home

Hillary and Obama to Jointly Campaign in Unity, N.H.

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:01:11 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The site of the first joint cammpaign appearance where Hillary Clinton will be campaigning for Barack Obama has been announced: It's Unity, NH.

The joint appearances even have a name now: Unite for Change.

< Obama and McCain: Contrasting Positions on Equal Pay | Today in McCain Land >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary and Obama to Jointly Campaign in Unity, N.H. | 194 comments (194 topical)
    I like it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    Did you see that they actually TIED in that town? Perfect.

    Saw the vote tie thing. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    This is a site made in campaign marketing heaven.  I think it will be effective.

    [ Parent ]
    NH! Perfect! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST
    That is where he got his ass handed to him.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    ...does every little thing have to have a name?

    [ Parent ]
    I bet he doesn't bring that up! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:31:08 PM EST
    At least half of the people there dissed him.

    [ Parent ]
    Tied means something completely different (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    in the dog breeding world ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Do tell! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe we'll get unity puppies now (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:56:40 PM EST
    since the unity pony didn't go over so well.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you mean "nose cutting?" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST


    Whatever you do andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:46:15 PM EST
    don't get too wordy ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Before he uses Hillary too much, I'd (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    like to hear who he is choosing for VP. His running mate is the one who should be trying to gather votes for his ticket.

    Possum, it's the Unity Possum.

    I believe he's (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    going to wait until the last possible moment to announce his VP pick, with one of the specific goals of stringing the HRC supporters along with him, hoping his doublespeak and vanilla statements go largely unnoticed by us.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they are still (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:21:29 PM EST
    running it past the focus groups.

    Cynical, I know.  Way back in January, I thought this would be exciting and meaningful.  That was then, this is now.

    [ Parent ]

    Not likely before August (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    Obama will probably announce a VP no sooner than early August...That would be 3 weeks or so before the convention.  That would be about average in terms of timing....

    [ Parent ]
    They Would Need Time (4.50 / 2) (#56)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    To print all the ticket paraphernalia; signboards, stickers, pins, T-shirts etc., I'd guess.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he just doesn't know (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:50:56 PM EST
    what to do and which issue he'll most need coverage on.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup - he thinks we're stupid... (4.20 / 5) (#108)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    but then, again, we're just women (who know a hell of lot more than he ever will!).

    No means NO!

    [ Parent ]

    I have to LOL (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    at the Unity Possum.  Too funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    All loyal Democrats should be helping gather votes.  Hillary is loyal.

    [ Parent ]
    You seem to have (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:34:52 PM EST
    overlooked that a lot of us are not loyal dems, but either independents or HRC partisans. Just because there's a (D) after the name, it doesn't guarantee our votes.  

    [ Parent ]
    If you don't support change... (1.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    ...then you support the status quo.  That's not even loyal to America.

    [ Parent ]
    Good grief (5.00 / 10) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    If it isn't spelled B-U-S-H, it's change.

    I'm not signing a blank check. I want to know what my vote is buying, and Obama isn't telling.


    [ Parent ]

    McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time (none / 0) (#156)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    That's enough to call him McSame in my book.

    McCain is pro-war, pro-oil-drilling, pro-Bush tax cuts, anti-abortion, etc etc.  All overlapping with Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain has a horrible voting (3.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    attendance, so 95% may not be saying much. And it was Obama, not McCain who voted for the Cheney Energy Bill.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:09:48 PM EST
    It was bad enough having to hear the "loyal to America" propaganda from the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    BushII Definitely Represented Change (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    and everyone who strongly disagreed with his actions and his policies were labeled un-American. Somehow your statement indicates how some extremely disturbing things will remain the same and not how things will change for the better.

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh. (4.42 / 7) (#143)
    by suki on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    I've heard enough of that kind of talk for the last 8 years from Republicans, thank you very much.

    [ Parent ]
    Veracitor, really, your comments are (4.42 / 7) (#181)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    just nasty for no reason.  How do you know someone doesn't support change -- just maybe not the change you claim to support?  You sound very young, as if you don't know that every candidate claims to be about change, hope, yadda yadda.

    Why not try discussing the change you foresee from your candidate in a positive manner?  People have the perfect right in this country to not support parties -- and it may be because they're loyal to principles.  So what change do you foresee from your candidate that will support Dem party principles?  See how persuasive commentary can work?  Try it.  

