"Unity" Jimmy Carter Style

This is just too funny. With friends like Jimmy Carter, Obama needs no enemies:

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian. "I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. But former Democratic Presidents, at this sensitive time, should think before they speak. This was not helpful.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Weds. Open Thread | Hillary Clinton: "Obama Will Be A Good Friend To Israel" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Perhaps Jimmy Carter should shut his (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    pie hole...his acting coy about endorsing obama was silly and juvenile...and we all knew what he was up to...I, for one, hope Hillary doesn't take the VP position....she is too good for these people.

    No one ever accused Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    of having an acute ability to analyze domestic politics.

    He's a good man, and he's tried to do good, but man, sometimes he's just frakking stoopid.


    Without question... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    I agree.  He has been unfairly maligned in the past, but here, President Carter dropped the ball big-time.



    Carter has been doing politics a long time (none / 0) (#72)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    ... and he knows a few things.

    In this case, he's right, on fundamentals. Vote totals for combined slates are determined more by subtraction than addition.

    Same thing for endorsements. If you are in a contested race, the rule is you don't endorse in a contested primary. You'll gain little support (if any) from the endorsee's camp, but you'll piss off some of the opposing camp.

    Sad, but true.


    Another problem... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    If you are in a contested race, the rule is you don't endorse in a contested primary. You'll gain little support (if any) from the endorsee's camp, but you'll piss off some of the opposing camp.

    A rule followed so perfectly by both sides in this campaign, right?


    I agree, RonK! (none / 0) (#90)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    I think that Carter is being honest and realistic.  Obama should really sit down with Hillary and see how they can unite both groups without Hillary being on the ticket.  I think that Hillary has already indicated that will help all she can to get a democrat elected.

    Perhaps he can offer Hillary the VP and Hillary can graciously decline.  She can be more effective campaigning as she promised.


    Sure (none / 0) (#113)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    but saying it is stupid.

    Carter has been doing politics for a long time (none / 0) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    and he's so good at it!

    Right --the negative aspects of both (none / 0) (#190)
    by derridog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    candidates:  black man and woman.

    I think the rest of what he (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    said was even worse.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    Not only was the rest of his statement contrary to party unity, it didn't show, shall we say, genius level thinking.  He acted as if neither of the two candidates can COUNTERACT the others' weaknesses, when the whole idea of nominating a VP is to counteract your weaknesses.

    BTW:  It's fun being a bystander to this whole process.  I'm like Buchanan -- I have no dog in the Democrat's fight. It's freeing.

    Someone on another blog said the Carter/Clinton fewd started when Clinton was Arkansas Governor.


    Oh golly yes (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    I've never not had a dog in the fight before, it's liberating.

    I didn't get the popcorn jokes when I first found this site, but now I do.  Oops, that reminds me, need to start laying in some Orville Redenbacher soon.

    The other thing that's freeing yet paradoxical is the Obama campaign's neglect of Clinton's base because they're going after Republicans and Indies.

    Well, guess what, I just turned Indie so that's me!


    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    But a lot of the Obama bloggers seem to think that if you pick a VP to shore up your weaknesses, it just draws attention to them.

    No, I'm not kidding, that was a lot of the response to Matt Stoller's suggestion of Wes Clark as VP the other day.

    I guess they think that if you don't pick someowne to shore up your weakness, no one will notice the weakness.  Or somehting like that.

    yes, it is going to be fun watching this.


    Well (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Arguably we would have a bit of a Dukakis/Bentsen problem with the unity ticket, where people kept asking "why isn't Bentsen on top"?  But I don't think it would be quite the same, and more to the point, when someone brings the kind of constituency to the table that Hillary Clinton offers I'm not sure there is any choice.

    There has been a certain delusion throughout this primary, as seen by the criticism of the 3am ad, that if no one points out Obama's foreign policy inexperience then somehow the country will never notice before November.  I'm just guessing, but I kinda have a feeling John McCain will go there.  You can't neutralize it as a weakness by sticking your head in the sand.


    I've seen.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    foreign policy "experience" in action...Cheney and Rumsfeld have foreign policy "experience".

    Inexperience at making war and occupying foreign countries is a positive in my book.


    This is a good test of Obama's media loyalty (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    If the news shows tonight shout "Former President Carter says Obama not ready", etc. etc. then you will know the tide has turned.

    If they ignore it, then the honeymoon is still not over.


    What else did he say? (none / 0) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    Carter Not Making A Great Case For Obama (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    The former president said: "What he needs more than a southerner is a person who can compensate for his obvious potential defects, his youthfulness and his lack of long experience in military and international affairs."

    so (5.00 / 11) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    what he need is another candidate.

    I know ! I know ! How about Hillary? (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    How about letting Hillary run in obama's (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    place...that is what needs to happen.  And then obama will be free to go back to Chicago and hang out with his mob buddies...BTW...any news on Rezko?

    Carter has Foot in Mouth Disease of Late (none / 0) (#137)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    Isn't he the one who also made statements last week about Israel & nuclear weapons.  And he wonders why 2004 was first time Dems reached out to him (March 2004 unity dinner) since his presidency.  It will be interesting to see if the cable media, which has criticized him harshly for his Mid-East activities, will quote his statements re: Hillary approvingly.

    Click the link in the post. (none / 0) (#5)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    God (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST
    Jimmy Carter is SUCH a Democrat.  /bangs head on desk

    I'd say jimmy carter and obama are cut from (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    the same cloth.

    Like he was a Washington Outsider (none / 0) (#154)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    After Nixon and Ford, people wanted change. They wanted a clean candidate with no baggage. They wanted a ordinary guy who was a peanut farmer but had served in the military. They wanted a soft spoken man who smiled a lot. And when he got to DC, he had no idea how to proceed. He tried but he got no help from those insiders. And surely not from Kennedy. I voted for Carter and was proud to have his sticker on the car. He was the Democrat and I knew I would always be a Democrat. I defended him but did not really know that much about politics except what my parents talked about. They were very political. I voted for Carter a 2nd time and he lost. I could not understand why the people wanted a actor. But later, once I really looked at the situation without the blinders on, I realized that Carter was a weak President and now makes a better X-President than a President. Although, his remarks seem odd in as much as he is a Obama supporter. Did his script get lost in the mail?

