home

Rumor of the Aftenoon: Hillary Says She's Open to VP Slot

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: Jon Ausman, whose Florida challenge to the seating of delegates was heard on Saturday, announces is 1/2 superdelegate vote will go to Hillary. Why? He wants a joint ticket and she is the key to winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Shorter version (mine): Obama can't win those states without her, and the Dems won't win the presidency without them.

CNN is reporting Hillary has told New York lawmakers that she is open to the VP slot.

Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.

Could the media do any more today to discourage those in SD and MT from voting? This is their third attempt to tell them their vote doesn't matter, may as well stay home.[More...]

Donna Brazile's new tune today: We don't yet have a nominee. Update: 15 minutes later she says we'll have a "champion tonight."

Poll below: Should there be a unity ticket?

Comments now closed.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread: Running on Empty | McCauliffe: Absolutely No Concession Tonight >

Poll

Should There Be an Obama-Clinton Ticket?
♦ Yes 28%
♦ No 51%
♦ Too Soon to Decide 20%

Votes: 194
Results | Other Polls

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rumor of the Aftenoon: Hillary Says She's Open to VP Slot | 226 comments (226 topical)
    HAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 20) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    OMG! OMG!

    Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.

    Thanks for the belly laugh, Jeralyn.

    Deja Vu (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by LeftyFan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Typical CNN, this is old news.

    Someone reported this exact BS (about Clinton being on a short list but not being fully vetted) online weeks ago.  

    Can't remember where or when it was exactly, because it was so laughable then, but it was definitely already thrown around.  (For some reason, I think it was either Politico or AP's Obamaton Nedra Pickler who initially said it, but I can't be certain.)

    [ Parent ]

    not new news (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    she has been open to it by when the DNC floated a dreamticket - saying so: till Pelosi whacked her, by beaming afirmatively at the question by ABC etc...

    Lets hold out till Denver, folks. She can't save him. The SDs have to realise its her as ticket topper.

    [ Parent ]

    "The SDs have to realise . . ." (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    I dont think so.  I mean, I think they already know it but I think it will be given to Obama.
    I am all out of hope.
    except that I can hope I am wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    Unbelievable arrogance (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by shannon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    I heard that from Malveaux last night, too. She also added that the Obama people felt that the Clintons had gotten "a free pass" on any vetting of their associations and finances.

    Obama tefloned his way through any discussion of Rezko and associations with Ayers, Farrakan, etc. His media fans propped him anytime someone dared to question him. What about questions that I never heard brought up at all like Michelle's big raise at U of Chicago?

    [ Parent ]

    One final vetting (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    I wrote it on another thread... is Clinton willing to release the Library records?  Obama's media meme issue is openness.  That is all this is about IMO, the media morons just try to make a big issue out of it.

    There were rumors about the tax returns and nothing was there other than the small rumors.

    There are rumors about the library money and who the anonymous donors are.  Many are known, some want to be kept private.  If Clinton is open to the VP, I imagine the permission to release the data has been done and it will be another yawn.  Is anyone going to be surprised if there is big money behind the library?  No.

    [ Parent ]

    That... (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    might be a fair argument if Obama himself had been open. We're still waiting for his Illinois Senate records and his tax records from the time he was in the Illinois Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    no kidding (4.80 / 5) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    the jokes just keep coming.


    [ Parent ]
    Not fully vetted? (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    They're in the comedy biz now right?

    Husband (1.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Natal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    Bill is the problem. Personally she'd be great but what to do about him?

    [ Parent ]
    Put Him on the Campaign Trail (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    Bill is incredibly popular.  It's MSM crap that he isn't or that, overall, he wasn't a huge help to Hillary.  If you look at the difference between her margins in rural areas he visited vs. rural areas he didn't, it's huge.  

    He's a walking, talking reminder that we had peace and prosperity before the current Republican nightmare.  Bill attracts all the voters that Obama lost and that Kerry and Gore lost before him.  Which, of course, is why the Obama half of the party doesn't understand what a huge asset Bill Clinton is, they aren't the ones Obama needs Bill for.

