Hillary Clinton for VP

It seems now that Obama is facing a tougher general election fight than many people thought.  Conventional wisdom dictated that whoever wins the Democratic primary will be well poised for a decisive win in November.  No one disputed it-- with high energy prices, the mortgage meltdown, a really really dumb asshole in the White House, the War, and a Republican candidate who admits to not knowing much about the economy, while appearing very trigger happy and excited to fight other wars.

Obama is in a funk.  The recent Saddleback faux debate exposes the weakness of our Democratic nominee.  While we all agree that he is more nuanced and thoughtful, low information idiot undecided voters like black-and-white distinctions and declarative sentences.  The problem with being "cerebral" (and I hate that being cerebral is ever a problem, having a Ph.D. myself, thinking for a living) is that the kind of passion that it involves isn't the visceral type.  Like Kerry before him, and Gore before him, his ability to see grey and to be intellectually honest isn't winning the sectors that the Democrats need to go over the top.

Obama needs help.  Apart from African Americans and the liberal base, no other group seems genuinely excited about Obama.  In fairness, McCain ain't doing well among the traditional Republican interest groups either.  But what will ultimately hurt us is the weakened support for the Democratic nominee among older women and among women in general:

Of special concern are women, particularly older ones, whom in the past could be counted on to vote for whatever Democrat was running for president. Many remain scandalized by the sexist attacks on Clinton during the recent campaign. A stubborn 18 percent of Clinton's female voters vow to back McCain, according to a poll for Lifetime television networks. Another 6 percent plan to support neither major-party candidate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/08/its_no_longer_just_about_hilla .html

In close races, this shift can prove to be decisive for the Republican.

We need a boost of excitement in the Democratic ticket.  In a poll of Democratic delegates, Hillary Clinton's name has come up far more often than any other name as their choice for the VP:

More than a third of Democratic delegates offered no opinion about who they want Mr. Obama to choose as his vice-presidential nominee. But among those who did state a preference, Senator Clinton was the overwhelming favorite, with 28 percent of Democratic delegates (including about as many men as women) saying they would like her to be on the ticket.

Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, placed a distant second, with 6 percent of those surveyed backing him. No one else garnered more than 5 percent support; Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (presumably in interviews conducted before his public acknowledgment of an extra-marital affair) were each named by 4 percent of delegates. Other mentions included Senator Jim Webb of Virginia (3 percent), Gov. Tim Kaine (2 percent) of Virginia and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (2 percent) of Kansas.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/poll-of-democratic-delegates-on-vp-picks/#more-5916

Sebelius?  Kaine?  Webb?  Bayh?  If Obama picks these lightweights, there shall be no change in the level of vigor and excitement.  And if things continue to be the way they are, we should say goodbye to Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia.  And oh, by the way, the White House too.

Hillary Clinton is a fighter.  She is the roll-up-your-sleeves problem solver that we like, a tireless advocate, an inspiration to many women and men.  She can also sling mud with the best of them.  Republicans fear her.  She is single minded in a fight, and you betcha she'll be the toughest person on John McCain than anyone else. She's very effective when talking about our economic anxieties. She gets it. More importantly, she appears to get it.  She will bring back those disaffected Democrats, the older women who passionately voted for her in the primaries.  The Democratic party will begin to restore their reputation among women, which if left languishing in its current state, will be the most damaging effect of this election that will reverberate in many election cycles to come.

Clinton baggage?  Bill Clinton?  Paradoxically, the best way to solve Obama's "Clinton problem" is to name Hillary as her partner.  This will galvanize the Clintons and their ardent supporters and fundraisers to work for the ticket, thereby turning off any real and perceived divisions among factions and among personalities.

We need a united party to win in November.  What's the best way to achieve this?  I challenge you to come up with a better solution.  I believe that naming Hillary Clinton as VP will instantly change the dynamics of the race, and will heal the rifts that have torn our party apart much faster than any other act.  Victory will follow the Obama/Clinton ticket.



Display:


Can you even imagine ... (2.00 / 7)

... the seismic shift in the game if Obama picks Clinton?


by Sieglinde on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST

Re: Can you even imagine ... (2.00 / 4)

Oh god, it would be terrible.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you even imagine ... (2.00 / 1)

So silly...It would be the most energizing, game-changing move of the enire campaign.  It's a shame we won't see it happen.


by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, you're right. (2.00 / 4)

It's just that it would be energizing and game-changing for the Republicans, too.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, for the GOP (1.25 / 4)

Alegre, you're letting your love affair with Hillary! cloud your judgment.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with the diarist EXCEPT (2.00 / 5)

on the comparison of Obama with Kerry and Gore.

Obama shares Kerry and Gore's approach to debating (which is cerebral--not bad, just not zingy enough for moron meme-o-graphers in the MSM).  Hillary's a better debater, though she's not perfect either.  

But--BUT--to compare Obama on the stump with Kerry and Gore on the stump is just plain wrong.  Kerry and Gore were both painful to hear on the stump, and Obama is natural, funny, and pointed.  And we'll be seeing these guys on the stump more than in debates.  Hillary was more like the stentorian-toned Kerry on the stump, and the idea of listening to her give stump speeches with her arm sticking flailing straight out with the palm down in something that resembled a semi-Hitler salute (or so it would show up in Republican websites) was a prospect I dreaded.  She is the wonky person on the stump, not Obama.  

Together, though, they're a good team.  Put Hillary on all the Sunday talk shows--she'll stay on message to the end--and let Obama do the crowd thing he does so well.


by maconblue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish Obama (none / 0)

could debate like Kerry.  While Gore clearly got flustered by Bush's stupid inanities, Kerry took them in stride and obliterated Bush on both content and delivery.