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    the obama/carter link goes back a long way.  I expect carter will continue to continue being an obama cheerleader even though obama will keep him under the bus touting reagan's FP policies, not carter's.

    Well Carter (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    seems to have gotten a conscience about training Central American death squads and funding the mujahadin in Afghanistan since he left office, but my take is that F.P wise, he was alot more Reagan-like than the Carter myth would have us believe.

    so why doesnt (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM EST
    obama tell voters he wants to get back to the diplomatic policies of the carter admin?

    Because of "the myth" (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    and the attendent symbolism attached to Carter NOW
    Not back when Carter hadnt thought of Habitat Houses for slaughtered Salvadoran villagers.

    This is about Obama's advisers trying to get him to capitalize on the "feel good" value of the new Carter, IMO.


    How about this: (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    ""If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

    Hey maybe now (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    that Obama is the nominee, Jimmy is trying to sabotage his election!

    I have a feeling people aren't standing in line to offer Carter marketing positions.


    Suunds like Jimmy (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by talex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    was concentrating on Obama's negatives when he decided to endorse him.

    Why would he do that? I like what Carter has done post-presidency but let's face it his reputation as President is, whether deserved or not, one of the worst in modern times. With Obama he has a chance to hand that torch off to someone else.


    Ha Ha...Just what I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    As perverse as it is. I really think its more about Clinton hate though, which is as deep as the ocean with this guy.

    Or this (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    "His comments are likely to be seized on by those Democrats who privately argue that the combination of a black man and a woman on a ticket will represent more change than the US electorate can swallow in one go."

    If McCain nominates a woman for VP, as I think he will, Obama's going to have to think about nominating a woman for VP.  I don't think much of a Obama-Clinton ticket, but Obama's in such a weak position for the general election, a Republican woman VP nominee would make it very difficult for Obama to win no matter who his VP pick would be.


    Heh what if McCain ran (none / 0) (#109)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    with a black woman? Condi, anyone?

    As a Dem, I'd love (none / 0) (#115)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    a Condi pick for McCain.  It would help underscore the theme of McC running for Bush's 3d term.

    As to picking another woman for the Repubs, they have a slight timing advantage here since they can sit back and see who O picks in late Aug, then make their selection more strategically once they've seen our hand.

    But it won't be Condi if they think woman.

    More like Kay Bailey Hutchinson


    McCain should pick a woman (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    but not Condi.  and he wont IMO.  

    I actually (none / 0) (#133)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    enjoy Condi on many levels. (As much as you can enjoy c grade dictators). But no never her. Some have been touting Olympia Snow, but I haven't really checked up on her as of yet.

    I so agree with you (none / 0) (#127)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    and with a woman as VP on the Republican ticket who is smart, can cite policy, create policy, appears bi partisan and is strong....pretty good formula for winning.

    Perhaps McCain (none / 0) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    should go for the center & pick Christy Whitman.

    Whitman is cancerous..... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    in the tri-state area...people round here will never forget her telling us the air was safe after 9/11.  

    Not sure how she plays in the rest of the country.


    Good Point (none / 0) (#180)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    I thought of her because she left the Bush admin complaining about its unwillingness to champion true Republican principles.

    There must be something in the Dems water! (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by barryluda on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    There are countless Dems (and liberal leaning media types) that I used to respect but for some reason have been saying such crazy things lately it's baffling.  I hope things get back to normal soon.  And I hope some new, liberal leaders both in politics and the media emerge that have both sense and integrity.


    Just Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    displaying the finely honed political instincts that won him two terms as a highly popular President.

    Really, let's face it: the man knows what he wants to conclude first, namely that Obama shouldn't choose Hillary, and makes up stuff to suit the conclusion.

    I love Jimmy but (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    he's had months to think of what to say - and not to say.

    I think this is in the "not to say" category.  


    But the man isn't "thinking" (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    he's unloading.

    A lot of unloading on the Obama side. Maybe not much else, from the look of things.


    And we all know that Jimmy has a GREAT (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    political sense too.

    BTW, who's been dignified and quiet? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    Al Gore.

    thank goodness... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    A Democratic politician with class -- it is a rare bird these days.

    He's not a (none / 0) (#111)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    politician anymore. He's a Nobel Laureate. And an adult. Carter needs to be both those things as well.

    He's a superdelegate (none / 0) (#134)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    how long can he stay quiet.

    Personally, I think he should stay quiet. I would rather not know until I cool down a little.

    Al - shhhhhhhh


    If Al.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    really wants to boost his street cred, he should lambast the super-delegate/pledged delegate system as undemocratic and vote for Kucinich in protest.

    Heh! (none / 0) (#181)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    Now THAT would be awesome.

    I disagree with Carter (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    I think the pairing could emphasize the strengths of both candidates.  And I think it's a good way to bring the coalition back together, though probably not the only way.

    However, via scientific investigation, I would say there is only about a 25% chance that it will happen.  The problem may not be Hillary so much as Bill.

    Former Democratic Presidents who (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    Lost a Second Term to a Landslide Republican Win, should think before they speak, you mean.

    And Carter recommends Sam Nunn (5.00 / 12) (#29)
    by HenryFTP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    for Vice President, presumably because John McCain is otherwise engaged.

    Carter, of course, is the Party's resident expert on healing wounds after a protracted primary struggle, having done such an excellent job of bringing Ted Kennedy's supporters back on side in 1980.

    The more our Party Elders speak out, the easier it is for me to understand why the Republicans have enjoyed the political ascendancy they have had over the past thirty years.

    Because nothing says... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    ...it's a new century and a new kind of politics than the man who stood firm against out gays from serving in the U.S. military.

    Funny thing, it was because of (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    Carter's stupid stubbornness and insecurity that he was in a position of having to heal the wounds with Ted in 80 (or of even having to face Ted that year).  

    I'm referring to the way Jimmy upon taking office decided he would really show Ted and Speaker Tip how he got elected on his own -- "without having to kiss Kennedy's [backside]" and w/o the help of the Dem establishment, as he went about unnecessarily antagonizing both major Dems in the early months of his presidency.

    Probably but for those early idiotic moves to assert his authority and put Ted and Tip in their place, we probably (perhaps, maybe) would have had a 2d Carter term, and thankfully no Ronald Regun.