    [ Parent ]

    Loose Cannon (none / 0) (#232)
    by Spike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM EST
    Bill is a loose cannon. I think he did Hillary as much harm as good. Not only does he generate stories like the Vanity Fair piece, but his reaction to the Vanity Fair piece generated another story, and his apology for that reaction yet another. Message discipline is impossible. Who on the Obama campaign is going to be able to tell a former president to stick to the script? I hope he campaigns for Obama as a distinguished former president, but not as the spouse of the running mate.

    [ Parent ]
    is there an alien (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    of some sort that has been inhabiting Donna Brazile's body for the last few motnhs?  Is she trying to play nice now?  Does she still plan to cast her vote for Clinton as she promised on CNN Sunday during the Puerto Rico coverage?

    This is soooooo typical. (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    After Obama campaign director Bill Burton incited the RFK pseudo-scandal (as Joan Walsh of Salon stated on Hardball), Obama came out 24 hours afterwards and said that Clinton's words had been misrepresented.

    Yes, they had - BY OBAMA.

    So now that the story they wanted has been playing all day, they can come out and say they disagree.

    Laughably transparent.

    [ Parent ]

    Joan Walsh of Salon (1.00 / 4) (#117)
    by independent voter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    is a HUGE Hillary supporter that has offered her opinion on many things. Her opinion is not fact. She is part of the reason things have gotten so heated in this race.

    [ Parent ]
    Joan Walsh (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    discussed the specific steps taken by the Obama campaign to advance the RFK non-story.

    When Axelrod was confronted with the information, all he could do was keep trying to change the subject.  

    This is typical Obot behavior -- when forced to deal with facts that conflict with their opinions, they attack the messenger.  Its why there is no point in having a discusion with Obots -- they are WORSE than far-right zealots.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    I know you're right.  Sometimes i can't resist asking them one simple question though.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you name one (none / 0) (#186)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    inflammatory thing she has said?  I know her comments section gets heated, but often without much provocation.

    [ Parent ]
    We know this about Donna: (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    She has experience in losing
    Presidential elections!

    [ Parent ]
    You never know (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    someone could, for example, put forward an unfounded rumor about Bill's sex life, and that would change EVERYTHING!

    Obama and his people are either fine with Hillary as VP or they're not.  If they are, I understand the instinctive reaction that they still want to show it's their choice and not hers, but winning in November is more important than alpha male stunts.  No more tin-eared statements like this one, please.

    If he wants to (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    build some good will. The exact thing he needs to do is project that she hd a HUGE part in the decision. Alpha males may get the girls inthe movies but it ain't going to play with feminists.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm so tired about it being his choice. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kimsaw on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    It shouldn't be simply Obama's choice-the VP is not a puppy. The VP is next in line to lead the nation if need be. He should focus on what is in the PEOPLE'S INTEREST in the Democrat Party, the other half have chosen Clinton. His question should be  who will get my team get over the  finish line.  If he can't work with her on behalf of this nation. His whole premise of change and unity is a hoax simply put a grab for power not empowerment of the American electorate.

    Fully vetted? When is anyone going to vet the Obamas! The arrogance is beyond reproach.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe It's Not (none / 0) (#146)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    I've been thinking about the SD's and why many have waited to endorse.  Could they be secretly lobbying Obama to announce Hillary for VP?  I mean, think about it.  It would be a smart thing for a SD to do if he wants the party to win.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dave B on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST

    He should focus on what is in the PEOPLE'S INTEREST in the Democrat Party, the other half have chosen Clinton.

    That would be "Democratic Party."

    Sorry, but that's always really rubs me the wrong way.



    [ Parent ]
    since we're talking rumors, I can (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    put forth a conspiracy theory, right?