    [ Parent ]

    I guess you don't deal in absolutes, more like (4.00 / 4) (#139)
    by cigan on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    Mcarthyisms.

    [ Parent ]
    Party Loyalty (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    WA State seems to have difficulty with party loyalty. Years ago a group ran under the OWL Party label (Out With Lunacy). This season:

    Last-Minute Washington State Filings
    June 6th, 2008
    On Friday afternoon, June 6, a few more minor party candidates filed for Washington state office (see the post below about those who had filed earlier in the week). Will Baker of the Reform Party, and Duff Badgley of the Green Party, both filed for Governor. For state legislature, Ruth Bennett of the Libertarian Party filed.

    A few candidates filed for state legislature with whimsical party preferences, including "Prefers Salmon Yoga Party" and also "Prefers Cut Taxes GOP Party" and "Prefers True Democrat Party." Surprisingly, no candidates from any socialist party filed.

    One Response to "Last-Minute Washington State Filings"
    Jim R Says:
    June 7th, 2008 at 6:53 am
    SalmonYoga is one word.

    For legislative races there are 10 who prefer the Democrat Party, 1 the D Party, 1 Progressive Dem. Party, and 1 True Democratic Party. There is also a gubernatorial candidate who prefers the Democratic party Party.

    18 prefer the G.O.P. Party, 2 the G O P Party, 2 Cut Texas G.O.P. Party, 2 R Party, 1 No Gas Taxes (R) Party, and 1 Grand Old Party.

    2 prefer the Independent Party, while 4 filed as States No Party Preference.

    In addition to the candidate that prefers the SalmonYoga Party, 2 prefer the Green Party, 1 the Progressive Party, and 1 the Libertarian Party.

    Doesn't feel like Unity is going to catch on this year.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm torn between (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    the 'Prefers True Democrat Party' and the 'Prefers Salmon Yoga Party', which I first read as 'Salmon Yogurt' party.  What?!  They have a lot of salmon in Washington, I hear.

    The first is true for me, and the second just nails the ridiculousness of the whole primary shenanigans.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh Man, That's Funny! n/t (none / 0) (#122)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'll just say (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    in my smarmiest netvoice:

    "Awwwww, don't they make the cutest couple?".

    I expect a nice dog and pony show for the media, but outside of that nothing will change for me.  Obama will still be presumptive nominee Obama.  Hillary will still be Senator Clinton.

    She won't be the VP pick, unless a miracle occurs.  We're back to the usual puffery and fluffery that is meant to look nice and feel good and mean as little as possible.

    The press will be foaming at the mouth... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    talking about how BO has "reached out to Hillary" and "her supporters" and obviously the great divide has been healed.

    NOT!  

    [ Parent ]

    Too Cutesy (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    With the Obama campaign, I already feel like I'm being over-marketed to.  Maybe it's my natural instinct against consumerism and advertising, but the harder they try with this cutesy branding thing (that seal?), the more I want to turn my television off.  

    I have a feeling I'll like Obama a lot more if I watch him a lot less.  That they're dragging Hillary into their marketing vortex doesn't change the fact that I feel like I'm being sold a product instead of being asked to support a political platform.  Hey, maybe they can get those guys who wrote the James Garner/Mariette Hartley commercials to come up with some cutesy banter for the two of them?  What could better symbolize the complete corporate takeover of our political system and culture than that?

    brainstorm! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    I had a vision of the Clintons Sopranos ad reading that. Maybe Hillary and Barack can do little take-offs on popular TV shows in their ads.

    I'm holding out for a Shot at Love but can't decide   which one should be Tila Tequila and which should be the suitor hoping for the key.

    [ Parent ]

    Seeing Hillary Have To Campaign for Obama (4.69 / 13) (#37)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    would certainly make me want to drink Tequila.

    This is the man who helped spread that hateful RFK smear about her.  They can put it in whatever cutesty town they want to, it won't change that.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, but he is allegedly miffed (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:33:43 PM EST
    because of her "as far as I know" comment and saying she and McCain were ready to be Commander in Chief and you'd have to speak to Obama about his qualifications.  Unbelievable.

