Obama's Vice Presidential Selection Team

Sen. Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential selection team is now in place. It includes Former Deputy U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, Caroline Kennedy and "Democratic insider" Jim Johnson.

Obama said today he'd be speaking with Hillary over the next few weeks, but didn't mention whether the VP slot would be one of the topics.

CNN asks, can he afford not to offer her the position if she wants it? I don't know if she wants it or not. If she wants it, I'm all for her having it.

What happens if it's disclosed she wanted it and wasn't offered it? I imagine many of her 18 million supporters would be quite displeased.

Do her supporters have options other than sitting out the election or switching to Obama or McCain? [More...]

What happens if she suspends her campaign but doesn't concede? Do her pledged delegates stay pledged to her until the convention in Denver?

Could she continue to campaign around the country this summer urging people to vote for the eventual Democratic candidate, praising Obama but not referring to him as the nominee?

Does her promise to campaign for Obama if he's the nominee, begin now or in August when he officially becomes the nominee? Did she ever say?

Obama is the presumptive nominee but there's a lot of loose ends floating around. Every time I hear "he's won" I think, "slow down." He's won when she decides he has won. Until and unless that happens, he has to wait until votes are cast at the convention and he has the necessary majority then.

Hillary is listening to her supporters and I suspect no one will hurry her into making a decision on how to proceed. If she wants the VP slot, and he's not willing to talk to her for a couple of weeks, maybe that's how long she will take before she makes her decision.

Or maybe she will make two decisions. One this week announcing the suspension of her campaign and and another when she's good and ready releasing her pledged delegates. That could be any time up until the convention. Don't pledged delegates stay pledged through the first ballot at the convention?

Seems to me, if Barack Obama wants to cement the deal, he ought to be listening to Hillary now, not in a couple of weeks.

Comments now closed.

< A Good Decision | A Power of One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Libertarian/Green, not McCain (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jerry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    I'll vote for Obama, but the choice is more than just Obama or McCain.

    A good outcome would be seeing a third party with enough momentum and votes to get a chance at Federal funding and to participate in debates.

    Third party option (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by delandjim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    I agree with it would be nice to see a viable third party. Too bad it won't happen.

    Green Party (none / 0) (#28)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    is an option I'm toying with. I will probably vote Democratic, but it's nice to know I don't have to if the Democrats continue to treat Hillary with disrespect.

    Obama should be working hard to woo her voters--and the Clintons.


    I welcome you all... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    aboard the third party train.

    I hope Barr and (likely) McKinney get alotta play this year, and maybe (gasp!) get invited to a debate or 2.

    We've always had more than two choices, we've just chosen to ignore them.


    I would PAY (none / 0) (#89)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    to see McKinney in a debate with Obama and McCain. Just for the pure entertainment value that would have. She is a bit(ok alot) off my beaten path and would never get my vote, but weeeee it would be fun.

    She would blow Obama out of the water (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    on the war, and any number of other things. Another example of a smart woman (and AA) being thrown unde the bus by the party establisment. They seem to be bound and determined to purge all the "fighting Dems" - how sad, when we now need one so badly.

    Might turn out to be a smackdown....going out (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    on a limb, but I think McKinney might be more well versed on issues and such than obama.

    And not the (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    least bit concerned about "offending" anyone. On either side.

    Where cld Hillary, if not president, do most good (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    for the country?

    Stay in the senate, ready to become the Liberal Lioness of the Senate? Push for lib/prog legislation? Try to keep Obama from going too Repub Lite?

    I don't see a cabinet seat as worth her giving up her senate seat, and I'm not sure about the Supreme Court. I'd sort of like to take the R's idea of finding very good, very liberal justices who are young enough to be around long after the president's term.  

    So, where could she do the most good?

    She should stay in the Senate. (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    From a cabinet post, Obama could do a great big fist thrust and fire her. He can't touch her in the Senate.

    I wouldn't trust him for one second if I were her.


    DHHS... (2.33 / 3) (#6)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    ... during the transition to some national-level health plan would be worth an exit from the senate.

    Cabinet secty is totally dependent on what the (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    p[resident. If Obama doesn't want to do a good healthcare plan, it means she would have to fight internally and resign if the plan weren't up to her standards.

    I don't see a cabinet seat as being worth giving up a senate seat.


    the difference... (1.80 / 5) (#34)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    ... between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan is miniscule. Obama's plan is more a step wise transition.  The big change in healthcare is going to occur in the next administration.  

    The jump from Obama's plan to Clinton's plan (in the future), will be an incremental change -- not the revolutionary one upcoming.  

    I agree with Clinton's goal of a truly universal plan, but at the same time, I also see Obama's pragmatism. Lets get something done that will not cause the system to collapse or go under too much strain, and then be an impetus for a reversal a few years later.


    Lovely. (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    The jump from Obama's plan to Clinton's plan (in the future), will be an incremental change -- not the revolutionary one upcoming.  

    Almost 50,000,000 Americans who are without healthcare can't wait for incremental change.

    Something needs to be done NOW.