    I think she doubts his elect-ability and knows she will be blamed for the loss.  So maybe this is her way of staying around until Denver, hoping by that time the SD's will have seen the light?

    Just a thought....

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    Hill wants the Dems to win in November.  She cares more about the country than her own ambitions.  If she's offering herself up it's because she thinks she can help win.

    [ Parent ]
    This woman has become my hero (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    I don't have very many people I admire but Hillary is on "my" shortlist and I'd say she's been fully vetted for the position. I still disagree with her on some stuff but I admire her tons.

    [ Parent ]
    It won't work (5.00 / 12) (#24)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    I can't vote for him.  Her sacrifice will not help the party.  It will only end up hurting her in the long run.  This has gone far beyond Hillary.  She has to stand back and not get in the way.  

    [ Parent ]
    Nodding (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    I can not vote for Obama and it will make me very sad to not be able to vote for Hillary, if she runs with him.  I do not understand why she would want to be his VP.  The thought has crossed my mind that she wants to be on the ticket when the Obama pyramid comes crashing down.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you. (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by MMW on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    I won't support him. I don't care who his VP is. I will not sanction this, or go back and hope for crumbs.

    I've never been into hope, which is probably why I never trusted Obama.

    Hillary can take the hit if she feels strong enough about it.

    Like I've said before consequences are the only way most people ever learn.

    My two cents - I'm not in.

    [ Parent ]

    goldberry....it's (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    just a tactic, I'd say...and a good one...pressuring him to deal with her and her voters...elevating the fight inside the Obama camp between thos who hate the Clintons vs. those who 'get it' and see he can't win without her.  Fun!  

    It's strategic.  Gets the pressure off her to concede, forcing the press to cover the story she wants, buying time and delivering a message to the precious that his troubles are just beginning.

    Personally, I like it.  A lot.

    [ Parent ]

    agree! (none / 0) (#230)
    by jedimom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    exactly I have been saying this at Taylor Marsh, it is a great move, and now the onus is back on him while she can keep the SDs still to take it to Denver....

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah well, who else is on the list and how.... (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    ...vetted are they? That's what's wrong with the Obama campaign in the nutshell. They can't leave well enough alone they have to end everything with an insult.Just consider the following...

    You're likeable enough.

    She's on the short list. But we are concerned that the Clinton's haven't been fully vetted.

    If they could learn to leave well enough alone, they wouldn't piss so many people off.

    I don't get it... (2.33 / 3) (#20)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    Why the anger here?  Isn't this good news that they're even talking about it?  Everyone gets formally vetted as a part of this process, it's just the way things work.  If they don't have the full files on the Clintons, they'll get them.  It's no big deal unless you choose to make it one.

    I know there's a lot of anger here.  But please don't let it blind you to things that are truly (well, if you support a Clinton VP nod that is) good news.

    [ Parent ]

    Dear me. (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    Have you forgotten that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been under a public microscope since 1991?

    And Bill Clinton was President for 8 years?

    And Hillary has been in the Senate for a term and a half?

    Just exactly would the august and exalted Barack Obama consider to be "vetted?"

    [ Parent ]

    What About Since Bill Left Office? (3.00 / 4) (#106)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    The microscope they were subjected to (and the egregious infamies and lies) has largely been turned off since then.

    But do you really think for one minute having gone through that trial by fire in the '90s they are now immune from a new one?

    Do you think that Vanity Fair article on the former president (hit piece or not) is the only one like that waiting in the weeds should Hillary either become the presidential or veep nominee?

    People made up vile things about them before. Do you think the republicans and wacko activists like Scaife have lost their appetite for that?

    I'm not saying that should disqualify her as a vice presidential nominee (if she would want it in the first place). But I have no doubt that she (and her husband) attract extra passionate fire so it's a concern. The nineties taught us that.

    [ Parent ]

    OBAMA will decide against her as VP (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    and his reason?  SHE IS DIVISIVE!

