Now she is open for the VP slot, although their policies are a bit similar, but how would that work for her to be Obama's running mate? How can King Pharaoh and King David rule in the same kingdom without having disputes over one thing or the other? Can Barack be able to alienate Clintons supporters even if he doesnt pick her as his running mate? This is so damn complicated, a right move has to be made to secure a WIN come November, and also making sure that Obama has not made a bad decision picking her.

No --

That ticket would make no more sense than a George Washington/George III ticket.

Beathan

Beathan, can you elaborate more on reply to this post?

The most hardcore, hyperdevoted Clintonites seem to have indicated that they wouldn't vote for Obama *even if Clinton were on the ticket* because that would be an insult to her, or something. So adding HRC at the bottom of the tickets won't bring aboard the very small but really, really vocal group of registered Democrats who will not ever vote for Obama under any circumstances. Aside from this group, amongst other Democrats who much prefer Hillary, I would presume that the vast majority are rational enough to see that the policies pursued under a Pres. Obama would conform much more closely to those that would be pursued under a Pres. HRC than would those of Pres. McCain. Adding HRC thus adds virtually nothing to the ticket besides a whole lot of liabilities: the ego-tripping Bill recently detailed in Vanity Fair, the shadows of past scandals from the previous decade, her on-record comments about the unsuitability of the guy at the top of the ticket; the energization of kneejerk anti-Clintonism on the right; etc. etc. etc.

To me Jim Webb is the clear VP choice, with one caveat: he has to address the article he wrote in the late 1970s, "Women Can't Fight." If he makes clear his position --AND numerous prominent female leaders such as the California senators, Pelosi, Sibelius, Napolitano, NOW leaders, Gloria Steinem, and above all Hillary Clinton herself, enthusiastically endorse and campaign hard for this ticket--then pro-Clinton Democratic women will surely come aboard.

OK -- To start with, Obama is campaigning on change. He speaks of a "new kind of politics" -- as distinguished from what? As distinguished from the snide, snarky, juvenile, highly charge, dramatic,highly partisan politics of the Bush-CLINTON era. Obama has specifically promised his supporters and the nation that he will "turn the page" on the Bush-CLINTON era. How can he continue to make that case if he is bringing the Bush-CLINTON era along by having Hillary Clinton as his runningmate?

Second, I don't see that Clinton gives him anything in terms of the electoral map. She might help in Arkansas -- but the chance of any Democrat (including HRC herself) winning Arkansas is very low. NY is already blue. Pennsylvania should be blue, even for Obama -- and if there is a worry, he would do better with another running mate (Rendell -- or better Strickland to get the Ohio/Penn two-fer). I have heard that Clinton might turn Florida. I don't believe this. Florida has gone red -- and will stay red. Again, I don't believe that Clinton would win Florida if she were on the top of the ticket -- how does she do it on the bottom.

Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket does not even seem to help much with her own supporters. Her supporters fall into three categories: 1. loyal Democrats who think that she is the better candidate; 2. fanatical Hillary supporters (mostly older women) who feel cheated and/or personally rejected and demeaned by her loss; and 3. racist and Republican trolls who hate the idea of a black President. The first group votes for Obama even if Hillary Clinton is not on the ticket. The last group don't vote for Hillary Clinton against McCain -- so they certainly won't vote for Obama just because HRC is on the ticket. The middle group is more iffy -- but I think that these voters will either reconcile themselves to the loss and vote for Obama whether or not HRC is on the ticket or will write in Hillary Clinton or vote for McCain out of misguided and self-destuctive spleen -- and will do so regardless of whether HRC is on the ticket.

Hillary Clinton would help with hispanic voters -- but not nearly as much as a hispanic VP choice (Richardson, Salazar) would.

Finally, I don't think very many people vote for tickets based on who the VP candidate is. Certainly, some favored son candidates can help -- but they have to be an exceptional person with exceptional ties to a key state (maybe Evan Bayh, or Governor Sibelius, or Warner/Webb/Kain). Clinton has no such ties to any state -- not even Arkansas.

This means that the VP should not be chosen based on electoral calculations -- but rather based on considerations of how the government will function after an election. Hillary Clinton is not a team player. She has been out for herself, to the detriment of Obama and the Democratic Party in this election. She would bring that same division and distraction into the government as VP -- and it must be kept out if Obama is to govern effectively. Besides, the Clintons appeal to the tabloid tendencies in journalism -- and would turn an Obama White House into a circus, just as the Clinton White House was. That would be a bad, bad scene.

Beathan

Thanks dbp1954

Beathan, I'll reply to your response shortly, I am watching CNN situation room, was watching Mccains speech as well, this man is pathetic, his speech was awful. Oh my lawd, is this a presumptive GOP nominee? BRB

I agree with Beathan: Clinton would be a poor choice as running mate. While the primary concern for a VP pick ought to be competence (as Bartlett put it on THE WEST WING, "Because I could die"), a VP should also be be used to shore up any major gaps in the top candidate's resume. For Obama, this could be geographic (a recognizable name could tip a swing state like Missouri or Colorado his way), experiential (a governor provides "executive experience" to the ticket, while a seasoned politician gives an air of credibility to the relative neophyte Obama), credibility on an issue (someone known for being well-versed in domestic or foreign affairs), or demographic (an older candidate to woo retirees, a Hispanic candidate to woo Hispanics, or a woman to woo...women).

HRC is a woman and would likely help court Democratic or Independent women, but she falls flat by every other measure. As Beathan points out, she delivers no geographic advantage (except perhaps, in extremely unlikely circumstances, Arkansas), no experience (for all her claims of it...plus she's never been an executive), and she's not known as being particularly up on domestic or foreign affairs. There are other possible female picks (Sibelius comes to mind, or perhaps McCaskill) who also score on other measures.

And that's not even mentioning HRC's baggage (Whitewater, Foster, White House china, cigars, etc.)

Well -- to be fair, she has a reputation on health care issues. She does not deserve her reputation on the big picture -- universal health care -- as her plan is irresponsible and her history is a history of failure; but, she has a good record on small legislation on small issues in health care. She also has a good reputation on child issues (again, suspect, but there).

However, to throw additional water on the "Hillary for veep" fire -- there is this:

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
Obama reached Clinton slightly after midnight, according to Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs.

Obama called to congratulate her on her South Dakota victory, and he reiterated his suggestion that they sit down at some point some when it makes sense for her.

Gibbs paraphrased her response was something to the effect of - I'm sure that will happen soon.

He added that he didn't know if she congratulated him.

There were emails between Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Obama aide Marvin Nicholson to set up a way for them to finally connect.

The Obama campaign said it had tried Clinton twice, but hadn't heard back. But there is no cell phone reception in the Baruch College gymnasium where Clinton held her rally.

That is no way for a VP contender to behave. There is no "I" in Party. There is no "I" in Democracy. There is only one "I" in President. There are two "I"s in "Vice President" -- because the Vice President is supposed to be a supportive shadow -- and appendage -- to the President. Given this, there were far, far too many "I"s in Hillary Clinton's speech.

Beathan