    [ Parent ]
    Double Standard (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    He can campaign as hard as he wants, say hateful things, dust her off his shoes, etc., but she says anything that doesn't amount to unqualified adoration and he's still miffed, and that when she outdid him from Mar 1 on winning 9 out of 16 primaries taking 500,000+ more votes than he did. He needs to get over himself -- or is he this insecure? I believe Hillary has had to swallow her pride & support him, and she's done so with grace; he should follow suit. If he is truly this sensitive and self-absorbed, he won't be able to win the GE no matter what Hillary does. At the outset of the primary season I thought, we lucky Dems, we have an abundance of riches in the talented pool of candidates. If Obama could just see Hillary as adding her strengths to his, he might be able to come up with a strategy for winning over her supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Petty people get "miffed" (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:39:51 PM EST
    by such stuff in a campaign -- people who haven't faced serious competition before.  This does not bode well, as we do not need another president with a petty mind.

    [ Parent ]
    "he's allegedly miffed" (2.66 / 3) (#148)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    We're talking about presidential candidates here, not some high school competition.

    Hillary Clinton said she and McCain passed the "commander in chief threshold" and Obama didn't.  This isn't about Obama being miffed, no candidate could run with a VP that said he's not qualified but their Republican opponent is.  

    Jeez, all the GOP has to do is put the video of Hillary saying that nonsense into an ad and then sit back and laugh.  For this and many, many more reasons, Hillary would not be a good choice for VP.  Let's not pretend that Obama is in high school getting his feelings hurt.  The President of the U.S. is one of the most important positions in the world.  Undermining our candidate is not something to get miffed about.  It was a serious mistake that affects our party's chances next fall.


    [ Parent ]

    Sure he could (5.00 / 8) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    That's what professionals do, in jobs that are much, much less important than POTUS.  And for goals that are much, much less important than are at stake this year.

    Professionals, and adults overlook personal differences and put the past in the past.  They look beyond their own petty concerns and do the right thing for the greater good.

    She criticized his abilities -- big deal.  Even he knows he's weak on foreign policy and national security -- or why else would everyone be floating Hagel's and Biden's names for VP?

    POTUS isn't kindergarten where everyone gets a star on their forehead for showing up.

    Maybe he could just 'get over it', as her supporters are relentllessly commanded to do.

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't (4.20 / 5) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    say that Obama didn't pass the CIC test only that she and McCain did. Now Obama took it to mean that he didn't because polls show this is a huge problem for him. Obama has damaged his chances in the fall. He is going to have to take responsiblity and so are his supporters that he is a deeply flawed and what many consider unqualified candidate for the office of President. Obama's thin skinned attitude and arrogance might his downfall. He should learn to get it in check.

    [ Parent ]
    My point is that Obama isn't "miffed." (none / 0) (#194)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:50:12 PM EST
    That's a childish interpretation.  He can't ask Hillary to be VP because her own words actually undermine our Dem candidate's ability to get elected.  If she said he's not qualified to be President, how can she then run as VP with him?  It makes our party look ridiculous.  

    This isn't about Obama being "miffed" or "thin skinned." It's about Hillary's actions and words, and the result of her decisions.  

    [ Parent ]

    BS (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST
    He can't ask Hillary to be VP because her own words actually undermine our Dem candidate's ability to get elected.

    Hillary is 100% behind Obama. Obviously any previous remarks by either Hillary or Obama were all about being in the ring together fighting it out.

    Now they are on the same team, and clearly supportive of one another. Unlike many of their supporters they have not lost perspective and will do whatever it takes to defeat McCain.

    If they decide that it is best to beat McCain by choosing Hillary as Vice President, good for them. If not I am sure that the choice will be based on one thing alone: defeating McCain in November.  

    [ Parent ]

    The Republicans have far more (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    damaging videos they can run, anyway.  She didn't say anything they wouldn't have or couldn't have figured out for themselves.

    Reagan put Bush I on the ticket despite the 'voodoo economics' crack, which was effective enough that I (and many) remember it 28 years later.

    Obama simply has no one he could put on the ticket that would be unassailable, esp. by the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    As much as I hate to see her (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    working to bail his a## out with the voting blocks he has managed to alienate I understand why she has to do it.  She wants to continue working in her career of choice so she has to play nice.

    I still really hate to see this - reminds me so much of the inherent sexism in our society and the message that we have to "play" nice as women or else.  If the situation were reverse there wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of pressure on Obama to conform.  Bah.

    I don't think that's why she's doing it (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:30:20 PM EST
    It's not to continue her career, it's to continue pushing her agenda. I might be happy to take my marbles and go home. But Hill is a pro. She wants her agenda advanced, and she is willing to do what is needed to see that through. A wise person once said that it is amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit. I don't think she cares who gets the credit. I don't think he can get his agenda (which she shares in large measure) enacted without a huge amount of help. Maybe she sees herself as vehicle to make it happen, whether she is on the ticket or not.

