MyDD :: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick??????

Lots of reasons for the unity ticket, but the one I like best is that it would be totally fun. I heart Bill and he'd be out there working his heart out for the ticket. He's thrilled to play second fiddle to her and she'd be honored to play second fiddle to Barack. There would be a winning team of fun candidate, with energy and passion and drive, and collectively lots of experience for Barack to tap.

But mostly it would be so much fun. And I'm sick of being depressed. And if the worst happened and somehow McCain pulled it off, we'd all know Barack did his totally best to win it for us.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know how fun Bill would be (none / 0)

he seems pretty bitter, and who knows if picking Hillary would solve that problem.

I don't think any of us really know enough about the personalities of the players to predict whether/how they would mesh.

by JJE on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither (1.00 / 0)

both of them would make the ticket look stronger at the top & weak at the bottom.

I would pick someone like Cindy Sheehan or Darcy Burner for Obama's VP.

by gaf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST

Re: Neither (none / 0)

You'd pick a nutbag or a no-name? I assume you're kidding...

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

username. Who do you back?

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

For VP? At this point, not-Clinton -- she brings a few PUMAs and a lot of baggage, neither of which is a good thing. I was hoping for Clark, but that apparently ain't happening. Oh, well... it's just the veep.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (2.00 / 1)

you'll like whomever he picks. Another 18 mil will like it if he picks Hillary.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (2.00 / 1)

The same "18 million" who went to that PUMA conference? I mean, hey, what's 6 orders of magnitude among friends? I guess I should wait until the convention, but I'm looking forward to pictures of dozens -- or maybe even hundreds! -- of angry goofballs waving Hillary signs. Um, roar.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

you're not making sense. Most of that 18 mil isn't asking for anything special, but they'd each and every one be happy to vote for her again, including PUMA's and those who liked her competence message, that cleaning up of the Bush mess that I have no doubt Barack will want her to do too.

What's wrong with consensus, why not let everyone who voted in the primary feel great about the ticket. We're Democrats, not enemies, we can get along, even you can get used to Hillary's voters getting part of what they wanted.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (2.00 / 1)

18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million 18 million

We get it We get it We get it We get it We get it

I supported Obama in the primaries and I'm in favor of HRC for VP. I think that the point is that significantly more than 18 million need to like the VP choice and I think that would be the case with HRC. Of course, we have to subtract the 60 odd PUMA nutters and haters who are so pathologically committed to defeating the presumptuous messianic fraud who is our nominee that they will vote against their own immaculate icon.

As far as the 18 million, do we need to be battered over the head with this propaganda point another 18 million times? If commenters feel it's necessary, they can proceed to do so, as we do not censor out those who disagree with us here like they do over at Alegres.fifthcolumn.rearguard. clubhouse. But it's not gonna persude me of anything in particular except unbridled zeal and questionable association.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

Just a small comment: the real point is that the number "18 million" is irrelevant. Our Girl got about that many primary votes (rounding up), but I'd guess there are somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand nutters who will vote Democratic if and only if Clinton is VP. Unless every single one of them lives in Florida or Ohio, they can be ignored.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

so, what's the point? We don't need to do anything to acknowledge that it was a tie, even though that would make his win more likely? That's really an argument for his choosing her. Not the best one, but one.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

"Tie"? Look, there are no ties in elections: one person wins, the rest lose.

The point is that the "soft kitties" -- PUMAs too far gone to vote "D" without Hillary as VP, but not far gone enough to flat out refuse -- are a tiny, crazy, noisy constituency who, like LaRouchies, deserve to be ignored or spurned.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

and those who just want a unity ticket but would vote for him anyway,because the alternative isn't thinkable, fuck em?

what a relief

by anna shane on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:44:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither (none / 0)

Thank you for the reply I'm not sure what you mean by Top and Bottom can you explain a bit more. Cheers

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

still bitter (none / 0)

still sore.

ouch.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome (none / 0)

I voted for Jerome in this poll.