    Oh, I also didn't like Jimmy's co-chairing of that voting reform comm'n from a few yrs back, where Jimmy Baker worked his magic and got in the final report that recommendation for encouraging voter ID laws.  

    What a pushover milquetoast Dem.

    And' don't get me started about JC's worship of fellow Georgian Sam Nunn ...


    Sam Nunn was ok but (none / 0) (#166)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    he is not Presidential material. And when you think VP, you have to think that they could be President at any given moment. I mean, the thought of Condi being President is insane. She is smart and I liked her boots, but she has made a horrible Secretary of State. A blip in the news every once in a while. Most Sof States are quoted daily.  

    Obama/Carter ticket (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    Maybe Obama should just ask Carter to be his running mate.  Since he only served one term, Carter would qualify. That is a ticket, I would take great joy in voting against.

    Carter's entitled to his opinions, but (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    much of what he has been saying in recent years has not been of much help; he means well, but it's not helping.

    I'm not upset that he chose to go over to the Obama side, as I think too close an association with Carter would not help Hillary - and I think it's going to hurt Obama.

    We need a list... (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    Of party elders who should probably KTMS.  I think it would include John Kerry, Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter at a minimum.

    Well, Jimmy Carter just wrote a republican 527 ad. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    Pass the popcorn!

    Former Dem VP candidates also speak (5.00 / 10) (#48)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    and "unity," Obama-style, is not pretty:  

    Gerry Ferraro just talked on tv about the Obama campaign's behavior.  They tried to get her fired from her law firm.

    There was more, too, but that jaw-dropping moment blotted out my memory.  We'll see if there's video up soon.

    Chicago-style politics in play. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    I was laughing (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    at all the hysterical remarks above about the democratic party wisdom.

    This comment stopped the laughter dead.

    This is not surprising at all but it is also very indicitive of how dead serious the repercussions of this entire contest has had.

    This is a symptom, one of many similar ones.

    As Zevon said "Ain't that pretty at all."


    THey also (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    threatened several superdelegates with "new well funded" opposition in their next elections. Why would this be any suprise?

    You mean that (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Mr. Constitutional Lawyer doesn't recognize free speech if it's not in his favor? He tries to penalize criticism in the most egregious way possible, by terminating her employment???  And he wants to be President and swear to defend the Constitution?? Okaaaaayyyyyyyy.

    Yeh, and Mr. Voting Rights Law (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    which is one of the courses he teaches, takes Chicago politics into the DNC to move voters from another candidate's column into his own and takes illegal write-in ballots as his own, too.

    I find this guy, frankly, very scary.


    Where was Ferraro (none / 0) (#146)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    interviewed?  Thanks.

    Fox News -- the only place left (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    for fair and balanced news, sadly.  At least for a few more days, until they go all the way for McCain, again.

    Jimmy Carter talking electability is like (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    Jimmy Dean talking healthy eating.

    Are you going to delete this too BTD? (none / 0) (#54)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST

    How "facutal" is "Jimmy Carter talking electability is like Jimmy Dean talking healthy eating?"

    Please, do defend Carter's record (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    on electability.

    I judge him on his legacy... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM EST

    not interested in "electability." Who says he's running?

    He's putting in his judgement about electability (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    And I think we can judge him on his record in that regard.

    Cancel that n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    Calm down (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    There is a big difference between a lie and snark.  

    Besides, I'm with andgarden, what part of that isn't true?


    You're kidding I hope (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    This from one of our worst Presidents. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST

    What does Cartner know about politics?

    Jimmy Carter and Pelosi working together (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    They both are speaking for the Democratic Party elders.  No way in heaven HRC will be given the VP. It's the way they want it, and fortunately for me, the way I want it.  Why banish her into a VP job?

    I heard Barbara Boxer (none / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    on the radio this am also throwing cold water on HRC as VP.

    Something about the P needing to pick someone with whom he feels comfortable.

    This pretty much jibes with what the other pro-O people have been saying about the Unity Ticket.

    I can't blame Jimmy too much, now that I think of it.

    The solid pick and mutually trusting working relationship he had with Mondale was one of the few things JC did right back then.  I'd strongly argue that O/Clinton would not be a relationship built on trust.

    Of course, Sam Nunn represents mostly the old Carter-era New South Dem from 35 yrs ago, and would hardly help O to drive home his theme of Change.  And that's true regardless of his position on the Iraq vote of 2002.


    Evidently this is the TPM from the (none / 0) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    Dem Leadership (and oh, how loosely I use that word).

    Sounds like Carter's been enlisted to try to spin this so that his not asking her seems reasonable.  If it's the tpm of the day, then he's not going to offer it, GE be dam*ed

    I wonder how that's working out for them?  Hello, Eighteen Million, let's take a head count.

    I'm against it myself (Hillary's too good for VP), but every poll I've seen shows that the rank-and-file aka under-the-bus aka the base plus a bunch of others love the idea.


    Pres. Carter is doing his assigned job. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    It appears as if we are seeing a reasonably concerted effort to make certain that Sen. Clinton cannot be justified as the vice-presidential nominee.  With this chorus, Sen. Obama doesn't have to throw her under the bus.

    The Obama campaign bus will just leave with her standing on the curb.  She & Pres. Clinton are obviously aware of the orchestrated efforts.  In my arrogant opinion, Sen. Clinton's best option is to wait.

    For her to take no action will drive the Obama crowd utterly, stark raving, maniacal, fanatical nutz.

    Pass the popcorn please; yes, the cheap stuff that I heat in a cast iron skillet so almost every kernel explodes into a white, puffy ball.  In fact, very much like the heads of all the kewl kidz as they attempt to figure out what the junior senator from New York is up to, if she simply has the patience to wait, & wait, & wait.  It would be a delightful variation of the ancient Chinese water torture.  Yup.  Your unity pony will be here any day now; maybe Independence Day, maybe Labor Day, maybe Halloween . . . .

    How droll.


    Hey, everything old is new again!!! (none / 0) (#129)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    There is no vector in "Change". You can go anywhere. Even backwards.

    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    "I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

    I didn't think the Precious had any negative aspects...

    The Precious -- I love it (none / 0) (#122)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    First time I've smiled in a couple days. Thanks for that.

    Last I read... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    Last I read Obama's negatives were higher than Cliton's, so that doesn't hold water.

    I still don't think she should take the VP slot.

    Want a unity ticket?