I agree that neithr was particularly gifted on the stump, though I would say both Gore and Kerry were better than McCain.  The one thing McCain has going for him is that he can charm the pants of an interviewer.

I like to break up public speaking into three formats: speeches (S), debates (D) and interviews (I).  Each requires a different set of skills and I have yet to see a politician master them all.

Gore: solid S, mediocre D, solid I
Dean: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I
Kerry: mediocre S, brillant D, solid I
Obama: brilliant S, mediocre D, solid I
Clinton: poor S, solid D, solid I
McCain: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I

I can't evaluate Bush because I don't understand why people don't see him as terrible in every aspect.

Anyhoo, this rough scorecard shows that Obama needs to catch up to McCain in debating skill if he wants to be perceived as the all-around better candidate.


by corph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you even imagine ... (none / 0)

Heh, yes, it would be news for a month.

It's also very interesting that half of the people here think it would be a seismic disaster, while the other half think it would be a seismic saving of a movement.


by randomscientist on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you even imagine ... (none / 0)

Perhaps the difference between true believers and realists? Y'all can guess which side is which.


by nyarch on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you even imagine ... (2.00 / 1)

I think there's plenty of both on both sides.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 3)

I agree! The guys who ran "Vote Both" were fools to shut down their site weeks before Obama was set to choose a runningmate.  Hillary is the only rational and right choice, IMHO. A huge win.


Hillary 2008!
by New York Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST

It appears you're all going to be (2.00 / 2)

mad as hell by Friday.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It appears you're all going to be (2.00 / 2)

I think it's safe to say that a whole lot of people are going to be mad whatever decision Obama makes.  


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It appears you're all going to be (none / 0)

Some will be more resolved to: A) not voting in Novemeber for President, or; B) voting for McCain.
by zenful6219 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

it will be so much fun. Seems everyone is getting used to the idea, the realists who want a win and even some of his Hillary hating supporters who don't want him to lose.

the main problems with not picking HIllary is his unity message. He could not know that he'd win the nom and not the popular vote, or even that it would be so very close, so when he made his consensus message he may not have realized he'd have an early opportunity to show he does it, doesn't just say it.

He'll never be able to make consensus his defining feature if he misses this opportunity and that's why he won't. Whatever he is, he means his unity and consensus message.  

We'll get our dream ticket.    


what a relief
by anna shane on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 2)

I agree.  HRC brings the most to the table and would make by far the biggest splash.  The media would eat this up.  And Americans in general love the idea of dream teams and dynamic duos.  It would play right into a very cherished archtype and there would be pictures of the two of them together under excited headlines on every magazine in the country and talk about the Dem ticket would get roadblocked coverage on cable that would overshadow the GOP convention.

But I don't see it happening.  I don't think Obama wants the Clintons in his White House, maybe for good reasons.  And ultimately the Obama team has shown a penchant for sticking to their guns and doing things their way, for better or for worse.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 2)

Sadly, I agree, I don't see it happening at this point.

After Obama picks Biden, I expect at least 50 diaries here, scathing and angry, and it will not be pretty.

Sigh, I agree, there were SO many moments where an alliance could have been forged.

I studiously avoided the post mortum articles on Hillary's campaign, all those types of reportings then to be Rashamon, it's all about the point of view of the people involved, and who's axe is being ground.

But, I would truely love to have seen the delberative process of the Obama team for VP, particularly as per Senator Clinton as the choice?

Where their outreaches made? Did it come to a first person conversation?

Would love to have been that bird on that wire.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (none / 0)

If its Biden, and your prediction comes through, I'll promote the best of them.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (none / 0)

You mean the best of these ones, Jerome?

I expect at least 50 diaries here, scathing and angry, and it will not be pretty.

Hope not.

But hope deferreth maketh the heart sick.


by duende on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

Biden would be a moronic choice, but not a surprising one.  God could we pick anymore ways to lose this election.


by jrsygrl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (none / 0)

Biden just made a remark to reporters and I quote" I am not the man" referring to the vice-presidency.


by mztower on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (none / 0)

Yea, good point. Wilt-West, Kareem-Magic, Kobe-Shaq....


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looks like some of us are going to be... (2.00 / 3)

disappointed soon.

Biden, Kaine, or Bayh.  Personally I prefer Kaine or Biden.  Hillary destroyed her chance with the kitchen sink, allowing her material to be used by McCain.  She's just ain't gonna happen.  Get prepared...


Hillary 4 life.
by Hill4Life on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM EST

Re: Looks like some of us are going to be... (2.00 / 4)

This is the simple fact of the matter.  Leaving aside Partying Bill's antics for the moment, all of which are well known to Obama's people, there is a decided difference in style between Barack and Hillary.  No drama, that was the prime directive when Obama started his campaign, and it has held up beautifully so far.  If ever there were two people who are all about drama, who absolutely love living on the edge, it would be Bill and Hillary Clinton.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This analysis (2.00 / 3)

is, I think, exactly right.  The VP will not be Clinton, it will be Kaine, Bayh, Biden or (darkhorse) Jack Reed.

It's too bad because she would have made an outstanding VP choice and an Obama/Clinton ticket would have been formidable.  I happen to agree that she torpedoed that ticket when she made unwalk-backable comments during the primary about Obama's readiness to serve and his contrast with McCain.  It was never going to happen from that moment on.

Right now I want Kaine but predict Biden or, if Obama's feeling particularly timid, Bayh.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 3)

A wonderful diary, and I will rec'

I also agree with most of your points, and though now it seems more and more a long-shot, Senator Clinton is my #2 pick, after Wes Clark.

