Two reasons:
1) From Obama’s point of view: There is no guarantee that it will unite the Democratic party, since those who were willing to support Clinton in the top slot might not do so with her in the second chair. There is a likelihood, however, that her presence could galvanize the GOP against her, which is exactly what Obama doesn’t want since McCain remains a candidate with soft support in the GOP. And it is problematic for Obama to sell himself as an agent of change when he’s got the symbol of Washington insider status quo as his running mate.
2) From Clinton’s point of view: According to the “West Wing” scenario, the young, vibrant, ethnic candidate chooses a Washington insider with close ties to a previous administration (and has one daughter) as his running mate who then dies on the eve of election. Why risk it?
PAD
• 
41 of 109, which is about 1/3 of the supreme court justices (at least as of 2005, according the CS Monitor article I pulled this info from) have never sat on the bench prior to their appointment to the Supreme court. Those who never served as a judge before includes (in no particular order) John Marshal, Earl Warren, Louis Brandies, William Renquist, John McKinly (at least I think he never sat on the bench before) and Felix Frankfurter, among others.
I don’t know if it’s a good fit for Senator Clinton, but unlike a no-name/political crony like Harriet Miers, there is plenty of precedent someone with Clinton’s background and experience to be appointed to the highest court of the land.
I think Obama needs a vp candidate with a strong working class appeal with heavy foreign relations experience, preferably not from the house or the senate. Where the hëll he’ll find that candidate I have absolutely no freaking idea.
Re: Reason #1
McCain has soft support in the GOP? That might be the understatement of the week. And the more he tries to gain Clinton supporters, the softer it gets.
Obama would have to mess up big time to lose to McCain. Oh, wait, that is what Hillary just did (in losing to Obama), so I guess it is possible. But based on the campaigns this far, it is unlikely.
So, PAD, come November, your “Freedom Clock” would be done with the Democrats holding Congress and the White House.(No worries, I will start one of my own.)
Iowa Jim
Strong working class appeal, heavy international experience, not currently in Congress.
That’d pretty much be Richardson, wouldn’t it?
Craig J. Ries: “At least they both spent some time, any time, as an actual federal judge. And practicing law in some fashion in the time preceding that. When’s the last time Clinton stepped into the courtroom in a capacity that didn’t involve being named in a lawsuit?”
You might want to take a look at her history. She spent about 20 years as a lawyer, during which time the National Law Journal named her as one of the 100 most influencial lawyers in the country. Twice. Also, her years in the Senate were spent dealing with laws, so while she hasn’t been a judge she’s done the same type of legal research that judges do. She’s hardly rusty on the law.
Hillary isn’t one of my favorite people in the world, but on resume alone she’s plenty qualified for the Suprememe Court. I agree with the general idea that there’s sense in a Justice having been a judge before, but I don’t see any particular skillset necessary for the job that Hillary lacks. You may agree or disagree with her views on issues that Justices will rule on, but there have been Justices with less qualifications than her.
If anything, I can see Obama negotiating with HRC to give her a cabinet post. I would imagine it would be one of three; Health and Human Services, Education or Housing and Urban Development, in that order.
I don’t think it’s realistic to assume she would make it beyond the Senate confirmation stage if nominated to the Supreme Court. She is polarizing and her confirmation would reopen her to a litany of unanswered questions about events the country has spent too much time pondering over already.
Oh thank you.
Americans in general, I mean.
Though I usually try to have some idea of what’s happening with American (and other) politics, the three-ring circus going on right about now has me on the edge of my seat. More importantly, it’s taking my mind off the utterly dismal state of Canadian politics.
Jeff in NC saID: 00″WTF? Supreme Court? Did that job description suddenly drop to only graduate from Law School?”
If Alito and Roberts are qualified, Hillary is. So is Bill.
Alito was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Roberts was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Whatever one thinks of their positions I don’t think it’s fair to say Hillary has anything near their legal qualifications.