    I agree, however, that more is expected of her in the way of unifying actions than would be expected of others. Unfair as that is.

    [ Parent ]

    Did Dean do a lot of campaigning (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:36:43 PM EST
    for Kerry?  I honestly don't remember.

    Me, I can't even look at the two of them together.  No matter what either of them say, it just reminds me that the better-qualified of them doesn't get the nomination, plus all the rest of the baloney.

    When Hillary campaigns alone, maybe I can bring myself to watch them.

    The "pressure to conform" is right -- starting the day she won South Dakota and ticking along relentlessly every minute since.  Bah!

    [ Parent ]

    Dean... (none / 0) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    I don't have the answer but Dean was toast before the first full fledged primary. He finished 3rd in the first caucus and flamed out. I believe he managed to win Vermont and the District of Columbia.

    Kerry won the GE in Vermont with 59% and DC with 90% to wrap up the 6 electoral votes Dean may have helped with, so Dean's value would have been negligible on the campaign trail.

    [ Parent ]

    It was Bill Clinton who (5.00 / 12) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    got up out of his hospital bed to campaign for Kerry.  What magnanimity -- and so appreciated over the long term.  [snark]

    [ Parent ]
    You're right.... (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:27:33 PM EST
    that slipped my memory. Thanks for sharing your memory. Bill Clinton's doctors did not approve of him doing that so soon after his surgery.

    Do you suppose the Clinton's just set the bar so high that people are terrified they will be expected to do more than they are willing to do? I'll never understand the hatred toward the Clinton's.

    [ Parent ]

    "the better-qualified"? (none / 0) (#141)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:02:09 PM EST
    Hello?  Bush won the last two prez elections -- wasn't that enough to show that the better-qualified doesn't always win?

    [ Parent ]
    And I haven't been able to look at Bush (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    for eight years.  Not sure of your point, here.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:32:36 PM EST
    have we learned a lesson about unqualified Presidents or not? It seems Dems, despite all their caterwauling about Bush, really, really want to be just like him.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he is qualified and so do 18 million and 1 (none / 0) (#196)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    people.  Maybe you should respect that.

    [ Parent ]
    They split (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:10:55 PM EST
    the voters.

    Still waiting for leadership.

    Waiting...waiting...

    [ Parent ]

    I know (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:51:29 PM EST
    Try to imagine if everything had been in reverse during this primary, and then try to imagine Obama doing this for Clinton.

    I can't.

    [ Parent ]

    True, but (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    she is the quintissential professional.  

    [ Parent ]
    WTF?!? Friday? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Exeter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    I guess somebody wants as little media as possible. To me, that little tidbit is proof-positive Hillary will NOT be the VP.

    Or it will be all anyone talks about (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    on the Sunday yappers.

    [ Parent ]
    They would have talked about it anyway,though, (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Exeter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    There is no media advantage on having it on Friday other than to limit your audience to the activist crowd (primary voters) that will be paying attention.  My take is that it is something he has to do, but he wants to limit the number of people that see the two of them holding raised hands.  

    [ Parent ]
    Showing Their Full Clinton Hate No Doubt (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:46:55 PM EST
    Except possibly MTP now that it will be hosted by Brokaw (what a relief that announcement was, I don't love him, but he's a lot less bad than almost anyone else at NBC).  

    The media is obsessed with hating Hillary.  I bet they can't cover this without dipping back into it.  And they better screen the crowd carefully or else there's a decent chance Hillary will be booed by at least a few Obots.  That's been a fairly consistent occurrence at Obama events.  But then maybe that's why they chose NH - it's Clinton country.

    [ Parent ]

    There's no way... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    this will not be over-covered and replayed over and over again. I think this event will trump any kind of "Friday news dump."

    Plus, no one can afford to drive anywhere. You gotta stay home and watch the tele nowadays.

    [ Parent ]

    She could. (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    But she won't.  Hillary is very consistent.  We know what she will do.  She will be the party loyalist.  She will help Obama campaign.  She will do her best to get him elected.

    And get blamed when he loses. (5.00 / 12) (#106)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:32:28 PM EST
    Truly - there is nothing this woman can do and not get blamed for the other guy's weaknesses and inexperience.

    Reminds me of every other women in the workplace.