Maybe Jerome Armstrong should be an obligatory option in any poll here - like Cowboy Neal at slashdot
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id= 1310897

by gaf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:04:35 AM EST

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

OMG! What an insult to Our Girl to pick one of her supporters when she's just sitting (or sniping) there!

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Now I hear Richard Gephart's name being mentioned.
Who hasn't been mentioned?

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST

hey, let's bring in Mike Gravel at this point (none / 0)

I agree with you....just about everyone in the party seems to have been mentioned over the last month. We jumped the shark when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was promoted in one of the diaries.

Gephardt was a good guy; I think he actually could have won in 2004. He would have gotten MO, OH, and possibly Iowa; the only Kerry state he might not have carried would have been NH. Labor would have been a lot more fired up for Gephardt than for Kerry.

by BJJ Fighter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Mentioned: Lee Hamilton, George Mitchell, (none / 0)

Walter Mondale, Tom Harkin, Howard Dean, John Breaux, Kent Conrad, Jay Rockerfeller . . .

There are more.

by Davidsfr on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Mentioned: Lee Hamilton, George Mitchell, (none / 0)

Better yet, George Hamilton. Wow, imagine how he will hypnotize all of his with his glowing orange/brown skin.

by gavoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Mentioned: Lee Hamilton, George Mitchell, (none / 0)

George Hamilton !! Extra points

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For those who argue that Clinton (2.00 / 1)

would energize the GOP, it is hard to say that Gore wouldn't do the same.

by JJE on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:33:34 AM EST

Re: For those who argue that Clinton (none / 0)

it's the dem party base that will be energized. His unity message will be right there, in his actions.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden is a big enough name (none / 0)

to be named late. He has lots of recognition nationally from all his TV appearances, and is very well liked among older voters.

Clark is out of contention; Bayh is not well enough known at this point to be named. Forget Kaine, Sebelius, and anyone else who brings nothing on foreign policy and military matters.

Other than Biden we could see Gephardt, Gore, Clinton, Bob Graham, or some other current non-office holder. At this point I would say Gephardt is the most likely out of that group.

by Davidsfr on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST

About that supposed (none / 0)

FP weakness: Obama has stated that he isn't particularly worried about that area, having lived abroad and all. He made some disparaging remarks about congressional junkets. While I think both Clark and Biden would be great picks, I hope either of them is not selected simply to fill a perceived weakness.

I bet on Sebelius, so I hope he picks her. It would also spite the annoying "no woman but Hillary" crowd.

by corph on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About that supposed (none / 0)

that was primary season, when he was running against those with more hands on experience. then it said it was judgement, but he'll not be saying that when he's running in the GE, he'll be saying what he'll do and who will be advising him. He'll likely tell us who will be secretary of state, and who will be attorney general too. I guess that won't be John Edwards anymore. He'll pick those with the most experience who have a peace and diplomacy agendas. He's an academic, he'll for for excellent, for experts, for experienced professionals.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's why I don't think we need FP as veep (none / 0)

no matter what the pundits have to say!

i think we need outsider, fresh air, and someone who can hold down the fort if the almost unthinkable thing we worry about happens.

Sebelius first, Clark second -- those are the only people I really trust who are getting any kind of consideration.

(as to why I don't trust Clinton? She had to do a lot of horse trading to run for President. I want someone unentangled, without previous quid pro quos. Nothing against her, just it's old politics i don't want to see again.).

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's why (none / 0)

that is so naive. Not only is horse trading a qualification, how do you think compromise and consensus work, Barack is a great horse trader, he did some amazing trading, that's how he got where he is. We need to win, that's the only thing you should be thinking of, and there is one way that has the best chance, and it's HIllary as VP. Get used to it, it's coming.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't want horse trading to be a qualification (2.00 / 1)

Webb didn't do it. Lamont Didn't do it. Obama has done it to dramatically less extent than any presidential candidate in the past fifty years.