However, I will pick a small bone with you, this assertion, which you as a die-hard Clinton supporter through the primaries (and pretty harsh on Obama as well, which make IMHO Macon blues recommendation of the dream team even stronger) and your compatriots have stated as A priori fact really has no emperical proof, in fact, I disagree in part with this statement:

"Republicans fear her"

Actually, Republicans, or a large percentage, LOATHE her, but not sure you can demonstrable prove this "Fear" idea.

They have been preparing to run against her, tis true. But, Fear her?

I think she is the right choice, but I think this idea that the Republicans were "Shaking in their boots" at running against Hillary is an accepted truth in the Clinton stronghold, and, really, up for debate in the real world.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST

How about Bill Clinton for Veep (2.00 / 2)

Al Gore would be a sentimental favorite.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST

We shouldn't give freebies (2.00 / 5)

When you're in the fight of your life, you don't hand out freebies to your opponent.

As such, Obama won't choose her, and validate all of the information gathering and fearmongering the Republicans have been doing for seven years to fight her.  

If she were the nominee, it would all be worth it, but the "shift" you're talking about would almost certainly motivate more of the Republican base than it would solidify the Democratic base.

Both Obama and Clinton are polarizing figures, for different reasons.  The thing is, those reasons aren't complimentary.  It's a far bigger risk to take than just taking someone who is merely approved on in the public light.

I don't know why we're talking about this.  Obama's almost certainly made his decision already; nothing we say is going to change it.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 0)

Highly rec'd and Mojo'd for bravely bringing up the topic we have been avoiding for so log.

THE VEEP!


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:13:06 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

That was definitely snark


by duende on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think if hillary (2.00 / 6)

hadn't praised mccain so much while slamming obama she would be vp.

unfortunately I think her many slams of obama's experience, qualifications and "just a speech"  ruined her chances.

if he did pick hillary she'd be mccain's star in his commercials


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

As much as I share your sentiment, and would love to see Hillary as VP, Obama and his team have already decided on Joe Biden.


by MMR2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST

Not going to happen (1.85 / 7)

For two reasons.

One is that Bill has shown absolutely no grace or poliical sense in his destructive comments.  He could not even bring himself to say that Obama is qualified for the Presidency.  Voters would rightly fear that he would set up a separate power center in the Oval Office.  That nobody needs.

Second is the Clinton Library.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of favors waiting to be called in.  The Clinton's have both refused to let anyone know that source of these funds.  The GOP would start screaming special interest the minute she was named and this would be a major issue.

She had her chance and didnt make it.  Time to move on


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

I actually agree with the general thrust, though I disagree with the details.  I think Clinton could go after McCain and allow Obama to play "above the fray."  He could even be cerebral.


by Drummond on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST

I'm all for Hillary (1.20 / 5)

if she can put a gag on her dipshit husband.


by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:58:09 PM EST

Re: I'm all for Hillary (2.00 / 4)

Considering Bill Clinton is the only Democrat since FDR to manage to be elected as President twice, only a person who doesn't support Democrats would say something like that. I'm quite certain Barack Obama would never say anything so idiotic and disrespecful about the most successful Democratic politician alive.


by LakersFan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes yes (2.00 / 0)

All bow at the throne of Bill Clinton.  Two terms makes him immune to criticism.  Build a Bill shrine and light the candles!


by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes yes (2.00 / 1)

Sure. Instead we should bow down to the throne of your opinions. Since you've won so many Presidential elections and all. Give up your charade already.


by LakersFan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok you're right (none / 0)

Bill Clinton is totally awesome and his non-endorsement of Obama and praise of McCain is super-great!  The Democratic party owes everything to him, not vice-versa!


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok you're right (none / 0)

When you stop living in your fantasy land of made-up stories about Bill Clinton, come back so we can discuss politics. You're talking nonsense.


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

only if you promise (none / 0)

to read a newspaper so you know what the hell is going on.  Your ignorance is such that I can only suspect that you have spent the last few weeks in a cave or perhaps on the moon.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only if you promise (none / 0)

And you demonstrate that you read the paper and believe everthing you read. Silly you. Have you seen the whole Clinton interview? I have, and he didn't say any of the things that were reported. But you wouldn't know that cause you're relying on the media that he was criticizing to report it to you. Silly, silly you.

Watch the video and eat your words (especially the part about questioning Bill's intelligence, as he completely schools this "reporter"): http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex? id=5508611


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've seen the interview (none / 0)

You assume far too much.  You don't "school" reporters by whining about how mean the media is.  You just come off as petulant.  And his contempt for Obama was clear to anyone who doesn't grovel at Bill's feet.

Your attitude is truly puzzling.  Bill Clinton is a former President, not a current king.  When he does stupid things there's nothing at all wrong with pointing it out.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've seen the interview (none / 0)

Did you see the whole interview, or just the couple of clips they kept airing to make him look bad? He made that "reporter" look like a fool.

It's hard to believe that anyone who's simplistic enough to call Bill "petulent" would be able to comprehend any of Obama's "nuance". Usually people can either read between the lines, or they can't, but your selective approach is quite unique (and by "unique", I mean inconsistent and hypocritical).


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've seen the whole thing (none / 0)

two or three times.  

There was nothing between the lines.  Bill was never one for subtlety.  

There was a very angry and bitter man struggling only half-successfully to hold himself back from unleashing a tirade against everyone who he felt had done him wrong.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've seen the whole thing (none / 0)

That's the interpretation I would make if I were a Republican or had rotted my brain with right-wing talking points. But I'm a Democrat, and since I care about my party, I respect any Democrat who can win the White House twice. Only one person has done that in my lifetime, so he does get my undying support. If Obama can win two terms and accomplishes even half as much as Bill Clinton, I'll say the same about him someday too.


