I've been an Obama backer from the start and I've felt since NH that Obama and Clinton would be on the same ticket and that they were just fighting for the top.  After 3/5, I have believed that it became nearly a virtual certainty that Obama would have to pick Clinton.  My opinion hasn't changed, and I think that Clinton will make a fine VP.

...the idea of Obama selecting one of Clinton's strongest supporters, such as a Strickland, Bayh or Rendell.  Maybe that's being "too cute by half," but I think Clinton would be a more effective advocate as Senate Majority Leader than VP.  

Is it me or did Clinton supporters suddenly fall in love with Obama?

"empty suit"
"speeches, no action"
"not a Muslim, as far as she knows"
"hasn't passed the commander-in-chief test"
"plagiarized speeches"

Would you do it? Hipocrites!

I think you meant "decide."

Two reasons against it:

First, it allows the GOP to attack Clinton using all the ammo they have saved up just for this.  It isn't as if her and Bill's sordid past has just gone away.  It hasn't gone away.  We haven't talked about that stuff much, b/c Obama has courteously stayed away from it.  The Republicans will not.  I don't want to have to talk about Whitewater ever again, and I'm sure you don't either.  If she's on the ticket, we will be.

Second, perhaps he has a hard time believing she would be pleasant to work with.  

Third, I think that after Cheney it's important to put the VP back in their place; a Clinton VP would make that much more difficult, and would invite all sorts of comparisons to the current bunch.  NOT what we're looking for this Fall.

Why do people assume that she would be effective at VP?

If she can't be at the top of the ticket then i'd like to see her as VP.

I can see some big advantages and some big problems.

The advantages are it would unify the party and lessen the number of defections to McCain, bring national security credibility, attract more women and get the Clinton machine fully behind Obama.

The problems i see are that McCain will be able to drag up everything she's said about Obama not being ready and use it to make the ticket look divided, they don't like each other personally, she doesn't really bring any states with her (but could help a lot in PA, OH, MO etc).

But bring on the dream ticket i say. These 2 candidates have energized millions of voters from different demographics, if we can marry Obama's coalition with Clinton's then we have a great chance of a blow out in November.

Hillary Clinton is a Republican turnout machine.

Take any problems that McCain would have turning out a depressed base and flush them down the toilet.

I HOPE TO GOD that Hillary herself turns down the job in a way that keeps her supporters in the fold.

You can't "buy" off Clinton supporters that easily.  The idea!  Yuck!

VP isn't a dealbreaker for me, he chooses who he chooses.

If choosing Clinton will bring unity to the Democratic party, then fine.  But I doubt she wants it, and I doubt that it would make the more ardent Clinton supporters accept Obama as the nominee.

So, what about it, Clinton supporters?  If Obama is the nominee, do you want Clinton as his veep?  And will that cause you to support and vote for the ticket?

Fantastic! Of course most Clinton supporters would want Obama to choose Clinton because that's who they want on the ticket no matter what. The rest of the voters are unlikely to know the name of any other national dem in contention, let alone wieght their long-term strengths.

Obama does NOT have to choose Clinton. He has to choose the best Veep to compliment him, and win the general.

Choosing Clinton would be a move to win the Primary. But that's over.

Choosing Clinton would be nice for a while, but she carries so much baggage, both from her time with Bill in office and from the Primary ... why should he?

Every ad the GOP would have to run would be: "Obama's VP on Obama: He sucks!" and they could run whatever clips of Hillary scolding "shame on you" or "the heaves will open up" and Obama gets to spend the general dealing with that -- and whatever Bill ends up saying to some random small town that implies Obama is a child molester.

Obama needs to choose a veep that best compliments his vision. Because the election is only part of it -- you want a veep who will be a good veep too. Forget past animosity or what have you. If Hillary is that person, great. But I've seen nothing to suggest that.

Clinton has high negatives we really haven't seen pressed at yet. Give me ONE article about Barack attacking a scandal from the Clinton years. Do it. You can't find one, because he hasn't. the REPUBLICANS will, though, and Obama will have to deal with that. The first rule of picking a vice president is DON'T pick one with baggage.

I don't think the unity ticket is a bad idea for Obama, it's a bad idea for Clinton.

Clinton is much better served in the Senate; being a super-star-powered Senator is a much meatier role than the largely ceremonial position of VP.  The Vice Presidency is, in all bluntness, really below someone of Clinton's stature.

I would hope if Obama offered her the position she'd turn it down; Obama can likely win without her on the ticket, and she is much much much more valuable for progressive causes as a leader in the Senate.

Actually I, and many others, have been unhelpfully dismissing the notion that Hillary Clinton would deign to choose to be VP Barack Obama. And the notion that that would be in her political best interests, in terms of maintaining her influence. Of course, we all see how well it worked out for Dole. I think she'd make a fine VP, I think she makes a better Senator.

And the fact that a poll suggests that most people think the 2nd slot should go to the most prominent office-seeker who hasn't gotten the top slot is, well, obvious.

I agree that Richardson is a bad choice; I'm constantly surprised that it's put out there as a reasonable option.

It seems to me one of the biggest strikes against this idea is that Clinton probably would not want it. She is unlikely to run for president from that position at age 68, and Obama's vp won't wield nearly the power that Cheney does.

If she is going to negotiate a reward from her near-win for the nomination I don't think vp will be it.

We want a VP who will follow the direction of the P, not someone who has their own agenda, who will be an obstacle for change.  And particularly not someone who will play the old politics, the politics of lobbyists and back room deals.

