Anyone else starting to reconsider Hillary for VP?

[jobycom]

There are a lot of negatives to her on the ticket. She's waffled on issues. Republicans hate her. She's a moderate at best. Two Senators is a weak ticket. She is only strong where Kerry is already strong. She could overshadow Kerry. I had written her off a while back.

But lately, as i try to fit Edwards into the slot, or Graham, or Richardson, or Clark, or anyone else, there's something missing. The WOW factor, or whatever it is being called these days, is missing. People expect Edwards, and it will be seen as a consolation prize for him, or as an attempt to groom him for the job later (Not by me, i love him and I crave a southern accent on the ticket, but by many). Graham's too old, and I think he's been dropped already. Clark has praised Bush too often-- not good to give Republicans easy commercials.

Hillary has the wow factor. She is not being considered much now, so it would surprise people. She is a woman, and that always gives an edge to a ticket, all other things being equal (that's not sexism, any ballot analyst will tell you that is just statistically true). She has been in the White House, so despite the fact that she's a one-termer, she's still experienced. She's a direct tie to the peace and prosperity of Bill Clinton. And face it, the Republicans aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway.

There are more, but you all know how long I write when I get going, so I'll stop. Thoughts? Lots of negatives, but certainly lots of attention, and not all of it bad. She did win a race that she wasn't expected to.

[Wickerman]

1. Arrrrghhh eom

[Direckshun]

2. Nah.

She hasn't expressed interest in it. Kerry hasn't expressed interest in it.

I'm looking at Edwards, Gephardt, or that other Florida senator.

[jobycom]

11. Gephardt? He's a DINO. He'd be Kerry's Lieberman

Why Gephardt?

[Direckshun]

15. I know Missouri's important...

...and Bush has a lead here in Missouri.

Plus Gephardt was consistently the best debater (alongside Kucinich) in all the Democratic debates, and is perhaps the only VP candidate (alongside Edwards) who would be aggressive and sharp enough to take it to Cheney.

Who do you think would be better?

[jobycom]

28. Who would be better than Gephardt?

For me, the list would be quite long, and would only leave off maybe three or four Democrats that I would place behind him. I don't like Gephardt. He's smooth enough at times, and he's improved with age, but not enough to get my support. Not long ago he was my posterchild for the bad kind of Democrat. Thanks to Miller, he's no longer there, but he's not far up.

He's not popular with anyone I know, but I live in Texas, so that shouldn't be a deciding factor, I guess. Kerry wouldn't win Texas if he picked Ann Richards.

[Direckshun]

43. Who cares who's popular in Texas.

;)

I mean, I hate to say your state doesn't matter, but Kerry couldn't pry Texas from Bush with a crowbar. :)

Missouri is a battleground state, however. Geppy's huge here.

[jobycom]

49. Yeah, but then the REST of us would be stuck with him

Gephardt's too pro invasion. Not like Kerry, where he said he was giving Bush the authority to negotiate but opposed what he did with it. Gephardt, last I heard, said Bush did the right thing. Hillary is better than that, by a long, long shot.

[newsguyatl]

3. no

and btw, she was horrible on letterman the other night... couldn't tell if she were a neo-con or just republican. but she certainly wasn't a democrat.

[mmonk]

4. No more the war was right democrats

if it were up to me.

[coloradodem2005]

5. Clark.

kick

[Maccagirl]

6. No, No and NO!

A guaranteed win for *. An election (especially one this important) is not a case of "any publicity is good publicity." For some reason she brings out the worst in people without trying.

[jobycom]

14. Not for no reason

It's because the Republicans have worked their butts off to make her appear that way. When people saw her face-to-face in an election, she won.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. She won in NY

A bit more hospitable state to Democrats than nationwide. Also Lazio wasn't exactly a top notch opponent.

[madrchsod]

7. nooooooooooo

that`s the kiss of death....wait for Chelsea to run

[ButterflyBlood]

8. it's not just Republicans who hate her

my ultra-liberal aunt said she wouldn't vote for her. I suspect she would in this case due to ABB, but we don't want someone voting for Kerry in spite of his VP.

fact is, she wouldn't win any voters, we'd lose her Senate seat, and she's already said no.

