Talk is that obama will replace Biden with Hillary. Well that would be bad if they got together in because she is the one pushing for the UN gun control law which will go against the constitution. I think what would be good is just get out of the U N but that is just my opinion

The idea sounds good, but clearly, Hillary was thrown under the bus in 2007 so that Vote-by-Color would lock in a win. It used to be that everyone thought nothing was strong enough to derail the Clinton Machine. Well, a stronger machine rose up and did that and they're not going to pull the Clintons back out of the ditch and into the driver's seat.

Obama's puppeteers are not going to put Hillary in the Veep position now, because they can't stand the idea of her being the then-logical choice for nominee for Prez in 2016.

It may be why Billy is taking such a prominent role at the convention? Hillary has been a dud as Secretary of State. I wouldn't put it past Obama/Axelrod to pull this switcheroo

I don't think the prospect of her pumping up Obama's chances of winning and then losing the election is what Clinton would buy into.

In the unlikely scenario Obama wins and she is VP, she then exposes herself to being a party to a second term with as much failure to perform assigned as his first term.

Not very promising prospects if she in fact is considering running in 2016.

Her risk free shot, from her own personal point of view (the only view politicians have) is to stand pat. If Obama should win, then leave before the innauguration.

This at least allows the use of the well used position of.....LOOK WHAT I INHERITED FROM you know who!!!!!

She will not accept an invitation to VP.....it is also doubtful Obama would stoop to a position of possibly being turned down.....or more importantly ANY allegation he could not pull it off on his own.

It is encouraging to hear from his staunch supporters that they would like to see her as VP....must be a subliminal concern about their guy being able to pull off another 2008 pied piper election.

btk

LOL - you Cons are a hoot.

"Talk is that obama will replace Biden with Hillary". The idiot Palin said or suggested something like that.

LOL ..............

Originally Posted by rubicon

It may be why Billy is taking such a prominent role at the convention? Hillary has been a dud as Secretary of State. I wouldn't put it past Obama/Axelrod to pull this switcheroo

History will record Hillary to be a very astute and effective Secretary of State.

Can you supply any examples to back up your statement? Our relationships with China and Russia have become even more strained, our position in the middle east has gone from bad to disastrous (try to find an ally other than Israel and Israel no longer trusts us), Western Europe knows that they can no longer rely on us and the situation in Africa is growing worse not better.

Originally Posted by billethkid

I don't think the prospect of her pumping up Obama's chances of winning and then losing the election is what Clinton would buy into.

In the unlikely scenario Obama wins and she is VP, she then exposes herself to being a party to a second term with as much failure to perform assigned as his first term.

Not very promising prospects if she in fact is considering running in 2016.

Her risk free shot, from her own personal point of view (the only view politicians have) is to stand pat. If Obama should win, then leave before the innauguration.

This at least allows the use of the well used position of.....LOOK WHAT I INHERITED FROM you know who!!!!!

She will not accept an invitation to VP.....it is also doubtful Obama would stoop to a position of possibly being turned down.....or more importantly ANY allegation he could not pull it off on his own.

It is encouraging to hear from his staunch supporters that they would like to see her as VP....must be a subliminal concern about their guy being able to pull off another 2008 pied piper election.

btk

One question: do you think for one minute that Hillary and Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama and Joe Biden will not do whatever is necessary to hold the presidency in the democratic column in 2012? These are very adept and seasoned politicians that know having a republican elected would set this country back 50 years.

Originally Posted by janmcn

One question: do you think for one minute that Hillary and Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama and Joe Biden will not do whatever is necessary to hold the presidency in the democratic column in 2012? These are very adept and seasoned politicians that know having a republican elected would set this country back 50 years.

Going back 50 years in some respects would be a good thing.

Bill is a great campaigner and is locked in to help Obama but neither he nor his wife have forgotten, nor should they forget how they were cast as racists during the primary in 2008 especially in South Carolina.

