Marc Ambinder (March 07, 2008) - Rendell: Winner Should Offer Loser The Veep Slot; And Loser Should Take It

Ed Rendell is not known for carefully considering things before he says them. This is a good example.

Do a thought experiment: try to imagine Bill and Hillary happily settling into second-banana roles in the VP mansion.

This would be chaos.

Posted by TedL | March 7, 2008 7:38 AM

If Hillary win the nomination, she will offer the VP position to McCain. Or if she loses the nomination, she will be McCain's VP. They both cross the "commander in chief threshold" and Obama doesn't. Why whould she choose Obama as her VP if he wouldn't be ready to be President if something were to happen? And how could she be an effective VP if she doesn't think Obama is ready to be commander in chief? People need to shut up about this "dream ticket." Not going to happen, nor should it.

Posted by BR | March 7, 2008 7:50 AM

For what does it benefit a man, if he were to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

Posted by Kim | March 7, 2008 8:15 AM

Strategery 101 = offering something that costs you nothing in order to create a favorable political impression that you haven't earned.

Rendell could have just as easily offered to make this deal: if Obama yields us his pledged delegates we will offer him the Vice President slot.

That sounds ludicrous, of course, but that is, essentially, the underlying logic of every currently available Clinton "path" to the nomination.

Posted by kid oakland | March 7, 2008 8:17 AM

Hillary has already put herself above the party, I cannot see how she can save face now and take the VEEP spot after all she has said. She has burned that bridge.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 7, 2008 8:26 AM

Sounds nice, right? But it's transparently a cynical Clinton ploy. For voters in doubt, she can tell them "oh, vote for me, and you'll get Barack too. I love him. Isn't love great"!

Don't kid yourself, Clinton's a political knife fighter, and this is just another attempt to stick Obama in the ribs with a smile.

It's sure to spin up a lot of comments like "Oh, he really needs more experience, and what better way to get it than as a VP? Really, he IS so uppity, not waiting his turn..."

As kid oakland puts it, a cost-free strategic move. Helps win the news cycle. Obama can't publically say "no way" because to do so makes him seem smaller.

Ugh.

Posted by Tungsten | March 7, 2008 8:30 AM

Marc you need to this Kid Oakland is right, this is a strategy and you should know better.

Posted by Dirk | March 7, 2008 8:43 AM

If O were VP he'd end up like Gore, linked to all of the C scandals. Plus, B is going to be VP so he'd really be VVP.

Posted by jay | March 7, 2008 8:45 AM

Clinton is politics as usual or worse. Having her as veep would bring Obama down to her level. He should pick somebody better which isn't hard.

Posted by Ron | March 7, 2008 8:48 AM

When are the democrats going to stop living in a fantasy world and see that this silliness will never happen.
If Obama is at the top do you think he'd want a lieberman like traitor like Hillary on the ticket or that the ego of Hillary would ever be a vp.
If Hillary is at the top, no dem with a future would want the baggage that comes with Clintons to tar their reps like it did Gore. Nor would any self respecting dem want to be a shadow while Bill takes up all the air in the room.
Quit playing in fantasy and look at the reality.
And the other is that both hate the other.
Get real.

Posted by vwcat | March 7, 2008 8:58 AM

Nah.
Gonna.
Happen.

Posted by Craig | March 7, 2008 9:05 AM

Stand your ground, Barack Obama, the people are behind you and Hillary Rodham Clinton looks uglier and uglier with every passing day.....

Posted by Jean | March 7, 2008 9:29 AM

HRC has really crossed the point of no return with the commander-in-chief issue saying McCain and HRC are OK but Obama doesn't pass the threshold. If Clinton were the President, how could she justify putting Obama on the ticket when she would have spent two months saying he couldn't be CiC. When Obama is the nominee, if HRC was VP then McCain would run all the HRC negative attacks and say that the VP doesn't think the President is ready.

The bottom line is that if you look at the history of unity tickets i.e Kerry-Edwards in '04, Reagan-Bush in '80, or JFK-LBJ in '60, the criticism of each other never got out-of-control. AT worst, I can think of Bush calling out Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics" (He was right) but that was it.

HRC can now join Liebermann on the McCain '08 tour when Obama picks someone else.

Posted by Archana | March 7, 2008 9:50 AM

Hillary Rodham Clinton looks uglier and uglier with every passing day.....

yeah...she's a monster

Posted by Estrella | March 7, 2008 9:50 AM

So Obama can smear his good name by being associated with a surely-corrupt Clinton presidency? Yea, that's a winning scenario...

VP = kiss of death. Gore was a good-guy who got his career destroyed by being associated with the Clintons.

