would hillary settle for vice president?

Early returns on Super Tuesday seemed to indicate that, even though Barack Obama had beaten Hillary Clinton in the total number of states taken, she had secured a greater number of delegates. Further analysis seems to indicate, however, that Obama came out on top on both counts. A few days after Super Tuesday, it also came out that the Obama campaign had already raised another $7 million. Hillary’s campaign, we’d come to learn at the same time, had to borrow $5 million from her own personal reserves. Then, this last weekend, Obama swept all three primary contests. Hillary responded by firing the woman running her campaign. Pundits still seem to think that it will come down to the super delegates, but it looks as though the momentum is clearly on Obama’s side.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

21 Comments

  1. Reed
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Hillary has been saying all along that she’s not focusing on the February primaries/caucuses. For weeks, if not longer. She’s still in this thing and for people to concede the Dem race to Obama because of a few weeks of momentum is naive.

    Would Hillary settle for VP? I’ve no idea, but what I want to ask is this: Would Obama consider her as his VP candidate? And, I also wonder if Hillary as a VP candidate, were Obama to win the nomination, be more damaging to the November election because the target for 527s just got that much larger?

  2. Centerish
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Does anyone know (I’m too lazy to do the research) if in Texas or Ohio that Republicans can vote in their Democratic primaries? Who would the RNC rather run McCain against?

  3. Edwawrds Fan
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    She’s got too much ambition. If we learned anything from the assassination of JFK, it’s that you want unambitious VPs. Dan Quayle comes to mind.

  4. Jimmy Cagney's ghost
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    I doubt she would accept, and I doubt it would make sense for Obama to make the offer unless after securing the nomination he faced serious discontent from a large core of her supporters. Which I seriously doubt will happen – HRC’s base is not looking to vote for a republican over Obama.

    Even so, Obama matches up better against McCain due to his appeal to independents and clear differences on the war before there was a war.

    At this point I think either Dem would beat McCain without too much trouble. However, if there’s one way McCain can win it’s by consolidating gop support around anti-Clinton message and pulling in the independents that viscerally don’t like the Clintons.

    The real question is when is the Democratic state party going to schedule a do-over caucus so rank and file Dems can express their preference between the two candidates? Get to work Mark Brewer!

  5. Meta
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    The real fun is on the other side of the aisle:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177863.php

  6. Steph's Dad
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    I also found Frank Rich’s column yesterday to be pretty good.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=e24742716b04417f&ei=5087

  7. Meta
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Barack is trying to flip her super delegates.

    “He’s saying: ‘Hey, I won your state and I won your congressional district, why are you supporting her?'” a Democrat strategist revealed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/wus509.xml

  8. Lisa
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    It certainly ‘seems’ as though he’s pulling ahead, but I don’t think that’s the case. She got stuck with a bad run of luck – having to loan herself money and having a bunch of states in a row that favor him. If Ohio or Texas had been last weekend we would be having a very different conversation. That really sucks for her. (Admittedly, I’m not too torn up about it, as I much prefer him.)

  9. Teri
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Hillary supporters would gravitate toward Obama after the convention. I don’t think there’s much chance that they’d go to McCain. If it were the other way around, and if Obama dropped out, I think there would be some risk of independents crossing back, but I don’t think that Hillary has much of the independent vote. And I think that Obama is doing well with women. So, I don’t think there’s any reason for him to extend an offer. I think it’s highly unlikely, as we’re going to need him in his current position through the election, but I’d like to see him go with Dean as his VP. I also think that he and Edwards would kick ass.

    If asked, I’m not sure what Hillary would do. Right now, she’d turn him down flat, as she feels as though she’s going to win. If she keeps falling farther behind though, she may eventually take it. I don’t see her backing down anytime soon, even though it would make things a hell of a lot easier. The party doesn’t need a war at the convention. Romney did the right thing for his party – Hillary should do the same.

  10. egpenet
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    If Oprah ran with Obama … they could run the “Clean the Air Capaignin Washington” … “O2” for America!

  11. egpenet
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    ‘Sides, it’s not Hillary … it’s Billary … no two ways about it.

  12. outraged
    Posted February 11, 2008 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Quit pimping H-grrl for veep!