As a new president, I would also not want a former president hanging around the White House, chatting up the cabinet, etc.

Nope, not for me.

I've been told this repeatedly. So what's wrong with a black/brown ticket?

As far as Clinton for VP, that'd be a great way to increase GOP turnout in a year when they suck. You  have to weigh that as well.

yeah I think once the reality of the situation sets in HRC supporters will more and more start wanting a unity ticket to get Hillary in as the first VP.

I don't see a unity ticket happening anymore.

especially now that Barr is running.

I don't care what anyone states.  Her negatives, again talked about on MSNBC are out there and real.  And her name on the ticket ramps up the conservatives to back McCain (and he is still having an issue with them now) as an anti-Clinton vote.  Don't need the Clinton baggage, replayed in this campaign.  This is a CHANGE election, not a THROWBACK, one.

Obama's theme is CHANGE.  She does not fit the mode, she did not run as an agent of change, she ran as in 'incumbent' and it is, what it is.

She does not bring a state, red/purple to FLIP.  WE NEED THAT FOR NOVEMBER.

Lastly, the notion that it would be just her as VP is unrealistic.  WE all know it is bringing both, she and former President Bill Clinton to the ticket. Meaning, we have to deal with Bill Clinton and not staying on message.  Do we need this headache?

Finally, there is a big TRUST issue going on here.  Neither trust each other.

We do need a strong VP, there are too many others who are in states we NEED than Hillary Clinton.

I don't see her being on the ticket.

The decision rests with Barack Obama. He has earned the right to be nominated and it is his call.

Whether it is HRC or anyone else. It is fine with me.
BO and his team, has the good judgement to make the right choice.
I'm with them 101%.

Even if we treat Cheney's role in the current Administration as an outlier, the reality is that Presidents have increasingly entrusted their veeps with increasingly large roles in their administrations, starting with Carter and Mondale back in the late 1970s.  Nowadays, you'd really like the veep to play the sort of role that Gore did in the Clinton Administration.

As a result, I think the comfort level between the President and Veep isn't a trivial concern.  I don't see the strife between Obama and Clinton being papered over easily.

If this were 40 years ago, that wouldn't matter: he'd choose her as his running mate, then bury her as President of the Senate.  But it's not, so it matters.

Certainly her dud of a State of the Union response alone should disqualify her as not ready for prime time

Bill Clinton's keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic convention was called a dud. We all know how that turned out.

Try harder, Todd. I'm sure you can find a substantive reason to oppose her somewhere on the internet.

But you overlooked the apparent fact that many people support Hillary largely because of her gender, and Sibelius or Napolitano would appeal to them  -- and even some Republican women probably.

It won't happen the republicans will bring out the endless scandals associated with the Clintons.  The last thing Obama needs is more baggage.

Off the cuff, I don't lend a lot of credence to the polls saying 3/4 of her supporters want her as the VP pick, given the wildly inflated numbers who also say they will vote for McCain over Obama in the fall. It's more likely an artifact of the close primary and an "at least she'll be on the ticket" response in the heat of the moment than a definitive statement that Sen. Clinton as VP is the only choice her supporters would accept.

Sen. Clinton certainly needs to be on the short list for consideration, but I think the downsides of her being the ultimate VP choice are being sold short here. The fact that having Sen. Clinton as the VP will lead to a divided White House and almost certain power struggles (which the press and the Republican minority in Congress will love to pounce on) is no small factor.

That, combined with the fact that foreign policy credentials are likely the top considerations in Obama's VP pick (Sen. Clinton doesn't do a great deal for him there) makes me think there are better possibilities out there.

Obama needs to think long and hard and make sure his pick unites the party as well as meets any other considerations, but just because Clinton could help unite the party for the general doesn't she's the ONLY choice who could do that.

2 months ago before the mud really started flying this could have been viable. But there has been too much mud, too many accusations and too much drama to simply say "Oh well I only meant it at the time."

I honestly think this is more of a pipe dream than anything.

Here are the reasons Obama will not choose Hillary as a running mate. I'll preface them by saying she's certainly qualified for the job, but if Obama chooses her he lessens our chances against McCain. Here's why.

1. Her negatives outside the core Democratic Party are huge. Add that to his negatives, and we lose. Why would he take on her negatives?

2. One of his main arguments has been that he is the candidate to choose if you don't want "politics as usual". Choosing Hillary dilutes that message.

3. One of his strongest arguments against McCain has been their polar opposite positions against the war. If he puts Hillary on his ticket despite her vote for the war and subsequent support of that vote, he loses the high ground on this issue.

4. It's not clear what Bill's role would have been in a Hillary administration. It becomes even less clear if Hillary is the VP.

5. For the general election the VP candidate needs to take a secondary role to the Presidential candidate. Can Hillary, and even more so Bill, do that successfully.

6. She does not buy him enough on either the experience or national security fronts.

7. Since this primary has gone on long past it's expiration date, too much has been said and done between these two candidates. Were she the running mate then this would just provide fodder to the Republicans for anti-Obama ads.

8. She's a highly qualified candidate for VP, but there are other highly qualified candidates as well, who would probably make better choices as far as filling in Obama's perceived deficits and bringing along particular states.

I could probably thing of more reasons, but this should be enough.

More reasons not to do it:

- Republicans will be motivated to vote against her.
- The media will spend six month talking about:
   1) What will Bill do with all that access to the Washington?
   2) Can Hillary and Obama work together?
   3) Can Obama trust Hillary?
   4) Who is really running the show?