[jobycom]

16. Are you sure we don't?

Want someone voting for Kerry in spite of his VP, I mean? That's how the first JFK got elected. People liked one or the other, but not both.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. that won't happen here

some will like both, some will like Kerry but not Hillary, but I can't see anyone disliking Kerry enough to vote AGAINST him (and thus for *), but liking Hillary enough to vote for Kerry. The only people who like Hillary and dislike Kerry are blind Kerry bashers who can't see that there isn't a single issue on which Kerry is to the right of Hillary.

face it, there's not a single person who'd even think about voting for * that would be swayed by Hillary. She is liked on the left alone.

[jobycom]

27. I don't buy that

I say that hesitantly, because you have good points. But Hillary hasn't been campaigning, and she is still being continually bashed by Bushco. Of course her image is down.

But she's won New York (not that Kerry should have trouble there, but it shows she can win votes). She has swayed moderates before. She also sets up nicely against Cheney, and Bush. A lot of Rove's work has been an attempt to paint Kerry as an extreme liberal, so Hillary would add a balance to that.

She brings voters that Kerry won't, but you are right, I think, in that she wouldn't bring any states that Kerry won't. LBJ brought Texas. But Kerry should already get New York and Illinois.

But the same was true of Gore for Clinton, and Cheney for Bush. That's the new dynamic-- superstars with national appeal. Rather than going after statewide candidates like Lieberman, people have gone after VPs who enhance their strengths in their own states. This does two things-- one, it frees the ticket up to fight in borderline states, and two, it gives a boost in those borderline states by drawing extra star power to the ticket. That makes the states more winnable. Hillary in some of the border states would boost the Democrat's historical edge with women by a few percentage points, and those would all be votes won in the middle-- pulled away from Bush, in other words-- so they count twice.

Plus, it gives the ticket that whole historical "first woman" status, and that in itself could pull a few votes.

I hear all the arguments everyone is making, and they are the same arguments I have been making. Until recently, while trying to fit another VP into a winning strategy. Aside from a candidate who can carry a southern state, and there's no proof that Edwards can, or Florida, I think picking a VP based upon state popularity is a losing strategy. Edwards didn't do well enough in the south for me to consider him a lock. (He didn't do badly enough for me to write him off, either.). And there's no candidate from a state that would automatically give Kerry a state he wouldn't already have.

States are extremely divided along partisan lines right now. Which means that a candidate who has a winning record in a state now is often of the party that will win that state anyway. So any state with a Democrat prominent enough to help Kerry already has a good chance to go Democrat. Edwards is the one exception, but since he's only won one election in his state, it's hard to be sure he'd win again.

I don't know. It's either got to be Edwards, or a superstar. The rest would be throwaways. Superstars make you more viable in all states. There just aren't many superstars available. (Please not clark!).

[gate of the sun]

31. I'd like to be able to at least be excited by the

VP. I am already voting for kerry despite himself. There are a few potentials for VP that I cannot live with......Richardson for one and Hillary for another.

[friggin_genius]

9. Hillary for prez...

and Kerry for vP. that's more suitable combo.

[Leilani]

10. No!!!

And no!

[jrthin]

12. No. n/t

nt

[leesa]

13. Zero interest. Can't America float any candidates that aren't warhawks?

[Bombtrack]

17. Rove would just loooooovvve that. There are women who haven't been

SUCCESSFULLY demonized who would make sense as Kerry's vp. Most of all Mary Landrieu, but also Kathleen Sebelius and Jane Harman. All three are in consideration from the campaign as has been reported in various outlets.

[jobycom]

34. Good choices, too.

The thing people forget is that Bush will demonize whoever runs, and he will do it successfully. So they will be demonized. Whether they can survive that is the issue. Hillary has, so we know she can. And none of those would look better than Hillary by November, after Bush's attacks on them.

Bush is an idiot, but don't underestimate his ability to turn an opponent's strength into a weakness. That's what he's done at every stage of every election, and trust me, I've been in position to vote in every election W has been in, except the 78 House raise. I know a thing or two about his methods.