    Have Al Gore, who has stayed above the fray, take it to the Convention and flip a freaking coin, like man y ties are resolved. Winner is P, Loser is VP.

    That would be the only circumstance in which I'd vote for Obama, as either P or VP.

    Carter is a master at international affairs, less of one at domestic and at reading the domestic mood. Richardson comes to mind, as someone similar.

    Carter's Message to 18 million (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    mirrors Donna.  We don't  need you and you have no choice, you will do what we want.  This seems to be the sentiment.  And I am sure it's coming from the Obama camp cause the "hillary negatives" have been given a second life.  Uhh, Hillary negatives?  yes, among white men, that is what they are pushing.  Cause, they are telling us women, they know they have us, through our Reproductive Rights.  I guess we just have to sit down shut up while the "men" tell us what to do?.  

    The Supremes, Carter, and even Al would not work (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    This time, I REALLY think the women will not be told what to do. No threat of the SCOTUS, No push from Carter, and I hope Al stays out of this 'till the end. But even if he did endorse Obama, even that, with much respect for the man, would not be enough. The disdain from the Obama camp itself, the media, and the bloggers has caused me and a lot of women to say if Hillary can stand up for herself and ignore threats and negativity, then I can do this also. I do not have to vote for Obama. The only thing that could make me change that is Hillary on the ticket. A Hillary that could become the most important part of the administration. I believe that is why he will not choose her. Because she would overshadow him. But if he offers, she should take it. Didn't think that before, but watching her on TV last night speaking from notes made her speech so much more powerful. Obama reading off a teleprompter because he does not do impromptu speeches well, there said a lot.  And if the condition is she refuses, then she should just say yes. What could he do about it then?

    Obama speech (none / 0) (#193)
    by vml68 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    Did you watch his speech yesterday. It was like he was talking while watching a tennis match, head constantly swivelling from one side to another. Not once did he look directly into the camera. Are you telling me there were no people in front of him in that stadium, just people to the left and the right?

    Obama is running for Carter's second term so he (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Richjo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    should proably listen.

    Sadly right now what divides us in the democratic party is greater than what unites us. The only glue that can hold together people who are in so many ways so different is mutal respect. That has been lost, if Obama and his supporters don't want Hillary on the ticket, then I don't need to be united with them. The issue is respect pure and simple, that is what makes sure that what unites us is more important than what divides us. I will not be scared into voting for Obama over fear of John McCain. I am waiting to be given a reason to vote for Obama, not against McCain and they seem to be slow coming.

    Sentimental gesture? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by HenryFTP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    Sure, that explains why millions of people voted for her over the past three months and, even more significantly, gave her millions of their hard-earned dollars -- because we all got treacly-eyed about good old Hil.

    I pray that this attitude is not prevalent on the Obama team, or the outreach to Hillary's supporters will backfire.

    An added hint -- women voters care about policy issues in addition to Roe v. Wade -- the identity politics are a corporate media/Republican meme.

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    -Sentimental gestures of blowout wins are an established phenomenon in American politics. NOT!!

    -The war sucks but the Democrats now control Congress. It is cynical, but I would say, on balance, the war has been a huge boon for the Democrats. In fact, to be extra-disgusting cynical, it is not past me believing that all of the go-along-to-get-along votes that Obama and friends did, in funding the war, were designed to keep the war alive as an issue in this election cycle.

    - I don't know about you, but I don't vote in a vice-presidential primary, it only says president on the ballot.

    -She is not the strongest because she says she's the strongest. Huh? Most community colleges offer a Logic 101 class. Consider it.

    Hillary hatred has mostly been verbalized by the (3.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    Obamabots, but it's alive and well throughout America.  While GOTV calling the past few months, I tended to choose Democrats over age 50 living in rural areas.  My (informal) sense is that many of them were appalled at having to choose between either of our candidates.  Since I connect well with rural middle class and blue collar voters, I often talked to them for up to half an hour or more.  Their dislike/distrust of Obama tended to be based on what they'd heard about his name, his supposed swearing in on the Koran, his lack of patriotism as shown by the missing lapel pin and a lot of other stuff that came out en mass on talk radio, conservative and "Christian" emails over the winter and spring.  For the most part it wasn't based on his policy stands (or lack thereof), his relationship with his pastor, or his race.  For those who had heard about Rezko, they weren't convinced his trial was relevant to their like or dislike of the candidate.  

    When I delved deeper into their dislike of Hillary, it was often something they couldn't seem to verbalize well, perhaps because sexism is hard to recognize in yourself, but many of them referred back to how they felt at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.  There's still a lot of anger and a sense of betrayal and many people blame Bill for ushering in the Bush dynasty.

    We know that many voters base their decisions on feelings rather than intellectual talking points.  Obama has been called an empty suit on this blog, but perhaps that's an advantage for low information voters who have feelings-based distrust of the Clintons, vs. easily disputed talking points they've been fed about Obama.  

    I'd like to know what your thoughts are on what a VP should offer to reach these Democrats that have been lukewarm about both of our two top candidates.  BTW, please don't get into defending the Clintons.  This is more about how to reach people who will never hear your argument about how good they were.  

    The VP cannot undo perceptions about (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    the candidate.

    His timing may be off, (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    but I think he's absolutely right.  Here's something for consideration that asks HRC supporters to think a little differently about the nature of a primary vote.

    A primary vote is not a vote for president. It's a mistake to think of it that way. In this instance, both sides gathered votes that were negative votes against the competition, votes for a intermediate preference, or votes for name recognition, whatever. Even counting the overwhelming support both candidates gained, an Obama/Clinton ticket loses those who voted against women AND against black people.

    In addition, I agree with Hilary Rosen's piece in Huff Po today and offer this paragraph from TPM that I think synthesizes the position in which Clinton has placed herself:

    Let's be clear about what Hillary is doing here. By signaling that she'll take the VP slot if offered -- and insinuating that a joint ticket is necessary to heal the party(!) -- she is foregoing the normal diplomatic niceties in order to screw Obama. It sticks him with the choice between looking like the bad guy (for not offering) and doing something he really doesn't want to do (putting her on the ticket). Either way, he loses. And either way, she wins: she gets on the ticket or else she engenders a lot of bitterness in her supporters, hurting Obama's chances in November (and thereby increasing her chances for a 2012 run).