They will parse every word Bill or Hillary says and compare them to Obama's words. It will be its own show and people will soon get tired of it and vote for McCain.

We need a strong administrator that people trust but without too much flair. Obama needs to be in charge of ticket and we need no distractions.

Having to "A" players doesn't work all the time. Ask the Redskins and the Yankees. The best teams are made up of people who compliment each other and that genuinely get along and respect each other. I think they might compliment each other in some areas but they don't get along.

Sorry - facts are a stubborn thing.

Hey Todd: I agree with some of what you say here but take exception to a few things. It is perfectly understandable why some Obama supporters would not be too enthusiastic about picking Hillary. After so many months of doubt sowing, 3 AM phone calls etc, it is hard to imagine her being a genuine and enthusiastic subordinate to Obama. This isn't to say she couldn't do it but its hard to imagine and many supporters are probably not too ready to accept this. And of course, after Obama has spent so many months saying that Hillary represents the old way of politics it might be a tough sell to turn around and  say that she is just what he needs on his ticket.

That being said it is certainly a ticket that could be very powerful IF (and these are big IFs) all egos can be reigned in, Bill Clinton can accept third (or fourth) banana billing, and a GE plan can be derived that truly takes advantages of Hillary's strengths and minimizes her weaknesses (ie deploys her to the correct places).

Also, I have to express dismay for your statement that a black/brown ticket is unrealistic. After this primary season it is unwise and not too forward thinking to dismiss any possible pairing, especially along racial lines.

Clinton probably doesnt want the job.

Sebelius will come off as weak on national security issues and experience.

Richardson has a whole bunch of problems, including things in his personal life.

Webb just told The Hill that he's not interested.

Brown just said the same thing.

The president and vice president must have a consistent message in order to campaign as a strengthened ticket. When the VP has spent the last several months attempting to undermine the credibility of the president, she doesn't get the VP slot as a consolation/appeasement prize. This isn't JFK/Johnson. It's going to be Obama/ABC. Sorry, Clinton supporters, but you can't have it both ways.

The whole reason I back Obama is because I feel the Clintons bring too much drama into politics. They are such a distraction. Add in their long list of enemies, their strong ties to lobbyists, and their disdain for Obama, and you have the polar opposite of the entire point of an Obama Presidency.

Hagel, Sebelius, Webb, Richardson in that order. They all are red-state, down to earth, and have the right blend of change and experience.

Hillary as VP would be a disaster. Obama would instantly lose credibility, and power.

Once Obama wins the nomination the attention will shift solely to him and slowly but surely Hillary will fade from the spotlight. Then he should do photo-ops with VP contenders and start the process.

But the question is whether in fact "the true utility of a VP choice" is to balance or to reinforce?  

Think about the last 3 Dem tickets:
1. Clinton-Gore (the "Double Bubba" tix) - reinforcing, not balancing.
2 . Gore-Lierberman - Balancing, not reinforcing (ok, I'm not even sure that was balancing but it certainly wasn't reinforcing)
3. Kerry - Edwards - balancing, not reinforcing.

Now which was more successful?

that this ticket polls better against McCain than other potential choices, there is no chance for Clinton to be on the ticket.

There are many better ways of "shoring up Obama's demographic weaknesses" than picking one of the most divisive families (yes, Bill comes with the package) in modern politics.  A Clinton on the ticket is about the only thing you could do to increase Republican turnout in November, which is not exactly what we're aiming for, is it?

As for Clinton's "extremely passionate army of supporters"
 a) there aren't as many of them as there are of Obama's and his army grows while hers shrinks;
 b) the passionate ones are not going to vote for McSame in November anyhow

Thank you Todd. You are correct in your analysis.

I would vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP.

If he thinks he can win the women's vote by sticking a different woman on then that is as stupid as Hillary thinking she could win AA supporters by putting Patrick Deval in as her VP.

Just because Sebelius is a woman, does not mean I would support the ticket.

My passion is for Hillary.

He needs to pick Hillary as the VP.

The idea is just plain creepy.

Hillary burned THAT bridge with her way below the belt, yeah, gutter actually, campaign tactics.  

She brings absolutely nothing to the ticket except for the rightwingers coming out in droves to vote for McBush.

I think the most powerful argument should basically be that Obama has the right to choose who he wants as his VP.  If he wants Clinton, so be it.  If not, also so be it.  The VP has the theoretical chance to be President, so I don't know why Obama shouldn't be able to choose what kind of possible president should succeed him should something happen to him.

There is no rule or whatever that says he has to choose Clinton.  In fact, technically speaking, he doesn't get to choose: the delegates at the convention do (if I'm not mistaken). But, I imagine most of them will defer to his decision, and the "will of the people" argument doesn't seem overwhelming to me for VP, since people don't vote for VP (and Gallup doesn't determine that either).

I think there are probably other negatives to an Obama/Clinton ticket that you're not pointing out here too, Todd.  For instance, the revelation that the GOP already has 1200 pages of oppo-research on Clinton... rather than just having to contend with whatever negatives Obama is going to have to contend with, now he'll have to contend with Clinton's negatives as well.  In fact, an argument could be made that if it's an Obama/Clinton ticket, suddenly the GOP strategy switches to running against Clinton again, with the added bonus of having tons of negative quotes about Obama from Clinton, plus all the negative Obama stuff that he'd already have to contend with.  I could definitely see the campaign devolving into a Clinton/McCain battle despite Obama being at the top of the ticket, which would probably be doubly-bad for Obama, since it would marginalize him.

