The results are in: Hillary Clinton for VP
Here's one that Hillary did win. Comment Central readers want her on the ticket.
Many thousands of you voted for Hillary and she was way ahead of her nearest challenger - General Wesley Clark.
It's these sort of numbers, I guess that lead Mike Smithson over on Political Betting to start speculating - could the Convention force the dream ticket on to the candidates?
Such an outcome is, after all, theoretically possible.
The last open election for VP candidate was 1956 which saw JFK defeated by Estes Kefauver, despite the fact that the nominee (Adlai Stevenson) hated Kefauver. In 1972 Thomas Eagleton was backed by McGovern but still had to defeat other candidates. The resulting election pushed McGovern's speech out of prime time.
And it is the chaos of the McGovern experience that is one reason why Mike's speculation is unlikely to come about. I think by the time they get to their Convention the Dems will be pretty desperate to look unified.

Why was John Edwards not given as an option ?
Posted by: Michael Cole | 16 May 2008 12:03:14
FLORIDA DEMANDS REPRESENTATION (FDR)
PLEASE HELP US IN GETTING OUR VOTES COUNTED AND OUR DELEGATES SEATED
BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF OUR VOTES.
SIGN OUR PETITION AND SEND IT IN:
Http://www.FloridaDemandsRepresentation.org
COME TO OUR WASHINGTON DC RALLY ON MAY 31st
PLEASE POST THIS INFORMATION ON AS MANY WEB SITES ARE YOU CAN.
P.S. SUPER DELEGATES: If our votes don't count, why should YOURS?
Posted by: JOHN | 16 May 2008 12:12:49
And herein is the importance of name recognition and advertising.
I suspect few of your readers recognize a fair portion of the names on this list.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | 16 May 2008 12:52:07
If Hilary had any respect for Senator Barak Obama or the Office of President, I would love to see her as veep. However, I can't see her in the White House while not trying to run the show.
Posted by: Doug | 16 May 2008 13:34:06
Do you really think Obama would be so stupid to invite Bill Clinton into the white house by taking Hilary Clinton as vp? The US have for almost 8 years been run by a vp and maybe voters got used to it. But that does not imply they want to be run by the husband of the vp.
Posted by: Richard | 16 May 2008 13:43:50
One of many memorable Private Eye covers showed a beaming then President Nixon descending from Air Force One, with VP Agnew close behind.
Nixon's speech bubble read, "What, shoot me with him next in line?"
Self preservation demands that Obama chose a VP who would frighten off any would-be assassin. How about his preacher friend?
Posted by: Albert | 16 May 2008 13:56:00
I laugh because everyone wants her on the ticket, but what they don't realize is if they make him take her on the ticket, there is no guarantee that she will have any responsibility in the administration.
The Vice Presidency is a holding position job. It has little say and little power, and Presidents rarely work directly with their VP. It is a figure head position and I am sorry but Hillary Clinton would be wasted on the position.
She should keep her day job in the Senate and attempt to push through some legislation. She would have more influence that way than as the VP. Just because Bush can't do anything without Chaney doesn't mean any other President will make the VP his brain.
Posted by: mike | 16 May 2008 14:03:41
So she cracked under the pressure of a mere election campaign and started the sort of bitching and moaning one would expect from the average UK teenager told to stay in and tidy her room and y'all think she'd make a good VP because she's the only name on the list you recognise?
I have some beachfront property in Arizona if you're interested...
Posted by: Helen | 16 May 2008 14:08:10
In the 1972 election McGovern had been turned down by Ted Kennedy among others before choosing Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. When Eagleton's psychiatric problems and shock therapy were revealed he had to withdraw. Subsequently he became a United States Senator from Missouri.
My own choice would be Governor Sibelius. The one electoral consideration wich might militate against it is that she is a Kansan, where Obama already has a following; his mother was a Kansan.
Posted by: Candadai Tirumalai | 16 May 2008 14:16:37
You're missing the most obvious (and best) choice - John Edwards!!
Posted by: purple | 16 May 2008 14:23:08
What a farce. This poll is meaningless without John Edwards as an option. Who the hell made it up? A Republican perchance?
Posted by: Steve | 16 May 2008 15:03:17
Why is John Edwards not on this list? Why these names? Who made this up? I fail to see the value of this poll at all.
Posted by: Aaron | 16 May 2008 16:05:55
Why was John Edwards not given as an option?