    [ Parent ]
    It's you that doesn't get it.... (4.50 / 8) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    ...We, the Clinton supporters are the ones that Obama needs. So are you afraid that after all these years we will discover something about Bill that's going to do what 16 years of dirt digging hasn't been able to do? Or are you afraid that is is current Obama supporters who will be so dismayed by some as yet undiscovered Clinton skeleton that they will turn away from their hero? This makes no sense, and is quite frankly, total BS.

    [ Parent ]
    Not At All What I Said (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Vetting isn't just about digging for ACTUAL dirt but also for the potential that someone has something else in their lives that can be made to look like actual dirt.

    The Republicans and the activist right wing have a massive appetite for targeting the Clintons. And the attention they got when he was president has not continued  That's a concern and it demands careful consideration. Just as it would with any potential veep choice.

    I made no comment about Obama needing or not needing Clinton supporters so I have no idea what you mean by that.

    But two additional points for the record:

    I don't think it's appropriate to discuss Clinton as VP before she has stopped pursuing the presidential nomination. (And, I doubt Obama has publicly done so this time.)

    And, I have no doubt other things about Obama will come out between now and November which the opposition will try to use to sink him. No surprise there. I'll bet that will be true for McCain as well.


    [ Parent ]

    However you define vetting..... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    ....looking for actual dirt, future dirt, potential dirt, fictional dirt....it's all been done to the Clinton's.

    [ Parent ]
    It's just the way things work (2.00 / 4) (#74)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    The Obama campaign wasn't running that microscope.  They don't have the raw data.  They just have the abstracts (to extend the metaphor) that appeared in the media.  History is filled with examples of skeletons that weren't discovered until too late.

    Clinton will be "vetted" when a full set of files are in a cabinet in the Obama campaign.  It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, no one gets a pass on this.  If the situation were flipped, there's no way that the Clinton campaign would give a VP nod to Obama without exactly the same process.

    Please, I know everyone is angry about the election.  But don't invent insults where none exist.  This is good news.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#94)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    You don't think they've been doing research on their primary opponent, they've just sorta been picking up the newspaper every morning?

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently the poster also thinks (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    that bolding words makes your argument stronger.

    Personally, I think we're seeing some very, VERY low-information Obamans here.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, all the Obama campaign (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    had to say was that she was on the short list. Obviously, if something untoward came up, they could simply say that it did, and that's why she wasn't chosen.

    Saying that she "hadn't been vetted" was simply an entirely unnecessary insult.

    So don't pretend that people aren't right to be offended by the Obama campaign bringing that up, OK?

    [ Parent ]

    But the fact is (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    that the voters have done some vetting and don't like him!

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    Yeah, if they don't happen to have the full file ON THEIR PRIMARY OPPONENT FOR THE LAST NINE MONTHS, they'll have to start Googling.

    Come on.  It's not the vetting itself that bothers anyone, it's the announcement about vetting.  It comes across like they're bound and determined to put her in her place.

    [ Parent ]

    Media and Republicans are afraid of her.. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    trying to destroy any possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    The pundits know that an Obama/Clinton ticket would WIN the general election.

    Interesting timing on the article about Bill.
    That was intentional to justfy Hillry not being offered VP.

    Mass meida has done everything possible to diminish Hillary...even today before the polls close.

    [ Parent ]

    You're reading too far in (1.50 / 2) (#85)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    They didn't announce anything.  It was reported anonymously via Malveaux, probably from something someone said during conversation.  Hell, it might not even be completely true.  Even a statement like "I'm not sure if we can formally declare anything yet, because I don't know if the research department can sign off of the vetting yet." could have prompted the report as given.

    I'll say it one last time: This is good news!  Stop being angry about it!

    [ Parent ]

    Pfft (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    "The research department."  You just have some really silly ideas about the internal process at the Obama campaign.  "Hang on, I have to call down to Research and see what they have on the Clintons, we've been too busy with the campaign to really think about them much."

