Team Hillary would have a hell of a time taking the second spot and functioning as a team (and just imagine Bill doing so as well). I cannot see Hillary on the ticket. The logic of party unity might dictate that but so much else is against it, i.e., the subject of Eve's post and ticket balancing, to name just two things.

The Only Hope: Hillary and Bill ride off into the sunset, Bill gets back on the speaking tour, hangs with his billionaire buddies, and Hillary focuses on her Senate seat and grooming Chelsea for a life in politics.

Although it would be a smart move on Obama's part to cut a deal with Bill - Secretary of State, a special role at the U.N. - to keep him quiet.

By the way, what is Gore waiting for?

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB IDEA!!!  This is the most brain-dead idea that any village idiot could come up with.  The only, remotely plausible, reason for it would be to keep Clinton in the game, as it would present the absolutely worst scenario for the Democratic Party against the Republicans.  

While I love this country, I've lived in just about every area of it and know very well where the warts are.  Obama is very definitely fighting uphill against racism.  Clinton is fighting uphill against sexism (not to mention all those who just plain dislike her and Bill).  What fool would think the two on the same ticket could win against every bigot and Clinton basher in the country?  Absolutely a ticket doomed to failure.

"There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet. . ."

"There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet. . ."

"There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet. . ."

"There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet. . ."

"There aren't any Obama people involved with the project yet. . ."

Sorry to you readers for this repetition, but some of the writers at TNR (I won't mention any names) seem to have missed this rather obvious point.

WaltB said everything that needs to be said on this subject.

No deals with Bill. It's Hillary who needs to be chosen, probably via leak to the press so she can't refuse, for an all-work, no-glory position. UN ambassador would be my preference. Gets her out of the Senate, ends her career in elected politics, uses her "experience" as a globetrotting diplomat, lets her stay in the NY social elite she and Bill so dearly love, and puts her in a position to be blamed and fired for any foreign policy problems ahead of the 2010 midterms.

In the meantime, Obama-Henry 2008 -- the Hopelahoma ticket!

Hillary Clinton on the ticket?

I'm not going to complain about it, because I guess it beats her sticking around for months longer, but she doesn't really bring anything to the ticket except for a few older white women...

Rhubarbs nails it.

So does JC.

I know Obama is a reconciler, but how do you ask a person to be your teammate after she has implied to everyone that you are some radical terrorist? (I'm referring to her insistence that people consider what his relationship to Ayers must mean...)

I agree with others that I don't see her strengths in the general. If anything, she would repel the cross-over voters that he can attract and would likely take some of the states that have any chance of switching colors this season off the map.

But, Hillary as Ambassador?! After listening to her uber-saber rattling in this campaign, she's the scariest image I can imagine for foreign relations. Please don't allow her to talk to any other countries.

The bottom line is that Obama's campaign is about approaching foreign and domestic relations differently. Hillary can't change who she is and how she's managed relationships throughout her life. She would be antithesis to the change he represents. I don't see him putting her on his ticket. It might even look hypocritical.

lets see, one VP and one exPres. equals one President right? So it will be a co-Presidency, right? Or how about President by committee with each getting a vote.

Why would he want to bring that freakshow anywhere near the White House with Bill publicly second guessing him, offering advice repeatedly and complaining when it isn't heeded. I see no upsides.

This is so not going to happen.

Yeah, it would be a little like McGovern choosing Eagleton- a naked political move to appease the "politics as usuall" crowd that would turn off a lot of his supporters.  Also: electroshock.

On whichever cable outfit I was watching last night (after a while one gets too sleepy to remember), somebody kept making the point that for Obama to put Clinton on the ticket would seriously undermine what has been the constant theme of his campaign; changing the way politics works.  Putting the ultimate practitioner of old-way partisan mudball going right now on his ticket would be in no way reconcilable with that theme.  He would alienate too large a chunk of his own base.

Rhubarbs:

You nailed it. That'e exactly (UN ambassador or some similar position) what Hillary needs NOT to do. She needs to stay in the Senate, precisely because that is an elected position, where she is good and where she can retain some influence.

It is clear she lost the nomination. It is also pretty clear that Obama will not be presidenmt or will be a bad president. I shudder at the thought at how this guy will deal with Ahmadinejad, advised by Messrs. Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. That puts her in a position to run again in 2012 - that is, provided she doesn't do the stupid things that you suggested she do.

icarusr, is it wrong that I thought when you said "so does JC" that I thought you were saying that Jesus Christ nailed it?

