Hillary Clinton

Clinton's Running Mate Will Reveal a Lot About Her

Will her choice be guided more by experience or political considerations?

|

Hillary Clinton
Marc Golub/Polaris/Newscom

A crucial question about anyone who runs for president is: When the stakes are high, will the interests of the country come first? Or will political considerations dominate? On matters of foreign policy, the Supreme Court or the economy, though, we can only guess and hope. 

But one major decision can't wait until after the election. It has to be made and revealed long beforehand, offering an excellent preview of a presidential candidate's priorities, judgment and maturity. It's the designation of a running mate. 

Not that this test applies to Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him. But it applies to Hillary Clinton, whose choice is especially important because she would be the second-oldest person ever to enter the White House. 

The traditional approach is to find someone to balance the ticket with respect to various attributes. The youthful New Englander Jack Kennedy enlisted the older Southerner Lyndon Johnson. Conservative Californian Ronald Reagan picked moderate George Bush, who was transplanted from Connecticut to Texas. 

Often, however, this selection has been given far less weight than it warrants, on the assumption that the vice presidency is an inconsequential office that can be filled with an inconsequential person. The 19th-century Senate giant Daniel Webster declined it, saying, "I do not propose to be buried until I am dead." 

Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, a little-known first-term Maryland governor who eventually resigned the vice presidency in disgrace. George H.W. Bush went with Dan Quayle, who instantly gained a reputation as a laughable lightweight. 

But it's hard to think of a more appalling choice than the one John McCain made in 2008: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Shallow, uninformed and erratic, she was a deafening refutation of the commitment McCain claimed: "Country First." 

"I think the notion of Sarah Palin being president of the United States is something that frightens me, frankly," McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt later said. She was chosen, he confessed, because the campaign principals "were fueled by ambition to win." 

Americans also had dodged a bullet in 2004, when John Edwards ran on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry. The senator from North Carolina was later embroiled in a scandal after fathering a child in an extramarital affair while his wife was fighting cancer. He also was indicted on campaign finance charges, and his acquittal only marginally diminished his disgrace. 

Palin's nomination came after Barack Obama had chosen someone who, whatever his flaws, was eminently qualified for the presidency. Joe Biden was a veteran senator with broad experience on both domestic and foreign policy. He had the essential trait: plausibility as president. 

Nor could Dick Cheney be faulted on his credentials. He had been a House member, White House chief of staff and secretary of defense during the first Iraq war. He turned out to be a regrettable choice only because of his atrocious judgment. 

So Clinton has a high standard to meet. While a presidential nominee can't afford an electoral liability on the ticket, political factors can't be allowed to substitute for essential attributes that make a vice president valuable even if he or she never has to succeed the president. 

None of the people reported to be on Clinton's list of prospects is seriously unqualified, but some are merely adequate, such as Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, whose elective experience consists of one term on a county council, and Julian Castro, who spent five years as mayor of San Antonio and two as housing and urban development secretary. 

Elizabeth Warren has yet to serve a full term in the Senate, and at 67, she is nearly as old as Clinton. At 47, Cory Booker is young enough, but he too has a slightly thin resume, having been mayor of Newark before arriving in the Senate less than three years ago. 

There are better alternatives on Clinton's purported list, including Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, 58, who has been in Congress since 1993, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, 63, who arrived on Capitol Hill that same year, and Sen. Tim Kaine, 58, a former Virginia governor and Richmond mayor. None has quite the heft of Biden or Cheney, but all pass the qualification test with high marks. 

Choosing a running mate, Walter Mondale recently told The New York Times, is "like getting married without any divorce proceedings possible." That makes it important for Clinton and even more important for the rest of us.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc. 

NEXT: Drug War Ringer Pushes Johnson to Explain Reality of Prohibition at Town Hall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But it’s hard to think of a more appalling choice than the one John McCain made in 2008: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Shallow, uninformed and erratic, she was a deafening refutation of the commitment McCain claimed: ‘Country First.'”

    ****

    It’s hard to think of a candidate who was more ill-suited for what the party was looking for than John McCain. He was a moderate, honorable man that the party made into a caricature of a right-wing candidate that they wanted. He did not fit the role and people could see that. I think that’s why the party forced Palin on him…to make the ticket lean further to the right.