    What this paragraph doesn't mention is that Obama is nearly forced to say no to Clinton because of the manner in which she's acting.  As Rosen said

    She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation .......And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

    Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her.

    I'm not sure her supporters felt empty as Clinton's remarks were tailored for her supporters, but Clinton did miss a golden opportunity.  Anne Cornbluth from the Washington Post said today that Clinton is still living in the alternate universe of her campaign and that when reality strikes, Clinton will do the right thing. I hope so.

    I could be for Obama/Clinton (my main reservations are what to do with Bill Clinton and the fact that Clinton's current attitude would make him look weak for choosing her), but she has to sit back and let the nominee make his decision. If he picks her, fine; if he doesn't, that's fine, too. But it has to be the decision of the nominee. Period.

    Give me a break (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    The #1 delusion among Hillary's detractors is that she is somehow personally responsible for engendering resentment among her supporters.  People only dislike Obama because she tells them to, people only get upset about her being hypothetically snubbed for VP because she tells them to, yadda yadda.

    The idea that somehow, all Hillary had to do was concede and endorse Obama and we'd magically have party unity is just wrong.  Obama is going to have to do some work if he wants to unify the party, and Hillary is not standing in the way of any of that.  If people really think it's smart to assail Hillary until she gets out of the way, it's just going to make it that much easier for McCain to pick up disaffected voters from the bunch.

    Hillary knows exactly what's going on.  Anyone who thinks she's living in some fantasy world concerning the nomination is crazy.


    I actually DON'T think HRC is (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    responsible for some of her supporters' animosity for Obama. That's sort of an insult to them; they are capable of determining their own minds on that issue.  I also don't think mere words (especially without action on Clinton's part) would unify or even help unify the party. I have friends and family who are Clinton supporters and I respect their choice. I love to argue politics with smart people and always respect their decision.  

    Rather, I think Clinton should have conceded and voiced her support because it's the right thing to do and because it bolsters any attempt to be placed on the ticket. Fine, remind your supporters of why they supported you. But a statement that she was ready to elect the democrat and that she was finished -- said in the context of the amazing things she accomplished -- would have done much for her VP prospects.

    Her remarks did not occur in a vacuum, they of course occurred in the context of what she accomplished and what is ahead for America.


    well, it looks like with tonight's announcement (none / 0) (#198)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    it's over and recognized, as you say, that he took it away.  She is about to do the right thing and I applaud her.

    When you think about it, it's difficult to ask for the vice president slot while you're still running for president. So she has done the sensible thing in dropping out.

    Now her case can be pressed behind closed doors and any leverage she has can be expressed away from friends and enemies alike so that no matter what happens -- if he asks her and she accepts or rejects or they decide it won't work out -- it doesn't hurt the democrats' chances in November.


    Your references are quite humorous. (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    You've selected opinions from people who've been routinely excoriated on this website as bloviators who haven't got a clue about Sen. Clinton's candidacy, the groups that she pulled together, or her ability to win elections.  From Huffington Post to Talking Points Memo to WaPo to NYT & all the punditocracy, the commenters on this website have been astonished at their total banality.

    So far, as near as I can tell (& please link to any corrective news), Sen. Clinton has not done anything.


    The people you refer to fantasize Clinton behavior & object to it.

    And finally, Sen. Clinton is neither taking action nor is she acting--in the dramatic sense.


    Hilary Rosen is a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#162)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    and has been since the beginning. I got my information from listening to HRC's speech last night.

    Here's Talk Left on Hilary Rosen. (none / 0) (#184)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    Hillary's 11 Page Memo To Superdelegates

    Hilary Rosen asserts herself as a supporter of Sen. Clinton, however many readers, certainly here at Talk Left, don't see Rosen's screed as helpful, informative, or always accurate.

    Rosen's background with the recording industry & her work on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act put her credentials in doubt.

    Earlier today, on a previous thread,


    A cybernetic hiccup there on Rosen. (none / 0) (#188)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    Another commenter asserted on Morning Edition thread about Rosen's comments on Sen. Clinton's non-concession speech:
    [new] She's also a corporate shill (none / 0) (#189)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST

    who was the head of the Recording Industry Assoc. of America for many years, and advocated suing music fans for downloading music on various shaky legal grounds.  She's hardly someone I'd look to as some kind of ethical beacon.

    Interesting letter. (none / 0) (#189)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    I'm not sure how it will change the situation.  I don't agree with her popular vote totals, since they exclude some caucus, count Michigan, and exclude all but one territory. I think Real Clear Politics has this information.  But leaving that aside, over 100 super delegates have declared for Obama since June 1, so I don't entirely understand the value of this letter at this point.

    The letter is meaningless, now. (none / 0) (#197)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:17:02 PM EST
    I referenced the thread to show how H. Rosen's comments have been parsed on the website--not an entirely reliable supporter of Sen. Clinton.

    you are sooooo yesterday! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    your tattered playbook is old. geez you folks sound bitter and you cling to fantasies. hmm, that sounds familar. i can't say that i have really seen any hope or positive vibes coming from many if not most obama supporters and that includes michelle.

    not bitter, happy and invigorated (none / 0) (#186)
    by ksh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    and hoping to be working with you all soon. Not blind to the realities of the situation, though.

    It is a mistake (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    to think that people's primary votes mean the same thing to every person.

    My primary vote was FOR PRESIDENT.  

    In addition, Hillary Rosen was tauted as a Clinton Supporter.  LOL!  another trojan horse rears it's ugly head.


    I think you'd like it over at the orange kool-aid (none / 0) (#141)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST

    Last post was the ksh. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    Reverse Psychology? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    Nah...  Although it may inadvertently bring some Hillary supporters around to the idea of a joint ticket.

    There's Truth To What He Says (none / 0) (#13)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    An Obama/Clinton ticket brings together the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. Just as Clinton picking Obama as VP might have hurt her with voters who don't like him, Obama picking Clinton as VP might hurt him with voters who don't like her. So he has a point, and one that is worth serious consideration.

    That said, I disagree that it is anywhere close to "the worst mistake that could be made." The positives could very well outweigh the negatives.

    But who are those voters? (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    The majority of Hillary-hatred these days seems to be on the left.  Not only has she won quite a bit of grudging respect from conservatives during this primary, but more importantly, Obama is now just as much a bogeyman to the right as Hillary.  The GOP base will show up to vote against his "radical associations" regardless of who is on the ticket.

