If Obama runs with someone else now and loses, that's her best shot in 2012. If she's on the ticket now as VP and they lose, she'll have as little chance of getting the nomination in 2012 as John Edwards did this year.

I am perfectly willing to watch Obama lose and support her again in 08. If she is the VP candidate and he loses she can't run again and win anyway. Look how well that strategy worked for Edwards.

Now is her time.  And not as VP - as POTUS.

Why not?

No offense but, apparently you've been sound asleep the last 16 years. Clintons, any Clinton, are blamed for any failing. Your candidate has attacked the efficacy of the Clinton administration, the press does not acknowledge a successful Clinton Presidency.  The press (and your candidate) routinely demonize Hillary Clinton and have, in the case of press, for the past sixteen years.  

If an Obama/Clinton ticket were to lose, the press would crucify Hillary Clinton as the poison pill in spite of any polling or studies to the contrary and if for no other reason than to build animus for 2012.  

Don't you get it yet that the press and the Village establishment hate all things Clinton.

And what makes you think the party establishment would tolerate a Clinton candidacy in 2012?  A burning desire to win the White House? Haven't you seen enough already? This is the crew that joyously savages its own in the mistaken belief that they're performing some act of cleansing that the public will reward.

I can't believe you haven't noticed what's happening underneath.

Now.

On point 1 - HC does not have to be the VP condidate on a losing ticket to be the presumptive nominee in 2012.  It might help, but could hurt if this turns into a massive loss with her on the VP slot.  Someone could challenge her then.

On point 2 - The VP condidate, should the ticket lose, might be a stiff challenge to HC in 2012.  The party has got to find someone with some real backbone first, but not enough charisma to outshine their candidate.  If the ticket wins, you are presuming this would be asuccessful administration and not Carter Part II.  I don't have that faith in the "presumed candidate".  In that case it won't matter in 2012, as the party would have a snowball's chance of holding the WH.

On point 3 - No matter how bang up a job HC did in campaigning as the VP candidate, a loss this year will somehow get blamed on her, the party "elites" won't learn their lessons, and she would have to step on their necks to get the party nomination in 2012.  Actually, I kind of like the sound of that last part.

On point 4 - If she actually had to sit as the VP for 8 years (again, I feel that is unlikely), then I respectfully disagree that the age would not be a factor.  Just because the Reps can get away with it does not mean a Dem female cadidate could.  By the time the election would occur, she would be 69.  After 8 years of BO, I am sure that there would be cries for change coming from the other side, and having a grnadmother running for the big chair is not likely to fit many American's view of whom they want in that chair.  Maybe I am being cynical, but I don't see it.

My suggestion to her would be to decline the VP slot if offered.  Campaign for the ticket like a good Dem.  But, let the Boys sink on their own.  Then maybe in 2012, the party will be ready for some adult supervision.  And perhaps, Dems can actually grow some other worthy candidates by then.  Who konws?  She could decide she could be more effective outside politics if the party leadership is just not worth working with.

My worst fear?  That the party pushes a candidate who is not ready for the job (it won't matter who the VP is then as they can't really tell him -POTUS- what to do) and we get Carter Part II.  And remember, Carter had bright people in his administration.  Then we get stuck with Reps in the WH for the following 12-20 years!  For those who argue about SCOTUS selections for the next four years, think of longer term consequences in this scenario.

I seriously doubt that she could take NJ over to the dark side for McCain.

U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts issued a ruling that rejected Whitman's request for immunity in a 2004 class action lawsuit brought by a group who claimed exposure to hazardous debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge stated that "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."

That being said..Here is my theory...The DNC and the rest of the Dem Congresscritters don't want to actually have to DO ANYTHING in the next administration. So they want Obama who won't ask them to work. Hillary will.

