I think the main thing is to put some distance between the VP decision and the end of the primaries. Don't rush it. Let people calm down, reassess the landscape. See how Clinton responds.

Obama is holding the winning cards, he doesn't need to compromise. After some time has passed if there is still a huge rift in the party and Clinton is not doing much to heal it, then Obama may have to put her on the ticket.

But that decision doesn't need to be made now.

Clinton does not deserve to be on the ticket. After her destructive, self-centered campaign, she has forfeited this honor.

Quick, someone name Clinton's signature issue that animates her run for President. (Besides her own ambition, I mean).

And, now her camp is openly attacking liberals and other Democrats, in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

This behavior should NOT be rewarded!

If you get Hillary, then you get Bill "helping" with the campaign

I've said all along that I really don't think Obama has any choice. There's no reason for him not to ask Hillary, except maybe a handful of people online might cry, but where are they going to go?

The rank and file of the Democratic Party are going to want him to at least ask Hillary. In my mind, I'd say that Jim Webb could be the only one who might trump her as a choice and of course, if he doesn't ask her, he'll still have a significant base, but the Democrats are going to want him to at least ask Hillary and it's the only way to mend a lot of the fences.

Well, if your concern is that she has a loyal following among certain segments of the base, then it seems to me that the way around offering her the job is simply to offer it to someone else with just as much loyalty among those segments of the base. Gov Strickland of OH, for instance, or (if he can be coaxed out of retirement) Dick Gephardt. I expect, however, that this problem will solve itself because she will not want the VP's job and will make as much quite clear.

Imagine having to spin that Obama has now passed the Commander in Chief threshold, when Hillary already said McCain was better for the job.

Is America ready for a black president?
Is America ready for a woman president?
How about the combination?

2 words: Short List. Put her on it, and don't announce until the convention. Let the MSM beat the "Race to VP" horse to death and then it won't seem like such a big deal.

I don't think Senate Majority Leader will actually work (too many reasons to go into). IMO, Hillary is going to have to swallow this loss with grace and return to fight another day.

Like was discussed a lot on MSNBC last night, Obama should agree to seat MI and FL and pay her campaign debts if Hillary drops out. Based on her rhetoric all campaign, she should not be on the ticket. She will undermine the ticket. Personally, I would fear her organizing some sort of coup against him because she's so power hungry.

No journalists seem to know how to recognize character pathology, but the person Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be in this campaign is seriously, seriously unhealthy--another Bush, in fact. She should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. Soothing her base is just not a good enough reason. Moreover, I suspect a good chunk of her supporters have already quietly deserted her; look at that recent poll in New Jersey which had Obama up by ten points. And many Latinas I hear from secondhand here are totally disillusioned, seeing her now as dishonest, untrustworthy and "not a lady." Maybe I'm naive about those Hillary supporters who told exit pollers they won't vote for Obama, but I think he can bring all but the truly racist around, as long as Hillary doesn't actively sabotage him.

By asking anyone else.

She deserves nada.

She deserves her own Talk Show - that only her minions will watch and adore - and the rest of us can blissfully ignore.

I would invite her and Bill to "assist" in the vetting process, conspicuously seeking their input. The point is to avoid naming her, with the negatives and baggage there, but to show respect.

Get used to it, Obamaheads, we need to show her respect because we've won, and we don't want to piss off her voters, who are numerous, important, and generally Democrats.

Except gotalife. And Matthew Weaver.

But the rest of them, we need to give them foot massages, buy them shots of Crown Royal, the whole nine yards. The answer is that it's clearly Obama/Webb.

Hey People
First want to thank you for sustaining me in the last few days.
Am new to commenting, but my husband and I have read this site for a LONG time.

One question:

What about Chris Dodd for veep?
Any thoughts?

Just name someone else as his running mate. He does not owe Hillary anything. Why on earth would he want Hillary and Bill mucking up his campaign and presidency.

She has earned the ear of the DNC but NOT the right to be the VP to a nominee who is seeking to status quo. He absolutely has a right to choose someone who will be able to help him succeed in his goals and not have to deal with all of the baggage the Clintons bring. Clinton on the ticket with rally and unify the republican base. Leaving her off of the ticket is best for every reason I can think of.

I hope he chooses to change the value of VP and chooses someone who will work with him as a partner in making the changes that are needed. I hope that he will choose someone of equal honesty and integrity as well as someone who would make a great president.

Putting a woman other than Hillary on the ticket would be an interesting move. Janet Napolitano, maybe? A popular governor from a Southwest state who has already endorsed Obama.