    In negotiating for a desired end (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by PamFl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    you have to begin by asking for everything. You can compromise, but you can never get more than you originally asked for. I learned this from union negotiations. Ask for the moon-then compromise from there.

    Actually, the diiference between a plan (4.55 / 9) (#151)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    WITH a mandate and one without IS huge. as someone who previously worked in the health insurance field, I can categorically tell you that the coverage needs to be universal, and the insurance companies NOT allowed to decline anyone for coverage or impose pre-existing condition rules. Hillary knows these guys WELL, and after her last experience with them will be ready to play hardball. If not president, I'm inclined to think she'd actually wield more clout in Harry Reid's job. God knows he hasn't been using it!

    But it isn't August yet - remember, Teddy himself took it to the convention with a VERY large delegate deficit - and he didn't wim the popular vote. I say let her take a vacation (not TOO long) and then she's rested and ready when the R slime machine gets to be too much for him. He's not really used to working this hard.


    very true (none / 0) (#163)
    by travc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    I'd add that despite the unfortunate 'no mandates' stuff from Obama during the campaign, he and his advisers are not really dogmatic on the differences.

    If Clinton sponsored leg in the Senate enacting her plan, Obama would certainly support it.

    As Krugman pointed out, both plans are steps along the path with true Universal as the goal.


    She needs to stay in the senate (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    Cabinet secretary is a demotion.

    Not. n/t (none / 0) (#10)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    No, no, no (none / 0) (#150)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    The Supreme Court! For GOPers and conservatives that's 10 times worse than HRC as president. It will destroy their morale.

    I am beginning to like this idea (none / 0) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    the next nominee SHOULD (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    be a woman.

    The last four (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    nominees should have been women.  I'm not holding my breath that either McCain or Obama would appoint even one

    Politics of Destruction (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    yesterday the Obama campaign put out rumors designed to damage Senator Clinton.  This is more of the same.  It's not enought for Obama to win they want to "kill" the Clintons.  The crapfest at MSNBC opened claiming Clinton is DEMANDING the vp slot.  More poop from the Obama campaign.

    um... (1.00 / 6) (#11)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    .. maybe you should listen to Clinton's speech last night. She is the one making this more difficult on herself. Contrast Clinton's speech with the remarks Obama had to say about Clinton.

    what? I totally disagree with you (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    Obama has been without grace and without unity this entire campaign. She happens to lead in the popular vote, he is hanging by a thread as the presumptive nominee. If he screws up a lot could change fast.

    His speech was written before he knew (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    of her no decision. His speech had been handed out before hand. His speech was on the teleprompter because he has not made good win speeches before. His speech was written on the erroneous news that she would concede. Hers was written on some notes that she glanced at occasionally. I clapped when she said no decision. She has the most votes every cast during a primary. Why should she concede and according to the Obama script. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Donna and Roland and other Obama news people exploding. I was thrilled to see all the prominent AA supporters she had on stage with her. What a fine contingent of supporters.I hope she just suspends and continues on. If it is a floor fight, then it is a fight. A lot can happen in 2 months time. Look at all that came out about Obama since February. Who knew?

    um.... (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    What would happen to Obama if Hillary Clinton ran as an independent?  What does she have to lose at this point?  She and the 18M people who voted for her have been disrespected and dismissed by the Democratic establishment.  It's clear they will try to destroy her anyway.  I think she should consider it.  

    Think about it.  Maybe it might be wise for Obama to be a little less rude and graceless toward her?


    Of course she won't (none / 0) (#162)
    by Gabriel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    HRC wants to remain a force in the Democratic party and in American politics. She will never go third party.

    Pfffft. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    Enough of the faux outrage.

    I trust her judgment far more than that of some Obama supporter on a blog.


    I thought that was the central.... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    theme to this whole election?....Faux outrage.

    There is definitely (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    a lot of truth in that statement, kdog.  Some of us rolled our eyes and moved on.

    Others, not so much.  And they continue to play by the repub playbook, rule #6:  Keep repeating the lies until they become truthiness.


    Okay (none / 0) (#210)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:31:44 PM EST

    I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So, we are grateful, and it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished.


    That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else.  Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

    We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months.  But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning - even in the face of tough odds - is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency - an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.  And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory.  When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.  Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.  

    Now, there really isn't that much difference.  Both congratulated and said a few nice things about the other one.  


    remember (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    they have to vet her first.

    ROTFLOL! (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh of the day.

    (Why does a loyalty oath come to mind, and perhaps a prenup contract?)


    How about he announces (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    I choose Hillary, you know, she's LIKABLE ENOUGH.

    While he's brushing off his shoulder and wiping (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    his shoe with his finger on his face.  Nice announcement.  

    I think if he does (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    he's going to have to get all the El33t bloggerz on board first or there will be a week long furious blogstorm.

    HillaryIsLikeableEnough.com -- I can see (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    it now, another site to join with all those others out there now.  And I'm signing up for them all, signing all the petitions, sending the message to stay in, Hillary! -- as it's the only way to (a) still win, as the Obama bus continues to decline with all those bodies under the bus dragging it down, or (b) at least leverage for her/our issues.