    [ Parent ]

    If he loses he will own it, (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by nulee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    I would not worry about placing blame of that kind long term, sure the Olberman's of the world would try to blame her, the history books will blame Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is better on the eyes than him. (3.00 / 2) (#184)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    If he doesn't pick her he's more of a gambler. It he chose her it would show he at least makes good decisions, not brain trust type but big improvement.

    Like BTD said, unstoppable force.

    [ Parent ]

    Brazile and her VP choice Hagel's POV on this? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    These "Unity" photo-ops should only accompany a straight-up offer for HRC to be on the ticket, to be straight-up accepted or turned down, BEFORE further lining Obama's GE war chest.

    Otherwise they only serve to give flimsy cover to disgraceful backroom "Unity" efforts actively enabling Repugs to work against Dem interests.

    Veracity Request (none / 0) (#60)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    I can't seem to find a quote of Brazile endorsing Hagel for VP.  

    Can you help me out?

    You might be mistaken because she said there might be an opportunity for a unity ticket, but I can't find anything specific about Hagel.

    [ Parent ]

    Hagel came up in Salon article (none / 0) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    on VP picks.  Brazile didn't specifically endorse him.  Actually, rereading this article, I think it's more the juxtaposition of her looking outside the box comment and someone else's speculation about Hagel, but judge for yourself:

    here.

    [ Parent ]

    Catch up by reading weekend threads or Google it (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    Use the surnames mentioned in my post as search terms.

    [ Parent ]
    Duty (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    Part of what she is doing is out of duty. It goes with the territory when you run for the nomination. You know that going in.

    She is also up there because she is the strongest and most supported of the Presidential candidates. Notice no Biden - No Dodd - No Richardson. She even preempts Edwards.

    Girlz Rule!

    I'm just hoping... (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    ...his supporters don't boo her at this appearance, or at any other joint appearance they make.

    The behavior in response to Granholm at the Gore endorsement was shameful.

    Did the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    crowd actually boo Granholm?? I refuse to watch him, so I missed the event. If they did, I've learned all I need to know about his campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the link (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    link

    decide for yourself. It was enough for Granholm to chastise the crowd for their behavior, which I thought was reprehensible.

    "for all of those who like me supported Sen. Clinton..."--boooo

    "She's a great American..."--boooo

    "She's a great Senator..."--boooo

    "I'm proud of what she said she would do for this state"--boooo

    Honestly, I'm not surprised their first joint appearance will be in a small NH town; the sound of 10 people booing will not be as loud as the 10,000 who booed in Detroit.


    [ Parent ]

    The first is a kicker (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:57:28 PM EST
    since they are essentially booing all her supporters. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, they booed me -- thanks (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    for pointing it out, as if I wasn't p*ssed enough by such thuggish behavior about a Dem candidate and aimed at a Dem governor.

    This behavior has turned off so many people, as I found out when finally away from my computer last week.  It has totally turned off few, but I think that if it continues, it could cost Obama more.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you read (none / 0) (#198)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:58:14 PM EST
    The great things that she said about Obama?  Or do those things not count?

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (1.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    They did not boo Granholm.  They booed at the mention of Clinton, which is to be expected.  They also booed at the mention of McCain.  That's about par for the course at partisan, political rallies.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 12) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    it is not par for the course. It is an embarrassment to the party and to Obama. Heck, even Michael Duakakis didn't tolerate the behavior that Obama does. You reap what you sow is all I can say.

    [ Parent ]
    Technically, Veracitor is correct (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    It is to be expected -- from Obama's supporters, as they did it all through the primaries and he did nothing to shut them down.

    But expected doesn't mean excusable.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, you really think so? (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    ...its par for the course to boo the "vanquished"? That rather sounds more like poor sportsmanship to me. Booing McCain is a different matter since he is still the opponent.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm confused... (5.00 / 13) (#77)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    It's okay to boo Clinton, though she's voiced her support for Obama? Unity my a$$.

    [ Parent ]
    Boo (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    Personally, I don't believe it is appropriate at all to boo presidential candidates.

    They booed at the mention of Clinton, which is to be expected.  

    So, if it is to be expected that Obama supporters boo Clinton, and the reverse has also happened on occasion (though the Clinton's always raised a hand to stop it), these unity appearances will be drowned out by the booing crowds. Fun.