Probably because two wet, empty mouthpieces on one ticket would guarantee a McCain victory.
Posted by: Andrew | 16 May 2008 16:24:02
Having Hillary as VP, would not mean Bill would be in the White House. VP have their own residence. Obama could have her work on health care and she would bring in 58% working middle class and women, as well as the seniors, Obama needs. She has won the swing states, that he also needs. It is a win-win situation! But I haven't ruled Hillary out yet, she may just get the popular vote with Michigan and Florida, Obama needs Michigan and Florida.
Posted by: jp,michigan | 16 May 2008 17:00:04
Forget it, we want Obama for change, no cronie vice presidents to corrupt him. Hey were you and Cheech ever sent off to military school Finkelstein
Posted by: Mesh | 16 May 2008 19:20:42
Forget it, we want Obama for change, no cronie vice presidents to corrupt him. Hey were you and Cheech ever sent off to military school Finkelstein?
Posted by: Mesh | 16 May 2008 19:55:21
"She has won the swing states, that he also needs." (JP, MICHIGAN)
No, she's won amongst /Democrats/ in some swing states. That doesn't say anything about whether she'd be likely to carry them in November, when Republicans and Independents also get to vote.
Posted by: TDT | 16 May 2008 23:20:28
I think McCain should tell all his conservative critics to go to Hell - be the Maverick that he is - and choose his friend and colleague - Hillary Clinton. They'd win the center 80% of America and the wing nuts (left and right ) can continue their squabbling in the blogosphere.
Posted by: WRY | 17 May 2008 01:27:46
Hillary Clinton should not be elected as President of the United States of America or even Vice President of the United States of America. Her husband is a rapist. He raped Eileen Wellstone during his Oxford University days. He was thrown out of Oxford Univeristy. Hillary Clinton's husband has a history of sexual abuse against women. How did a man like that become President of the United States of America and remain President of the United States of America? It doesn't say much for the United States of America. It says even less for the Democratic Party who had not qualms about allowing Bill Clinton to be President and his wife Hillary Clinton to run as a presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton being elected as President or even Vice President of the United States of America is only going to allow her husband to stalk and abuse his victims and with her performance she may stalk and abuse his victims too.
Helen of Australia.
Posted by: Helen | 17 May 2008 06:53:21
I think Obama should not choose Hillary as a VP. I'd like to see John Edwards or Al Gore. No more Clintons in the White House!
Posted by: Jolanda Whaling | 17 May 2008 10:04:05
I wouldn't vote for Obama or Hitlery but I did predict that they're in this together. Either way, Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hilary, they'll destroy America!
Posted by: Norm | 17 May 2008 12:32:37
I have a friend who works/volunteers with the Obama campaign, and she said something off handed about Mrs. Clinton making a poor decision--I thought to myself a Clinton making a poor decision, huh?!!
Then she said something else, just an opinion that she thinks the Clinton's are evil. (I don't disagree with her... I'd vote for an Obama ticket unless Mrs. Clinton were on it,then I'm back voting Republican as I have for 20 years). Mostly I was interested in her comments because up until 14 months ago, the Clintons were the best thing that happened to the Democrats in 50 years and many people thought they could do no wrong... now they think differently
Posted by: sharon from Chicago | 17 May 2008 13:00:09
OK Folks, there is something you are missing here. Obama is going down in flames and all the big Dems know it. They had hoped to get rid of Hillary too. We will see about that. The bottom line, however, is that nobody wants to be Obama's VP. They want to run for Pres in 2012.
Posted by: Doug Forbes | 17 May 2008 20:42:48
Same old rubbish different cretin. The times is loosing what it never had. Who wrote this crap? Sack'm.
Posted by: alex | 18 May 2008 18:55:17
Obama-Edwards yeah.
McCain-? nay.
It doesn't matter to me. The US President GE Bush has my name and number on a cigarette doing a circle on me and I refuse to vote period or exclamation point.
Sincerely
dePaul Consiglio
101 42 3386
15 Monsey Blvd
Monsey N.Y. US
Posted by: dePaul Consiglio | 18 May 2008 23:48:04
Hillary as a vp would be great. A vp is supposed to help the President. I know they can get their difference on health care, economy. and Iraq war and reunite America into the COUNTRY WE ALL CAN BE PROUD OF. The Greatest Nation in the Land. Not the aggressor we have been under BUSH.
Posted by: LOIS | 19 May 2008 03:33:14