    1. Uh, McCain has been a senator for my state for a long time and I’m fairly familiar with him.

      He *is* that caricature of a right wing candidate. The only place where he differs with the rest of the GOP mainstream (and the Democratic mainstream) is on the use of torture.

      He has no problem invading half the world, has no problem with trade restrictions, has no problem with things like the ‘No Fly List’.

      1. And nobody forced Palin on him.

        1. I have read that he wanted Liebermann, but his advisers thought he needed to make a splash that would excite the base, hence Palin.

          1. He needed a Christian woman. Liebermann was a Jew, and there is still plenty of Antisemitism in the Republican Party base.

            1. The democrats are the antisemites. They have all the pro Palestinian scum in their party.

    2. “It’s hard to think of a candidate who was more ill-suited for what the party was looking for than John McCain.”

      And yet the GOP managed to find one: Mitt Romney.

      1. You meant to type “Trump”, I am sure.

      2. Oh, its Suthenboy. He votes based solely on race issues.

        1. Pay your bet, assnugget.

      3. McCain: 173 Electoral College votes

        Mittens: 206 Electoral College votes

        Maybe the party was looking for a serious ass-whooping with McCain, and if so, then sure, Mittens was somewhat more ill-suited for that role.

        1. McCain had a much more unfavorable environment to run in than Romney did.

          1. McCain botched it by embracing the TARP bailouts. He could have rallied the Tea Party behind him if had tried to defeat them.

          2. Romney realyl had to blow it to beat Obama after we had four years of his bullshit to judge him on.

    3. “I think that’s why the party forced Palin on him…”

      there were conservatives who were palin cheerleaders at the time, but by all accounts, it was a desperate gamble to win an unwinnable election and the choice was mccain’s.

    4. He was a moderate, honorable man

      As a Libertarian, I do of course support your right to scramble your brain with the intoxicants of your choosing, but let me offer the friendly suggestion that you might want to start tapering off a bit.

      -jcr

    5. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too.
      You can check it out here.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. Her choice will reveal absolutely nothing about her. She’s going to choose a demographic checkbox – Perez or Castro – for purely political considerations. And she can’t choose Warren because she needs Wall Street money.

    So it’ll be a transparently cynical decision that benefits her electoral chances above all else. In other words, exactly what every sane person expects of her.

    Btw, what’s with the shade on Palin while describing Perez and Castro as “merely adequate”? The latter are superficial hacks while Palin at the time was the most popular and successful governor in the country.

    1. Palin fell down when asked the very simple question, “What do you read to stay informed” (paraphrased). Couldn’t even name the local newspaper, New York Times, Enquirer, ust mumbled and stuttered and dodged such a softball question. Whatever other qualifications she might have, someone who thinks that was an ambush question needing to be dodged is unfit for any responsible position, whether dog catcher or President.

      She also bailed on her term as governor or mayor, just bailed out for the hell of it.

      Not an evil person, nothing like Joe Biden or His Obamaness, but eminently unqualified for any position of responsibility.

      1. Who will be the first candidate to answer “Reddit”?

        1. —-Who will be the first candidate to answer “Reddit”?—-

          …the first candidate to answer ‘Reddit’ will be the first candidate who decides that the techies are a necessary demographic to win an election. These people are wholly political animals.

    2. I kind of discount the Castros as potential running mates. Yeah, they’re from Texas, but they’ve never won any statewide office, or any office beyond some deep blue city politics. Tossing one of them them up on the national stage doesn’t look like a great idea.

      1. As opposed to Obama? He never won anything beyond deep blue political offices by disqualifying his opponents.

        1. Yet he (or Plouffe and Axelrod) ran the firstand only modern tech-driven campaign and trounced his opponents.

          You could chalk it up to the disastrous financial and foreign messes the Bushpigs left us in but that would require honesty – which I doubt you possess.

          1. Hey honesty-man, you pay your bet yet?
            Didn’t think so, shitstain.

          2. Boooooosh!

            Eight years later, and that’s still your answer for everything.

          3. PB, smash your phone, go drink some Drano, and wait it out so the world can be a better place for the rest of us. Shitbag.

        2. Obama was a least a Senator for a term. Castro or Perez would have less experience than virtually any recent major party Presidential or VP candidate. No significant experience in a nationally-relevant elected position (San Antonio’s mayor has no real power, and city council doesn’t count) and only low-level Cabinet posts.