    [ Parent ]

    I Will Not Forget (5.00 / 15) (#92)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:08:58 PM EST
    How the Obama campaign chose to trot out in primetime --  the day after she whooped him in West Virginia -- John Edwards.

    And as Edwards praised Hillary Clinton and the Obamamans booed, Obama just sat that on that bar stool shaking his head and smiling away.

    That was in Michigan too.

    (It makes me sick to my stomach that my birth state has become a state filled with so many rude idiots.)

    [ Parent ]

    That is exactly the reason that joint (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:07:36 PM EST
    appearances are a huge mistake. The first time she is booed to her face will enrage her supporters to the point that unity will never happen. Much safer for her to make appearances on her own so that the attendees are there to see her. If he's there, it draws those that only want to see him and have no use for her. I don't know whose idea this is but hope they reconsider. Maybe just a one-time thing?

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't the booing start when she said (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    she was a Clinton supporter or something to that effect?

    [ Parent ]
    Your stance is foolish, tacky and self-defeating (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    Why was the "winning" Club Obama behaving this way AT ALL at a Dem rally?

    Attempting to support the indefensible on the basis that it wasn't Granholm being booed but her mention of Clinton is patently ridiculous.

    THIS is what have to empower further or else? This is the graciousness we're to expect and increasingly expected to overlook from this visibly weak and paltry leader?

    A continuing but more brusque version of 'the b!tch deserved it' explains why the closer anyone looks at Obama the worse HE looks.

    The pervasive mentality within his own team, his own purview, combined with his own lack of ability and experience that habitually rely on this toxic emphasis to ridicule allies while @ss kissing vicious enemies, is why I believe The Bradley Effect will hit historically hard as to merit a new and separate name.

    The real opposition he faces doesn't have to do much to take Obama down. They just need to show Obama's and his "brilliant" campaign's own behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    They booed Granholm's mention of Clinton (none / 0) (#75)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    then.  Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]
    And Valahalla, you appear here to be trying (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    to excuse it, to rationalize it?  Of course, it was at the mention of Clinton's name by someone else -- would it only be okay if it was Clinton saying her own name?

    Jeesh, indeed.  Booing a Democratic governor is not okay, either -- and that it was a woman governor just adds to the poor impression that Obama's campaign keeps giving.  But there won't be many takers in November, if he doesn't stop it NOW -- although it already may be too late, after so many months that have made such a poor impression.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, this is meant for Veracitor (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    I'm confusing my V's, and my comments are landing in odd places -- as happens some days here. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:38:17 PM EST
    I don't have the link, but there's a Youtube of it around someplace.  I think Tennessee Guerilla Women might have a link.

    [ Parent ]
    That was bad (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    and it made me fell bad for both her and Clinton.

    They did show a clip of him later trying to reason with the fans, but unfortunately, it's becoma a habit. He should have nipped that in the bud right off the bat.

    [ Parent ]

    He's supposed to be a teacher (5.00 / 12) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    of sizeable classes.  I watched what he did, and he either doesn't have experience at command of a classroom, or he didn't exercise his abilities.  Seriously, it is not hard to shut down a crowd that he has in the palm of his hand.  To not do so is to de facto encourage it, as he has done before.  

    I consider that episode against Granholm to be another nail in the coffin of the company I do not opt to keep, as thuggish behavior takes over the party.  The convention promises to be horrible.

    [ Parent ]

    It truly was. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:26:16 PM EST
    I've said this before (so have many others, and they've said it surely better) but his campaign supporters are the ones pushing away the Clinton voters - at least in my experience. Most like Barack.

    It's like going to a concert by a favorite band and discovering the fans there are toolbags.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Point (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    If Obama's supporters boo Hillary at any joint appearance and he stays mute about it as he did in Michigan, Obama will lose the votes of many Hillary supporters who are trying to convince themselves that unity is important.

    [ Parent ]
    To be fair, he did say something... (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    ...when he took the stage in Detroit (he mildly chastised the crowd for booing).

    But yeah, it's going to be interesting to watch Obama supporters like 1Jane insist that Clinton do everything short of having an Obama tattoo carved onto her arn to help him win while other Obama supporters treat joint appearances like WWF wrestling matches.

    [ Parent ]

    Preapproved supporters (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:57:33 PM EST
    It wouldn't surprise me if the supporters for the big Unity Possum kickoff weren't already chosen.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh I hope they stay true to form! (none / 0) (#112)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    Damn - that will "make my day", although I'm sure that BO won't let any of "those people" into his photo op.  And definitely not head scarves!  

