Who do you think Clinton will most likely want as her VP?

[calteacherguy]

Her calculation (if she wins the nomination, which seems more likely than not at this point) will be based on the choice that makes the most political sense (and we all KNOW she is a master at political calculation). In other words, who would do the most to carry her from just a win to a potential mandate by bringing in more independents and open-minded Republicans? Who would do the most to add strength to perceived areas of weakness and help fend off right wing, fear-based attacks? Who do you think she is most likely to ask to be her VP?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. She hasn't been nominated. How about we have primaries first?

[calteacherguy]

2. Her nomination is extremely likely. I think it's a worthwhile, interesting discussion to have. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. In that case, the likely pick will be

another corporatist DLCer.

[Rick Myers]

5. "Extremely likely?"

Ain't we puttin' the cart before the horse?

[Mojambo]

3. Before he announced a Senate run I would have said Warner.

Now I think it'll be some DLC governor.

IF she gets the nomination.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. IF, and that is IF she gets the nomination. Nothing is garanteed.

friendly advise: don't count your chickens.... and all that. You could look silly come feb.
be positive but, don't get cocky many supporters who thought it was a sure thing ended up crying in their beer.

[ElizabethDC]

8. Erm, I'm pretty sure that calteacherguy isn't a Hillary supporter. n/t

[durrrty libby]

11. People who drink too much beer make no sense and spell like jackasses

[Hand]

7. Lieberman...

JUST KIDDING!

:hide:

[zulchzulu]

9. My guess is Lance Burton

She would need a magician to help her eek out a win.

More on Lance Burton here:
http://www.lasvegas-nv.com/lance-burton.htm


:sarcasm:

[ronnykmarshall]

24. Still got that smart ass working overtime, I see!

:rofl:

[Bitwit1234]

10. I think she would choose someone like Webb

I am not saying Webb. I am saying a person who is not afraid to speak out and do things. I can't get someone like that in mind yet. I would like to choose Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense. We need a damn good Secretary of Defense. Someone who knows how to plan and carry out defenses for our country.

We also need a diplomat with intelligence for Secretary of State. Someone who can talk to people of other countries, and bring them together, someone who knows what to do to get those people to talk to each other to bring peace.

[Clark2008]

28. Except that he can't be secretary of defense.

Federal statute requires that the Def. Sec. be out of active duty military for 10 years. Clark retired in 2000, making it only 8-9 years since he retired by the 2008/2009 presidential change.

Congress would have to override the statute (they did during WWII) and I don't see why they'd do that now. Iraq is bad, but it's not WWIII.

[sniffa]

12. dick cheney

to be the man behind the curtain.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. President Dean Is In Complete Agreement With You - Hillary Will Win!!!

Remember how Dean was up by almost 30% over Kerry in December 2003 - and he held this lead to destroy Kerry in the Iowa caucus less than one month later?

WHAT! You're telling me that Dean was up by almost 30% and DIDN'T win Iowa one month later? How 'bout that?

[jobycom]

15. There were major differences.

This seems to be a pop meme these days (Unless it's always you, and I just haven't realized that :) ), but it's a weak comparison. Dean's support was always soft in the polls, because people didn't know much about him--the polls consistently showed that. A lot of the rank and file Democrats wanted Kerry all along, but his campaign was so weak that people chose other candidates. That's not surprising--often the older Dem voters are more comfortable with a candidate they have known for a while, and have maybe supported in the past. One day, Dean will be that candidate, but then he was the newcomer.

I was involved in a lot of endorsement meetings with activist and long term Democrats back then, and the Democrats I knew--the ones who showed up every election, raised funds, donated, and had worked for the party for years, even decades, all seemed to want Kerry. I had so many discussions it became cliche: these core Dems would tell me they were voting for Dean, but they really wished Kerry had a chance. It was odd to see, because they looked glum about having to vote for Dean, but felt he was the best chance we had. We held meetings just after Iowa, when Kerry had emerged, and the whole mood had changed--people were excited and hopeful. (Obviously thee were many people who were thrilled with Dean, but I saw a relative few of them amongst the long-time Dems--many of them had wanted Kerry to be Gore's VP in 2000, so they had supported him a while.).

Dean, in addition to weak support, had a weak campaign structure and only a moderate war chest built up. Kerry's structure was strong, so his campaign was better poised than any other candidate's for a strong finish. When Dean fell, he didn't have the structure or money to rebuild, so Kerry was there, ready and financed, to fill the void. He had the name, the support, the structure--all went his way at just the right time.