    [ Parent ]
    "the research dept" (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    ACME Research
    Vandelay Research

    [ Parent ]
    I'm glad that is the last time you will say it. (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    Because it's getting old.

    [ Parent ]
    Repeating Yourself And Issuing Orders (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    doesn't make your argument any more credible.

    [ Parent ]
    Anydem Will NOT Do! (none / 0) (#210)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    Just Hillary.  You don't know how angry I am and will be even more if she is not the nominee.  Not even Hillary herself can tell me to stop being angry.  So don't even bother.  There are several of us.  I am only the tip of the asparagus.

    [ Parent ]
    Anydem Will NOT Do! (none / 0) (#218)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    Just Hillary.  You don't know how angry I am and will be even more if she is not the nominee.  Not even Hillary herself can tell me to stop being angry.  So don't even bother.  There are several of us.  I am only the tip of the asparagus.

    [ Parent ]
    anydem (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    read your subject line again. It's true.
    I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't see it then you really don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect... (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    that Clinton is leaving open the possibility as part of her effort to placate some of her black supporters that Obama's race-boating campaign has angered.

    Because she's NOT conceding, she's telling Obama "don't declare victory, because the minute you do, your "choice for VP" will become the topic, and I all the speculation will be on ME, and I'll control the agenda -- and you won't like that.

    But I sincerely hope that she's not stupid enough to actually run as VP on an Obama ticket.  

    [ Parent ]

    Me and thee! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What??? (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    Where were you in the 90's?  If anyone needs vetting, it's Obama and his wife.  
    And FWIW, Clinton as Obama's VP is not going to help HIM.  Joint ticket or not, it is not appropriate to put the stronger candidate with the better qualifications in second spot.  That is no enticement for me to vote for him.  In fact, there is nothing I can think of that he can do to make me vote for him.  Nothing.  Everything about his campaign violates my principles.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously he was in pre-k (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    if he can say with a straight face that the Clintons haven't been vetted.

    [ Parent ]
    Why the anger? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by camellia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    Well, before I answer may I suggest you go take a look at the little poll which asks if Hillary should be on the ticket as VP.  As for the anger,  "Isn't this good news that they're even talking about it?  Everyone gets formally vetted as a part of this process, it's just the way things work.  If they don't have the full files on the Clintons, they'll get them."  

    I suppose if one has been living under a rock for the past 16 years, one would need to "vet" the Clintons and obtai "the full files".   And -- although I do respect your opinions and your many sincere attempts at peacemaking here-- I  would HATE to see HRC as second fiddle on the ticket, probably as the object of much patronizing, to whom the scutwork was assigned.  She does not need that.  

    [ Parent ]

    just order Jerry Falwell's Clinton Chronicles (none / 0) (#219)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    I think his ministry is still selling them

    [ Parent ]
    Did they throw that in about (none / 0) (#197)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    anyone else on  the short list?

    It seems like pure payback for the times Clinton has said  Obama has not been fully vetted as a presidential nominee, and nothing more.  I'm not going to get gassed about it.

    [ Parent ]

    one word (none / 0) (#206)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    rezko

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#217)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    Yes, the big difference is that when Clinton says it, it is true.

    [ Parent ]
    Et Tu Jimmy? (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Chimster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    ATLANTA (AP) - Former President Carter says he'll endorse Democrat Barack Obama after the polls close on the final primaries.

    Well, isn't that strange. Jimmy say's he'll endorse before he endorses and does so during his party's primary election. What's happened to this party?

    I had admired Carter (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    He was the first person that I ever voted for.  I do not understand how he can dedicate his life to ensuring that free elections are held around the world and have no problem with what the RBC did on Saturday.  The Carter Center may just as well start selling used cars, it no longer has any credibility.

    [ Parent ]
    I still admire him (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    He's entitled to one bad decision.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    Carter is doing what he thinks is right in terms of party unity.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:47 PM EST
    Except he announced this months ago by refusing to say he was supporting, but then noting that everyone in his family was supporting Obama.

