Michelle Obama On Hillary As Veep

Mark Halperin reporting:

[Michelle Obama on GMA this morning] [s]ays she didn’t say that she didn’t want her as her husband’s running mate, adding: “I think the world of Hillary Clinton, particularly as a woman…There is no way that I would say absolutely not to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Whether she means it or not, it means a lot that she did say that. Personally, I am quite pleased. Well done, Michelle Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

comments closed

< "Millenium Bomber " Sentence Upheld | On The Popular Vote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Faust on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    It's almost always a question (in my mind) whether people in politics mean anything that they say 100%. What's important is that they are willing to say what needs to be said.

    as a voter (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    i do care if they mean it or not. I know they are trying to be nice to her supporters to get their vote in GE (in case O is the nominee).. but as a supporter of Hillary I know all too well that how much they hate her, redicule her and demean her. I will never support O ... not any time soon.

    Yeah but the question is (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
     'why' they are saying what must be said.

    Let's face it Obama dislikes Hillary and so does Michelle. I can't believe Armando even questions if she was sincere or not. It's pretty obvious that given all the gaffs Michelle has had and and the fact that the Tennessee GOP is running a TV ad with one of her most infamous gaffs that she is now going on TV and:

    (1) trying to rehab herself and

    (2) trying to woo Clinton supporters.

    That is pretty clear. It's pure cynical politics and self-serving and there is no sincere in it at all.

    After all the co-opting that Obama has done from both Clinton and Edwards, Michelle is now going to try to take up the torch of the womens movement?

    Sorry 'sweetie' but being First Lady is just being First Lady - it is not being the First Woman President of these United States.


    And it was the Obama campaign that..... (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    ...attempted to demote the importance of the office of first lady anyway.

    I Give michelle About Five Minutes Before She (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    has something negative to say about Hillary, especially if Hillary manages to squeak out an OR win!

    Yes she also said (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    I am not sure I can vote for Hillary in another interview a month or two back.. we all know why she is saying that NOW. [after inflicting all the insult]

    Not sure why but I just can't take Michelle. She is THE woman behind Obama. No doubt about that.

    she said she wasnt sure (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    if she would go campaign for her.  She was clear she would support her.  Get your story right.

    And that makes it better how? Hillary has (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    expressly stated she will campaign for the nominee.  You settle for too little if that is acceptable to you.

    I know that she hates Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    is that NOT the correct story? How come suddenly she thinks she will absolutely NOT say no to Hillary Clinton.. woman like her the worst enemies of woman. Ferraro just said.. "she may NOT vote for O" - I am with her.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    I heard this clip on Air America, the question was would she support her and she said she'd have to review Hillary's positions on issues first and then think about it.  On subsequent programs like Stephanie Miller they tried to make it seem like the question had been about campaigning but it was not.

    Thanx you Jgarza for clearing (1.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Electa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    up the lie that Michelle said she wouldn't vote for Hillary.  The absolute falsehood on this board about Barack, Michelle and OBsupporters is a real eye opener.  Over 70K people turned out in MT yesterday, how do the people in this venue totally dismiss the statement that the American people are making?  One in every 20 people turnouted to hear OB's message according to MSNBC...OMG, heaven forbid that I cite something from a MSM network.

    Hillary represents ole school politics, a machine that's being crushed and headed to the politico scrap recycling pile.  She looks like and reminds the American people of the root cause of the current political dyfuctionality that permeates through this country.  Political dinosaurs are headed to the plaster of paris museums.  Stop!!! take a deep breath, that includes artifacts like Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, too.

    I'm pulling my locks trying to figure out who these people are.  They claim to be Democrats, that dwell under one big happy tent, but the mean spiritedness that's oozing across this board clearly demonstrates the opposite.  

    One in 4 HRCsupporters vehemently state they will not vote for Obama should he become the nominee, and they claim OBsupporters to be the haters? I'm confused.  Truth of the matter is, some folks counted Obama's candidacy as nought.  Got caught with their drawers down so to speak and decided to take him seriously too late in the game.  Why should the Obamaniacs, as we are proudly tagged, be held accountable for Hillary's campaign shortfall.  I've heard her supporters blame everyone in the mix for her laggings all except for the pitiful campaign she and Bill ran.  Blame it on the rain.


    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#258)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    Back when Obama said it was in doubt whether all of his supporters would vote for Hillary, it was supposed to be a selling point for his candidacy.

    Now, the fact that all of Hillary's supporters may not vote for Obama is, once again, evidence that he's the better candidate because his supporters aren't haters.

    There's nothing particularly wrong with Obama supporters, but the part of their brain that processes cognitive dissonance sometimes seems to have been turned off.


    I don't hate Obama, (3.00 / 2) (#265)
    by soccermom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    but of the three candidates when rated on who represents my values, in order:  Clinton,  a distant second, McCain.  Obama third, but then it's just because there are three in the race.

    I have never liked all the talk about "koolaid" or messiah or cultishness.  I was neutral about Obama until I learned more about him.  At this point what is evident to me is that we have nothing in common.

    My sister, a bank vp Republican in Kentucky, will vote with me for Clinton and then for McCain.  We don't agree on a lot of things, but a big NO to a President Obama.


    HRC as VP must be getting serious consideration (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    well certainly if the HRC as VP notion is to proceed that had to be done. Of course it never should have had to be done, but too late for that.

    (IF Obama is the nominee and IF he picks HRC for VP and IF she accepts, the HRC love fest in left blogostan will be sickening - oh the hypocrisy. )

    That, or IF he gets the nom, and doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    select her, they can't blame Michelle.

    I DO care if she's sincere. Hillary has been asked to weather enough from this mob that makes up Obama's circle.

    He would only put her there for easy votes and she and Bill could do the exhausting campaigning for the lazy one.  

    Personally, I wouldn't want to see her under the control of this arrogant man. I wouldn't trust him not to ban her from meetings, and keep her as far off in the corner as possible.


    Why would it be anything other than tactical? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    Sincerity is not an important consideration. No politician is sincere as we understand the term; they can't afford to be.

    They've worked out that their campaign of antagonizing Democratic constitiuencies to seize control of the party apparatus isn't working, so no they want to say "Honey, I've changed!"

    In two weeks, all this will have gone the way of The Best Speech EVAH in Philly.


    Robert Byrd just endorsed (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    maybe there's some truth in the article a couple of days ago stating that one of the bigger bargaining chips for endorsements is to put Hillary on the ticket.

    Endorsed whom? (none / 0) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    And frankly, I think the SD's should just STFU for now.

    Obama. And rally what better way to respect (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    the voters of your state than endorse the guy who got 26% of their support.  This election is becoming a joke.

    He has exercised his independent judgement (3.00 / 0) (#193)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    as to who was the best judgement,  I thought that was the correct metric for Superdelegates to be using?

    There is an undercurrent to the endorsement though and some symbolism given his membership of the KKK in the 40's.



    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    "In two weeks, all this will have gone the way of The Best Speech EVAH in Philly."

    At least, that's the hope.

    Reality sometimes has a funny way of sticking her finger into places she's not necessarily wanted...


    That's what VPs do (none / 0) (#252)
    by Electa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    stay in a corner and go to diplomatic funerals.  Cheney broke the cycle but was rapidly relegated back to his hole after becoming an utter disdain to the American peoples.  VPs are place keepers waiting on the prez to kick the bucket or get assassinated.  

    Patently false (5.00 / 0) (#255)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    the notion of giving the VP a real policy portfolio was pioneered by Carter-Mondale and continued with Clinton-Gore.  I would hope we wouldn't go back to the past by nominating some Dan Quayle-type.

    They should have asked her about him as VP (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by myiq2xu on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Her expression would have been priceless.

    Amen to that....For What It's Worth...Just More (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    pandering and backpedaling by the obamas.  Michelle doesn't want Hillary on the ticket.  She has already made that perfectly clear.  We have seen this type of backpedaling by the obama camp, obama especially, time and time again.  The superficiliaty of it is astounding.

    When did she make it clear? (none / 0) (#198)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    In the unattributed assertion by Bob Novak in one of his columns?   That's pretty weak.

    damn, my spelling screw up is astounding! :) (none / 0) (#247)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    Good statement (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    This is important for her to say IMO.