    Based on how Obama has been defined, this is going to have to be a base election.  Putting Hillary on the ticket is simply a huge step towards keeping the entire Democratic coalition together.  


    I agree. He won't do it, though. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    I guess it's ego.  It's funny, for months everyone was saying Bill had to be careful not to outshine her, then yesterday I read an article where the writer said Obama can't pick Hill because she'll outshine him.  

    I would vote Hillary for VP.  It's the only time in my life I can imagine voting VP.  I think there are millions like me.  It worries me that someone who's schtick is unifying the country doesn't seem willing to do something relatively simple to unify his Party.


    The EC maps show (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    that that this election will be very much like the last two. Karl Rove was salivating at that prospect just a couple of weeks ago.

    Obama had better figure out how to get his 51%, or he's going to lose.


    That's Not True (none / 0) (#42)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    It's not drastically different from the Bush-Kerry map, but there are several Bush states in play for Obama: Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and Missouri. Winning just a few of those states would give our party the White House.

    VA in play? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    The guys on the radio rolled around laughing at that this morning.

    VA In Play (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    I'll trust Survey USA more than the Morning Zoo team any day of the week.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:36 PM EST
    cause they've been so accurate in the past about an election that's 5 months in the future.

    Sorry...all that talk of CO being "in play" back in 2004 turned into so much hot air.

    I'll stick with the morning radio guys from Northern VA for the time being.


    Obama is no Jim Webb (none / 0) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    All except Indiana and Virginia (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    were in play in the last two elections, and I am unconvinced that either actually are this time. Virginia seems built for a candidate like John McCain.

    It is... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    and the GOP already has a 2nd amendment commercial ready to roll out re: rural VA.

    Personality vs. substance (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    Yet another reason why only Clinton/Obama will do: Obama cannot win on his own as anything other than a personality (see: Axelrod's take) and yet no one can beat McCain in the battle of bios.  A personality-based campaign will make his Chicago ties crippling and turn Clinton into a caricature who contradicts his theme of "change you can believe in."

    The only way McCain can be defeated is by hitting him on the issues.  Obama can't do that because it'll make the public painfully aware that he is not qualified, having no leadership experience or accomplishment (Clinton as VP will only exaggerate that).  He's terrible when he has to deal with actual substance and he cannot claim the Clinton legacy after having burned it to the ground.

    Clinton at the top transforms the ticket to a powerhouse rooted in substance and yet allowing Obama to shine as the celebrity and attack dog who focuses on the vision rather than the details.

    I know it's most inconvenient for the Democratic "leadership" but the only way the dream works is substance over personality, Clinton/Obama.


    Actually, age-ism is the problem... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    "The majority of Hillary-hatred these days seems to be on the left."

    I disagree with this statement.  My main problem with Obama is the fact that he marginalizes people my age (57) and our experiences (i.e. "politics of the past").  So I think that Hillary-hatred comes from the little pups who seem to be hypnotized by Obama's "aura.'

    Mystifying to me, since I see no substance in the man and, frankly, have no idea what he stands for.  

    BTW, I'm not wrong, am I: Senator Clinton has NOT conceded, has she?



    Politics Of The Past (none / 0) (#68)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    He's talking about the failure of political leaders to solve long-term problems, not insulting older voters.

    That's certainly a messaging problem that needs to be addressed, Obama has a different communication style than Hillary and it isn't as effective with the boomer generation.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM EST
    since there are so few Boomers, I guess he doesn't need to worry about it.  Certainly he hasn't up til now.

    Politics of the Past (Part 2)... (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    I KNOW I'm not the only "older" voter who has taken Obama's "politics of the past" message QUITE personally.  And his younger (and, sorry to say, less intelligent) followers have run with this...



    Less Intelligent (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    Thanks for directly insulting me and millions of other young Democrats, that's very big of you.

    Didn't mean you in particular (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    since I have no idea who you favor (Obama vs. Clinton).  But there have been lots and lots of young voters (go to Huffington Post for some samples) who absolutely MINDLESSLY spout out the most hideous vitriol about Bill and Hillary Clinton - and it's without any apparent rationale.

    And, it's my belief that "the fish rots from the head," i.e. the mindless Clinton bashing originates from the Obama campaign itself.

    BTW, you need to be a little less sensitive, don't you think?



    Not Too Sensitive (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    Listen to what you're saying. The suggestion that people who didn't support your candidate in the primary are "less intelligent" than you are is rather elitist. If you live in Park Slope, then you and I live in the same Congressional District where Obama won by more than 10%. So apparently you're smarter than 55% of your neighbors.

    Your statement was a blanket insult. I would never claim to be more intelligent than someone who supported Clinton. There were numerous good reasons to support her or Edwards or Biden or Richardson or Dodd instead of Obama. And while some Obama supporters did say overly negative things about the Clintons, many others--young like me or older--didn't partake in them. You can't blame all 17.5 million of us who voted for Obama for the statements of the very small group of wealthy and influential people who have Huffington Post blogging accounts.

    We need to rebuild respect between Obama and Clinton supporters, and the road runs both ways.


    Hatch, Yes, we're in the same C.D.... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    Again, I'm NOT attempting to single you out.  But I HAVE been insulted and offended by what very many Obama supporters have had to say about the Clintons and their supporters.

    And, yes:

    1. They are mostly young, by their own admissions;

    2. They have been mindless, since there rationale for attacking Bill and Hillary was - why, there is NO rationale for the most part; does that not qualify for being unintelligent?

    3. They are certainly revisionist in their assessment of Bill Clinton and his administration, in my estimation the best presidency of my lifetime.

    I'm no elitist, but when I attack someone or something, I generally like to have reasons for my positions, so, at least in that respect, I'm one up on some of these Clinton-bashers.  I would guess that you are NOT in the group that I compare myself with, since you seem moderately well informed.

    BTW, it'll take a monumental effort on Obama's part to get me as a backer; probably not doable.


    Nessuno, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    Thanks for stating what I was trying to say 100 times more elegantly (more wisely?) than I could.  Bravo!



    If (none / 0) (#161)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    If the youth of the country finally stand up I will be estatic over an Obama presidency. It been a long time coming. But so far the "new" brand of politics I've seen come out of the Obama camp has been as divisive, viscous and dismissive as anything Karl Rove ever did. If this is an example of the new unity mission, it's doomed to failure.

