. . . they are that power mad.

I didn't believe it from 1992-2000 either.

Now I see them as Republican-lite, in the same way that Nixon (no matter how many liberals and progressives hate him) was Democrat-lite.

I think its high time the "party of Jackson and Jefferson" took a hard left turn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and he really doesn't need her. I don't think that there is a critical mass of support for this idea...just a vocal and tiny desperate minority. Every single Clinton supporter I've come in contact with is disappointed, but certainly willing to support Obama in November.

She and Bill would have a hard time taking a backseat. Wouldn't she be a great Governor of NY? Their legacy sure has been tarnished. It'd be great if she rose to the occasion and acted like a stateswoman, I just don't know if she has it in her--or more to the point, not sure if she sees that as in her self interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I'll hold my breath until I turn blue if you don't give me what I want!" It's blatant manipulation and unseemly desperation.

I say let her pass out cold. She deserves nothing at all from Obama but contempt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ummm...I really don't think we want Hillary as our secretary of state

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hopefully, whoever wins the presidency will not need or tolerate a "shadow president" like we've had for the past 7+ years. The role should return to its constitutional intent, and the person should be informed and prepared, but relatively powerless.

This is why most Edwards supporters (like me) are not saying "Edwards for VP!". We'd much prefer to see him in a role where he can make a real difference, like Attorney General.

So Hillary wants to be VP? Let the baby have her bottle. Just double up on the bodyguards!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many Obama supporters, like me, have been supporting him mostly because he is not Hillary (and not McCain). On the other hand, many Hillary supporters like her because she is not Obama. So what happens if the two old Democratic foes were to team up? The worst of both worlds. Hardly anyone at all would vote for this team if Obama gives in to the Hillary-VP pressure.
I mean, can ANYONE say something good about BOTH Hillary AND Obama? It's enough to make me laugh.

And then if they were to team up, Republicans and the "liberal" media would CONSTANTLY play over and over the clips of Hillary attacking Obama (such as when she said he was not fit to be president). That can't be good. McCain could sit on his ass the whole campaign, and still easily get into the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(sigh) My contempt for the Clintons' is growing by the day. They aren't good enough to clean Barack Obama's shoes. She can take her rabid reverse discrimination femnists and closet racists and shove them where the sun don't shine. The Clintons' should be drummed out of the dem party for the campaign tactics they have used. Shameful to even call themselves dems, they are much more comfortable now with the likes of Limbaugh et al.

Hillary's vision for "post Bush" America: Rush Limbaugh.

By 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

The Clintons' destroyed the Party in the 90s and they are doing it again.

REPOSTING:

1. Which campaign has demonstrated the organization, leadership, inspirational motivation, overwhelming grassroots growth, and consistency of message since Iowa?

2. With content of character being at the very core of Democratic values, which campaign is truly committed to genuine transparency, advocating full disclosure of any and all monetary sources (ie. where did a spare $5,000,000 come from?)

3. Which candidate is truly less polarizing and has the greatest ability to reach across party lines in Congress to actually get things done in Washington?

4. As a Democratic voter, does it matter if one campaign destroys another with all out negativity, essentially arming Republicans with damaging political ammo and a more likely victory for Republicans in November? (While it may be fair, is it ethical?)

5. Which candidate offers the clearest contrast to the current administration appealing to the overwhelming sentiment that where we are is not where we want to be?

6. While it doesn't necessarily affect the political process here in the U.S. - does it matter to you that there is overwhelming International support for one of these candidates and do you think that this support might ultimately strengthen the U.S. alliances worldwide?

"...in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program [SCHIP]."
-Hillary Clinton

"But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996."
-Boston Globe

The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If this were true, then why don't we have answers for:

FOREIGN CLIENTS: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?

MONEY: Do the tax records for the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Library and Clinton campaign show a proper accounting for the funds received for the Clintons' private purposes versus charitable, public and political purposes?

PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich, partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So far, Mccain has had a really hard time getting support from those that call themselves true conservatives as he tries to pander to the independent moderates.

However, Barack choosing Hillary as his running mate would cause all those conservatives to rally around Mccain cause they have such disgust for her. Barack would be doing Mccain a favor and his own campaign a disservice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no way Obama will select Hillary as his VP. Obama is among many things a political pragmatist, he recognizes how the game is played even if he refuses to make some of the more dirty moves.