Quick, someone name Clinton's signature issue that animates her run for President. (Besides her own ambition, I mean).

Totally bogus. Whatever anyone thinks of Hillary it is fair to say that she is concerned about expanding access to health care as one signature issue. Why is she considered more ambitious than Obama who is running for President after only 2 years in the senate? What signature issue animates his run for President?

She has earned the ear of the DNC but NOT the right to be the VP to a nominee who is seeking to status quo.

Who started this idea that Hillary represents "the status quo"? Her policies are similar to Obama's in almost every respect and represent a great deal of change from the Bush years. Even going back to the way things were in the 1990s under Bill C. would be a vast improvement over the way things are now and a change from the status quo.

Obama could name McCain as VP and join the entire country together in a big Unity Ticket!

Hillary's negatives are way too high for the VP slot and Bill would become a third wheel so close to the throne. The Republicans will also have a field day with her on the ticket. He needs a compelling VP not a controversial one. Of course if he were to returned to the Sec of State role to being the more powerful position it once was and appoints someone who would act according to Obama's new views on respect and diplomacy, he could offer Hillary Sec of Defense. SHe would whip the pentagon into place in no time and make sure they bring our troops home as rapidly as possible!

I have gone round and round about how to include Richardson. He definitely has made it clear he supports Obama's vision and he brings lots of experience, but would white voters find an AA-Latino combo a little too revolutionary if he were offered the VP slot? Maybe Obama should instead announce as soon as he is the nominee that Richardson is his pick for Sec of State. (With his beard he really has the look of a diplomat these days).

If her were to pick a woman she would need some national security credentials since that is an area McCain will be attacking Obama on. I have no suggestions.

That's what Al Gore said.

Look, from a political standpoint and the VP spot is nothing if not political - Obama will not IMO pick someone else from Congress. That would be really stupid.

He needs someone outside of DC and a governor is always good.

I'd prefer to see a woman, but that's not the main point.

All he has to do is wait a month after she drops out.

They can leak a short list with her name on it.

When they finally pick someone, it would look like they considered her but went with someone else at the last minute.

If she doesn't get Senate Majority Leader, Hillary could run for Governor of NY in 2010.

I've heard Richardson might have some *baggage* that would keep him off the VP short list.

Webb is really emerging as a leader in the Senate, plus I think he has *baggage* too (remember the Tailhook Scandals? He was Secy of Navy then, so I don't think it would be smart for O to pick him for VP -- we might just lose the entire women vote).

Clark would good as Secy of Defense.

Biden would be great as Secy of State.

No, no, no, no.

This is our chance to move the Clintons out of the Democratic power structure, bring in new blood, and set ourselves up to hold power (and exercise it for good) for a generation.

Obama needs a trustworthy and loyal veep like Gore was for Clinton. A partner, not someone (and someone's spouse) hungry for power and working against Obama's agenda.

There are a lot of silly posts on this thread.

Clinton cannot be majority leader. Forget it. She hasn't paid her dues. She's spent most of the last two years campaigning for president.

So here are the possibilities:

Edwards: Positives--none. Negatives--He's not even relevant in North Carolina, and he can't bring anything to the table. Kerry is in wankerland now instead of the White House because he picked a VP that was his intellectual (I mean this in a negative sense) equivalent. Edwards couldn't even deliver NC, and didn't run for reelection to the senate because he had zero chance of winning. Finally, he had openings wide enough to drive a tank through in his debate with Cheney and blew it.

Clinton wouldn't take the VP nomination, and it really doesn't make sense to offer it to her. It makes no sense to offer the VP to someone from a really red state or a really blue state. And offering her the VP would anger his loyal, cult-like following who, as evidenced by their hateful, vitriolic, spiteful anti-Clinton posts on this site, hate her more than McCain.

Nelson: Positive--Only statewide Democratic officeholder in key swing state. Negative--Not well known nationally and Floridians are so pissed off at Obama for his support of complete decertification that Florida is probably out of play this cycle. He's male.

Richardson: Positive--He brings a small swing state over to our side. He will help mend bridges with Latino voters. Negative--He looked and sounded terrible in the early debates. He doesn't have a good funding base. He's male.

Clark: Positive--Bringing in a staunch Clinton supporter might be seen as an offer of an Olive branch to Clinton supporters. He has gravitas and his military experience will help when the rethugs start the Flag waving and fear mongering. Negative--He has a reputation for being lazy on the campaign trail. He's never really faced the dragon (MSM media). He's male.