    If (none / 0) (#163)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    If the youth of the country finally stand up I will be estatic over an Obama presidency. It been a long time coming. But so far the "new" brand of politics I've seen come out of the Obama camp has been as divisive, viscous and dismissive as anything Karl Rove ever did. If this is an example of the new unity mission, it's doomed to failure.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#168)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    About double psot. Got an error message that said web page unvailable or something so I hit backspace and redid. Not a computer whizz!

    Well (none / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    I am characterizing Obama supporters as "on the left" regardless of whether that accurately describes their political leanings.

    You're Right... (none / 0) (#36)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    You're right that most of the Hillary-hatred during the Democratic primary season has come from the left.

    But the current Republican respect for Hillary is 100% disingenuous, and I believe you're intelligent enough to know that. GOP pundits and politicians simply took up Hillary's cause because they knew a dragged-out, divisive Dem primary season would boost their chances in the fall. They knew that they could benefit from siding with Hillary's supporters and playing into their disappointment about the outcome. But once Hillary gets on the ticket, if she and Obama decide to go down that road, the Republicans will resume hating her just as much as they ever did.

    Obama does need to work on the base. Having Hillary as VP would do that, but I don't think it's the only solution. We'll see what happens.


    I disagree (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:43 PM EST
    I work on Wall Street, I'm positively surrounded by Republicans.  It's anti-Obama sentiment that is going to get them to the polls in November, not anti-Clinton sentiment.

    The grudging respect I mention is genuine.  That doesn't mean they would be crossing over if she were at the top of the ticket, but they're hardly as rabid as they used to be.  I don't see Hillary energizing very much of the GOP base beyond what Obama will already do by himself.


    Wall Street Republicans (none / 0) (#61)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    These people are different from Main Street, middle America Republicans, believe me. My father is a GOP politician in Arizona. My aunt and uncle are fundies in Colorado who were active in Ted Haggard's mega church. Their hatred of the Clintons runs far deeper than their dislike of Obama. New York Republicans are a very, very different.

    Ahhh, but what about West Virginia (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST

    WV Dems (none / 0) (#74)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    They're different breed than Wall Street Democrats, that's for sure! But in terms of winning the electoral college, winning the votes of New York City Republicans isn't exactly crucial. And Obama's path to the Presidency definitely does NOT run through West Virginia. I'm sure Obama will do better there when he's up for re-election. It could be just like Harold Washington's re-election in Chicago, when he lost black voters who thought he hadn't given them preferential treatment and gained white ethnic voters who were surprised at how fair he'd been.

    Problem is, WV voters spill over (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    into crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. That is why Obama's weakness there is such a concern.

    He can't wait until the next election to address these problems.


    OH and PA (none / 0) (#85)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Obama can win both of those states, but WV is pretty much out of the question with Obama at the top of the ticket. Do you really think Obama/Clinton is going to do that much better against a white male Republican Vietnam veteran in West Virginia? I think Obama can, should, and will reach out to blue collar voters everywhere, and I think he'll have a lot of success. I don't at all think he should put off addressing these problems until the next election.

    I have very serious doubts (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    that he can win Ohio. And my point is that in order to win Ohio, he needs to win the same kind of voters that you say he can't win in West Virginia.

    Pennsylvania is a little richer, and so that makes it a little easier, but the problems Obama will face outside of the Philly media market are essentially the same.


    Small Town And Rural Dems In MO Are (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    much the same as those in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In order to win MO you need the combined strength of the Democratic strongholds cities and the conservative Dems in the other 116 or so counties.  

    Mm hmm (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    And are you trying to tell me that these Republicans would consider voting for Obama, but absolutely not if Hillary is on the ticket?

    Not At All (none / 0) (#81)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    I think there's definitely a possibility that there are at least some disaffected Republicans who would be less likely to vote for Obama if Clinton were the VP nominee. But I don't pretend to know if there are enough of them to make a difference in the outcome of an election.

    All I'm trying to say is that while Carter is wrong to say picking Clinton would be a terrible mistake, it's absolutely true that the pros and cons of an Obama/Clinton ticket should be carefully weighed and poll-tested before a decision is made. For now Clinton and Obama should just make peace and Clinton should try to put her supporters at ease with an Obama presidency, as she appeared to be doing in front of the AIPAC members this morning.

    A quick sidenote: I really respect a lot of the people who comment here and used to comment more often at MyDD and Daily Kos, such as yourself and BTD. And I want all of these communities to be able to have a sensible debate again. That's all.


    I appreciate it (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    Reasonable people are always in short supply during primary season.

    We have sensible debate here (none / 0) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    thanks to Jeralyn and BTD. You should be over at DKos preaching your unity and politeness schtick. We have had it here all along. I came here from DKos after I got tired of being called names I wouldn't call my dog on a bad day for supporting Hillary Clinton. I won't go back even if Markos emails me personally with an abject apology. So thanks for dropping in, but we are already civil here. If you want to promote civil political discourse, you should start at the blogs that don't have it already.

    You don't seem to get that it doesn't (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    matter how sincere or disingenuous the respect recently paid toward Hillary is among the Republican pundits.

    What's vastly more important is how she is perceived by the people themselves. It will be very hard for the right wing to go back to the caricature of Hillary as a radical left wing Feminazi. The people now have their own point of view on that issue. Her redefinition as a working class hero is not going to suddenly go up in smoke because she gets a few attack ads thrown her way.


    Not 100% (none / 0) (#123)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    From McCain, sure - his making nice is all political.  But I work in an engineering firm in NC where many of the engineers are Republicans.  The ones who've talked to me about it do respect Clinton.  They wouldn't vote for her, but they respect her.  There's none of the rabid hatred I've seen in the past and I don't think the GOP leadership can gin it up again to the old levels.

    The right wing CAN and will use Hillary-hatred (none / 0) (#131)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    effectively.  I also work with many professionals who are Republicans.  Their grudging respect for Hillary sticking with it this spring will NEVER translate to voting for her.

    Their dislike of the Clintons runs too deep to be forgotten and it will emerge again as soon as 457s attack them, especially when they use amygdala-stimulating tactics like sexism and faux morality.