He knows that Clinton would actually weaken his chances against John McCain. Here's why:

1)She is a very polarizing figure. She already began with a high negative rating among voters, and she tends to energize Republican voters against her. Obama has the opposite effect, he tends to attract some independents and even some middle of the road Republicans.

2)She won't bring a state to Obama's side. NY already is heavily Democratic. Obama would be better off picking a candidate from a swing state.

3)Her negative campaign would become a more effective cannon fodder against Obama in the general election. I mean, why pick someone to run with you that has said so many ugly things. Her recent racial remarks just underscores her liability.

4)She doesn't bring a lot of voters to the table. Her main supporters are the Democratic base, people who typically vote Democratic. Thanks in some part to Clinton, some of those voters may end up not voting for Obama, but I suspect most are so sick of Bush and Repulicans that they would never choose McCain.

I think Obama would be smart to select a VP and cabinet members from the Democratic Party Elite. This would dissolve much of the influence the Clintons have had in the past decade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama will not take Clinton as VP. It's just not going to happen. The entire premise of his campaign is that he's interested in Change and not a Washington insider. How can he run on that platform with Hillary Clinton on the ticket? It's impossible. Putting her in the VP slot undermines his campaign and equals President John McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If he chooses Clinton, he'd better keep his bullet-proof vest on 24/7.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is like a little kid who did not get her way. She would be a terrible choice and would guarantee a President McCain, thence the third Bush term. Why would President Obama want Bill Clinton there second guessing every thing he does? This is insanity. The only dream this seems to be is Billary's.

John Edwards should be named to the Supreme Court. Joe Biden would make a great Secretary of State. Let Obama choose his own vice president. It is not the Clinton's choice to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I hate to make a comment like that, I think it is a clear statement of how far I trust the Clintons. I don't think we need people like that in the White House anymore. It is going to take decades to get over the effects of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush. I am not foolish enough to think Obama is a panacea, but let's hope he's a new start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When grandma died, we were cleaning out her house, sorting through all her stuff. Grandma stuck pictures and old receipts all together in books so it was quite a job going through every single thing, took weeks.

One day I opened up one of grandma's books and found a small torn piece of paper, on it in grandma's handwriting, were words of wisdom, "I liked you better before I knew you so well."

How true is that? How often have you really liked someone only to learn they are frauds, neurotic or worse?

I came undone laughing, doubled over, holding my side, tears were rolling down my face, and wondering what set of circumstances would have led my darling old granny to scribble that note.

Right now it very much reminds me of The Clintons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and Bill are both narcissistic personality disorders, which means they are concerned only for themselves, have an air of entitlement and don't take rejection well. Hillary's consultant-prescribed personality du jour is making her look like a multiple personality disorder, too. Next thing you know the famously haughty former First Lady will be attending professional wresting and NASCAR events to prove she's a true-blue member of both of her core constituencies, rednecks and retirees. The probability of voting for her is inversely proportional to the number of teeth and the IQ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...as according to the most recent WaPo/ABC (released May, 12, 2008) the only group of democrats that overwhelmingly favors Clinton as Obama's VP are those pesky African American voters. How dare a full 59% of AAs say they want Clinton as VP and reject the hate and lies that have been propagated by the creative class!

The tyranny of the minority 42% of Clinton supporting women that wish to see Clinton as Obama's VP have clearly threatened AAs so much that AAs want Clinton in the Veep-spot more than they do! It's devious -- nay, insidious I tell you.

It must be all those threats from what the author calls 'feminists.' Why every 'true' feminist knows that women should always submit to the Party that knows what's best for them and have their votes and political choices held hostage to threat of losing their reproductive rights!

/sarcasm

One day the haters that reside in the Unity Movement (TM) will for once sit back, listen, and take the lead from the majority of their African American brothers and sisters. Once they do, they'll come to understand the power and joy of positive voting -- voting for someone rather than against their preferred candidate's opponent. Without the media frames and manipulations that skew and distort vision, they'll wonder where all that hate came from in the first place and they might even come to understand what Unity really means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton's leverage to force anything depends on her viability. With her superdelegates defecting to Obama on a daily basis, for either strategic reasons, personal reasons or to follow the mandate of their constituencies, with her string of defeats and marginal wins after pulling out all the stops, and her inability to learn from her mistakes, she's really got nothing left at this point.