      2. Obama picked Biden as a safe pick. Obama was a disruption candidate, so the party wanted a safe party candidate. It’s the same reason Reagan picked Bush as a VP.

    3. Spot on. Except for the part about Pailhead being popular or successful. She was a no-name loser before McCain picked her. Now she’s a big name loser. In my view, he chose her so he could put some demographic oomph into the ticket. Decent looking, evangelical, female, special needs mom. That’s a lot of win… sadly, she is completely loopy and it showed immediately.

      Clinton’s VP choice will only reveal which voting bloc she thinks she is weakest with. It will, however, reveal a LOT about the person chosen. As in, just how craven they are.

      1. She was a no-name loser before McCain picked her.

        Strictly speaking, she was a no-name winner: she was a popular sitting governor at the height of a thus-far successful political career.

        1. My understanding is that she had the HIGHEST approval rating of any sitting governor at that time. I know people that lived in the same town and knew the Palins quite well. They liked her and said most people thought well of them.

          Chapman’s articles betray what an utter fucking progressive shill he really is. He has a lil’ boner for Hillary, and is excited at the thought of her winning. That he considers her a superior candidate to Trump speaks volumes.

          Hitler’s brain in the body of a tiger shark is a better choice than that cunt.

    4. I wouldn’t be shocked, but I don’t think she picks Perez or Castro. In fact, I thought I read that Castro said it wouldn’t be him, but I might be misremembering (too lazy to Google). If she really wanted to pick a Latino, there are better picks out there. I think she picks Kaine. Helps in a major swing state, doesn’t pull her further left, and maybe can help her with white men, which is the only race+gender demographic that she’s having major problems with.

    5. The VP choice is always the worst available. You have to keep the other side from wanting to impeach you. Think Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Biden, etc.

      So I predict she will go with Warren.

      1. Good point.

  3. So, flubbing an interview question instantly disqualifies you for higher office?

    Seems legit…

    1. In my eyes, yes, anyone who prevaricates so much over such a simple question is untrustworthy and unreliable.

      If you were interviewing job candidates and made some similar small talk which resulted in such ridiculous avoidance, would you want to work with them? Wouldn’t you wonder what kinds of actual serious questions they would dodge as an employee, what kind of mistakes they would cover up?

      I wouldn’t trust such an employee for two seconds. It’s not a matter of being evil and a closet embezzler or likely to steal red staplers, it’s the implication that they have a very low threshold for being embarrassed or shamed and wondering how in hell they could ever admit a mistake that needs fixing, even if the mistake was in some procedure or superior’s orders they followed.

      Just plain unreliable and untrustworthy.

      1. It’s a fair point. anyone going into a job interview has a general idea of what kind of questions they’re going to get asked. (What’s your biggest weakness, etc) It’s not exactly outside of the ordinary for A VP candidate to have a standard answer.

  4. Suthenboy is right. Chapman, you are now officially a Shillary apparatchik. Reason, just dump this guy, or just run the, “The Official Libertarian Case for Hillary,” article. You can even have GayJay and Weld write it for you.

    I’m done with you, Chapman, either here or Townhall.

    1. You mean that wingnut site call “Townhall”?

      And people here ask why I think you Peanuts are mostly just TEAM RED! fools.

      1. Go die in a fire, Marcotte’s Acidick Dildo.

        I primarily read local UKR journals and keep up with the goings on in Euro-landia. I skim for USA news from a variety of sources, and happen to know Townhall features Chapman. I should stop, since crony-socialist scum like you raise my BP.

        1. I despise socialists.

          By the way, where do you stand? Brexit or Bremain?

          I need to know what proto-fascist leaners think.

          1. Have you paid your bet yet?

            1. Of course not, because he’s a dishonest shit stain.

          2. I live UKR, not GBR, idiot; since I can’t vote, it really doesn’t matter how I stand. I’m much more concerned what Poroshenko is going to foul up this week.

            If my vote mattered: Brexit. Britain opted to keep the GBP instead of surrendering to the Euro, and would not have nearly the trouble that Cameron claims she would.

          3. If you want to know, it would be polite to drop *your* stance along with asking for someone else’s.

            1. I’m torn. The Muslim horde is destroying Britain (and I am pro-immigrant in the US) but their economy needs to Bremain.