    Since when will the right-wing (none / 0) (#140)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    vote for Hillary or Obama?



    You're right (none / 0) (#152)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    in your first paragraph and as I said, the guys in my office wouldn't vote for her, either.  But the hatred is gone, and I don't see it coming back.

    Odd to be talking about Obama hatred (none / 0) (#178)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    I say this because it was something that developed during his campaign. It wasn't there when he started in Iowa. It started after South Carolina. It started with the flick of some dirt, a scratch with a finger, the disrespect of the woman, and his true opinion of voters who were not in his 'league'. Hillary hatred was created by the media because no one can point out why they would even dislike her. But with Obama, he created that animosity himself. He and his gang. And even with the media trying to help him out and smooth it over. Obama created the hatred or dislike within the last few months. We saw the real Obama and we did not like what we saw. I don't trust him now and would not believe his attempt at a unity pony either. You would be able to see his disgust at having to lower himself to ask for your vote. Probably look at the ground as he always does when he has to say something he does not want to or mean.

    Everyone, be factual please.

    Yeah, it was pretty damn tactless (none / 0) (#47)
    by Tom Hilton on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    I'm very dubious about Clinton as VP candidate, but this is really not the sort of thing party leaders should be saying in public.  

    Carter has always been a disaster--- (none / 0) (#93)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    certainly since his Presidency his political meddling, esp. in Korea, has been deleterious.
    I think there is also a good case to make that the Camp David accords were more trouble than they were worth, because of the huge financial commitment they locked the US into.
    That set a very bad precedent.

    Carter is right (none / 0) (#100)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    I believe that Obama needs a strict military figure to rein him in and show him the ropes of being Commander-in-chief. ;)

    That's the problem with Obama. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    He "speaks" of changing but doesn't follow up with "action."  

    And Carter is wrong.  Again.  

    the negative aspects of both candidates? (none / 0) (#103)
    by DefenderOfPants on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    what, their minority status?

    And with that comment, Jimmy Carter shows (none / 0) (#108)
    by environmentally blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    his obvious irrational dislike that seems misplaced.  Tell me he's not a Sexist.

    How unfortunate, again, for him to make such ridiculous statements.

    What ever I had forgiven him for for his past errors, and enjoyed him for the good work he had been doing, is seriously disappearing after many series this year.

    Maybe it's his age, but it doesn't make his comments any better.

    I'm guessing this isn't just Carter's opinion (none / 0) (#121)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    Hillary is in a great position right now to negotiate with the Dem party, but it sounds like Obama has decided he is not going to offer her the VP spot.  The Dem party must be supporting him on that decision, and this is their way of communicating the bad news to Hillary's supporters.  They chose Carter to announce this because he doesn't need to worry about his political career.  Superdees have taken enough flak for committing to one or the other candidate.  They want unity.  The question is, what does Hillary want (Cabinet position, Secretary of __, Supreme Court Justice) and what will convince her supporters that she will be able to use her immense skills to actually effect change in the position they agree on.


    Heh (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    There is no reason to think that Carter speaks for anyone else but himself here.

    Look at the superdelegates like Jon Ausman openly coming out in favor of a unity ticket.  There is not some kind of secret consensus among the party leadership.


    unity? at what price? surely the (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    obama campaign and supporters must know, geez scratch that. they don't know and that's the problem. you diss people and tell them they are not wanted. you are part of demeaning, debasing and showing distain for the last great democratic president and the next day we are supposed to fall in line and shout yes, amen! NO!

    A Good Rule (none / 0) (#135)
    by Spike on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    "Former Democratic presidents...should think before they speak."


    Man Bites Dog (none / 0) (#142)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    Who ever would have thought that you, of all people, would be giving advice on etiquette, sensitivity, and smoothing ruffled feathers.  

    It's heartening to see that people can change.

    Caroline Kennedy (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    is helping BO choose his running mate.

    I'd link to the article, but I find Yahoo news objectionable today.

    LOL. Who are the other two? Ted? Michelle? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Wow this is great. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Confused on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    I would like to acknowledge the poster Galacticmule who appeared on "take a piece of my heart" namely because that poster is me. Apologies for hijacking this thread temporarily so I can get something off my chest.

    Apparently I was banned because I allegedly used a "sexist" smear. Let's get one thing straight: there was not a single sexist fiber in my contention that she used "tearing up" before the NH primary for her own political gain. Feel free to disagree with that contention. But I said she used it not because she wanted to play the "I am a helpless woman" card but rather she wanted to look more human to those who thought she was a cold hearted policy wonk, not a cold hearted B***H. I have tremendous respect for her abilities as a leader and a politician and I frankly couldn't care less what her gender is as long I thought she could be electable. The fact that I have been given the sexist tag is baffling, infuriating, and deeply, deeply insulting.

    Like I said, I am new here and I don't know what kind of abuse you have taken at the hands of Obamaniacs. I was honestly looking for discussion and to rationally plead the case for Obama to those who are still angry. Hell, I am angry too and my guy won. But I do think we need to come together because on the important issues, we are of a like mind on and we all have a common enemy, namely the GOP. I apparently mistimed such an idea because the wound is still too fresh. My bad.

    But if you all are going to knee jerk accuse someone of being sexist and banning someone before they have a chance to even explain their case then  I am afraid that no amount of healing time is going to help. If we don't get past this, we're all going to lose big time in November.

    Thread unhijacked. Go about your Carter posting and thank you for your time.

    this is what I was (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    saying the other day about everything you hear on the Internet about war support or anti war activism is not just bullcrap but the crap of flies buzzing around bullcrap.


    and now carter is this brilliant (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    politican to the neu left now that he has endorsed obama. not so ago he was just another old  man to be mocked and dissed. yeah right, way to go. color me not impressed. the cows are out of the barn, folks. you can't undo what has been done.

    Sentimental gestures...that's the ticket. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    Lol.  Stop!  just stop!  my sides hurt from laughing.

    Please go with that, please please hit every pro-Clinton site you can.  Then report back on how well it worked.

    Obama has a team set up to help him find VP (none / 0) (#179)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM EST
    That kind of tells me that he is not really interested in Hilary.  I could be wrong.

    Worst Ever (none / 0) (#195)
    by IKE on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    The worst mistake that could be made has already been made. Jimmy carter was elected President. I hope that Obama isn't Carter TWO.