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0)

but you do realize that's not a valid argument, right?  The interview speaks for itself.  Whether your personal respect for Clinton compels you to ignore his statements and tone from that interview doesn't change their objective nature.

If Obama is fortunate enough to win, and then in 2024 is undercutting the Dem nominee, I sure hope you reconsider your stance that a two-term winner has a lifetime free pass from Democrats to do and say whatever he wants.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

The interview speaks for itself. And it tells me, "That man is a genius, and that reporter is an idiot who's trying to play "gotcha" with Bill Clinton".

Bill Clinton said all sorts of nice things about Obama in that interview, so yes, it would be fine if Obama does the same in 2024.

And yes, unless a former Democratic president becomes a Republican or John Birch society member, I do give them a lifetime pass. Don't talk any crap about Jimmy Carter either. (Republicans treat every one of their former Presidents as though they were saints, and we could learn a lesson from that. Voters want to be on the "winning team" so treating our winners badly makes us look like a very bad team to join.)


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see much genius (none / 0)

in creating a firestorm by being tepid about the Dem nominee.  What you see as "genius" I see as unwarranted testiness.  You also don't appear to know what "gotcha" means.

In any event, Clinton really only praised Obama's primary campaign strategy, and said that Obama went negative first.  The only nice thing he said about Obama himself was a rather backhanded compliment that Obama is smart, implying that he could learn on the job.  Since "we can't afford on-the-job-training" was and is a continuing anti-Obama meme, the intent to damn him with faint praise was rather obvious.

None of the above is rendered any less true by the fact that Bill Clinton won two presidential elections.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see much genius (none / 0)

You sure read a lot of stuff into Bill's words that isn't there. Clearly, your perception has been permanently altered by right-wing talking points. Me? I'm immune to that bullshit.


by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right-wing talking points? (none / 0)

What on earth are you talking about?  The right-wing talking points about Bill are that he's a liar, a womanizer, and a creep.  I didn't say anything like that.  I cited specific examples from one interview where he came off as bitter, angry, and ungracious.

Since you are clearly incapable or unwilling to address the substance of the interview in any specific way, I'll leave you to your bizarrely worshipful attitude toward a politician.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right-wing talking points? (none / 0)

No, you started off by calling him a "dipshit" which is indisputably false, but sounds very right-wingy.

Now, you've called him "bitter, angry, and ungracious". And just where did you get that choice of words? I'm quite certain I've heard the very same thing by O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Hey, if you want to go around repeating the things those guys say, be my guest. But you're not fooling me.


by LakersFan on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No One Can Save Obama but himself (1.50 / 4)

No Democrat whether HRC, Bayh, Biden can dramatically SAVE Obama from losing in Nov.

Yes, I agree 100%. HRC would be the Strongest Running mate he can choose. However, the issue here is OBAMA. He is the product. People are voting based on him.

Just like people voted for Bush Sr. & Not Dan Quayle. Just as people voted for Reagan & not Bush Sr. as VP.

Can HRC help ? In a Very Close Race, yes.

But lets not kid ourselves. You will need several million White Democrats & Democratic women who currently not planning to vote for Obama to shift.

They love HRC. But most of them don't love HRC enough to " Blindly" support Obama.

Their isssue is with Obama. At the end of the day, Obama will have to convince enough White voters, white seniors, white women, moderate white republicans, & white indies if he wants to win in November.

We have the worse economy in 50 years. The most unpopular war in 40 years. The most unpopular President in 40 years.

Yet, there is Very Little Movement among Moderate White Republicans towards Obama. Yet, there is No exodus of White Independent voters lining up for Obama.

And of course, we all may realistically witness 25% to as high as 35% ( as indicated in many recent polls) of white democratic voters abandon Obama in November.

Many of us stated this repeatedly in April, May & June. Close to 18 Million registered democrats did. Yet, we had the "Loud Chorus" of idealistic Liberals, Youth & Blacks who had the Blinders & earplugs on.

It was " We Will Make History" & No one can stop us.

Yes, lets just hope its Not the History of the Absolute Worse Blown Opportunity in modern american politics.

When you have Democrats poised to Win Big in the Senate & the House in Nov, while your nominee is struggling- We know what the problem is.

When you have Democrats running for Senate & House being Very Competitive in states like Georgia, Alaska, & even the deep south- while your very own nominee with 3 to 1 money advantage struggles- We know what the problem is.

When depressed economic states like Ohio, Michigan & parts of Missouri show a realistic chance of McCain actually winning - We know what the problem is.

No more extra delegates for urban black areas. No more delegate splitting in states like Texas, Ohio & Indiana. Thats all the slanted primary.

In this winner take all GE, lets see how the IDEALISM & HOPE of the supposed " Youth " & "Black" vote can carry Obama.

Everyone here including myself will vote for Obama in November.

But pleazzze, No Whining, No Bitchin from Liberals & Obamamaniacs if he somehow blows this.

We told you back then but you were so obsessed with "making History".

Any other mainstream white democrat, whether Bayh, Biden, HRC, Gore, Warner would be leading by 10%-15% points today. The sunny side of politics is just so heavily favoring democrats in 2008. Reid & Pelosi will have larger majorities.

Its Obama who will keep every democrat from sleeping soundly.

As Jerome has previously stated & is shared by millions of us- Obama is the weakest Democratic nominee since Dukakis in 1988.

If his money was at par with McCain, McCain would win this election by double digits. Its ONLY the money that is keeping this thing close.