              1. Why would their economy need it?

                1. They can unilaterally open their borders to trade – with the whole world. We already know that free trade is beneficial, even if your trading partner is raising tariffs and whatnot on his end. Even if the guy you’re buying from refuses to buy from you.

                2. The countries inside the free trade zone? Yeah, there’s a whole hell of a lot of people who stand to lose a whole hell of a lot of money if the EU tries to close the border so that’s not going to happen.

                Worst case scenario they’d have to negotiate ‘treaties’ with the individual nations – like they do already with every other country in the world.

                3. Not being in the Schengen Area – if you’re worried about Muslim immigration that’s a huge plus. In addition, even if you’re not concerned about it, it would allow the UK to put its foot down and point out the the *EU’s own asylum rules* state that asylum-seekers get to seek asylum in the first country they reach – not travel across Europe shopping for the best deal. Once these people become EU citizens *then* they are allowed free travel within Schengen. The UK would still be free to choose to accept all the asylum seekers they wanted to.

                1. 4. Sovereignty. none of the EU member nations have it. All EU ‘regulations’ must be passed into law by member nations legislatures without comment or change.

                  5. Cost-wise, it should come out neutrally. Right now the EU pumps out something like 14 billion pounds to get back 7 billion pounds of ‘services’ from the EU, worst case scenario, assuming they wanted to keep *all* those ‘services’ its projected to cost them . . . 14 billion pounds, leaving them with no net gain or loss in money spent but the freedom to adjust their budget to their own liking.

                2. I don’t feel strongly about this issue either way unlike many here, but a couple things I take issue with in your analysis:

                  1) Lowering/eliminating tariffs is beneficial regardless, but it still hurts you if the other country raises tariffs.

                  2) The UK already isn’t a part of the Schengen Area

              2. You lose again shitbag. Brexit all the way. This will be a huge blow to European socialism.

              3. You lose again shitbag. Brexit all the way. This will be a huge blow to European socialism.

          4. The proto-fascists in Brussels all vote Remain.

          5. Derp – “smartest man in the room” shreek doesn’t know the difference between the Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

            1. He’s just not able to read to the third letter of a word, be it TLA or a normal word.

          6. Palin’s Buttplug|6.23.16 @ 8:31AM|#
            “I despise socialists.”

            And yet you are one.
            Go fuck you daddy, turd.

          7. I despise socialists.
            Just curious as to why? They don’t make enough gulags for your taste?

          8. PB, stomach cancer is too good for you. You deserve a more painful condition.

  5. The choice is simple: Selena Meyer

    1. I figure that’s pretty much who Hillary is, but more corrupt and less attractive.

    2. I would support Selena Gomez…or Selena, because I would rather a corpse be in charge.

    3. Hillary should go with a VP guy like Bertie Wooster, like Selena Meyer picked.

  6. When the stakes are high, will the interests of the country come first? Or will political considerations dominate?

    Oh, come on, this isn’t even a question anymore.

  7. whatever his flaws, was eminently qualified for the presidency. Joe Biden was a veteran senator with broad experience on both domestic and foreign policy. He had the essential trait: plausibility as president.

    Oh Chapman, you make me laugh. You’re a funny guy. Like a clown.

    1. Biden’s primary qualification is that he is so stupid and incompetent, he makes Obama look good by comparison, and helps the Secret Service out by being so terrible that no one really wants Obama assassinated.

      1. Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Biden…. anyone see a pattern here?

    2. It’s almost like people don’t remember Biden’s plagiarism scandal. He didn’t just steal some turn of phrase or pass off someone else’s writing as his own – he took someone else’s life story that was NOTHING like his and tried to pretend it was.

      Why does it seem only democrats are forever sunk by something like that?

      1. *aren’t forever sunk, natch.

  8. Bernie! Bernie!

  9. Hillary should pick William Weld as her VP. It would shore up her #NeverTrump GOPe support. I’m sure he’d happily bail on GayJay at this point.

    1. Damn your nimble fingers, SIV! It occurred to me, based on what I have read so far, Weld is a TEAM BLUE wet dream, if TEAM BLUE actually had a blue dog left.

      Also, the image of Bush the Shrub as The Dolt, and Darth Cheney as The Puppetmaster, appears to be Flaccid Johnson/Gelded Weld’s analogue this go ’round.