    Even if Obama is the nominee and Clinton isn't the VP, the meme that "she didn't get it because Michelle vetoed it" would be toxic on so many levels.  Good to see she's willing to do some necessary walking back.

    Oh How I Wish They Were Back In Illinois.... (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    I doubt she says the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    to her husband. If he does offer the VP spot to Hillary, I think she should decline it. Why play second fiddle to an incompetent when she can go back to the Senate?? She likes her job there, and does it well. Which is more than you can say for Senator Obama. I wouldn't believe a word Michelle says about Hillary as VP. She has obviously been instructed to not make waves, so she goes on national television and lies like a rug. I don't think she wants Hillary anywhere near Obama in his administration.  It would only highlight his lack of substance. And with Hillary seen as his "nanny" during his administration, he won't get re-elected, but she will get the top spot instead. 4 years too late, but she will get it. Unless he is impeached.

    And should he be impeached, she would end up as President. Yeah, I know, early to talk about impeachment, but given his political methods so far, it is likely they will come back to bite him in the ass sooner or later. And that is what brought Nixon down, as I recall. And Chicago Combine methods are a hell of a lot dirtier than Nixon ever thought of being. Think about that for a minute or two. Scary, huh?


    I don't know much about Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    but I like her so far.  It would be stupid for her not to recognize what so many Democratic voters believe, that HRC is a powerful and capable candidate.

    unfortunately, she seemed stuck on stupid before (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    It wasn't her at her best, though (none / 0) (#194)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    I lump it with the kind of intemperate things spouses can say during a campaign.

    heh, I like that. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    probably in response to reports (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    she was the biggest obstacle to a unity ticket.
    I have been reading that for weeks.

    It's not personal! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    That's just a narrative, though personalities are part of the story.

    I would argue that the Obama Movement has finally figured out that throwing Hillary's supporters out of the party isn't possible. So now they want to play nice. Professionals all, but I'd be very surprised if the party professionals in Hillary's campaign take this seriously. Why would they?


    honey, please (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    John Edwards' bright and shiny face won us all back.  This is just gravy.  Didn't you hear?  He's going to win KY for Obama!

    it's possible to toss us out--just not smart (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    Maybe they're beginning to realize that they really are alienating about half the party with their arrogant, Alter/Kos/Arianna-blogger-like pronouncements about Teh Evil Hillary and her Flying Monkeys (us).



    Good (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    ...but why the delay? The rumor that Michelle absolutely nixed Hillary as VP was circulating, what? A week ago?

    This is a step in the right direction, but it should have been made much sooner.

    Their response team... (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    seems to be kinda slow on the process and respond side. And even then there are generally 3-4 different responses that come out over a period of time.

    I thought they here hyper-competent? (none / 0) (#94)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST

    You (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    get to look "super-competent" when you have the media in your pocket and they never call out your gaffes. Obama has made a very long list of them that the media mention if they have no other choice and then turn to something Senator Clinton did or said 35 years ago.

    As Real Estate is location, location, location.

    Politics is perception, perception, perception.


    Wow to Sen. Obama's wife. Wow. (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    In terms of so much of the silly punditry, this is huge.

    I've read kazillions of pixels about how Michelle Obama "hates" & "disses" & "bad mouths" Sen. Clinton.

    There seem to be a few obvious options: the self-styled expert pundits are full of drek (my 1st choice); Michelle Obama has come 'round to a very powerful reality; someone is preparing the way, somehow, for a shift in perceptions of Sen. Clinton by the Obama campaign; some grooms & trainers are in the stable, dunging out the stall, currying the fur & getting the Unity Pony ready for a trip to the winners circle.

    Hello pragmatism.

    Michelle's Fakeout (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    Hello fakeout.

    As her husband silently climbed to power in a movement fueled by rank sexism and boysrule mentality, she was silent.  Her own "little woman" pose.  Watching the big man.

    Barack and Michelle have never decried the misogyny in this campaign; they have ridden the wave gladly.


    "Little Woman" Pose? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    What an odd characterization of an accomplished woman who is an attorney and mother, and who has been an active and effective campaigner. And, one who has tweaked her husband (albeit, playfully) on the stump.

    I can understand your attack on Michelle Obama if you feel she's part of a misogynistic message, but YOUR choice of epithet is puzzlingly sexist.


    It's Accurate (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    As a woman who benefitted from sexism when it propelled her husband to power, I think that the characterization of Michelle is accurate.  A little woman willingly overlooks and/or tolerates the second-class status of herself or other women in the service of an all-important male.

    Words Matter (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    Aside from our disagreement about whether Michelle Obama has behaved the way you describe, I guess my issue is with women using this kind of language against one another.

    I have no problem with anyone calling her out for this kind of thing when they perceive it. It's using the denigrating language of female put down I find disheartening in these discussions.


    Got It (5.00 / 0) (#238)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    I hear you and understand your position.  I guess there's just a level of hypocrisy her regarding Michelle and her views about Hillary that goes too far for me.

    Uh, I think that was the point. (none / 0) (#179)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    Ponies don't have fur.. (none / 0) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    they have hair.

    Gee, what (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
     a few months of on the job training will do.  Learning how not to put foot in mouth.  Never did saying nice things get people in trouble.  Well, wait, except when Hillary said nice things about MLK and LBJ.

    too little too late (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    Exactly ... (5.00 / 14) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    why does the Obama campaign get kudos for doing stuff that any smart politician would have done months ago.

    Is this a Presidential Election or the Special Olympics?


    It's a pity they only allow one 5 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MMW on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    Your comment deserves quite a few more.

    THX (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    I get your point, (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    but the Special Olympics comparison isn't nice.  It's bound to hurt people's feelings, with reason, and I know that wasn't your intent.

    Just saying ....


    Keep it up.... (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by kdog on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    and the creative analogy will be extinct.

    Do you think special olympians are incapable of understanding a humorous analogy?  Lighten up...


    you talking to me? (none / 0) (#263)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    I don't know what you mean by the extinction of the "creative analogy."

    But more importantly 1) implying [as the disappeared comment did] that the Special Olympics are some kind of clusterf*ck really does a disservice to the athletes who participate very valiantly & heroically in them, all while struggling with real disabilities.  Don't diss them.  It's just not the right thing to do.  I'm telling you this as a friend.

    And 2) a lot of hurtful stuff gets said on the internet that we let pass, b/c who wants to be the scold?  But you know what?  More of us should call it out when we see it.

    So how about instead of telling me to lighten up [if you are in fact talking to me] you just acknowledge the inappropriateness of the remark and let the gentle corrective steep?  Thanks.


    You do (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    the Special Olympics an injustice. (quasi-snark)

    Obama has been saying for months (none / 0) (#204)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    that Hillary would be on "anybodys" shortlist for VP.  Let me know if you want me to direct you to transcripts or video of one of the numerous instances.

    Brushing up on her image? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BeBe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    Something is up. Sen Obama also said spouses should not be targeted. He should have said that 6 months ago. I am glad they realize they have a problem, but it will take some heavy duty effort to fix these divisions and time they may not have. It may be too late for many people to listen to them.

    It wsn't convenient (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    6 months ago. Then the wouldn't have been able to make political hay out of Bill Clinton's comments. It's absolutely amazing that the standards apply only to the Obama camp.

    This Morning He Was Saying "The TN GOP (none / 0) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    needs to lay off his wife."  He should have tried laying of HIllary Clinton.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    as the candidate herself, was fair game. That said I don't seem to remember him having that tough of a time using Bill(both his comments, actions and former position) to his benefit. Somebody ought to tell Obama whatis good for the goose is good for the gander. I daresay the GOP cares much that he's upset that "poor. poor Michelle" is being abused. He'd be etter off lobbing a bunch of ads at Cindy McCain and her billions.  

    The Republican (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    blog sites are having a field day. Over at Hot Air they are adding it ti his "whimpiness quotient".

    Remember Doug & Wendy Whiner From SNL? (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    With the exception of diverticulitis (I assume they don't have it), they are The Whiners to a "T".  I have no sympathy or empathy for the obama's.  The saying "they can dish it out, but that can't take it" also comes to mind!

