The Worst Argument Against A Unity Ticket

I wonder if this is really what Barack Obama thinks:

Some Democrats have created Web sites to promote what they see as one solution -- an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket" -- but senior advisers in both campaigns see little chance of that happening. A big reason, they agree: the wild card of having Bill Clinton, a former president and one whose campaign statements have sparked repeated controversies, as part of the package.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me? Having Bill Clinton, the last two term Democratic President, involved and campaigning for an Obama Presidency is a BAD thing? Is this the thinking in the Obama inner circle? Is purging the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party the official policy of the Barack Obama campaign? If it is, he is going to lose.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< On Super Delegates Choosing Obama As Nominee | A Good Question To Opponents Of The Unity Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • As stated (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    earlier:  Can you imagine the Republicans tearing into Reagan to "help" a current presidential candidate?  Bwaaahaaaa!

    Good luck with that strategy Obama.

    nope. (none / 0) (#151)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:02 AM EST
    that is the problem with us, the Dems. We allowed THEM to frame OUR president. (The best US president in decades) It is truely disgraceful.

    read more carefully (none / 0) (#181)
    by manish on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:52 AM EST
    senior advisers in both campaigns see little chance of that happening. A big reason, they agree: the wild card of having Bill Clinton, a former president and one whose campaign statements have sparked repeated controversies, as part of the package.

    Senior advisor's to Hillary Clinton agree with that statement.  Does say something.  I'm not sure what the Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina comment did for the Hillary campaign, but I suspect that that statement amongst others didn't help.

    As an Obama supporter, I have no major problem with Hillary as the VP, if Obama thinks that she would make the best partner for him..both in the election, but more importantly, as his partner in getting things done in Washington.  My concern is the baggage that the Clinton campaign brings, and I'm not talking about the right-wing irrationality of Hillary-hatred.  I'm speaking of her campaign operation, which snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by running a terrible campaign.


    Hillary as VP (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Oh, are you people really thinking that Hillary as VP will be something you can hold your noses to, just so long as she can get your candidate in???
     Forget it-too little- too late.
     Are you realising now that YOUR campaign was based on FALSE PREMISES. It wasn't a little Senate campaign where you get rid of all the competition by fair means or foul, and then romp home to victory. In a Presidential Primary, the last and final lap requires you to UNITE the Party, and you played too DIRTY, and ALIENATED just about everyone. So much for the Great Uniter. He should have played CLEAN.

    Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#212)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    Oh, are you people really thinking that Hillary as VP will be something you can hold your noses to, just so long as she can get your candidate in???
     Forget it-too little- too late.
     Are you realising now that YOUR campaign was based on FALSE PREMISES. It wasn't a little Senate campaign where you get rid of all the competition by fair means or foul, and then romp home to victory. In a Presidential Primary, the last and final lap requires you to UNITE the Party, and you played too DIRTY, and ALIENATED just about everyone. So much for the Great Uniter. He should have played CLEAN.

    huh? (none / 0) (#219)
    by manish on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    Hillary as VP will be something you can hold your noses to

    I don't know where you got that from.  To be clear, I would support Hillary as VP if Obama chose her.  Its his decision, period, full stop.  If Hillary tried to force her way onto the ticket in a shot gun wedding, I wouldn't support that.


    What kind of campaign operation (none / 0) (#223)
    by andrys on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    lost since March, most of the large needed states and other states, by a margin of about 600,000 votes, and some of which were WON by HUMONGOUS margins over the "presumptive nominee" in a way that has never happened before.

      What kind of campaign operation is Obama running that his electoral college polling shows a GE election loss to McCain while the 'presumptive loser' of this nomination WINS not only many primaries but in those important GE EC matches against McCain?

      Lost is how VERY BADLY he has done since March, but much of that has been written about here.  His spreadsheet, once accurate, expected a win by Obama by 7 in Indiana but he lost by 2.  It expected a loss by 12 in WVa but he lost by 41 points.  This is not what would be called anymore an excellent campaign operation.  It was good as long as there was not much known about him.

      Losing the nomination was based on the time period during which people knew little about him except his promises of Hope and Change.  The primary results have been quite different since then.

      Without Clinton (and I prefer she not participate in a losing campaign), he is NOT going to win this election without a HUGE miracle.  So, save your condescending statements about Hillary when supporting a man with now humongous baggage and more that has not been discussed.


    seems to me a giant leap (none / 0) (#193)
    by seesdifferent on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    ...needlessly inflammatory, premature, and unfounded. How would not choosing her as vp constitute trying to purge "the Clinton wing"? will Obama be trying to purge the Edwards wing? the Richardson wing, the Dodd wing? when he doesn't choose them as his running mate? are you saying that Bill Clinton should be the head of the party?

    Humm (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    I suppose an argument could be made for an Edwards wing, the populist wing but HRC is the populist candidate.  I do not see a groundswell of Dems supporting Edwards, not before he got out of the race or since he's left the race.  Those blue collar dems were HRC's from the beginning of this race.  Blue collars voted for HRC over Edwards.  It's why he wasn't a threat to HRC or significant help to Obama in Kentucky.  So, where is Edwards' base of support, core Dems that he "owns" as his own?  I don't see it myself.  

    Also, the Clinton Wing of Clinton Dems in my view are supporters of HRC's brand of political philosophy not Bill's (because her politics are not her husband's.  She is far more progressive than he ever was).  And, I find it particularly short-cited and annoying that some people cannot or will not see or admit to that.  So, imo, the Clinton Dems are HRC Dems most of whom have affection for Bill and would never diss his Presidency, at least not over Ray-guns.  

    So, I think, if there was an Edwards wing which is very debateable in the first place, it is miniscule at best and cannot be called a wing.  

    And, with all due respect, the idea that there exists a Dodd or Richardson Wing is, well, laughable.  


    Saturday's dabacle (none / 0) (#204)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    Was an attempt to purge the Party of the Clinton Dems.  If and when it comes to the point where Obama is the Nom, not selecting Clinton as his VP running mate will only be seen as another huge shove to purge the Clinton Dems by Obama and more importantly those power brokers in the DNC who have pushed him forward (and Pelosi and Kennedy have both stated they are against an Obama/Clinton ticket or visa versa but visa versa was never in their minds because both have been on the Obama train).  

    Spelling (none / 0) (#205)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    debacle not dabacle.  Pardon.

    Agree, tek and I understand.... (none / 0) (#214)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST
    politics makes strange bed fellows; however, barring some very real concerns about in whose hands the White House will fall this November, the so called "Dream Ticket" is a publicity hoax to string Hillary's supporters along and keep them open to the possibility of rallying behind Obama.

    Yet, at the same time, it is Obvious (the capital o on purpose) that there is nothing, NOTHING, O would rather see happen than the Clintons DISSAPPEAR.  

    No matter how many "nice praises" he now says about Hillary, WE ALL KNOW, it is with the ulterior motive of making himself a viable alternative to, in his own words, "BUSH'S FOURTH TERM", and the express goal of Obliterating Clinton's legacy.  

    BUT, what I find absolutely disgustingly repugnant is that those who know better, are standing by, with their MOUTHS LOCKED SHUT WITNESSING THE CARNAGE. MY MOMMA TOLD ME THAT THOSE WHO SILENTLY WITNESS A WRONG, ARE AS GUILTY AS THOSE WHO PERPETRATE IT.


    Oh, BTD (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:46:53 AM EST
    I believe that IS the official policy, perhaps not of Obama, but of the powers that be supporting him.
    Was there not comment after Saturday saying the Democratic Party is the Obama party now?

    It's always been about routing the Clintons, IMHO.

    Yep (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    That's been clear for awhile now, it's one of the reasons why I refuse to get with the program.

    Obama and Democratic Party officials have had numerous opportunities to reach out to Clinton supporters and other non-Obama folks at relatively little political cost to Obama in the nominating contest and every time instead of reaching out, they tell those supporters to go screw themselves.  The latest was Saturday where not only did they give Obama the uncommitted vote, they also changed votes to "Hillary Clinton" to "Barack Obama" and all so Obama would net two votes at the convention out of more than 4,000.  Before that was apologizing for Pfelger's comments by actually apologizing to Hillary or at least mentioning her name or, here's an idea, condemning sexism.  Before that was not pushing the RFK smear.  Before that...

    It is unlikely that doing any one of these things would have changed Obama's posiiton in the nominating contest for the worse.  Hell, I'd argue that if he had reached out to the other wing of the party instead of repeatedly kicking them in the teeth, voters might not be showing up in record numbers in some of these late primaries to reject him as the presumptive nominee.  

    But he wouldn't do it and the party, instead of pressuring him to do so, has rewarded his divisive behavior.  Apparently what the party learned from 2000 was that the losing candidate who more people voted for is the one responsible for dropping out and unifying the country/party around the "winning" candidate as chosen by the media and the political elite.  Not exactly the lesson I was hoping they'd take away from that debacle.