Of course, any adult citizen is technically qualified to be on the court, so by that lofty standard she’s well suited. Lot’s of justices have had non-judge backgrounds but those were in the days where there was far less attention paid to the choices. Her nomination would be a circus.
Then again, if Obama nominated her and she went down in flames…I think he’d be able to sleep at night.
Truthfully the best thing Obama can do is to wait until the convention to pick his running mate. It will be very hard for the Hillarites to maintain their frenzy three months after their candidate has lost and with growing cries to unite behind the party’s nominee.
Words of wisdom, sir. I think you’ve got it exactly right. Nothing fades from view faster than an ex-candidate. Hillary may be a special case though…were I Obama I might pick my candidate right before the convention, so as to reduce the odds of any surprises from the Hillary fans at the convention. But I think by then the wind will pretty much be out of her sails and most of the people who say they will be voting for McCain out of spite will have come around.
If anything, I can see Obama negotiating with HRC to give her a cabinet post. I would imagine it would be one of three; Health and Human Services, Education or Housing and Urban Development, in that order.
But why would she take it? Isn’t Senator from New York a more powerful position? And as a cabinet officer she could be fired at any time. By a guy who probably does not like her much anyway. I can see where Obama would love to get her in a position where she can only follow his policies but why would she want that?
For me, the reason Clinton should not be the VP candidate is it would give me a momentary pause and make me reconsider voting for Obama. Odds are I still wouldn’t vote for him but it would give me pause and I’d have to think long and hard about it.
…if you don’t mind him illegally leaking Wen Ho Lee’s name as his espionage suspect to coerce him into pleading guilty to a crapload of charges he otherwise had no evidence of. And holding out from banning cockfighting until until his second term as governor so he could win reelection.
So the question is….
If not HRC then who?
Who would help Obama? Im very curious because I think this will be the most important decision.
Who out there would compliment Obama?
Regarding “what Hillary wants”: What she wants is to be POTUS. She has plenty of money. She and her husband can make up the money personally lent to her campaign with a couple more books, not to mention specches, etc. So I don’t think this is a great factor. I do feel she still thinks she can twist enogh armd at the convention to make her dream come true. It really is a paper-thin margin that separates the two, when you think about it.
I’ll believe Obama is the nominee when he gives his speech in Denver and not a moment before. The margin is too close and there is alot of time for something significant to happen.
Regarding Hillary as Secretary of State: Someone cited her foreign policy experience. Say what? Having teas at ceremonial functions and receiving flowers from little girls are not the experience I would want in a Secretary of State. Richardson or Biden would be far more qualified.
Regarding Hillary as Supreme Court nominee: No. No way in hëll this ever happens. It would make the Bork hearings look civil. And conservatives like George Will and Charles Krauthammer went ballistic when Bush nominated Miers, saying it disrespected the institution. How do you think they would react? And how do you think moderate/conservative DEMS would react? Pro-life Senators like Bob Casey would welcome a chance to vote against her.
Clinton doomed her VP potential when she said that McCain would make a better President than Obama. If Obama were to take her on, then it’s a guarantee that the McCain camp’s showcase commercial would be the videoclip of the Democrat VP nominee saying that the Democrat Presidential nominee was not fit to be President and McCain was.
There’s a lot of underhanded things done during the primaries. There’s a lot of true / partly true / outright false things said about each other in the primaries. One thing always remains constant, though – any of the guys that you’re competing with will be a much better President than the guy the other side chooses. Hillary broke that rule, and now she has to suffer the consequences for it.
…which enacting a winning plan to take the nomination away from an establishment juggernaut outdistances perhaps 20 to 1.
There’s been some speculation that the one thing that absolutely nails the coffin shut on Hillary getting the VP nod is that Bill Clinton has not allowed his recent financial dealings to be properly vetted. Why would Obama take the chance of having something bad come out at the wrong time? Would he take Bill’s word that everything is on the up and up? Heh, would anybody?
So who does he pick?