This is the price the Democratic party pays for Listening to the  "Politically Correct" Crowd of idealistic liberals.


by latinomaker on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST

Re: No One Can Save Obama but himself (2.00 / 0)

LOL... That's a lot of words.

I hope you'll be hungry after Election Day.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good call (2.00 / 0)

Keep the white house white!  let's see if we can't get the pools segregated too.  


by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No One Can Save Obama but himself (none / 0)

Obama may be the weakest nominee, but Hillary Clinton would have been weaker.  Alot of the doubt about Obama could have just as easily been instigated against Clinton.  She was unable to turn her sexism charged campaign into a primary victory, in a primary where women dominated.  And she excelled at using Republican tactics in the primary, but they were being used in a vacuum.  Alot of the self-definition she did only was able to stand because no one attempted to tear it down, which will not be the case in the general election.  It is impossible to say where any of the second or third tier candidates would stand since they failed so miserably at the primary election, Edwards would obviously be a disaster at this point, but more than anyone else, even Kucinich and his UFO, Hillary Clinton had the most negatives.

And candidates lose not just because of the individual running.  The Right has better PR, and a message  more easily geared to a low information voter  The simplicity of their message allows them to define the debate more easily, which leaves the Left playing catch up and having to explain which is never a good thing.

And then you have the fools on the left so Dogmatic about certain things that they do the Republicans work for them.  I was on Daily Kos a few months ago, and I brought up how the NRA addresses two seperate groups of gun owners, one is the rural gun owner, with a tradition of ownership and responsible use, the other is the urban gun owner, which glorifies guns as a means of self defense. I stated the Left has no reason to be opposed to the rural gun owner, and if we stop framing the debate for the whole country with an urban bias, we would be able to win the rural gun owner vote.  And every single comment was negative, with people completely unable to accept a "positive" approach to any gun owner.  I live in the great battleground state of Ohio, and alot of the surrounding school districts have hunting season as an observed holiday. And the breakdown between Red and Blue areas is closely tied to how the school district views hunting season.  Do you really think the ability to win these areas is just tied to the candidate?


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 5)

The notion that Obama wants new and different, anti-Washington, is an acceptable reason to many Hillary supporters for not adding her to the ticket.  So, the question now becomes (assuming the reports are accurate and it is Biden), how does Biden embody change?  Picking an old school, white, male Senator on a "change" ticket when Obama could have had a old school, white, female Senator is not going to sit well with the still unhappy women out there - and I think is going to make this race even more difficult.   I don't buy the idea that these women are not real democrats -I just think they are bitterly disappointed  and some of them are likely to stay home on election day - and that is not something we can afford.


by lovepolitics on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 2)

Generally I agree with your comment.  I do not however by into the "damage his brand" argument that many people have put forward.  If he has proven anything in the two years that he has been running it's that he is a pretty typical pol.  


by nyarch on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Women and many glbt's (1.33 / 3)

yep, Obama wants to take the hard road.  Fine.


by SoCalVet on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill has made it clear (2.00 / 1)

that they (Hill and Bill) don't want Hillary to be VP.


by IowaMike on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:16:37 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 2)

I disagree with your diary on a number of points, but it's well done all the same.  Much appreciate your thoughts on the subject.  Let's hope the discourse is civil once Obama's pick is announced (whomever it may be).

Rec'd.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (1.66 / 6)

I've said this a million times, so I guess repeating it once more won't be so bad:

Clinton supporters, please stop setting yourself up for further disappointment. Her campaign was toast in February, but you guys refused to see it until...well, you're still not seeing it, apparently, are you?

You're right about one thing, though: Hillary on the ticket would energize the party, if by party you mean the GOP. They hate her, remember? They would walk over hot coals to vote against a Clinton.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about Sen. Obama's performance Saturday. He did a wonderful job, and I couldn't help but think what a superior candidate he is to both Gore and Kerry.

There is no "weakness of our Democratic" nominee. He is the most natural candidate we've had since Bill Clinton, and like the former president, he will win in November.

It's not going to be Hillary, guys. Please stop.


by BenderRodriguez on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:37:09 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 2)

"He will win in November."  After all of the clear-as-day warning signs in the polls and yes, even at Saturday's forum, it seems you are willing to shrug them all off, certain that he will win in November.

Knowing that if the election were held today, it would be a coin toss, I see no reason to get cocky about Obama's chances in November.  Will a lot change between the convention and November?  Sure...there will be 3 debates in which Obama is unlikely to pull off any clear victories, and a gazillion more attack ads from both sides that make the race...a draw once again.

By the way, 1) HRC was toast in February not because she had legitimately lost the total delegate count, but because the DNC and Obama campaign had already successfully maneuvered to ensure a racial outcry in the case that the superdelegates "overturned the will of the African American voters".  THAT was the real race card played in the election.

2) Do you really believe that Republicans hate the Clintons more than the Obamas now?  I think Obama is the clear new target of most of their hate.  There are close to zero Republicans who would vote for Obama, only to suddenly change their minds if Hillary is on the ticket.  Anti-Hillary Republicans are voting against Obama anyhow, and you know this.


by MMR2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it possible... (2.00 / 2)

for one person to be so wrong in so many different ways?

1. Saying Obama will win is displaying confidence. Saying he would win 47 states with Mike Gravel as his running mate? Now, that would be cocky.

2. Sen. Clinton was toast in February because she lost 11 primaries in a row, not some mythical "racial outcry" nonsense you're spouting. Name me one candidate in U.S. political history who lost 11 primaries in a row and still continued running. Go ahead. I'll give you...forever.

3. Yes, Obama is the competition, but you're delusional if you think anyone could supplant the Clintons as the number-one targets of GOP hatred.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of the Clintons, and I consider Bill to be the best president of my lifetime. But Hillary will not be on the ticket.