    [ Parent ]
    I think I just got a cavity. (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    Seriously.

    Not fair (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    I am falling over laughing, & I have to get back to studying for a midterms.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheesy is good (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Coral on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    It's memorable. It's clever enough (and not too clever) to appeal to newspaper and TV news editors.

    Good marketing. A nice overture.

    A bold lay for low-information voters? (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What if I would rather have a bold lay huh? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    First you give, then you take away!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    "play" (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is all starting to remind me of (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    the married couple who hate each other but are staying together "for the children;" it's a charade that even the children can see through.

    All I can say is that she's a better and bigger person than I am, because I would not be doing this just for the sake of uniting the supporters of a party that went out of its way to make sure I didn't get the nomination.  

    It's just a little too forced cute for me.

    The War of the Roses. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    Only I hope HRC gets up and walks away at the end.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary, marriage, perception (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    If FDR and Eleanor had to deal with today's mainstream press he'd had never have seen the White House.  But no one talked about such things back then, and especially not the press.  Now, it's all we seem to talk about, and all the press seems obssessed with: the deviant minutae of individual personalities and relationships.  Heaven forbid we focus on substance and accomplishment in the area of PUBLIC service.

    [ Parent ]
    100% Cheese (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    I almost snorted in the juice I was drinking when I scrolled down the page and saw this post.

    I'm not being pessimistic or a wet blanket so I'm sorry ... it almost seems like they're playing it for laughs.

    As much as we'd all like to move on and pat ourselves (or themselves) that we're all one big family, the blog comments and people I hear and meet everyday say otherwise.

    That is why I think knowing this, the two campaigns, or rather the Obama campaign, is going all out to make light of what is a hopeless situation.

    Can't wait to see the cheesy headlines in the papers the morning after.

    It is ironic. (5.00 / 13) (#54)
    by dk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
    TChris' post below touts Obama's role in guaranteeing equality in the workplace.  But this unite campaign stuff is just a reminder of what the historical lesson of the Obama candidacy is and will be, namely that in this day and age the lesser qualified man, with the help of a sexist establishment, still wins all too often over the more qualified woman.

    Walking together into the sunset. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM EST


    Friday? Both skip the FISA vote? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    Even a nominal filibuster by Feingold moves it past Thursday.

    Details not yet released (none / 0) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    It could easily be an evening appearance.

    [ Parent ]
    I just can't stop laughing at the fact.... (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by jeffhas on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    That the Dem party cannot stop talking about her... oh yeah, and the MSM, the Obama supporters, pretty much EVERYONE.  For someone who was supposed to be so reviled, why can't they stop talking about her?

    Hmm.....

    Yup - think of what a snoozer of a campaign (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    season this would have been without her.  Obama would have beat Edwards before Super Tuesday and it would have been 4 extra months of what we have seen the last three weeks - McCain and Obama trading juvenile jabs.

    [ Parent ]
    By the way, (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    he's dropped the seal.  Said it was a one time only thing.  Saw it on CNN.

    [And, IMHO, it's a lot different when a party in office is uses it to promote a group of their elected officials, and when a person who hasn't been elected uses it (not to mention changing the Latin, adding his website, and replacing an American symbol with his brand)]

    I'll know we are ready for a woman president (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    when appearances with a male colleague aren't referred to in terms of them being a "couple". Already in the media I have heard the terms "kiss and make up", and "marriage of convenience".  I'm sure it will only get worse, if that is possible.

    I guess those are better than my term though: unholy alliance

    Just kidding...I love my unity pony.  He's so shiny.

    Well, to be fair andgarden currently (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    is in a marriage of convenience with Obama too.  Sometimes the term "marriage of convenience" can be freeing and not just more patriarchal hetro status quo :)

    [ Parent ]
    See, something good happens everyday (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:02:45 PM EST
    I did make a note of his seal, the note said "Oy".

    can't go there. (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by tek on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    Not now, not ever.

    Again, the Clintons act according to (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    high principle, just as Hillary was willing to suffer a huge defeat in the first battle for healthcare.
    Today's agenda is the Clinton team's agenda: fiscal responsibilty, healthcare reform, action on global warming (thanks to Al Gore), and using government levers to help the economy.
    Hillary is doing what she can to advance the agenda, even while taking abuse from Obama's hick supporters.
    Those Clintons are the classiest folk around.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com  

    GAG (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by