She's recently been full of rhetoric about how no President has won without taking West Virginia, because she's likely to do that. In this historic campaign, that reasoning borders on the pathetic. As she loses on every single front, her rationalizations about what's most important changes: it was elected delegates, then superdelegates, then the popular vote, then Florida and Michigan, then Puerto Rico, dwindling on down.

There's not a journalist out there who thinks there's a bomb in the bunker that's going to take Obama out at the last minute. Her campaign strategists are making noises like it's going to be over by the first week in June.

Nobody has to do anything for her now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only logical explanation for
- Constant Hillary bashing in the press - even alternative sites like this one

- 'lightweight' treatment of Obama

- 'DNC' operatives decision to move up primaries in two Democratic leaning states thus nullifying their delegates

- Obama wins small - Republican-leaning states, but enough of them to gain a delegate majority and so-called popular majority (in Red states?!)

- Hillary wins 5/6 past contests - yet is declared a loser

- ignoring the fact that states with Democratic majorities constistently vote for Hillary -

Must be a Republican/Super-rich plot to win the November Election - by guaranteeing a McCain win

I live in PA - most people do not want Obama as president - only very liberal people and minorities - not the majority of the Democratic party

Jeanie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are Hillary supporters. Have been forever, even back in Bill's term of peace and prosperity (some of you may not remember back when people had living wage jobs and we weren't sending all our cash and kids to be wasted on an illegal invasion- it was wonderful). If it were up to Hillary, we would have already had universal health care, and for people like me, we wouldn't be paying $500 plus per month for insurance yet still spending $1000 plus per month out of pocket because our insurance co. won't cover my doctors. But the Repugs shot her down. She also opposed NAFTA, and will be changing that.

If Hillary had been born a man, she would have already been president for eight years. But as a woman, she has to fight a thousand times as hard to gain an inch, whereas Dreamboy of the Day gets it all for nothing. Most of you are young enough that you take for granted what women like Hillary have worked to gain for you- the right to education, the right to play sports, the right to work (we're still working on the equal pay part- I was always paid less than my male counterparts, even though I had more education, more experience and more job responsibilities.)

I've worked with women like Hillary; intelligent, educated and hard-working, yet also caring, compassionate, and excellent mothers. They would put in more than their time, tend to their families, then work some more. Yet who always got promoted over them? Some young male fresh out of college, with no life experience but plenty of buzzwords to toss around. They got promoted and indicted into the Old Boys Club right away.

And when a problem arose? The Buzzboys had no idea how to fix it and often made things worse. Then the women with the experince were called in to put out the fire, clear the smoke and mend the bridges. And the Buzzboys got raises and promotions and went out for drinks and hookers (on the company expense account) with the OBC.

But this time, we don't want Buzzboy- we want the person who will put out the fires, not the one who will start them. We want the best, and if she happens to have breasts, well, get over it. She also happens to have more brains than anyone else that's running, and balls too, for that matter.

Go Hillary!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course Neither is Hillary- she is the main reason the misnomer/oxymoron term 'Reagan Democrat' Was Whipped up recently and spewed around the Pundit table like it is a fact.
No such RealDemocrat ever Lived. They only thing close would be a Republican who was disenfranchised when the Neo CONS Invaded the Republican party in the '80's (about the same time psuedo Dems began to appear as members of the DLC- Never Democrats, just covert operatives)
Hillary (& DLC memebers) should be thrown out of the Democratic Party if the Rest of the Dems want to have a Base to vote for them in future elections.I not only want to show her the door, I want to smack her with it on the way OUT. I want Her kicked out of the Senate, at the very lest kicked off Committees (esp Armed Services) Just like Leibermann should lose his Committe memberships- he's not even pretending to be an 'Independent' anymore.Frankly Hillary and the rest of the Armed services Com (CON) should be charged with Dereliction of duty- failure to provide Oversight for Armed Services,thus Endangering US by weakening our Miitary Readiness!
'Dream ticket 'Alright -She's DREAMING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...has it exactly right. The last Clinton years were the greatest years that America ever knew, economically at least. Remember 99-cent gas? THAT was Bill Clinton. You read his book MY LIFE, and her book LIVING HISTORY, and you can see the Niagara-Falls' worth of difference between either Clinton, and the wreck of America that's going on now--and has been, ever since Bush first scammed the election.

