Should Obama choose Clinton? Cast your vote. Also McCain's VP options
Today is the big, public Democratic rapprochement day in Washington, the time when that party's presumptive presidential nominee, Barack Obama, presumably gets the presumably hearty endorsement of the party's presumptive loser, Hillary
Clinton.
She says she'll work for the election of his ticket Nov. 4.
But should she be on it too?
Would that be a major unity coup, bringing in those 18 million primary Clinton voters and halting the drift of conservative Democrats toward the Republicans? Or would that buy the freshman Illinois senator a two-pack of Clinton trouble that makes it better to risk the race with someone else?
Should Clinton accept if offered the spot?
And while we're at it, what about the Republican ticket? Who should John McCain tap as his running mate?
There are a whole lot of possibilities, some ridiculous, some safe and standard, a couple daring. It probably should be someone from outside Washington, someone at least somewhat younger than McCain's 72. We're betting
a governor or ex-governor; Americans like electing executives as chief executive.
Should the Arizona senator go with young Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, dynamic, conservative, from an immigrant family of color with a compelling American success story, who has some Washington House experience? Florida's an important state. Gov. Charlie Crist delivered it in the GOP primary. Could he do it again in the general election?
What about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a veteran campaigner, vetted, knows the issues, strong jaw, better-liked among some conservative
s and, unlike many GOP possibilities, still with his first wife? Also, unlike McCain, Romney's a super-fundraiser.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas? Not gonna happen.
Just for fun, we'll throw in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She'd be the first female Republican VP nominee, and she's a real doer, conservative, popular. But Alaska's a long ways away. Can Americans come to know and like her quickly enough from Labor Day to early November?
Click here to take the poll. Vote your choices. Then see how the tallies are going.
-- Andrew Malcolm



Former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia is the best choice for Obama.
Posted by: ARCHIE HAASE | June 06, 2008 at 07:12 PM
Hillary as VP. I say NO NO NO
Posted by: lena holst | June 06, 2008 at 07:18 PM
I'm sad there wasn't an option of HELL NO!
Posted by: TJ | June 06, 2008 at 07:21 PM
I think Obama can beat McCain without us, and frankly, I'm so sick of his low-rent supporters I'm tuning most of it out. I'll vote for him, but I don't want to be tempted back in to giving a damn by Obama making an expedient offer of the VP slot to Hillary. Don't offer, Senator Obama. Say no, Senator Clinton. Good luck, Barack Obama. Don't write.
Posted by: bocek | June 06, 2008 at 07:22 PM
What about Linda Lingle as the VP for McCain?
Posted by: Andrew | June 06, 2008 at 07:26 PM
I would have put Hillary's name in Republican side farther down the list rather than put it first on the list.
I would have also liked to have seen an option for whom Hillary Clinton should pick as her V.P.
http://www.Hillary-Wins.com
http://www.CaucusCheating.com
http://www.CaucusConfession.com
http://www.Florida-Michigan.com
Posted by: Alessandro Machi | June 06, 2008 at 07:26 PM
I strongly believe that Obama should choose Clinton as his VP. For one thing, Hilary, having been a resident of the White House for quite sometime and had closely assisted Bill Clinton while he was the President, had been exposed to and knows a wide range of policy making evaluation as far as the nation is concerned. Her being a Senator and her experiences on foreign policy matters and universal health care are added credentials to this magnificent lady.
Posted by: Briggs V. Camungol, Jr. | June 06, 2008 at 07:27 PM
Do you really think Hillary will be content with being #2.?
There will be problems in the White House until America's will have to put on hold.
Posted by: Dorothy Johnson | June 06, 2008 at 07:31 PM
I really like the idea of a McCain/Clinton ticket. None of the other candidates could bring as many votes as she could to the table. Two people working across party lines to unite the country is exactly what we need. Enough with the smoozing.
Posted by: Diana | June 06, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Senator Obama should pick Senator Byrd from West Virginia. It would bring great balance to the ticket and completely negate Senator McCain's age advantage. Senator McCain should pick Hillary, which would show just how far he would go to win. If he won, Iran would surrender immediately.
(Are you serious? He's 90 and can barely walk.)
Posted by: Louise | June 06, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Obama should offer the VP to Clinton but she should not accept. It may help to unify the Democratic Party.
Doubtful whether Obama can win against McCain and this allows Clinton to run in next election.
Posted by: charles horne | June 06, 2008 at 07:32 PM
I think Obama is bad news for America. He and his wife have a dangerous agenda, and America is too naive to see it. If he becomes President, this country will never be the same again. It will change forever, for the worse.
I would think that Hillary Clinton may be a good choice for VP because "what we see is what we get" - while Obama is still a mystery. Who is he? What is his real agenda concerning the future of the U.S.? Maybe Hillary would be a positive balance in this equation if she is the VP.
Posted by: Alice Blackhall | June 06, 2008 at 07:42 PM
Hillary is the biggest albatross in political history, besides George Bush Jr.
Hillary shouldn't have turned racist and then implied Obama would be assassinated like RFK.