They also don't like the Clintons, who were the original outsiders. So anything to beat Hillary, including driving away a good chunk of the Democratic Party. Of course, all the new voters that Obama will bring into the party will make up for that. Those new voters who have only voted for Obama and not the down-ticket Dems. The DNC also wants to tap into that fundraising ability he has. He is going to share with them. Nice of him, don't you think?? Sounds to me like buying the Presidency, but hey, what do I know??

They think that they can control Obama, they know they can't control Hillary.

Currently a candidate needs 2025 total delegates to vote for him or her in order to secure the party's nomination. That number may change if delegations from Florida and Michigan are seated before the convention.

Pledged delegates are earned by the votes in a state's primary or its caucuses. Delegates are "proportionally allocated" to a candidate based on the number of votes that candidate received in each state. For example, in Ohio, Clinton won the popular vote by approximately a 9% margin. She received 75 pledged 75 and Obama received 66.

Only six contests remain:

West Virginia (28)
Kentucky (51)
Oregon (52)
Montana (16)
South Dakota (15)
Puerto Rico (55)

If you add these, you'll find 217 pledged delegates remain to be apportioned. There are 245 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed either candidate. Thus, 462 total delegates remain.

Obama needs only 155 of these to secure his nomination. Clinton needs 327. Because of the way proportional allocation works, the best reasonable case scenario for Clinton is that she may get 60% of remaining pledged delegates, with big wins in WV and KY, which are predicted, and substantial wins everywhere else, which is less likely. That would give Hillary another 130 pledged delegates and Obama 86 more, bringing Obama's total delegate count to 1938, leaving him only 87 short of securing the nomination.

To get to 2025 he needs 35% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to endorse him. Some political insiders believe he already has received commitments from enough superdelegates to take him over the top, and that these endorsements haven't been announced yet for political reasons. I tend to agree with this theory.

Even if this is not correct, if you examine the superdelegate endorsement trend for the past several weeks, Obama has been receiving about 8 endorsements for every endorsement Hillary receives. The reasons for this are several, but suffice it to say that absent some kind of catastrophic, cataclysmic scandal implicating Obama, it's unlikely that this trend will reverse sharply enough to get Hillary to the magic number.

America deserves what it gets if it elects yet another unprepared political neophyte.  I bet the media leaders LAUGH at the utter ignorance of the American voter.

They are all saying, "Look ,we sold them on George Bush, let's see them get flim-flammed again with Obama!"  Har-de-har-fu****g-har-har.

But I have to say also that Obama doesn't come close to Carter.

She answered a question about her support for Hillary by telling a story.  She said she had dinner at the White House just after a very good man had been elected president.  She listened with admiration as he talked about how he had come to Washington to do great things for America -- very high-minded and idealistic things.   That man, Cher said, was then torn apart by the DC establishment and the media.  

The interviewer at that point asked a question that implied Cher was talking about Clinton.  Cher said, no, it was Jimmy Carter, whom she still believes is a great man, but who was not cut out to be President.

She said she supports Hillary because she will knee-cap the media and Washington people right back when they go after her, whereas Obama will be slaughtered.

* Voted in FAVOR of funding the Iraq War without conditions;

• Voted in FAVOR of the Bush White House's FISA bill to drastically expand warrantless eavesdropping powers;
  
• Voted in FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org;
  
• Cast the deciding vote in August on the Senate Judiciary Committee in FAVOR of the nomination of far right Bush nominee Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2006, Feinstein not only voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act without any of the critical safeguards sought by Sen. Feingold, among others, but she was one of the most outspoken Democratic proponents arguing for its extension ("I have never been in favor of allowing any provisions of the Patriot Act to expire."). Also in 2006, she not only voted in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, but was, as she proudly described herself, "the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment." Greenwald

You know how a black person supporting Obama can say the N-word and nobody will call him or her racist.  But I can't.

If Jesus of Nazareth had been his running mate the outcome would have been the same.

By the way; in a comment you made a couple of days ago; you said that FDR had never carried VA and NC.