I don't want "favors owed".

THIS is my issue. This is what made me vote for Obama (whose personality just ain't my style).

I DON'T like the people Hillary had to get to back her, and I know if she is VEEP, they will try to work behind the scenes to get their fucking favors anyway.

That's how Washington works.

Compromise and consensus work by eliminating the rich folks from writing the laws, so that gov't can get back to doing what gov't does best.

What's a win? Is it a win to get back the same sort of politics we saw under Clinton? The same backbiting, leaky team? Is it a win to get back the GB I era? Is it a win to get back the Reagan era, where at least people knew how to resign on time?

I'm in a movement to upend Washington, to make it more accountable to US -- the people. I'd love to see a grassroots conservative movement, as demogogic as it might be...

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"It Would Spite the ... Hillary Crowd" (none / 0)

Would that be a good thing?

by susie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Possibly. (none / 0)

It would give me a little satisfaction anyway. It would expose identity politicking for the fallacy that it is. As would Clinton picking a black veep other than Obama had she won, of course.

I suppose it would lose some HillVeep semi-PUMA votes if Obama picked a different woman. But over half the country dislikes her already. The more media attention Hillary diehards get complaining that he shafted her again the more backlash support he could actually pick up.

by corph on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would That Be A Good Thing? (none / 0)

Well, I will concede that your personal satisfaction is relevant to the VP pick.

by susie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I vote, don't I? (2.00 / 1)

Not that his veep choice will change my vote. But who knows, there may be others like me.

My point by the way, was that he should not dismiss a decent VP prospect based on gender, not that my personal satisfaction is relevant.

by corph on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Possibly. (none / 0)

Really? Because the fact that you support Obama and want a VP pick based purely on the fact that it would piss off Hillary Clinton supporters exposes exactly what kind of identity politics you support. Your ABC politics have no place in the Democratic party.

by LakersFan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Purely based on the fact..." (none / 0)

Whatever. What a lame pivot attempt. I'm not sure you even know what "identity politics" means. Sebelius has a lot of positives even Saint Hillary lacks: overall favorables, red-state cred, executive experience and a record that includes some tough risky decisions (e.g. coal plant vetoes).

She makes a lot of sense as a VP pick independently of her gender. That it would annoy some Clinton supporters is a reflection on them, not on me. It may not be nice to express satisfaction about the possibilty Obama ignores this ridiculous line of reasoning and picks Sebelius anyway. Oh well. I'm tired of their tirades, and I'd like to see less of this kind of reasoning in future cycles.

by corph on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Purely based on the fact..." (none / 0)

If you think Sebelius is a good pick that's fine. But I'm not buying your feigned innocence now, when you went out of your way to say:

"It would give me a little satisfaction anyway."
and "The more media attention Hillary diehards get complaining that he shafted her again the more backlash support he could actually pick up."

Those are not the words of someone who has the Democratic party's best interests at heart.

by LakersFan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just ask for a fucking apology (1.00 / 1)

... quit with the guilt trip.

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just be civil (none / 0)

Or get TRd.

by LakersFan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that is me being civil (none / 0)

I'm blue today. What color are you?

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

60% odds on Sebelius (none / 0)

... vote CHANGE.

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden is a big enough name (none / 0)

Yes I agree with you. Cheers

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore: not a politician! (2.00 / 2)

Al Gore is obviously a visionary, and a fairly brilliant guy....but not a politician. People need to be reminded that the only races he ever won were for Congress in Tennessee. His race for President in 1988 was as uninspired as his run in 2000.

To have lost to the village idiot in 2000--when peace and prosperity were major tailwinds--is something we just can't ignore. Using President Clinton at some big city rallies in OH, FL, and MO may well have changed the outcome of that election. Combined with Gore's ill-fated endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004, you just have to question his judgment and skills as a politician.

by BJJ Fighter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST

Re: Gore: not a politician! (none / 0)

Gore demolished his opponents in the VP debates. No, he is not a person who has ever been comfortable in politics, but he has stepped up to the plate and hit several home rins many times during the Clinton Administration. It was when he had the entire spotlight in him when he tripped up. I think his intellect and experience mixes quite well with more charismatic politicians.