I do agree with you, Todd, that this is something that Obama should think long and hard about... Clinton should as well.  I definitely wonder whether Clinton could actually help Obama more by endorsing and campaigning for Obama rather than joining him on the ticket.  I guess we'll see.

It worked with JFK and LBJ because there was no YouTube back then to show LBJ undercutting JFK during the primary.

Put Clinton on the ticket and it will be video of her saying "Shame on you Barack Obama" and "He doesn't meet the CIC test but McCain does" all day everyday.

It just won't work in the new media era.

Let's look at the pros and cons of an Obama/Hillary ticket.

Pros:
1 Reunites the party
2 Brings in women
3 Brings in some "working class" whites
4 Brings in Latinos
5 "In the trenches fighter" on the ticket
6 "Balances out his resume deficit"

Counterpoints:
1: The vast majority of the party will reunite with or without her, and as a Democrat she SHOULD be doing her best to get him elected regardless.
2, 3, 4: There are other white women or Latinos Obama could pick, if this is about the race/gender of his running mate.
5 and 6: She really isn't that experienced or "tough." She just has been able to paint herself that way running against Obama. Does anyone really think her 6 years in the Senate is going to look impressive next to McCain's 217-year record? Or that she'll be bragging about her sniper-fire experience running against an actual POW? There have got to be better possibilities than Clinton.

And now the cons:
1 There are still millions of conservatives who think Clinton is Satan incarnate. Probably tens or hundreds of thousands who think she literally murdered Vince Foster (I've seen the Republican mailers). If she's on the ticket, McCain won't even need to dog-whistle to his crazy base; they'll be out in full force.
2 She's "more of the same" in a campaign about change.
3 She's been hammering Obama for months. The last thing he needs is her in the spotlight for the rest of the campaign, trying to spin why she once thought he hadn't passed the CiC threshold or might be a Muslim or was an elitist or should have walked out of Wright's church.

I don't think HRC really wants the job or that Obama wants to give it to her.  Unfortunately, if all summer we end up hearing about this question of whether HRC will be VP and it keeps becoming more clear that many Clinton supporters want her on the ticket, it will become increasingly hard for Obama to pick somebody else.  If HRC doesnt want the job, I hope she takes herself out of contention early rather than letting that situation continue.

I have no objective opinion on this matter.

But I beg this one question:

How the hell do we explain everything on youtube?

There are hundreds of POPULAR videos that point out her biggest negatives.

This is unlike the 2004 primary,  this is the first in my lifetime that one candidate attacked the other so vociferously.

Whether thats valid or not its a reality, and one that will not be erased unless all the users who posted those videos remove them.

Also what if the RNC uses these videos to eat away at HRC as a VP?

Im dying to know other's opinion on my outlook.
thanks.

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

Would be for Obama and Clinton to agree in advance that he would make a public show of offering her the VP, and for her to gracefully decline.

That would assuage the feelings of her supporters, which is the only real reason to have her on the ticket given the negatives she brings to a GE.

Napolitano, Napolitano, Napolitano.  Napolitano.

Let him (or her) pick a VP they can work with.  There's a huge group of great Democrats out there.  I don't the O/C arrangement would be particularly satisfying to either and I do not believe the election will be won or lost on that.  Each brings a group to the table that loves them but also a group that loathes them.  I think less of a lightning rod for VP.

Couldn't Obama tap Senator Clinton to chair his VP search committee?

That way, he's showing her respect by letting her place a loyalist as number two on the ticket, and if she wants to pick herself, there's precedent for that.

Three major weaknesses in your logic, Todd:

1) The poll was of Democrats & Democratic-leaning independents.  The general election includes all other independents and Republicans.  I'd like to see a poll of all Americans (and yes, I know, why listen to most Republicans -- it's the 20% that might stay home or swing Democratic that I'm after).
To win the election, the Democratic candidate will win some votes outside of the poll sample, and I suspect Sen. Clinton not be attractive to many of these voters.  Just a guess.

2) How many poll respondents could name more than one or two other Democrats that are viable for the job?  Sure, most could identify Gore, Kerry, or Kennedy, but not Richardson, Sibelius, Sherrod Brown, or Wesley Clark.  I suspect the poll mostly tests name recognition, but whoever's on the ticket will have more name recognition by November. (Ask John Edwards!)  Sen. Clinton's name recognition, while far greater than other potential running mates, does not necessarily translate into an electoral advantage, especially with her high unfavorables.

3) Elections are more local -- nationwide polls aren't necessarily indicative of electoral results.  We all know about Bush vs. Gore, and in 2004, Kerry was only a handful of votes in Ohio short of beating Bush, despite trailing by 2.4% in popular vote (far greater than Gore's 0.5% margin).

Obama or Clinton is fine in 2008. But I would hope for someone even better in 2016. I dont want a President Hillary in 2016.

Putting Clinton on the ticket seems like a short-term solution but a long-term problem.  It certainly would help with Democratic unity, but putting Clinton on the ticket isn't the only way to pursue unity.  The problems are that 1) she muddles his message of change and getting away from Washington politics; 2) she would draw alot of attention from the nominee; 3) there would be two vice presidents when you count Bill.

I think better ways to unify the Party would be to have Obama choose a Clinton supporter (like Strickland) for VP who would go better with his message and/or have Clinton spearhead the health care reform package.