...like, nailed to a cross?

But you're right.  The other JC nailed it too.

Obama and Hillary are less than the sum of their parts.

Obama needs to make a deal whereby he offers he the spot and she publicly but politely turns it down, to mainain a facade of unity that will serve the purposes of both.

Then he needs to find someone who does not bring more negatives than positives to the ticket.  Wesley Clark?  Kathleen Kennedy Townsend?  The possibilities are endless.

sleepy 2012, no. The Democratic party never does second acts. No second place finisher has later come back to be the first place one. And the only candidate that had any success in 2 runs was VP in the interim (Al Gore). If Obama loses in 4 years other women will run and split the womens vote, and Hillary has lost the black vote forever, no amount of fence mending will repair that. No, in 4 years it will be someone like Mark Warner.

Really what is her supporters obsession with her? I recognize this is Obama's only shot, if he loses now he is done.

balckton:

No second acts is a weak argument. i could have told you that Democrats don't put women or blacks as nominees. But just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it won't be done or it can't be done.

I like Hilary because she is smart and competent. I also like her because she is NOT charismatic - which is why I liked Gore too, a deeply serious man with no charisma.

I dislike charisma - and also voters who vote based on charisma instead of program, on emotion instead of substance. This is how demagogues get elected: based on charisma and voters who vote on emotion, not reason.

Sleepy, a lot of us here voted for Obama, and not based on emotion. It is pretty insulting to say otherwise.  He isn't a demagogue.  He is far, far more serious than Hillary.   Please give me an example- just one- of Hillary's smart competency.  The gas tax?  Shluffing off experts, like Bush?  Please.

bigfish - I am an equal opportunity offender, but would never presume to make fun of JC - either of them.

bigfish & icarusr-

Thanks for the kind words.

______________________________________________________________________________

Rubarbs-

Your post makes me think it's time to reprise a few of the nominees from the BEST PAYBACK FOR HILLARY Contest, and so:

______________________________________________________________________________

THE TNR TALKBACK NATION

MERRY PLANKSTERS AWARD

for

B E S T

P A Y B A C K

for

H I L L A R Y

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. If/when Barack Obama becomes president, he offers Hillary the position of Secretary of State, waits till she resigns from her Senate seat, allows a decent interval, then fires her white, pantsuited ass.

5. During President Obama's first term, HRC is appointed Ambassador to Kazakhstan, where (for a cool 130 million dollar payoff) she can, like her husband, have dinner with that nation's thuggish dictator, call him a great humanitarian, and also do charity work for the miners off whose backs that $130 million came.

7. During President McCain's first term, Chelsea Clinton enlists in the military and serves in Iraq, while Hillary reconsiders whether maybe, just maybe her Iraq war vote was a mistake.

12. After she siphons off a majority of pledged and unpledged delegates at the Dem Convention, and after GOP nominee John McCain drops out of the race due to health problems with no viable replacement, Hillary narrowly loses the general election to Uncommitted.

3. If payback is a bitch, and one can safely assume that Hillary is a bitch, then Hillary having to be Hillary should be payback enough.

_____________________________________________________________________________

cspencef makes the best point on this thread, something I've been thinking about ever since a few weeks ago when Bill and Hillary threw the "dream ticket" thing against the wall to see if it would stick. You can't base your whole campaign on changing the tone and fighting say-anything cynicism and Machiavellian modus operandi in Washington D.C. and then pick the poster girl for say-anything cynicism and Machiavellian modus operandi as your veep. (Now, hopefully to pre-empt some tep hand-wringing, this is not to say that Obama is a messiah in shining armor who is far above petty concerns like politics and refuses to dirty his hands. That is silly, of course, and no one really believes it.)

And I think anything sort of a gun to his head, Obama wouldn't do it. He may go with a high-profile HRC supporter - Wes Clark, Ed Rendell, pccostello (ha!) - as an olive branch. But to pick HRC herself? He would probably spend all that morning throwing up. And besides, as also mentioned above, one of the nice benefits of getting HRC out of the race means no more Mark Penn, no more Lanny Davis, no more Carville, etc. If HRC is the veep and Mark Penn is running around headquarters, how long would it be before someone stabbed him in the neck with a pen?