That said, no way in Hell he'll do it again.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed; good observation. (none / 0)

In addition to the examples you cite, his debate with Ross Perot over NAFTA, as well as "rallying the troops" when Clinton was impeached were both teriffic. As you suggest, it's when he went "solo" that he didn't seem comfortable.

by BJJ Fighter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Why in the world would either accept the position?

by RichardFlatts on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

i think the residual passions from the primary are blocking the news that Barack and HIllary are now working together to win the GE. If he picks her she'll accept, they're close now. He said they were friends before and friends after.

The PUMA's have more than one agenda, and a big one is that they want to unite, but need one or two accommodations. One is respect to Hillary and there is nothing more respectful than the dream ticket. the other is reforms in the party, toward democracy and also toward training and experiencing-up a new generation of possible candidates who prepare professionally for the job. I'd bet my socks that Barack is behind that plan, he's an academic, he values knowledge and experience. They probably both would fire hacks and hire the best, and Hillary would be a tremendous day to day asset, can you imagine Homeland Security answering to her? She's a detail person, girl wonk, and he's the kind of guy who appreciates the best.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (2.00 / 1)

The PUMA's goal is to sink the Democrats this election. I go to Alegre's corner and Noquarter just to get a little view at what madness looks like, and it ain't pretty.

Now Alegre's suggesting that Democratic Senators were bought off to support Obama, and other posts are building up McCain vs. Obama. Real cute was the photo of a dog peeing on an Obama sign.

PUMAs are no friends to Democrats and there is nothing that will bring them around. Better to spend one's time campaigning for the votes of reality-based, thinking people (which include the 99% of Hillary supporters who aren't PUMA).

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (2.00 / 1)

Your saying it doesn't make it so.

There was considerable damage done to Hillary and the center wing of the party by Dean, Pelosi and Obama.

The PUMAs are making a very clear statement that support of the middle is not to be taken for granted in future if:

1) The party tolerates a candidate who says his supporters won't vote for the other candidate.

2) The party tolerates GOP voters over powering democrats

3) If mob rule aka caucuses continue to select our candidates.

4) If party leadership shows so clear a bias during the primary so as to make it basically unfair.

If the democratic party doesn't clean those things up next cycle I won't be supporting them and something on the order of 1 million or so voters likely agree with me. Thats enough to tip this election and thats enough to tip the next election.

Thats how power works and thats the real reason it bugs you.

Its too late this cycle to fix most of it but Hillary as VP is a clear enough sign to get my vote and end any hard feelings toward OBAMA. Dean and Pelosi need to fix the other items to get back on the I support them because we are in the same party list.

by dtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

I have no problems with a handful of whackos skipping the election. Stay home. Read 'Reader's Digest'.

If you're too dim to realize what a McCain Admin will do to everyone after months of posting on here, why would I think I could convince you? I've brought around thinking people to the Democratic ticket already. I have no time for a bunch of starstruck fans who have projected themselves upon their celebrity candidate. Hillary must be embarrassed by this little fringe. She deserves so much better.

Oh, and about those caucuses: no one had a problem with them until HRC started losing them. Never heard a peep when Bill won them in '92 and '96.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Probably because no one realized Republicans could vote in many of them...

by dtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

"I hate that Republicans can vote in a Dem caucus so.. I, um, will vote McCain, erm, in the General..." huh?

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Apparently you don't understand the purpose of political parties or that primaries and general elections serve very different purposes.

by LakersFan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Recognize Illogical Actions (none / 0)

I understand that enabling a Republican to become President is a pretty dimwitted way to protest the participation of GOP voters in some Dem caucuses. Should I vote for McCain to protest Limbaugh's little plan back in the primaries?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Recognize Illogical Actions (2.00 / 1)

But there's no analogy there to voting in primaries. Voting in another party's primary doesn't have those kinds of repurcussions.