    You Aren't Lying....Word Around Town Is.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    The only time obama opens his mouth is to change feet!

    Seriously, at some level we know Michelle is not sincere.  Can't you imagine she would be at odds with Hillary constantly in the WH.


    And since Obama has said that (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    Michelle's job in the White House would be raising the kids, that pretty much sidelines her. I don't think she is going to like that..Awwwwwwww..poor thing. I wonder how she is going to like being kept "in her place" while Hillary is VP. I hope I never find out, but it is fun to think about. Heh.

    hmm (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    are you talking about the (paraphrase) "Civil Rights Act couldn't have been passed without LBJ taking the lead" quote?  

    I don't think Clinton meant anything negative about it, but it was a bit tone deaf in terms of how black voters might digest the remark.


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    no wonder it was so much fun to demagogue the awkward statement with the South Carolina primary coming up, huh?

    It's not like the Obama campaign just sat back and let voters draw their own conclusions, you know.  They actively jumped in and spread the notion that Hillary had intentionally disrespected MLK.  Really great brand of politics, that.


    Do you really know that? (none / 0) (#99)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    I'm not a campaign insider, but the media sort of ran with the statement coming, as it did, either shortly after or before the Jesse Jackson remarks.

    But honestly, I have no information about what the Obama campaign did with the remark.....it was made in public, correct?

    I expect, by the way, for campaigns to do this, just like Clinton used the bitter controversy and the Rev. Wright to her advantage as often as she could.  

    And she should have.  It's a campaign not a party game.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    Portraying an awkwardly-phrased statement as a race-baiting insult to MLK is not the type of politics I can get behind.  That's how they wanted to win South Carolina, so good for them, but it was slimy.

    Don't forget Jesse Jackson jr. (Scum-Chicago) (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    who ask why Hillary did not cry for the victims of Katrina.

    what I'm asking is (none / 0) (#190)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    do you know that the interpretation came from the Obama campaign....surrogates, the candidate, his wife? The remark was reported soon after it was made.  

    I guess you're saying they pushed one interpretation over another.  Maybe you're right. But I think the remark was, at best, insensitive (though not on a grand scale).


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    The campaign was all over the alleged "insult" to MLK.  They made enough hay out of it to fill a pole barn.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    but this is so absurd. It's apparently not done to admit that some white people had something to do with civil rights in this country.

    This, from the man who wants to have a "national conversation" about race.

    How on earth can we?


    True enough (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    something like trying to claim the suffragettes succeeded without men.

    I don't see that Obama was (none / 0) (#199)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    behind that remark as much as the media. No one has shown me any quotes to show they pushed that remark more than the media did.

    Actually, he knows that SOMEBODY has to (none / 0) (#207)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    do the work, and he's not up to it.

    He Never Is....He is inept AND lazy!! (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    I just don't believe that HIllary would accept (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    that position, as she is so much more qualified IMO to be president....Would be almost an insult to see the more qualified woman backing up the less qualified man...Have seen this in the business world for many years...

    It's more important that he ask ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    than that she accept.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    although I would like it is she did accept...

    It's all in the how (none / 0) (#91)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    And I agree with you. My own feeling is that she neither covets nor spurns the VP nomination, and that it depends a lot on how he asks her.

    As long as you don't care. . . (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    whether she meant it or not (and, to be fair, it would require an almost superhuman detachment for her to feel that way at this point).

    Pols are pols (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:19:28 AM EST
    I never worry too much what they REALLY think.

    words matter (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    Indeed they do (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Since "words matter," (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    I have a couple questions.

    Is Michelle Obama saying she thinks the world of Clinton because Clinton is a woman, or because Michelle Obama is a woman, or both?

    Second question.  Isn't this a tepid endorsement of the idea of Clinton on a jt. ticket w/Obama?

    There is no way that I would say absolutely not

    oculus: nail on the head (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    the verbal equivalent of, "I would probably p*ss on her if her hair was on fire."

    How stupid do they think we are?  Well--they've said it, haven't they?  We're racist, elderly, tertiary-educated low information voters.

    Why would they need us anyway?  We sully the bright and shiny new coalition.


    Don't forget the ultimate insult (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    We work! The creative class is repulsed by the idea that people who perform manual labor might have a proportionate say in the political process.

    She was presu8mably responding to (none / 0) (#208)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    the assertion by Bob Novak that she had ruled out Hillary as a VP pick.

    I worry what they really think (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    because eventually they vote and make policy.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    It is mostly a useless exercise to fret over whether a politician "means it," whatever the circumstances.

    Truer words were never spoken. (none / 0) (#107)
    by wasabi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    All politicians lie.  It's part of the job description to get elected/re-elected.
    But I'm just a cynical seasoned voter.

    Lot of people are thinking that Hillary would (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    take the VP.. but they are WRONG, she knows O is a candidate that will doom come Nov.. imo she will stay out of race, if she is not the nominee.. I still think she will be the nominee though!

    party loyalist (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    for some unfathomable reason, HRC is an extreme party loyalist in spite of all the stabbing in the back, piling on of republican unfounded inanity and character assassination, and sexism against her at the hands of democrats that she has been subject to for the past 15 years.

    if HRC thinks BO will lose in November without her as VP, she will take the spot.


    good point (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    but I would NOT want her to bail out O.. I want him to go down.

    and what party are we trying to save here.. (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM EST
     the one that kept silent while their important base of working class voters were called racist or the one that kept silent and enocuraged all that sexist comments against one of their most qualified womans.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#82)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    She, unlike Barack, puts the party first, and I think she knows how much the party has ticked off her following.  I think she would accept in an effort to try to get the Dems to win in Nov.

    I will not vote for Obama, except if she was the VP, then I'd probably whimp out and vote for him (her, really).  I know several women who would not vote for him under any circumstance, and would consider it an insult for her to be in the VP spot.


    Charm School Graduation (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by santarita on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    I think someone may have told Sen. and Ms. Obama that their negative campaigning against Clinton has been too effective and alienated about half of the base needed to win in November.   We are going to see the charm turned on big time.

    Bless their hearts. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    Ddouble bless her heart! (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    But the obvious question should have been, "Do you want her to be VP?" which the interviewer mercifully did not pursue.

    I don't take her statement as a positive at all.  Taken together with the rest of the Obama camp moves, i.e. (1) backing off declaring himself a winner tomorrow, May 20 (2) Tom Hayden's odd revelation about Hillary's internship at a law firm with leftist clients
    (3) John Edwards endorsement out of the blue;

    I think these are all part of a strategy to stem some forseen negative revelations about the Obama campaign.  I will not be surprised if the rain starts pouring soon for him.


    Charm (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    that is forced and visible makes me gag...

    ...which is why I never could stomach John Edwards.

    Pols need to be able to fake sincerity but it has to pass the laugh/groan test.

    The Obamas?

    Need more schooling.


    Clearly Michelle Obama is learning (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    ... to be the serial liar necessary to be in mainstream American political life - no more of this saying what is on one's mind.

    Or (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    You are a typical voter and believed that her earlier statements were the truth and it is only now that she has learned to act like a professional pol aka liar.

    Then what was the point of her earlier statements? (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    "Can't take care of your own house, how can you take care of the White House?"  Hillary's "tone?" (also on GMA I believe).  This new statement is great but there's got to be a lot more where that came from to lend some credibility.

    Same Thing As This Statement (3.00 / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    To rally voters for Obama. What else would it be? I don't really care about what she has said, but I think it is funny that many are certain that Hillary supporters believe that she was not acting like a pol before because she went negative on Hillary, and now that she is acting like a pol because she complimented Hillary.

    Maybe I need to get the special glasses and decoder ring to know when Pols are expressing how they really feel.



    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    Certainly two markedly different ways of rallying voters to Obama though.  If you believe her statements were equally strategic, then she has certainly been one of the most divisive figures in this campaign.

    Well (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    I would have liked all the candidates to be supportive of their opponents, irrespective of what their supporters have been doing.
    Because perhaps then many who share Dem values would have not lost perspective as to what we all are fighting against, namely the GOP.

