I just love how certain some of these posters are of their position. Are these the same posters who said Hillary would be finished on Tuesday. In Politics, nothing is certain, and if Obama is offered the VP spot he'd better take it, same for Clinton.

Remember Warren Buffett said, 'No loss means win!'. Hillary is for sure a 'no loss' choice. She is safe. I'm not saying she is perfect. I know her short comings. But we need a strong leader, a safe leader to lead the country. Obama is very risky. Lots of people vote for him, because they don't like Hillary, because they think Obama 'might' be a good choice. The key word 'might' is killing. It's like a new stock, people tak risk to buy it. You know the result of taking risk buying an unknown stocks. Didn't we lose enough money in stock market, in the 'might-be-good' stocks?

Never *EVER* gonna happen, and the Clinton camp knows it. You should ignore such bogus statements, and encourage those around you to ignore them too, every time a Clinton utters that fantasy.

So why then do she and Bubba keep saying it?

Actually, it's a phony, cynical, clever little ploy on their parts.

First, despite the reality of the situation, they want Obama supporters to begin to believe that Hillary rather than Obama will prevail in this fight (she won't). But more importantly, she's trying to get less-educated voters to believe somehow that they can still "get" Obama by voting for her. "See," she falsely tries to convince and manipulate you, "you CAN vote for me and STILL have Obama too!"

Cynical snake oil, pure and simple. She's running a game on the slow and the uninformed.

Don't buy the lie.

I fully agree with Angel. Obama can be trained during his VP period. Then run for presidency.

Hey Angel,

Are you still believing in polls? Please. What that suggest to me is his supporters want her far less than her supporters want him.

Doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the future of the party going forward and the likely hood of winning future contest going forward - moreso for the near future. Don't forget there will be other contest on the ticket come Nov. as well.....and in the years ahead....

Bill Clinton knows best!

My bottom line is, even if I don't like one thing for some aspects, don't think another thing 'might-be-better'. In a lot of cases, that 'anothing thing' 'might-be-worse', because that 'another thing' is untested.

Allison said it best. The Clintons need Obama more than he needs their putrid support. But I guess he's suppose to roll over and thank his lucky stars after that woman browbeat him for the past 3 weeks. No thanks, Hill.

Clinton/McCain 08

JFK was younger than Obama. We know how great he was. Is the age an issue for strong mind? I do not think so.
ciliziman

I am so angry about the Clintons and this new strategy of trumpeting unsolicitedly their "openness" to Obama as the VP to make people believe that they can have both, of course with Obama on the bottom of the ticket, even though she has virtually O chance of winning on pledged delegates. I hate this kind of politicking which has continually made so many of us so cynical and disengaged.

The arrogance...to suggest that Sen. Obama be Sen. Clinton's VP running mate when he leads her by 600,000 popular votes...has won nearly twice as many states and leads her substantially in the delegate count. Sen. Clinton and her husband are playing on the fable that it they talk about it enough they will force Sen. Obama to accept Clinton as HIS VP running mate when she loses. Trouble is, her mismanaged campaign, her phenominally divisive nature, the fact that she is a woman who will try and dicate the agenda of the president more so than VP Cheney, are all factors against choosing her...oh, yeah, and the fact that once a general election is under way Republicans will have a field day with the endless scandals the Clinton's have been engrossed in since DAY ONE and continue to plague them. No thanks. I think Sen. Obama has already exercised better judgment than that.

I say, get Gore back into this, you know he has been waiting in the wings. A Gore/Hillary ticket would be unstoppable, and change the world! And for Obama.....well, I suppose Illinois still believes his crap, so he can go back there to finish his unspectacular senate career, and then join Oprah as co-host of her show.

One problem. Barack Obama is up in the delegates, popular vote and Hillary would have to sweep the rest of the states big time to even be in the lead. They'd both have to use supers to get over the top but the super delegates will do what is right for the party and choose the person with the most popular support (delegates and votes). I don't know what kind of world B. Clinton is living in if he thinks the supers will override the will of the voters.

MAYBE Obama/Hillary. But Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee no matter how much Bill might wish she was.

justice

you obviously don't know that al and hill aren't really buddies.

If you don't trust me, trust warren Buffett. Warren just became the richest person in the world. Warren is Hillary's supporter, he helped collecting donations for Hillary. I guess Bill Gates is inclined to clinton too. Remember in those bubble stock years, the ones lost money, the ones don't trust Warren Buffet are all highly-educated persons? Just like now, lot of highly-educated persons vote for Obama. I'm highly educated too, I'm Ph.D. I trust Warren Buffett. 'No loss is win!', I don't buy unknown stocks.

For the highly educated persons, never think you are smarter than Warren Buffett.

A Clinton/Obama ticket will be a horrible decision on Obama's part. Look at what happened to Al Gore. If the Clintons are that desperate for the US Presidency, they can have it if they can but not at the expense of Obama's credibility. To anyone saying Hillary is a safe ticket for the presidency, remember this. Hillary vs McCain = So-called Experience vrs More Exprience. The voters will be smart to go for MORE EXPERIENCE. If it is Obama vs McCain, it would be Change vs More Experience. Voters always like change. They will vote for Obama. Let common sense reign in the Democratic Party, not a cowering to the pressure of an over-ambitious couple.

Walter Sprit, you are wrong. Obama is the one over-ambitious. 46 years old, 2 year senator, and run for president. I'm trembling.

Do the math. If Obama agrees to go on the same ticket with Hillary, he will get

people supporing him + people supporting her - people who vote ABC (anyone but Clinton) - people who refuse to vote for Obama - people who do not like this combination
< people supporting him

Why would Obama want to do go on the ticket with her?

I also propose to share wealth with Warren Buffet. I believe the luxurious life style will be unstoppable for me. Warren Buffet would agree, wouldn't he?

Lots of people make logic mistake like that, if I don't see person bad yet, means this person is good. NO!! That dones't mean 'I've ALREADY SEEN this person good!' ---- There is difference between 'didn't see bad' and 'seen good'. I already seen good things Clinton brought to the country. Of course I saw the bad things too, but comparing to the good things, the bad things are so small. I care the economy the most. I want my 401K safe, I don't want to see layoff any more.