But let's hope the Dem presidential nominee is Edwards. HRC would not be sufficiently more than a continuation of the status quo.

Posted by sloper at 11/5/2007

THE GORILLA IN OUR ROOM As both political parties in America attempt to line up and scrutinize their candidate choices to hopefully right America's ship of state, it truly seems inconceivable that after almost eight disastrous years, we still appear to be sadly incapable of doing the right thing. Meanwhile, the very best choice for all of America continues to demonstrate an unparalleled devotion and service to America and the world. So, while the Conservatives try desperately to make lemonade out of lemons, and the Liberals try to display their stripes through gender or race, the "inconvenient truth" is that the best choice to lead America at this point in our history, actually already won the Presidency eight years ago and had it stolen by a politicized judiciary. Now, after eight disastrous years of incompetence and poor leadership in America--and during which time the person with the leadership credentials and vision that America so desperately needs has won poetic vindication with both an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize, it seems that America is dreadfully unresolved to correct its own course and give him a call. But what do we know? It's only an eight-hundred-pound gorilla in our room.

Posted by Ruelle at 11/5/2007

Equating Hillary Clinton with George W. is an insult to all Democrats. She is brilliant, he is much less so. A continuation of the present policies of George W. by anyone will result in the end of th USA as we knew it 7 years ago.

Posted by hfgood at 11/5/2007

I think that Hillary will probably get the nomination and will not pick any of the men you have listed. And if nominated I think she will be our next president. And as president she probably will not do anything much different from what has been done. That's because, to the consternation of most of the Nation's readers, we have one political party in the U.S. Half of them are Democrats and half are Republicans.

Unlike most of the readers to the Nation, I am not a George Bush hater. But W will have a failed presidency due to Iraq and the Katrina response and nothing can change that now. In spite of the fact that he did far more than Clinton in education (Dems may criticize No Child Left Behind but I have never heard one say they will repeal it); he allocated 10 times as much to AIDS around the world then Clinton; the Dems also criticize the Medicare Drug Program but none call for it to be repealed; Clinton left him a recession and a plunging stock market that wiped out the so-called surpluses before Bush even took office but we aren't in a recession in spite of 9/11 and the corporate scandals, and the stock market is not far from Clinton's highs; and he has never said a word about what Sandy Berger was stuffing into his underwear at the Library of Congress to save Clinton's ass.

The worst choice Hillary could make is Richardson. He was a failure at the UN so they moved him to Energy. He was a failure there and so they moved him to Security. There were more security leaks and mistakes with Richardson in charge then ever before in our history. Then the morons in New Mexico elect him governor. He has been an absentee governor almost from the day he was elected. But he is doing everything possible to be her choice.

The country needs a Democrat in the White House. But they aren't going to get one there until they love their candidate. You don't elect a president because you hate his or her opponent. That's why Gore vs. Bush was a dead heat election though Gore should have won in a landslide and why Bush beat Kerry.

Posted by bean22 at 11/5/2007

MY ANSWER WOULD BE ***NONE*** OF THE ABOVE, SO I DIDN'T VOTE...

Actually, I haven't got a clue who Hillary's veep will be but I do think I have a clue who it WON'T be. Definitely not Obama -- he "picked on" her in the last debate and it sounds to me like he did it in a way that made him a permanent enemy of Her Highness. And the other "candidates" just don't seem exciting, although it's hard to read her mind. I suspect she will surprise everybody with a running-mate not on the list....

Posted by w_m_bear at 11/5/2007

It doesn't matter much to me who Hillary might choose as a running mate since I can't countenance voting for her unless it appears that a dickweed candidate --i.e. any of the likely Republican nominees-- appears to be close to winning my state.

Obama is probably her best potential running mate in terms of garnering the broadest support, but Richardson seems to be the guy with his nose burrowed furthest up her nether regions --a grizzly thought I know.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/6/2007

I'm hoping the Dems won't be dumb enough to nominate the witch but I'm confident about that. If she did get it I would say Biden he may not be as exciting as Obama but she's going to need an attack dog to bash the Republican machine back and I think aside from Edwards, who really has pissed her off to much to get the VP, who has the ability to do it. If he doesn't though I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him some where in the cabinet. Please please please Edwards '08 he is in my view both the best candidate and our best chance. Plus I would like to vote for a Democrat and I can't see myself voting for the Clinton dynasty.

Posted by Duluzo at 11/6/2007

Oh I forgot to mention does anyone think that Hillary will play well in the south...I mean really?

Posted by Duluzo at 11/6/2007

It is irrelevant who gets the nomination. Bush eluded to this prior to the 2004 election. Bush said if there was an event that compromises the national security he has the power to postpone the elections indefinitely. he also eluded to his ability to suspend Congress.

Posted by Raku_Man at 11/6/2007

I almost concurred with the earlier post by saying "none of the above." However after second thought, the Mark Warner selection may be more likely unless she selects a centrist governor from the midwest. Unlike the earlier posts, I don't buy the idea of acrimony eliminating one either Obama or Edwards, look at the 1980 primary between Bush and Reagan.