Posted by socctty | March 7, 2008 9:54 AM

Oh, Rendell.

I try to get mad at the guy and I fail (almost) every time. But he seems physically incapable of shutting up. You should have heard him complaining that people thought his "white Pennsylvanians won't vote for Obama" line.

It's going to be a regular circus since the Clinton's will be incapable of keeping his big mouth shut for the next six weeks. I (almost) can't wait.

Posted by Margaret | March 7, 2008 9:59 AM

As much as I love Ed 'The Gov' Rendell (Go Iggles!), I just don't see it happening. Why would a sitting Senator want to be demoted to VP?

Posted by cosmic cowboy | March 7, 2008 9:59 AM

Okay. Here I go with my mantra again.

McCain vs Clinton will be a repeat of Bush vs Kerry in 2004. In a best case scenario Clinton wins the states Kerry won in 2004 and McCain wins the states that Bush won in 2004 and that lands McCain in the White House. I believe that McCain vs Obama would be a different story. Obama, too, would win all of the states Kerry won in 2004 but I think he'd also pick up Virginia, Kansas, and a few other red states. That's all it will take to tip the balance and secure the presidency. Part of my argument is also based on the belief that Clinton's negatives are too high to win outside the states that Kerry won in 2004 (she could even lose some).

This is why I DON'T THINK CLINTON SHOULD BE OBAMA'S VP CHOICE if Obama gets the nod because she'll carry those negatives with her and sink the campaign for the Democrats. Also,Senator Clinton recently said "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Won't these words be used against Senator Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination? Won't McCain be able to say "Senator Clinton herself said that I have the experience necessary for the job and that Obama has is speeches?" Could Senator Clinton go forth in the Democratic campaign having to say that's not what she meant? Does her statement handicap her on the campaign trail in the general election of Obama is the nominee? Another reason that she's a poor choice for VP.

Posted by Keith Hood | March 7, 2008 10:10 AM

Much as I'm annoyed by his support for Hillary, I can't help but like Rendell and think he would be a good VP for Obama. Older, military experience, regular-guy blue-collar persona, never spent time in Washington. Would reassure Jewish and old white voters. Could play the attack dog VP role without seeming like a jerk. Would be a decent concession to Hillary's supporters since he's such a strong backer of hers. Fits Obama's change-by-working-together narrative based on his successful tenure as mayor of Philadelphia. Don't know much about what he's done as governor, other than that he easily won a second term. Only potential problem I can see is judgment on Iraq...does anyone know his position (current or past) on the war?

Posted by Dave | March 7, 2008 10:30 AM

"Do a thought experiment: try to imagine Bill and Hillary happily settling into second-banana roles in the VP mansion. This would be chaos."

Thought experiment no. 2: Try to imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton settling happily into first-banana roles in the White House for the sequel. This wouldn't be chaos: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 7, 2008 10:43 AM

Rendell has been pushing for healthcare reform. But I think plenty of PA residents are unhappy with his inability to get them property tax cuts. He legalized slots with the intention of providing the funding to school districts, but so far only one fifth of districts have accepted the funding.

But he's got that regular guy thing going and people like it.

In '06, when I did some canvassing in the working class 'burbs of Philly, all I heard about was pay raise, pay raise, pay raise. Rendell had signed a pay raise for the state legislature. But it didn't seem to matter much in his reelection.

But I often have a better grasp of what's going on in Jersey or Delaware than I do in PA, for some reason.

Posted by Margaret | March 7, 2008 10:53 AM

Obama would be lucky to be chosen by Hillary. Her decisions in the White House will make him look good and pave the way for a future run for the Presidency where no one will question his experience or patriotism.

Posted by Elizabeth | March 7, 2008 11:18 AM

If you froze things today, it all looks bad, a real American nightmare in the making. The Clintons are injecting dose after dose of discord into the process that have the potential to rip things apart in the most damaging way. Clinton can only get the nomination if the Superdelegates subvert the will of the voters, the perception of injustice will do catastrophic damage and the only way to avoid the Clintons will put the pressure on Obama to accept the VP.

I was just rereading an account of the attack on Khartoum that Clinton launched on the first day of his impeachment. There was no intelligence, the US squashed a multinational UN fact finding mission to find out what happened, and twenty innocent people were blown to pieces in their sleep. All to divert attention. I just wanted to re-verify that they really are the most craven, morally bankrupt pair imaginable.

I day dream of Obama launching an independent bid with Mike Bloomberg and Colin Powell at his side. That's a winning combination.

Posted by Nick | March 7, 2008 11:22 AM

"Obama would be lucky to be chosen by Hillary. Her decisions in the White House will make him look good and pave the way for a future run for the Presidency where no one will question his experience or patriotism."