    I do not know who is the most divisive figure in this campaign, but I would imagine that if you ask, somewhere around half would argue that it was not Michelle Obama.


    That's what Hillary has been doing (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    making the pledge several times that she will work her heart out for the democratic nominee; criticizing Bush for his attack on Obama. BUT

    Obama or anyone in his campaign, has ever come to the defense of Hillary when she has been bombarded with sexist attacks by the media and some Obama surrogates.  Obama himself is documented to have said some sexist things himself against Hillary.

    I also think that by now, the Obama campaign is convinced that there is a REAL danger of a big block of Hillary supporters who will not vote for him (including me).


    Campaign strategy (none / 0) (#121)
    by wasabi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    The only way to knock off Clinton in the Primaries was to make her and her husband poison, because there are many Democrats that think Bill Clinton did a good job during his Presidency.

    The Obama team got enough Dems to turn on the Clintons to probably win the nomination, but fractured the base in the process.

    It's good to hear her say this, but w/o the offer for VP, I don't think it'll sway many of her hard core supporters.


    Agree (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    Let's hope for a unity ticket.

    and you're what.... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    thinking she said those "earlier statements" that hurt her husbands campaign because:

    a) she secretly wants her husband to fail?
    b) she secretly liked HRC all along (and has been proud of America all along too), but wanted to become the center of attention and create a firestorm of criticism?

    I'm not sure what that makes you.


    What It Makes Me? (3.00 / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    hahahahahaha     How about skeptical whenever a pol (or wife) expresses their inner feelings on the tee vee.

    And just because her negative statements about Hillary turned you off doesn't mean that she wanted Obama to fail. Die hard Hillary supporters were certainly not who she was speaking to when she went negative.

    Certainly not someone that believes I have seen who any of these characters really are on a personal level.


    Got a bridge in Brooklyn for you (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    so you'd like us to believe that Michelle Obama is a shrewd politician that lies all the time for affect. The one about finally being proud of her country was  very affective (for mccain). And pissing off HRC supporters has also paid big dividends as Obama has increasingly lost larger and larger percentages of all demographics except African-Americans.

    I Do Not Care (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    What you believe, but it is clear that what you believe is determined by who you are supporting. I do not like all the negativity in either camp. Many here, including yourself, only seem to mind when the negativity comes from Obama's camp, but when insults are hurled at Obama it is just speaking the truth.

    Can you see that or are you in too deep?


    Michelle's previous statement (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    occurred right around the time Obama said (paraphrasing) "I'm sure Hillary's voters will vote for me, but I'm not sure mine will vote for her".

    It was the REALITY that he was WRONG that steered him/her in the Hillary direction.

    So, yeah, I'd say the facts on the ground lean more toward "she's lying now" than "she was lying then".


    Funny (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    How you pick and choose what Pols really feel and what they do not. Do you think that has anything to do with who your favorite candidate is?

    And you think this is how Obama really feels:

    "I'm sure Hillary's voters will vote for me, but I'm not sure mine will vote for her"

     but if he says Hillary is the greatest woman in America he would be lying?

    Seems like your love for Hillary is the lens in determining when her opponents are telling the truth and when they are lying.


    first time proud of america (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    was she being a pol when she said that?
    was she being a pol when she wanted to scratch out bill's eyes?
    things that outrageous aren't calculated...they are the truth slipping out because you don't know any better.

    But It Is OK For You (none / 0) (#214)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    To make sweeping generalizations about 12 million voters?
    Obama is a nasty campaigner and his supporters are hateful bullies.

    Looks like you have become what you loathe. BTW- I voted for Hillary and have zero problem voting for either Dem candidate in the GE.


    Why in the world would Obama say (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    "I'm sure Hillary's voters will vote for me, but I'm not sure mine will vote for her" IF HE DID NOT MEAN IT?

    UH (none / 0) (#234)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    To get votes? To rally his supporters? Why else do pols say things like this?

    Apparently she got the memo (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    from Obama that "we have to be nice to Clinton's supporters".  I didn't search for the link, but it's all over the net.

    I'm sorry.  This is the same woman who publicly proclaimed that she wasn't sure if she could support Clinton as the nominee.  

    What she's saying now is phoney.  Some of us don't have short memories, nor forgive infuriating statements.

    I even doubt they'll ask Clinton to be VP, so her statement may not stand the test of reality.

    No kdding, and spent months (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    running around saying if you can't take care of your own house how are you supposed to manage theWH.  A real class act.  

    That is the one that completely turned me off of (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    her. What a rotten thing to say.  One more person proclaiming it was the woman's fault her husband strayed.  And excuse me but what the h*ll is that supposed to mean anyway?  If your husband cheats, you are a bad employee?  Amateur hour.  Ahh, unity.

    This was all very predictable. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    Now that he thinks he's got it sewn up, it's roses and chocolates for the women of this country.

    Sorry.  Too little. Too late.


    Not because he's got it sewn up (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    but more because THE BACKLASH is great enough to prevent his sewing it up.  He was too inexperienced to realize beforehand that his words and attitude were cutting deep wounds.  There won't be enough time to heal them.

    That is what wisdom and experience are all about.


    i wasn't aware (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Turkana on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    that it was her place possibly to say "absolutely not" to a veep pick.

    I don't want to go down that road (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    because "Is Michelle too controlling?" would suck as a GE narrative. (Yes, I know what you really meant.)

    a strong, independent first lady (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Turkana on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    is going to draw that. should obama become president, michelle might grow to empathize quite a bit with hillary.

    GEEZ! (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    And that's what the presidency is, after all: a growth experience for Michelle and Barry.

    there had been multiple reports (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    that she was doing just that.  I think that is why we got the statement.

    clearly (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Turkana on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    but the choice of words was clumsy.

    The apology is mine (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    I misunderstood what you wrote.  My bad.

    But I guess I'm prickly about all this talk as if the presidency is a management training position with an especial eye for affirmative action candidates.

    And I'm bored to death with the endless therapy sessions.


    It isn't - He STILL doesn't have the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    and, this speculation is premature.

    McCain attacked him on Iran again today, so the media has given him another free opportunity to defend himself.

    How many more of these McCain attacks/revelations before the SD's see how easy it's going to be for McCain to beat him.

    I can't stand the sound of his voice, or the influctuations of his speech, so I don't know how he defended himself. He's as revolting to me as GWB.


    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by SeaMBA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    Is this part of the Obama supporters be nice to Clinton supporters meme?

    Too little too late to be believable.  The more I hear from the Obama campaign the less (if that is possible) inclined I am to support him (although I am not sure how much lower my disinclination could sink).

    But will they respect us in the morning? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    Simple answers to simple questions: No.

    What on earth (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Nadai on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    makes you think they'll stay until morning?  They'll dress in the bathroom and sneak out at 3 am.

    They'll tell us (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    they need to answer the 3:00am phone call ;-).

    Not so warm and fuzzy imo (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by suisser on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    "There is no way that I would say absolutely not to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet."

    All this suggests to me is a denial of making such a statement not of having the desire to make such a statement or hold such feelings.

    The excerpts at ABC indicate (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by brodie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    for this observer that 1) this is merely part of the new PR effort by TeamO to repair the damage with the HRC wing, and 2) she's also sending the message -- VP pick should be up the the nominee, pick must "suit" him -- that HRC won't be an ideal fit for his #2.

    And yes of course it's easy for her to say she won't be playing a major role in the selection -- and how could one confirm that's so during the selection process? -- while quietly playing just that veto/near-veto role in the Veep discussions, just as other spouses have done on the Dem side in recent times.  But it sure looks better, given some of her unfortunate public statements about Hillary, to seem to be taking a passive sideline posture.

    I don't believe it for a second.

    Michelle must have thought about (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    "it" and came to the conclusion that she best play nice.  The cat is out of the bag on 20 years with Rev. Wright. The question arises just how toxic is Mrs. Obama's anger toward America since she only recently declared she was proud of her country for the very first time.

