Do you think Obama would be smart or stupid to pick Clinton as his running mate?

[melissel]

I know they are considered a Democratic "dream team" by many, but I just can't help but feel that she might damage his chances of winning, and that he'd be better off picking someone more neutral. Do you think many voters who might consider voting for him might choose not to do so because Clinton's kind of a "love her or hate her" kind of candidate? Or do you think Obama's appeal is strong enough to override that impact?

 

Discuss :lol:

[PariSarah]

. . . classy and older. He's gotten the nomination by running a classier-than-average campaign, and that's the image he needs to maintain. Whatever Clinton's strengths, she doesn't make people think "classy."

 

Having an older running mate will help put the "we need a change" rhetoric in perspective: we need a change, but wisdom is good too.

 

My brother thinks McCain should pick the governor of Alaska (her name escapes me at the moment), esp. if Obama doesn't pick Clinton.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I really can't decide. I think that if he does, it would help to unite the Dem. party, but I know that H. is not a follower! : ) I am not sure that that would be an ideal fit for her job wise.

 

I think that having Bill hanging around might be awkward. He seems to have put his foot in his mouth several times during this campaign. He (and she) also represent "old Washington" which is not something that I think the Obama campaign want to haunt them. But, she does have far more experience... meh.

 

Also, I think that having the two of them together might sway voters who are more moderate into voting for McCain. I just can't decide though...

 

If they could keep all the voters who voted for them in the primaries, then I think they would be a sure thing. Maybe. Not that that is what I want, because I am more conservative than either of them.

 

That is my non-answer and I'm stickin' to it!

[OnTheBrink]

I think he'd be foolish to pick her, especially after the way she's insulted him during her campaign. I really really don't trust her at all. Not that I trust him (or any politician) much, but I think he needs to pick someone else as a running mate.

[nmoira]

Given the nature of the campaign between them and some of the things Clinton has intimated about Obama, I think it would be unwise for him to choose her as his running mate.

[elegantlion]

I do not think he would be well-served by choosing her as a running mate.

[riada]

Given the nature of the campaign between them and some of the things Clinton has intimated about Obama, I think it would be unwise for him to choose her as his running mate.

:iagree: Due to the things she has previously said about him and also how Bill keeps putting his thoughts into things (thus the foot in mouth incidents) I think Obama would be foolish to choose her.

[Elm in NJ]

If he picks her, he will be picking Bill too.

 

 

Elmeryl

[Kelli in TN]

If he picks her, he will be picking Bill too.

 

 

Elmeryl

 

Dang. You beat me to it.

 

I can see the planning meetings now. They would have all their gameplans on the white board and then someone lackey would raise his hand and say

 

"But what about Bill? How do we keep Bill away from that?"

 

:lol:

[Laurie4b]

I don't think it would work. I don't think Hillary is suited for the role of vice president, which is to make the president look good and stay in the background.

 

I think that it would also be very, very difficult to have an former president around. Bill Clinton has shown less restraint than most former presidents in terms of injecting himself into current political situations. I can't see him suddenly becoming silent, and he would need to be.

 

All in all, I think it would be a sign of poor judgment to choose her.

[Mosaicmind]

I don't think it would be a wise move on his part because then she would have too much influence on our gov't and that scares me. But, I am hoping he doesn't win; so I guess it doesn't matter who he picks.

[Kathleen in VA]

It would be unwise. She wants to be President. She will still want to be President even if her title is VP. He will end up having to spend much of his time battling her instead of attending to his duties.

[cricket1178]

I agree, Hillary wants to be President. He'd do better to pick someone he wasn't always having to compete with so he could actually focus on his presidential duties.

 

I have watched how disrepestful she has been of the current President. I believe no matter what side of the fence you are on, when you are an elected official of the USA, you should show public respect for our President. It just leads me to believe that although she may show respect for Obama publicly she may not privately. Too much drama imho.

[*anj*]

I think he'd be foolish to pick her, especially after the way she's insulted him during her campaign. I really really don't trust her at all. Not that I trust him (or any politician) much, but I think he needs to pick someone else as a running mate.

 

I totally agree.

I think that both she and her esteemed husband showed a lot of their true colors in recent months.

And I don't think she's a follower at all.

I think something else too, but I'm not putting it in print. :auto:

 

Oh, but I do think that he'd do well to find a woman. Too bad Condi's a Republican!