[orthogonal]

18. What are you smoking?

Hillary Clinton's negatives among non-Democrats would shove a lot of swing voters into the Republican camp, and allow the Republicans to tar Kerry with Bill Clinton's low crimes and misdemeanors.

"Lots of attention" isn't the same as "lots of support".

[KG]

19. heh.

thought the dems. badly needed a win this year?

[DEMVET-USMC]

22. Not I said the Duck, Gen. Clark is my pick for V.P.

We need to win this election and Hillary Clinton can only hurt our chances of doing so at this time. Four or eight years from now who is to say, but not this election. The Republicans would like nothing better than to run against a surrogate Bill Clinton , event as V.P.. We need to win this one and Gen. Clark is the man to fill out the ticket. GO DEMOCRATS, LET`S WIN THIS ONE FOR THE WORLD`S SAKE ! ...Oscar

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

23. She'd drag in all the Clinton baggage for the RW to bash

and take all the focus off Kerry. I love Bill Clinton and never gave a damn about his sex life, but a lot of people hate him and think Hillary was a fool to forgive him. I don't want to give them an easy reason to reject Kerry. And while it's true she won in a blue state, I don't think she'd pull as well in the red states.

I don't know that "wow" is as important this year as "phew," as in "what a relief." I would feel more relieved with Clark on the ticket.

[jobycom]

33. Good!

Let them bash away, it never hurt Clinton, and it never hurt Gore as much as Gore thought it did. Clinton had 60% approval. People might just remember why they liked him if the Republicans make him an issue.

And if they are pounding on the VP, Kerry gets less pounding. I thought of that as a positive, not a negative, in my calculations. Remember when Bush Daddy chose Quayle, and we thought it was the death of him, and we spent all of our time pounding on the halfwit? Bush won. People don't write off candidates because of the VP.

And Clark? C'mon, how many commercials do you think the Republicans would run a day of Clark saying "America is lucky to have George W Bush as president"? That would be far worse than anything they could do to Hillary. If they wail on Hillary, it doesn't hurt Kerry. If they play Kerry's VP praising Bush, it does help Bush.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

42. If I thought a centrist woman Senator would add wow, I'd go for Landrieu

Fresh meat. Deep South roots. No old baggage.

Quayle didn't cost 41 the election, but Quayle's Stepford wife hadn't been running the country for eight years either. There are too many variables to draw a straight-line comparison between Quayle and Clinton as VP choices.

As for Clark's quote, I think the criminal coup's use of it would roll off the Dems, much as you think the simmering kettle of anti-"Billary" sentiment wouldn't explode all over Kerry. Maybe we are both right, or both wrong.

It was Bill who kept us safe, who kept us employed and who maintained our stature in the world. But it wouldn't be Bill running for VP.

[jobycom]

51. They would create baggage for Landrieu

Look at what the did to Gore and McCain, two of the most respected politicians in Washington until they decided to run against Bush. Look what happened to Clinton. One year Republicans are picking him as the best governor in America, two years later they convince the world he's Satan. And eight year later they still convince the world he was Satan even though he gave us eight years of unprecedented peace, prosperity and international respect.

Bush will slander her until her own family will reject her. Hillary has been through that, but someone who hasn't will not expect it. I've seen it. I've seen stronger politicians than Landrieu underestimate it when they thought they were facing it head on. Bush convinced half of Texas that Ann Richards was a drunken lesbian sleeping with the Roe v Wade lawyer and sending in national guard troops to slaughter the Branch Davidians. And Texans already knew Richards, who had a 70% approval rating. Imagine what he'll do to an unknown.

Whoever Kerry chooses has to be someone with a high profile already, because Bush will shred them. People keep saying we need someone without skeletons, but they miss the point. Bush will create the skeletons, and the media will sell them to the public.

And for the record, I was born in Louisiana, and grew up just across the border in Mississippi. My family is from Louisiana. So I have a lot of reason to like Landrieu. But she would be shredded.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

52. Not my point

I didn't suggest her as a candidate who can't be attacked - as I said, she'd be fresh meat - but as a centrist woman Senator who isn't Clinton.