Right. Look what the Clintons did for Al Gore!

Posted by TedL | March 7, 2008 11:23 AM

Kieth Hood:
I agree, McCain vs. Clinton will be a replay of 2004 Bush vs Kerry, except Clinton will do worse than Kerry. Extremely doubtful she would carry Michigan.

Posted by Jim B. | March 7, 2008 11:40 AM

Ironically, as another poster partially implied, you can make a much better argument that no matter who wins, they should offer the VP slot to Rendell.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Clinton cannot credibly offer Obama the VP slot. She has gone two orders of magnitude beyond normal primary campaigning, painting him as someone utterly unfit for the presidency- basically her message has been that nominating Obama would be equivalent to nominating a 16 year old for the presidency. She actually said that McCain was fit to be C-in-C and Obama was not.

And, of course, the vice president has to ready to be president at a moment's notice. (There's going to be extra attention on vice presidential fitness because of McCain's age and status as a cancer survivor.)

This is about trying to get Obama supporters to vote for Clinton under the false impression that they will get Obama as part of the package.

Posted by Anne E | March 7, 2008 12:27 PM

A Clinton/Obama ticket will never happen. Clinton is everything despicable about politics and after her endorsement of McCain over Obama, I say a McCain/Clinton is more likely than an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

Obama is what the USA needs. The whole world can see this plainly and it is impossible to understand why the USA cannot see this fact.

Check out the scary link below.

http://yourthreecents.com/blogs/yourthreecents.php?id=143

Posted by Linda | March 7, 2008 1:10 PM

The comments by the obama club are laughable. They talk about hillary being negative look in the mirror. If this is how he inspires you than your either losing the message or your not listening. Either way stick to the facts. He hasn't earned his way to the top spot by putting in his time to know how the system works. He can't change washington unless he promises a piece of the pie to the superdelegates that are backing him. That is not change. He is at best a good speaker and over and over dems and reps are saying he has no substance. This is an application for the top job and his resume is a little short. Try and apply for a job and tell the boss that i can change things just give me the job. This doesn't happen in the real world. This is about facts not personality. I read the hillary supporters and they are positive, i read the obama supporters and they are outright nasty. I will say again is this what your candidate inspires in you? Then again you are color blind and walking in a fairyland.

Posted by sally | March 7, 2008 1:19 PM

The comments by the obama club are laughable. They talk about hillary being negative look in the mirror. If this is how he inspires you than your either losing the message or your not listening. Either way stick to the facts. He hasn't earned his way to the top spot by putting in his time to know how the system works. He can't change washington unless he promises a piece of the pie to the superdelegates that are backing him. That is not change. He is at best a good speaker and over and over dems and reps are saying he has no substance. This is an application for the top job and his resume is a little short. Try and apply for a job and tell the boss that i can change things just give me the job. This doesn't happen in the real world. This is about facts not personality. I read the hillary supporters and they are positive, i read the obama supporters and they are outright nasty. I will say again is this what your candidate inspires in you? Then again you are color blind and walking in a fairyland.

Posted by sally | March 7, 2008 1:19 PM

The comments by the obama club are laughable. They talk about hillary being negative look in the mirror. If this is how he inspires you than your either losing the message or your not listening. Either way stick to the facts. He hasn't earned his way to the top spot by putting in his time to know how the system works. He can't change washington unless he promises a piece of the pie to the superdelegates that are backing him. That is not change. He is at best a good speaker and over and over dems and reps are saying he has no substance. This is an application for the top job and his resume is a little short. Try and apply for a job and tell the boss that i can change things just give me the job. This doesn't happen in the real world. This is about facts not personality. I read the hillary supporters and they are positive, i read the obama supporters and they are outright nasty. I will say again is this what your candidate inspires in you? Then again you are color blind and walking in a fairyland.

Posted by sally | March 7, 2008 1:20 PM

HILARY PLEASE TELL CHELSEA WHO HER REAL FATHER IS
(WEBSTER HUBBELL)AND STOP BEING A MONSTER..
I LIVE IN PHILLY AND WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT OBAMA TO THE FULLEST...
OBAMA2008

Posted by TAMICKA | March 7, 2008 1:31 PM

HILARY PLEASE TELL CHELSEA WHO HER REAL FATHER IS
(WEBSTER HUBBELL)AND STOP BEING A MONSTER..
I LIVE IN PHILLY AND WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT OBAMA TO THE FULLEST...
OBAMA2008

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all true

Posted by FELISE | March 7, 2008 1:33 PM

I'll just add my name to the chorus here saying that no matter how much pressure Obama gets to put Clinton on the ticket, he should refuse. Anything that touches that woman turns to slime. At one time I thought I could support her if she won the nomination, and then later I thought, "Well, maybe she'd be okay in the Cabinet." Now I think he should shut her out entirely--and I won't support her in any way should she steal the nomination. I won't vote for McCain, but I will stay home. She is beneath contempt, and the DNC should escort her from the room ASAP. Maybe she can go take over a small, unsuspecting country. It's just too bad Samantha Power needed to resign for telling the truth.

