It may have to be crafted that way -
But I doubt either will be pleased.

It also reminds me of walking into the local bank -
And seeing plenty of middle-aged women being supervised by guys just out of college.

I don't think she'd be a liability to the ticket.

I think that having her as VP would be a waste of her talents.

Haven't spent enough time with the downticket analysis to have an opinion on that...

I can't possibly imagine Hillary Clinton (and Bill) occupying a subservient role to anyone.

It won't be offered; it wouldn't be taken.  It's not worth talking about, sorry.

I was all in favor of this, but that was when I thought Sen. Clinton would run the rest of the race focusing on McCain.  Instead, she has talked about how she won the hard-working white Americans, and again protested that the Democratic party doesn't follow the rules of Republicans.  

Her bitterness makes her a liability as Veep.  If she and Obama disagree, would she really follow his lead?  

She can still turn this around with a nice speech after her win in WV about the need for party unity.  

I would think this powerpoint would be the smoking gun AGAINST an Obama/Clinton ticket because the GOP would just run it over and over against some smooth jazz or Skynrd.

Hillary made the choice long ago that a veep slot won't be hers; she took her campaign in places you don't go to, and get asked to be VP. If she was the veep, the election would be "Hillary, how can you support X, when you yourself said Y was better?"

Instead of being about Bush, which would have been nice.

good and fine Democrats of racism.

He needed two things to happen to win:

1. Disenfranchise voters from two of the biggest states in America

2. Convince African Americans that the people who have stood by them all those years were really racists.

Goal accomplished.

I can not and will not support Obama for his race-bating strategy. He personally attacked Hillary, not her record but her personally: "she will say or do anything to get elected". He also famously went after Bill Clinton (a man who's foundation has provided FREE AIDS medicine to MILLIONS of blacks in Africa and who set up his office in Harlem) and said his comments were racist. NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!!!

I will not support race-bating, I will not support Obama.

you are assuming her voters would come out, even reading MyDD they have made it very clear they don't want her on the ticket because they think Obama will lose.

so I say give them what they want, keep her off the ticket and when Obama wins, they can know they kept Hillary from being the first Female VP, because they couldn't get over the fact that Hillary wasnt on the top spot.

I don't know what either candidate's endgame is, really.  I do know that if Hillary is actually interested in pursuing the VP slot, every argument she makes against Obama's electability tends to make that outcome less and less likely, for a multitude of reasons.

 I mean, honestly, anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world

She has what, 56% negatives?  Yeah, it's a fantasy that anyone would turn out to vote against her.

How much of Kerry's vote was more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry in 2004, do you think?  As for me, one of my main reasons for supporting Obama was that he isn't Hillary Clinton.

I know you'd like to see her on the ticket, but you're way off-base claiming it's obviously a good idea.  Hillary Clinton hasn't been called "the face that launched a thousand Republican campaign contributions" for nothing.

No, no, no, no...NO.

This doesn't work out for anyone. Obama won the nomination, he gets to pick his own VP. Senator Clinton can go back and write and sponsor legislation that she believes in.

There will be no Obama/Clinton ticket.  

What will they do with Bill?

The list in the PowerPoint presentation doesn't make much sense. They listed every Freshman Dem in a district that voted for Bush in 2004, but not all of those seats are considered in play by experts like Rothenberg and Cook. In a diary earlier today I compared Obama and Clinton in districts that are currently considered in-play this year according to the Rothenberg Political Report, and I found that Obama and Clinton are pretty evenly matched in the actual "tough districts."

after another endorsement from HI.

" I mean, honestly, anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world, as is anyone who thinks that there's someone better for Obama to pick when it comes to forming a winning ticket."

Really?  Anyone who thinks Obama would be better served by picking someone else is living in a fantasy world?  Come on Todd, that doesn't seem fair or accurate.  Jim Webb would bring some things to the table that Clinton doesn't.  As would Sebelius or Napolitano, both of whom have executive experience in purple states.  Same for Schweitzer.  Moreover, having a vp that you can work well with does affect that ticket's ability to win.  After this primary, i'm not sure how well these two would do together.