[Soph the vet]

I don't think Obama would want Hillary as VP or even Speaker of the House as it would put her in the line of succession for the White House.... let me connect dots here....Vince Foster.....recent "look at what happened to Bobby Kennedy" comments.....:glare:.....just thinking out loud, really.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know if I think it would be "stupid" to choose her as his VP but I definitely think he would be better off with someone else.

 

My personal pick is Wesley Clark-he's older, he has lots of diplomatic experience, he has military experience, he appeals to the more conservative Dems, he would provide balance to the ticket.

[linders]

 

• I think it would appear hypocritical to bring her on the team when their teams were so oppositional through the campaign.
  
• I don't think she will be content to be in his shadow.
  
• And I think her inclusion could sway many voters, like myself, who are very favorable to Obama but very opposed to her. An Obama-Clintonx2 ticket would be hard for me to punch.

As much as she and Bill would like to make it sound like she is "necessary" for party unity, I disagree. Once they leave the spotlight (oh, please, quit do encores!), I think there are other more balanced Democrats who would make fine VPs.

[Jackie in NE]

She is much too strong-willed, forceful, and arrogant to play second fiddle.

 

Just my not-so-humble opinion...;)

 

Jackie

[scrappyhappymama]

I think it would be a BAD idea! I'm not sure who I am voting for yet, but I am definitely NOT voting for Hilary, for VP or otherwise. I am only one person, but it would completely influence my vote.

 

Plus, I am not a big conspiracy buff, but I wouldn't want her as my #2. I don't think she is trustworthy and she really, really wants to be president. Greater leaders than she have fallen into the temptation of power.

[Marie in Oh]

did I say stupid????

 

No way. It would be his kiss of death I think. If he is trying rise above traditional politics, Hillary is not his gal.

[Sue in MD]

I can't imagine her being winning to play second fiddle. If she takes the vp spot (if offered), I'd say she'd be looking to 2016.

[Jenny in Atl]

No, I doubt he will offer it to her. Look at his search staff! I wonder if she is not look more towards a Supreme Court position?

[Caroline]

I don't know if I think it would be "stupid" to choose her as his VP but I definitely think he would be better off with someone else.

 

My personal pick is Wesley Clark-he's older, he has lots of diplomatic experience, he has military experience, he appeals to the more conservative Dems, he would provide balance to the ticket.

 

I like the idea of Wesley Clark. I have long been impressed with him. I voted for him in a primary. He is intelligent, well-spoken, experienced, hot, older, and logical.

[Brigitte]

I can't imagine that she would really want that, would she? Obama is as likely as not to lose against McCain. If he does, she gets to run again in 4 years. If he wins, it is 8 years before she can run. 30% of her supporters have said they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. So, her not being the VP would hurt his campaign and serve her ultimate goals. Am I thinking about that the right way?

[Bee]

And I feel like I shouldn't say anything at all.But I'd like to see them run together.She has experience in national and international affairs and she's smart.I really want to feel like this election might change things and I don't feel like that's going to happen if it's just a bunch of old (white) retired ex- military men as usual.I tend to agree more with the Republican party on alot of the domestic issues but I disagree so much with them on foreign policy that I've been hoping the Democrats would change things.

[Karenciavo]

Having an older running mate will help put the "we need a change" rhetoric in perspective: we need a change, but wisdom is good too.

 

Yes, I haven't heard the word gravitas in the media since Bush picked Cheney. I miss it.

[Mrs Mungo]

I really want to feel like this election might change things and I don't feel like that's going to happen if it's just a bunch of old (white) retired ex- military men as usual.

 

Many of the politicians in our nation have *not* been ex-military. Quite the opposite is true, particularly when you are talking career military v. serving for 3 or 4 years.

 

Clark wasn't just a military officer but he served as the head of NATO (fired by Bill Clinton for choosing military strategy over political orders).

 

We're currently a nation at war. We will remain so *even if we pull out of Iraq*. We need some people in the cabinet who understand the military and understand it *well*.

[monk17]

I think it would be a mistake to take the Clintons. He'll get the Democrats that were voting for her anyway but loose any hope of moderate Republicans. The Clintons have to much negative baggage for the voters he's trying to persuade.

[Another Lynn]

I think it would be a mistake to take the Clintons. He'll get the Democrats that were voting for her anyway but loose any hope of moderate Republicans. The Clintons have to much negative baggage for the voters he's trying to persuade.