Posted by Rowena | March 7, 2008 1:33 PM

I hope that Hillary can destroy the Democratic Party by squeezing the superdelegates to make her the nominee. That will guarantee a McCain victory when the media and RNC bring up all the Clinton baggage and find new ones in the tax returns, Pres. Library donors, etc. You think John McCain think Hillary is qualified to be commander in chief ? Or any Republican ? They'll go just as hard at her on this issue as they would Obama. Then they'd argue she was for the war before she was against it.

Look, I made over 7 figures last year on Wall Street. I'd rather pay more in taxes and have a President Obama I can be proud of, but if Hillary is the nominee, I'll drop a max donation to McCain in 15 minutes, get him elected, and buy a Porsche with my tax cuts extended.

I'm a liberal Independent. You Democrats have a winner in Obama but you're too caught up in the Clinton nostalgia to see it.

Posted by Shyam | March 7, 2008 1:36 PM

Of course, Rendell is an idiot - so I'm not sure why his comments are important enough to report.

That being said, Obama supporters here in Iowa were like rabid dogs during the caucus' and there were many fist fights and in your faces by those same supporters - peace, love, hope and repsect my eye - Obama and his people are no better than any other strong arm politician to come down the pike.

Posted by MARCIA | March 7, 2008 1:45 PM

I so want Obama to be the nominee and go head to head with John McCain, just so I can watch Obama crash and burn. The Obama fans really think they're the only ones who will defect to the other party? Believe me, many Hillary supporters dislike Obama as much as you all dislike Hillary, and would not vote for him. So, please get over yourselves with your threats that, if your dreams of the party's first black nominee are not fulfilled, that you will just march over to the other side and happily support John McCain in 100 more years in Iraq (We'll show that Hillary!). Plus, in case you haven't noticed, not all Republicans are happy with their choice of nominee either. For every Democrat that jumps ship and decides to join John McClain in 100 more years in Iraq, there will be a Republican woman crossing over to vote for the first female president of the United States, and that's a fact. In fact, the latest polls are showing that both Obama AND Clinton are ahead of McCain in head to head contests.

Posted by sydney | March 7, 2008 2:22 PM

TedL,

The real chaos would be to have a nationalist president occupying a foreign land, with an economy heading to a depression and Stevens and Ginsburg about to retire.

That's what chaos is.

Sydney,

There are lots of hard feelings because we have all invested a lot in electing our candidate. Hillary's and Obama's base won't vote for the other unless they are represented in the ticket. After 50 states Obama will be:

Ahead in delegates
Ahead in popular votes
Ahead in contests won
Fairing better against McCain than Hillary

That will be the reality in Denver. While I don't care for Hillary at all, there's no way one can discount her supporters and their very strong and unyielding minority.

Ed Rendell was correct.

Posted by yiannis | March 7, 2008 2:39 PM

Obama is not ready yet. Need more whiskers first and should not get them as a VP.

Posted by Gil | March 7, 2008 2:57 PM

This is good for Obama. A big Clinton supporter contemplating a OBAMA Win!!!!

Posted by C. Dieng | March 7, 2008 3:02 PM

This is great news for Obama. A big Clinton supporter contemplating a OBAMA WIN!!!!!

Posted by C. Dieng | March 7, 2008 3:05 PM

My Fellow Americans:

So, Ed, Hillary couldn't handle being a VP? How can she handle the presidency. The sad state of affairs all over the country is that race could ever be a determining factor in any American's vote. There may be some truth to Governor Rendell's comment, but why call this issue out here and now? I would hazard a guess to say that the same is true in every state, including the 23 states Barack has won the popular vote in. Do all fellow white Pennsylvanians deserve the stigma that Governor Rendell has willed upon them?

Stick to the real issues, Ed. For example, talk about how legalized gamblng has improved the state. My guess is that the number of of empoverished citizens has increased. Let's talk about how Harrah's Chester has breathed life into the Chester Waterfront. I drive through Chester every day and provide community service there, and this prospect has failed me. Legalized gambling was promised to provide property tax relief...my propery taxes continue to rise. Convince me otherwise. Your rhetoric is just one more example of "politics as usual", and further convinces me that Barack is the choice for the future of "unconventional" politics.