Obama picking a conservative republican like Hagel would be the last straw.

They were right about George Bush, they were right when the majority of them favored military action in Iraq, they must be right here too.

In what world does this work?  He has been running on a message of changing Washington Politics, and he should take as a pick the Ultimate Washington Politician?   He talks about getting away from the Corporate and Special intrests  and he should pick someone whos family is in bed with them?  The Republicans wouldn't even need to Swiftboat him, they could just attack the ticket and claim he abandoned his entire message by having her as his number 2.  And she said she had major problems playing second fiddle for Bill Clinton who she loved, why would we think she is capable of doing it for Obama.  And how does she balance out his weaknesses, by all the false things she has managed to define herself as?  At least Hagel, which is another terrible idea, is to some extent message consistent.  Sebelius, is consistent with his message also.

The entire notion that Clinton will be good on a ticket is a complete fantasy.  Your just opening yourself up for additional lines of attack, and burdening yourself with two people who are not team players, and who would drag the ticket down.
They might have basicly the same policies, but they are polar opposites on everything else, and not in a positive way that would complement.

I'm a big supporter of Obama, and I will confess that the idea of Hillary on the ticket does not trouble me.

There is value in having huge numbers of Democrats who have voted in these primaries ALL feeling like their top choice is going to be a major player in the new government.  It would mark a real, serious effort to heal any division that has come about as a result of the campaigns.

But, given a lot of the crap that Hillary's campaign has floated to try and tear down Obama, I'm not sure Obama will offer it.  

To be honest, I'd be less surprised at him choosing Hagel!  (I don't think that's likely, either).  

Ultimately, he has earned the right (well, he has nearly earned the right..) to pick whomever his team feels would be best.  Given the very positive light I hold his campaign decision-making, I feel confident we will end up with a VP candidate who will reflect Obama's ideals and have the potential to expand his demographic base.

Hillary might bring some percentage of her supporters back into the fold right away, but it also might galvanize some independents or Republicans against her.  It would be a calculated risk.  I'd personally rather take the chance that her supporters will come around to Obama once the very clear differences between him and McCain have the chance to be highlighted.

I think Hillary should have some large role though, as a supporter it will help me be more inclined to support Obama, who I'm still just not excited about (22 year old guy here, go figure)

LETS WIN BIG IN WV! Go out with a BANG

I am not so sure that Clinton on the ticket with Obama makes sense with Obama at the top of the ticket.  There are many negatives there that could cause Obama trouble in the fall, and the questions raised by Clinton about Obama will come back to bite the unity ticket in the bum (the hypocracy argument).

However, Obama will need Clinton's strong support and Clinton, and the country might be better served with her remaining in the senate, perhaps as Majority Leader.

This brings be to the question of who would be best, and I think that some sort of compromise might be called for.  

One very strong candidate for the position is Gov. Strictland from Ohio.

He is a strong Clinton backer who would appeal to many clinton supporters.  His inclusion would be similar to a stong Clinton endorsement.  Clinton would be bale to affect legislation (particularly in healthcare) in a major way with her direct connection to the whitehouse under this sort of plan.

Furthermore Obama would not have the negatives attached from the apparant hypocracy of picking Clinton, and be in a much better position to win the presidency.

Finally Gov. Strickland could help put Ohio in the Obama column come november.  This is a key to the argument since any help on individual swing states would be very helpful (an almost a prerequisite) for any candidate considered for the VP spot.

Certainly there are other people that might fit this bill (Gov. Rendell comes to mind).

What do you think?

Truly disgusting, Todd.

I doubt it.  

It puzzles me to hear people automatically dismiss the idea of Clinton as VP.

Why would it puzzle anyone that people who frequent a blog started by someone who wrote a book on overthrowing the Democratic Establishment don't want the embodiment of that establishment on Obama's ticket?

Not thinking ahead is how HRC lost the delegate race. Please start thinking ahead now.

Listen - I am passionately for Obama for President, but I would prefer a ticket of Hillary/Anybody to the ABSOLUTE FRIKKIN TRAINWRECK of Obama/Clinton.

Todd Beeton: Can't you see how insane this would be?  Every single day on the campaign trail would yield media debacles that would make us yearn wistfully for the Wright and Tuzla days.

Think ahead, people, think ahead. Obama/Clinton is our worst nightmare.

I think that Hillary blew the chance to be Obama's VP many, many times already.  Not going to happen.  Thank goodness!

I agree with Dem strategist Steve McMahon who said on Hardball yesterday that national security experience is going to be much too important to Obama's choice of VP for Sebelius to be seriously considered.

And what is Hillary's foreign policy experience?

Obama is the most divisive Dem I've ever seen and the most destructive to the party. He'd be a disaster in November. With Hillary at the top of the ticket, we could win the WH and she could do it nicely without him, thank you.

If Obama picks Hillary for the VP slot, and she accepts, it'd present a dilemma for her supporters, half of whom can't tolerate him.

The only chance Obama has of winning in the fall is with Hillary's help. He's a horrible candidate and would make a terrible president. The comments he made about Pakistan and Israel are quite troubling. He's wholly unqualified and an untrustworthy prevaricator.

I hope Hillary will be our candidate but if not, that she will refuse to be his VP.

Count me among the Obama supporters who want to see Hillary on the ticket.

(1) Her political skill overcomes her negatives. She ultimately helps him win in the general. No other potential candidate brings her skills and tenacity.

