If Hillary Clinton goes on to win the Democratic nomination, would she pick Barack Obama as her running mate?
Probably not, argues political analyst Roger Simon, citing the rule of never picking a running mate who might upstage you.
“Then there is the Rule of Firsts. The Clinton campaign does not want to force too many ‘firsts’ on the American electorate. Electing the first woman president will be challenge enough. Electing the first woman president and first African-American vice president at the same time? Forget it; they don’t need that kind of problem.”
Simon has a solution for Obama: win the nomination.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
57 Comments
She will not pick Obama nor would he pick her. Both of them would make a “safe” pick in somebody like Evan Byah who will not upstage them and bring in a red state.
Richardson is what I guess Hillary will choose as a running mate.
Will Richardson draw support from southern voters? I am wondering if Edwards will get the nod, again.
If Hillary gets the nomination and doesn’t pick Obama, is it fair to play the “race card” against the Clintonistas? :)
If she’s going to get the nomination, she’d better choose someone who will appeal to the Southern states and not too liberal. She’ll have to have some balance if she ever hopes to get elected.
Thank God she won’t pick Obama! He is inexperienced. We don’t need a celebrity candidate.
I’m not sure she’s that experienced either…I wish the Democrats would come up with someone who is more electable than her. She has too much baggage.
Richardson has already stated that he would not agree to VP. He said he’d rather continue as the Gov of NM than do that.
Better to keep living in N.M. with a real job than living in D.C. with a nothing job…unless you’re Cheney who decided Wyoming was way too boring for him.
I agree Joe that Richardson would make a good choice. I criticized Kerry for picking Edwards. Nothing specific against edwards but two Senators makes no sense to me. Pick a governor.
Mary – I tend to disagree with you about the south (being a native southernor). I don’t think there is anyone she could choose who would appeal to the ‘deep’ southernor; however I think Richardson might have some sway with the ’sunbelt’ southernors.
Also I think Richardson will help out west.
If not Richardson then another governor – perhaps from the MidWest. Think PURPLE states.
Thank God she won’t pick Obama! He is inexperienced. We don’t need a celebrity candidate.
Posted by: Roger
Let me guess – you’re going to vote for Fred Thompson? Just another B-actor like Reagan.
I think Hillary might pick Chris Dodd for her VP.
Hillary might consider Obama because of his millions in donors but I doubt that Obama would choose to be her VP.
If Hillary gets the nomination and doesn’t pick Obama, is it fair to play the “race card” against the Clintonistas? :)
Posted by: Kansas | October 03, 2007 at 08:58 AM
As if anything in politics is “fair”, lol!I suppose republicans could try playing the race card. I wish they would, just to watch it blow up in their faces.
If someone were asked to describe a racist, it would be a white middle-aged conservative.
Hillary is one of the most corrupt and power-hungry Presidential candidates in history.
Who ever is her VP stands a VERY good chance of becomming President.
“Who ever is her VP stands a VERY good chance of becomming President.”
Yep. In 2016.
I guess the “rule of firsts” rules out Sebelius as a VP possiblity.
Good one, Ben.
“If someone were asked to describe a racist, it would be a white middle-aged conservative.”
I think it is interesting when Republicans try to pin their weaknesses on Democrats — I don’t believe that this one is very effective — especially in light of the recent Morgan State University debate no-shows. Black votes are immediately discounted by White Republican candidates.
I will have to say that I did admire the balls that Bush had when he showed up at some predominately black political venue and he asked for Black votes – took some Chutzpah, but at least he *acted* like cared.
Steven – while I like Sebelius I don’t see her bringing much to the ticket. I probably should said ‘upper’ MidWest – looking at maybe IA, IL, OH, PA etc.
BenI am worried that Hillary will make a mess of things, should she win, but I also think, as long as we don’t all get nuked in the process, that it might be kind of fun to watch.After all, it took Bill Clinton to end decades of Dem control in Congress.Hillary is not nearly as disciplined, politically, and Bill.Hillary will make far more mistakes.The further the pendulum swings left, the more gravity will pull us back towards the right.Hillary could actually lose control of the House, even if she wins!
Why are Republicans so afraid of a strong woman like Hillary?
Well Paul, nobody could POSSIBLY be any worse than your boy BushDaBum. NOBODY!
maidStrong woman?
Cunning, dishonest, conartist, looking at illegally obtained FBI Files, lying about Rose Law Firm Records, ripping off retired people in shady realestate deals Hillary?
There are strong HONEST women that I would vote for.