I'm not suggesting anyone vote for a Republican, just pointing out that your comparison doesn't make any sense.

by LakersFan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Recognize Illogical Actions (none / 0)

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying that if one is threatening to sit withhold their vote for a Democrat as some kind of punishment to the DLC (as I've read on this site and others), they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Why that's not clear to you, I have no idea.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Recognize Illogical Actions (none / 0)

Oops. DNC, not DLC.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Recognize Illogical Actions (none / 0)

Who said anything wasn't clear? Not me. It's perfectly clear that you were trying to equate crossover voting in the primaries with crossover voting in GE, and now you've completely changed the subject to try to confuse the issue.

by LakersFan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Recognize Illogical Actions (none / 0)

Are you reading upthread? I was replying upthread to dtaylor who is saying what occurred in the primaries will affect his/her vote in the future (ie. withholding his/her vote for Democarts in November because of anger towards the caucuses and such).

If you have in issue with "confusing" the two elections, bring it up with the original poster to whom I was replying. Seems you chose to jump into this debate late and aren't really clear on what has been said. Or are you purposely misunderstanding on purpose?

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

You keep saying it like your failure to accept reality is changing it.

My party has acted badly but in your mind there is NOTHING I could possibly do about it.

by dtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Your Right (none / 0)

Hey, if you think a third Republican term is the best way to punish the DLC, go for it. I care a little more about energy policy, Civil Rights, and ending the war more than the career disappointments of a single millionaire candidate, but, hey, that's me.

Like I said, stay home on election day. Whatever.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hate to break it to you (1.00 / 0)

but Clinton already asked for Veep. Got turned down.

She's too much of a strategist to have not chosen the right time and place to do the askin'

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hate to break it to you (1.33 / 3)

What a load of bullshit! Did you find that story on Weekly World News?

by turtlescrubber on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hate to break it to you (2.00 / 1)

If Obama is any kind of strategist he would be doing the asking at this point...

My guess is he isn't blind enough to not ask.

by dtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Gore, but I don't think he would take it. What a breath of fresh air it would be to have TWO brilliant people in the Whitehouse.

accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking

by Sychotic1 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:03:59 PM EST

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

we had that with Clinton and Gore. Clinton picked a guy who would make a great president, unlike many who pick someone they don't feel threatened by. and Gore was the first working vice president, who got to learn the job and had major responsibilities. WE'd have that with Barack and Hillary too. Sadly George and Dick have set the bar low and mickey mouse would look refreshing after that team of fools.

what a relief

by anna shane on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Gore would be my dream ticket. He kicks ass as a VP (remember the 92 and 96 debates?), and he has passion and vision. I think those years in the political woods and his subsequent re-invention has made him a better politician and 'personality'. AND he could bring with him his years of experience. Of course, he's quite happy where he is. I wish he would reconsider, as global warming and energy policy has to be one of our top goals NOW in any administration.

Hillary would be good, too. I think this campaign has made her a better candidate and politician. I think HRC made BO a better candidate, but I think the reverse is true, too. Most of the positives and negatives of her being veep that others have voiced I share, but in the end I think she would do a great job.

After that, Clark, then Sebelius, then Biden, IMHO.

Stop H8

by mikeinsf on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Gore was my guy in 88

I was very happy to have him as VP

But I don't think 8 years has made Gore play any better outside the democratic party than he did in 2000.

Its possible that this one election where you can compare Gore and Bush he might be an asset but the GOP had him pretty backed in a corner in 2000 and he was the VP for 8 of the best years in memory much of which was his own personal doing and couldn't pull it off.

Basically he doesn't deliver any votes that Obama is lacking.

by dtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Gore VP Who would you pick?????? (none / 0)

Interesting reply. Thank you

by Politicalslave on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]