Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 05/14/2008 8:33 am

wOw's Views on the News: Poll Says Majority of Dems Want Clinton as Vice President

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

Despite her overwhelming win last night in West Virginia (click here to read about it), 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed by Gallup (click here to see more details on the poll results) say it’s time for Sen. Clinton to join Obama’s ticket as candidate for vice president. Should Obama extend the invitation? What are your thoughts? What are your predictions?

 

Related Links

Poll: Should Sen. Clinton pack it in?

Mario Cuomo to Liz Smith: Dems Must Get Out of the Way! An Obama-Clinton Ticket Is a Thrilling Possibility

Joan Cooney: It’s Something I’d Expect from Karl Rove but Not Hillary Supporters

Cokie Roberts on the Chances of an Obama-Hillary Ticket

Poll: Which do you think is Sen. Clinton’s primary motivation for staying in the race?

552 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Patricia Burstein
I quite agree, Renata. Hillary was villifier-in-chief of Bill’s women. As well, I am still waiting for the Clintons to open the books on the donors to both his library and Foundation.
By Patricia Burstein on 05/16/2008 1:08 am
Renata
Patricia: This would have been a worthy pursuit of our rabid traditional media-cum-journalists instead of Rev. Wright obsession. More than $500 mil to the Library, $109 mil Clinton family income and $100 mil to start HRC’s Campaign — IN 7 YEARS???? Almost a BILLION DOLLARS, unscrutinzed? Conflicts-of-interest anyone? Sweetheart DEALS anyone? Foreign DEALS such as the Dubai port deal anyone? Shut down the Bush/Clinton dynasties, America. We can’t afford this any longer. The boomers’ retirements and our children’s future is at stake. Even our wealthiest 1% can sustain themselves on a foundation of quicksand — and their banking interests (that aren’t offshore or in Switzerland) are requiring BAILOUTS! Now we are ALL affected and connected — in a downward spiral that needs independent correction and oversight.
By Renata on 05/16/2008 1:48 am
Patricia Burstein
You’re spot on again, Renata. The Reverend Wright episode was a media sideshow. Hillary weighed in and I am paraphrasing her, with, “You don’t get to choose your family, but you do get to choose your pastor” and “I would have walked out.” What apparently eludes her and all too many people is that Barack Obama—NOT his pastor—is running for President.
By Patricia Burstein on 05/16/2008 2:22 am
C A Rose
Is it my imagination or have some of the regulars in here developed Multiple Personality Disorders? Why would Obama want the Clinton’s in the White House with him? Wouldn’t that be like drinking hemlock?
By C A Rose on 05/16/2008 1:11 am
Renata
Cynthia - we are killing the neocon/Clinton Inc. drive to force HRC onto the Democratic Ticket. The SPIN is that the majority of Democrats WANT this. Untrue. Polls have been dead wrong this entire season — and, one poll does not a majority opinion make. We are countering the SPIN from HRC’s NYC PR mavens — a steady undercurrent drumbeat since she lost Super Tuesday and daily promoted by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, in particular. Other Clinton operatives-masquerading as journalists such as George Stephanopolous/ABCNews and the NYT (2) Editorial Board members who worked for Bill Clinton — keep this question in the MEDIA zeitgeist and comission polls when other questions are more important and Barack Obama reserves the right to make this important decision for HIMSELF w/out interference from ANY quarter. So, what you are reading are blog challenges that do not permit this false question to gain traction as yet another Clinton Inc. NYC/PR FALSE NARRATIVE — paid for by, you guessed it, Clinton Inc. and their surrogates in what we now call MEDIA.
By Renata on 05/16/2008 9:51 am
Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
CYNTHIA—-CLINTONS ARE THE NEOCONS….OBAMA COULDN’T HAVE THEM IN THE WH—-THEY WILL BE UNDERMINING HIM AS MUCH AS THEY CAN EVEN FROM OUTSIDE THE GATES IN HOPES OF A HILLAY 2012 RUN..ALTHOUGH SHE’S FOREVER TRASHED THE CLINTON BRAND AND THER WILL BE FOLLOW UP BOOKS TO DO MORE OF THE SAME. GOOD JOB MONSANTO-WALMART-WARMONGERING-RACIST HILLARY!
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 05/17/2008 11:06 am
GenX Mama
I was a John Edwards supporter. Now I’m supporting Obama. My perfect ticket would be Obama-Edwards! That would really be the ticket of change. And it’s time for a change. The last thing we need is another Clinton in the White House.