If she is, though, I'll buy you a beer.


by BenderRodriguez on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is it possible... (none / 0)

You very well could be buying me a beer...

2)  Name me one candidate in U.S. political history (besides Obama) who lost 8 of the last 13 primaries, and won.  Go ahead.  I'll give you...forever.  

We can play this game in a number of ways, because this was an unprecedented primary that broke the rules of U.S. political history.  You are correct that she was toast after those 11 primaries: but these primaries amounted to a net gain of 120 pledged delegates for Obama, which was the smallest pledged delegate lead in history that also happened to be insurmountable.  My point is that Hillary did have good reason to keep running, because if the superdelegates were not pressured into avoiding "overturning the 'will' of the pledged delegates (and African American voters)" then Hillary would have had a great shot to win down the stretch.  The system was not allowed to work, is my problem.

3)  I don't think it's delusional to believe that Obama has now supplanted the Clintons as the number-one target of GOP hatred.  My point from before remains valid:  putting Hillary on the Clinton would serve to rally the base, not rally the Republicans.  The move would not stop (any significant number of) Republicans from voting for Obama who were actually going to vote for him in the first place.


by MMR2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

who are these base (none / 0)

voters and activists who are apathetic about the situation, but will be rallied by putting HRC on the ticket?

Have you considered the possibility some current volunteers and contributors would stop helping if HRC was put on the ticket?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is it possible... (none / 0)

I hate to belabor this, but...

Sen. Clinton did not win 8 of the last 13 primaries. The two candidates split the final 12, 6-6. Here's a link for you:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/results/votes/index.html

If you want to include the March 4 results, then Clinton won 8.5 to Obama's 7.5 (I'm giving each candidate a half win for Texas, since she won the primary and he won the caucus).

So, no need to give me "forever." Your "fact" turn out to be nonexistent.

Also, I find this notion you have about African-American voters wrongheaded, to say the least. Obama won the nomination because he outworked and outsmarted Clinton and her team from day one.

How can you possibly say the system wasn't allowed to work? She actively contested every primary, and all 50 states had their say. The people spoke. The system worked.


by BenderRodriguez on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is it possible... (none / 0)

Thank you for the link: Sure, I had the exact numbers wrong, but my point still remains just as strong, given that of the last nine primaries (excluding Guam), Obama lost six.  The fact is that no eventual nominee in U.S. history lost as many primaries in the final stretch as Obama did.  That was, and is, my counterexample to your argument that "no candidate in history lost 11 caucuses in a row, and kept running."  The overall point, still, is that this primary broke the rules of history in multiple ways.  By the way, I believe you said primaries.  They were caucuses.  But that begs for a different discussion.  

Even in losing that stretch of primaries, Clinton was only down by 120 pledged delegates.  I say the system was not allowed to work because the superdelegates, almost immediately, were facing enormous pressure to fall in line and "rubber stamp" the will of the pledged delegates--because not doing so risked racial outcry.  I can support this by pulling out numerous statements from the DNC and Congressional Democratic leaders.  The system afforded the superdelegates the right to exercise their independent judgment, and I believe that system was subverted.  I respect your view, but we can agree to disagree.

By the way, when you say "the people spoke", we have to ask:  Did they really?  18 million votes each; the closest primary in history.  Sure, one can argue Obama won fair and square.  But to argue that "the people spoke" and to imply they voiced definitive support for Obama is a stretch.


by MMR2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is it possible... (none / 0)

I did it again myself...they were caucuses...


by MMR2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

I am one republican voting for Obama. One of many actually.  I live in New York City and can say that most of the work Hillary Clinton did here in the five boroughs was engineered to set her up to run for President.  I never really appreciated her so I don't think that most Anti-Hillary republicans are neccessarily voting against Obama.  I don't think of them as the same kind of politician.  I know I wouldn't vote for McCain in November regardless to who he was running against, but I know I would not be donating time or money to any other candidate this season if Obama wasn't running.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

TIPS & REC'D


by nikkid on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:42:27 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

OKAY


by Check077 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

Obama has a huge ego that won't allow a strong person to serve with him.  His selfishness guarantees he will not pick Hillary Clinton.

Obama doesn't care what Democrats want.  He thinks he can win without us and with cross-over Republicans and fickle 'independents'.

Obama will not select Clinton and Obama will lose.

And November 5th, thousands of internet bloggers will wonder what happened...  (and they will blame Hillary)


by wblynch on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST

How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

I'm happy for those who think HRC is a fighter. Please explain to me, though, why Dems who were trashed by her in the campaign should forgive all and support her, when she has made NO attempts to deal with what she created as to them. All the AAs for example, who are being required, still one more time, to swallow the wash of insults she intentionally dished against them when they didn't stay with her against Obama and when she wrote them out of the important constituencies of the party. There comes a point at which you cannot endlessly demand that that group eat its resentments and do the right thing when you emphatically do not demand it of HrC. She has made NO attempt to rebuild that bridge and has no intention of doing so.


by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

What was the wash of insults HRC "intentionally dished against" AAs?  What time did she "write them out of the important constituencies of the party"?

It is quite unfortunate that the revisionism written by the Obama camp in the primary still lingers.  The facts are that there was never proof that the Clintons intentionally directed any insults against blacks, nor would they ever want to.  The Jackson comment, while inartful, was not racist.  The "roll of the dice" and "fairy tale" comments, in particular, were anything BUT racist, but nonetheless parlayed by the Obama camp into overwhelming (imaginary) evidence of the Clintons' racism.