    And let those issues include, please, a serious overhaul of the FCC to fight abuse of the First Amendment by media doing gender-bashing, a serious revival of the ERA bill in Congress (or let's just get Mr. Constitutional Law "Prof" to work on the issue of whether it just needs three more states' ratifications), a revived battle to restore the Equal Pay Act, and a new rendition of the body that brought us that law in 1963 under JFK, if whomever is the Dem nominee wants to get with our issues:  A new Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, nationally and in the states.

    And that's just the start of my list for the new website, HillaryIsLikeableEnough.com, with links like WeAreLikeableEnoughToo.com. :-)


    This is the real sadness of (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    this election.  

    Hillary would have actually FOUGHT for those issues.  I don't trust The Precious to actually fight for any of them.  He doesn't have her backbone or her will to get things done.  

    Gawd!  I still have some hope that Hillary will find a way to claim the nomination in August!  I hope she just suspends her campaign for some silly reason and lets Obama implode in the next few months.  I'm certain Reverend Wright isn't going to be the end of his "vetting process."  


    They also have to determine whether (5.00 / 8) (#154)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    she will be "obedient," according to Chris Matthews.  I heard a Democratic "analyst" on TV today say that Hillary is being "defiant."  They are treating her like a child.  It's insulting and offensive, and she shouldn't have to take it anymore.  I'm fed up with it.

    And conversely (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    they are treating Obama like the youngest child, spoiled and favored to the detriment of the others.  

    Pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    that just means they are hiding something and trying to throw the dogs off the scent.

    Obama is hiding something, and the Repubs will now go looking. They are on to the Obama game and they know the rules.


    Any possibility that we could discuss (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    the options other than Obama or McCain?

    For example - Bob Barr. Isn't he actually the first AA nominee for president, rather than Obama?

    Or how about the other party candidates - Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin?

    What about write-ins?

    I'm pretty sure I'll vote Dem down-ticket, although I do intend to change my affiliation in August should Hillary not be on the Dem ticket. I'd rather not leave the space blank and I'm not sure about how Colorado handles write-ins.

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    Bob Barr is white.  He was one of the impeachment managers.

    He's abysmal (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    People think because he supports the ACLU he's okay. He's not. I studied him and wrote about him extensively in the mid-90's.  As I wrote when he joined the ACLU as a consultant:

    We're pleased that Barr is joining the ACLU--anything to keep him away from legislating and having a vote on crime issues.

    He supports mandatory minimums for drug offenders and thinks its just fine that prosecutors have more power over them than judges.

    SEVERSON: Bob Barr says the rigid laws are necessary, first as a deterrent, and also to prevent judges from handing down sentences that he says are too often too lenient.

    Mr. BARR: It does push a great deal more power in the hands of the prosecutor.

    SEVERSON: Is that the way it was intended to be?

    Mr. BARR: Yes, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I mean, there's nothing in our system of jurisprudence or in the Constitution that says that the ultimate source of power in these things has to be the judge.

    Guess I'll just have to write a separate post on this. Let's get back to Obama and Hillary.


    See, I didn't know that. (none / 0) (#188)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    That's why I'd like to have a discussion about third-party candidates.

    There have been rumors for years that.... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    ...Bob Barr was passing so I think the commenter was joking. Personally, for me he's a nonstarter. I do like Cynthia McKinney.

    pledged delegates (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    Pledged delegates stay pledged through the first ballot at the convention.

    But the Clinton campaign has argued that pledged delegates can use their own discretion. This prompted outraged howls from Obama-supporters. Of course, two pledged delegates HAVE switched, from Clinton to Obama, and nary a peep was uttered by Obama-supporters.

    So I don't think Hillary is going to be able to hold all of her pledged delegates, not when her party is essentially urging everyone to back Obama. She has almost no party support. It's amazing that she was able to finish out the primaries considering how much the deck has been stacked against her.

    I think she'll have to suspend her campaign in the next few days and cheerlead for Obama. (Yeah, I know.) If Obama implodes, she can always step in up through the convention, can't she?

    which may be why (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    she won't release her pledged delegates when she suspends.

    I'm just asking whether Obama might not be better off giving it to her if that's what she wants so she's on his ticket and no longer a risk to his nomination?


    He really doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    seem to have much room in the way of compromise. He hasn't been able to pivot on any issue successfully, and I can't see him suddenly saying " Clinton is good enough". Plus half (or more) of his supporters are more Clinton Haters than Obama supporters and they would revolt. It is a losing situation either way he goes.

    Whether he picks Hillary or (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    he doesn't, he will be in trouble either way, pick her, and the media and Clinton haters will go nuts, not pick her, and he risks losing lots of votes.

    I agree with zfran. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:50:38 PM EST
    Also reinforces my belief he can't win the GE.
    Very sad.

    I absolutely agree, Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#115)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    that she has to hang on to her pledged delegates.  It's her leverage with the super-delegates if the Obama campaign implodes, it's her leverage for VP if she wants it, and/or it's her leverage with Obama for a long list of issues like health care . . . and see others at my previous comment upthread.  And then it's her leverage if she wants to lead on those issues in the Senate and add even more luster to her remarkable career (for 2012, 2016, or just to get re-elected to the Senate again and again, where we are losing our warriors).

