I'd pay real money to return the role of VP to that of attending funerals and long vacations.

Marc:

It would depend on the VP I would think!

I think I can see now, why Hilary is jockeying for VP.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/news/nationalnews/why_h ill_wont_drop_out__bobby_kennedy_wa_112232.htm

Apparently she's betting that Obama is going to be assasinated, but since it doesn't look like it's happening before the nomination is secured, it looks like she'll have to get the VP slot in order to secure the future of America.

I can see your point.  However, for me it's a matter of principle.  I don't want, nor did the founders ever envision, a co-presidency.  I didn't like it when it was Hillary and/or Al, and I don't like that it is currently Dick.

I hear that -- but I question whether the founders envisioned a VP who was a "figure head."  A good VP should be involved in decisions and policy because he or she may have to sit in the big chair someday -- without warning. 

I think Obama and McCain should be looking for candidates who will help them govern, rather than who might help them get elected.

While I think this is true for McCain (and I think he will), for Obama it's a different story.  He has no choice but to go for someone who will help him get elected.  Well, if he wants to be elected, that is.

She's vile.  I seriously doubt I could vote for her even if she won the nomination, and i am what is referred to as a "yellow-dog democrat".

Even Obama said he knew she didn't mean/hope he would be assassinated.  He had no problems with the comment and even excused it.

The problem I have isn't exactly with her comment, just what on earth she MEANT to say.  How would the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination have ANYTHING to do with her primary race?

***

She's trying to justify being in the race in June.  Given her age, I'm sure the date of Bobby Kennedy's assassination is indelibly stained on her mind, such that when she thinks "June" and "primary," her mind immediately goes to Bobby Kennedy.  This is not unreasonable.  If you asked someone of my generation about space ships in January, my immediate reaction would be to think "The Challenger disaster occurred in January."  This does not mean I hope that, if we're planning a space ship launch for January 2009, that it ends in disaster.

My problems with her statement are four-fold.

First, even if (as I believe to be the case) she did not intend to imply that Senator Obama may be assassinated, anybody running for the presidency should be smart enough to know that the words she used could be taken that way, and should have chosen her words more wisely.

Second, the example is disingenuous.  Yes, Senator Kennedy was running for the Presidency in June 1968.  But the calendar was different then.  He didn't declare his candidacy until March 1968.  He was killed after the California primary -- in other words, when there were still lots of delegates in play.  Likewise, the example of her husband not securing his nomination until June is equally disingenous, as everyone acknowledged by April 1992 that he would be the nominee.  It's not an appropriate comparison with the 2008 primary calendar.

Third, I think she's behaved deplorably since she made the comment.  She gave a half-hearted apology, and then proceeded to act like she was the injured party.  She can't own up to the fact that she put her own foot in her mouth, and instead seeks to blame anyone and everyone else.

Fourth, I think there's a remarkable contrast between the way the Obama campaign has handled this -- limiting their comments to saying that it was an unfortunate thing to say, but otherwise staying out of the way -- and the way the Clinton campaign handled the situation when Senator Obama made gaffes.  When Senator Obama, for example, said that poor people cling to their guns and relgion, the Clinton campaign did everything they could to try to paint him as an elitist who hates poor people, hates guns, and hates the religious.  The contrats is night and day.

Dancing around the net I found an illuminating paragraph from Salon concerning HBO's Recount.

In telling this story, screenwriter Danny Strong draws heavily on four journalistic accounts: "Too Close to Call" by Jeffrey Toobin, "Down and Dirty" by Jake Tapper (now an ABC news reporter who covered the story for Salon), "The Accidental President" by David A. Kaplan, and "Deadlock" by David Von Drehle and Ellen Nakashima. Toobin, Tapper, Kaplan and Von Drehle, along with Time's Mark Halperin, were paid consultants on the film. Strong also interviewed 40 principals, including Bush's chief strategist James Baker and chief counsel Ben Ginsberg, Gore's initial representative Warren Christopher, and Ron Klain, the Gore strategist who, played by Kevin Spacey, is the protagonist of the film.