  10. Not that this test applies to Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him.

    Translation: Trump says mean things so I’m just going to make shit up.

    1. Trump must have been a real big meanie to hurt Chapman’s widdle feelings.

  11. Ser Chapman – *every* president has chosen his running mate out of what is good for his political ambitions and not ‘what is good for the country’.

    Everyone. And every one of them would have justified it with ‘well, I can’t do any good if I don’t get elected’. Because what is good for *them* is what they consider ‘good for the country’.

    So, her running mate will reveal a lot about her – most of which we already know. The only thing of merit that this choice will reveal is exactly how good of a political operator she is.

    1. ,blockquote>Americans also had dodged a bullet in 2004, when John Edwards ran on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry. The senator from North Carolina was later embroiled in a scandal after fathering a child in an extramarital affair while his wife was fighting cancer. He also was indicted on campaign finance charges, and his acquittal only marginally diminished his disgrace.

      Palin’s nomination came after Barack Obama had chosen someone who, whatever his flaws, was eminently qualified for the presidency. Joe Biden was a veteran senator with broad experience on both domestic and foreign policy. He had the essential trait: plausibility as president.

      And this is kind of insane.

      1. Edwards was a douche from start to finish – and the democrats had just made it completely clear that they did not consider extra-marital affairs a deal-breaker for becoming President. And let’s not forget that he was *acquitted* of campaign finance law violations.

      Obama did not choose someone who was ’eminently qualified’ to be president. He chose Biden. You know, the guy with the touching problem. The guy who says ‘just fire two shots’? The guy who’s accomplished less in his life than Obama? The guy who kept making verbal gaffs during their first term?

      1. Broad experience is pretty useless if all it leads you to is complete shit positions over and over.

        And if ‘plausibility’ is the ‘essential trait’, we should just elect Martin Sheen or Morgan Freeman – hell, get your woman pres on and elect Dreyfus.

      2. Biden was chosen for one reason: Assassination insurance.

        T’will be interesting if Skullduggery will select someone based upon the same rationale; I honestly believe her current health profile will determine this.

        1. I’m honestly not worried about either her health or her age. She’ll be 69 when/if she takes office.

          For a rich white woman the odds are very much in her favor that she’ll see 74 at a minimum before the serious decline in health that usually precedes death bay a few years.

          If she were a black man at that age, then it might be something he should take into consideration for his election planning.

          I know people will say that she looks like shit – but frankly women show the wear of age a lot more than men do. Its a tiny minority that gets to that age still looking good and it really has little bearing on a woman’s *actual health* or capabilities.

          1. I am more concerned about her *actual health* – we still don’t know the extent of:

            1) The type and extent of her cerebro-vascular accident (this is paramount);

            2) Her current health profile and meds. I am convinced she is not as healthy as she appears.

            1. I am convinced she is not as healthy as she appears.

              She looks to me like she’s not well at all, so if she’s not even that healthy, will she live to see 2017?

              1. That old hag will outlive us all.

                1. Just to spite you, if nothing else

                2. That old hag will outlive us all.

                  She channels Elizabeth Bathory, after all.

              2. Let’s hope not. Maybe Trump will dig into her so hard in one of their debates hat she finally loses her shit and shows her true persons. The evil, screaming, shrill bitch that everyone sees behind the scenes. Then she has a fatal stroke, or at least one that makes her the drooling vegetable that all progtards (like Tony, Alice, PB, and AmSoc) truly are at heart.

                That would be fucking epic.

          2. I have a question. Is the lower life expectancy for black men really a result of them dying younger when they get old, or of the higher proportion of them that die when they are actually young?

            1. Don’t know – its hard to find data for the US broken out like that.

              I’m just going by ‘life expectancy at birth’ without any deeper analysis. Which is what the media would feed the general public anyway – its not like those guys would dig out the data that shows things like ‘life expectancy for those who’ve reached age 5’.

              As an aside – complicating matters for comparing those numbers across nations is that the US counts as live births (and so lowering the overall life expectancy) a lot of births that other countries would leave out. Things like the infant dying within x hours of birth and so forth. And since even that is inconsistent across nations its hard to take seriously all the ‘we pay more for health care but get less out of it arguments’ that drag out life expectancy as an important metric.

              But, *if* I were a black man at that age running for president, its one of the things that I would have in the back of my head for consideration (far from an overriding one) of the necessity to placate an ignorant public.

