It seems silly to me that someone would vote for Hillary but not Obama or Obama but not Hillary. Despite what FOX is spreading around about Obama's "extreme far-left agenda, farther left than Hillary's" their voting record is virtually identical. They are synonymous on almost all of the issues except for one minor health care-related issue.
It's just beyond me how so many people were urging Hillary to take it to Denver, or want her to run as an Independent. Don't they realize that that would doom her chances, as well as Obama's, to winning the race?
And really, are they REALLY that different? Something else that irks me is those of you who don't want Hillary on the ticket because she represents "old politics". Wrong. She had the misfortune of having to run the pseudo-Republican campaign against Obama. As I said before, they are essentially identical on the issues. She is NOT Bill Clinton. She is a woman - becoming the vice president would be just as historic as his becoming the first black president.
But really - Hillary Clinton is "old politics"? Exactly what about her makes you think that, besides her last name? If you completely ignore her person, judging her on what you SHOULD be judging a candidate on - their policies, she is identical to the new politics candidate, Obama.
She would bring change as much as Obama would. Neither of them are going to bring about a third Bush term. Both of them are passionate, hard-working, and in-touch with the core issues and problems with America.
Now, the real issue with Hillary Clinton is whether or not she actually helps Obama more than any other VP choice. Personally, I don't see why she wouldn't (although I would prefer having someone with more military background like Webb). She could very well bring him Arkansas and Florida, a total of some 33 delegates.
I'm not saying you have to want Clinton to be the vice-president. It's just that the reasoning some of you justify your opinions with is pretty faulty to me.