Absolutely not. This is a change year not a return back to the 1990s.  No. If Hillary had conducted herself with some class then maybe but absolutely not. Also, what experience does she really have? I say go with Jim Webb or someone else.

If we're gonna talk about electability, then how about this one?

My moderate to liberal Republican friends have said there's a pretty good chance they'd vote for Obama in the general.  Several of them voted for him in the primaries and are pretty willing to do that in the general.

They've all said that her being on the ticket ends that.  Immediately.

Republicans hate her guts.  Oh, they've played nice because they enjoy watching us clobber one another, but they haven't forgotten her past.

If she's on the ticket the Republicans can scream, rather convincingly, that Obama is no better than anyone else.  He'll have taken on someone who represents EXACTLY what he's trying to end - divisive politics that tries to divide people into groups, take advantage of the splits, and fight to 50%+1, so you win.

Division is crap.  This country is better than that.  Hillary Clinton has at no point during this campaign done ANYTHING to change my view of her.  I've had 16 freaking years to make up my mind about her.  And I'm a Democrat.

If you folks want crossover votes, we should only have her on the ticket if it is the only way to hold the base, because with her on the ticket we'll probably lose the middle and for damned sure rally the Republicans behind McCain.

Hillary and her most fanatical supporters are nowadays hoping for an Obama defeat in November -- and I'd rather have him choose a VP that would want them to win instead.

Maybe if you ban Bill from the Whitehouse I'd consider it.

Why would Clinton consent to be VP for a guy that "can't win", "hasn't passed the commander in chief test" and might or might not be muslim as far as she knows.

Better yet, why on Earth would the Democratic nominee for president want her on the ticket.

I think Hill & Barry need to "get a room", as they say, but no way on earth should they be on the same ticket ... especially with Hillary as VP ... it would be a trainwreck of epic proportions. Every time Hill or Bill opened their mouths we'd be cringing in fear about what might come out next. That "hard-working white people" gaffe yesterday is a case in point.

For HRC it's gotta either be president, senate majority leader, or supreme court justice, but VP is absolutely, categorically, unequivocally out of the question.

Since this board has a large number of Clinton supporters, I'd like to pose a question.  If Obama tapped Clinton to be her VP, and she accepted, what do you think the chances are that she'd use this position to prepare for a run against him in 2012?

Realize there are some here whose first reaction will be, "Great!  That's exactly what I'd want her to do!  She can articulate her own positions on policy and then the voters can decide!"

But c'mon.  That's a recipe for insanity.  If Clinton were VP she'd have to be loyal to the new administration, and the bigger headache, I think, would come if she weren't.

Thoughts?  If she has thoughts of running in 2012, isn't she honor bound to stay in the Senate?  

I mean, honestly, anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world, as is anyone who thinks that there's someone better for Obama to pick when it comes to forming a winning ticket.

It's a lousy diarist who consistently can't make a point without insulting any and all who might disagree.

That said, Obama and his team have shown a mastery of politics and I'm content to let them decide who will make the best VP for his ticket.

There's more to the VP role than the election.  Obama's main message is to reform the way Washington works.  To have as his VP one of the biggest earmarkers in DC makes no sense.  The VP must have as his/her basic qualifications a synchronicity with Obama's core domestic and foreign policy message.  The two biggest policy areas where they differ are foreign policy and Government reform.  She is at heart the wrong candidate for the role.  

that presentation holds little water.

Lampson will be lucky hold on no matter what and Hillary would get creamed by the GOP voters in Delay's old district. The reason Lampson is even in office is because of Delay fatigue that will surely have passed by the time that November rolls around. Besides, his is one of the Houston area districts where there's pretty good evidence that Limbaugh influenced a number of crossover votes for Hilllary.

Ciro Rodriguez got that seat because Henry Bonilla was too close to Bush, and as of late April he had about 10X the money in his campaign coffers that his GOP opponent does. It's not a race that the GOP is going to invest any cash in. He wins it with either candidate.

And there are a number of VP candidates who might help.