    Carter is a politician.  He also has a history with the Clintons that isn't entirely a good one.  

    That's one benefit of having no experience at the national level, you have fewer enemies at the national level.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you think (none / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    of him being against a unity ticket?  I was very surprised to hear him state his outright opposition to that on the Larry King show a few weeks ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been a donor to the center-- (none / 0) (#129)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    up till now.  I wrote him to cross me off the list.  And I also asked  if he ever wondered what Miss Lillian might have thought of this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    AP. At it again (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    They are pulling out all the stops today.

    [ Parent ]
    Read Ben Smith. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    He reports the same conversation and only says that Clinton didn't rule out the possiblity when asked.  Of course not.

    More voter suppression rumor mongering from NBC? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    Gee, whodathunkit.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, considering (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    that she was the one who brought up the Unity ticket first...in FEBRUARY...of COURSE she would be open to it!

    And did she even say that she would be the VP, or did she say "combined"?

    [ Parent ]

    Alice in Obamaland (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    ...the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted."

    I think if water is found on Mars, I may relocate. This planet is just too far out.

    Obama's people need to (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    be careful here. If he gets or when he gets the nomination, it is of course his right to pick a VP, but if they start hemming and hawing about vetting and this that and the other, they will lose the few women who supported Hillary, like myself, who are hanging on right now.  I just want her treated with respect, is that too much to ask.

    [ Parent ]
    Someone quite dear to me told me.... (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    ...yesterday that Obama is treating Hillary with respect and its my problem if I don't see it.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    That great invisible respect that you can't see, hear, or feel.  That must be the best kind.

    [ Parent ]
    You too? (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by camellia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    My dear husband has decided that I have gone over the edge.  Anyone know where I can buy a bucket of little fuzzy balls to throw at the TV and at my dear husband when we discuss this?

    The Carter vote is not a surprise -- he said months ago that his family was voting for Obama, and that he would follow their lead.  I do wonder if all these people have fallen under a spell.  I simply do not get the magic!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Concerned That The Obamas Have Not (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    been fully vetted. I have no doubt that they will be fully vetted between now and November.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, Miriam (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    There's water on Mars.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, thank God (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    When does the next shuttle leave?

    [ Parent ]
    HA (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    I was just going to say that! But unfortunately, not enough oxygen. We need another destination.

    [ Parent ]
    It's frozen...... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    but if they find running water and indoor plumbing, I'm there!

    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#214)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST
     Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

     In fact, it's cold as hell.

    [ Parent ]

    but, before we all give up (none / 0) (#138)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    and head for a less far out planet... today is the last day to go tell Hillary what we prefer she do:

    convention?
    or vp.

    As I now see it, no loss by going to the convention.
    He was more electable at one point, but no longer. He has pissed off too many of us. She is already blamed for his inevitable loss.
    He has shown he cannot beat McCain in electoral votes. That is not going to magically change.


    [ Parent ]

    It's frozen...... (none / 0) (#179)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    but I'm there!

    [ Parent ]
    That's not what vetting means (1.66 / 6) (#36)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    What they are saying is that while clearly lots of oppo research has been done on the Clintons over the yeras (a bunch was just "published" in Vanity Fair, for example), the Obama campaign itself doesn't have it in their files.  They need to do the work themselves rather than trusting the media or the other campaign office to do it for them.  It's no different than the principle of due diligence in the law.

    Really, people are on too thin a knife-edge here.  It's not a slam to say that Clinton isn't fully vetted.  They're not saying she's got skeletons in her closet, they're just saying they don't have the files to prove it.  It's an issue of bookkeeping, not campaigning.

    [ Parent ]

    Ludicrous. (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod's speciality is fully vetting the (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    opposition.  Give it up.

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama campaign doesn't have it in... (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    ...their files? No offense, but could you keep a straight face while typing that?