    After all, Edwards suspended, and he waited many, many months to release his delegates to Obama only weeks ago.  How soon the media so conveniently forget even the immediate past, much less history.

    This is how politics, she is done.  Power -- use it, don't lose it, and definitely don't concede it.  No one knows this better than a Rodham Clinton.


    She should not release them (5.00 / 10) (#125)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    until the Convention.

    There is way too much at stake here.


    Yes, and that's what (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    I think she should do as well.  If he doesn't want her as VP, she doesn't have to do much cheerleading.

    Caroline Kennedy?  Uh, why?


    My question too. When I first read a post on this (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:21:30 PM EST
    in a previous thread it said only Caroline and two other people.  I immediately thought "Who are the other two?  Ted?  Michelle?"  

    Oprah!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    Oprah might nominate Tom Cruise!!  Wouldn't that be some fun?!  And think of how her ratings would climb!  ;)

    Thank you (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    I actually found that news quite insulting.  

    Will she allow her children's recommendation to shape her vice-presidential decision as well?


    So he can keep pretending he is JFK n/t (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    Well, you know (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    There are famous pictures of Caroline riding a pony when her dad was prez - maybe Obama is promising her a unity pony this time....

    LOL! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    I forgot about that :)

    Wasn't Eric Holder another Clinton.... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    ...appointee who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early in the game? I think Hillary should suspend her campaign and take a long, long vacation. She can campaign for the nominee after the convention. Let him have his moment in the spotlight. Isn't that what people wanted all along. If the media doesn't want to focus on her, nobody's making them.

    he's a former prosecutor (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    She's a lawyer (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    and has written/edited three books on the Constitution. One's a pocket guide but the others she co-authored, In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action (1990) and
    The Right to Privacy (1995).

    She is a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She's also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.

    She's more than qualified to serve on his selection committee and in my opinion, far preferable a former proseuctor like Holder.


    She sounds more qualified to be POTUS (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    than Obama!

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    for refreshing our memories on that.  I don't like her choice of candidates, but I applaud her example in many other ways -- I knew I did but didn't have your memory bank.  And much as I don't like her uncle's choice of candidates, either, I've got to think that these are hard days for him and other Kennedys.  If only they would listen more to other people's children outside the clan -- like Chelsea.:-)

    Or Robert Kennedy, Jr. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    Stepping in for Ted (none / 0) (#96)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    His representative while he recovers.

    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    "But the Clinton campaign has argued that pledged delegates can use their own discretion"

    I've seen howls at DailyKos asserting this, but it was based on a misreading.


    Excellent post (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    Jeralyn. Thank you. It is so much thoughtful than anything I read or heard this morning... Examples:

     (1) that Dean, Pelosi and Reid were going to "sternly demand" all SD to come on board
    and do...(whatever) but sounded like pressing HRC.
    (2) that  Obama seems not be interested in HC supporters
    (3) Whoopi Goldberg was so so so out of bounds accusing HRC of not having "the country" and the "Party" interests first in her speech. She said she was "so pissed off" with her speech. It was horrible...And I though she supported HRC...

    No respect... no respect at all neither for HRC nor for her 18 million supporters...

    No Kidding. (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    And this idea that Obama could say or do ANYTHING and have the millions of women, and men who support them, completely forgive/forget how sexist he (and the DNC) have been is riduculous.  Not to mention INSULTING.  Whether he offers Clinton the VP slot or not does not hide the way he is treating her NOW, and how he HAS been treating her (as well as her 18 mil supporters).  This is just more of the same from him.  Personally, I do NOT want her as HIS VP - she deserves much, much better than that - to be his HANDMAIDEN to "obey" him, as Matthews saif last night.

    Frankly, I have worked too hard for too long helping women learn they do not have to: 1. take abuse; and 2. forgive the abuser when s/he comes back saying,"Ah, gee, SWEETIE, I'm sorry!  YOU just let it go, I promise I won't be a sexist pig anymore, and everything will be okay!"

    No.  No way.  Obama is not even the official WINNER yet and people are already wondering when the Womenfolk are gonna come around and stop being mad at being treated like pure-t you-know-what for the past 16 months?  By the self-proclaimed (along with the MSM) kind of the world, and by the PARTY??  Why should we just swallow of us this abuse for "the sake of the Party" when the Party has FORSAKEN US???

    Just wondering.


    I do not want (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    her to be VP at all: she should be second to no-one. Besides, the
    sheer image of a woman of her caliber and qualifications subordinating to such an unqualified man after all the misogyny
    in this campaign is frankly horrible and disgusting.

    I am no-one to tell her anything and she should do what she wants but I surely pray she rejects being VP.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    "Clinton supporters wowed with warm reception at Obama rally"



    It's true (3.00 / 2) (#81)
    by eric on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    this morning I heard an interview with my State Rep. (who is the speaker of the MN house and a Clinton supporter) who talked about meeting with Obama last night.  She wasn't willing to say she was on-board with Obama, but she did have good things to say about the gesture.