(2) He should pick the one who will best govern. What other Democrat is primed, vetted, and ready for the campaign trail and the White House?

(3) As a seasoned veteran, Hillary would make a great partner. She will evolve into a great VP. Period.

Regarding such issues as Bill Clinton, whether or not Obama can trust Hillary, whether or not she will have her own agenda...etc....etc.

Distractions, all. These issues remain regardless of who Obama picks, and they resolve themselves just as easily of he picks Hillary.

I know people feel that selecting her would violate some brand Obama represents -- this notion of change -- and I know there is a desire to remain pure to that image, but we need to be practical and evolve with events. We need to understand that Obama's promise as a leader would not be diminished and would instead be enhanced by a woman of her stature as his partner.

SOrry cant do it.....I cannot voet for HIllary on the ticket......and neither will other fed up republicans....they will go back to McCain or go home....hell I might even vote for Bob Barr on the Libertarian ticket......

Just because she has strengths doesn't make that his weakness. I have never heard people talk about her weakness with educated whites.  The idea that women, Latinos, and non-College whites will not vote for Barack just because they preferred Hillary does not hold water.  

Hillary is the one who made herself unavailable for the VP with her statements about Barack.  There is the disconnect with the message which goes way beyond just change vs the establishment.  As VP she undercuts his central theme and makes him just a politician. Any reasonable Hillary supporter should see that.

A few reasons I don't think this will happen, and I have been a Clinton supporter who only recently officially switched to Obama

-She probably doesn't want it. This is the biggest issue and a deal breaker in itself if it's true. She could be Senate Majority or Governor of New York someday, or run again in 2012 if Obama were to lose. I don't see her wanting to be Obama's number 2.

-Too much change. I agree it's near impossible for Richardson to be VP with a Black-Brown ticket, but I also think we should be concerned about pushing a Black-Woman ticket as well. I think this issue is something that we could get past, but I think politics says it will be a white male VP.

-She will overshadow him. I think there's a danger in running a campaing where in any day your running mate could overshadow you in the news cycle. And if elected as President any day, or week, or month, more attension might be paid to your VP that you, the President of the United States. Not a super healthy way to run a country.

I don't think Clinton's bagage, or the differing  message, or some of the things Clinton has said about Obama, are as big of issues. They probably could be overcome. But the reasons above are probably why it's a less than 10% chance it actually happens.

PS: Ff Hagel is VP I will not vote Democratic in 2008. Sorry a Republican or former Republican that just recently changed parties is a deal breaker. I said the same thing about Kerry if McCain was his VP in 2004. I have voted striaght Democrat in every election since 2002, but I will not vote for Obama-Hagel. Obama-Bloomberg would be tough, but at least that I could eventualy support.

Which is to say that the Democrats on the list all have something that makes them problematic.

...according to the panel on "Hardball".

Wow, if the panel on "Hardball" implies it, it must be true.

Too much bad stuff has been said and written.

Too many lobbiests.

Too many Bubbas.

Too much "old style politics"

Too many debts, some finanical, some not.

What's the hurry?  McCain is in more need of picking his VP than we are...  Let him pick first, then counter with our own...

I don't know if having Hillary on the ticket is such a great idea...  While Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan/Bush worked out well, Kerry/Edwards worked out horribly.  They hated each other, and Edwards being on the ticket did not help Kerry pick up any states.  Kerry should have picked Gephardt.  We could have won Iowa at least with him on the ticket (as much as I didn't like Gephardt at all) and maybe gotten enough votes in Ohio to get over the top.

There are certainly pros and cons to having Hillary on the ticket.  Here's one big con... my wingnut friend has predicted a joint ticket since 2007.  Fulfilling wingnut predictions just doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Ted Strickland is gaining and gaining.

He as a member of Congress representing Ohio's 6th Congressional District, Strickland voted against authorization of the war in Iraq (reinforcing Obama, and hurting McCain, on that theme).

Bingo.

Disqualifying Sibelius on the basis of her lackluster State of the Union speech seems premature.  Bill Clinton gave one of the worst speeches I've ever seen when he opened the Democratic convention in '88.  

If Obama gets the nod, he shouldn't make his VP choice until late August.  It's just too early to say whether a Clinton pick would be wise or foolish.

Because, let's face it, the issue would turn upon how she comported herself in the job and what those who supported her would do.  If she committed herself to being a loyal soldier in the campaign (and later an Obama administration), this could be both politically smart and help him a lot over the long run.

If, however, Clinton's supporters still have some sense that she should be the nominee, and she realizes she can tap into that and undermine his campaign/administration in prep for some later run, this would be a huge mistake for everyone.

And three months is probably enough time to make some determination about this.

The poll was formed in a open-ended question.
And the top two choices? Clinton and.. Edwards?
Who chooses Edwards as a VP for Obama? People who know only the politians that were/are also in the race :)

Conduct this poll later if there is maybe a shortlist available from which the one can pick.

I mean who would have thought, not many people said Sebeli-who?!?

I've come to dislike speculating on VPs until one of the two parties has conceded. So, instead I'll phrase this generically.

I don't think either remaining candidate is really comfortable with the other as the VP. So what about asking the candidate who concedes to lead the search/vetting process for the VP? Of course when Cheney did it he picked himself, but I don't see that happening in our case.

One final thing. If you really want HRC to be on the ticket, feel free to argue for it.
But the more Obama is pressured publicly to do it, the less likely it is to happen.
A future President needs to assert his authority and if he does choose her, it will be only because he wants it.
So the same way the calls for her to drop out harden her resolve and end up being counterproductive, the more Obama is pushed to pick her as VP, the less i believe he will be likely to yield.