Woody, that gun to Obama's head, would it by any chance be an expensive German import, flipped backwards? Because if so, I expect that even Obama would recognize which way the dangerous end is pointing, and feel free to say "no" to Hillary's demand.

JC, I'm not down with calling Hillary a "bitch." As soon as we find a gender-neutral equivalent that's less strong than a-hole and that allows for some positive connotations of grit, go ahead and use that word.

As for payback, I think the best revenge would be requiring Hillary to serve out the remainder of her Senate term with no hope for promotion to higher office and nothing to do but the job itself. That has got to be her worst nightmare.

11. Hillary and Bill are required to have sex.  For the second time.

Woody: have anyone figured out why she is surrounded with so many creeps?

Rhubarbs-

I believe nominee #3 above was, in fact, inspired by a Hillarista who has completely embraced the B word (and applied it directly, and proudly, to HRC): Tina Fey.

But I think we may have been over this ground already, way back in early March, when the above Payback Contest nominees were first introduced to these threads. . .

WoodyBombay

"one of the nice benefits of getting HRC out of the race means no more Mark Penn, no more Lanny Davis, no more Carville"

Enter Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Zbigniew Brzezisnki, Samantha Power. Some progress!

icarusr "11. Hillary and Bill are required to have sex.  For the second time."

Classy. As he always is.

timteeter says:

"Obama and Hillary are less than the sum of their parts.

Obama needs to make a deal whereby he offers he the spot and she publicly but politely turns it down, to mainain a facade of unity that will serve the purposes of both.

Then he needs to find someone who does not bring more negatives than positives to the ticket.  Wesley Clark?  Kathleen Kennedy Townsend?  The possibilities are endless."

No they're not. There is only one possibility, one logical choice.

Joe Biden

sleepy,

Your rejoinder makes no sense on about five different levels.

"There is only one possibility, one logical choice.  Joe Biden"

tomeg, you represent everything that is wrong with Bidenites.  The way you speak of Biden is cultish, as if he is the only one who could POSSIBLY repair what's wrong with Cheney's legacy.  Your wide-eyed love of your Messiah is sickening to all of us who knows he has a real problem connecting to a vast swath of Democrats.  I mean.  Seriously. NOT EVEN DELAWARE VOTED FOR HIM!  tomeg, your devotion to "the One" is going to cost us the general.  Enjoy the Kool-Aid (or since Biden's so elite, are you drinking the Crystal Light?)

(bigfish runs away and hides)

Woody: thanks.  

Sleepy: do you have any evidence at all that Noam Chomsky is going to be a force in Obama's circle?  If you do, please let me know and I will be the first to say Obama is a fool. Carter is over eighty and not like to be relevant to anyone; Brzezisnki - you have a point about him, but again, what is the role he plays and what is the role he will be playing?    

bigfish: the very idea of a Biden cult causes the head to spin .... Nice touch with the capitals!

Yeah, nice stuff, bigfish.  

1) Sleepy, Chomsky?  Haven't seen a word of that, nor of Carter.  I know Barack said no negotiating with Hamas or Hezbollah.   And he supported the war in Afghanistan, which Chomsky insanely calls a genocide.   So I don't really see a fit there.  But if you have something show it, please, and I will be forced to strongly reconsider my views.

2) Veep- you know what would be great?  William Fallon.  I don't know his politics at all, but to get an army general who was in charge of CentCom with every major player in that great Eurasian swath in his rolodex, and one who was forced to resign by Bush*?   What a fucking coup that would be.  

3) Payback- Nothing.  Just ignore her.  No jobs, no nothing.  "You ran a great race, Hillary- no go in the background like Chris Dodd."  

*Rightfully so, but so what?

bigfish, with a bone in his throat:

"tomeg, you represent everything that is wrong with Bidenites.  The way you speak of Biden is cultish, as if he is the only one who could POSSIBLY repair what's wrong with Cheney's legacy.  Your wide-eyed love of your Messiah is sickening to all of us who knows he has a real problem connecting to a vast swath of Democrats.  I mean.  Seriously. NOT EVEN DELAWARE VOTED FOR HIM!  tomeg, your devotion to "the One" is going to cost us the general.  Enjoy the Kool-Aid (or since Biden's so elite, are you drinking the Crystal Light?)"

bigfish, yikes, I think Biden will make the best running mate. I don't get the rest of what you attribute to me. Mistaken identity perhaps? I didn't think Biden was a good, let alone best choice for Prez and it only occurred to me today that he would be a great pick for Veep. And I certainly didn't (and don't) have Cheney in mind, other than good riddance.