    So, Obama is doing the right thing here, what about the endless attacks by the OFB?


    Well, it's a nice contrast with (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    Iphie's report at Corrente of the Obama girls crashing the Clinton rally last night and disrupting Hillary, Chelsea, their supporters, etc.  That one is another one my list of What I Won't Forget.

    Do you have reports... (none / 0) (#187)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    ...from someone with a little more credibility than Currente?  

    Seems like they might have a bit of an agenda.  


    And you don't think MinnPost (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    has an Obama agenda?

    There is no such thing as an unbiased source.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#205)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    ...to sell newspapers.  If you actually read the article, you just might find it to be pretty well balanced.  

    That's kind of the way they do things in Minnesota.


    For some reason (none / 0) (#212)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    DKos didn't decide to cover it.  Sorry.

    Yes (none / 0) (#213)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:42:32 PM EST
    You can read about it directly from the horses mouth as they brag about it on their own website.  And please don't miss the comments since they are full of wonderful sentiments about women and Hillary.



    tough primaries (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    The history of tough primaries is one to look at cautiousy.

    Ford - Reagan turnd out ugly for Ford.
    Carter - Kennedy turned out ugly for Carter
    Mondale - Jackson was worse than ugly.

    Hmmm..what do they all have in common? The loser wasn't the VP candidate.

    Carter and Ford had VPs already (n/t) (none / 0) (#73)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:30:21 PM EST
    Those races weren't even close, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    were they? Did the challengers have broad support? I don't remember all the details.

    No (none / 0) (#204)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    they weren't close.

    She's painted him into a corner. He has to offer (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    or he suffers big time.  Funny thing is though, maybe she'll say yes, maybe she'll say no.  And she could keep him guessing for some time.  That's what she earned, leverage.  Whether the Obama supporters like it or not.  Personally, I think she should stay as far away as possible from him.  She can run again in 2012 if that's what she wants.  

    But whatever the decision, it is hers to make and I support her one hundred percent.

    I'm hoping for a July surprise (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM EST
    to prevent the Obama nomination. With all the BS last night, everyone wanted to overlook the fact Obama was supposed to win SD by 15, that Hillary has the popular vote & has won the swing states and they are mad as h3ll that Hillary reminded them of those facts. Despite the party by the msm & Obama, he actually isn't the nominee yet, so I'm going to continue to wait for the other shoe to drop & for the SDs to wake up and start putting this country first not their own self-interests.
    BTW -- my 10 year old nephew asked me last night -- "How can the person with the most votes not win? I don't understand how these elections work." You and me both, buddy.

    Breaking News..... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by gabbyone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    Rezko Jury has reached verdict.....will be read at 3:45 central time.

    Don't think she should take the VP if offered (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by D Jessup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    Obama supports are telling her to interview for the job than get down on her knees and beg for it.  She could do a lot more good in the Senate being the voice of her 18 million supporters, instead of "obeying" Obama.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    imho - the Establishment doesn't want her on the ticket, and neither does Obama because it would conflict with his "new politics" of spending the past year trashing the Clinton administration.
    The Clintons are Eeeeevil and Hillary was supposed to bow out before 18M voters had their say.
    Funny how Obamabots thought they were voting against the Establishment's candidate. Oops! bamboozled again.

    Does anyone (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    understand Caroline Kennedy in the VP selection team?

    I am not sure what is she bringing ...

    I don't understand either (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    I thought she wasn't even into politics before this year.

    I understand there's a certain PR quality to the name, but as like one of the three main people, kinda weird.  Maybe it will end up like Dick Cheney and she will be the VP nominee.


    Seems (none / 0) (#172)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    a very bad committee imo...  Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson doesn't inspire me any confidence whatsoever.. BTW he also did the search for Kerry 2004 and Mondale 1984 ...
    He was asked by Obama on May 22 to start the search.

    Don't understand either... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    I know some people still think the Kennedy are the "royal" family in the United States, but I don't see what Caroline can bring except to appease some of the white women who feel put off by Hillary's treatment during this primary season.

    I know the Kennedys still want to be relevant, but honestly, are they?  In the big scheme of the world?


    they're making themselves relevant (none / 0) (#194)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    Don't diss the Kennedeys (none / 0) (#208)
    by travc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    They have done a lot of good for this country and provide the perfect counterpoint to clans like the Bushs.

    Yeah, the Kennedeys are rich and privileged.  But for generations they have held fast to the ethic that the privileged have a responsibility to use their power for the benefit of everyone... especially the less fortunate.


    Time on her hands? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    Um...why is Caroline Kennedy particularly (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    qualified to be on such a committee?  Sure she is a famous child of politics but what does she know about elections and strategy?

    She brings the Camelot factor; the connection to (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    JFK. It's a political PR move.

    Now, who is the Johnson person? What is known about him?


    Ha! Worked for Mondale, and (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    Helped select Geraldine Ferrarro for Mondale.

    Interesting read: Ultimate insider.


    He helped pick (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    Mondale and Kerry's running mates.

    Pander! She's female. White. A Kennedy. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    We're all supposed to swoon when she announces her choice for BO....oh, and fall into line.