Sen. Claire McCaskill,–would really pìšš øff Hillary and has less experience than Obama. Long shot.
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia– Good military cred, appeals to white men but may not have much appeal beyond that. Some past statements may hurt him. Feminists would regard it as a slap. Too new.
Gov. Bill Richardson– lots of experience, huge resume, Hispanic. Hasn’t really impressed on the national stage though.
Gov. Ted Strickland– if he can deliver Ohio he would be worth it for that reason alone. A former minister (boy, anyone who doesn’t like to see religion and politics mixed may just have to hold their nose when they pull the lever for the Democrats this year.)
Gen. Wesley Clark- has been very quiet. Was a Hillary supporter so picking him could be seen as “healing”. Good military cred. Didn’t exactly live up to his early promise last time he ran. I think, had Hillary won he would have been a likely choice. For Obama, not so sure.
Sen. Joe Biden– lots of experience. Will never ever ever win the nomination so this is an opportunity he will leap at. Not a bad choice for Secretary of State either. Diarrhea of the mouth a problem.
My guess is that it will be a governor, preferably of a swing state but that may not be as important as experience and gravitas. Ted Strickland seems a good choice (even better if he’d been governor longer). He appeals to Republicans and recently was quick to demand the resignation of his crooked Attorney General, showing a lack of tolerance for corruption that many politicians could learn from.
A serious question here.
Given many people here appear to be knowledgeable in the American court system, might someone be able to explain to me what they mean in the cutscene screens in LAW & ORDER when they refer to “…Supreme Court … Part 32…” or Part 17, or … so forth.
I doubt it’s the room number. So what is it? The item number on that specific court’s judicial calendar?
I’d ask the Embassy staff, but the last time I had a question (how could you get a “.5” delegate? Note – this was before they gave half votes to Florida/Michigan) they were of no help whatsoever and instead sent me to somewhere else which was similarly useless.
Does anybody else think that Ted Kennedy could have been his choice except now….
The bottom line is that uniting the Democratic party isn’t Obama’s main concern. It’s uniting the country. And I don’t see Clinton as doing that.
PAD
Speaking of West Wing parallels, if Obama wins the election, should he offer McCain a position in the administration? Should McCain accept? Why or why not (to both questions)?
Rick
Peter David:The bottom line is that uniting the Democratic party isn’t Obama’s main concern. It’s uniting the country. And I don’t see Clinton as doing that.
What do you think all of the HRC supporters will do? Back Obama, Back McCain or opt-out totally.
I dont for a second believe they would support McCain.
Oh, I just had a thought… wouldn’t it be something if Obama asked Al Gore to be his running mate? Southerner, lots of experience (takes that right out of the equation). Wouldn’t mind seeing Ðìçk Gephardt in the number two slot either.
Sasha saID: 00″The appeal of SCOTUS is that it is supposed to be a non-political entity…”
But it isn’t, in reality. Witness the recent ruling that said a woman could NOT sue for lost wages because her company was paying her less than the men doing the same work. Why? Because she didn’t file the suit within 180 days of getting the job. She didn’t find out until years had gone by. The company was very good at keeping that information from her. This was the Court going along with the Republican screed that there are too many specious lawsuits.
And given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, legalized abortion will soon be a thing of the past. I fully agree that there should not be as many abortions as there are, but all abortions should be performed in a hospital by trained professionals, not in an underground clinic by unlicensed people.
Oh, I’m perfectly aware that SCOTUS isn’t as non-partisan as ought to be but it still has a aura of being above the fray that, fairly or not, would disappear if Hillary joined the court.
mister pj: Oh, I just had a thought… wouldn’t it be something if Obama asked Al Gore to be his running mate? Southerner, lots of experience (takes that right out of the equation). Wouldn’t mind seeing Ðìçk Gephardt in the number two slot either.
I dont think Al Gore would want to give up his Global Warming/carbon credit gig. Gephardt would be nice but both of these choices kind of take the “change” mantra out of Obama’s message.