 

Wow - do you really think Obama has a chance with moderate Republicans? I am a pretty conservative Republican. In fact I'd say I'm too conservative to really be a good Republican. (Thought I would disclose that before I chime in about someone I'm definitely not voting for, LOL).

 

I'm surprised noone thinks Hillary is a good choice for Obama. I do agree that Bill is a draw back (but couldn't they make him an ambassador somewhere? LOL - heard that idea on TV tonight). Anyway, there are several past Pres-VP candidates that were bitter rivals before they ran together - it is after all politics and all for expediency not about whose feelings are hurt. I think without Hillary he'll have a lot of moderate Democrats voting for McCain who I think would not offend a big chunk of the Dem. party because he is painfully moderate.

 

Okay, so there's a dissenting opinion for you. Don't flame me too badly, I usually avoid the political threads, LOL!

[ereks mom]

He gave several reasons why Obama should not choose Hillary as a running mate. The two that stand out in my mind were that 1) Hillary would not do well with the concept of the #2 spot -- that she would envision herself & Obama as "co-presidents" -- and she would upstage him, and 2) Bill & Hillary come as a package deal.

[AmyB]

And Clinton is an old Washington cat. You might as well vote for a Republican as for one of the Clintons.

[Kate in Arabia]

I don't think Hillary is suited for the role of vice president, which is to make the president look good and stay in the background.

 

I don't think this has been true of Cheney at all (well, maybe the staying-in-the-background part), and I'm curious to see whether his very involved role is going to be continued (or attempted to continue) by future VPs or will his term have just been an anomaly.

[ereks mom]

he is the President, and should be shown respect because of his position.

 

I believe no matter what side of the fence you are on, when you are an elected official of the USA, you should show public respect for our President.

[sweetbaby]

:lurk5:

[OnTheBrink]

I agree, Hillary wants to be President. He'd do better to pick someone he wasn't always having to compete with so he could actually focus on his presidential duties.

 

I have watched how disrepestful she has been of the current President. I believe no matter what side of the fence you are on, when you are an elected official of the USA, you should show public respect for our President. It just leads me to believe that although she may show respect for Obama publicly she may not privately. Too much drama imho.

 

I completely agree and it's one of the reasons I really just don't like her. I remember just after 9/11, watching her roll her eyes and make faces at Bush. I don't care if she likes Bush or not, but if she's wanting unity, it's best not to look like a junior high mean girl when someone you don't like is speaking. She showed the country that it's perfectly ok to be rude and disrespectful to someone because you have differences or just don't like them. To me, that behavior goes leagues farther than any position on the issues. And, I'm not saying this because I'm a Bush fan; I'm not.

[Greta]

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with his policies, but I believe that when we continue to show respect for a government official who has broken the law repeatedly, we set a dangerous precedent that the people who make and enforce the laws are not subject to them. That's not the kind of government I want.

 

Editing to Add:

 

I made the above edit a few days ago when I realized my original version had been way too harsh and emotional. I thought it best to keep it simple, just explain my argument without the appeals to emotion, so I changed it. I have since been told, however, that I made “baseless accusations” and that if I am going to make claims on this board I should back them up. I feel conflicted about this, because I don’t want to hijack this thread, and because I felt I had already flubbed up here and that the best thing was to just let it go. But since someone was upset enough to tell me about it, I thought maybe I should go ahead and explain the basis for my accusation. So please understand that my motives here are not to stir up an argument, but simply to show that I did have grounds for my claim, and I wasn’t trying to just “hit and run” with a baseless accusation.

My claim had two parts: that Presidents are subject to the law and that the current President has broken the law more than once.

 

As to the first part, I would point to the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers, and the ruling of United States vs. Lee (1882):

 

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government....”

 

As to the second part, I certainly am not alone in my assertion that President Bush has violated the law. Several Republican officials (this is more than just partisan politics), such as current Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Arlen Specter, Grover Norquist, Chuck Hagel, Bob Barr, and probably others, have said that the President’s warrantless wiretapping violated US law (specifically, the Fourth Amendment and FISA (1978)). That is why there has been several court cases regarding this issue. Please see:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/index.html

http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

 

Additionally, people who are far more educated and experienced in these matters than I am have pointed out many more examples of Bush’s disregard for the law. Former Attourney General Ramsey Clark, for example, wrote the following articles of impeachment, ten examples of “high crimes and treason” committed by President Bush:

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/Articles_Impeach_Bush.html

 

This website also has extensive documentation of Bush’s various crimes:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush

 

And here’s a page about Bush’s violation of international laws:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/treaties.html

 

This doesn’t even scratch the surface. A few minutes with google will provide tons of information. And that’s not even addressing all the books that have been published about Bush’s criminal activities. But this is surely enough to demonstrate that I didn't just make this up out of thin air. There is a good basis for my claim, whether you agree with it or not.

