But my prediction is that she chooses an un-Hillary to win back disaffected independents and moderates. Someone that will let people hold their nose and vote for Clinton.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3061500&forum_id=2#29306856)

But the geographic argument has diminished to the point of uselessness in our era of nationalized politics. I can't think of a veep pick whose geography has helped the ticket since LBJ won texas for JFK.

And I think picking a white woman would be disarming. It would preempt the right wing charge that any ethnic choice (ie castro) is an affirmative action pander.

SO I dont think those factors are disqualifying. Meanwhile, she has incredible strenghts, is a great public speaker, a powerhouse fundraiser, and a moderate who can connect with middle class folk who think hillary is too out of touch.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3061500&forum_id=2#29306879)

I would chance this to:

"who everyone thinks is driven by personal ambition"

Literally the only thing she has to do between now (or, like, 3 years ago) and election day is convince people that this isnt true. She needs to answer the "why are you running for president" question. I saw charlie rose ask her this and she goes off about the middle class and how the game is rigged and everyone needs and fair shot etc etc and its a good answer (and, honestly, i believe that's why she's running. i dont think she's had such a glamorous life, and wouldnt put up with all this shit if somewhere down deep she didnt believe that she was doing something for the good of others) but its not concise or compelling or memorable. She needs to answer it in one soundbite.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3061500&forum_id=2#29306948)