By GenX Mama on 05/16/2008 1:32 am
Patricia Burstein
I, too, like Edwards enormously, and I would like to see him as Anti-Poverty Czar. His wife, Elizabeth is also a superb person, hugely intelligent, caring, honest and honorable. I hope she will be well.
By Patricia Burstein on 05/16/2008 1:43 am
Patricia Burstein
While I am on the topic of the Clintons, to this day I wonder why, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, that little or nothing was done by the Clinton Administration to avert a 9/11. Of course, one could argue that, had Clinton— instead of Bush with his “evil empire” talk— still been in office, maybe there wouldn’t have been a 9/11. Still, one has to wonder about how much more work could have been done by the Clinton Administration to prevent further terrorist attacks had Bill been less absorbed by Monica and the impeachment hearings. And, even if Kenneth Starr’s inquiry was wasteful and politically motivated, both of which are true, in the end Bill Clinton had no one to blame but himself. Another thing, it is interesting how many Clintonians have defected in this election. It may speak to their realization of how Bill Clinton was devoted, above all, to himself. P.S. Read Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons. He’s spot on.
By Patricia Burstein on 05/16/2008 1:36 am
Renata
The NY MEDIA have been very accomodating to the Clintons. PR firms such as Mark Penn’s Burston and two Editorial Board members of the NYT (former Clinton operatives/employees), George Stephanopolous/ABCNews…. have not served this political Nomination process. New Yorkers ourselves were too welcoming of a former First Lady we felt would separate herself from a no-good husband — and begin a new life as our Junior Senator. We were wrong on all counts. We are paying now. We will pay another four years. No longer.
By Renata on 05/16/2008 2:06 am
eleanor roche
Patricia— You are right—Little or nothing was done after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clinton treated it as a law enforcement problem and let the Justice Dept handle it. The 1993 bombing was the precursor to 9/11—they “failed” in their first attempt to bring the buildings down, so they tried again. 9/11 was years in the making, being planned through much of Clinton’s term in office. The occupant of the White House was of no concern to the perpetrators. Clinton may have been able to stop it if he had been more aggressive toward terrorism, especially after the ‘93 bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole—but he was not.
By eleanor roche on 05/16/2008 6:38 am
Frannie Em
Eleanor - Hi eleanor, haven’t been posting much because have been so so busy. Good to hear you again. Great post and so true.
By Frannie Em on 05/16/2008 7:49 pm
eleanor roche
Frannie Em— Hi to you as well! I guess I am your “little dog Freeper”—I’m OK with that if you are! I don’t know if you read all the posts here, but it seems Suzanne (buh bye Hillary/ BHStarlet etc) has gone off the deep end (again) and taken all her marbles with her this time. At least you are no longer the focus of her anger-filled rage!
By eleanor roche on 05/17/2008 4:54 pm
Patricia Burstein
I think I’m being obsessive about Bill Clinton, but here I go again. Sometimes it can be one moment or one gesture or one word that shows a lot about someone’s character. For me it was when the “I Feel Your Pain” President Clinton was walking merrily on his way, chatting and smiling, outside the funeral of his Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Soon as Bill saw the cameras trained on him, he instantly started to tear up and do his lip-biting routine. From then on his emotions seemed so counterfeit.
By Patricia Burstein on 05/16/2008 2:04 am
Renata
I remember Ron Brown and his father’s management of Harlem’s Hotel Theresa when NYC’s hotels were still defacto segregated and even top stars had to stay in Harlem. I often think of him high flying w/the Clintons, what “compromises” he must have made at the DNC to maintain value for them — and, finally, what secrets/tradeoffs he must have made to stay in their orbit — paying, as so many Clinton operatives do — the ultimate price. How heady, yet fleeting it must have been for someone to come from his defacto segregated background — albiet as Harlem royalty — and be ACCEPTED in the corridors of POWER. What price did he and others have to pay to get in — and what were the tradeoffs? We KNOW the consequences. Then, as you say, the Clintons merrily skip along…making new friends.
By Renata on 05/16/2008 2:14 am