Obama, with input from his advisors, will make the call about who will be VP.

i think andrew sullivan makes the best argument for an obama/clinton ticket. your argument is less convincing, and this statement is just stupid:

"I mean, honestly, anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world, as is anyone who thinks that there's someone better for Obama to pick when it comes to forming a winning ticket."

so, it's nice to see that the front-pagers have now taken to calling those who disagree with them idiots. thinking she's a liability means i'm "living in a fantasy world"?? puhleez. this is weak shit, and you should know better. if i could go back over all of your posts over the last few months, i think i'd find a lot more "fantasy world" thinking than in the notion clinton might be a liability.

the ppt means there's an argument to be made against her high negatives; it by no means obviously wins that argument.

Since Obama Is going to get crushed by McCain,she is much better off having a nice speech at the convention.Then going on a well earned vacation,Do some charity work for some world disaster somewhere[Preferably Africa]Then come back in four years and clean up the mess left by McCain.All the limo libs will be naval gazing and thinking what the hell happened in 2008.Simple its Kerry redux. Painted as the cowardly,white flag waving,tax and spend,affirmative action loving,America hating,gay loving Frenchies.

I don't mind HRC but Obama supporters hate it. I mean, they really hate the idea. With Ted Kennedy calling it out today. It's looking slim. Even though, I agree it would unbeatable.

The VP should then be Webb. If only that Bush will attack Iran this year before his last hurrah.

No women VP. A AA and a women would be just too much for some this year.

This issue presents a good window into the mistrust which good Dems have for the Clintons.  Who thinks it's impossible that if Clinton were VP she'd give this sort of press conference three years from now:

"There is nothing in the US constitution which requires the Vice President to support the policies of the administration.  President Obama has his views on health care.  I have mine.  Let's have a healthy debate on the topic and let the voters decide".

This sort of split, of course, has never happened before in US history.  If it occurred, though, there is nothing Obama could do (eg. he could not fire her, that would be unconstitutional).

This would have all of the makings, really, of a classic Clinton contretemps: "See how tough she is?  She's willing to go against her own president!  You go, girl!  The constitution is on your side!  Health care is too important an issue for you not to speak your mind!"  Etc.

And here's my question.  The above, can we agree, reads like a cartoon.  But here's the thing: many Obama supporters would not put this beyond her.  This would involve the same appeals to rules, personal loyalty, large causes, etc., as one finds in current disputes, and the overall outrageousness of a VP's doing this (or so is the fear) would simply be put aside.

Tell me I'm wrong.  I'd like to think this is just hyperbole pushed to the nth degree, but in my gut, honestly, think many baby boomers, erm, have a sense of propriety which is deeply elastic--even have some sympathy for that, too, given how many cynics are world-weary idealists, but some stuff is just beyond the pale).

I wouldn't -mind- a Hillary VP ticket, but I'm certainly not happy about it.  And honestly, I don't think Hillary wants it either.  She's banking (and doing everything in her power to make sure it happens) on Obama losing in November so she can run again in 2012 with the unofficial campaign slogan of "I told you so."  That being the case, being on Obama's ticket in 2008 won't help her so she won't do it.

Now, even if I am being a paranoid pessimist, Hillary is still a major liability. One of the major appeals of the Obama campaign is a change from the political dynasties of the last thirty years (Reagan-Bush and Clinton).  Putting Clinton on the ballot completely undermines that, as well as the political concept of "Change" in general.

"Barack Obama's own pick for VP says he 'isn't ready on day one'. She says he doesn't offer real solutions, that he only really has 'change you can xerox', and that he hasn't cross the 'leadership threshhold'. If Barack Obama's own Vice Presidential pick can't trust him, how can we?"

Clinton made her VP candidacy an impossibility when she threw the kitchen sink.

So now the blind shills around here are finally "getting it" but still looking for a way get her on the ticket...

"I mean, honestly, anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world, as is anyone who thinks that there's someone better for Obama to pick when it comes to forming a winning ticket. Sure there are reasons not to pick Hillary Clinton for VP, but they pale in comparison to the benefits that would be reaped by both an Obama candidacy as well as by Democrats downticket all over the country if voters had Obama/Clinton at the top of the ticket."