My guess is that it will be a governor, preferably of a swing state but that may not be as important as experience and gravitas.
I agree that it will be a governor (or former governor), but Obama will need somebody with experience.
I have the feeling that Richardson would be on Obama’s list for those reasons. And, let’s face it, Richardon’s Hispanic heritage wouldn’t hurt the ticket.
I can’t really think of anybody else though off the top of my head.
I keep thinking of Richardson, too. Geographically, he’s what Obama wants. Politically, he’s got the type of foreign policy experience that Obama needs. If Richardson isn’t Obama’s VP pick, I would expect him to be his pick for Secretary of State.
A serious question here.
Given many people here appear to be knowledgeable in the American court system, might someone be able to explain to me what they mean in the cutscene screens in LAW & ORDER when they refer to “…Supreme Court … Part 32…” or Part 17, or … so forth.
I doubt it’s the room number. So what is it? The item number on that specific court’s judicial calendar?
I’d ask the Embassy staff, but the last time I had a question (how could you get a “.5” delegate? Note – this was before they gave half votes to Florida/Michigan) they were of no help whatsoever and instead sent me to somewhere else which was similarly useless.
New York is somewhat wacky, here. The New York Supreme Court is closer to most other states Superior Court, i.e. a trial court, not a court of appeals. The “Parts” are individual courts within the (New York) Supreme Court system.
What most of the people are talking about when they mention the Supreme Court, (especially regarding a nom of Hillary to the Supremem Court) is the US Supreme Court, which is the highest federal court in the nation, and in almost all respects a Court of Appeals, but on rare occasions is the original trial court.
Obama to Hillary: “I would have to be crazy to have you as running mate.”
Hillary: (who expected the offer) “Why?”
Obama: “A running mate is supposed to balance the ticket. You want somebody respected whose personality and reputation will not overpower your own. Having you is too close to having a second President next to me…and that’s a problem you were going to have to deal with anyway if you won, what with Bill moving back into the White House. If I put you on the ticket, I destroy everything I’ve put into building my reputation, and raise questions that I exist in office only as your puppet. Trust me, coming off the era of Bush / Cheney, nobody wants that.”
Hillary: (coldly) “Then why I am here, Senator? What DO you intend to offer me?”
Obama: “I want you in my Administration. I want you to have experience beyond the Senate and that 2 AM phone call, so you can have another run in 2012. But even assuming that your time has passed and that the 2012 run doesn’t happen, I want you in a position where you’re motivated to give your all.”
Hillary: “Like I wouldn’t?”
Obama: “Listen to me, Senator. I watched you and your family dragged through the mud for eight years. I watched those jackals spend eighty million dollars trying to convict you for a land deal where you lost money; I saw them accuse you of murder in Vince Foster’s suicide; I saw them finally go after your family when your husband — listen to me — when your husband did something that should have been nobody’s business but you and your family’s. I have heard your complaints about the vast right-wing conspiracy. And I expect to have the House and I expect to have to Senate and we have just come off an Administration that was not held accountable to its many high crimes and misdemeanors. Crimes that include treason.”
Hillary: (beginning to get interesting) “What are you saying?”
Obama: “I’m saying that I want them scared of the justice that’s coming for them. I want you in the one position that they know you’ll take personally and that will make them piss their pants.”
Hillary: “What?”
Obama: “Two words, Senator.”
Hillary: “You mean?”
Obama: “Special Prosecutor.”
Obama to Hillary: “I would have to be crazy to have you as running mate.”
Hillary: (who expected the offer) “Why?”
Obama: “A running mate is supposed to balance the ticket. You want somebody respected whose personality and reputation will not overpower your own. Having you is too close to having a second President next to me…and that’s a problem you were going to have to deal with anyway if you won, what with Bill moving back into the White House. If I put you on the ticket, I destroy everything I’ve put into building my reputation, and raise questions that I exist in office only as your puppet. Trust me, coming off the era of Bush / Cheney, nobody wants that.”