    Chuck Todd said that... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ginamc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    I clearly heard Chuck Todd telling Tweety that "...the Democratic Party is not longer the Clintons, now it belongs to Barack Obama..."  News Flash, Chuck, that Democratic Party has never belonged to the Clintons.  They have always been snubbed and looked down upon by the Party Elites.  If that were NOT the case, then, BO wouldn't be having such an easy time buying the Party off, and the DNC, and SDs.  So, I guess ownership in that sense is quite apropos.

    The Obama base (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    already hates Clinton.  In fact, they basically said they always hated Bill Clinton but just kept quiet about it until now.

    I don't know if Obama himself feels this way, but his supporters certainly wouldn't mind throwing out the Clinton wing of the party.

    Yeah, he feels this way. (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    He's never said one kind word about Bill Clinton or his legacy.

    Obama has never said one good thing about BC (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    Obama has repeatedly praised JFK and Reagan to high heaven. Completely silent on Bill Clinton's huge accomplishments in office. Obama's silence speaks volumns.  Gore shunned Clinton during his cmapaign.  Kerry also.  What happened?  

    No one can campaign in the south like Bill Clinton.  No one can capture the minds and hearts of the rural/working class voter like Bill Clinton.  

    Obama has disdain for the Clintons, IMHO. Obama is a fool.


    I hoe they do not mind losing then (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:45 AM EST
    For some reason (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    many of them haven't yet realized that possibility.

    They have said as much. (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:56:51 AM EST
    "I'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton."

    and they berate Clinton's supporters (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    for not supporting Obama.

    But you can't say the same thing about them and Clinton, oh no.  That's because they won so it doesn't matter.


    yeah (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM EST
    I have seen that a lot.  well, we will see how the rest of the party feels about it after McCains inauguration.
    Im thinkin there are many who do not feel this way.

    they will just blame that on the (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM EST
    Clintons too.
    with the help of the craved, stupid, corrupt media.

    The blogs would much prefer losing (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    to having Clinton as President.

    I'm sorry.... (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:58:45 AM EST
    do you listen to Obama at all?  He has repeatedly degraded Bill Clinton and lumped him together with the Bush administration.  He's NEVER, not once, said anything positive about the Clinton years at all.

    But the people he is using in his (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    campaign many of whom worked for Bill Clinton in 1992/1996 are okay for his campaign!

    The people he is using... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    suck.  All second teir Clinton admin people.  

    Deputy Dawgs (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    The Deputy or Under-People to the Boss.  Wow, what a break from the Clinton years.

    And they're all channeling their inner Scotty as they turn on the accomplished Clinton era in the service of cult-building for the anointed one.


    Said anything positive? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:28 AM EST
    To the contrary, we continually have to hear about how terrible the "politics of the past" have been.  

    According to Obama, the universe was suddently spawned the moment he declared his candidacy.  Apparently it will end when McCain takes the oath of office.



    The funny thing is (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:04:02 AM EST
    after losing in November, the Clintons, even though blamed by the Obama people in blogs and the media, will come out being just as strong. And stronger than Obama. The Dems who will not vote for Obama in the GE already know it was not the Clintons who caused the problem in the party. Again, it is about judgement. If they are going for the purge the Clintons, look at the votes, I don't think it will work.  

    The Clinton Dems (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    Yes, we're seeing a dramatic coalition develop now, the Clinton Dems, who will either get their party back or leave.  

    Gerry Ferraro is playing a leading role in crystallizing and voicing the outrage over the DNC hijinks - I think the Ferraro Democrats are the advance brigade for the Clinton Dems.  She was on TV again last night after PR.  Of course on FOX.


    Geraldine Ferraro (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    is one gutsy lady!!  She inspires me!!

    I agree (4.75 / 4) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    I never liked her much till this cycle.
    she is the one saying the emperor has not clothes.

    She's been a FOX contributor for a long time (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    Lots of Democrats are regulars on that cable network.

    I refused to watch that channel until lately and now wonder why it got such a bad reputation. They aren't any more severely right than MSNBC and CNN have been Obama all day, every day.


    They can be truly nasty (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    I think their purpose now is to help in dividing Democrats. However, the fact that the Democrats have given them lots of fuel for that fire is the Democrat's problem, not the Republicans'

    As I said to someone last night (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    FOX and the Republicans don't have to do anything right now other than sit back and watch the fireworks. They're in the catbird seat.

    Meanwhile, it's clear that the McCain camp's intention is to offer up tea, cake and sympathy to all the disgruntled Clinton supporters as well as anyone on the fence in terms of candidates, while Obama camp's intention is to go after anyone who won't fall into line with whips and large sticks.

    Granted, the sweets might be poisoned but which is going to appeal more to angry voters? Soft words, respect and consideration or threats, abuse and constant reminders of 'you're with us or you're against us'. Hmmm....

    McCain doesn't really have to work very hard at courting those voters. The Obama people are doing a great job of making sure everyone defects in droves.


    Mccain will be offering... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    ...eiderdown pillows, darjeeling tea and cucumber finger sandwiches to all the Clinton refugees.

    The english tea room, he'll call it.


    yes (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM EST
    this election cycle has ripped the veil from cable news.

    I hope the Clintons help downticket races (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    ... but otherwise step back from the GE, diplomatically citing being taxed to the limit by the grueling primary.

    In short they should all say they need to spend more time with the family and fmr Pres WJC, Chelsea and Sen Clinton can step back from this thugged up version of a rope pull.

    Let the Dean/Brazile kingmakers and those who'd rule teh Kewl New Dems, the oPods and smarmy bloggers win it or lose it on their own merits.


    Losing Them (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    Poster in DC Saturday:

    Count my vote or count me out.


    I also liked (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    the group of women from New Hampshire sporting T-shirts that said "IRON MY SHIRT". I need me one of those shirts bad.

    The fly in that oinkment or flaw in the reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    I can't imagine how dense the mindset of these arrogant fools that they can't look beyond the primary contest.

    Their ultimate goal is to take Sen Clinton out of the race and then stand in a wide pool of unexploded political ordnance that they lay down themselves.

    I hope this will make for some discussion fodder in a fresher thread than where I posted it today, because it directly relates to this one but I don't want to double up on the bandwidth.


    Maybe you should ask Jeralyn ... (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    ... to publish a version of that as a diary, since it is (a) on the long side and (b) discussing an issue that is not easily confined to a single blog thread.

    Great suggestion! (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    Thanks, I didn't even consider that as a possibility.

    I'll definitely keep a copy of it for that reason and either chop-shop it to topicality or go with the diary suggestion.


    BO & Co. are BIG Whiners... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ginamc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    I just heard one of them this morning saying that in order to have "Unity," Hillary MUST work her heart out for BO.  That arrogant entitlement is beyond words.  After all of the disparaging and trashing of both Hillary and Bill Clinton, inclusive of the latest Vanity Fair hit piece, BO & Co. actually believe that it is the Clinton's RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY to campaign for BO -- especially with Latinos and in the South with working class Whites.

    LOL!!!  As a Latina from S. Texas, all I can say to that is:  ROFL!!!!  The Damage is done.  And, there's NOTHING that BO or Bill Richardson can do about it.  Not even Henry Cisneros or Antonio Villaraigosa will be able to mobilize us now.  This blatant disrespect towards Hillary, along with BO's wacky Rev., he's going to be hard-pressed to get 20% of the Latino vote.  Not even Hillary, herself, will be able to move us towards BO now.  

    Seems like he's in a dilemma of his OWN making when he decided that the means justify the end.


    That's always been one of the Democrats' problems. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    No respect. Bill was the last great Democratic President but he's a liability now?! It's like when Tina Fey said "yeah, cuz that would be a BAD thing right?!"  What fools. What foolish thinking.

    Not Good Enough? (5.00 / 16) (#13)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:53:51 AM EST
    The old Carville joke: which part of the 1990's didn't you like - the peace or the prosperity?

    but...but...Obama's supporters (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:49 AM EST
    tell me that it wasn't actually prosperous!

    Most of them (5.00 / 13) (#39)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    were too young during those years to have any clue what they're talking about.

    Me, I remember not just the Clinton years, but the Bush I, Reagan and Carter years (I was a kid then, but still), and no matter who's President, I see a difficult four years ahead.

    I'd rather have someone who I know can handle the challenges in the Oval Office. For some reason, Obama doesn't inspire that confidence in me. Wonder why?


    Ghosts - The Key Demographic (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    Yes, they see phantoms everywhere - let's start with those imaginary Michigan voters who have now surfaced to play the most critical role in the nomination fight.

    Obama has added a new demographic to his list - ghosts.  Only the RCC sees them.

    And boy, do they turn out.  Magically.


    It's not a new demographic.. (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:14:54 AM EST
    it's an old Chicago one where dead people vote early and often. Heh.

    for some reason (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    I still think republicans will be better at that game.