Posted by Micahel Huppman | March 7, 2008 4:00 PM

If I were Sen. Obama, and I won the Democratic nomination, the LAST person I would want as my VP would be Hillary Clinton! I'd have to watch my back 24 hours a day. I would be in constant fear for my life, given the rules for succession to the Presidency!!

Posted by Joe Momma | March 7, 2008 4:08 PM

kid oakland and Tungsten have hit this one on the head, and it’s amazing to me that more people aren’t picking up on what a thinly veiled gambit this on HRC’s part.

In fact, as I read through the comments here and elsewhere, I’m repeatedly amazed at lack of (or suppression of) logic from HRC supporters and the comparative depth of insight that I see from Obama supporters. Don’t get me wrong, there are exceptions on both sides. But the pattern is alarming. Sorry to say HRC supporters, but you’re part of the same problem that explains why GWB has served two terms: you fall for the same crap every election cycle and are unable to see above the fray. It makes me sad. I’m not trying to flame HRC supporters (well, maybe a little), but I’m just bummed out that I might have to suffer through another 4 years of the Morris/Rove politics of disaster because we as a country are too collectively stupid to make an informed decision. Humbug!

Posted by dotdotdot | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM

Can't imagine Barack Obama or anyone for that matter wanting to subject themselves to the Clinton Co-presidency. If she is elected her VP will be third man out. He would be foolish to include her on his ticket because her baggage will be too weighty to handle.

Seriously, neither of them would be wise to tap another Senator, it should be someone of the same mindset with complementary strengths. She should choose Governor Richardson or Bob Kerrey. He - Mayor Bloomberg or maybe Bill Bradley.

Posted by jlindsley | March 7, 2008 6:40 PM

I'm at a loss as to why Hillary supporters would HATE Obama. Resent, maybe, but that has nothing to do with Obama's character. It's just that he came along at a time when Hillary's supporters were counting on her to cruise to the nomination. And why would Obama supporters despise her? All she did was insulted Obama by essentially calling him an empty suit; used the race card in South Carolina; accused him of being weak on choice with evidence that, read correctly, actually supported his strong stand on choice; referred to Obama as Ken Starr, Karl Rove and George Bush; went out of her way on many occasions to vocally sing the praises of Republican's foreign-policy experience over a fellow Democrat's; accused Obama of plagiarism; left open the possibility that he was a Muslim; denigrated his service by boiling down his entire 25-year history to "a speech he gave in 1992." That's all.

Posted by greenpaz | March 7, 2008 7:20 PM

Obama needs to pick Bill Richardson as his VP. They get along well, and because Richardson is sort of a Clinton guy, it would help to mend the fences a bit. I think Hillary would turn down the VP in a second because she wants Obama to fail so she can run in 2012. All of the negative machinations she's going through are part of that dark strategy.

Posted by greenpaz | March 7, 2008 7:32 PM

Plese Mr. Rendell..

Instead of thinking that this Media Made Up "Dream Team" would ever happen, why don't you tell everyone about the Rezko contributions you took when you were DNC Chairman appointed by Bill Clinton in 2000..?? And the contribution made to your campaign by the same and the contribution made to Hill's California connection Villaregossa, yes the same man, Rezko who your Goddess prays will end it for Sen Obama..Oh and please don't get me started on the people behind the curtain in her campaign..umm let's say that Muslim thing that keeps getting repeated..well let's just say she might just feel a bit more willing to put a stop to this "myth".. nuf said..

Posted by LolaM | March 7, 2008 8:06 PM

There is no way I will vote for the monster, no matter with whom she shares the ticket. I'm a lifelong Democrat who will vote McCain if the name Clinton appears anywhere on the ballot