Just an advice

Obama is no saint, but he is a politician; he can clearly see the political obviousness of the Hillary support within the party, throughout the nation and on the ticket.

If he doesnt, then he's the same ol' "Mr Uniter not Divider" crap we've heard before...

is that Clinton's ability thus far to carry working class white voters is not a function of her popularity among the group, as much as it's a reluctance on their part to support Obama. Before the primaries no one would have ever argued that Hillary Clinton would be a champion of rural working class white voters in places like WV, KY. Am I wrong?    

I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm lukewarm in favor of that option right now.

Biggest positives:

1. Obviously, it would go a long ways toward uniting the Party.

2. It's interesting that Obama and Clinton do much better in different states against McCain. If Hillary can deliver her strong demographics as part of a joint ticket without cutting into Obama's strength, this election would be over. That would be Virginia, Colorado, the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest (Obama), along with West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada (Clinton). That's on top of the Kerry states. Wow!

3. Even more historic than just the first AA Prez, but also the first woman VP.

4. The Clinton Machine in full gear behind the ticket can not be discounted.

But negatives:

1. Dilution of Obama's message about new politics, new faces, and the Iraq War.

2. Hillary may seem like a hypocrite after some of the stuff that she's said.

If there was an obvious better choice, I'd be in favor of that. But I don't know of one, personally. All of the other people mentioned so far have major downsides. What about Xavier Beccerra for a "left field" option?

Give it up.  Obama will gain nothing from having Clinton on the ticket, short of a fired up right-wing base that otherwise would have stayed home or even voted for Obama.  It is time for Clinton to pay the piper for her war vote.  It was no sweat off her back to vote for the death of hundreds of thousands of people in order to help her with her presidential campaign.  Rot in Hell, Clinton.  

Why in hell would Hillary Clinton want to be Vice President?  She could wind up being assigned to attend funerals for the dead pets of foreign leaders instead of being a power in the Senate.  Obama will never allow her to be Cheney.

How much "unity" would it signal for Obama to pick her as VP?  Would picking HRC as VP against his better judgment really motivate any HRC supporters to vote for Obama who would otherwise not vote for him?  Do the negatives of having her on the ticket -- enough alterity on the ticket already, her high negatives in places like Virginia, having to put up with Bill Clinton and all his baggage, having to deal with Whitewater, Monica and Wen Ho Lee, Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich and Weathermen in addition to dealing with Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers -- be outweighed by the number of HRC supporters who would switch from McCain to Obama simply because he threw her a meaningless bone?

How much will Obama enjoy having his running mate's words about Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and "he-can't-get-whites-to-vote-for-him" read back to him by Tim Russert and in Republican television commercials?

How can he possibly nominate a woman to be his VP who repeatedly called his unfit for the Presidency?  It makes absolutely no sense.  Not to mention the fact that Hillary and Bill would not be very good at playing second fiddle.

Are you kidding me?  Why?  So Obama can walk around on egg shells hoping not to be undermined by she who is ready to lead on day 1?

She has been mudslinging and represents the politics of the past that Obama wants to move beyond.  This could be a disastrous union.

There are better choices for VP.  Gov. Strickland for one.

1) [Rev. Wright clip] ... announcer: "Guilt by association? Here's what Sen. Obama's own running made had to say about that." [HRC clip]

2) [clip of Hillary touting McCain's foreign policy and commander in chief threshold qualifications] ... [clip of Hillary dissing Obama]

3) [printed quote of Obama on bitter] audio clips of Hillary going on and on and on and on about it.

I thought that campaign put the nail in the coffin of the idea that you could have two Alpha Dogs on a Presidential ticket. It was famously discussed at the time, and I think its absolutely true. They were an uncoordinated wreck for that very reason.

It may help a bit with working class white women, but it will only repel working class white men more. Non-college educated white men are, according to polls, more likely to be both racist and sexist. Hillary Clinton may be more palatable to working class white men in a primary, but she won't win them in the general.

I live in Portland, Oregon. We have recent experience here with problem "dream teams." In the not-too-recent past, the president of the Trailblazers had a philosophy of drafting and trading for the best athletic talent he could find. He paid no heed to warnings that those talents might not work together well. He just handed them to the coach and said "make a team out of this."

Until Bill Clinton's presidency, the VP slot was a deadend. Once in a while, the VP could succeed to the top spot, but while in office, the VP mostly sat and waited. Clinton brought Gore into the A team, probably a good thing. But that growth turned into a cancer in the form of Dick Cheney. The office MUST be made secondary to the president again.

I just don't see the fit. How many of you really believe that the two would make a good team? I think the argument is that Clinton would bring votes, money and volunteers to help in the election. That is possible, but what about after the election? my guess is that Obama would have to build high walls to keep his presidency safe from infiltration and undue influence. I just would not be at all surprised to find the Clintons trying to take the reins whenever they could. So if Obama successfully isolates the Clintons sufficiently, he (1) is labeled as "just another politician protecting his turf," and (2) is distracted or at least limited by the Clintons in pursuing his policy goals. Not a good team.

Finally, everyone is assuming that if Clinton is on the ticket, everything will be great. But will being number 2 really satisfy hard-core Clinton supporters? Some of you here certainly qualify as the hardcore (not meant as a disparaging term, just a measure of the depth of your feelings). Will you be transformed into instant team players now that your candidate is number 2, not number 1?