    Chicago "Voters" (none / 0) (#76)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:18:17 AM EST
    Of course - they've been "lying in wait."  LOL.

    It's a thriller. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    thriller night. da da da daaa da da .

    so true, so true (none / 0) (#197)
    by ginamc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:53:06 AM EST

    They agree? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:48:07 AM EST
    I sincerely don't think anyone in Hill's camp agrees with that.

    That's been proven. (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:53:43 AM EST
    Hillary is all for party unity. Mentions it in every speech. Obama not-so-much. It disgusts me that progressives now agree with the Republican right-wing machine of the 90s. Doesn't that PROVE to them that they're in love with Obama?  That they have become what they spent decades detesting? No. They simply think the Clintons have become Lucifer between when Obama announced and now. It proves to me that I'm the right side of this.

    Yes, they want to purge the Clintons (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by Radical Faith on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    and by extension, the Clinton voters. And while they may not want to lose, that is surely a losing formula.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    Bill could only be an asset in November.

    Agree, ask Al (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by nashville on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    how keeping a distance from Clinton works out!  :(

    But Not Unprecedented (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:20:52 AM EST
    Gore did the same thing.  So did Kerry to a lesser extent (part of Clinton's limited involvement was his heart problems).  

    The Democratic Party elite have been trying to purge Bill Clinton from the party since practically the day Bill was inaugurated.  Because there's no place for a winner in the Democratic Party.  Makes all those losers look bad.


    Ok, imagine this scenario.. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:25:42 AM EST
    Bill Clinton, ex-president, Rhodes Scholar, charm to spare, political chops that are unmatched in the political arena today, loves to meet and greet, and he is out campaigning for Barack Obama, half-term Senator with a light voting record, former state senator with manufactured legislative record, recently former member of a radical church, who dismisses huge swaths of the voting public because they don't fit his vision of his voter or they didn't vote for him in the primary.

    I can't imagine any better way to show up Barack Obama's complete lack of fitness for the office of President than to have Bill Clinton out campaigning for him. It would just add to the number of write-ins for Hillary. The reason Obama disses the Clintons is because he isn't up to their standards of competence and political savvy, and any side by side comparison makes him look bad. Really bad.


    Not Needed (none / 0) (#111)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:36:10 AM EST
    Both Clintons would be better off not having to invent gravitas for a minor leaguer like Obama.  It is just too much fiction.

    Calculated (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    And what's with the Todd Purdum onslaught this week - in Vanity Fair and RCP?  Is this a setup to completely get the Clintons out - and Hillary away from the ticket?

    I must admit (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST
    the thought crossed my mind. But it actually makes Unity that much more difficult.

    Todd Purdom is not going to hold sway over the Clinton Wing of the Dem Party, even if Dee Dee Myers is his wife.


    Hoping it puts a big hault to (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    Dee Dee pushing her new book, "Why Women Should Rule the World".

    It is completely unsubstantiated. According to the news yesterday, he used only "Anonymous" as his source and tried to paint the picture of Bill "seeing" many women while campaigning.

    Clearly, they are hoping to hurt Hillary Clinton as deep as possible (personally). I only wish I had a subscription to VF to cancel.

    They are also claiming he's angrier than he used to be. I'm sure the way his wife has been treated, and the way the people he fights for as a Democrat have been insulted could contribute to that.


    Too (none / 0) (#57)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    No, it will only backfire in this inflammatory environment, but the sheer timing leads me to think that we are now seeing the weapons in reserve against a VP slot. When all fails, cite Bill.  And yes, I thought of Dee Dee also - she doesn't control her man either.  Ironic.

    "The Clinton Wing" (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    doesn't read vanity fair.  ;-).

    They (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    never get that, do they? The Clinton wing doesn't read the WaPo or NYT, either.

    I do read James Wolcott online, however.


    Agree as to SetUp (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:15:47 AM EST
    I think the Obama campaign has decided it does NOT want Hillary as Obama's runing mate at any cost, and may be resisting the suggestions of a unity ticket by some within the party, first by wide distribution of the Olberman rant about Hillary's RFK comment and second, with the Vanity Fair article and the mantra the Bill is the impediment.  I.e., not Obama's fault a Hillary VP would be detrimental.  This seems to me to be a pattern now.

    Obama MUST have someone who (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM EST
    doesn't overshadow him constantly.

    The Clintons should get out there and campaign for Democratic candidates for the House and Senate and try to get the margin wider to make sure McCain can't get anything against the party goals done for the next 4 years.


    Dan Quayle may be available n/t (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    They're worried about Bill Clinton on (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    the road, but not about Obama's association with Rev. Wright, Fr Mike, Rezko, Ayers, Chicago-style politics, etc.??????????

    Apparently, Vanity Fair is (none / 0) (#52)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    coming out with a piece (I think July) about Bill on the campaign trail and his behavior where the staff had to reign him in (you can decode that any way you choose). So a "hit job" can be done about him, but no any other candidate's alliance?

    Far better to try to prevent (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    HRC from being the nominee with these bogus hit jobs on Bill, than to give the Clintons a chance at the Oval Office again.

    Meanwhile, if you want questionable associations and bad judgment, an impartial media would look a little more closely at Barack Obama.

    An Obama candidacy ensures a McCain victory, which is all these pundits want.

    IMHO of course.


    Yeah, God forbid that we have (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    competence in the White House. It simply won't do to have someone who knows anything about getting things done in the White House. Noooooooooo.. let's elect the lighweight with the questionable associations and the big mouthed wife. Yeah, that's what will do America the most good. Uhuh.

    Sorry you are just realizing (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    this now, BTD.

    It's been quite evident to many of us for months now.

    The "Dream Ticket" is nagahapin. The sole goal of the Obama Movement is to purge the Clintons of their supporters and influence. There is no plan for the GE, or, heaven forbid, for governance.

    There will be no Unity, or as I call it, Submission to Obama, in November.

    And Obama is going to lose the GE very, very big should the SD's be stupid enough to choose him over HRC.

    Obama believes,imo, as dumb as this (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    sounds, that he transcends politics and people. He is chosen. Just listen to how people, some who used to be rational, speak about him. He is the annoited, Hillary is the peon.

    it really is getting scary (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    I have said before.  I am not sure which I find more scary.  the possibility of  his losing or the possibility of his winning.

    Ditto!!!!!!!!! I have so said it (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:25:30 AM EST
    before. But I have learned soooo much here at TL, and so many I know don't follow like we do. I have dem friends and family that will vote for the Dem no matter what. I used to vote like that, however, for me, I know too much. I'm worried about our country now, which to me is bigger than party. But, that's me.

    I will NEVER vote for Obama! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    I will, however, vote for the person who has the best chance to beat McCain. :-)

    Wanna be (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Jeannie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    Obama has always wanted to BE someone, to have positions, but when he got there he didn't do anything. He was head of the Harvard Law Review and didn't write anything. He wanted to be a lawyer but never headed a case in court. He wanted to be a state senator but never did the work to head a bill. He wanted to be a US senator but never called a meeting as head of a sub-committee. Now he wants to be president. Can we expect him to do great work?

    Really Jeannie, send it to Hillary's..... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    campaign! It's got good cadence, it's catchy, and it is ALL TRUE!!!

    How would I do that? (none / 0) (#220)
    by Jeannie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    Or you are welcome to send it - I would be very pleased!

    thats a wonderful ad script... (none / 0) (#191)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    Well described. He'd be perfect for (none / 0) (#224)
    by andrys on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST

    That Part That Gets Me (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    is the one about Clinton's campaign statements that "sparked repeated controversies."  While sectors of the media have already acknowledge that B. Clinton's statements have been distorted throughout this campaign, and spun to create an illusion of racial gaffes, most of the MSM is holding on to that awful myth.  Certainly, Obama knows the truth, he's supposed to be smart, after all.  The whole idea is dishonest.  Her supporters know better.

    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:59:13 AM EST
    The Obama campaign and the media ginned up the outrage over Bills statements, and now are using it as an excuse to sideline him.

    Clearly intentional, in my view.  

    I guess they are certainly welcome to try to win without the Clintons.  Workded out well for Al Gore.


    They Are Establishing A LOSE/LOSE Scenario (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    for the Clintons.

    On one hand it is the Hillary's and Bill's responsibility to unify the party and OTOH both Clintons have been so divisive that they cannot be associated with Obama's campaign.  If they push them away from the campaign, then it will be portrayed as them not being willing to help Obama win. They have purposely set it up in such a way as that the Clintons are demonized and AT FAULT no matter what.


    The Clinton/Unity paradox. (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    (use of the plural "Clintons" deliberate.)
    The Clintons are too divisive to allow on the ticket.

    The Clintons are Teh Ones responsible for Unifying The Party behind Obama.

    So which is it?  Divisive?  Unifying?