Look, Biden is certainly the best choice to bolster Obama in foreign policy. In addition he doesn't piss off supporters for loyalties to Obama or Clinton (even though he did endorse Obama, he didn't take up sword and cudgel on his behalf). He's articulate as all get out, and most of what he says really matters, is relevant, and wise. Yes, there are other choices, and I was being intentionally hyperbolic to show I wasn't idly speculating. Please do tell me/us what your thinking is on the subject of picking a VP, perhaps we could discuss your opinion in a rational way and leave the Kool-aid out of it.

Bone: While I agree with Fallon's perspective, I also agree that he was fired rightfully.  Problem is, you can't fire your Veep, and Fallon is prone to mouthing off.

Dan Quayle showed that no amount of foot in mouth disease by a Veep will hurt a campaign, and Bentsen proved that no amount of strategising will help where a campaign is in trouble to begin with.  But the choice itself demonstrate the kind of man or woman you have.  The choice of Cheney should have run alarm bells throughout the continent, and of course the last seven years all of the problems of that choice have become manifest.

Obama needs a policy, experience and image balance.  This means a white, mid-Western governor, or a general safer than Fallon and saner than Clark.

tomeg: Biden is an awful national politician.  He proved it in '88, and then again this year. (In '88, I was going to postpone law school for a year to go work on his campain.  The there was the "I am the most intelligent person here" quip in a bar in Nowhereland, Middleofnowhere, and the "I am the son of miner" speech, plagiarised from Neil Kinnock.  Yeah, him.  I mean, if you have hafta plagiarise, do it, but Neil "I'm a three times loser" Kinnock?)  Don't let try to prove the Peter Principle with Biden as VEEP.

Barack's best choice is a southern white pro-choice pro-gun church-going guy highly popular in an eminently winnable purple or purplish red state with high unemployment and scads of high school-aged and twenty-something sons and daughters blown to smitherines in Iraq. Not to put too cynical a point on it.

I don't know the players to name names but if you do you can plug 'em in and go from there.

thanks, icarus and bone.  tomeg, sorry if I was too obtuse.  Honestly, I agree that Biden wouldn't be a bad choice, although I think there could be better ones.  Obama has plenty of time.  Actually and honestly, come to think of it, maybe it would be good for Clinton to stay in the race, if only to give Obama more time to decide who his running mate will be.  As soon as Clinton concedes, it'll pressure Obama to declare a running mate, and that will be the talk of the town.

tomeg, denial of kool-aid is the surest proof of having drunk it. Kidding! As was bigfish, I believe.

Look, if it were within my power to appoint any living American president of the United States, Joe Biden would be my first, second, and maybe third choices. But I don't have that power; rather, we rely on the idiot voters -- er, I mean, the grace and wisdom of the American people in all their civic glory -- to elect the president. Recent experience has shown that choosing a good campaigner as VP can help the ticket a little (such as Al Gore in 1992, who often out-performed Bill Clinton on the stump back then) but choosing a bad campaigner as VP can hurt a ticket a whole lot (such as Joe Lieberman in 2000).

Joe Biden has many virtues, but "good campaigner" isn't one of them.

The test for Obama is not whether his VP can name the leading political parties in Nigeria. It's not specific foreign policy knowledge that he needs, it's a partner who offers the "feeling" of adding depth of experience to Obama's relatively thinner resume. Successful executive experience of any kind would do that, as would a military reputation, as would some other factors. You can get all of the perception benefits Biden would give you from any number of other candidates.

Which is why I would go for Brad Henry. He's a second-term governor, from the cultural South and West, a member of the more libertarian/conservative Webb-Talent wing of the party, NRA-endorsed, a terrific campaigner, a non-Ivy graduate, and a tax cutter. He also has a strong record of innovation on education and drugs. He lacks Biden's specific foreign policy cred, but his executive experience and cultural origins are at least as advantageous to Obama. Plus, and sadly these things do matter a little, he's a young white guy with gray hair.

Obama-Henry: the Hopelahoma ticket.

WoodyBombay, that wasn't a reply, it was a run. The people I mentioned are advisors in the Obama campaign. Ever heard of Zbigniew?

