Hillary for Veep...a realistic scenario!

68, surely a hag!

I'm no compiler of the ages of heads of state, but I'm not clear that's a poor age to be. For a woman, I suppose it would be more than for a man, but I'm not so sure.

I'm going to point something else out - and please don't get mad at me for doing so:



The truth is that Christie has a big problem with his personal appearance. Yes, this shouldn't matter. But it does. History is pretty clear that candidates who are rated as 'more attractive' tend to do a lot better than those who are not.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, i don't know . . . there was William Howard Taft . . .



Once, in a fit of petty hatred, Arthur MacArthur--father of Douglas and the commander of American troops in the Philippines--shot off a request to Washington that Taft be recalled because saddle horses were breaking down under his weight.

Haha, that was back when being fat meant 'rich guy who doesn't have to work for a living!'

Cycloptichorn

Look at Mitt in comparison! Quite the stud (not).

In the pre electronic age, appearance was likely less advertised.

Oh, I dunno - I think Mitt's pretty good looking, actually!

Cycloptichorn

too plastic.

Yep. I saw "uncanny valley" in relation to Mitt at some point, that's all I think every time I see him now.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Just my thought; after the last election I would be leery of picking a veep with two years experience as female governor of a large, thinly populated western state.

Not that she's a flake like Palin, but she will benefit from more experience. So will Christi.

I think Hillery has the nerve to fight the republicans in a public foram which Obama hasent had till just lately.

Christi came off as a thug in his appearances in Iowa. (Mostly because he is one.)

Speaking of robots.......have you ever heard Mrs. Gingrich (the current one, as of this morning.... .) speak?

Joe("Yes, Newt's an adulterous slimeball, but please vote for him.")Nation

As much as I'd like to see a president Hillary Clinton, and as much as a Vice Presidency helps winning a presidency, I think her time will be gone in 2016. She'll be 69. No president except Reagan ever got elected at that age. So why would she rather be Vice President rather than Secretary of State? She has a much bigger impact in the office she already holds.

The policy and personnel differences between Democrats and Republicans have already been publicized ad nauseam. I would expect that all voters who pay attention to anything at all, already know who're they'll vote for in 2012. There cannot be many independents left to swing. Whatever minuscule contingent of "independents" remains, it will not consist of the broad-minded renaissance citizens of Op-Ed fantasies. More likely, they'll either be tactical posers or ignorant, disoriented morons. Neither kind can be swung by clever personnel decision.

I predict that Obama will not lose the 2012 election by failing to appeal to Independents, let alone Republicans. If he loses them, he will lose them because his 2008 enthusiasts stay home. He would be better-advised to nominate Dennis Kusinic over Clinton or Biden as his running mate.

Exactly what is Christie reputed to having got done in New Jersey? I must have missed it, and I live there.

I would love for that to be the case, Cyclop. I may be wrong...and hope I am. Do you have links to anything that shows that to be the case. I'd appreciate looking the data over.

The Democrats in this state have some pictures of Cristi that would make you cringe.

The only way Mrs. Clinton will be the next VP, is if Mrs Obama approves of it.
Something tells me that Chicago woman will not approve.

In another forum where I participate, the talk among the (majority) liberals has been to replace Obama with Hillary. I have fought hard against this kind of thinking, because I am absolutely sure that replacing Obama with Hillary is a certain way to insure defeat for the Democrats. (I am a registered Independent who champions progressive legislation!)

The hue and cry has been enormous from the liberals…with many insisting that they will refuse to vote or will vote for a third party candidate rather than vote for Obama.

Hillary is smart enough not to mount a insurgency against Obama…and anyone refusing to see the dangers of that kind of move has to be purposefully avoiding seeing it.

But the notion of Hillary in the second spot seemed to me to have some merit. I thought it worth while to at least put the question to the group and see the nature of the reaction. Many of the respondents to this thread disagree that Hillary for Veep would be a good idea. I accept that.

I do think the liberal base is so compromised at this point, however, the possibility of Obama losing is a great deal more likely than some here seem to appreciate. I think the impact of the economy, which I see staying stagnant for at least another year, will be great in favor of the Republicans. I can easily see the Republicans increasing their majority in the House…although I doubt the Senate will change appreciably. Couple that with a Republican in the Oval Office…and the federal judiciary goes further down the drain.

We’ll see what happens. I intend to vote for Obama…not as the lesser of two evils, but as a guy trying to get as much as he can out of a lousy hand. Nobody is going to make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear.

Thanks to everyone who has commented.