    I saw the interview and her gracious acknowledgment of  Hillary was used to couch that Barack had earned the right select the VP. Clinton has earned the right to be asked to join the ticket. Mr. Unity should do the right thing.  She is the wonky substance to his youthful style. She will bring with her 17 million+ voters and a campaigning energy like an Every Ready battery who could ask for more.  

    If Clinton garnishes the popular vote and he still gets the nod asking her should be the first thing he does. Does he think that Clinton supporters are going to forgive and forget?  Most still remember the sting of Gore's lost and to think Donna Brazile was there then and she's in the middle of it now? Something just ain't right!


    In other words... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    you want her to do the work while all BHO has to do is go out and be his wonderful self.

    Thanks, but no thanks. Women are tired off carrying the mop and the bucket.


    Even If He Asks Hillary To Be VP, I Don't (none / 0) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    think it is going to mean much to Clinton supporters.  Most of us are smart enough to know this is just posturing on the obama's part.

    it all depends on how much of an impact you feel (none / 0) (#224)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    she has. I feel she should be the VP if she's not the nominee. She's a strong advocate I'm not asking her to do all the work, I'm just asking that she be part to the process. No one can deny her expertise or preparedness.Isn't that what you want in a VP.  If she's the VP I better trust that Obama will be less a republican and more a democrat. Perhaps universal health care may yet have a chance with Hillary fighting one door down. Acknowledging that both Obama and Clinton bring different things to the table brings a balance ticket to the forefront even with their preceived negatives. I would love for her to be president, but if that's not going to happen, what better role for her to play in our nation than VP.

    If she get the nomination, she's going to have to take Obama as VP. Are all of Clinton supporters going to refuse to vote for the ticket, the reverse holds true for Obama. They in effect need each other either way for credibility with the other half of the party.


    Do You Honestly Think obama Is Going To (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    let Hillary outshine him?  I seriously doubt it.  
    The DNC has gone along with this sham of letting obama appear the presumptive nominee and until recently have not stood up against people telling Hillary to get out.  They made the mess...let them deal with it.  As for myself, the independent party may be in my future

    Seems to be the party line (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    Now that I think about it... Biden said nearly the same thing....  'the most powerful woman in American politics.

    The effusive (Blitzer's word) is rather predictable.  The sucking up is going to be over the top.

    Wonderful. Now she's the "most powerful (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    woman".  I really feel like saying F*%# these people, but I am too much of a lady.  ;)

    I'm not (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:24 AM EST
    F them and the horse they rode in on.  "Most powerful woman in politics."  Remember how we used to track the talking points from BushCo?  Cheney, Rice, Scooter, Powell, Bolton, etc would be on the morning talk shows and use the exact same bullet points and the exact same phrasing.

    And the statement, "the most powerful woman in politics" begs the question: how low is that bar?  She's powerful, but she's still a woman, so she doesn't "deserve" the nomination.  Is that like "fastest Pinto in the fleet," or "best septic tank in the trailer park"?

    Oh, yeah, she's powerful...for a woman.


    Me neither! (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    Now that everything possible has been done to demonize, marginalize and club this woman to the ground someone suddenly sees that it might alienate some potential voters. Perhaps some of us "girls" are just a tad upset?

     And while not "powerful" enough to worthy of the top spot on the ticket, we'll consider the possibility that she's capable of taking that secondary position.

    An act of political necessity. Nothing more. Nothing less. Covering her own derriere IMO.


    Hey Kathy you said my name (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by athyrio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    as that is what Athyrio stands for...."and the horse ya rode in on"......:-)

    posted this below for you (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    I am so in love with Natalie Maines (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    "Shut up and vote!"

    To which we say, "Rise, Hillary, Rise!"


    Nancy Pelosi - under the bus!!! (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    We will see how well you feel Michelle. (none / 0) (#202)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    in the fall when your husband loses.

    Clinton has set the bar too high? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    She's so powerful, she could be ruining it for other women?

    [For this reason, she said, she doesn't expect a serious contender anytime soon. "I think it's going to be generations."

    Others say Mrs. Clinton had such an unusual combination of experience and name recognition that she might actually raise the bar for women.]

    Kate Zernike NYT


    It Is The New Party Line (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    Last week and months before the party line was quite a bit different. I would guess that the party is getting quite a bit of push back by Hillary supporters both on and off TV about the party's behavior towards her and how it may affect their votes in November. A PR attempt to roll this back and reclaim support for the Democratic Party.  Will it work? I guess we will see.

    Of course this is countered by the hit piece on Hillary by Obama supporter Tom Hayden but I guess we shouldn't take that into consideration.


    When Pelosi says it (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    we'll know it is mandated language.

    Since Michelle seems to be channeling (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    Jackie Kennedy, she should follow Jackie's advice

    "I want minimum information given with maximum politeness. "

    Gee Michelle (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by nell on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    ...And just a few short months ago you weren't even sure if you could support Hillary as the nominee in November, it would depend on her "tone..." And how about Michelle's brother stating that Hillary was an embaressment to her gender...I guess Hillary has run a pretty brilliant campaign after all, even able to get Michelle on her side!

    Well, I have not forgotten Michelle's divisive "tone" during that GMA interview and her words mean nothing to me now. She said what she really thought before she got the Obama memo, "Be nice to Clinton's supporters," and now such a 180 turnaround rings false and patronizing.


    Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    Haven't you heard the latest?  BHO has instructed the GOP and media to "Lay off my wife."

    In other words, she is allowed to make political statements, and take a role in the campaign, but we are not to comment about her remarks and what they might mean for a BHO presidency.

    Powerful indeed.


    But, Bill and Chelsea (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    Clinton were open season by him and his pathetic campaign.

    He called the Tennessee ad using her (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    'first time I'm proud of my country' words "low class".

    We're off to a great start in the GE.  Even the folks not insulted by "bittercling" will get the point with "low class".


    If this is their first attempt (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Iphie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    at trying to win over women, consider me nonplussed. All the sudden the Obama camp is so impressed at Hillary's accomplishments as a woman? I call bullsh!t. And if Michelle believes what she says and Hillary is one of the most successful, powerful and groundbreaking women on the planet -- wouldn't that argue for Hillary being the nominee?

    For the first time in her life (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    Michelle is proud of Hillary.

    Wish I said that, Stillife! (none / 0) (#227)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Do you think that the Obama campaign may have been reading posts here at TL?

    Damn! (none / 0) (#235)
    by JustJennifer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    That's a good one.  LOL

    Perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    sincerity doesn't matter to some. For me, it matters. Michelle already ossed the baby out with the bath water when she stated she wasn't certain she would vote for Sen. Clinton. It appears to me rather fitting that half the Dem electorate now has the same opinion of HER spouse. I feel Clinton would sign on for the sake of the party, which says alot about her. That said, I abhor the way the party has treated her. If I weren' done with the party long before on stuff like FISA and Iraq, the way they have treated the Clinton household would have clinched it for me. I wish the "new" coalition lots of luck. Don't look at me for a vote though. I'm just one of those worthless working class votes.

    Don't you worry about (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by brodie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    people concerned about sincerity.  The MSM will be there constantly checking Hillary, if she's not the nominee, to see whether she's truly "sincere" in her enthusiasm for Obama or just faking it.

    The sincerity/enthusiasm watch in the media with Hillary as non-nominee has already started, though here again this is unprecedented and is another instance of media double-standards when it comes to a Clinton.


    The wording is interesting: (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by aquarian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    There is no way that I would say absolutely not...

    Hmm.  I like that Mrs. Obama goes out of her way to call Senator Clinton powerful and groundbreaking.  But I think the subtext is pretty clear:  Mrs. Obama wouldn't say absolutely not, she would still say no.

    The Obama's Are Extremely Talented At (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    structuring their statements to give the appearance that they mean one thing while leaving the door open for people to interpret it as meaning something else entirely. IOW Clinton's supporters should interpret it as positively reenforcement of their candidate and Obama's supporters are given the loophole to confirm Obama will not take the action that they oppose.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    As in - if a hurricane wiped out all other possible VP candidates, I would consider saying yes.

    Feh. All part of the "nice" campaign (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    Discount it.

    Now they want to be nice? Of course they do. They've figured out Hillary has leverage, and so they're going into Code Blue mode ("Stark Reality") as shown in the Pocket Guide.

