I was thinking about two comments I read one was yesterday  and the other was I think at least a month ago.

This isn't a quote so please forgive me but basically she said Clinton as VP might not be the best use of her talents. When I read this I was a bit surprised but didn't think about it enough.

Then another commentator said something similar which made me start to really think about it and ask myself some questions.

Let me be clear from both comments I gathered that both thought
Clinton would make an excellent VP but it wouldn't be the spot they would choose for her.

Since Senator Clinton ended her run I have convinced myself that there isn't anyone who can help Obama more than Clinton and that goes for Gore too. So from this point of view I haven't changed my mind as to wanting CLINTON in fact I want her MORE as each day passes.

But I do think it's important to ask

Would Clinton be restricted by being VP? In the past the VP job wasn't too exciting but then came Cheney.

If Clinton became Vice President this would be historic.Is this more important than passing laws that would change people's
lives?

If you supported Clinton for President is it possible that you wouldn't choose her as VP because she would be more useful in another position?

What would that position be?  In charge of universal health care?

What are Vice President Clinton's chances of winning the Presidency after eight years?

listening to Bill Press, an older less aggressive democratic pundit says  "we should see an ad today on McCain not knowing how many houses he owns".

McCain's campaign says they only own 4 which is demostrably false.  He may only be able to spend time in four, but newsweek estimated 7 while other sources say 10.

http://www.mccainvminnesota.com/cribs.ht ml

Rachel Maddow says 9.  Of course when you own that many houses it's hard to keep track of paying taxes for all of them.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

Successful national campaigns for the presidency combine extremely effective media--no matter how loathsome and low road it might be--with outstanding ground efforts.  And, since the GOP is the only party I know of that's won a national election in this country in the past 11-1/2 years, I am referring to the GOP'ers penchant for putting the two major pieces of this winning strategy together more effectively than us Dems during this era, as well.

With the Rethugs, winning is the only thing. With the Dems over the last few years...not so much...'cept maybe for the Clintons.

This year, Karl Rove is screwing around with the voting public's psyche in innovative ways we won't even begin to understand until after the Election's over. Hopefully, this diary helps shed a little light on their latest Orwellian mindf**k.

The clearest indication I have seen to prove that voting for McCain is the equivalent of voting for a third Bush administration is this video from the Larry King Show in 2001 that The Jed Report has put out on the web:

If this is how McCain thinks, then his judgment is certainly questionable.

We know McCain's solution to the Georgia/Russia situation is to threaten military action; we know that McCain is in favor of military action on Iran; we know that McCain was ready to go to war with Iraq before George Bush did after 9/11 (Richard Clarke, at that time the White House's adviser, has confirmed that in recent comments). That he could keep us in a military involvement for "100 years" in Iraq is a stated fact.

McCain's campaign stresses his foreign policy experience, yet I question whether he has learned anything from America's foreign policy during the time of his service in Congress. We know he could visit Iraq and then report that Petraeus can travel through Baghdad in an unarmored vehicle (not true, of course); We know he confused the Iranians with Al Qu'ida; we know he has publicly made misstatement after misstatement on television and at his "town hall" staged events without being seriously called on them my the mass media. Indeed, if not for the progressive blogosphere he would not be called on these things to any great degree by anyone.

It has been noted on some blogs within the last few days that Obama is becoming more aggressive, and that is a good thing. Politeness and respect toward a POW and fellow Senator has not paid off, and McCain, who once claimed to be running a campaign based on integrity and discussion of the issues, has based his recent efforts on lies and racial insinuations, soft-couched in the repeated phrase "my friends"(which now makes my stomach curdle when I hear it!).

Now we approach the conventions and the final months of the campaign and the race is a tight one. It shouldn't be. We should be sitting here billions of dollars in debt with at least two wars going on and with housing starts at an all-time low and unemployment at an all-time high, eager to elect an exciting, honest, and experienced young executive (judging from CNN's biography of Obama's Chicago experience broadcast last night) to the post of President of the United States.

And we should clearly reject McCain for the most obvious of reasons: he's just not worth it.

Under The LobsterScope

A very nice article by David Gergen today.

He says basically that Obama needs some serious sparks in his campaign, and I have to agree with all three of his suggested options...

1) Pick HRC as VP.

or

2) Pick Gore as VP.

or

3) Name your cabinet already, attaching trusted voices to your campaign.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/20/ob ama-in-need-of-a-game-changer/

- Matt

Today the press is full of stories concerning Obama's falling polling numbers.  The right wing outlets are having a great time blasting our candidate for his 'failures' as a politician.  However here at MYDD we seem to be content to let them run with it with little or no objection from us.  I perused the diaries this morning and don't see even one diary concerning our next play in countering this propaganda.  It seems as if we're content to simply stick our heads in the sand and hope that them bad mens go way!

This is not the way to win, folks.  This is not the way to get Obama elected.

Well in one week after years of living in Japan I'm going back to where I was born. Vancouver B.C. Canada. By the time I get there the "VP Code" will be broken and we will have Senator Clinton as our VP. I wish I could be in Denver rather than Vancouver with Nikkid but then if I'm wrong she will hit me at the very least. Clinton really has all that Obama needs. I understand why Biden would be picked because of his experience and his passion. I actually like him and of course would accept him but I believe he doesn't come close to the energy Clinton would bring she has earned this spot. Of course those 18 million votes will go to Obama either way but with how much passion? Well this may be my last entry until I reach Vancouver but lets see what happens in the next few days. Goodbye Politicalslave hello Canadian. Let's get excited. Here is to a new life!

Bill Clinton was probably the best President in our lifetimes (look at the competition), unless you were old enough to be alive when FDR was President.  JFK was good after the Bay of Pigs, which was organized by Eisenhower/Nixon, and he showed great promise by 1963, but he only had 2.7 years in office.

Clinton brought us 8 years of peace and prosperity, and he got the budget back into balance - a major accomplishment.  His average popularity was around 60%.

It's simple - Clinton is the best President since FDR, and in the top third of all Presidents in our history, maybe in the top 25%.  We had a lot of lousy or run of the mill Presidents since FDR.  He'd rank below Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and a handful of others, but was better than most of the Presidents of the 19th and 20th centuries.