    [ Parent ]
    Slam or not (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    If that is what they believe, then they are outright stupid and I don't want stupid people running the country.

    They should have said she is on the short list and left it at that. Instead, they are laying the groundwork for rejecting her as the choice, and of course it will be her fault because of some deep, dark secret that two decades of living the in media glare hadn't brought to light.

    [ Parent ]

    give it up (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    you've said it twice and it's laughable. Enough.

    [ Parent ]
    I love it (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    when Obama supporters tell Clinton supporters what "vetting" means.
    dont you?


    [ Parent ]
    I know you mean well... (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    but you're parsing out words carefully, looking at literal meanings, to avoid the associations those words evoke.

    BHO has a degree from Harvard, and a reputation as an eloquent speechmaker.  I suspect he knows exactly the contempt the word "vetting" implies.

    Certainly if he had ANY sense of the anger in half the voting Democratic party, he would have spoken much more carefully. "We haven't made a decision yet," would have been much more diplomatic.  "Shortlist" means nothing, anyway.

    I sincerely hope she won't take it. I trust the horse sense of the American people -- those Appalachians, for example -- and they will sense exactly the kinds of forces behind this race. I think it's going to be a landslide for McCain.

    I don't want to see Hill serving someone who will blame her and jettison her when the going gets rough. I don't want to see her buffing the shoes of a candidate who is her inferior.  And I don't want to see her spinning justifications for the kind of stuff the GOP will level when the campaign gets going.

    I wonder if it's just a strategy so that she will be second-in-line when he implodes, and that she's guessing this will be before November. If so, I think it's a poor gamble ... and probably wishful thinking on my part.

    [ Parent ]

    that's fine (none / 0) (#55)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    but I hope they are planning on using Vanity Fair as a source, especially since the article has NO ONE on the record, all anonymous, hearsay sh!t.

    [ Parent ]
    NOT planning, that is (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Only a moron would see the need to state (none / 0) (#209)
    by TomLincoln on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    publicly the need that any VP candidate be fully vetted. All they had to state was that she was definitely on Obama's short list. The rest is feeding the MSM idiots. If you ask me, it would be the Obamas who have to befully vetted by HRC camp before she ever joined shuch a ticket. I frankly don't believe that Hillary being on an Obama-Clinton ticket will help Obama win the presidency, so I would be a lot more pleased if he did not even offer it to Hillary. As a resident of Puerto Rico, I will not get to vote in presidential election in November anyway, but if I did, I would not vote for Obama even with Hillary as VP. And I really, really like Hillary a lot.

    Moreover, being VP means very little when you are the far better candidate, unless you are going to play a very crucial role. Obama would have to publicly commit to thaqt before HRC could accept, IMO.

    I cannot understand why the Obama rush to declare himself the winner without giving Hillary the opportunity to talk to SD's and then, if she did not find the support she needs, to step down on her own terms. But what can one expect from the same person who treated Hillary like dirt he was brushing off his jacket, etc.  He has no class, if you ask me.

    I am very upset at how this entire primary has worked out. True, Hillary's campaign is part to blame for not having planned better for a post Super Tuesday strategy. My eyes have been opened to the stupid rules of the Democratic Party for selecting a nominee. And the behavior of the DNC and other Democratic leaders has left me wondering as to their motives, and I can never bnring myself to conclude that the motives are good. Too often they have tried to push Hillary out, pressure others to go Obama's way, etc. Pelosi, Dean, Brazille, are sickening.  The RBC is a joke

    I wish Obama a big loss in November, for he has earned every bit of it. I consider him underhanded, two-faced, insencere, and completely inexperienced to handle the job. In my view he will not bring the troops out of Irak, he will never get any meaningful health insurance passed, and will be very bad for US foreign relations. I am not happy with GWB's way at all, but if you think that simply doing exactly the opposite is the right thing, then you are as wet behind the ears as Obama.

    I know this blog will support him if he is the nominee, but I simply cannot.