    No thank you.


    More than Obama, certainly (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy is a political pro. She absorbed it through mother's milk. I don't know how she'll lean, but I'm sure she has a valuable voice.

    I sincerely doubt that. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:26:13 PM EST
    She endorsed Obama because her kids liked him.  

    She's no pro. A connected amateur, sure. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    First rate leaders pick first-rate subordinates. Second-rate leaders pick third-rate subordinates.

    I suspect it's Caroline (none / 0) (#53)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    in lieu of Ted.  But political instincts do tend to run in that family ... sometimes.

    Is this Comedy Central? I thought I was at TL. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:26:00 PM EST
    If you have valid criticisms, make them (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    Otherwise, please don't trash Caroline Kennedy just because she supported Obama. She has stayed mostly out of politics, but she has operated on the fringes and been active in a lot of worthy causes. She's no fool.

    I didn't trash Caroline that is a total (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    overreaction.  I posed a valid question.  In fact, your response corroborated my point, why would you hire someone on the fringe of politics, as you put it, to make an important political decision?  That is a valid question to put to Obama.

    If you were planning to do open hear surgery would you consult the daughter of a surgeon who had excelled at something completely different? I wouldn't if I wanted the patient (in this case Dems in the WH) to survive.


    She's the courage judge..... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    ...this is snark. Don't bash me, I'm just kidding.

    Go to the Jack Cafferty file (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    to answer his question about what Obama can do about the "Hillary" problem. I just did. Go to CNN search Jack Cafferty File and it's there.

    His campaign played yesterday well (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    They created a spin that the media loved and went with it. I never did hear if they actually won the two state primaries that ran yesterday? It was probably reported here, but I was busy reading about Obama's victory speech and Clinton's non-concession. The media, of course, happily went along for the ride, talking about Obama's "historic" and "epic" win and Clinton's prospects for VP - or lack thereof.

    I would give him credit for a campaign well run, except for a few small details. 1) he didn't do very well in the states we need to win most in the fall, and even sabotaged a few along the way 2) his campaign was the dirtiest, most divisive Democratic primary campaign in recent history. He has done to the Democratic Party what Karl Rove did to America.

    I don't think he has a chance to win without Clinton. I'm not even sure of his winning if she runs with him, but he at least will have a shot. For one thing, she will continue to be a target, distracting the media from the inevitable attacks the right will make. They are already rumormongering, saying things that probably have no substance but are being widely believed nontheless. It will only get worse.

    Hill won SD. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    Here is why Obama will lose. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    He had a plan to steal delegates through caucuses.  It worked. But, that plan doesn't include winning in November. Now, his delegates are worthless and his caucus thugs won't be as effective in a real election either.


    Windows Media Player

    Caroline Kennedy? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    Is she subbing-in for Ted?  

    If not, I have no idea why she would be on someone's VP selection team.  Is she "the woman's" point of view?

    Maybe someone else can shed some light on that one for me.

    As for what Hillary should or should not do, I think the best thing she could do, and the best way to gauge whether Obama will sink or swim, is to step back and allow him to be out there without her taking all the media heat.  In some respects, he has been sheltered from the full force of the political winds, and I think it would be helpful to see how he handles himself.

    I think that in order for the media to allow her to get out of the glare she will have to suspend; I know that sounds dire, and the media will spin it as concession even if that isn't what it is - but, the advantage is that she has the breathing room she needs.

    Forcing Obama to stand on  his own may be the best and most enlightening thing she could do right now.

    What bothers me is that there is so much (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    pressure on Clinton through public statements. What needs to happen is some kind of private discussion and negotiation between Clinton and Obama.

    Right now as for the last several months, it seems like a kids' brawl where he and his people are trying to make her cry "uncle" -- trying to drive her to an unconditional surrender.

    Not a good omen for Obama's negotiating skills as president--either domestically or abroad.

    Continuing to demonize Clinton in this endgame is not going to win over her supporters.

    I'd like to see her disappear temporarily (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    So people can get a good look at Obama on his own. I want to see how much of his admiration is fueled by Hillary-hate.

    My theory: he is not the strongest politician, and she's pretty darn radiant and strong, and that upsets people but they don't know why. So they say she's upstaging him, hogging the spotlight, etc. Just ask them to stand side-by-side and say nothing. People would have the same reaction.

    Shucks (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea could take off for St. Bart's untill December and they'd STILL obsess over the Clintons.

    Didn't Tweety say they canna talk about anyone else?

    I wrote Hillary and said do what you think is right and I'll support you.  But right now I'm thinking, Hillary, stay in the Senate.  After that nice, long, vacation.  ;)


    Take that Barack!

    Thanks, that was my first laugh today. (none / 0) (#155)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    Obama only listens to Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    and Michelle.  And they both say, NO HILLARY.

    I don't see the "Dream Team" happening.

    What other options do Hillary supporters have who don't want to vote for Obama but would just die before voting for McCain.

    Well, rather than staying home, I think a write in campaign would be good.