Hillary is a manipulator and a lying crook. She also crushes anyone who gets in her way.
Just ask one of Bill’s “Bimbo’s” — Hillary showed lots of “strength” shutting them up!
Well, Econ, I guess she can’t count on your vote.
No big deal.
Why wouldn’t they be on the same ticket, they both go to the same church?
Hillary is a manipulator and a lying crook. She also crushes anyone who gets in her way.
Just ask one of Bill’s “Bimbo’s” — Hillary showed lots of “strength” shutting them up!
Posted by: Econ101
But, Paul, if this was a Republican woman with these traits, then that would be okay?
As for Hillary showing strength of shutting the bimbos up. I applauded Hillary when it was reported she slapped Bill senseless when he finally confessed to the Monica fiasco.
Hillary is not afraid to get into the hardball game with the big, tough old white guys that have been in the Congress for way-too-long!
Hillary does not back down from anyone and if this was Bush – then you would be applauding him!
Again, I ask why Republican men are so afraid of a strong woman?
“Again, I ask why Republican men are so afraid of a strong woman?
Posted by: maidmarion | October 03, 2007 at 04:39 PM ”
insecure masculinity
What is more popular among republicans a Chevy Suburban or a VW Beetle?
Hillary is going to want to pick someone who will draw in people and Obama would be the smart thing for her to do.
To say Hillary has not enough experience is ridiculous. Just because you don’t like her for whatever Right wing excuse, doesn’t mean she’s not qualified. She’s perfect for the job. She’s already got worldwide support, she’s already met most of the world leaders. She’s well versed on how to handle left/vs/right and how to reach across to work on things in a bipartisan manner.
Look at all the greats, they didn’t have a lifetime of politics behind them either. Kennedy was the youngest president. Bill Clinton was awesome no matter what the neocons say.
And the one neocons love didn’t even step foot into politics till he was much older- Reagan.
Amen Political mom!
Reagan did have the gift of the silver tongue – too bad what he said made no sense at all.
After all, Reagan tried to get ketchup classified as a fruit for school lunches.
Reagan was a B-actor – nothing more and nothing less.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia would be the perfect running mate for Senator Clinton. Former Democrat turned Reagan Republican, served as Secretary of the Army (or was it the Navy?) under Reagan and now once again in the Democratic fold as a populist Democrat in a southern state that hasn’t voted Democrat in a presidential election since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide.
All you really need to be president is an American citizen at least 35 years old.
And more votes than the other person. I’d say that leaves the field pretty wide open.
borgrav has a point about Webb. He’s an outspoken Virginian, unafraid to mix it up in debate. Democrats should definitely take a look at putting him on the ticket. Ultimately, though, it depends on who gets the nomination. If Senator Clinton wins the day, then the south–unless husband Bill empties out his rhetorical bag of tricks–is most likely lost, so the case can be made that it’s smarter to pair her with a midwestern governor. Richardson would be my choice. He may have said that he’s not interested in the VP slot, but he won’t say “no” to his party if they prevail upon him at this crucial time.
National polls show Clinton with a sizable lead, but recent polls in Iowa, the all-important primary state, show Obama a few points ahead. National polls are misleading on this topic. Don’t count Obama out of the race.
What about an Edwards/Webb ticket? If Democrats were smart, they’d consider it. An Edwards/Webb ticket holds the blue states and makes a serious run at southern states, especially Virginia, where the other Warner has announced his candidacy for the Senate on the Dem side. Then you ride the energy all the way through the neighboring states.
Edwards is reportedly not doing as well financially, but he’s in the hunt in Iowa.
I’m not interested in voting for a DINO.
Stick with dismantling and running your own party into the ground. We’ve got it, thanks.
Look at all the greats, they didn’t have a lifetime of politics behind them either. Kennedy was the youngest president. Bill Clinton was awesome no matter what the neocons say.
And the one neocons love didn’t even step foot into politics till he was much older- Reagan.
Posted by: political_mom | October 03, 2007 at 05:53 PM
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Say the little Demo sheeeeeeeeeep.
Yeah, Bill and Hillary are just like JFK.
Great comparison.
JFK cut taxes.JFK was for a strong national defense.JFK had the vision to launch America to the moon.
JFK would be a neo-con to you libs if he were alive today.
JFK did not promote gay marriage.
JFK did not promote abortions.
JFK did not expand social welfare programs.
Hillary will lead us to the brink.
Completing the Socialists agenda will make America a 3rd world nation.
You Libs will love Hillarycare at first, until you can’t find any doctors to treat you without waiting for 6 months.