    Our job is to push harder and get more leverage, not to back off.

    Thanks for the link, Lambert (5.00 / 0) (#250)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    I've been thinking for a while that the one thing that could make me vote for Obama was if Hillary were VP.  Now I'm not sure that even that could do it.  I've admired people who say that it would be so demeaning for put HRC in the VP spot that they wouldn't vote.  This helps me understand some of their thinking, and why they may be right.

    I'll do Dem down ticket all the way, because I am a Democrat.  If the current leadership of the Dem party forcing Obama down my throat makes me NOT vote for Obama, I am still a Democrat, despite what many Obama supporters on other blogs say.


    After what she said before.. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by JustJennifer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    about not being able to run the WH if you can't even run your own house I don't buy her crap for once second.  It is one thing for all of the idiotic men to make sarcastic references to her troubles with Bill but for another woman to make a crack about it.. that is a sucker punch and totally uncool.

    50p says that this is a feint... (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    Maybe I'm far too cynical...but I'm a bit suspicious of the timing.

    After all, this has been going on for quite a while. And I'm stuck with the question...

    After Kennedy. After Cohen. After Michelle herself.

    Why now? Why not after OR?

    Funny....that's what I think of the Edwards (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    endorsement. A feint. Wonder how much more is there to come.

    Why Now? (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    Because they are getting major push back from voters. Women on TV saying no way will I vote for Obama because of his treatment of Hillary. People sending in their Democratic registration cards when they change to Indies.

    Of course that leaves open the question of why the Hayden hit piece on Hillary.


    Ferrero may not vote for Obama. (none / 0) (#219)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    Good For Gerry (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    Time powerful women join with the rank and file to stand up and say this is not acceptable and there are real consequences for this type of action.

    Assessment: the supporters (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    of Hillary Clinton's candidacy have not yet been mollified.

    Good one! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    Good one.  It's like they think they're so wonderful that we should be thrilled that they're not demonizing and denigrating her every single second of the campaign.  

    We may be older women and blue collar hillbillies, but we weren't born yesterday!


    well, the thing that comes with age (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    is having been through more than a few relationships (or a few hundred, for the sl*ttier among us...).  At any rate, we're older and wise enough to know that "I'm sorry I hit you, baby," just doesn't cut it as an excuse, and it's certainly not going to get us in bed with him (to add a double entendre to the metaphor...oooh!  Does that mean I'm "creative class"????)

    Insult to voters' intelligence (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by zebedee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    I would have respected her more if she'd stuck with her previous hostility to Hillary. At least it could be positioned as honest and even refreshing. Her recent statements are an insult to our intelligence, coming on the back of Obama's "be nice to Clinton supporters" edict.

    I don't believe for one minute she would be any less hostile to Hillary as VP because she said this.

    The trouble with Obama and his campaign is that once it becomes clear that he's just a typical calculating politician (like the Clintons) he loses the only thing going for him, apart from his rhetorical skills. If he's just more of the same and has no track record to speak of, why on earth would he qualify for the toughest job in the world? And by the time the GE comes, his oratory will have become tedious to the voters and even the media, as it's not clear he has anything new to say.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    The trouble with Obama and his campaign is that once it becomes clear that he's just a typical calculating politician (like the Clintons) he loses the only thing going for him, apart from his rhetorical skills. If he's just more of the same and has no track record to speak of, why on earth would he qualify for the toughest job in the world? And by the time the GE comes, his oratory will have become tedious to the voters and even the media, as it's not clear he has anything new to say.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats can count on it. I've said the same thing for months. Anyone who was ever at one time on his bandwagon knows exactly what you're talking about.


    Politically it would be unwise (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by brodie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    for her to become VP because she loses her independence, unless it's the nearly unprecedented situation where the Party virtually demands she take it.  

    Short of that, I don't see O offering it, though it's possible (as I suggested here wks ago) that some sort of pre-arranged deal could be done where an "offer" from a most-generous Obama is politely "turned down" by a most-thankful Hillary who then names several people (she knows to be on his short-list) who would make a better "fit" as VP.

    HRC as ML?  Reid wants, and will get, another (is it 2 yrs?) term as Leader.  At that point, if she wants it -- well, I was gonna say No Problem, but then I remembered the curious fact (to me anyway) of her getting only 50% or so of senate Dems to endorse her.  And not even the overwhelming majority of women senators.  Very disappointing.  Puzzling too ...

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    The Obama camp is probably a little disturbed by  the groups of women who want to campaign against him that have been appearing in the media.  I think those groups are already having an effect - this statement seems designed for them.

    Sorry - this lady has some apologizing (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Anne on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    to do for a host of remarks, and it seems like all we ever get from the Obamas is some variation of "I didn't say that..." or "What I meant by what I said was..." and I'm tired of the assumption that that is supposed to be good enough to make everything okay.

    It's not enough, for me, anyway.

    The truth is that I don't trust anything that comes out of these people's mouths, and I'm tired of feeling like they think we can be so easily manipulated at this stage.  When all of this campaign stuff got going last year, I was wide open to being an Obama supporter, and always said that I would be voting for whichever candidate ended up with the nomination - but that was months ago, and now I don't know that there is anything either Obama could do to get my support, and I'm not all that sure I will be voting the presidential ticket, unless Hillary is at the top of it.

    what a condescending, belittling statement (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    Michelle made a positive statement, that she immediately undercut and then ultimately destroyed:

    "particularly as a woman" frames her as a non-standard candidate, undercuts her greatness, and is doubly insulting considering that Michelle attacked her on grounds of womanhood (for not having her own house in order).

    Then she immediately follows with: "there is no way that I would say absolutely not."  

    She effectively said she is some undefined value that is better than the last person on earth.  Thereby she shows her lack of sincerity and highlights the undercutting aspects of the closing statement; she again points at HRC's womanhood and emphasizes her "power."  Again, in the context she is undercutting her by discussing her as a woman candidate and following that with an attack on her association with the politically powerful.

    Backhanding at its finest:
    She's great, particularly as a woman (please forget my previous woman-focused insults).

    She's successful and powerful (read: old politics/insider) and somewhat better than the last VP candidate on earth.

    Well, BO and MO both fail the boredmpa litmus test.  

    AKA the "would you date your candidate?" test

    Good Grief! (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    Have a little integrity people! Throughout this primary Hillary has been trashed repeatedly by the Obama Campaign and it's surrogates in the most despicable manner possible, calling her everything from "Sweetie" to "a F@*king Whore! And even if those words didn't come directly from Obama's mouth he was well aware of them and chose to remain silent about them. I don't know what is more offensive! One word from him to his minions early on and alot of this wouldn't have happened. But instead he chose to remain silent and pretend he has no control over what his followers say. Bull! They worship the freakin' guy for cryin' out loud
    Furthermore they've been manipulating the media for the past four years and now are trying to do the same to us. And then they fall back on the Race Card when anyone even makes a peep of objection and all the while Barack continues to remain silent.
    But now that we're getting closer to the Convention we're supposed to forget about everything or just believe it was "only politics" and now it's time to rally and take the High Road. I can tell you from experience that even when you take the High Road you still get screwed in the end!
    Sorry gang, Not For Sale!

    "Baby I'm sorry..." (5.00 / 4) (#228)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    "... I promise I won't hit you again. Ever. It was an accident, really. And you KNOW how I get when I've been drinking... you should have stayed away. But I SAID I'm sorry; isn't it better now?"

    Please. This is so transparent that even the most naive people can see it for what it is: a bandaid on a fracture.

    No one ever said Reps weren't smart (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    strategic politicians. To the extent this election can be won on strategy rather than issues, they will have the upper hand.

    Obamacamp reponse so far has still been the whining and 'demanding an apology' stuff we have come to expect from Dems.

    I heard Ed Shultz at lunchtime going ballistic demanding that Huckabee apologize to Obama in person instead of just on MTP for the stupid gunshot joke. For all he knows, Huckabee already has done just that.  But, that aside, what does he hope to accomplish for Obama?

    I have to ask... (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by lizpolaris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    There is no way that I would say absolutely not ...