And what about the white voters Clinton is pulling in right now? Do you really think that the voters who have not supported Obama for cultural reasons will suddenly say "Wow. A ticket of a black man and a woman. This is just the ticket for me!?"

I think the dream ticket ignores both the election and what comes after.

As such, Obama gets to pick the VP, not the people.

I hope he offers it to Clinton, but I know that his core supporters are loathe to accept such a crazy idea.

in focus groups? In polls?

I don't think she should accept the VP slot if it is offered.  If she accepts and then Obama loses then there is your convenienet scapegoat, which of course everyone would pounce on.  Why go down with him in the GE?  If he is going to be the nominee let's see what he can bring to the table as the agent of change.  I hope I am wrong and he wins in November but if he doesn't why should Clinton have that as part of her legacy?

I doubt he'll offer the Veep spot.  If he did, I doubt she'd accept.

I'm of the opinion that her considerable skills, wonkiness, and determination would make for a great Senate Majority Leader.  Honestly, at this point, HRC as VP would be nothing but distraction and worse, a complete waste of talent.

It's a bad move. It negates all of his arguments against McCain. You can already see this week how compelling the narrative in his favor is against McCain and how adept they can use statements like "lost bearings" and more of the same in Washington. Not only that, I think Hillary Clinton has demonstrated in this race that she can't be trusted to put anybody else's interests ahead of her own... these traits do not a good vice-president make.

Nothing he does will unite the party. Why would want a Clinton want a demotion from her role as Senator? What exactly does a VP do? basically nothing. The only reason someone wants to be VP is to be actually a President one day. Being Obama's VP would literally be like her being his prisoner. Not only that, his tadical band of elitist supporters hate her, so why would anyone want to go through 24/7 harassment? This unity BS is just crap from the media who are too lazy to actually report on anything substanstial.

than people realize.  i'd venture that many/most posters here don't know about how ronald reagan got to the point of running with george bush.  at the convention in detroit, there was rampant speculation (including in the media) about reagan choosing gerald ford as his running mate.  for the reaganauts there, this was hard enough.  most were rabid conservatives, who believed that henry kissinger had sold the free world down the river.  but there henry was, negotiating on ford's behalf, trying to arrange that difficult marriage with the reagan team.

reagan's supporters/campaign staff were trying to swallow that.  but at some point, those negotiations broke down and reagan made the decision to offer the veep to george bush (who accused reagan of pushing voodoo economics).  reagan came down to the trailer where his campaign team was assembled and made the announcement.  he started by saying that it might be difficult for some people to accept this.  "it's bush.  the decision is made," or something like that.  "i'll give you fellows some time to deal with it" (i'm paraphrasing from memory here.)

reagan was right about it not going over well.  as soon as he left, the trailor literally exploded.  someone threw their chair at the door (dinting it) where reagan had just exited.  vulgarities flew.  much shouting emerged.  absolute vulcanic emotion for a period of time.  at the time, i was still a teenager, a democrat, somewhat of an outsider, who didn't really understand the ideological dimensions of the decision or the people in the room.  and the rift that emerged in the campaign before the convention was never mended after it.  there was a deep suspicion between the reagan and the bush people that never really ended, although some people were better at covering it up than others.

i'll leave it up to the reader to decide if that kind of deeply felt animosity and suspicion is beneficial to the general election campaign or an obama administration.  but i do think there's a reason bill clinton choose al gore and nor jerry brown (not that brown was george bush)...

It's one helluva stretch to go from a lot of people would like it to the will of the people demand it.  

The problem is, Obama won't win by changing themes.

He's got the theme for the time. He's not changing it.

So the "thematic incongruence" trumps all.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared- blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/ 05/11/nunn_gets_another_mention_for.html ?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider

Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia would be the best qualified to compliment Obama on a national ticket.  He adds national security credentials and has campaigned along with former Oklahoma Senator David Boren for a change in politics.  This can be tied in with Obama's message.  Most importantly he's moderate enough to place his native state of Georgia on the electoral map. If Obama focuses on the West he could carry Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.  If Nun campaigns in the south he could help carry Georgia for Obama and possibly place Virginia and West Virginia in the competitive category.  

I am a Democrat who never fell in love with either Clinton or Obama.  I think both are irritating figures for different reasons, but I support both for president.

However, I have read through the comments section and it is obvious Obama supporters do not want Clinton anywhere near the ticket.

Let me ask a question:

Would you prefer that Clinton go to the convention, cause a ton of shit, and Obama has his "own" VP   or

Would you prefer a scenario where going to a nasty convention is averted by having Clinton as VP.

Just two hypotheticals.  Consider them.

1) announcer: Will Barack Obama protect your second amendment rights to gun ownership? Here's what his running mate thinks: [hillary indiana and PA clips]

2) announcer: bla bla bla - Hillary: "Shame on YOU Barack Obama, Shame on YOU" announcer: bla bla bla - Hillary: "Shame on YOU Barack Obama, Shame on YOU", etc.

3) announcer: Does Barack Obama share your values on religion? His running mate doesn't think so. [Hillary clip on whether he's a Muslim] [Hillary clip on how she wouldn't have stayed in Wright's church]

and that's just Hillary - parse through some of Bill loose-lipped adventures at all those rural campaign stops and I'm sure you'll find no end of anti-Obama gems.

This ticket would allow the Republicans to be as funny as Stewart and Colbert and that's one thing we simply can't allow to happen!