    An objective observer would say that the Clintons have a lot of political capital that will be important to winning the GE.  It would be a terrible strategy to throw that away.  The best strategy would be to embrace both the Clintons as part of the GE team.

    If the Dems actually want to win, that is.

    I've run across the sentiment that the Dems can't lose this year.  The GOP is too weak, too crippled by the Bush years to win the votes they need.  Anyone who believes this needs to look up any media critic on the 2000 & 2004 elections (suggest Glenn Greenwald).  If you don't want to do that much reading, just look at the polls.  They don't show the Dems winning in a landslide, no matter how you massage the numbers.  


    "The Dems Can't Lose This Year" Is A (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    Democratic mindset that results in Republican presidents. The party and many Dem voters chant this mantra all the while they ignore what is actually going on around them.

    "No way will voters chose the idiot Bush over Gore." "The public is so angry at Bush there is no way he will ever defeat Kerry." "The Dems can't lose this year. Voters hate Republicans. Obama will win in a landslide."

    Each election cycle the Republicans clearly signal how they plan to defeat the Democratic presidential nominee. While the Dems shout "No way this will work. "Bring it On" and other stupid statements, the Republicans execute their game plan. In November, the Dems sit around in shock lamenting their defeat and wonder how did this happen.  


    I think the (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    ineffective Dem leadership in Congress has neutered that whole notion that the Dems would be a good alternative to the Republicans.

    But maybe not this year. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    If Obama ends up losing, I think there will be mass firings.

    Repeated MANUFACTURED controversies. (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:22:13 AM EST
    You are exactly right.

    it is (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    and he is going to lose.

    I agree, Captain (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    although I wish I didn't.  
    Just got back from 2 weeks of driving Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica.  Whatta trip.  Serious photography all the way.  Don't ask about gas prices.  ;)

    awsum (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    I have made that trip several times.  love roadtrips.

    Several times? (none / 0) (#48)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:05:25 AM EST
    You are made of stern stuff.
    Once almost killed me! ;)

    oh man (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    I wont tell you how many times I have made that trip. except for me it usually starts in Little Rock on I40 and goes west from there.
    dozens of times.  I will probably do it again this summer if I have enough time off.
    I  hate flying.  hated it even before I had to take my shoes off. but I love roadtrips.

    I'm doing that trip next week (none / 0) (#127)
    by coolit on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    actually moving to santa monica.  But i'm gonna do it in about 5 or 6 days.  Any stops I have to make?  

    giant meteor crater, grand canyon, (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    painted desert and the petrified forest are all basically exits off hwy 40 west.
    have fun.  I always do.

    well actually (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    you have to drive a few miles north to get the the Grand Canyon.  but its worth it.
    (maybe 40? I cant remember. its not far)

    Howdy nailed it (none / 0) (#215)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    I can say no more.  And take your camera!

    BTD (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:57:37 AM EST
    of course it's what he believes. He's the ideological heir of Jimmy Carter who sees himself as morally pure and superior to all others. The sad fact also is that he looks to be as politically inept as Carter too.

    Why, after everything that has been said and done (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:58:22 AM EST
    to the Clintons, would they be an asset to his ticket?

    It would shriek of hypocrisy and political calculation. It would be bending over for those who would flay them. It would never be believable. She may work to get him elected, but lately I just don't see her giving it her all.

    And to give it her all she'd have to place party before pride and country.

    I know what she must say, but I don't see how she owes them jack right now.

    I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:59:42 AM EST
    Hillary said she would campaign her heart out for the nominee, so she will.  Simple as that.

    Hillary is a politician (none / 0) (#47)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:05:09 AM EST
    As long as there is a chance for her to take this nomination she will make nice, depend on that. She will say what she needs to say about the other side. They will never say that she was not for unity.

    But I don't see her bending over for Daschle, Kerry and the other good for naughts that stabbed her in the back. It ain't happening.


    Hillary yes but not Bill (none / 0) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    Watching the clips of Bill in SD, I don't think he's going to lift a finger to help the new coalition.  Why should he?

    Obama and his supporters' condemnation of the Bill Clinton years be damned, he's gone into that post-presidential golden era.  Remember, even Nixon was rehabbed (ok partially).  He's got nothing to prove.  I imagine he's going to sit back and laugh as the Chosen One loses in the no-lose-year.

    If Hillary doesn't get the nom and does get to run again in 2012, would any swing voters really remember and hold it against her that he didn't 'Unify' the part Obama broke?  I doubt it.  The people who hate him for being a winner already hate him.  He won't lose Hillary any votes by failing to own Obama's little clusterfrak of divisiveness.


    In 2004 (none / 0) (#35)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:00:34 AM EST
    while I don't remember specifics, things had gotten to a point between Kerry and Edwards that, while manning the College Dems table in the week leading up to the NY Primary while at Syracuse, the table who had an Edwards person and a Kerry person (me) was pretty frosty, and neither of us thought that the candidates could reconcile enough to be on the same ticket...

    I remember that (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    but I think this has gone to a whole new level.
    I dont think Hillary will be the VP.

    This ain't 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    Not to mention that Kerry and Edwards never actually melded. Edwards gave a very poor performance in the only vice presidential debate I saw. Cheney should not have had any edge in that debate. And a bonafied proven trial lawyer did not hand him his backside?

    Gwen ifill (none / 0) (#184)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    allowed Cheney to repeatedly lie druing the debate.  She had a an earphone with researchers bellowing at her to slam him with a few facts.    There's only so much you can do when Condie's best chum is the moderator.

    I really think that was Kerry's to lose (none / 0) (#185)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    blaming Edwards is like blaming Clinton for Obama losing in November.

    The VP should simply not embarrass the top dog in a any way shape or form. That's all they are there for.


    If Hillary is not asked to be the VP by (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:59:37 AM EST
    Obama as nominee, the reason will be personal.  There is no other plausible reason, though it appears Obama's supporters are casting about for a reason that doesn't sound petty.

    The Obama campaign has been based on an ad for "hope" on the one hand, and tearing down the Clinton record from the 1990s, on the other hand.

    There is no downside in asking Hillary to be VP, and everything to gain (including many of those vile Clintonite voters).

    If Obama does not reach out and choose Hillary, it will be because she is only "likable enough" -- not because of Bill.

    Not Personal - Political (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    I think the campaign to discredit Hillary through surrogates is political; the goal? To take over the entire party.  

    I suppose the underlying point in my inartful (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    comment is this:  for Obama politics is personal.  No difference.

    I hope it isn't true, but it appears so to me.  Not a good recipe for a presidency.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by chancellor on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    This has always been about taking over the party; and not just taking over the party, but making the party a small tent, not a big tent. The Obamacrats are attempting to use the shell of the Democratic party to cast off entirely the old coalition of the Democratic base. What they're offering in its place is a neo-Libertarianism that depends on western state yuppies and northeastern intellectuals. In order to do that, they must completely repudiate the Clintons and everything they stand for in the Democratic party. In this way, they hope to rid themselves of the Blue Dogs. Sadly, they don't understand that the way to win elections is to run better candidates, not to disparage different demographics.

    these are the same rocket (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    scientists who advised al gore to not have bill clinton campaign for him in 2000. oh, right, gore lost.

    what do these people do, scower the alleys of the country, seeking out and hiring the most inept advisors possible?

    you're certain of this?

    And while they may not want to lose, that is surely a losing formula.

    because, if that's truly the case, they've done damn near everything possible to ensure a loss in nov. it couldn't have been planned any better.

    no, wait, i take that back! if the DNC had actually planned it, it would have gotten screwed up. those people could f*ck up a wet dream!

    The same rocket (none / 0) (#210)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    scientists?  You mean people like Donna Brazille who headed up Gore's campaign.  She's just as stupid and arrogant now as she was back then.

    They mostly like Bill's campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    I expect. What they are worried about is can Bill stand in the deep background for the governing part. I think he can and would.

    That's a feature of their puerile little coup (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    It's self-evident from their behavior and demands.

    They want to go to outrageous lengths to sieze power but won't accept risk.

    They want absolute control but not be held responsible for the fallout.

    They want to keep living off borrowed, accumulated political capital.

    In short: they're like basement dwelling adolescents that want their upstairs parents to move out but keep working bring in votes credibility and dollars but shutting the f*ck up otherwise.

    Ain't gonna happen.


    Beautiful summary -- won't accept risk (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    Yes, they bet it all on an inexperienced amateur.  No backup plan.  And now they're doubling down.

    I just don't understand this apparent concern. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:21:21 AM EST
    If Obama is the President, he is the President.  

    He can consign Bill to Observatory Circle, and deal with Hillary to the extent he wants or needs to.


    Exactly. Is he too (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    weak to tell the VP spouse not to be involved? I thought as President you know, he'd be the one in charge.

    It isn't about being weak (none / 0) (#126)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    Bill Clinton isn't just a VP spouse, he's an former President that is still way too young and vital to be sidelined or retired.  Didn't Hillary's campaign have some issues keeping him on message?  