Jim Webb: Positive--He has the military bona fides, so the rethugs can't through the patriotism thing at him. At the same time he's been a consistently respected critic of the war whose message jives with Obama. Because he's relatively new to Washington, he also fits into the Axelrod/Rovian playbook for Obama's campaign. Virginia is trending purple and would go Red if Webb is the VP. Negative--He just got elected to the senate. It's doubtful he would accept the VP spot on what all the experts expect to be a losing ticket. He's male.

I think we a woman from Ohio with executive experience (governor, not mayor) and strong flag wrapping bonafides like extensive military service and or a son or daughter who has fought in Iraq or Afganistan.

Who is closest to this ideal?

Obama/Boxer...
Obama/Hagel...

A lot of you are missing the point: There will not be a lot of pressure on Obama to pick her as VP. Nancy Pelosi and even Jimmy Carter have called it a bad idea. It's not practical, and both would be unhappy with it. A lose-lose. Even Clinton must recognize this fact, and VP would be both very dangerous for her to make mischief (like a Cheney) and also somewhat humiliating.

The party elders have nixed this idea very clearly, which must come as some relief to both parties.

I don't think he'll pick Hillary, and I don't think he'll pay off her campaign debts either (as some have speculated).

Hillary's not a good fit. Obama is about "Change" and doing politics differently. He's about building a new majority. She's old-style, 50% + 1 politics. Her national negatives approach 50% and have been there for years. Though VPs rarely deliver states, they can damage a candidate (e.g. Ferraro, Quayle, etc.). She doesn't bring anything to the ticket that makes up for her substantial negatives.

Richardson might be a decent choice, but I think he would be better as a special envoy or possibly as Secretary of State (though Biden might be a good fit there, too).

Obama will need every vote he can get in the Senate (which is a vote against Biden for SoS), so it probably makes the most sense to choose a governor for VP. Obama needs a substantial majority there to get things done, so every D Senator will be critical (yes, maybe even Lieberman).

There are too many reasons to not choose Hillary. I think that ideally he should choose someone who would help continue his "new politics" after he leaves office. I don't know who that person is, but it's not Hillary. I think most of Hillary's voters will come around, especially if she helps argue that it's in their interests. The election's still a long way off...

My $0.02.

Thinking through a response to your question a little more...when Obama meets with Hillary at the appropriate time, he just saves both of them the awkward possibility of either of them losing face by telling her that he does not presume to know if she has interest in the vice presidency but that in any case he feels that her leadership in the Senate on health care among other issues is going to be crucial if Democrats are going to advance a forward agenda for the country.

Of course the media will be asking both of them after the meeting whether she was offered VP, whether she inquired about the job, whether she would have accepted if offered, etc.

What he says is just what he told her, that he shared with her his strong belief that her leadership in the Senate is absolutely essential for moving on a forward-looking agenda for our country. That's enough. That keeps the focus on her positive and crucial role in moving a forward agenda for the country. He doesn't need to say more than that. That response will be taken as an implicit "no, I did not offer her the vice presidency" without him having to put it that way.

By handling it this way he preempts the possibility of her inquiring about the job for herself (if she is interested, which she very well may not be) and having to turn her down.

For her part, even if she privately would have wanted to be offered the job (even if she might not have accepted) Hillary could then truthfully tell the media that no, she did not inquire about the job for herself, that she and Senator Obama had a productive discussion about how they could work together to move a forward agenda for our country...

She loses no face this way, or at any rate very little. She would lose face only if it were to come out that she asked for the job and he turned her down.

If things played out this way it would raise another complication with nominating Webb, if Obama otherwise were inclined to want to do that, for what would Obama's response be if asked why he viewed Hillary's presence in the Senate as essential, but obviously not Webb's? This is another factor that might end up mitigating against Obama choosing Webb, in addition to others that have been raised in this thread and M.J.'s today on the VP situation.

he doesn't have to pick clinton if he picks one of her prominent supporters who also helps him round out the ticket. as the party pulls itself together again it should be possible the find a clintonite who works well with obama.

Obama said that his criteria for choosing a VP was to find someone who shared his views on governing. I take that to mean no old style politics. No big money or PAC influence peddling. Talk softly and use diplomacy first. I don't see how Senator Clinton could ever be those things or that she would even want to. That just is not her way of being in the world. I think I'll just trust Obama to sort it out in his own way. I do think that if Hillary was VP that she would always be pushing and daring him to do something about it. And how would he keep Bill from wheeling and dealing from inside his administration. The Clintons are true believers in the power broker, behind closed doors, back room style of politics. Obama will have a big enough job with the condition the nation is in. He really can't afford the drama or the distractions. He'll figure it out.