Other than that she'd be... well... she'd still be shrill, annoying, egotistical, self-entitled, have a 50% dislike rating, have scandals and illegalities out the wazoo, and be facing an LA Superior Court trial this fall for her association with her felon fundraiser Peter Paul.
Posted by: James McDouglas | June 06, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Obama/Feinstein
All the advantages of Hillary and no downside
Posted by: cowanl | June 06, 2008 at 07:47 PM
On the subject of Marxism, history indicates that if the income tax were removed and the excise tax taken off of the product we manufacture to sell to ourselves with imports coming in tax free, and replaced it with the consumption tax, we will achieve the same wanted parity in the distribution of wealth, without the pitfall of fascism that comes with socialism/communism/Marxism.
As to Romney being Vetted, he was and was found lacking. Governor Huckabee is the one who stands in the center of the road and leans upon Freedom and Liberty in our lives.
Posted by: RGeorgeDunn | June 06, 2008 at 07:49 PM
What?! Like our individual voice, and our VOTE, actually matters. I think we've proven - more than once now - that that's now the way the system works in our country.
Posted by: gaypastor | June 06, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Someone made the comment that if Obama offers the VP to Clinton, that he also better hire a food taster. I would agree. Hillery is one of the most ruthless, egotistical and selfish people I have run across. The last writer commented on her experience. I question here experience other than that of a First Lady. I also question her integrity, which is the part about her that worries me the most. As a moderate Republican, I will probably vote for Obama this election . . . unless he choses Clinton. As it scares the hell out of me to think of her as the person making the decision when I have watched the way she has distorted the truth, turned the campaign to personal attackes, and can't even remember when she was and was not under sniper fire. I also don't think that someone should vote for her because she is a woman, or vote for Obama because he is of color. We should be voting for the best person that can fill the job and protect or interests and bring integrity, good judgement and open midedness to the job. This election, that appears to be Obama.
Posted by: M Johns | June 06, 2008 at 07:58 PM
This reporter from the London Telegraph (link below) puts it out there pretty plainly (with help from Ickes). It is the money that matters. But what Ickes, et al. did not count on is that certain politicians (not brought up in money) have to put on that smug face every time they are saying something to ingratiate themselves with the public and, at the same time, signaling their sponsors that they are 'in the money.' Hillary was wearing that face when she tried to fan the hopes of her supporters the other night.To Barack, watching her, she is saying that she, her husband, and their contributors need to get paid off in cash and in kind, respectively, if he wants her to endorse his candidacy. He has to pass.
Televised on national TV, her 'talk to me' speech looks like standard issue pablum for the poor slobs that voted for her in the audience but unadulterated political hardball (chutzpah) for her contributors. The choice of venue was telling, however. She made a 'big' play in a very small game (a small college auditorium with no monitors or cellphone coverage), while giving away her hand. Barack is no slouch in poker and should listen to his instincts: just ignore her bluff, saying in effect: "Uh, try again lady. You and your friends did everything you knew how to scuttle my campaign the minute I announced I was not going to rely on a lot of dirty tricks. As for your contributors, they were playing with money they could afford to lose. Your team lost. Get over it."
As much as it might be a good idea on paper, because of the support Hillary has from women and because she could catch a lot of flak for Barack, it is clear from her speech last night she will corrupt his message right out of the gate.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/june2008/cashtalks.htm
Posted by: Randy Stortroen | June 06, 2008 at 08:00 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ! We desperately want and need real change in the White House and in government , that is what Obama is about , not more business as usual , not more establishment and more lobbyist and corporate bribery and bribe takers like Hillary Clinton who defends the practice and did so as a matter of fact in one of the debates early on saying " lobbyists are people too " , that was outrageous ! I made up my mind right then and there . Enough Clintons and Shrubs .
Posted by: John Kooms | June 06, 2008 at 08:04 PM
idiots
Posted by: hjgkjhf | June 06, 2008 at 08:06 PM
Sam Nunn for VP !
Posted by: John Kooms | June 06, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Hillary should absolutely NOT be his vp first of all it would get him elected because without her he will lose
if by some other trick of the demographic party they were elected she would get blamed for every stupid mistake he made, and she would have to live in his shadow thank you NO THANK YOU AND PLEASE the people comparing michelle to Jackie O ... Jackie would never have shown up at her husbands announcement of his selection ( not election) as the nominee of the demographic party looking like barney
Posted by: Swannie | June 06, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Obama should offer and Clinton should refuse. This should all be orchestrated in advance.
Clinton should take over Ted Kennedy's role as the liberal lion of the Senate.
Posted by: H. E. Baber | June 06, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Will you ever hire someone who is after your assets, your wife and children and who wants to take over all your belongings at anytime? By the way, her supporters may be so racist she might as well work for McCain.
Posted by: bj | June 06, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Obama-Mama-Bubba ticket has a ring to it; but so does a dirty toilet!
Obama needs to distance himself from the Clintons; they have had more than their fare share at the podium!
Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!
http://klintons.com
Posted by: Bob | June 06, 2008 at 08:15 PM