    Let me get this straight - Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, has veto power over the potential president's choice of VP?  Where did she get that power?  Offer her husband advice - sure.  Veto power over running mate?  That seems like a bit much.  Maybe someone in the punditocracy would like to ask Barack to clarify the role his wife will play in his administration, since her influence seems to be starting awfully early.

    Does this mean we're electing another combination presidency?  Where's all the folks who are so quick to cry 'Billary' pointing out how much this might reek of 'Mobama?'

    I wonder if Cindy McCain would make such a statement?  Or what would have been the huge outcry if Hillary Clinton had said anything even close to that during one of Bill's campaigns?  Oh, right, nevermind - I already know.

    I think that Michelle would a (5.00 / 0) (#262)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    "Nancy Reagan". I don't mean that in a negative way unless, of course, Michelle is into astrology.  I mean the protective of her husband kind of First Lady that Nancy was, including getting people fired if she felt threatened.

    true, but funny too... (none / 0) (#248)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    imagine how they had to tie her down in a straitjacket to play along with the new "make nice offensive".

    It's a battle between Wells of NBC and Murdoch (5.00 / 0) (#253)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    of Fox Network.  Wells' MSNBC has totally gone behind Obama and Fox has played it smart and just played more or less straight news which allows them to nimbly support McCain next.  MSNBC might be seeing something in their ratings and the backlash from their 1000% support of Obama.  

    MSNBC might be running scared of the real possibility they would lose both the ratings war and the election.  So now, MSNBC is probably back into giving Obama some tips or advice.

    Surprise! they have found out they need viewers/readers/listeners AND voters!

    Well, he said he wasn't going to run (5.00 / 0) (#259)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    for President during his first term in the Senate, and less than a year later he announced. So I wouldn't put much stock in a statement that he won't run for a second term. He isn't honest.

    It's bogus (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by miriam on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    "There is no way that I would say absolutely not to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet."

    Oh, c'mon. All of us have heard enough Michelle Obama clips to know the wording of this thing sounds absolutely nothing like her. I have no idea who actually wrote it, but it was not her.  To make her sign/say it, they must have threatened to cut off her clothing allowance.

    Hey, Obama campaign, listen up: No matter what you think, we "low information" folks are not all morons.

    PR, what about the double standard? (5.00 / 0) (#270)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    It took awhile for her to come out and say that.

    What about the obvious double standard? The Press can't talk about Michelle, but Obama can trash Bill, which he has done in the past. Hillary didn't come out and tell Obama to back-off.

    When the wife of a presumptive nominee and potential candidate for the White House says, "it's the first time I'm proud of my country, " that's nothing to take lightly.


    No WAY (4.33 / 12) (#4)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    I will not vote for Obama at the top of the ticket.  He doesn't deserve it.  SHE does.  
    I'll only vote for him if he's VP.  I can not be reasoned with.  There is no compromise.  If the DNC wants my vote, they have to meet MY terms.  Take it or leave it.  If they make Obama number one, I'm taking my vote and walking.  

    Me too. (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    Further, how generous of Michelle.  Just a few short months ago she wasn't sure she could support Hillary.  She'd have to think about it.  Wasn't sure she liked her policies, her politics.  Spare me, Michelle.

    This is just another patronizing move from team Obama.  It's ineffective.


    My sentiments exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#254)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    so, let us wait until the convention and hope that Hillary pulls it off.  If not, I will be an independent vote the day after.

    But how do you reach the Hillary at the (none / 0) (#38)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    top of the ticket calculus? I mean, delegates, whether pledged or super count for something, right?

    The myth is that delegates can't switch (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    when actually they can -- and have -- for Obama.

    They can do just the same switch for Hillary.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
    If the GOP goes into GE mode and Obama starts sinking before the convention, the SD's may actually engage a few brain cells and switch.

    ah, but what could cause that? (none / 0) (#73)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    I guess you can make the argument that any candidate that "suspends" a campaign is still waiting in the wings, but thus far (as you note) the pledged delegates that have switched have switched to Obama.

    So, is the idea that scandal might erupt or some other earthshaking thing that leads delegates to switch to Clinton?  

    Seems like a pretty vague chance of that happening.  I'm guessing some donors (perhaps other than the Clintons themselves...they do and should believe in themselves) would have problems with that kind of risk.


    Noone can get to 2210 at the moment. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    especially since that number doesn't exist (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    until the rules committee figures out FL & MI. But even if you seat these states as is (and that wouldn't happen, since Obama wasn't on the MI ballot), Clinton can't overcome Obama and it still goes to super delegates.  

    I'm of the school that doesn't think the super delegates will vote against Obama ultimately.  So (in my line of thinking), it again comes down to how much financial risk the Clintons and their donors are willing to take.  The odds are seriously against them.


    with scandal of course... (none / 0) (#47)
    by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    keep eating each other (2.50 / 2) (#165)
    by Dadler on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    the democratic party is pouring gravy on itself and getting its knife and fork ready.  and when obama's wife extends a fig leaf and speaks some respectful truth, well, let's assume she's a lying, manipulative, c*nt who couldn't possibly mean it. the bitterness and irrationality on both sides in this race is off the charts.  i'll say it again, obama is naive in many ways, hillary has been the worst sort of enabler for bush in many ways.  take your pick.  everyone's sh*t stinks.  better to make one big pile and work around it.

    it is tiresome listening to both sides in this race.  either of them is more than capable of beating mccain and soundly.  but we're too busy playing chicken little with our own candidates.

    assume mrs. obama was sincere.  just assume it for the sake of the party and the nation and get on with it.

    A fig leaf? (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    LOL.  I assume you mean an olive branch.

    No I think the Fig leaf is more (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    fitting. It, after all, is all about covering up the naked truth.

    no, you tiring. (4.33 / 6) (#185)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    Obama is a nasty campaigner and his supporters are hateful bullies. You think calling Hillary a bush enabler helps this healing crap you want to 'get on with'. and mr. obama voted for funding for the war every time. doesn't that qualify him as an enabler too? cheney energy bill? enabler there as well. sorry, can't take the hypocrisy. unity my A**.

    Wow! I am shocked and pleased. (none / 0) (#2)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    I hope this is a sign that Obama is seriously thinking about asking Clinton to be VP.  Or perhaps it is just making nice, which is also part of bringing unity to the party. Regardless, more public statements like this are important and welcome.  

    Or pehraps it is a sign (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    of Obama wanting Clinton to choose him as VP.

    It's a sign... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    ...that Obama has finally figured out that he is going to lose in the fall, and lose big. He is finally coming to terms with the fact that his "successful" primary campaign has offended so many Clinton supporter's that it would take a complete meltdown by McCain to give the Presidency to the Democratic Party. He is considering Clinton, not because he wants her, but because he really needs her voter's.

    I like (none / 0) (#27)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    I like the way you think!

    Something must be up for her to do a 180 like this.


    Maybe SDs have noticed (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    the turning of the tide in the press, where they're actually starting to critique the Obamas and their words.

    Clinton still has a good shot at the top of the ticket.  I will not give up.  Rise, Hillary, rise!


    100% with you!! (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    I, too, think this is far from over.

    It's not a 180 (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    more like a 20 - she went from absolutely not to 'not absolutely not'

    A small step in the right direction.


    I am very inclined to think this is a possibility (none / 0) (#197)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    There is talking going on behind closed doors and maybe they are telling obama...sorry charlie.

    Exactly! I might go for that. (none / 0) (#257)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    but no way the other way around.

    Obama's are making nice (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    I think it is Michelle trying to prove herself, she has made many negative comments about America and Clinton.  I don't have the links anymore, but she polled very badly and she was put back behind the scenes.  Both Obama's have been very dismissive of Clinton and her supporters. People will see through the hypocrisy.

    Kudos (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    Good for her. She now needs to keep it up. She has to be aware that republicans and their lackeys will make hay for any misspeaks. No more "scratch his eyes out" moments.

    Good (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST

    And necessary. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    And not enough (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    as too little, too late, methinks.  When MO wanted to scratch out eyes, mine hurt.  What she said about Hillary Clinton, she said about me.