            2. I have a question. Is the lower life expectancy for black men really a result of them dying younger when they get old, or of the higher proportion of them that die when they are actually young?

              Pathology data is broken down like that, and NIH keeps stuff like that. Those types of death data are part of the overall death rate, then are accounted for by “natural death” – meaning some discrete disease process, a particular COD related to a primary disease process, like say, renal failure secondary to diabetes mellitus. Basically anything that is autologous, and not predicated by something or someone else.

              Adjusting for say, gun deaths or car accidents, are considered “unnatural” and accounted for discretely as well.

              All forms of death are accounted for and catalogued by ethnicity (if known or specifically determined by autopsy) for this reason. Finding the such specific data can take a while, since the only groups who really use it are FedGov/StateGov, actuaries, and the medical industries.

            3. It’s a hard question to answer. The problem is that there are a lot black men getting shot in their 20s, so that brings the numbers down. I haven’t seen any good numbers where they extricate the numbers.

            4. It’s a result of blindly voting for progressive democrats like sheep.

      3. The sad thing about the whole John Edwards affair, is that it was an open secret, and the only publication that bothered to follow up on it was the National Enquirer.

        That just seems like a huge indictment to all the reporters that the only newspaper that’s willing to follow up on a lead is the National Enquirer.

        It’s shitty state of affairs when the tabloid journalists are better at breaking news then the political journalists.

        1. The political journalists had to cover for him because TEAM!

      4. An extramarital affair in itself is survivable, but not when your wife is battling cancer and you’ve made a big deal of standing by her. That adds a lot of sliminess to the affair.

  12. Weld gave a similar answer about Hillary. You may disagree with her, but there is no questioning that she is qualified to be president. That’s a stupid thing to say.

    1. To be fair, he may have meant by “she is qualified to be president” that “she lies to the American People with impunity”.

      1. He called her “wonderful”, too. *Ahem, wonderful liar*?

        1. To be fair, he may have meant by “wonderful” that “I wonder about her a lot”.

          1. Ok. How about when he wore her granny panties on his head and screamed, “I can smell heaven!”

            1. To be fair, his muffled scream may have been “I can smell leaven!”

    2. Define qualified. She knows how to leverage the office for money?

      Biden obviously doesn’t.

  13. It will be Tim Kaine. Senator from a swing state, groomed for the presidency, sane, teed up and a big contrast to Trump/Gingrich.

    1. Pay your bet, fuckstain.

    2. Pay up you fucking traitor cunt.

  14. Who Will Be Hillary Clinton’s Veep?

    A room temperature wad of raw hamburger meat.

    1. Spokesmaggot.

    2. A room temperature wad of raw hamburger meat.

      So….Vince Foster, then?

      1. He’s all bones and evidence by now.

        1. Agreed. I guess Roger Clinton will have to suffice.

      2. Yes, she murdered Vince Foster.

        WHY DOES THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA COVER THAT UP?

        1. Pay your bet asshole.

          1. Everyone should report his comments as spam until he pays up.

  15. What her choice will reveal is, how concerned is she about Bernie supporters not voting for her. If it’s a huge concern, then Lizzie Warren comes out for the all-female ticket. If it’s not a concern, then she’ll pick Brown or someone similar. With Trump on the other side, there’s little reason for her to pick a Latino VP, so seems like Castros are not a likely choice.

    1. To clarify, there is little political reason to select a Latino VP. Not saying that Latinos are not qualified to be Hill’s VP.

  16. There is no reason for a libertarian to ever consider voting for Hillary. Therefore all articles pretending otherwise are a waste of electrons.

    Might as well deposit those words in a Kleenex and toss them in the toilet.

    1. Apparently Trump is so far beyond the pale that we should vote for Clinton just to ensure that he doesn’t take office. Dead Zone shit.

      I don’t like Trump, I think he would make a horrible president (but then again, our last 2 have been horrible), but what’s he going to be able to do that’s worse than what Clinton would do? What would he do that Clinton *wouldn’t* do since both are essentially identical when it comes to what little is revealed of their actual policy preferences?

