more with wayward Democrats than she hurts with Independents.
Totally agree. And the problem is, there is no real easy way to answer that question until November. Either way, it's a leap of faith. Either Obama assumes she is too much of a risk and he picks someone else, risking the continued alienation of some Hillary supporters, or he picks her and hopes the Independents aren't too ticked off to vote for him.
As if Obama isn't an enormous risk. A bigger risk than her in fact. But he grows on me every day. I'd say based on the polling so far he needs her more than she needs him. I'm still of the opinion she is the only one that supercharges his candidacy. All this serious pontificating about Clark, Nunn, Kaine, et al. Basically 90% of the country has never heard of them or if they have they've forgotten them.
I sort of agree. She doesn't need him at all and he might need her some.
"Basically 90% of the country has never heard of them or if they have they've forgotten them."
Well, I think that is their biggest advantage over Clinton. Hillary as the choice risks energizing the lethargic Repubs. Maybe that's a myth, maybe it won't happen. But I'm not sure if it's a good risk right now. Another choice would be status quo, and the status quo is Obama winning.
to be President, so that the policies for which she advocates and the proposals she puts forth and the legislation she proposes as a Senator from NY will be embraced and signed.
Yes, Sen. Clinton needs President Obama, definitely, as does the country. She doesn't need him for any political reason having to do with a campaign, though, since her campaign has been suspended and she's formally backed him. Fantasy polling notwithstanding.
Well, yeah, that's sort of what I meant. I don't think she needs him for any political reason. Needing him to be president and needing him in general, are two different things. She doesn't need him to like her or do anything for her, but we are all (ok, well, not the wealthiest people) are better off with Obama as president.
Actually, wealthy people will do just fine with a more peaceful, more prosperous country, and probably a more stable world.
The greedy may suffer a bit. That's fine by me.
Well, in my book, wealthy (usually) = greedy. Bill Gates has been incredibly charitable in donating millions (billions?) of dollars. But let's not pretend that he got Windows on 90+% of computers by not being greedy.
Well, my sister lives in a two-doctor household that brings in a low six-figure income. I'd call them wealthy (and they'd agree) but I'd never call them greedy: they're hard-working and generous people who navigate a broken system in order to help others, while making a higher-than-average income in the process.
I know plenty of others who do pretty well, but I wouldn't say it was a result of greed.
Being in a financially rewarding profession doesn't make one inherently greedy. I have to disagree with the "usually" stipulation.