Clinton, sadly, has made it impossible now to be VP after discrediting Obama from every angle and she's from the past, the kind of politics he wants to put away. And frankly she doesn't want to be VP, to her it seems it's all or nothing.

But he has to pick someone with experience who appeals to older blue-collar white voters (as the media puts it), probably a Clinton supporter as well. BUT he/she has to have the same philosophy about the direction of the country than he does, that's obvious and not too old so they can keep that youthful vibe they had during the campaign and stay starkly different than McCain.

All in all, tough choice! Good luck!

Am I the only on with the feeling that if she were named Secretary of Homeland Security, Clinton would kill all 18 people between her and the presidency?

My list (which I formulated in the last minute) for good VP candidates is, in order from instinctively best down, William J. Fallon (imagine the look on McCain's face if Fallon actually accepted), Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, John McCain (he's old enough that he probably remembers when the vice presidency went to the runner up), Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. These last three would also help cement the Democratic majorities in the legislature.

Unless Hillary creates a Cheney style Vice Presidency, she'd actually be better off in the Senate.

Toilets have a base too. No Hillary on the ticket, especially with stupid comments like her racist USA Today interview...pandering this time to the David Duke crowd.

Although Feinstein would balance the ticket, I don't think any state wants to give up their Democratic seat in the Senate to a Republican. The gubernator has his eye on Boxer and Feinstein because he can't run for president.

Again, I am pulling for Gov. Kaine in Virginia; Richardson is cool but I think America is hardly ready for two people of color; someone with military and or diplomatic experience would help. I actually like Hagel which would counterbalance any argument the Republicans could mount. It shows that Obama is serious about working across the aisle.

I am still having a hard time imagining Clinton wanting the job. The presidency is a great honor; the vice-presidency is not. Even lackluster presidents are remembered by posterity. I cannot tell you much about what he did, but I know that Rutherford Hayes was president. Same for Millard Fillmore, Benjamin Harrison and James K Polk. By contrast, I could not summon to mind the names of any of FDR's vice-presidents except for Harry Truman (and I dare say that is only because he actually succeeded to the office of president). There are, however, plenty of famous Senator's whose names I can quickly summon to mind (Thomas Benton, Daniel Webster, Everett Dirksen, etc). In other words, it seems to me that for a person of her talent and amibition, the Senate is an altogether more commodious office than the Vice Presidency. It is easier for her to make a mark in the former than in the latter.

I think regardless of whether Clinton wants to be VP or even should be, the eventual VP selection is going to be weighed against her (i.e. "why was he/she picked over Clinton?"). I really like Webb but I'm worried it's going to be perceived as "the old boys club" blocking a woman from the higher office. I don't know that women would abandon a Democratic candidate for someone who may appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, though.

(PS: And fugeddaboud SCOTUS. She's not cut out for that at all.)

I don't imagine too many people considered Earl Warren Supreme Court material either, but that worked out pretty well.

Surprise everyone and pick someone from the other side...
Chuck Hagel ?

No way should she be majority leader. She'd always be making a power struggle with Obama and this would constrain him. She's too interested in her own power and ambition to serve the job well.

He should create a new cabinet position for setting up health care and make her the Czar. It's the issue she cares most about, she'd be great at it and she could rule her own department.

That's what I say - Hillary for Healthcare Czar.

ARGH!

WENCH HILLARY AS DICTATOR FOR LIFE!

THE CZARINA HAS SEX WITH HORSES!

ABIDE! THAT'S NO PATH TO CORPORATE RAIDING!

ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!

ARGH!

I see no reason that Obama should feel obligated to offer the VP to Clinton -- have there really been so many precedents of offering it to the second-place candidate?

It's important to be looking ahead to 2016, and frankly, Clinton will be beyond her prime then. And ending her political life as a VP would be severely diminished in comparison to the much more significant power she would have in the Senate.

Sebelius is a great match for Obama and would already set up 2016 with a strong female candidate.

Hillary doesn't deserve a place on the ticket, shouldn't get a place on the ticket, and will be endlessly divisive. Obama can pick anyone he damn well pleases. And he shouldn't pay off her debt, either. She's rich and she stayed in because she wanted to do so. Life is tough like that sometimes, but seldom for the Clintons.

The Clintons, with their endless obfuscation of the truth, hurt the Democratic Party like nobody else in recent history; let the sleeping dogs (and their innumerable fleas) lie.