This time, Clinton is the choice of that older, solid base of party faithful. She's where Kerry was, except that she's already the frontrunner. That doesn't make her a shoe-in--there's lots of campaigning still to do. But she's in a very different place than Dean was. She's closer to where Kerry was. Dean was the choice of a grassroots, populist movement, whereas Kerry was the choice of the old core Dems. Hillary fills that role now.

I could see back then, as president of my group, that people didn't want Dean, that they were hoping someone like Kerry would rise up and knock him down. What I see this time is that same group really does want Clinton, and is afraid someone will rise up and knock her down. It's a completely different attitude.

She could still lose, and I'm a long way from saying she's got it wrapped up. But comparing her to Dean at this stage of last election is apples to oranges.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. History Doesn't Repeat - But It Rhymes

Sure it's different - but it's really the same. Polls this far out are never predictive, no matter how you slice it. They depend primarily on name recognition, and thus the results we're seeing. Note that - and I shit you not - 1/3 of Americans cannot name our VP or the Governor of their own state. Most people have heard the name "Clinton", so she's looking good nationally.

However, in the two states that matter most, by far - Iowa and New Hampshire - where people are really thinking about the election - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are roughly tied (IIRC).

Hillary is actually extremely vulnerable, given her reliance on the disturbing "resistance is futile" strategy - if she loses either IA or NH, she's shown to be vulnerable, and her entire strategy evaporates.

[jobycom]

22. History is more than a nursery rhyme

Polls are a measure of reality, not a reality of their own. In themselves they aren't important. It's not that Clinton is leading, it's WHY she's leading. In the 04 primaries, none of the candidates had all the key factors--fundraising, organization, national political experience, name recognition, lead in the polls, etc. This year Clinton does. THAT's what I base my opinion on, not just on the numbers.

Candidates who have had the majority of the advantages this far out often do win the nomination. Both Bushes, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Gore, Dole--the elections and situations were all different, but the winner, despite temporary ebbs and flows in the polls, were the candidates with the experience and organization. (experience campaigning, not governing).

It's far from over, I agree with you on that. Key endorsements (Gore's), scandals, major changes in the political situation (escalation within Iraq or Iran, for instance, or a complete stock market crash)... There are lots of things that can happen, which is exactly why having a strong organization on the ground level is so important. It helps you recover more quickly. But again, there, advantage Clinton.

And the candidates are not roughly tied in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, most polls show Clinton with a five point or more lead, though a couple show a tie. http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html

In New Hampshire, most polls show Clinton with a sizable margin. http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/new-hampshire.html

So even where Obama and Edwards are campaigning the hardest, Clinton holds an edge.

In all the other early states, Clinton is winning easily. The only state Edwards leads in is his own--North Carolina.

It can all still change, but it won't change based on fine-tuning messages or all the little quibbling between the candidates now. It will change when something big shakes things up. In 04, that shakeup came when public support for Iraq fell, and Kerry and Edwards came out against the war. Since all the candidates have similar positions on the key issues now, I think it will have to be something else this time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. You're right - a comparison with Kerry is much more apt.

She'll get the nomination, be savaged by the media, and in an election close enough to steal she will listen to her corporate handlers and lose the fucking election.

[jobycom]

21. Whatever.

I'll just state this, since you don't bother backing up your statements, either. Clinton is the only one of our candidates who can win. It's Clinton, or it's a Republican.

[TSIAS]

14. He's not technically an American

But...

[hisownpetard]

16. You mean, Hillary's hydrocephalic Uncle Rupee?

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Lieberman

Hey, it worked for Gore, no?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. How about Jeb?

That might convince the reluctant republicans, and she sure as shit wouldn't lose the left over it - she won't have them anyway.

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Other ...

Clinton/Kettle 08 !!!

:bounce:

HEY PA!!! Get up. Gotta to the to ina-geration! PA! PA!! Get up!!

[Totally Committed]

25. Hillary IS NOT inevitable.

TC

[calteacherguy]

26. Kick in light of recent events. nt

[KoKo]

27. Lieberman....he's very good at foreign relations and is liberal in his voting record.

Plus he has alot of experience dealing with foreign affairs and much support from the Think Tanks.

[jcrew2001]

29. You forgot Bill Clinton

Since what everyone wants is Bill to serve a 3rd term, no need for charades.

[ronnykmarshall]

30. Uh, he can't run as VP.