    [ Parent ]

    All such a joke... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    Call her a racist then ask her on the ticket?

    The media taking itself so seriously?

    I am growing old and starting to believe that Nader was right.

    Unless we make real changes to the system, led by campaign finance reform that will allow real changes to occur, America will continue to fool itself as it rushes toward financial and moral bankruptcy.

    Don't look for real (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    change in campaign finance from Obama.  He has already backtracked on that since raising a record amount for the primaries.  

    [ Parent ]
    You can't raise $300 to be nominated... (none / 0) (#71)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    and be for reform.

    [ Parent ]
    $300 million (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Though As I Mentioned (none / 0) (#123)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    earlier today, there's probably already been some (hopefully) unintentional bleeding between his primary and general election accounts, because some chunk of his donations have been improperly recorded.  I personally know several big Obama supporters whose donations well above the $2300 primary limit were not recorded as being for the general election only.  I can't say whether this means that Obama's campaign has extensively been spending money they're not permitted to use, but it doesn't inspire faith that he's going to be quite the champion of finance reform that many belived in early on.

    I don't necessarily think that this misrecording has been done with deliberate malice, but is more likely a reflection of sloppiness in recordkeeping by the campign staff.  Nevertheless, it displays a willingness to not pay attention to the "rules" when it would be inconvenient to do so.  I suspect we may start hearing a fair bit about this kind of thing over the next few months, especially if McCain starts twisting the knife about Obama backing away from his earlier commitment to public financing.

    [ Parent ]

    Re Donna Brazille: I suspect Obama (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    hasn't clinched.

    No, that's the standard line to the Hillary as VP (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    discussion. They can't consider her yet because it isn't over while they have said for months that it is over. It's funny to watch them twist and spin.

    [ Parent ]
    She can talk out of more sides... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    of her mouth than anyone.  Her pretending she has not been in the tank makes me laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    What Brazile has been saying is (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    far more likely to be emanating from an orifice south of her mouth.

    [ Parent ]
    C'mon, can you quit the childish insults (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    so we can have an adult discussion?

    [ Parent ]
    Geez, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    couldn't you have waited, and let BTD post this.  You know he'd be so happy when doing it our computers would all be flashing smilie faces! ;-)

    What (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    is wrong with the Obama campaign today? Of course, they've really been doing a poor job since Wright appeared on the scene but today seems to take the cake on idiocy from them.

    What's wrong today? (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    I think it's called PANIC.  More and more states' voters are saying they don't want Obama.  He peaked long ago and it's been downhill since then.  We Democrats, and those who are now former Democrats, are sending a very loud message to the DNC...which they don't chose to hear.  They are so deafly and blindly intent on getting rid of the only Democrat who can win the presidency, one has to wonder why.  What is the real reason for their suicidal leap off the cliff of reality?  Why are they so afraid of Hillary Clinton winning the presidency?

    [ Parent ]
    I think this is just their idea of payback (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Which really is astoundingly childish behavior in my opinion. Wow I hope this is not in any way indicative of how they think they will run a GE campaign.

    Let me get this straight- (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by Lena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    not content to have pissed off every non-Obamabot in the Democratic party, alienating and offending people left and right, Obama's surrogates and supporters are insisting that it's CLINTON'S job to put the party back together?

    It's like he's been hacking away at the party edifice assiduously during his campaign, while at the same time insisting that Clinton's "divisiveness" (??) is destroying the party.

    FYI, Obama: there is no amount of campaigning that Clinton can do for you, either on your ticket or not, that will turn back the damage you've inflicted on my erstwhile party. You've already sunk your own ship, and there's nothing HRC can do to dredge you up from the murky depths. The fact that you've driven away Democrats from the party is completely on you.

    I wonder if he does choose her... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    how it will go over at DKos, especially among the ones who spent the most vile.

    I'll be amused to watch how they flip like a dime, or whether they will stay true to their principles.