    I still say that while it is a valid concern, it is not enough to discard the unity ticket idea.


    It's as much of a concern as it was that Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    was running the country back when Bill was president, meaning right-wing noise is what this is. It's ridiculous and utterly disgusting that Democrats are the ones spreading these fallacies. Has Bill overtaken her Senate seat? How many stories of him having to be dragged out of her Senate offices do you hear?  That's right. ZERO.

     This was a concern when Bill was President, by right-wingers and again and again "progressives" and "Democrats" are the ones saying this now. Again, it PROVES that these people are on the wrong side of the issue.  They have taken right-wing arguments about Bill and made them "true."  It's filthy. And they should be ashamed.


    Have you been equally as (none / 0) (#163)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    critical of those rumors of a Michelle Obama tape that has yet to appear?  These rumors which have come from Democrats are much the same as rumors of proof that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.  Utter crap.

    I have been a proponent of the unity ticket for some time now.  A great many of my posts on TalkLeft have been on those "unity" threads started by BTD.  

    However, it is not "filthy" to engage in conversation about the problems in joining the Obama and HRC camps.  Too me, the positives of the unity ticket far outweigh the negatives.  


    No I have not. (none / 0) (#195)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    And it is exactly that to pass around right-wing talking points as the "negatives" of HRC being President. Filthy.

    a person who thinks they are (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    qualified to be president, the most powerful job in the world, does not want competition for the spotlight.
    he wants to live in a bubble and be surrounded by people who tell them constantly how fabulous they are.
    Bill is some serious competition for that spotlight.

    The Prez has to be a strong leader. If s/he can't (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    put the VP's spouse in his/her place, how do we expect him/her to behave with N. Korea?  China?

    Yes but (none / 0) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    Even Bill Clinton (And perhaps Bill more than most) understands there can only be 1 president at a time. Serious competition or not, I expect Bill would be a team player (corporate sounding as that phrase is)

    But ex-pres Bill might find it (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    easier-said-than-done to constantly cede the spotlight to a Pres Obama.  After all, he's only been Top Dog himself for 8 yrs, plus another 8 as head of his Clinton Foundation.  

    Not exactly the type of background that lends itself to a quiet teamplayer who follows the dictated script.


    Bill is Lake Wobegone material (none / 0) (#133)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    above average

    No, the children are above average (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by akaEloise on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    The men are good-looking, and the women are strong.  But that works for Bill and Hillary too.  

    After the inauguration, how often do you (none / 0) (#137)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    see the VP and his spouse? Never? Bill has his own life and the speculation that he has to insert himself into the presidency is kinda insulting, imo. The presidency is not the only worthwhile human endeavour. He's been there, done that.

    I am not saying its a valid reason (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:45:45 AM EST
    I am saying its Obamas reason.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#115)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    If I were running for office I'd want Bill Clinton on my side campaigning for me.  No doubt.  He is almost superhuman in how he can make campaign stop after stop.

    But you don't have to "hate" the Clintons (and I don't in any way) to question if he could really be the mate of the VP and let the Prez and VP run the show.   He may think he could be in the deep background as you say, but I'm not as sure.

    Perhaps that problem could be solved if Obama gave him a job - something like his Tsunami fund raising work, for example.  Then Bill's skills could be used in a way that benefits the aministration and the country.


    No leadership (none / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    But you don't have to "hate" the Clintons (and I don't in any way) to question if he could really be the mate of the VP and let the Prez and VP run the show.

    If Obama as President couldn't run his own show then he isn't qualified to be President. The fact that Obama supporters bring this up only shows me that even they don't think that Obama has what it takes.

     IF its an Obama/Clinton Presidency then I am absolutely sure that Bill Clinton WON'T be running the show. Maybe Obama can't keep Bill Clinton in line, but VP Hillary Clinton certainly will.

     Bill's never usurped Hillary's power as a US Senator, and the only times he's been "off message" during the campaign is when he's acted as a husband defending his wife from some pretty vile and malicious trashing. She's politely knocked him down when he's understandably gone out of line, and he's taken the corrections to heart.

      I don't think that Obama is afraid of Bill in the Administration. I think he's afraid of Hillary. He just can't admit that he's afraid that  this woman VP will outshine him as President.


    I hate the way they are treating Bill (5.00 / 12) (#37)
    by Serene1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    For all of Bill C's personal failings, he is still recognized as one of the better presidents both domestically and internationally. He was responsible for actually making America's power more acceptable internationally. He has a lot to his credit the least being that America was a true super power under his presidency.
    And this is how Dem elites treat one of their most successful Presidents. Shame on them!

    No one realized Bill was a terrible (5.00 / 13) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    President until the 1 term Senator from Chicago showed them the light.

    Thank you rooge, you took the words right (none / 0) (#164)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    outa my brain. This whole primary has been IMO intent on not defeating HRC but in ending the Clintons as any meaningful part of the Democratic Party. Once you would have suspected the Republicans of doing that, now it's the Democratic Party leadership, the DNC and as you said, a one term Senator who has spent most of the time he's been a United States senator running for another job.

    Obama will run as a celebrity, not a Democrat (5.00 / 17) (#38)
    by esmense on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    "Is this the thinking in the Obama inner circle? Is purging the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party the official policy of the Barack Obama campaign?"

    Of course it is. This has been apparent for a long time now. It -- this myopiic focus on defeating "the Clintons" -- even if it means under-cutting the Democratic party's best arguments for a return to power -- has led the Obama campaign to do terribly divisive things that will pay very bad consequences in the general election. And, given his lack of experience, it has left Obama without much to run on other than personal charm and his memoirs.

    I should have said... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by esmense on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    "his personal charm and his fabulous memoirs."

    he will have plenty of help (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:12:43 AM EST
    someone said last week he would not be able to ditch the church.  well,  he did.  and the media is doing all the can to help him get away with it.
    IMO it wont be enough.  but he will have lots of help.

    Let me shrink it by one (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    You are suspended.

    I will ask for you to be banned.

    Since 'Unity Saturday' (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    backfired in Dean's and Obama's faces, I see no alternative to the unity ticket.  Any other selection by Obama will be obviously inferior politically, and also in terms of good government. It would clearly be done for personal reasons, party and country be damned. Clinton and her supporters would have every reasin to feel dissed. And even if a small percentage of them take it out at the election booth, McCain wins.

    I'm sorry if Obama's myth in the making did not include campaigning and governing with Hillary and Bill.  He will just have to suck it up and make it work fo the sake of the country.

    Wasn't there something from a British paper... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:12:50 AM EST
    ...last week quoting Obama as saying that he expected Bill Clinton to campaign for him? No time to find the citation. Sorry.

    Bill Burton on Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    You mean this piece....  Here's the TL discussion Bill Clinton

    Here's the original article...


    I believe (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    that Obama will not even ask the Clintons to campaign for him - will in fact discourage them from campaigning for him.  He's swallowed his own Kool-Aid and thinks he doesn't need them.

    I think that is the policy (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:13:49 AM EST
    of Barack and many of his high profile supporters.  They want control of the party back from Bill Clinton.  But someone said something I think makes a lot of sense: If you think Bill and Hillary are powerful now, they will be even more powerful after Democratic Presidential nominee Obama snubs them and then loses big in November.  People, like Bill Richardson, that stabbed the Clintons in the back will have to face the music.

    I am looking forward (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    to watching you try.

    While talking heads (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    Are saying it is Hillary's job to bring her supporters into the Obama camp.  Assuming she has any control over their votes, it seems to me it's Mr. Unity's job to reach out his hand, but he is only paying lip service in words, while his surrogates are slamming the Clintons.  Hillary supporters are not blind.

    all you have to do is read (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:28:47 AM EST
    the comments.
    they have drunk the koolaid.  they are doing the most dangerous thing in politics.  believing their own spin.
    its bubbleworld.
    bubbles burst.

    Of course they don't want unity (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by befuddled on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    with the Clintons. That's why there will be no unity ticket, because it's not only all about Obama, it's so anti-clinton and has been all along. Looks to me like the Republicans started the anti-Clinton memes years ago in anticipation. Smart move of them, preparing the way. And when the O movement picked that up and ran with it, it should have been a red flag for everyone. He might not be a Republican plant but I'm sure he would pander to them as to anyone.

    God, he's arrogant. (5.00 / 10) (#80)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    Really scares me.  

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:57:54 AM EST
    isn't that the scariest part of his "annointment?"

