Who should be Hillary's running mate?

If it weren't for the fact that they haven't gotten along at all since he endorsed Obama in 2008, Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico, would have been a well-qualified running mate who could have added a lot of strength to a Clinton ticket. But that match-up ain't gonna happen...

The unravelling of Hillary's prospects in the forthcoming election is a fairly recent phenomenon. I suspect the vulnerability started to show soon after the awkward and gaffe-filled start to the unveiling and marksting of her "book" and her self-serving, hypocritical claims that she and Bill were "broke" after he left the Presidency, etc. Since then the rotten facade has begun to crumble more rapidly. The lies over her State Department e-mails, the growing aura of corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation, and the awkward posturing attending her recent "Scobie" van trip only add to the ridiculous quality that increasingly attends her campaigning.

I'm not persuaded the Democrats have any good alternatives. That remarkably blonde Cherokee, Elizabeth Warren won't likely stand up well to the scrutiny that will surely fall on her as Hillary fades. Martin O'Malley is yet another slick, corrupt product of Baltimore and Maryland politics. His policies were thoroughly rejected by Maryland voters who elected a bitter opponent as Governor after his departure on his perpetual journey for ever higher office. Interestingly there is a persistent odor of hypocritical eliteism among the whole ragged collection of candidate tribunes of the people circling the Democrat primary. The experience of the perpetual ineptitude of the Obama Administration and its propensity to lie and ignore constitutional principles isn't likely to be a good prelude for all that either. 2016 isn't likely to be a good political year for the Dems. Perhaps they can resurrect Al Gore.

I'll agree Ted Cruz is a right wing version of Obama, -- vain, self-obsessed, and given to meaningless flights of rhetorical excess. However, that won't recommend him to any thinking person after the first experience with such characters. There are several better alternative Republican candidates out there.

Mostly right, but it is hard to find alternatives when you dont want any. This also does not excuse the D parties anti democratic society behaviour of not offering choices.

Andrew Cuomo has the ability to beat Walker, but he will not run against Hillary.

... but when push comes to shove with Cuomo's positives (and Hillary's negatives), perhaps the Dems tune will be different within 3 months. There's always hope.

Ted Cruz and Obama are in no way comparable, except that both are human beings.

No way, pissing off the Clintons would kill is power in the state ( they are very vindictive, look at what they just did to the NYC Mayor for refusing to endorse Hillary the day she committed) , if he lost the POTUS run he would be over. And the rest of his Gov term would be constant humiliation.

well, I can't argue with that one. not to be overly pessimistic or dark...but... I sure see some good Dems candidates for 2020, but who knows if I will or the world be around then.

I can't see a single Repug candidate no matter what that I could hold me nose and vote for. Is all lost?

I cant stand either party, but the cards are stacked in favor of the R's. If they keep the Senate (which will be difficult to do from what I have heard) watch out, because if they run both houses of COngress with a very limited filibuster rule and have the POTUS chair then big changes are in our future.

and with that in mind...I had thought the last 4-6 years were dimly lit. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?

Nonsense. Both were first term Seanators when they annomunced their candidacies; both indulge in the same type of abstract and sweeping rhetoric; both cultivate the impression that they have unique transcending visions for the country; and both have limited experience in the real world (though Obams has less than Cruz,) Finally both are dangerous as potential leaders for the country.

and both are sure that they are always the smartest person in the room. Ya, we know how that trait works out in the POTUS chair.

It comes only after America suffers enough pain that we get ready to work together on solutions. At the moment we appear to be no where near. You for instance see here at A2K how difficult it is for Reds and Blues to even suffer each others presence, and having a productive conversation is even more so.

EDIT: things might not be a bleak as you think, states are fairly well along in being the test bed for new approaches, new ideas. Things are happening in America, just not in Washington.

You always try to seem so knowledgeable. But this shows a truly shallow attempt at character assassination of the president.

Since you seem to consider her loss to be almost a certainty, George, I am assuming you are hoping Hillary is the Dem nominee.

Right?

Whom the Dems nominate doesn't make much difference to me. At this point I suspect their odds are slightly better with Hillary, however I also suspect her star will fall at an accelerating pace going forward. Overall I believe the country is ready for a major political change, and that many folks have gone underground about Obama and the Dems:they're fed up but don't talk about it much.

All of this is, of course, my own interpretation of events, and you might disagree.

I do disagree, George, but who knows...anything can happen.

I'm hoping for some decent governance...and my personal opinion is that "decent governance" is more likely to happen with the Dems being strong in congress and in control of the Oval Office...than with the Republicans in that position.

I am also hoping for a more equitable distribution of the nation's wealth...and my personal opinion is that "more equitable distribution of the nation's wealth" is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more likely to happen with the Dems being strong in congress and in control of the Oval Office...than with the Republicans in that position.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you disagree with me on that.

I'd vote for Hillary a dozen times before I ever would vote for king cuomo. That guy is just a whole different level of corrupt.

I have certainly been disappointed in Cuomo, but at this point I think most people expect corruption, everyone is corrupt. So long as we think that they are decent people underneath and will get good things done we are willing to overlook the corruption. Hillary's problem is that so many people dont think that she is a good person, her corruption ( and membership in the elite class) thus wears poorly on her.

Frank, the historical precedents for political movements and governments that set out to achieve a "better distribution of wealth" are not good. Tyranny and sometimes mass murder usually results. Worse, the results achieved are usually disappointing. The Soviets achieved relatively equal distribution with more or less uniform poverty and loss of freedom for all. In better political climates the best result is usually low growth, economic stagnation followed by major economic crisis. Greece is an example.

The reason, of course, is that human behavior usually confounds the plans of those who presume to know what is good for everyone else. If you get free stuff you don't work as hard and see no reward for creativity and innovation. The best and most procuctive people find a way to leave, escape or go underground. Networks of influence peddlers and criminals end up getting a bigger share of the smaller pie than others, etc.

Historically the best distributions of wealth usually involve the greater production of it, That requires incentives for the most creative and productive folks whose contributions are needed for that.

I am truly amused by Hillary's declared interest in this political point. She is the queen of well-connected elitism. Unfortunately the poor slobs who buy her **** don't yet see that.

It's probably not, but a lot of the bridges seems to be mending since then. Obama didn't go so far as to endorse Hillary Clinton, but he has been praising her since and after she became Secretary of State.



source