During Clinton, everyone worked. EVERYONE. Sure, he enabled NAFTA--but he never envisioned that the Republicans would be the evil pieces of shit that they showed themselves to be--seizing on NAFTA as an excuse to kick their fellow Americans out of work and import foreign labor to work for a third of the minimum wage. Nobody envisioned that. During Clinton I made a great salary. My bosses talked about an 'overseas base' as if it was the Holy Grail--and at the same time talked about how awful Clinton was, because he had policies in place that were stopping them from kicking us all out.

Well, Bush stole Election #1, and we all went. With Election #2, my old office went to France. America is and has been under attack for the past 8 years, and I don't mean by Saddam either. I can't WAIT until Hillary Clinton is President. She could take Obama as VP--and then after 8 years of seasoning, THEN he'd be ready to be President, just like she is.

If Hillary isn't the nominee, it'll be too late to take America back, cause a lot of Dems will be disgusted enough to either stay home or vote for McCain. If Barack's President, who'll be HIS VP? The Rev. Wright???

Puh-leeze. Nominate the ONE PERSON who can win in November--put an end to this dog & pony show--and let's take our country back. That can only be Hillary Clinton--who assisted her husband so ably in doing just that, in 1992--with a Republican Congress to fight, yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

#1. M/s Clinton pays off her debt from the Clinton's joint bank account.
#2. That Bill Clinton is appointed Ambassador to Kazakhstan for 4 years - followed by the next 4 years in Uzbekistan - On holidays to the US from abroad he will be restricted to his apartment in Harlem.
#3. That M/s Clinton take a lover in order to provide the healing therapy she needs following her unsuccessful presidential campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary would NEVER be anyone's Vice-President. Her ego is much too big, that is why she is trying to ruin any chance of an Obama win. Those that bemoan the "fact" that Hillary "is a feminist and those that are pro-Obama are sexist" don't understand that just because she is female doesn't automatically make her a feminist.
As for the McCain candidacy goes I think he may choose Condi Rice as a running mate to be his trump card against Obama or Clinton. (of course six months after he assumes office McCain will be dead and Condi will be President-and who would she choose to be her V.P.?) And if McCain doesn't win Bush will fabricate another "9/11" and will NEVER leave office! After all, he is the "war President".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All your posts above only prove what a racist country we have become. No one above even believes in a fair election system. You will push your favorite candidate through to the top no matter who you squash along the way. Unfortunately, it reminds of how George Bush got elected.
All of you should at least put some effort forth to make sure that John McLame doesn't win, and running down your own candidates won't help any one except the Republicans. Think about it.
Also, I might note that, some of the anti Hillary posts here, sound more like Rats from the Republican side, Duh??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is biased, unsupplemented, and undocumented. What the writer has is a case of "sour grapes." Hillary Clinton SHOULD be president because of her experience, education, intelligence and hard work for the people of Arkansas and her work for the people of America as a twice-elected senator. She is not power-hungry. She sincerely believes and thinks she can lead this country out of the dump pile the Bush-Cheney gang has put us into for nearly eight years. So, get OFF Hillary.

Instead, consider Dumbya's statements of yesterday that he gave up golf because of the 4,000+ soldiers he sent to their deaths!! What a farce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" YEA... THE 1990S WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS
FOR THE REMAINING WORKING CLASS WHO SURVIVED
THE REAGAN YEARS {MINIMUM WAGE.....MINIMUM RAGE } THE ONLY DIFERNCE NOW IS WERE FURTHER
ALONG IN THEIR FREE TRADE PONZI SCHEME *


* " SORRY MY COMPUTERS TAKEN IT UP THE ASS MORE TIMES THAN MADONNA....SPELL CHECK JUST LAYS THERE LIKE A COLD PIECE OF DOG SHIT ! "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]