Sorry, no way.  There are arguments both ways, I suppose, on whether Hillary helps or hurts the ticket.  I happen to think she hurts Obama but that isn't why I'd avoid her like the plague.  If you win, you don't need the Clinton's meddling in everything you do.  The arrogance they carry with them would make her serving as VP impossible.  And Bill would ultimately derail an Obama Presidency by say something stupid every other day.  Or banging some staffer.

When Obama closes this out, in about two weeks, his first order of business will be to consolidate power.  This means he'll have no choice but to make some concessions to the "Clinton wing" of the party.  But that doesn't include VP.  She may be able to help in Penn or Florida or Ohio, but those are battleground states Obama should be able to compete in without her help.  I just can't see middle class voters in any of those states endorsing another Bush term.  Particularly Ohio.  Things are horrible there!  

The Republicans will already have the 327 stupid things Hillary has said about Obama to throw in their commercials, you don't need to add credibility by having her on the ticket.

Her smirking condescendingly in the background everytime you see them on TV. <shiver>

The contrast between the two will become even more apparent too, as time goes by and she's being "supportive".  Her completely phony personality will disappear and the combative nightmare we saw in the 90's will reappear.

Please, Obama, these folks here are MyDD have been wrong about literally everything this entire campaign.  Don't start listening to their recommendations now.

"and has attracted more rural, latino and elderly voters, all of whom are key in battleground congressional districts"

Every voter is key.

Hillary has earned her right to be VP, if she wants it and there's nothing that Obama or some of his Hillary Hating supporters can do about it.  Hillary will have 48% of the total delegates and will not be denied VP if she wants it.

I think we saw then EXACTLY what Clinton will do for the downticket: nothing.  Only this time she'll avoid helping people to focus on her own ambitions on a national scale, instead of just statewide.  Since the aftermath of that election, I've learned some other things about her that I don't like, but as a committed partisan, it was her complete lack of coattails(or even an attempt to have coattails) that decided me against her.  Yesterday I got up at 4am, worked a full shift, and came home to discover that Ms. Clinton had called me a lazy Negro.  And I don't care, except that I heard so many complaints 2 Novembers ago about her laziness in organizing for the benefit of the downticket.  Clinton is over for me, she's had her 15 minutes, let's get on with the campaign. Time to go to work.

If Clinton pledged not to run in 2012 and was committed to being a good VP, I think she'd be an excellent choice (and perhaps the best choice).  She cleary has half of the party behind her.  Put aside all political calculations about electability (which, to me, are dubious given the uniqueness of this election) and her selection would clearly strengthen the party and leave her supporters feeling as though they got something.

Without these two pledges, though, naming her VP would be a huge mistake.  The prospect of a sitting president being challenged by a VP is, or should be, shameful.  Would be just as true if Clinton were the nominee and Obama accepted the VP slot.  Just apply the golden rule.

It's about the future not the past...Bush/Clinton in the White House form 1982 to Present...We are better than this.

As much as I agree that she has "earned" the VP spot if she wants it (just speaking from a purely practical political place) I think this pairing would be a disaster and not one that either of them really wants. I truly hope that there can be some accomodation where her achievements in this race are acknowleged and a similarly fresh face can be put forward with Barack, to give the country a real choice for the FUTURE!

anyone who thinks she'd be a liability to the ticket is living in a fantasy world

at Team Clinton, fantasy is the new reality.

Well, color me living in a fantasy world.  I agree that a case can be made that she helps the ticket, but a strong one can also be made that she would bring out a lot of republicans and hurt the ticket.

Suggesting that those of us who think she is not the best VP candidate are living in a fantasy world is beneath you.  I certainly will not have a problem if she is chosen, but I suspect if one were to take a national poll of Obama vs. McCain with each of the next three primary finishers - Clinton, Edwards, Richardson - as running mates, the Obama/Clinton pairing would not come out the best.  Obviously this race is an electoral college one, not a national one, so one could look state by state and see what would happen.  I think Clinton would potentially turn exactly one state - Florida, and might actually hurt in Ohio and PA.  Florida is a big deal, but I think others would help more.