Obama-Bayh '08

While it's true Bayh is a VP out of central casting as they say, he's got everything Obama needs short of military experience.  I think he's the obvious choice.

1. Passes experience threshold: 8 years governor, 10 years Senator.  

2. High-profile Clinton supporter. An olive branch to Clintonites without the baggage.

3. Obama-Bayh effectively doubles down on the Midwest, gives Democrats a real chance to flip IN, OH, maybe more.  With the tanking economy front and center, why not a popular governor from a Rust Belt state who ended his term with an 80% approval rating?

4. Obama-Bayh doubles down on telegenic youthful vigor.  Bayh is a great campaigner, and at 52, he's an investment in the party's future.

Oh and Bayh's a moderate, which might help blunt some of the most-liberal-senator attacks on Obama.

Sleepy, Brzezinski was a very informal advisor early on, but I'm pretty sure he's been cut loose after his ill-advised sojourns abroad.

Ok, ok, I yield; not Biden. Rhubarbs, I just looked up Brad Henry and he appears to be a plausible choice.

I'll probably get myself into more trouble, but how 'bout Claire McCaskill (sp?). *Not* because she is female, though that might be a good reason. She seems a solid, if somewhat boring choice. Does geography matter all that much this year? Why do you think a regional "balance" running mate is needed. I think Obama will do just fine on the West Coast. Is there anybody from a Mountain State who qualifies? Landrieu? - ok, not Landrieu. Is Zell Miller available?

I'm sorry to say that I don't see Evan Bayh, don't ask me why, I'm just underwhelmed.

Bob Graham?  (OK I'll stop, and I still want Biden - maybe Al Gore can give him lessons in how to act.)

p.s. bigfish, thank you. I was shopping for Kool-aid and couldn't find any. Does Costco carry it?

On second thought, maybe not Bayh.

fortwaynepolitics.com/.../obama-bayh-ticket-i-dont-think-so

Though the anti-Bayh argument would have be a little stronger than anti-DLC to be taken seriously.

Tiger, one question about Bayh: how would having the Pres and the VP from next door states play out?  Something further South or further West might be better, geographically speaking, no?  Or does it matter?

icarusr, if it were anywhere but the Midwest, I'd agree.  But (1) Midwestern values = "authentic" American values, (2) Obama is only *kinda* Midwestern since he's still got that exotic aura, (3) Obama won't have any problems with the coasts, and he can win even if he doesn't carry NC or GA as long as (4) he doesn't completely blow all of the Rust Belt, which Bayh helps to avoid, especially if there's carryover in OH.

In short, I think Obama himself brings more than enough excitement to the ticket. No need to get too fancy here.  Use the VP to shore up a weakness or two and to carry a state.

That said, it'd be nice for the ticket to have a coherent message, which may not be the case since Bayh hails from the DLC-Clinton school of politics.  Although, he's enough of a political animal, it seems, that given the shot at the VP job, he'd be more than willing to "tailor" his views accordingly.

traytiger nails it. Just hit it up the middle. Don't swing for the fences-- that's what McCain has to do (Jindal, batter up).

VP doesn't much matter, so long as he's not a drag on the ticket. (Not "drag" in the Rudy G/RuPaul sense, mind). He simply needs to be credible as a president, come across as solid, secure, safe. That implies Biden or Dodd.

Warner might be OK but he's too new on the national stage. Richardson's a goof. Webb's utterly dreadful on the stump. Even though I consider him unbearably light, Edwards would actually make some sense, given BHO's vulnerability in PA OH MI MO.

Sleepavl : I share your reservations about Obama but not your paranoia. Chomsky and Obama linked together? Are you mad? And  have you forgotten about Hillary's radical past at Wellesley? I hear that if she by some incredible fluke staggers into the Oval office, she will name Bill Ayers as SecDef (despite her camp's demagoguery on the Obama - Ayers matter). Pass it on.

I can't see Obama choosing her for number 2, no matter what.  No one would pick a number 2 who at any time during the campaign, and in an administration might shoot their mouth off about the candidate/president not know what they're talking about.

Her former health care debacle is enough to not pick her.  If she was the veep, there's no way she could keep her mouth shut on this, and even if she did, republicans would just assume it's Hillarycare round 2 and it would be dead on arrival.

She needs to step back, and decide what she wants her and Bill's legacy to be.