Posted by mary altorfer | March 7, 2008 8:13 PM

I have never seen a presidential candidate with more personalities than Hillary Clinton. During the past few weeks we have seen the passionate Hillary, the crying Hillary, the mocking Hillary, the angry Hillary and the misleading Hillary. Can someone tell me which of these Hillarie’s is going to answer the phone at 3 am in the morning when the world is in crisis? What experience in foreign affairs and national security does Hillary Clinton really have? Do the eight years during her husband’s presidency qualify her to call herself the most experienced candidate? Each time she mentions her record during the Clinton White House is she telling us that she participated in every decision her husband made? Is her campaign based on name recognition? We can assume than, that if Laura Bush ever decides to run for office, she also has at least eight years of experience in national security by osmosis. Just because she is married to George Bush. Why can’t Hillary show the American people who she really is, what she knows and how experienced she is without nastily attacking her opponent? Does she really need to attack her opponent in order to prove that she is the most qualified candidate? Do such sophomoric actions only uncover feelings of insecurity? Does she think the American people are so uneducated that they are not going to compare her record to her opponents and make a wise decision?
What I see is a desperate Hillary that would say and do anything in order to win the nomination. A true Democrat would put the party first before her personal ambitions. Every attack she directs toward Obama is eventually going to be used against him by the Republicans should he become the nominee. She thought she would be the Democratic nominee after Super Tuesday. Instead she found herself in a race that is not exactly going her way. How arrogant can you be to think that you and only you deserve the presidency? If the way she is behaving and running her campaign is any reflection of her actions in the Oval Office, than America is in trouble. As a resident of the Scranton PA area I would appreciate Mr.Rendell be more partial. Peolple are going to start beleiving that just like Jebb Bush promised to his brother the state of Florida, Mr. Rendell is promising PA to Hillary.

Posted by Margaret Cotic | March 7, 2008 10:38 PM

I have never seen a presidential candidate with more personalities than Hillary Clinton. During the past few weeks we have seen the passionate Hillary, the crying Hillary, the mocking Hillary, the angry Hillary and the misleading Hillary. Can someone tell me which of these Hillarie’s is going to answer the phone at 3 am in the morning when the world is in crisis? What experience in foreign affairs and national security does Hillary Clinton really have? Do the eight years during her husband’s presidency qualify her to call herself the most experienced candidate? Each time she mentions her record during the Clinton White House is she telling us that she participated in every decision her husband made? Is her campaign based on name recognition? We can assume than, that if Laura Bush ever decides to run for office, she also has at least eight years of experience in national security by osmosis. Just because she is married to George Bush. Why can’t Hillary show the American people who she really is, what she knows and how experienced she is without nastily attacking her opponent? Does she really need to attack her opponent in order to prove that she is the most qualified candidate? Do such sophomoric actions only uncover feelings of insecurity? Does she think the American people are so uneducated that they are not going to compare her record to her opponents and make a wise decision?
What I see is a desperate Hillary that would say and do anything in order to win the nomination. A true Democrat would put the party first before her personal ambitions. Every attack she directs toward Obama is eventually going to be used against him by the Republicans should he become the nominee. She thought she would be the Democratic nominee after Super Tuesday. Instead she found herself in a race that is not exactly going her way. How arrogant can you be to think that you and only you deserve the presidency? If the way she is behaving and running her campaign is any reflection of her actions in the Oval Office, than America is in trouble. As a resident of the Scranton PA area I would appreciate Mr.Rendell be more partial. Peolple are going to start beleiving that just like Jebb Bush promised to his brother the state of Florida, Mr. Rendell is promising PA to Hillary.

Posted by Margaret Cotic | March 7, 2008 10:38 PM

Hillary no doubt believes Obama is ready now to be President because the VP has to be ready to take over at any time, that is why you pick someone to be VP. She has already indicated this on the record, so her claim that only she and McCain are ready rings hollow and insincere. Not to mention that her inconsistent kitchen sink strategy is playing into the hands of the loyal oppositon. Obama is ready to be President and Hillary knows it. Her campaign tactics are short sighted, selfish and ultimately self-defeating.

Posted by JH | March 7, 2008 10:39 PM

The Clinton Campaign is laying the groundwork to steal the nomination. Hillary is trying to peel off some supporters by suggesting that Obama would be a good Number 2, because you know..he is a black man and all...and the black man should be happy with the Vice Presidency. Additionally, even were Hillary to steal the nomination, she cannot win the election without Obama's supporters. THE FACT IS OBAMA EXPANDS THE SIZE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HILLARY SHRINKS THE SIZE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. If I am Obama, my thought process would be, "I win twice as many states, I carry and make inroad into jurisdictions that the Democrats rarely win, I expand the size of the party by doing what no politician has done in a generation which is motivating the youth of this country, pulling in Independents and disaffected Republicans and my reward is to have the nomination stolen from me by a machine politician who is despised by the grassroots of her own party with a coalition built on fraud and manipulating/deceiving voters on the left side of the bell curve?" If Hillary steals the nomination, Obama supporters should stay home, support McCain or an Independent candidate. The last thing Obama should ever do is become Hilalry's Vice President. The Clintons are loyal to Clintons only. Anyone else will get the shaft. Ask Al Gore. Hillary is a monster, she is the Freddie Kruger of American Politics bringing Nightmare on Main Street, USA.

