

Posted by I Got Nuthin' | May 7, 2008 10:42 AM
26

@4, On firefox (2.0) it always messes up as well. is safari built on firefox? I don't remember. Haven't tried the new beta firefox though, maybe it doesn't occur there.

Posted by firefox | May 7, 2008 10:45 AM
27

For the love of God, anyone but Wes Clark. That guy makes Anderson Cooper look butch.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 7, 2008 10:50 AM
28

I'm sorry, but can we ditch this ridiculous notion that Hillary might/should be nominated to the Supreme Court? Know how many of the current judges worked their way up to being Circuit Court judges before they were nominated to the Supreme Court? All nine of them. Has Hillary been a judge, anywhere, ever? Nominating Clinton would be a colossal failure. The Republicans would block it, rightfully, as she is not qualified. Then they would use it to batter us politically (think 1994) for years. Luckily, that will never, ever happen.

Posted by matthew e | May 7, 2008 10:51 AM
29

I think @7 has got it right... with maybe Sen. Claire McCaskill (MI)thrown in for another female option and Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (ND).

Clinton just doesn't bring anything to Obama's ticket. She doesn't suit his vision, there's no struggle to capture New York, etc.

It would be good strategy to have a woman after this bruising primary. And his vision seems to depend on a new way of looking at the electoral map that depends heavily upon the Mountain West and Midwest.

Posted by Mickymse | May 7, 2008 10:51 AM
30

Can we stop it with this "put her on the Supreme Court" bullshit? First of all, that's a position for judges. Sure, you can nominate anyone you want, but realistically, you want someone who's banged a gavel or two - a federal judge, preferably. Second, you don't nominate a Supreme Court justice before one has even announced his/her retirement. That's just disrespectful, as if you're hinting that one of them should step down. Announcing it ahead of time would just be pandering. Third, senator Clinton has not even expressed any desire to be a Supreme Court justice. If she wanted the position, she'd pick a career in the judicial branch of government, not legislative. It's not a runner-up prize in a primary.

Posted by JC | May 7, 2008 10:55 AM
31

There is no sense in having Hils as the VP nom. She burnt that bridge a few months back, at her own volition, and needs to live with the consequences.

A temporary party position until she's nominated to the US Supreme Court - sure.

But not the VP nod.

Short list: Dodd, Richardson, Gore, and that governor from the midwest (the cute one)

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 7, 2008 11:00 AM
32

I think Obama needs an old white guy as VP. It would help assuage the concerns of all the people sitting on the fence about electing a black president, and there are a LOT of people like that.

Edwards would have been a perfect choice, but he's already indicated he would not accept VP.

Clark would be an interesting choice. Webb too.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | May 7, 2008 11:02 AM
33

they both mentioned how the party has to stick together and support which ever one is the nom in their speeches last night.
could be preparing everyone?

I agree with #7 tho' - it would go against BHO's battle cry of breaking away from the old WA crapola.

Posted by irl | May 7, 2008 11:10 AM
34

@15,@26 - I use Firefox and don't have any problems seeing the polls. I don't have 20 windows open though ...

Posted by Mahtli69 | May 7, 2008 11:17 AM
35

@26- Firefox and Safari are very different, but it seems like your version of Firefox is just hanging on to its cached frames longer than it should. If you see this problem, Force-reload the page (Hold Shift and press the Reload button).

Another solution is to periodically clear Firefox's data. You can set this in Tools>Options, or press Ctrl+Shift+Del to do it manually (if you're using Firefox in Windows, that is).

Posted by Tdub | May 7, 2008 11:22 AM
36

We already have a VP who is a reality-denier and who has no use for policy experts or facts. Why would we want another one?

Posted by also | May 7, 2008 11:33 AM
37

@28 and @30 are spot on. There is NO way in hell that Clinton is even a top 5 nominee for the court. She has zero jurist experience, zero constituitional law experience, and zero appearances before the highest court to argue a brief.

It would be fun though to watch her get shut down by the Chief Justice. I'm not sure her ego could handle that.

Posted by Reality Check | May 7, 2008 11:44 AM
38

Big Gay Grammar/Typo Cop must point out that Senator McCaskill is from MO, meaning Missouri and not MI, which would be Michigan...

That is all.

Posted by michael strangeways | May 7, 2008 11:47 AM
39

Hillary is even less qualified to be on the supreme court than she is to be president. anyone who thinks shes even remotely qualified is an idiot or has no respect for the SCOTUS.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 7, 2008 11:59 AM
40

Dude, after a certain Coke Can Pubic Hair Supreme Court Justice ... how can you even SAY she's not qualified?

She'll run rings around him.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 7, 2008 12:02 PM
41

Hm, I wonder what Madeline Albright is up to these days?

Posted by COMTE | May 7, 2008 12:22 PM
42

I think Madeline Albright would be a great choice, except that she wasn't born in the US and as such cannot be the president if something happens to Obama (knock on wood).

Posted by Cori | May 7, 2008 12:39 PM
43

If/when she drops out, she doesn't have to do any campaigning for him once he's got the nomination. If she's the VP running mate, she'll be forced to do more campaigning.

Posted by FlairB. | May 7, 2008 12:57 PM
44

clarence thomas is in fact MORE qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice but not more qualified to be a decent human being.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 7, 2008 1:20 PM
45

also, just because Thomas is crappy doesnt mean that there should be no standard for becoming a justice. Seriously will, you dont fucking play down to a poor level just because it's been done before.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 7, 2008 1:25 PM
46

The Clintons will KILL him if he does!

No! Obama! No!

Posted by catnextdoor | May 7, 2008 1:27 PM
47

@42:

That sucks, and I'm not going down the "change the constitution" road for two reasons:

Ahnold - Schwarzenegger

Posted by COMTE | May 7, 2008 2:42 PM
48

BILL RICHARDSON! BILL RICHARDSON! BILL RICHARDSON!

Posted by j bomb | May 7, 2008 3:55 PM
49

sebelius was terrible during the democratic response. she should definitely not be veep.

Posted by arduous | May 7, 2008 4:08 PM
50

Napolitano!

Posted by supergp | May 7, 2008 11:54 PM
51

She still voted for the war.

So, no.

Posted by k | May 8, 2008 4:59 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).