      Ruin our ‘relationship’ with the EU? The people who have made themselves dependent upon us for defense? The ones who demand that half the EU pay the bills of the other half? The ones that don’t like us and are (amusingly and incompetently) challenging our ‘hegemony’ by throwing up a half-assed GPS system and a half-assed space program? The Russians? They won’t like us anymore? The Chinese? Does anyone think Trump could actually shut us out of trading with them?

      1. Also, what has Trump done that *remotely* approaches Hillary’s non-avoidance of the appearance of evil?

      2. According to Chapman we know that Hillary is an evil, corrupt warmonger but Trump might do bad stuff so we should vote for Hillary.

        1. If only there were a third choice, someone more experienced and less corrupt and sane.
          Oh wait, there is…. Gary Johnson.

      3. There comes a time when grown men must consider that putting an incompetent chaotic baboon in charge of American foreign policy is simply not an option, even if the only alternative is *gasp* a Democrat. I’m truly sorry for the conundrum you guys must find yourselves dealing with. But this isn’t a difficult choice for anyone who’s not a complete moron.

        1. You realize you just described most of Obama’s foreign policy, right? And which candidate was the secretary in charge of executing said policy? I’m not saying Trump wouldn’t be chaotic, but at least he’ll keep the world on its toes.

          1. Blah blah blah.

            1. The wit! The logical arguments! The turn of phrase! It’s like the reincarnation of Oscar Fucking Wilde!

        2. But the Democrat isn’t the only alternative, thankfully.

      4. both are essentially identical when it comes to what little is revealed of their actual policy preferences?

        Are you seriously going to argue that they’re identical on immigration, trade and second amendment?

    2. This article proves Chapman is a progressive democrat (traitor), and belongs on a blacklist with every other progressive.

  17. I still haven’t seen any real evidence that Sarah Palin was any dumber or more incompetent than Biden.

    1. That makes you as stupid as she is.

      She couldn’t name a SCOTUS decision other than ‘Roe’ – Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee for years. That is just one example.

      1. And I would be willing to bet that Biden still couldn’t name a SCOTUS decision other than Roe.

        1. You never heard him question a SCOTUS candidate then. He did that a lot as chair of Judiciary. They do that you know. A lot. (Judiciary means the “court system” for Limbaugh diddle-heads).

          1. Pay your bet, fucktard.

          2. I’m sure. And I’m sure that he like most of them parrot what his interns feed him. Things like ‘would you overturn Roe vs Wade?’, or ‘Do you think Roe vs Wade was decided correctly?’

      2. Commit suicide you piece of shit.

    2. And probably a better speller than Quayle.

  18. Who will Hillary choose as VP? That’s easy – whoever pays the most.

    1. “It’s what they offered.”

      1. She’s got this thing, and it’s fucking golden. She’s just not giving it up for fucking nothing. it’s a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing. If she don’t get what she wants … she’ll just take the Vice Presidency herself.”

      2. Yeah capitalism sucks huh.

        1. As if you understand capitalism or free markets. You probably think that a corrupt, talentless, statist hack like Hillary selling State Department favors for bribes is actually capitalism.

  19. I love the consternation of you “libertarians” who are concerned that TEAM RED! has blown this one by choosing a con-man idiot who is even worse than an admittedly weak Dem candidate.

    1. Pay your bet, assmonkey.

    2. So, which libertarians are those?

    3. Really?
      The people who are actually rooting for the con-man idiot are much more concerning.

  20. If I were Hillary (*shudders* *vomits*)

    I would not be sweating the electability that much when matched up against Trump. I’m confident that Trump will shoot himself in the foot too many times to erase my lead. For that reason I am picking someone who will be a good future candidate to try and continue the Democratic dynasty that election-year turnout demographics and Bush’s legacy have handed me. Who gives a damn if they’re qualified now.

    In other words, more Castro or Booker and less Warren or Brown.

    Of course, Clinton doesn’t exactly strike me as an unselfish party-builder so I’m sure she actually taps whoever the hell focus groups the best, and screw the party’s future.

    (Note: I kind of expect Clinton to win and then be ousted in four years, which would put a spanner in the “dynasty” thing, but building the bench is still valuable even if she fails to win reelection).

  21. “…Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him.”

    Obligatory quick little virtue signal, lest he be accused of wrongthink

  22. Not that this test applies to Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him.

    Well, one can hope that Trump will pick someone suitable, and then resign. Preferably before the election.