Posted by Christopher London | March 7, 2008 11:02 PM

THE FACT IS OBAMA EXPANDS THE SIZE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HILLARY SHRINKS THE SIZE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Nonsense. A recent poll has about one quarter of Democrats defecting to McCain if Obama is the nominee. This should easily cancel out any gains Obama will supposedly make among independents and moderate Republicans. Remember, the eventual Democrat is up against a very centrist Republican.

Nice use of caps, though.

Posted by Mitch | March 7, 2008 11:37 PM

The height of White Entitlement, Privilege and Arrogance...

Obama is leading
1. Number of states won
2. Number of pledged delegates
3. Popular vote

And, CLINTON would be at the top of the ticket?

GTFOH.

This is nothing but a ploy...vote for me, Hillpatine says, and you can get Obama on the side.

GTFOH.

HELL NO.

SHE can't get elected without him.

Period.

HE, however, can find any number of suitable VP selections that will be less offensive than the poisonous pill that is Hillpatine.

Posted by rikyrah | March 8, 2008 12:01 AM

I'd guarantee that HRC WOULD NOT campaign for Obama once he is nominated for the simple reason that she WOULD leave the Democratic party and probably (more likely) join the other monster Joe Lieberman, but not before suing the DNC. God willing, we'll never hear from the Clintons after that again! Amen.

Posted by aidan2 | March 8, 2008 1:54 AM

Please sign this petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Truth_Hurts/

Posted by Sandra | March 8, 2008 2:07 AM

I've tried to maintain some level of respect for Rendell (even after the race based comments about PA voting). That's now gone. I'm a Dem-turned-Independent thanks to the cowardice of the Dem Party in dealing with the Clinton's unbridled quest for power. I will NOT support any ticket with a clinton on it. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH.

Posted by Denni | March 8, 2008 4:13 AM

I've tried to maintain some level of respect for Rendell (even after the race based comments about PA voting). That's now gone. I'm a Dem-turned-Independent thanks to the cowardice of the Dem Party in dealing with the Clinton's unbridled quest for power. I will NOT support any ticket with a clinton on it. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH.

Posted by Denni | March 8, 2008 4:14 AM

I've tried to maintain some level of respect for Rendell (even after the race based comments about PA voting). That's now gone. I'm a Dem-turned-Independent thanks to the cowardice of the Dem Party in dealing with the Clinton's unbridled quest for power. I will NOT support any ticket with a clinton on it. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH.

Posted by Denni | March 8, 2008 4:14 AM

If you think Hillary would select someone like Obama who would upstage her, you haven't been paying attention. This idea is usually suggested by Clinton supporters and is a tactic to marginalize Obama and reduce voter ambivalence by leading them to think that a vote for her may be a vote for him as well.

Posted by Maureen | March 8, 2008 6:28 AM

The idea that the Democrat or Obama will win Kansas in a general election is lunacy.

If anyone thinks that the assignment of delegates through a caucus is representational of what either the democrats or the general voting public think or will do, they are ignoring any version of reality.

This process is a convoluted assignment of delegates only remotely based on the voting patterns of primary goers.

The super delegates are part of the process and always intended to be no more sensical than anything else.

After all, as we are constantly reminded, rules are rules. And the rules allow superdelegates to vote their own views.

Posted by golfinhawk | March 8, 2008 7:33 AM

The idea that the Democrat or Obama will win Kansas in a general election is lunacy.

If anyone thinks that the assignment of delegates through a caucus is representational of what either the democrats or the general voting public think or will do, they are ignoring any version of reality.

This process is a convoluted assignment of delegates only remotely based on the voting patterns of primary goers.

The super delegates are part of the process and always intended to be no more sensical than anything else.

After all, as we are constantly reminded, rules are rules. And the rules allow superdelegates to vote their own views.

Posted by golfinhawk | March 8, 2008 7:33 AM

The idea that the Democrat or Obama will win Kansas in a general election is lunacy.

If anyone thinks that the assignment of delegates through a caucus is representational of what either the democrats or the general voting public think or will do, they are ignoring any version of reality.

This process is a convoluted assignment of delegates only remotely based on the voting patterns of primary goers.

The super delegates are part of the process and always intended to be no more sensical than anything else.

After all, as we are constantly reminded, rules are rules. And the rules allow superdelegates to vote their own views.

Posted by golfinhawk | March 8, 2008 7:33 AM

Geez, if BO was the VP he could (A) Learn how the Executive Branch works under one of the best minds of this century HRC and (B) If they lose as this ticket, he would be the choice in 4 years against McCain. What's not to love about being on the same ticket. If he wins the nomination and Hill accepts the Veep spot, she'll be the next choice in 4 years when he loses and he will have someone smart around him that he can copy his homework from like he did with "his" healthcare plan.