  13. Mark H.
    Posted February 12, 2008 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    Obama ain’t going to offer the VP to Hillary, and even if he did, she wouldn’t want it: She has a safe Senate seat, where she’s in charge of her agenda. Being VP is not likely to make you president unless the president dies. A safer choice is to stay in the Senate. She doesn’t want to have to report to Obama. And she would not add anything substantial to the ticket in terms of winning some electoral votes that Obama couldn’t be sure of without her on the ticket. The governors of New Mexico or Arizona, or a real southerner with some respect in that region (which does exclude our pal John Edwards) would each add more to the ticket in the electoral college than Hillary would. So if Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, Hillary will be Senator for the rest of her life, unless she tries a run for the White House when she’s around 70, and wins.

  14. Miles Llorente
    Posted February 12, 2008 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    I voted for Hillary in the California Primary. What I am unhappy about and if she wants to secure my vote as President, the democratic party must step up to the plate and talk about the poverty in America and the fact that they are going to help those of us out of poverty. I am a veteran, and paid my taxes for years and I am now on SSDI, Disability, because I am crippled with Peripheral Neuropathy from toxic drugs from the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I am also advance HIV/AIDS. I only get $803.00 each month on SSDI, nothing for food stamps, and I am expected to pay rent, utilities, have a car to get to doctor appts, and labs, clothings, utilities, everything Americans take for granted each and every day. I can not, my entire SSDI goes to Rent, and I am starving, unable to have a decent automobile, fear of becoming homeless, and I am sickened that my government could care less about its sick, and disabled Americans and leave us to live in Poverty. Bush has crippled this Country with his war, spent billions of dollars, gives millions to farmers who no longer need aid, and leave the sick and disabled in Poverty. Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and those who are suppose to be looking out for our Seniors, the sick and Disabled should be ashamed of themselves for leaving us to live in Poverty. Especially those of us who paid their salaries for years. I am disgusted with this administration and those who are asking for votes who refuse to acknowledge those of us in need of their help.
    Respectfully,
    Miles Llorente

  15. egpenet
    Posted February 12, 2008 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    What Hillary may have to settle for is … well … Bill. (Hee, heeeeeee.)

  16. Stella
    Posted February 13, 2008 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Hear, hear Miles Llorente! The only reason my friends have even the smallest quality of life on SSDI is because they also have rent subsidies. Without that it turns from relative to absolute poverty in a heartbeat.
    And even so, who here has tried to live on the remaining $550 or so a month, year after year, to meet all of their human needs including food, utilities, co-pays, proper dental care, transportation, clothing etc. Much of it doesn’t happen at all.

    Of the remaining candidates the only one who seems interested or cognizant at all (and only time would tell if it’s an abiding interest) is Obama.

    and he doesn’t need Hillary BTW, but she would surely need him.

  17. mark
    Posted February 15, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Guess what? You can You can buy super delegates!

  18. Jim Studdard
    Posted February 21, 2008 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Miles, why should the rest of the country have to take care of you because you got aids? The purpose pf the goverment is not to bail out everyone who makes bad choices. I am concerned tht the democratic party is totally dismissing personal responsibility for anything. Make a bad mortgage choice, dont worry, we will bail you out. Dont get health insurance, we will bail you out. It never ends.

  19. stella
    Posted February 22, 2008 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Jeez. He’s not here whining that he can no longer afford a McMansion.
    He both served his country and paid his taxes. There is a long standing implication in the social contract that that qualifies you for some concrete social aide if you are disabled. Particularly the vet part.
    As well as:
    Plenty of people contracted AIDS from transfusions, and some as health care workers anyway. You can’t assume anything.
    Or:
    I suppose that my schizophrenic friend just made a really bad choice of which womb to be in when his host got the flu. He should have maybe chosen a more discerning placental barrier to hide behind?

    Whatever, like you’ve never in your life made a bad choice anyway. You just happen to be supremely lucky (or family money backed) if it didn’t snowball into a life sentence.
    There’s a word for people like you, it’s TAB. Temporarily able bodied.

    Maybe you should read John Rawls.

  20. maryd
    Posted February 22, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Jim Studdard- “Don’t get health insurance, we will bail you out. It never ends.” What country are you living in? Young people in the country that go out and buy their health insurance, end up paying so much in deductibles that they cannot afford their insurance premiums (if they actually go to the doctor for well care or because they are sick). How is that making a bad choice? And we know un-regulated lenders have been using questionable lending practices.
    As far as the Democratic Party advocating caring for society’s most vulnerable, that is simply HUMANE practice.

  21. Posted June 3, 2008 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    Mark, Mark, Mark. I was sitting here a moment ago wondering whether Hillary might have a shot at, or even consider, being VP if Obama wins the nomination. I googled “Hillary Vice President” and the second site that came up was yours. If Obama doesn’t pick Hillary as a running mate, my second choice is you. Mark for VP!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Slade