While there are many out there who, should she be the nominee, would like to see her select Obama as a running mate, my instinct says that she will make the choice of a centrist governor.

Posted by dhairstonjr at 11/7/2007

Clark makes great sense. He is from the South. Ark. Sort of anti war; but not too much. An old Clinton buddy. Makes sense. Also, cozzy with free trade interests.

Posted by cyclezealot at 11/8/2007

Refering to Richardson Bean22 says "Then the morons in New Mexico elect him governor." With that sort of respect for the democratical process, insulting those who elected a popular governor, the same can be said then about those like Bean22 who voted for Bush.

The truth though is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is merely going through the motions without asserting the mandate they were voted to do, namely end the war in Iraq, and reverse a lot of the damage done to the nation, financially, to its democratic process, to its prestige around the world, to the deficit in the budget and international trade to name a few, by the W Bush administration.

Democrats have shown to be gutless, servants to the same CORPORATOCRATIC masters.

WE NEED A THIRD NEW PARTY NOW!!!

We need to clean house of all these scum bags in the White House, the Congress and the Senate. Of course also at the Supreme Court but that one will take longer, after the great damage done with those recalcitrant new appointments.

Posted by etniks at 11/8/2007

Dear Ruelle, the gorilla you're talking about who did win the 2000 election, wasted his chance at the moment he accepted his defeat. Him and his party behaved like real asses at the time, allowing the crooks in the Republican side to steal the elections.

If the Democrats would have had real guts, they would have simply left both the congress and senate until ALL votes had been recounted, leaving no cuorum to conduct government (just as it was done twice in Texas later by the Democratic party, by the senators and by the congressmen)

Al Gore's problem is he still thinks the elections were "his" to loose, not the people's. He's merely a public servant and who put him there were the people, and he screwed it, for the voters and for the country, which today is much worse than when Gore won the elections in 2000.

Gore doesn't deserve another chance. There are better people in the US than him to bring back this nation from the gutter.

Bill Moyers is a way better candidate, just to mention one.

Posted by etniks at 11/8/2007

Honestly, I would like to see an Obama/Richardson ticket. I believe both of these men are genuine and would represent to United States in an extraordinary manner. Richardson for OBAMA's Vice President. Hillary for Secretary of State... or maybe a White House Maid.

Posted by IllinoisVet at 11/9/2007

I like the idea of the previous post; Hillary for White House maid. Don't get me wrong, I have five beautiful daughters and I am all for a woman president; just not Hillary. I believe that because so many people will not vote for her, (people either like her or hate her) that she will devide this nation politically for another eight years. More to the point, I believe she is a free trade corportist bought and paid for by Wall street BIG money. At least Bill had a personality and smiled when he was screwing you. Do you remember NAFTA? She would make a great maid in a Kucinich White House.

Posted by Dave Moore at 11/9/2007

Dave and IllinoisVet--

Hillary would make a great maid in a Kucinich White House? You GO, guys.

Except of course that Hillary (like the Evil Queen in Snow White) would not take kindly to having Elizabeth's glow around, and I cannot imagine that she'd do windows AT ALL.

She was out here in Iowa last week-- can't think why, she must LIKE us, uh huh-- and made no friends. It is so interesting that when "common folk" (say, the Iowa Maid-Rite waitress who spoke on NPR last week) meet her, they've really got her number.

Hillary is about Hillary, not about America.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/11/2007

The real question is how long are we going to allow the corporate media to shove Hillary down our throats? I am all for a woman president, just not THAT woman. The corporate presidents we have had for the remembered past need to be replaced with a President for the people, for the World, and for giving PEACE a chance. Until we get someone who will give us the facts about what is going on and what we have to do to fix the problems we will continue to live in La-la land with our heads....well, in the sand, in the clouds, or up our arses, choose your position. Lawyers, drugs and money....no way to run a democracy or a republic.

Posted by gdwtch52 at 11/12/2007

If Hillary won I would be on the next plane to FRANCE!

Posted by elizajane at 11/13/2007

There is something about Obama. I cant put my finger on it but he is very secretive even tho he appears to be outspoken and open. Something isnt right with him. Hes not honest Barbs

Posted by barbs at 11/16/2007

Hillary is a flip flopping ,lying, manipulative woman

Posted by barbs at 11/16/2007

Another thought:

The question itself is just one more unsubtle way to program a public whose resistance is waaay low to believe in the "inevitability" of yet one more corrupt Clinton administration except of course without the good-ole boy jokey charm.

(Repeat after me: Hillary Clinton/Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton/Democratic nominee... until the mind runs like an anti-prayer wheel in sleep repeating it for us...)

That's dirty pool, coming from supposedly progressive thinkers.

Posted by amalie bear at 11/18/2007

A Hillary Clinton presidency would mean continued US military involvement in the affairs of other nation because she'd had to show that should could be as ruthless and without principles as the boys.

That means a continued US involvement in Iraq and if Bush hasn't started a war with Iran by the time he left office, she would.

Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 11/20/2007