    There's a post by (5.00 / 9) (#84)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    Kathleen Reardon over at Huffington that suggests that both sides of this primary battle need to be willing to make compromises to keep McCain out of the White House.  It's nicely done. My feelings about this are well-known, but I respect what she is saying. Stuck my big toe in the comment cesspool and there's not much willingness to compromise even a smidgen.  Seems that Hillary is an assassin, and Obama does not need Hillary's supporters to win. However, we're all stupid if we don't vote for him.
    The whole premise of Obama's campaign was to purge the Clintons from the party.  In the process he has rewritten history to suit that purpose, poisoned a new generation of voters who were playing with Matchbox cars in the 90's, and alienated several demographics of voters. There will be no unity for this election because there is no point of agreement we can even start with if even keeping McCain out of the White House won't do it. I have said before that I am a "professional negotiator". To have a successful negotiation, one side must have something that the other side wants. The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is not wanted by the Obama wing. Our votes would make it easier for them to win, but they would rather try to win it without us than concede their spit.

    Matchbox cars? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    They were playing with Sega's at that time.

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    If it's really this important for Obama to control every ounce of the jobs and patronage in the party, so be it.  For a lot of people who love Bill Clinton and have their doubts about Obama, it seems to me that he'd be making their decision a lot easier.

    Well, yes, and then there's those of us who (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    love Hillary.  Her support is deep and wide.  Some of us have been waiting 16 years for Hill's run for President.  

    Some of us have been waiting (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    even longer than that. I have been waiting for a woman candidate for President since 1960. The closest we got was Ferraro. Hillary is our best shot yet. And if we all stick together and insist on having her as the nominee, we can get her nominated. If not, then we can write her in. Send the message that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore. Let the Democratic party face reality for a change. They haven't done so in many years. And they aren't doing it now.

    It's not unreasonable for (none / 0) (#116)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    a nominee to want to be fully in charge of the campaign and governing operations.  Especially true with a younger and less experienced guy who would probably feel constantly second-guessed and overshadowed by the more experienced couple.  

    This HRC backer wants the Dems to win even if she can't be the nominee.  The Faux Unity Ticket has some surface appeal, and seems to offer an easy solution.  

    But it's the wrong solution, one which would create more problems than it would solve.  Bill (no fault of his own) is only one of them.

    The MSM will never give a Clinton anything but grief on the campaign trail, and all the negative and gossipy press he would bring would be largely absent with a different, new-face selection.  

    BHO isn't insane for probably wanting to go in a fresh direction.  And he could plausibly continue to assert his successful Change theme.


    I think that's exactly why he would want her (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    as VP-cannon fodder for the MSM. She takes the heat-he stays shiny clean. Bill is the killer though-he would be defending her rather than praising him. So it doesn't work because of her unique situtation of being married to a former Prez, who would ordinarily be a great asset.

    Well, she'd be taking the heat (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM EST
    but not for the usual reasons -- it would be personal as to both Clintons.

    Whereas the traditional role the VP plays is to aggressively take the fight to the oppo and do it in the sort of bareknuckle ways the P nominee can't.  

    HRC would probably be hamstrung in this role and would be accused of "ruthlessly" trying to regain power in order to be only a heartbeat away (hint, hint) from her ultimate goal.  &c ...


    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    and after losing, I guess we can all say "hey, it's reasonable for the nominee to want to be in charge."  If a decision is reasonable in a vacuum but suicidal in the real world, personally I'd go with what works in the real world.

    If the Obama campaign doesn't recognize that there are a lot of traditional Dems who have their doubts about the new guy but could be won over by seeing Bill and/or Hillary involved, the result is likely to be sad for all of us.


    So all of Bush's wrongdoings (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:23:34 AM EST
    are....Clinton's fault?

    Great new talking point! (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    That would just hand the election to the GOP.

    The Dems blame Clinton for everything GWB ever did.  The GOP blames the Clintons for everything GWB ever did.  The Clintons are soundly defeated.  The GOP wipes their slate clean, asks what the Dems have done for America lately and wins the GE.

    Brilliant.  It used to be we needed the media to smear the Dems.  Now they'll do it to themselves.  Way to win!



    They would rather lose (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Decal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:28:18 AM EST
    Than have to appeal to the Clintons' "racist" supporters so not offering the VP slot to Hillary is of a piece with that.  This comment I saw last week from Hesiod on MyDD sums it all up:

    "Even if, pragmatically, we have to acknowledge that racist, ignorant over 60 people in the Ozarks (i.e. HillaryBillies) won't vote for Obama -- it is still not a legitimate reason to oppose his nomination.

    I'd rather lose the damn election than pander to them.

    But, I am not worried. I am confident Obama will win without their votes. And will, therefiore, marginalize them appropriately."

    yeah (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    we will just see who gets "marginalized" wont we.

    Wow. (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    I didn't realize that racist were such Democrats!! LOL. There used to be a saying back before Hillary garnered the white working class racists that those people were Republican. This whole time they loved Hillary. Does.Not.Compute. Their arguments are not only mean and divisive, they're utterly illogical.

    Gotta be (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    racist, ignorant AND over 60? Somehow I am not surprised that anyone stupid enough to post those words would not be smart enough to see how ironic they are in calling anyone ignorant.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by tree on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    Watch these ignorant fools trash Social Security 'cuz "who cares about those ignorant seniors". They won't even realize they've f###ed themselves until its too late.

    Guess Hesiod would be surprised (none / 0) (#120)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    to learn that Obama is shedding support in lots of other demographics. Wonder which groups are enough to not cross the threshold for opposing his nomination.

    Marginalize?? (none / 0) (#144)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    Ya know what blacks haven't exactly been non-racist in their choice of candidate. This works both ways..Obama has marginalized the electorate, something Hillary would not have done. She may not have garnered as much of the black vote, but she also wouldn't have called them antipathetic, bitter or clinging to their societal, ethnic preferences. Get real. Your vision of how things are is REALLY narrow...

    Talk about bigotry (none / 0) (#173)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    That comment you quoted was it.

    RE: Bigotry is a two way street (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    Those were Barack's own words and I agree it was racist. It's okay for Blacks to vote soley for him, but whites must cross over and abandon Hillary? This is illogical. And that makes her supporters, alone, racist? Wrong thinking.

    I've seen the notion expressed ... (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    on many of the Obama blogs that they'd rather lose without the Clintons, than win with them.

    And I think they mean it.

    I'm still not entirely sure where all this Clinton hatred comes from?

    The influence of growing up in the age of Right Wing media attacks?  Former Republicans who still cling to it?

    Not really sure.

    I get why the media hates the Clintons.  Because they have power despite constant media attacks.  But just your average progressive?  I don't get it.

    sure, I have seen it everywhere (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:35:22 AM EST
    and I am ready to take them at their word and let them lose without this particular HillaryBilly.

    They believe the media. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM EST
    They believe the Clinton bashing that's been going on for decades and they've created the mythological Obama narrative as a counterpoint.

    The GOP created the Reagan myth - but they did it by demonizing the Libruls, not their own party!


    A DNC Rool that Obama MUST be protected from risk (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    I missed seeing that absolute in the unbreakable, unbendable DNC Roolz underscoring ludicrous decisions like vote-stealing and vote-shredding.

    It's been trolled hard here and presented elsewhere as CW that because Obama voluntarily removed his name from the MI ballot for advantage elsewhere, or chose how or when to campaign in FL meant that every other Dem must work to offset the damage to Obama.

    I don't care what Sen Clinton said, why is the DNC continuing to behave like TeamObama must be protected not only from Sen Clinton but from itself, even at the cost of Sen Clinton's fairly earned advantages (after being derided and punished for actually taking her own risks?)

    I didn't seen the DNC leap in to cover Sen Clinton's risks and outcomes by stealing accumulated voter or delegate support. After all, Obama said he wouldn't even be running.

    I sure as he!l didn't see them step in stop one campaign from shamefully fomenting racist and sexist attacks, and past Clinton-hatred from known media participants in the abusive witch-hunts for current political gain.

    This anti Bill Clinton pile-on is a disgrace. I simply can't see any future scenario where the Dems as a party see support from me again.

    Actual people in Dem leadership roles have participated in the following Budo to slam Sen Clinton and/or prop forward the Obama campaign:

    (1) talk about Sen. Clinton.
    (2) quickly shift to a gratuitous slam on fmr Pres. WJC
    (3) slam Sen Clinton for Clinton admin policies in which she had no official government position; (a) call "The Clintons", including Chelsea, liars, because that's a given, and use it foundation or "proof" of a step in an upward staircase of argument towards a foregone conclusion.

    The Clintons are owed a litany of apologies and fence mending here before they campaign for the Dems or for the wing of the party that is burning the past to go all in with a faction that hasn't proved it can win squat.

    Just What We Need (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    A reeducation program. Boy the NEW Democratic Party really sounds like something I want to support. Not.

    I don't think Obama needs to worry about a "Clinton psychodrama." He is going to have his very own psychodrama.

    Glad to see you are willing to do this on your own. I definitely want Obama and you to be responsible for the outcome.

    This election is making Alice in Wonderland (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    seem like non-fiction...