The sentiment you are left with about the Clintons--that they exploited African Americans--was exactly the sentiment the Obama campaign was aiming for all along, and did they ever succeed in ingraining this false narrative in the minds of so many good Democrats.  Were both Hillary and Bill inartful at times?  Absolutely.  I do wish they could have anticipated that their comments would be endlessly distorted and used against them.  


by MMR2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (2.00 / 2)

How about this: I'm an AA. I am also hard-working.

I am fairly strongly opposed to the notion that MLK was a fancy speechifyer, needing an LBJ to "get it done".

Hard as it may be to believe, neither of those thoughts was emailed to me by the Obama campaign. No, I don't believe either was "intentional".


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't that so offensive? (2.00 / 1)

The most jarring incidents during the primaries, were not so much what the Clinton's or their surrogates said, but rather when the most ardent Clinton supporters refused to believe that African Americans could be offended by any comment made by a  Clinton unless they were brainwashed by the Obama campaign.  As if no black people in this country watch the news, read the paper, check youtube or think for themselves.

Believe it or not, being black during the primaries did not mean that all your information came through the Obama campaign.


by shalca on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell (none / 0)

I am white, from a middle class, rural background and I am queer- Obama's team did quite a bit to alienate me.  But you know what?  I got the hell over it.


by linc on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude, I'm over it (none / 0)

just don't tell me it never happened, or that someone told me what to think.

I'll give you the same courtesy, by not assuming Clinton made you dislike Obama. I will assume you came to it by your own reasoning.

Fair?


by Neef on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (2.00 / 1)

Let's see. "Obliterate Iran" is not anti black, although offensive because Iranians are Persians. But the whole foofah about the Wright matter was highly problematic and she chose to act in a way which brought the black church into question over thirty seconds of clips from a minster, not the candidate, whom her own husband had invited to the White House. She kept at it until she said she would not have gone to that church. Obama having to denounce in very particular words Mr. Farrakhan when her own PA manager, Ed Rendell, had given a fulsome speech about Mr. F and in his presence. Then there was the distribution of the Somali photo to show those with African roots were foreignm where she said she was not responsible for because she could not be expected to know what her staffers were doing, including the one distributing the picture. And good old "He's not a Muslim as far as I know".  Then there was "hard working Americans, white Americans." then there was her listing of important party constituencies which did not include AAs at all when they have delivered every successful President for a long time, including Bill, who did not get 50% of white folk. Then there was the denunciation of O as Un American and undemocratic for disagreeing with her about Michigan. Then there were all the whispers about how the Clintons felt that AAs had been disloyal to them because they had supposedly supported AAs in the past. Then there was the simple courtesy of refusing to call his name, even when he won primaries.Then the disrespect of Rep. Clyburn for what he said.  We will not get to what supporters did on a number of sites and a lot of places.

If you take the position that women are entitled to be . . . encouraged by affirmative actions to support Obama by Obama responding to their concerns in particular ways,  so as to ease their disappointment, then Hillary has an issue she has not even begun to work on with AAs. And unless and until she does, there is a huge imbalance there, and her candidacy for vp looks like one where what she did there is going to be officially forgotten and thereby legitimated. Deemed acceptable political conduct. Again.

There are some here who think I am a chaos troll on race issues, but until they are willing to deal with what happened in the Primaries, and do something about it, they are condoning that abuse and trying to quash consideration of it by stomping on those who mention it, rather than fixing it. It's saying that "I don't do stuff like that" and making that mean she didn't do that. She did. And needs to fix it if she wants to be a national representative of the Democratic Party.  


by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

I bow my head in deference to the truth and honesty displayed by your post. I agree whole heartedly and am always surprised when poeple say that race was not exploited by the Clinton campaign. Bill Clinton stood at a podium and said wouldn't it be nice if two Americans could have a civil debate (McCain and Hillary). He could have shot me in the heart.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (2.00 / 1)

I don't want to beat on people and say OOooooh,  Bad Hillary, how . . .  I don't know the next word. I want it fixed.

I don't want a party with any of this as an issue which lingers around, but you don't fix things by saying that Unity requires you to ignore them. Stuff festers that way and attacks you later. Unity requires they get fixed, in a way that doesn't make the fixing the news in the fall rather than the campaign against McCain.  Only the one who did this one can fix this one. And she will be a better candidate for having done so in future.

I have AA children and AA great great grandparents so it is in part personal, but it is also in part professionally political. The last thng I want is to make this sort of stuff acceptable again. Repubs do that! Not us.


by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

I agree, I think everyone is ready to forgive they just want to be acknowledged.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

From your typing fingers to God's ears.


by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Demoralize the party. (none / 0)

the Clintons exploited everyone. White, Black, Latino, Persian -- whoever could get them a leg up with the constituency they were trying to win over at the time.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

I'm so tired of this "conventional wisdom says dems should be winning big" crap. That's exactly what it is, baseless, pundit-driven, non-reality-based bullshit.

It's actually quite amazing that Obama, the black guy with the funny name who is a one-term Senator from "corrupt" Chicagoland is doing as well as he is, against a "war hero" who is the only Republican that can honestly say they broke with Conservative ideology. Of course, in the past 4 years, McCain has become as bad as Bush or any other conservative, but do you really think ADD America understands that yet?

McCain hasn't gotten above 44% is 99% of the polls taken to date. There is no "funk" Obama is in. He was on vacation for a week and STILL didn't lose his lead.

As for Hillary for VP, well I don't care either way, I cannot see Obama picking someone as his running mate who has described him as an empty suit (anyone remember "the heavens will open and the celestial choirs will sing??"), unexperienced and naive, while at the same time praising John McLame. Then there's the issue of the Clinton camp never able to keep its mouth shut about internal strife, and the fact that Hillary couldn't even make any tough decisions during her campaign and instead let all the infighting continue.