    Obama nursed the Hillary haters (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    Hillary may have "won" the VP if she wanted it?  I don't think anybody wins the VP slot.  In any case, I don't support her as VP.  Hillary is destined for great things, and one of them is being the leader of Democrats who have been forgotten by both parties.  I think she won't do it now, but she will start a new political party, and she'll be successful.  This 2008 campaign opened my eyes to her greatness.  I'm almost sorry I was an Edwards supporter before.

    Caroline Kennedy on the team? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Pieter B on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    It's a symbol of the New Politics. Take the old politics and slap a label on it that says New! Improved! No Trans Fats! Low in Carbohydrates!


    Hmm.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    yeah that is interesting.  I think some see the Kennedys as being symbolic of politicians who came into the public eye under the banner of change, so maybe that is why he picked her?  I don't know...it seems really weird.  

    Jim Johnson too (none / 0) (#133)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    Is he the one up to his neck in the Fannie Mae scandal a few years ago? With the Mortgage industry problems today it is surprising that Obama is letting them hand-pick his VP. Not much hope for mortgage industry reform, huh? Hillary's call for a rate freeze didn't do her much good there.

    I don't figure she wants it. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    I don't figure he wants her on the ticket.

    But I figure he needs to offer it to her, for appearance sake.

    And she's on record saying she won't turn it down (again for appearance sake).

    Which puts them both in awkward positions.

    (As if they weren't, already.)

    What was the vote count on HRC.com? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    I was wondering what the vote total for the Go to Denver is. My neighbor, who is a Republican and wants Hillary, and who went down with her husband to  officially change to a Democrat here in PA to vote for her, asked me today "Where do we have to go and vote for her not to quit?" She has said she will not vote for Obama. She wants only Hillary. And were the Go to Denver comments from here sent on?

    As Always with Obama the Problem is Words Vs (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Richjo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    actions. He was gracious in his remarks, however his decision to decide to orchestrate the endorsements of Superdelegates so he could declare victory last night in spite of not actually winning enough plegded delegates in the two primaries was a power play designed to make him look good in spite of the fact that he had just lost a contest that only a little while ago he was heavily favored to win. If Hillary had run such a great campaign worthy of praise, she should have at least be entitled to end the primary season on a high note before the floodgate of supers decided to end the race. That also gave the impression that the superdelegates had decided long ago it was to be Obama and that allowing the race to play out was just a farce and that they were not truly being reflective about who would be the better choice. The media had crowned Obama the victor months ago before over half the people in this country got a chance to be heard, and rather than taking time to thoughtfully consider the entirety of the race and come to a decision. Obama wanted to rush Hillary out so he would not be viewed as being as weak as he is, and when she refused to allow that to happen she was villified in the press. We know the 18 millions people who voted for Obama in the primary are going to vote for him in November, what we don't know is if the 18 million who voted for Hillary are going to. So rather than be concerned about whether the Obama are getting to enjoy their celebration enough, we might try concering ourselves with making sure the Clinton supporters feel she and they are being treated fairly.

    If Obama had been out over the top by the election results of yesterday that would have been one thing. He clinched the nomination yesterday because he decided he wanted to yesterday and not a day later. That was his choice, it was ungracious and petty and was an attempt to assert his power over the party in spite of the fact that half of it doesn't support him and that the only reason he has the nomination is because he has used his leverage to force the party to give it to him. After his disgraceful behavior in regard to Michigan any Democrat who is more worried about whether he gets time to celebrate when he wants, then whether the Democratic Party is more than just a bunch of petty hacks has another thing coming. Obama gave a good speech last night, but like so many times before he got everything else dead wrong. He needs to change his ways and get the attitudes of his followers in the press and elsewhere adjusted as soon as possible if he wants to earn our votes. Anyone who is still hacking for the Democratic Party is simply guilty of fearmongering and trying to vilify their poilitical opponents. We should be better than that.

    Well if he dose not, ,then she if off the hook (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Salt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:43:49 PM EST
    completely for the Nov blame for poor Obama if he loses in Nov.  

    I wish you were right (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    but I think if Obama loses, his supporters
    will blame Hillary no matter what!

    What the Party wants (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by HenryFTP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    and what's good for the Party seem to be at odds this year. I've been skeptical about BTD's arguments for the Unity Ticket, but if I'm honest with myself it's because I think Hillary's talents would be wasted as a Vice President -- it's abundantly clear that Obama is not likely to have the sort of relationship with her that Carter had with Mondale or Clinton with Gore (and even that went sour, and not just because of the honey trap scandal).

    Cheney has proven beyond peradventure that the whole concept of the Vice Presidency is completely misbegotten, because it has no accountability whatsoever. No other major democracy has such an office, and goodness knows if the office were vacant the country would survive through the Presidential Succession Act.

    While BTD's arguments are very difficult to refute, I suspect the only reason Hillary would accept the offer is because she's importuned to do it for the good of the Party (and the nation). The best solution here would be for Obama to publicly and magnaminously offer the Vice Presidential nomination to her and for Hillary to gracefully decline, citing the importance of her remaining in the Senate in view of the legislative work that will have to be done in the next four years to repair the damage of eight years of Republican misrule. If that could be done relatively quickly, it would partially deflate the Media bloviators and cut down on the ruinous sniping that the Obama camp has indulged in from the tall grass.