    A couple of things:

    1.  If Obama were really the candidate he's cracked up to be, there wouldn't have to be all this talk about picking a VP just so he could win; the VP choice typically does not have that much impact on the outcome, so the fact that there is now so much emphasis on it tells me that Obama is probably toast in the general.  If I can figure that out, why can't the superdelegates?

    2.  It seems to me that aside from all the lost opportunities for Obama to comport himself as if he actually cared about the future of the Democratic Party, his continued refusal to say anything close to being nice about anything Clinton-related tells me that he is not going to even ask her to be on the ticket (assuming he is the nominee) and he believes he can afford to alienate millions of Clinton supporters to no ill effect.  Seems crazy to me, but then, I don't live in a bubble where I am the Queen of my Universe and all bow down before me.

    3.  Obama has done more for unity than anyone - there are now millions united against him and all that he seems to stand for, and are choosing to leave a Democratic Party that has abandoned them for the seductive lure of money, and on the Obama side, there are millions united against all things Clinton, and millions suffering from the delusion that the Democratic Party can afford to shed huge segments of its base.

    4.  Unity is becoming to the Democratic Party as compassion is to the Republican Party.

    To use a horrible analogy (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    Obama's campaign reminds me of a reality TV show contestant.  (When I used to watch those shows) The most predicting factor of being kicked off of such a show was the level of arrogant invincibility in the contestant.  If contestant felt they were invincible, they usually were booted in a week.

    The Obama campaign has developed an air of arrogant invincibility.  What do they say, "pride goeth before a fall?"

    Regardless of debate about whether Clinton was a good president, many, MANY Democrats associate the Clintons with BETTER times in their lives.  They aren't about to purge the Clintons from their fond memories.

    The Obamas should learn this, because they won't find the alternative to learning this acceptable.

    Goldwater Precedent (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM EST
    I think you have to go all the way back to 1964 to find precedent for the supporter of a major Party nominee using the campaign to read various "undesirables" out of the Party. Goldwater's supporters read Nelson Rockefeller out of the GOP, although I assume his selection of Stephanie Miller's otherwise utterly anonymous dad as his Vice Presidential nominee was a pathetic attempt to reach out to Republicans east of the Appalachians and north of the Potomac.

    Our own Party's convention in 1964 saw some serious pushback against Dixiecrat control of Party machinery in the South that ultimately led to the realignment of the Solid South to the GOP.

    I guess some of Obama's supporters think they're on an ideological crusade against Bill and Hillary Clinton, but I think the candidate and his inner circle are just interested in a straight power play. The demonization of Bill and vilification of Hillary have been done less with a view to winning the nomination (indeed, they have been counterproductive in that regard), but rather in trying to isolate and ultimately sever the Clintons from their base. That's how Party Purges work the world over, folks.

    This is not just Obama, of course, but rather a strong cohort of the Party Leadership. I guess they just don't forgive Bill for (a) winning in 1992, even though he wasn't the Establishment candidate, (b) losing majority control of Congress (easier to blame him than look in the mirror), and (c) not resigning and handing over to Al Gore when he fell into the GOP honey trap (never mind that the voting public opposed his resignation and punished the impeachers).

    With this sort of "leadership", we're in trouble as a Party.

    Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    brought us 2 terms of Democratic presidency.  You think Tsongas would have won?  Jerry Brown?

    Clinton also brought us Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.  If he hadn't won, God only knows who we'd have had instead.

    But purge the Clintons and you purge me.  So you can have McCain's supreme court picks.

    Pol Pot, reincarnated? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST

    Dean, Brazile, and Obama colluded (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    in electoral fraud when they granted waivers to some States but not to FL and MI, where Hillary won big, and when Obama took his name off the MI ballot.
    Let that be the placard at the convention.

    Clinton was an anomaly (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    in a losing record party.  He was a winner.

    This Obama guy reveils the truth about the sad thing that is the DEMOCRATIC  party.

    Designed to fail.

    Not complicated at all (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    if you understand that Obama was drafted for the sole purpose of sidelining the Clintons once and for all.  He doesn't actually have to win to accomplish that goal in the minds of those who want control of the party and the congress.  The White House would be a bonus.

    It's not going to work, of course, but...good try.

    PUMA (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Regency on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    Party Unity My Auntie!

    I have no goal in November other than to see HRC in office. I will not be held accountable for elevating a cult of personality to the White House.

    I'm hands-off about this whole thing. I did my part. Worked my heart out and continue to do so. I've watched votes that count be thrown out (hello, caucus) and votes that don't count be included (what, write-in in MI, the hell?). I've watched the democratic right of 600,000 people be subverted for the will of 30.

    This is not my fault and I am not a democrat anymore. I'm a progressive, who believes taking votes away (and reallocating them to someone for whom they were not intended) is tantamount to treason. I won't be a party to that.

    I know who the enemy is all right and I will not forget.

    PUMA too! (none / 0) (#194)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Obama has spent over a year (4.80 / 21) (#2)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:46:36 AM EST
    slandering the legacy of President Clinton.  Not sure why this surprises you.  

    It doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Arjun on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    Not to mention the media as well, saying that President Clinton should "keep his mouth shut". Or to even consider accusing him of racism, after all he did as President towards race relations and appointing more Blacks in his administration than any other president.

    I may just be being nitpicky here, but have you ever noticed how Obama will refer to basically every ex-President as President Reagan, etc, but with Bill, he is always careful to say Former President Clinton, even though the official title is still President Clinton?


    Yes... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by ginamc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    ...I most definitely have noticed that despicable trend from the BO camp.  Jamal Simmons refers to Bill Clinton as "Former" all the time.  The disgraceful way in which they have abused Pres. Clinton is unforgivable as far as I'm concerned.  I have even heard BO surrogates and their buddies at MSNBC and Carl Bernstein referring to Bill Clinton as "that guy!"  Howard Fineman says he needs to go to Africa, go do his Foundation work, go back to Arkansas, whatever, wherever... just get the hell out now and go, go, get out.

    This is ALL going to come back to haunt them.  Now, they expect to win with Hillary's help -- what a joke.


    Evidence? (none / 0) (#169)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    Citations, please.

    Keep your head in the sand (3.66 / 3) (#192)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM EST
    Many of us could care less.  But don't pretend to not understand why Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

    Here, it took two minutes to find these....

    remember the photo

    Bill's a liar?

    How about Obama's snarky little they like me better than him...

    Do you think the media favors Obama.  Here they say Obama attacks Clinton but conveniently ignores the quotes.  Try and deny the same would have been done for either Clinton.

    You live in a very small world if you haven't yet figured out the leg-humping bias of the media for Obama.  Clinton supporters are crreped out by it.  It is the Iraq war and Bush all over again.


    The claim was that Obama (none / 0) (#199)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    was slandering the legacy of Bill Clinton. None of the citations you offer suggest that in the slightest.

    Do you argue that the photograph of Clinton with Jeremiah Wright slanders Clinton's legacy? How does it slander is legacy?

    Bill Clinton is, in fact, an adjudicated perjurer. Obama saying that Clinton was not "factually accurate" can hardly be considered damaing to Clinton's reputation.


    Typical Obama supporter (none / 0) (#201)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    You asked for citations, but they weren't good enough for you because nothing anyone says about the Clinton's matters because it's all TRUE.  Ha!

    Like I said, keep your head in the sand, deny, deny, deny that Obama has any faults and then wonder why Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.


    How does the photo (none / 0) (#206)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    slander Bill's legacy. Answer the question please, instead of resorting to ad hominem.

    You can't figure that out (none / 0) (#207)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:15 PM EST
    Oh good grief... Obama's whole platform has been me too or they did it first.

    Typical Obama supporter yet again.  Prove it, prove it, prove it...

    The photo was an attempt to smear Clinton for a period of time when the Repubs when after him for boinking around with the friggin' blue dress.  Duh!  If you like the Repub talking point, good for you.  He!! even Repubs were embarrassed about what they did over an affair.  What a joke.


    The photo was not an attempt to smear (none / 0) (#208)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    Bill about Monica. Releasing it was an attempt to demonstrate that Jeremiah Wright wasn't some fringe lunatic that Hillary could bludgeon Barack with. It was perfectly acceptable political ju jitsu.

    Head in sand (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Clinton supporters paid attention to the fact that the Obama camp released the photo specifically brought up the blue dress.  Monica was all over the news for two days.

    Heck, the Obama camp had been trying to get the media to obsess over his sex life from the get go.  The Obama meme was to attack both on character from the get go because they were never going to beat them on experience or policy.

    Marc Ambinder - Summer 2007 - His campaign staffers, too, have become frustrated by the focus of the media's attention, specifically that the press has not covered Clinton in the way they expected it would. During an interview this summer, Obama's friend Valerie Jarrett said to me, unbidden, "He is a man who is devoted to his wife. There aren't going to be any skeletons in his closet in terms of his personal life at all. Period." And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama's aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's postpresidential sex life.