My point is, No Hillary.

[Bake]

24. Not in a zillion years!

Waaaaaaaaaaay too many negatives. You could kiss the South goodbye, along with most of the midwest -- states that we might have a chance in without her.

Bake

[William Seger]

25. Thank you, NO.

Clark or Edwards. Hillary has a "wow factor" we don't need; * would raise another 200 million within a month.

[papau]

26. I'd like her on the ticket and think it'd help - but Clark/Dean/ Edwards

all have a bit of wow - and Gep has also in the midwest union areas.

[gate of the sun]

29. no

and I mean no. I don't want Hillary I'm am very put off by her statements regarding the Iraq war.I don't respect her and I will never vote for her. This war is wrong and many too many innocents are dying. I'm sick of the bullshit. Hillary was begged not to vote for this war and she did it and she's not sorry for it. I have no reason to desire Hillary as vice-president.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. If Hillary was on the ticket

the Republicans' GOTV efforts would be made much easier.

Also, she has no center. She tends to waffle when it's expedient, and I'm really tired of that type of thing.

[jobycom]

35. Those are good points.

But I'm not sure the GOP GOTV efforts are going to be hard this time around. They hate us, no matter who we run.

[maggrwaggr]

32. Hillary is a DINO and I despise her

[shanti]

36. HELL......NO

n/t

[tilsammans]

37. No to Hillary . . . not in the 2004 election . . .

. . . and maybe not ever. She's not electable IMO. There are too many Hillary haters, and they never seem to go away.

[takebackourjobs]

38. No

This things gonna be a landslide without adding the uncertainty of the Clinton name on the ticket. Why risk it?

[ringmastery]

39. Hillary isn't interested in VP

First of all, she made a promise to the voters of NY to serve her complete term. If she goes on the ticket and the ticket loses, she's fucked when she goes for re-election in 2006 or if she runs for prez in 2008.

Secondly, Hillary isn't the type to play second bananna. If Kerry loses, Hillary will be elected president in 2008. That I am absolutely sure of.

Four more years of Bush fucking this country up will get Hillary elected. No doubt in my mind. All the swing voters will be for anyone but a republican in 2008.

[napi21]

40. NO! It's too soon.

too many people wouldn't vote for a Kerry/Clinton ticket because the agony of the * years of Pug abuse is still too fresh.

As far as ability, I think she is the best choice, but it would be politixal suicide for Kerry.

[Bread and Circus]

41. No, I don't want her 10 millions miles near the ticket.

Sorry.

And she doesn't have the "Wow" factor.

She has the "polarizing" factor.

She also has the "who the hell do the Clintons think they are?"
factor. Sorry. Wrong choice.

[yellowdawgdem]

44. It's a definite maybe ...eom

[AgadorSparticus]

45. nope. i don't want to see hillary on this ticket.

i bought 4 of her hardback copies (to give away) and am a big fan--until recently. i get the impression that she seems to think that her road to the WH is contingent on appeasing the conservatives. :puke:

maybe they spike something in that washington water cooler. these stupid politicians have a knack for forgetting who their bases are that got them there.

[Blue-Jay]

46. Oh, for cryin' out loud.... NO.

[TruthIsAll]

47. Some Repubs sure WILL vote for Kerry. They are that pissed.

"And face it, the Republicans aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway".

Some will. The only question is: How many? We know anecdotally that there are life-long Repubs who will NOT vote for Bush. Very telling.

If 12% (1 of 8) vote for Kerry, Bush is done.

[Tinoire]

48. No. The Rape of Fallujah + "No regret on Iraq vote" = No -> Hell No

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

April 21, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

<snip>

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

SWEET DREAMS HILLARY

[Beloved Citizen]

50. The "DINO" thing is inane

So who isn't a DINO? Kucinich?

People who spend their time yammering about some sort of imagined standard of purity bugs me. We're up against the most reactionary and evil administration in U.S. history, and still some people can't move beyond petty resentment.

Edwards. He'd light a fire under Kerry.