Hillary: (coldly) “Then why I am here, Senator? What DO you intend to offer me?”
Obama: “I want you in my Administration. I want you to have experience beyond the Senate and that 2 AM phone call, so you can have another run in 2012. But even assuming that your time has passed and that the 2012 run doesn’t happen, I want you in a position where you’re motivated to give your all.”
Hillary: “Like I wouldn’t?”
Obama: “Listen to me, Senator. I watched you and your family dragged through the mud for eight years. I watched those jackals spend eighty million dollars trying to convict you for a land deal where you lost money; I saw them accuse you of murder in Vince Foster’s suicide; I saw them finally go after your family when your husband — listen to me — when your husband did something that should have been nobody’s business but you and your family’s. I have heard your complaints about the vast right-wing conspiracy. And I expect to have the House and I expect to have to Senate and we have just come off an Administration that was not held accountable to its many high crimes and misdemeanors. Crimes that include treason.”
Hillary: (beginning to get interesting) “What are you saying?”
Obama: “I’m saying that I want them scared of the justice that’s coming for them. I want you in the one position that they know you’ll take personally and that will make them piss their pants.”
Hillary: “What?”
Obama: “Two words, Senator.”
Hillary: “You mean?”
Obama: “Special Prosecutor.”
Announcement to come Monday?
Ron Paul/Hillary Clinton 3rd party ticket.
“Of course, any adult citizen is technically qualified to be on the court”
And actually, the requirements aren’t even as stringent as that. The justices of the supreme court are whoever is chosen by the President, approved by the Congress, and who remain in good behavior.
I’m asking that my three year old daughter be offered the position. Don’t worry, she’ll be four by the time Obama takes office.
Is there a precedent for a candidate picking as a running-mate someone who did as badly in a primary as Richardson did? Someone who dropped out the week after Iowa?
The first paragraph summarizing Richardson’s stint as energy secretary in his Wikipedia entry dives right into the subject of Wen Ho Lee. Making Richardson his running-mate — or giving him any substantial responsibility — expecting him to not do or say something categorically stupid seems to be detached from reality.
Pat Nolan,
There are many, many HRC supporters who will definitely support McCain. many are pìššëd øff and feel she was screwed and will not support the “rock star” Obama. many are really Reagan democrats who preferred her ( and her husband) to Bush but feel McCain speaks more to them. many are older women who are not caught up in Obama-mania and instead want someone they see as experienced, honorable and a veteran. Many voted for HRC specifically because they see Obama as too liberal and would never vote for him in a million years, but see McCain as closer to their values.
Of course, if McCain keeps giving speeches like he did Tuesday, all that can change…
Jerome: “Of course, if McCain keeps giving speeches like he did Tuesday, all that can change…”
That’s the key thing.
For the people who genuinely have Clinton as their first choice and McCain as their second choice, that’s fine. But for the people who are angry at Obama because Clinton lost, that anger is going to fade.
Right now the anger seems all important because it is *recent*. However, the more McCain makes speeches and talks about his policies, the farther away those people will get from Hillary’s loss.
Two months from now some big fuss is going to be made about McCain, whether it’s a scandle or him yelling at someone or a change to the landscape that makes him look bad in the way that this recession has. A month later something like that will happen with Obama. Then they’ll both have minor gaffes, then everyone will spend endless hours arguing about who won the debates. By the time November rolls around, some people who thought they’d never forgive Obama for beating Clinton will be focused on whoever pìššëd them off *recently*.
What seem like many, many angry HRC supporters now will be considerably fewer once they wake up with their hangovers and look at McCain lying in the bed next to them.
(I’m actually not as anti-McCain as that last bit made me sound. I just think that’s how the HRC supporters are going to feel about it.)
It’s too late to get a new third party or independent candidate on the fall ballot in many states. (Date list available here: http://colbert08.us/content/view/15/2/ )
Hey, you only need 290 signatures to be a presidential candidate in Delaware. Maybe I’ll do that next year. I’m still kicking myself for not having run for governor of California when getting on the ballot was a mere $3000 fee.
