Watching this shit with my red-dyed republican grandfather has been hilarious. Did you know that Obama should have come out and condemned the Jena 6? He would have won the south then. And that Hillary's going to wilt when someone brings up Whitewater? because she has no practice at handling 15 year old scandals. old people are dumb.

I am old, and smart.

Seeing Hill go on all four news programs this morning... with grace, focus, substance.... I think the idea that 1/2 the people hate her, she'll energize the Republican base, and can't win the general... is more and more a dated opinion. I think she's the next president. How about Clark as VP?

My comment during her stop on MTP, "She is going to be really tough to debate one on one in the general, like I feel a little sorry for Rudy(if its him--Thompson would fare even worse). What's he gonna do, dick jokes about cigars?"

She's picking up support here b/c she's promising to deliever on the Wuerter(sp) bill.

I dunno, The Clin-tons are big enough war mongers on their own without having a bona fide military man as the VP.

A warmonger who wants to NOT be in Iraq might be a could idea in 2008.

Do we really want an all GARkansas executive branch?

Clark's problem is lack of any real political experience or relevance. If she's the nominess, they will try to find someone who can put a state in play, or shore up a swing state, or otherwise add something to the ticket besides bombing a bunch of Eastern Europeans into submission.

(Haven't seen this yet, as I got back from Tuscaloosa at 3:30am)

What would you recommend to do this? I'm thinking that the west is a growth area for Dems, so maybe the Gov of Colorado (still in first term, though) or Salazar (I know, an hobby-horse of mine, them Mountain Time Latinos/Latinas in politics), or if you really wanted to surprise, the Dem Mayor of Salt Lake City. But I'm thinking you mean the Dirty Dirty, so prolly Bill Nelson (D-FL) or the Gov of Virginia (not M. Warner; I mean, the sitting governor).

Clinton/Kaine would be better than Clinton/Nelson, I think.

As I posted this, I was trying to come up with someone aside from Fat Mex as the logical choice, and the only one who came to my mind was Montana's Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Nice catch. On both. I was actually going to mention Richardson, though, but reconsidered when I evaluated your knocks on Clark. Clinton/Richardson, like Clinton/Clark, would bring a dual first Clinton admin ticket (treble, if you want to consider Bill as much (more) co-president than Hillary ever were), & all the bad memory (as much as the good) of that time. Plus, there's a bona fide (as bona fide as any got) Clinton scandal to hang on Richardson, since he was in charge of the Energy Dept (though not until he was brought in to clean it up, not oversee the "spying"), & you know the GOP would hype that CHINEE SPY story to no end.

If young people would actually vote, maybe this would matter.

Agreed on the "too much CLIN-TON" problem vis-a-vis Richardson...which is why this game is so hard. Do they do what Kerry did and pick this year's rival/fresh face of Obama (is this why Obama is loathe to fully engage Hilly Clint?) do they try something different like Gore (this could open the door to Schweitzer, Nelson, Clark or even someone like Sam Nunn) or go their own way and pick some random?

Plus, with 4 months, and Obama having more CoH after this quarter, it's not a 100% she is going to be the nominee -- I know, I know, formality of formalities, ACTUAL VOTERS stating a preference.

Oh...and I don't personally think vice-president is of vital importance. I know I"m probably in the minority saying so. But, I can't really remember the last time I had any sort of discussion about a presidential election where the conversation ended up with the vice-presidential candidate being the deciding factor.

I'm still skeptical of Hillary. But, then again, the places she loses the most votes are places the Democrats generally lose anyway. So, maybe. But, I still see lots of visceral bad reactions about her, at least from who I talk to. I'm not talking about hard core Republicans, but people who I know have swung back and forth over the years.

And then, on a personal level...I don't trust her at all with her war stance. We either have to believe she was so stupid to be duped by Bush and the Republicans into voting for war, or she somehow has had a giant change of heart, or what's the other option she's trying to sell us?

Not sure a black guy with a funny name doesn't have even less a chance to win this than a woman with lots of political baggage, but I'd take Obama over the rest of the field just 'cause I'd feel a bit better about my vote.

She'll never pick Obama for obvious reasons... the American public already struggling with a woman, will have a hard time electing a woman and mixed race young guy with little national experience.

I agree that ultimately who the VP nominee is means little, other than it is the first "official" decision of a potential president. It still has almost the ritualistic power of initiation ceremonies. Here, I throw the burning spear in front of your house.

Clinton-Webb. Or... ha, Clinton-Feinstein.

1. The choice of VP, in addition to being "the first 'official' decision of a potential president" as harry said is also a great opportunity for your opposition to destroy you if you make the wrong decision--see McGovern/Eagleton '72.

2. I also think that there will be increased emphasis placed on the VP in this cycle because of one Dick Cheney and his assertions that the VP isn't a part of the Executive, running a shadow government out of the VP's office etc.; it should lay the groundwork for some Constitutional redefining of the position, but will probably just amount to one news cycles worth of pithy quotes from the VP's debate.

The new CW is Bayh's Endorsement puts him in the driver's seat. The problem is, if she wins, the Senate Calculus of "getting to 60" becomes harder. (That is, if you think the Dems aren't going to take seats like Idaho, and therefore will need Indiana, which only Bayh can hold)

In that case, what about taking on Harkin? His presence might secure Iowa -- a state that Kerry lost, after Clinton took it twice (I think), as well Gore in '00 -- & help in other farm-country & rust-belt states, plus he's got more of a grandfatherly &/or elder statesman mien, meaning he offers experience but not malice (i.e. the good of Cheney, minus the bad).

(Of course, if anybody knew who Vilsack were, I'd offer him instead of Harkin.)

Clinton-Harkin

That sounds reasonable. Maybe a little too reasonable.

Wow. Agreement from both Harry & Bloor. Now, if LooGAR chimes in with a 'yay', I'll be sure I'm wrong (since no way I could be that right).

I went to see Bill speak when he was campaigning in '92 -- EARLY in the campaign. I had heard that he had a pretty smart wife, but then she spoke for a bit before Bill got there.

As I left the event, I commented to my friends, "Damn, SHE could be the freaking president!"

I am so smart. I am so smart. S-M-R-T!!!

Interesting thing I read about Clinton choosing Gore: screw someone who contrasts with you/complements your perceived weaknesses; play to your strengths.

Not sure who that puts the onus on.

That could mean Hillary reaching across the aisle & selection Sen. Collins or Snowe from Maine (female, centrist, New England/Mid-Atlantic base), or Harry's joking (?) suggestion of Feinstein.

Or, hell, if it might mean Napolitano, I would be on it like flies on shit.

Feinstein rocks.

Care to elaborate?

As of now, the least likely thing I ever expected to read on Obner. (The most likely? Me posting an afreshstartforme type thread, opening, "I got busted for solicitation last nite...".)