The military budget will be cut by 1/4 and still, there won’t be enough volunteers who want to serve under Hillary.
Hillary will reinstitute the Draft.
Hillary will ban guns and start an internal civil war, while at the same time, terrorists will attack us from within and afar.
Iran will have a long-range missile to deliver a nuke to us before Hillary’s term is out. She will run crying to the UN to do something to stop Iran, and as usual, the UN will do nothing.
Terrorists will drive a bomb across the border from Mexico, with a Mexican truck and Mexican driver. It will be delivered to the west coast.
Iran will hit our east coast with an ICBM.
When the shit hits the fan in 2011, you Libs will still blame Bush, even though the btich would have been President for 3 years.
Yeah, go Hillary.
Gosh Rhami! You scare the shit outta me!
Tell me dogs won’t sleep with cats. Please! I’m so scared!
You stupid lambs. You will help us take over America, you fools.
You seem at cross purposes there Rhami.
Gee ya think rhami and shepherd are the same poster? Naw couldn’t be a troll.
Sad really, that it has come to trolling in defense of your party.
I’m really let down politicalmom
It was a show every 2 minutes there for a bit. I was just getting amused.
Wooo OOOOOO ooooo OOOO ooooo OOO
“I’m not interested in voting for a DINO.”
Uh, which candidate is the “DINO?”
I’m not at all convinced that the Democrats “have it.” If memory serves, they’ve had the ball on about the six yard line two presidential elections in a row, and they couldn’t punch it in the end zone.
Maybe Hillary’s the “DINO.” She voted with Bush last week on the Iran issue. Edwards argued against it. And when is the Senator from New York planning to pull troops out of Iraq? 2016?
Many Republics claim that Hillary’s negatives among them will doom her candidacy. For example the two ‘peas in a pod’ Karl rove and Rush Limbaugh have been touting that. However …
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20181.html
Experts: Conventional wisdom on Clinton’s electability flawed
Dear Democrats In Charge -
Hillary can’t win! I know you love her and the Clintons are the darlings of the Democratic party, but Hillary CAN’T win!
She is too polarizing. Most people either love or hate her – and most I know fall into the latter group.
What is the deal with Obama? He is intelligent, cultured, a man of the people, well-spoken (more so than the overscripted Hill)and would do far better in diplomatic relations than Hillary.
I like Obama. I hope he wins the nomination and if he doesn’t, we have a bigger chance of losing, especially if he goes up against Guliani or even (shudder) Thompson.
So, Demos in Charge, please do me a favor…nominate Obama and work hard to get Brownback on the Repug ticket.
Hugs and Kisses,Ozhawk
Ozhawk – the author of the linked column seems to disagree with you.
Agree somewhat with borgrav above – Webb would be interesting.
And Shepard-Rhami – you are the biggest reason I’d like to see Hillary become President. Get used to saying PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!
GORE!!!!!
Hillary will pretty much do what Bill did:
Give Republicans a MAJORITY in Congress!
Hey Paul?
You are not gonna see a Republican majority in congress again in your lifetime. bush took care of that yesterday….and the last 7 years.
JRYou suffer under the delusion that those who are upset with Republicans ALL agree with you.
Believe it or not, my views are far closer to the “Center” than yours, and you will never really be happy.
When do your Dem friends say they will surrender in Iraq???
Democrats are AFFRAID of you JR.
You are their “lunitic fringe” — they know they have to throw you a bone every now and then, but they also know that you and your kind will cost them BIG if they give you everything you want!
As far as the last Bush veto?
Get real.
That was nothing.
You are mistaken my greedy enemy.
Yours is now the party of “let the poor kids suffer and die”
Oh and it’s “lunatic fringe”. I’d think you could spell it, being a member. MOST Americans are about more than themslves and their money. MOST Americans are better human beings than you.
MOST Americans are also seeing how shallow and deceitful you and yours are. How dare you insult our troops! Surrender? We won in Iraq 4 years ago. “Mission accomplished” REMEMBER? American troops are not seen by MOST Americans as agents of maintaining a military industrial profit stream.
Oh you had your run Paul.And you did tremendous damage that will take years to correct. But it will be corrected. The America you will age and die in will appall you as much as the one you forced my kid to grow up in. And I will love every minute of ir you rat bastard.
I’m the “lunitic fringe” (sp) and my accuser once encouraged children to lay down in front of cars in order to advance his views.
I do not like Hillary, but I will vote for her over any of the pathetic bunch of losers the Repukes are offering.