Jason Bryant,
Can’t disagree with too much about what you said, except my main point at the end was that McCain’s speech on Tuesday was TERRIBLE. In prentation. In having too few people. But most importantly because McCain looked weird. It reminded me of the last debate between Mondale and Reagan where Mondale looked like a raccoon on TV. Plus there was that weird, forced smile everytime he said “Is that change we can believe in?” (Memo to McCain camp: If you can’t have him say that line with more authority and without looking creepy, please abandon it.) Plus, if the best the McCain campaign camp can do is respond to Obama by aping his slogans, they are dead meat.
How he PRESENTS his message will go a long way toward determining whether this is repeat of ’96 or ’88.
McCain is obviously keeping expectations for his debates low. It worked for Bush, and it isn’t like he has any real choice. At best, well-timed flash-of-crazy in a debate may catch Obama off-guard (although from his performance so far, I suspect he’s already seen much of what McCain/Rove 2008 will try to pull).
McCain should never read a prepared speech ever again. It’s not even close to being in his skillset. He should work from bullet points. Other people have had the same problem as McCain and done a lot better with bullet points.
McCain is a decent speaker when he’s answering questions and making his own jokes. He can handle a more conversational tone. He flubs every now and then and takes some flak for it, but that’s still an improvement over the “Night of the Passive-Agressive Grandpa” we saw from him Tuesday.
He should pick McCain.
Although with McCain stating that he feels that warrantless wiretaps are Constitutional, I don’t really want him anywhere near the White House.
Obama can’t pick Clinton, and I don’t really think that Clinton (Bill, that is) really wants the white hot spotlight of scrutiny that level of position would mean. A cabinet position, maybe as a prelude to the SCOTUS, which I don’t think is all that bad an idea. But Clinton represents everything Obama is running against. He needs to find a connected newcomer like himself that fuels his message of taking back the government.
It looks like Edwards is taking himself out of the picture…not that I think Obama was going to ask.
As a panelist cited a newspaper columnist, Clinton supporters who decide to vote for McCain aren’t just showing their upset with Obama — they’re putting their support behind the people who would turn Roe v. Wade into party hats. It’s not just a matter of showing their dislike for Obama, but also for giving support for someone who would keep us in Iraq for another century, who would continue tax cuts for the rich, and who would keep gay rights and women’s rights down. That’s quite a protest vote.
Alan,
Assuming Clinton would consider running on a third party ticket, why would she agree to take the number two spot? Especially considering that she gave Obama a run for his money during the primary? How cognizant are people who don’t follow politics of Ron Paul’s campaign?
Turing to other matters, I agree that Clinton should not be the veep candidate, but I suspect she will have (or at least be offered) a significant role in the administration. And I suspect that she herself would like the idea of being special prosecutor, as suggested by Adam-Troy Castro. Would she and Obama actually discuss such a possibility? Who knows?
Who should Obama pick for his veep? Well, the Detroit Free Press’ Rochelle Riley opines that both Obama and McCain would be “foolish” not to pick women. McCain should, she said, to combat the negative impact Bush’s unpopularity has on his campaign; and Obama should pick a woman who complements his “change” message.
What do people think? How much of an impact will the gender of either party’s vice presidential candidate play in the election? That’s assuming, of course, that both vice presidential candidates would be qualified to serve as vice president, gender notwithstanding.
For that matter, have we permanently moved past the idea of “balancing” the ticket geographically, with the president from one part of the country and the vice president from another? After all, both (Bill) Clinton and Gore were from the South and both Bush and Cheney lived in the west. Were those flukes, or the start of a move away from that geographic “balance” idea?