  23. I’d nearly forgotten how badly Fritz “I will raise your taxes” Mondale fucked up Ferraro’s career.

    -jcr

  24. I really don’t think I need to know any more about this hag.

    1. Well, Chapman is clearly going to write more of his progressive fan fiction about this vile bitch for the next several months. As he clearly longs for America to be enslaved by his progtard masters.

  25. Ridiculous prediction:

    Hillary picks Sanders as her running mate in order to keep the Berniebros on the reservation. Then she nominates her “real” VP pick as Sec State. One morning shortly after her SoS is sworn in, Bernie’s found dead in his bed. The death is quickly ruled “natural causes” and the SoS is sworn in as veep.

    1. Shit, I just realized that I totally fucked up the secession. The next in line for Veep would Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan) then President Pro Tempore of the Senate (currently Orrin Hatch), then SoS. So Ryan and Hatch would have to be taken out as well. I doubt even Hillary could make all three look like accidents or natural causes.

      1. Section 2 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Whenever there is vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

        So it’s not the same succession line. Hillary could pull it off with whoever she wants.

        (Confession, I only knew this because of House of Cards)

        1. Yeah – that’s how Gerald Ford became President

  26. I think she’ll pick Castro. She can pander to the Hispanics and he is the most dishonest of those in contention. He also lies as much as she does. They’ll get along fine.

  27. What’s left to reveal? I’m already aware that she’s a lying, incompetent, greedy, crook.

  28. Not that this test applies to Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, Chapman. Shut the hell up.

  29. Barack Obama had chosen someone who, whatever his flaws, was eminently qualified for the presidency. Joe Biden was a veteran senator with broad experience on both domestic and foreign policy. He had the essential trait: plausibility as president.

    Are you kidding me? That IQ 70 dimwit can barely tie his shoes. I’d sooner trust my 10-year-old daughter as President.

    1. He truly is the Forrest Gump of democrat politics. Just without the connotation of integrity, courage, decency, honesty, or good judgement.

  30. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    ====> http://www.Today70.com

  31. I have always assumed it would be Tim Kaine. She’s going to play it super safe and just try to let the Trumptanic sink.

  32. Not that this test applies to Donald Trump, whose unsuitability is beyond redemption by anyone who would consent to run with him. But it applies to Hillary Clinton

    I agree with regards to Trump, but Christ on a crutch do you mean to imply that Hillary Clinton is suitable? Based on what?

  33. “Will her choice be guided more by experience or political considerations?”

    What experience?

  34. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ???????? http://Youtube.nypost55.com

  35. I know Cory Booker pretty well, we were friends in Newark in 2000-2002. I don’t agree with his politics, but I think he’s an honest man, and I’ve always known him to listen to opposing points of view. I think he’d be a better president than either Trump or Clinton. Even if he’s selected as Clinton’s VP, it wouldn’t be enough to vote for her, but it’s at least the choice I’d be most comfortable with.

  36. Chapman, you’re a real progressive piece of garbage for writing this drivel. You should be writing for Salon, or Media Matters. Not Reason.

  37. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    Click This Link …..

    **************** http://www.cashpost7.com

  38. Biden was and is known as a huge demagogue, wrong completely on Foreign affairs and just another participator in crony capitalism but only with those willing to involve him due to his big mouth drawing attention. Look to his son’s involvement with Oil and gas in the Ukraine and see the incompetence there where when going up against Putin, Biden’s son died.
    We’ve not had any President or VP for quite some time for reasoning of simply improving America, as politics interferes, because politics runs our commerce co-joined with a inverted Totalitarian State serving corporations, not the American people.
    I’ve nothing against Enterprise, it’s great, but everything, EVERYTHING, has become about profit, winners and losers in the corporations.
    The U.S. used to be a conglomeration of States, individually essentially, Nation States and the lack of approval of Congress is very much the indicator of how interstate commerce under the control of the Central has redefined commerce to ever larger corporations.
    Eliminating the middle class, the bulk of consumers.
    Now the entire world finds itself where this model has brought us a massive decrease in exports of consumables on a per capita basis.
    The corporations are virtually cutting their own throats in the consumption of their goods.
    This is where Hillary wishes to fit in, directing commerce- from a politicians view, but in doing so will increase corporate Totalitarianism, shrinking the middle class, reducing opportunity.

  39. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  40. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  41. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.