    "Every Democratic candidate in Wyoming will be painted with that same liberal, big-government brush. We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton," John Millin wrote in a letter to The Denver Post   --  Millin Obama superdelegate

    Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary's financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday.... One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 -- something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial.
    Keep in mind this is from JUNE, 2007.  This is how long ago the Obama campaign was smearing Bill Clinton with false accusations:
    "Clinton's press office now says that although it was Sept. 11 in Hong Kong, he gave the speech from his home in Chappaqua on Sept. 10 at 8:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time."

    You don't want to accept there is a differing view of Obama based on fact.  This may cause you to lose in Nov.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    I found this video of Michelle Obama smearing Hillary back in 2007.

    I agree that the smear campaign was deliberately planned to offset Obama's lack of experience. But the strange thing is that the entire Party bandwagon steered his way. It must have been anti-Clinton in many ways. I can't really understand it.

    To show how it was done with smoke and mirrors, remember this video from the early Barack campaign


    It's called "meet Michelle"

    then shift to this article by a British newspaper

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-517824/Mrs-O-The-truth-Michelle-Obamas-working-class-crede ntials.html


    Remember, I don't need a president. (none / 0) (#213)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    I'm a latte sipping liberal. Who said that, by the way?

    When Bill decided to get into the campaign and start stretching the truth in his own rhetoric, he invted the response. That's politics.

    "Saddle up and let's have a debate."

    Do you think Bill is begrudging any of this? I don't. He knows it comes with the territory.

    You still haven't posted a single citation of anything from Obama that actually slanders Bill. Slander, as you may know, requires that something be demonstrably false. You haven't pointed to a single thing that's demonstrably false.

    Bill has a serious problem with keeping his dick in his pants, and everybody knows that. The biggest reason that Obama will not name Hillary as his VP is because Bill is such a wild card.


    You keep making my point (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    This is fun.....  
    I didn't ever say you didn't need a president, nor did I mention coffee, but nice deflection...

    Someone writes that Obama slanders the Clinton and you want to play naive and get into semantics of slander when you know it is a matter of smearing (but have fun with that) the Clintons and go into a little game of 'Proveitproveit.'  Someone provides examples, you deny it.  Someone proves to you how it is true and your response is....

    Clinton stretches the truth in other words is a LIAR... Bill can't keep it in his pants so he DESERVES to be smeared.

    Nice word play... it allows you to keep up the pretense that no one could absolutely have a reason to vote against your chosen ONE.  No one else's view is allowed....


    And every was waiting with bated breath (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:04:28 AM EST
    for your commentary!

    Vanity Fair Smears Clinton (none / 0) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    Vanity Fair has a long hit piece on B Clinton.  Apparently it is DeeDee Myers husband?  

    The media will make sure Clinton is never considered for VP.  The Obama's have made sure behind the scenes they do NOT want Clinton and the leg humping media is glad to help.  Sorry, visions of the marketing of the Iraq war and Bush all over again.

    I agree that it is a poor argument, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    because the nature of Bill Clinton's involvement is a negotiable point.

    But my sense is that the Obama campaign values message control and even the HRC campaign had difficulties at times keeping Bill on message, to her detriment.

    Obama control message??? (none / 0) (#112)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:36:17 AM EST
    What candidate doesn't value control? But, many would agree that his campaign has not done a great job controlling their message. He is being vetted in a way that none of the other candidates have needed to be. At least half of the DEM electorate aren't thrilled with what they see,  after the Michelle video comes out, others will hop off the band wagon..it's just disengenuous to pretend to be something your not, to have a history of anti-American, anti-white sentiments and run on a unity message.

    Agree no alternative but unity ticket (none / 0) (#74)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:17:11 AM EST
    He will lose unless the race is fixed.
    She's staying in the race because she knows these things will come out, i.e. the Michelle news. I can't see Obama winning without Hillary. Let's face it they both have baggage. But, in my view his tops the list. For the Vanity Fair thing and now this to come out now smacks of Republican swift-boating...

    Bill could be touted as SoS or Commerce Sec (none / 0) (#78)
    by Exeter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:19:35 AM EST
    He is a known brand and having the Clinton name on the ticket would bring Obama instant credability.

    Turns out the netroots hate Bill Clinton too.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    All those netroots bloggers and commenters (not just the DK ones) have been busy typing up and glad they are to finally get rid of evil Bill.

    Turns out, nobody voted for him or liked him.

    The king is dead, long live the king.

    Gee, maybe they never (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    liked or voted for Bill because...

    they were all Republicans during his Presidency?

    Every bleeding one of them?

    Kos, Aravosis, Huffington...

    Is anyone a tad concerned about this?


    This is why I say I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    and not a 'progressive.' I think Progressive now means Clinton-hater. Not the meaning of the term I accept.

    Republicans hated The Big Dawg because he was succesful. VERY succesful. He and his wife were popular, too.

    When those republicans became democrats, they still hated The Big Dawg, because... well, he was Clinton! And his wife, too!

    I think that the Clinton hatred will wind up destroying this party on a national level. And I do mean destroy, not damage.

    You can't unring a bell. I've been working for democratic causes and working with my state committee and candidates for 30 years.

    IF the clinton hate continues, I might be persuaded to get in on the ground floor of a new democratic party-- one that has ACTUAL democratic principles.

    I don't know what I'll do in November if Obama is the candidate, to be honest. I have ALWAYS voted democratic in the past, but unchecked Obama, if he is the nominee (I consider this likely, the coup took place, he's the figurehead, but we're just now noticing it)... I am seriously conflicted about Obama, his rabid supporters ( not all of his supporters, but some significant part of them), the direction of the party, and yes, the direction of the country.

    What about core Democratic values?

    What about past representatives of these values and success?

    This isn't a single-issue moment for me. I don't care if Clinton voted for this ill-envisioned war, and Obama spoke out against it. I am concerned that the party itself is at stake. I do not agree with the Obama camp that it's time to 'downsize' the party, whether 'just' by the Clintons or by huge blocs of traditional Dems. This is the party of the PEOPLE. Look at JAckson and JEfferson!

    Progressive? feh. Another way to describe authoritarians, it seems.  


    Yes, authoritarians is what it seems to me (none / 0) (#221)
    by splashy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    They are. They have many of the hallmarks of authoritarians, with the follow the leader, the leader can do no wrong, anyone that is not getting with the program is evil, etc.

    Can't believe we are seeing it in the Dem party.


    I like Fox (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    I never watch CNN/MSNBC anymore.  I watch Fox and I will watch them until the convention has picked the nominee....

    Andrea? on Obama:
    Suicide to run without her.
    By staying in, she proved he needs her to win.
    The party is too divided.

    OK, that's what I'm going with this morning.

    Dems Left Me - Republicans Don't Want Me... (none / 0) (#222)
    by dlkincaid on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    Senator Clinton is better than Kennedy or Obama (in my opinion) and after what Kennedy said about Hillary about her not being competent is going to be his legacy for me. I have NO respect for him and it is simply because - he doesn't deserve it. He stabbed Hillary in her back (in my opinion) for a relatively unknown and a CHICAGO Daley stooge. I doubt it, but if this person becomes pResident, then once more we will have someone in the white house, who is unlearned and doesn't know anything or CARE about anything but himself.

    I am a Black female who has fought in the civil rights movement and have been an activist for over 30 years and this young African American has literally destroyed everything I believe in. My years as a community activist has just become a joke. The Obamas of the world make me sick - Republicans dressed up as Democrats and try and make others believe they care about African Americans. Maybe he does care about African Ameericans, but I really don't believe so. I fought very hard to move up from being called 'COLORED' to be called and thought of as Black - Mr. Obama, Jesse Jackson nor any of the other sell outs in my culture gets the right to call me what they want - I choose to be a Black female born in the middle forties, fought for my people and still believe in something - it just doesn't happen to have anything to do with Mr. Obama.

    Let me explain why I don't like nor believe in this man:

    1.  He began this campaign by 'transcending RACE' which leaves me out of the equation.

    2.  He couldn't be bothered with attending the 'STATE OF THE BLACK UNION' any of the two years he was asked.

    3.  He first threw his wife under the bus - it was evident he stopped campaigning with her.      Loyaty is not a strong suit with this man.

    4.  Obama has allowed his followers to call us (women) everything and has yet to denounce        the sexism.

    And then finally when he didn't have time to attend the MLKing commemoration in Nashville, TN -King was told not to go by his handlers also, but he went (and paid the ultimate price).

    THE Democratic Party has done just exactly what the Republicans did in 2000 - I felt it then and NOW the stench is overwhelming. NO - I will not vote for McCain and WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA - MY UNITY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL BE TO ASK FOR A WRITE IN BALLOT AND CAST MY VOTE FOR SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. So there Mr. Dean and all the other Misters in the party. As a Black female - THE GOP can't do anything more to me than the DNC with the help of African Americans (young) who don't really give a damn about anyone except themselves.