    But when the attacks are against her (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    family becomes out of bounds.

    I want those people running MY country. NOT.


    I'm with you (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    Her statement could be used as the dictionary definition for 'damning with faint praise.'

    It's not even as good as Obama's response about Clinton being on anybody's short list.

    I can't see any upside for Clinton as VP.  If he loses, she loses.  If he wins and has a one-termer a la Jimmy Carter, it taints her.  If he wins and has two terms (which I think is unlikely, given the war and the economy), she'd get a small bit of boost as VP, but it wouldn't be worth it -- after all being VP didn't help Gore much.  Not worth the risk.


    Look, I'll take it. (none / 0) (#49)
    by A little night musing on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    Even if it's insincere, it's a step in the right direction. (I don't expect people to be sincere always, especially pols. But words matter.)

    But more is needed. Much more.

    Yeah, I don't believe (none / 0) (#55)
    by kayla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    that she's not opposed to a Clinton VP spot.  BUT, that doesn't matter.  It's good that someone from the Obama camp finally acknowledged that Hillary is also a groundbreaking candidate.  That fact is hard to dispute and it's good for unity to raise that point.

    MSM going to love it (none / 0) (#93)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    One thing is certain, if HRC were to be Obama's VP the MSM is going to have a field day on the Michelle - Hillary catfight narratives. I would expect that we would hear more about that than literally anything else.

    Which is one reason (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    why I hope it never happens.

    Not if there aren't any catfights. (none / 0) (#169)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    Why would there be any catfights if this is Michelle's position and continues to be and if Hillary doesn't initiate?

    When there is NO smoke, even the media won't find a fire.


    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    there was never anything to all the character assassination lies and crap they raised about HRC, but it didn't stop people from doing it, including Obama supporters and so-called top progressive bloggers. What would make anyone think there would have to be actual disagreement between HRC and MO for the MSM to make hay?

    But This Is OK? (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    obama reminds me of bush...an empty suit fronting for a bunch of handlers.

    How is this different from what Obamamaniacs are doing?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    You need only examine the narrative that Hillary has run a race-baiting campaign to understand how nebulous the concept of "smoke" can be.

    If the media wants to construct a narrative, they can find it anywhere.


    IF is the Operative Word here. (5.00 / 0) (#260)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    That is, IF Michelle O. can actually say SHE WANTS Hillary to be VP. That to me is the threshold for believing he sincerity.

    Because we (none / 0) (#229)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    know that we can count on the media NOT to twist words, spin statements and flat out lie. Really? Since when? Media could spin a fire out of two ice cubes and a rock.

    For those not quite ready to (none / 0) (#98)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    forgive and make nice...the Dixie Chicks!

    I love those Chicks!  I think I am ready to make nice though.

    Well, that's too bad, because no one has been (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    nominated yet.

    I know, that is why (none / 0) (#114)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    I posted the song.

    Chicks got it right (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    After all that went before they were not ready to make nice. Some of not only aren't ready, we don't wanna.

    When someone starts being nice just because they want something, in this case our vote, it makes me wonder how cheaply we are supposed to sell out. And by selling out I mean accepting all the ugliness that has gone before.


    Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#127)
    by CE415 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    This is probably the best way to keep BHO alive, right wing fanatics still being alive and well, and climbing out from caves on occaision.  

    It's his (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    only possible chance.  Probably won't be enough, though.

    Off Topic... (none / 0) (#160)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST
    ...Sen. Robert Byrd(D-WV) just endorsed Obama.

    Kind of a big pickup for him.

    Another going against his constituents (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    in West Virginia.  But probably feels he has to do it owing to his KKK past.

    I big pickup in what sense? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    In a way, it is rather comical to be honest with you.

    Obama lost his state by nearly 3-1 and after hearing that result, Byrd now decides to endorse Obama?


    My guess (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    is that it saved the Hillary campaign a big headache trying to explain to the Obamabots why an ex-KKK member is supporting her.

    Look at what they did to Bill Clinton, 'the first black man in the white house' up until a few months ago. They have no problem ignoring history to make their points.

    It makes sense.


    ding, ding, ding...You Win BTD!! So Much For (none / 0) (#217)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    sd's voting the will of their constituents...which is basically b.s. anyway...they are there to make the tough decisions, be the leaders, not the followers.  Mario Cuomon on FTN yesterday said that for all intents and purposes, the SD's should not be endorsing.

    We will chalk this up for Sen. Byrd as a senior moment...


    Wow.. (none / 0) (#242)
    by JustJennifer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    that is a frightening narrative you laid out there.  Sad to say that is seems totally in line with GOP tactics though.  

    Hopefully a sign (none / 0) (#249)
    by thentro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    that things are starting to cool off for everyone. There are things I have said in anger that I regret now too.

    Hillary is in the Senate, she can't run (none / 0) (#251)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    for Speaker of the House.

    Senate Majority Leader (5.00 / 0) (#264)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    is what brodie was referring to.

    Lots of people seem to think she should just turn down VP, assuming she is a lock for Majority Leader. I agree with brodie that she is by no means a shoe-in for winning that position. If she was that popular among Senate Dems she would have their endorsements, and also if Obama is the president he will want and get one of his supporters in that job.


    Sorry for the correction, I just (none / 0) (#266)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    noticed elixir suggesting a run for Speaker.  Yeah, that's not gonna happen unless Hillary quits the senate and wins a House seat, highly unlikely.

    Volunteer needed to check out DK (none / 0) (#256)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    (including Kos's posts) about:

    1. Obama's "be nice" statement, and
    2. Michelle Obama's statements on Clinton as VP.

    Thank you for performing this public service.

    Rhetorical Question? (none / 0) (#267)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    I am not so familiar with navigating that site, so if your question is not rhetorical, I volunteered and could not find what you are looking for.

    Great statement! (none / 0) (#268)
    by Coral on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    I am very open to conciliatory gestures. That's what the party needs to win in November.

    Speaker of the House? (none / 0) (#271)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    Civics really was boring, wasn't it?  (For those of us who took the class at all).


    Too little, Too late... (none / 0) (#272)
    by JKR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    I was an American before I was a Democrat and if Obama and his angry wife are the nominees, I will vote for McCain. All the Republicans think McCain is a Democrat,LOL, so I can work with that!

    First Audacity Now Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#273)
    by Boo Radly on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    BO/MO are a PRODUCT - the DNC is trying to market to select few Dem voters with the help of corporate media. There are two ways the Dem party could go - actually have a succintly qualified candidate or try for a "pocket" candidate and control him. They chose the wrong candidate. This is Bush all over again except our own party is the culprit and he qualifies even less in experience and character, hence more dangerous.

    BO/MO have said some of the most moronically stupid statements ever made by a politician. They have been protected by Corp Media, but also the DNC. That any media would provide cover for these idiots is amazing. I guess I just have a longer memory and actually think words matter. Not to mention actions.

    Who cares what they say now. Pols is pols does not justify what they have been saying and doing. Screaming racist, denigrating superior party members, withholding votes/delegates of FL/MI just doesn't get it in my book.

    The only real record of these two people we have is this campaign - it is ugly and hateful - BO's book is a fairy tale, 65% untrue, he changes policy at the drop of hat. Michelle is shrill and nasty. The Democratic party is no longer representing me. I did not suffer through these past 7.5 years to be given the task of propping up a woefully inadequate and piss poor candidate with shrew as a wife.

    The only win possible is Hillary Clinton. I am getting dangerously close to using the same words I used to describe the Rethugs, vile and vermanious to describe my life long party -D-. Each day hardens my resolve. We have seen the best these two have in this campaign - they unthinking believed they really were "the ones" - geesh, the arrogance is palpable. They had fun smearing Hillary, no holds barred. Now they are changing tune, maybe realize they went over the top? Power is an intoxicate - the shallow and weak use it to attack and keep others down. Those who are not power grabbers, insipate, use it to raise themselves and others up to a higher level - they are humane, humble and trustworthy.

    When you juxtapose Clinton vs Obama it is so clear - (like black and white - except that would be racist to say, now post BO)

    Personally, I think this makes her slimier - if that is possible.

    I have no respect for anyone who endorses BO.