As I said, I support Obama. Whomever he picks I trust he put a lot of thought into it and that it is a wise decision. But in my eyes, Obama has a plethora of reasons to NOT pick Hillary compared to a total lack of good reasons to pick her.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 3)

I was actually really warming to the idea of Hillary as Veep, until I read the people posting in this otherwise excellent diary.

Shame. She has many brilliant genuine supporters. However there are still some who try to use the Clintons as a wedge to sow disunity, and prevent a democratic victory.

For some reason there are a lot of them here


by duende on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

I'm a former Republican, and I'm excited. Don't I count?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 0)

Rag, Thank god you've come back. This place has been taken over by McTrolls and deadenders.


by venician on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

As someone that believed in Hillary's message, I would be excited if she was picked.  I think the whole "energize the Republican argument" was something that was valid back earlier this decade, when what people associated with HRC was BC.  Now, HRC has carved out a legacy for herself as an individual that has built bridges in conversative New York, has worked hard for the working people, and is a fighter.

In saying that, I really don't expect this to happen.  Something dramatic would have to happen in the next day or so, because right now, it seems quite unlikely.  Actually, it has seemed unlikely from the get go, because for Obama, having 2 Clintons in there would make it hard for him to carve out his legacy.  HRC has a loyal following, and there are still a lot of people that believe in BC.

The best case scenario was always to find a HRC surrogate that would do.  The problem is, the top HRC surrogate left standing seems to be Evan Bayh, who I personally am fine with, but a lot of people aren't.  I don't know ... I just don't see HRC happening considering it seems that Obama has made up his mind.

I worry that Obama will follow the "maverick - nkotb route" and pick Tim Kaine.  Let me say, I like Tim Kaine.  I just don't know if it's the right time.  I think Obama needs someone to shore up the "experience" dynamic, to shore up the FP dynamic, and to shore up, potentially, and as a minority, I want to be blunt about it, the white dynamic, and perhaps the female dynamic.  He won't get this all in one swoop on the VP nod, but he needs someone that can knock a few of these things down, and fill in cabinet options that can address other concerns.

One substantial question that arises is this - would choosing experience end up hampering Obama?  Would it potentially hamper him short run and long run?  I think it is a valid concern to contemplate, at least from his perspective.  I think the reasons are obvious here, but again, in my opinion, the name of the game is about winning now.  But for him, it might be a question that he ponders.

I believe, of the remaining names, that Joe Biden would probably be my nod.  He has experience in politics, he has FP experience.  I don't think we should worry about picking a VP with the idea that said individual can net some votes - none of that holds any certainty.  It needs to be someone that makes sense, and I think Biden is the best of the lot right now, though he has flaws.  I think Bayh works as well.  To be honest, if I was being unbiased on my feelings on it, I think Bill Richardson's resume would work as well, though I'm not a fan of it.  There's others.

Only one thing that can be said - only time will tell.


by toonsterwu on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (none / 0)

Obama isn't going to have a legacy to worry about if he doesn't get elected. Does he think that if he loses in 2008 he'll be able to run again in 2012? Not gonna happen. If he wants any kind of legacy AT ALL, he needs to get elected first.

I want to believe he'll be smart enough to bring the ONLY proven vote-getter on board as his VP, and that's not Biden. The votes are what matters (And no, I don't the the few "We won't vote Obama if Clinton is on the ticket!" folks come even remotely close in number to the folks who will be much more inclined to throw the lever for him if Clinton is also on the ticket.)

Please, please, Barack...be smart. Please. I don't want another four years of the Rethugs. I really don't.


by SuGeAtARC on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, thank you. (none / 0)

the obama campaign is about new ideas and approaches.


by rabidnation on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST

Re: no, thank you. (none / 0)

...Like Joe Biden?


by SuGeAtARC on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton for VP (2.00 / 1)

You said:

"We need a united party to win in November.  What's the best way to achieve this?  I challenge you to come up with a better solution."

My solution: Everyone who supported Hillary should join us in making sure a Democrat is the next President of the United States.

The idea that the thought of John McCain as president is not enough to sway Hillary hold-outs to supporting Obama is mind-boggling to me. Hillary was not my first choice, but I would already be canvassing for her if she were the nominee. When making some kind of point becomes more important than keeping a Republican out of the White House, I am afraid for the future of our country.


by royce on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:22:11 PM EST

Not going to happen (none / 0)

Come on, there is no chance in hell this is going to happen. Just keep ur fingers crossed and hope that Obama does not pick a gay bashing Sam Nunn or a abortion-opposer Kaine.


by ann0nymous on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST

This is why Hillary will not be veep. (2.00 / 2)

I have posted several times in the past couple of months that I can reconcile myself to any candidate Obama chooses.  But this is one reason why it's absurd to think that Obama can or will choose Hillary as his veep.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 08/19/bipartisan-praise-from-bill-clinto n/

Former President Bill Clinton on Monday praised Senator Barack Obama's energy policy at the opening of the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

But Mr. Clinton also lauded Mr. Obama's rival, Senator John McCain, and said that either candidate would be progressive on the issue of climate change.

"Obviously, I favor Senator Obama's energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors," Mr. Clinton said. "But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change." He added, "I'm very encouraged about where the presidential rhetoric is in this campaign." [...]

How unbelievably fair of him to complement both candidates on the issue of climate change.

Bill Clinton is not talking like somebody who wants to be the next First Lady.  He has been talking in recent days like somebody who is bitter, immature, and not willing to let bygones be bygones.

So, no, Hillary will not be Obama's veep choice.  It's an easy predict