[Karenciavo]

Never mind.

[LaurainKs]

stupid.

[melissel]

Oh man! I missed controversy in my very own thread! I knew I have should have checked in sooner :D

 

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback. It's interesting to see that my instincts aren't way off. Well, I guess no matter what happens, it will be one heck of a race, huh?

[Riverfront Headmistress]

Stupid. Hillary reminds me of a person that would go all Tonya Harding on someone else. :tongue_smilie:

[monk17]

I think he's got to win the moderate republicans to win the white house, Hillary isn't an asset for him to do that. I don't think any of these folks are stupid, they have different objectives , but they aren't stupid. You're underestimating them if you think they're stupid.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I think he's got to win the moderate republicans to win the white house, Hillary isn't an asset for him to do that. I don't think any of these folks are stupid, they have different objectives , but they aren't stupid. You're underestimating them if you think they're stupid.

 

Ah, but remember, the answers that say "stupid" are in direct response to the original question -- would it be smart or stupid to pick Sen. Clinton as running mate. They are not saying the candidates are stupid. They are commenting on a specific hypothetical scenario. They could have easily said "smart" and not been commenting on the intelligence level of anyone. :001_smile:

[DB in NJ]

I like the idea of Wesley Clark. I have long been impressed with him. I voted for him in a primary. He is intelligent, well-spoken, experienced, hot, older, and logical.

 

 

Hot? You're joking, right?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hot? You're joking, right?

 

He's attractive and intense. That equals hot for some people. :D

[Colleen]

Do you think many voters who might consider voting for him might choose not to do so because Clinton's kind of a "love her or hate her" kind of candidate? Or do you think Obama's appeal is strong enough to override that impact?

 

I guess she is a "love her or hate her" kinda gal, isn't she? I've not thought of it in those terms because it's not how I react to her. I don't care for her public persona, but I have a good deal of respect for her. She wasn't my candidate of choice, but I believe she stood a greater chance of defeating McCain (which is of import to me) than does Obama at the moment.

 

Having said that, I don't think it would be in Obama's best interests to select Clinton, and I'd be very, very surprised if he opted to do so. I believe he needs someone who can better off set his liberalism and "youth" ~ an experienced moderate. Who that might be, I honestly don't know. I do know that there are many of us who feel in a bind right now. We don't want to see McCain in the Oval Office; neither are we interested in jumping on the Obama bandwagon. It would be nice, at minimum, to at least feel good about the V.P.

[Caroline]

Hot? You're joking, right?

 

Not joking. I think he is attractive, and I like the title, Supreme Allied Commander. And I like that he is intelligent and well spoken. I guess hot is not all about looks for me.

[Greta]

Please see the edit to my post above.

[Storm Bay]

Stupid, because as far as I can see, he's run a far more ethical campaign than she has. Plus, I thought he handled the issue about is pastor very well. I was a Ron Paul supporter, but in the interests of fairness, have to recognize when and where someone else has done things well.

[Colleen]

I made the above edit a few days ago when I realized my original version had been way too harsh and emotional. I thought it best to keep it simple, just explain my argument without the appeals to emotion, so I changed it. I have since been told, however, that I made “baseless accusations†and that if I am going to make claims on this board I should back them up.

 

Interesting. I imagine those who felt they were "baseless accusations" disagreed with the assertions.;)

 

(S)ince someone was upset enough to tell me about it, I thought maybe I should go ahead and explain the basis for my accusation. So please understand that my motives here are not to stir up an argument, but simply to show that I did have grounds for my claim, and I wasn’t trying to just “hit and run†with a baseless accusation...There is a good basis for my claim, whether you agree with it or not.

 

Thanks for explaining yourself ~ though again, as one who shares your stance it's easy for me to see where you're coming from. Your addendum is generous and humble.

[yslek]

Stupid. I think his life would be in danger if he did.

 

Kelsy