Posted by buck | March 8, 2008 8:42 AM

Geez, if BO was the VP he could (A) Learn how the Executive Branch works under one of the best minds of this century HRC and (B) If they lose as this ticket, he would be the choice in 4 years against McCain. What's not to love about being on the same ticket. If he wins the nomination and Hill accepts the Veep spot, she'll be the next choice in 4 years when he loses and he will have someone smart around him whose homework he can copy, like he did with "his" healthcare plan.

Posted by buck | March 8, 2008 8:45 AM

I think Sen. McCain should be elected POTUS. The republicans have made a total mess of the country, so why should Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama have to clean it up. Let Sen. McCain have the job and sit back and laugh as he has to clean up Bush's big steaming pile of ....

Posted by SteveA | March 8, 2008 9:45 AM

Whoa, buck must be hypnotized if he hasn't seen the neurotic behavior of Senator Clinton lately. I have no question she is a great mind. But at what cost? And her judgement seems severely lacking lately as she exaggerates her experience repeatedly, successfully works the old switcheroo (NAFTA thing, Ken Starr comment, delegates are most important no momentum is more important, no only big states are more important, claimly disputedly that she has the most experience).
buck, have you been listening to her comments closely in the past week? I would be afraid to have someone like that as a VP.

I question your absolute certainty that she has one of the best minds of this century-- best minds maybe for the psychiatric industry...

Obama's leadership in writing legislation for lobbyists reform, veterans benefits, nuclear proliferation, climate change, deceptive practices in federal elections, global poverty, and education during a hostile Republican Senate are strong.

Obama has shown time and time again that he has the right experience, the wisdom, the level headedness, the heart of an average citizen, moral leadership, and the ability to be one of the great Presidents of our time.

Posted by SouthCentralDel | March 8, 2008 10:01 AM

Listen, up DNC-HIlary Clinton is a "Monster" and if by chance she's the nominee, I will stay at home or possibly vote for McCain. Here's the deal, why would Barack Obama want to be a losing ticket as Hilary's VP.

Posted by Andrea G. | March 8, 2008 11:20 AM

Listen, up DNC-HIlary Clinton is a "Monster" and if by chance she's the nominee, I will stay at home or possibly vote for McCain. Here's the deal, why would Barack Obama want to be a losing ticket as Hilary's VP.

Posted by Andrea G. | March 8, 2008 11:20 AM

I can't believe how nasty Obama supporters sound in their posts. It is sad that such an inspiring Candidate, breeds such ugliness. Instead of talking issues, they choose to be mean spirited against the other worthy candidate.
I will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Mercedes | March 8, 2008 11:50 AM

It's not Obama who inspires negativity toward Clinton. It's her own untrustworthy actions. Obama supporters believe in his principles, not necessarily his willingness to allow corrupt and deceptive political maneuvers go unanswered.

I will not vote for Hillary, not under any circumstances. Worthy candidate? No candidate willing to split her party open by referring to her opponent as less prepared than her party's rival is a 'worthy candidate'. Obama's legislative record, in his two years in office, is more impressive than Clinton's. For her to call him 'unprepared' is a lie, and an insult (especially given the fact that he has more experience than her husband before HE took office)

Her game is to win or make sure her Democratic rival doesn't. That's not the sign of a leader, but a person a little too hungry for power. It explains her exaggeration of her foreign policy experience as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

How can you trust someone who doesn't feel that she owes her own constituency the truth? The rest of the world is paying attention, even if the U.S. media isn't, and if some voters are willing to bargain their consciences to support Sen. Clinton.

Exaggerated foreign experience, a lack of transparency regarding tax records, first lady papers (which are NOT being held up by Bush - that's been denounced as another untruth, the lack of transparency regarding the Clinton Foundation and Library... well, trust her if you will, I won't make that mistake.

Posted by Denni | March 8, 2008 2:38 PM

Mitch

I do believe you are right that up to 20% of HC's supporters would not vote for Obama

Yet, when you look at that number, the question becomes, how many of those people would stay home vs betray their party and vote for McCain?

My belief is that the majority of those people would stay home.

Staying home would not hurt Obama since it would be as if these people never existed. In other words, Obama would still win but win by less. That's why every major poll shows Obama beating McCain by greater margins than Hilary would.

So let's assume that Obama would win by 150 votes if all of Hiliary's supporters voted for Obama.

Let's say that 99 of these voters would not support Obama and hence either stayed home or voted for McCain. If they stay home, Obama wins by 51. If they voted for McCain, McCain wins by 49

If half stayed home and half voted for McCain, Obama wins by one

So when you look at that poll, the poll needs to find out what percentage would stay home vs switch parties.

Posted by David | March 8, 2008 5:11 PM