Regarding the Supreme Court, I think it hurt its image of being non-partisan when it got involved in the Bush V. Gore election controversy in 2000. The matter should have gone to the House of Representatives, as outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan by nature of the fact that justices serve lifetime terms and thus aren’t beholden to any particular president (who’ll only be in office for eight years at most). True, there’s always the possibility that you’ll have a senate in lock-step with a president ideologically, who’d thus approve a new justice who’d go along with a particular president’s more extreme views (whether to the left or the right); but there’s always the possibility that this particular justice will modify his or her views over the years. And, of course, there’s the possibility that the make-up of the court will change, putting that justice’s views in the minority. And again, justices can’t be recalled or otherwise “punished” for not toeing the line.
True, the Supreme Court tends to lean more toward the right than it has in the past, but this isn’t a permanent change. And, as I understand it, even if the Supreme Court were to, say, declare abortion illegal once more, wouldn’t Congress be able to pass a law essentially overriding that decision if it so chose? After all, aren’t all three branches of government supposed to have checks and balances on each other?
Rick
As someone once put it, “As a feminist, I didn’t realize I wanted Roe v. Wade reversed until Obama won the nomination.”
Rick: “For that matter, have we permanently moved past the idea of “balancing” the ticket geographically, with the president from one part of the country and the vice president from another? After all, both (Bill) Clinton and Gore were from the South and both Bush and Cheney lived in the west. Were those flukes, or the start of a move away from that geographic “balance” idea?”
Was “balance” ever the priority? I think the priority has always been “What states can the VP deliver.” Sometimes that meant getting a VP from a state that was far away from the candidate’s home, sometimes not. Indiana is right next to Illinois, but if someone from Indiana can deliver Indiana and Ohio, he’s on the list of possible VPs.
That doesn’t mean any kind of geographic trend is starting or ending, though. If the next election sets up a Candidate from the West so that a VP from the South is advantageous, then that will be considered. From what I’ve heard, it’s not even about the region in general, politicians don’t expect a VP to be helpful in more than one or two states.
Heard a radio host say something profound: If Obama selects Hilary as a running mate and wins the election, he should immediately hire a food taster. I imagine a scenario where Hilary has him taken out and frames a KKK-type for the crime.
As for a realistic running make, what about Joe Lieberman? Obama is a big-government socialist who wants to soak the “rich” and redistribute wealth. He needs someone moderate to balance him a bit. Or perhaps a Republican. Wouldn’t that tweak Oprah?
Joe Lieberman is pro-war. He’s also good friends with McCain and actively campainging for him right now.
On the flipside, there’s no guarantee that by picking her up as a running mate, the people who would vote for her as President wouldn’t vote for her as a veep. They’d probably just vote for her either way. It’s kind of hard to believe they’d support her on a presidental run, but then up and bail on her since she’s only the V.P. I think voters would want to see a different option on the Democratic presidental ticket than John Edwards again. He still has that Kerry loss sticking to him. Clinton may have been around a long time, but she is a “new” choice. And having a black male and a white female on a ticket would seem hella progressive. Wouldn’t to unite the country, he has to unite the Democratic party first so he can win the election anyway?
McCain/Lieberman ???
Lieberman is backing McCain, but he won’t be on the ticket. McCain is reaching out to independents, but he *needs* the republican base. Picking Lieberman would send mixed messages to those people.
Jerry,
Lieberman is definitely a non-starter. Among other things, I know an awful lot of Democrats for whom having him on the ticket with Obama would HURT Obama’s chances, not help them. I’m one of them.
TWL
Rick Keating,
if the Supreme Court were to overturn “Roe v. Wade”, it would not make “abortion illegal once more”, it would no longer see at as a Constitutional “right” and would allow the individual states the right to decide for themselves. Utah would likely always have it illegal, while even Ann Coulter has declared that aborton would never be illegal in the state of New York.
The Congress could try to override, but with the issue being a political potato still hotter than hëll, it is doubtful they would have the votes.
Hillary would seem to be positioned to chair the Judicary Committee, considering Ted Kennedy’s illness. SCOTUS nominees would have to go thru her. That’s the kind of powerful, high-profile job that would satisfy her.