More to come on that from both of them once the guy in the oval office is gone !

Oh and when Romney mentioned Russia, you said on this forum he was going back to the 50's.....been watching the news lately ? Oh no...thats right you watch the MSNBC crew at night ! Check out news at times

yes the Clintons are adept and astute politicians. I even voted for Clinton since we lived in his state. I got to meet him when he was governor and my son was one of his aides for a day from school.

They both know Hillary, whether she is Obama's VP or not she will be a candidate in 2016 if she so chooses. And it is because they are astute politicians I say she would weigh very carefully what value being an Obama VP should or could add to her electability.

And because politicians are self centered and concerned only about self, she is no different. I do not believe she would sacrifice her opportunity to be the first woman POTUS just to get Obama elected.

There is no doubt what so ever she would evaluate the what if scenarios. What if I accept VP because that is supposed to keep the dems in the WH for another 4 years (she will be thinking but what if he loses when I do that).

Being astute she also knows that as a lame duck POTUS with no electorate issue to worry about anymore, he would and will do some things that will further PO Americans. Hence she risks being part of the administration that PO's America (AGAIN!!).

Knowing she doesn't have to roll any dice at all to be a good clean candidate......why in the world does anybody think she would.

As a part of an administration that will very likely do additional harm to our economy and jobs and deficits and energy renewal and illegal immigration free pass, etc, etc she would not have the golden Obama tactic of blaming the previous administration.....IF SHE IS A PART OF IT!!!

My bets are she will not bet on Obama.....remember he was the one who blew her opportunity in 2008!!

We'll just have to wait and see.....I don't bet on many things but I think this one is a pretty safe bet......BECAUSE SHE IS AN ASTUTE POLITICIAN!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

yes the Clintons are adept and astute politicians. I even voted for Clinton since we lived in his state. I got to meet him when he was governor and my son was one of his aides for a day from school.

They both know Hillary, whether she is Obama's VP or not she will be a candidate in 2016 if she so chooses. And it is because they are astute politicians I say she would weigh very carefully what value being an Obama VP should or could add to her electability.

And because politicians are self centered and concerned only about self, she is no different. I do not believe she would sacrifice her opportunity to be the first woman POTUS just to get Obama elected.

There is no doubt what so ever she would evaluate the what if scenarios. What if I accept VP because that is supposed to keep the dems in the WH for another 4 years (she will be thinking but what if he loses when I do that).

Being astute she also knows that as a lame duck POTUS with no electorate issue to worry about anymore, he would and will do some things that will further PO Americans. Hence she risks being part of the administration that PO's America (AGAIN!!).

Knowing she doesn't have to roll any dice at all to be a good clean candidate......why in the world does anybody think she would.

As a part of an administration that will very likely do additional harm to our economy and jobs and deficits and energy renewal and illegal immigration free pass, etc, etc she would not have the golden Obama tactic of blaming the previous administration.....IF SHE IS A PART OF IT!!!

My bets are she will not bet on Obama.....remember he was the one who blew her opportunity in 2008!!

We'll just have to wait and see.....I don't bet on many things but I think this one is a pretty safe bet......BECAUSE SHE IS AN ASTUTE POLITICIAN!!!!!

btk

It wasn't Obama who blew her opportunity in 2008. It was the primary voters who voted for Obama, not Clinton. She doesn't have to worry about being on the losing team in 2012. She would just solidify the women's vote, which Obama already carries by at least 20%, along with 95% of the African American vote, the majority of hispanics, the majority of gays and lesbians.

Hillary (and Bill) would just raise the stakes on blue collar and white working class voters, and all she would have to do is sit there and wait for four years.

your opinion not withstanding, she like so many other Americans are not as sure as you put forth.

You have nothing to lose....she is a politician and does not assume as you do.

btk

Hilary blew her opportunity herself - she voted for the war. No matter how she spinned it, she could not explain away that disastrous vote.