Hillary wanted to give away other people\’s cake to nasty anchor wetlets. The treasury is broke, no more freebies for parasites and useless breeders.
I don’t think Simon’s rule really applies to this situation.
This is not about an election about rules and being upstaged its’ about marketing the personality and message of a candidate. If this was an election where we were following the rules than it would also tell us that neither Clinton nor Obama would be elected or have as much financial and poll support as they have had. America is about personality politics regardless of the region and Clinton already has managed to out poll Guliani in a number of Southern states and if the turn outs at Barack’s events all over the U.S. are any indication of his support a Clinton-Obama machine the takes the best of what is making both campaigns successful may very well make it to the white house with a good chance of a landslide.
Do you have links for Hillary outpolling Giuliani in Southern states?
President Bush plans to bail out subprime mortgage holdersPosted Aug 31st 2007 9:58AM by Jonathan BerrFiled under: Countrywide Financial (CFC), Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Toll Brothers (TOL), Economic data, S and P 500, DJIA, Bear Stearns Cos (BSC), Housing
With his popularity at an all time low and the very real prospect of the Democrats taking back control of the White House in 2008, President Bush is throwing a lifeline to subprime mortgage holders who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure.
The plan would allow homeowners who are 90 days behind in their mortgages to refinance their debt through loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a move that will help about 80,000 households. Homeowners also would be able to avoid taxes on forgiven debt under a temporary change Bush is proposing. The President also will call for Congress to raise FHA loan limits to $417,000 in some expensive markets. Interestingly, Bush is rejecting calls to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase the total value of the mortgages they hold in their portfolio.
Before people talk about the return of compassionate conservatism, it’s important to remember that many subprime mortgage holders are speculators or people who bought second or third homes. Nonetheless, the administration had to do something to help people who were hoodwinked by sleazy brokers into mortgages that they couldn’t afford.
In a televised address, Bush like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stressed that it isn’t government’s role to bail out speculators. He also argued that the economy “remains strong enough to weather any turbulance.”
Regardless, investors took these reports as a positive sign, sending shares of financial stocks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) and Bear Stearns Cos. (NYSE: BSC) higher. Homebuilders, including Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (NYSE: HOV), Toll Brothers Inc. (NYSE: TOL) and Beazer Homes USA Inc. (NYSE: BZH) all gave back their gains from earlier today after the speech.
Something has to be done to help the real victims of this crisis, though I’m not sure whether these moves will be enough to address the subprime problem. The government needs to be sure that it’s helping the people who deserve to be helped.
So Why does Congress Bail Out Corporate America?http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Why+does+congress+bail+out+corporate+america%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Too bad the gov’t could not save many many other local small business firms that are left to compete in the NOT free market.
===============
AN EARLY AND EXCLUSIVE PRIMARYThursday, September 27, 2007Posted by Jim HightowerListen to this CommentaryThe top presidential candidates of both political parties are meeting with voters in a key primary, promising to help them on the issues they care about.
Are they in Iowa? No. New Hampshire? Uh-uh. California? Nowhere near it. So, where?
Wall Street.
While regular citizens won’t start voting on the presidential contenders until January, an intensive, closed-door primary has already been taking place inside the confines of investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions in Manhattan. Reporters are not allowed in, candidates don’t issue press releases about their appearances, and there is no disclosure about what the presidential wannabes pledge to these elite banking interests in order to gain their financial backing. It’s strictly a private campaign – albeit with enormous public impact.
Bear Stearns, for example, has had its own presidential tour, summoning seven major candidates to its Midtown headquarters for exclusive presentations and Q&A sessions with its managing partners. If you’re just a plain ol’ voter, you’d be lucky to get a handshake with any of these aspirants, but this financial conglomerate can command its own little tête-à-tête with Romney, Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Thompson, and others.
Business Week magazine reports that these Wall Street barons not only want to get commitments on issues like global trade and tax cuts, but they also use the private sessions to measure the candidates’ ability to “make smart decisions in times of uncertainty, a trait bankers and traders prize in themselves.”
Wait a minute! Aren’t these the same people who brought us Enron, NAFTA, offshoring, exorbitant credit card fees, dependency on oil, pension collapses, and other “smart decisions?” Indeed, isn’t Bear Stearns itself butt deep in the ongoing subprime mortgage disaster? Why should anyone listen to them?
“The Candidates On Wall Street,” http://www.businessweek.com, April 2, 2007=====================
Bailing Out Wall Street:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bailing+Out+Wall+Street&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8