    Poll: Most Obama supporters... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    don't want Hillary on the ticket.


    I say good luck with that election thing in November.

    Senator Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    should take a few days off, get back to work in the Senate and let things play out for the rest of the summer.  Do not suspend or concede.

    As McCain engages BHO and if any other "scandal" or hiccup occurs, HRC can step in and lead the convention.

    This is probably more wishful thinking than anything else but my gut instinct tells me 'something' is going to go down regarding Obama (scandal/gaffe) that will be his undoing.  I dunno.  Since the Clintons had the deck incredibly stacked against them, maybe they have an ace up their sleeve.  (?)

    This is why Obama is now complimenting Hillary (4.50 / 2) (#92)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST

    This is why McCain will win in a landslide.

    Millions of women refuse to vote for Obama.  They will sit it out, write-in Hillary, or vote for McCain.

    But, McCain has been lavishing praise on Hillary while the DNC/Obama gang has insulted her in every way you could think of - stealing her delegates, allowing Obama to steal caucuses, telling her to get out when she won the people's vote, etc.

    McCain will have Carly Fiorina, the HP CEO, as his VP.  He wins CA and he wins the women's vote.

    Obama cannot find a woman on this earth to replace Hillary. And, if he tries he will insult the millions of women voters EVEN MORE.

    So, McCain wins by a landslide.  Undecided women will defininately vote for McCain now.  It may not be Hillary, but McCain has restored dignity back to the women who were so insulted, dishonored, and degraded by Obama, his followers, and the DNC.

    And, of course, there's the American war hero against a two-faced, lying, corrupt, Chicago punk.


    It's not just women supporters of Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    there were many men who voted for Obama who never planned on voting for him in the Fall.

    Many polls showed white men voting for Obama, whether Dem or Repub, said they would switch up in November.

    Obama needs more than the "new" coalition of AA and eggheads if he wants to win this.  His coalition was weak from the beginning, only the press made it look more impressive than it really was.


    Fiorina won't help McCain in CA (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    In fact, Fiorina is so unpopular in Silicon Valley that her on the ticket would swing that area big to any Democratic candidate.

    Her views on outsourcing wouldn't help McCain in the rest of the country, either.


    Thanks... (none / 0) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    ...for your input, Mr. Rove.

    Democracy or Not (3.00 / 2) (#206)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST

    Hillary Clinton 17,673,329 (50.45%)

    Barack Obama 17,355,652 (49.55%)





    If Hillary really wants the VP slot... (1.28 / 14) (#3)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    ... she should keep her mouth shut in public. She shouldn't be playing hardball and trying to use "leverage".  She would be an extremely qualified VP candidate -- although I'm not sure she would help the ticket in Novemeber -- she is now going to actively hurt it by making Obama looking weak, by being strong-armed by her.

    Why would someone want to be strong-armed in to choosing them as a VP?  Hillary was already more than qualified, and if she kept her mouth shut, it was already obvious the party was split 50/50. Her lack of grace is HURTING her chances.

    I think she has shown enormous grace (5.00 / 15) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    and continues to do so. Maybe the rest of you should get off her case and let her decide what she believes is in the best interest of her supporters, her party and her country.

    I love the pander of putting Caroline (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    Kennedy on the selection committee.  Can't you just see it....But but but this nice lady is recommending  X for VP....and we all fall in line.

    What a joke.  The more they pander, the worse they make things.


    Offensive (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by delandjim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    I here assorted different women's name brought up as alternative to Hillary. I find this offensive. Today someone actually said it wouldn't really make much difference if it was a different woman. Listed Sebelius as a good alternative. I don't know about anyone else but choosing a different woman that Hillary offends me more that some man for the position.

    Sebelius is hands down the (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    most insulting choice out there.  What are they thinking?

    Oh, please please please.... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    let them pick Sebelius.  Then it will be a double-digit loss in November!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by delandjim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    Better yet McCaskill

    I like Sebelius (none / 0) (#152)
    by Panhandle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    She's a smart governor, and one of the most popular in the country. She's also had a good record with the economy. Maybe I'm missing something, but is Hillary the only qualified woman in the entire country to be Vice-President, or President for that matter? I don't think Obama should picka woman just to put a woman on the ticket, but there's some great women out there that aren't Clinton... I just don't understand the complete dismissal of other strong Democratic women

    Licking my chops if it is another woman. She will (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    be continuously compared to Hillary, and as we all know there is no comparison.  It would be a losing ticket for sure.  Pandering.  What an insult.

    Why is Sibelius a good alternative? (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    ...It is offensive to suggest her just because she is a woman. I think there are far better candidates for VP than her. Hillary is the best woman. But I can think of about 5 men that I feel would be better than Sibelius.

    She is not (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by delandjim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    She is not a good alternative, that is my point.

    Ooops sorry..... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    ...I should read more carefully. I overreacted. ;-)

    I agree with you, Jeralyn, however, (none / 0) (#62)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    as graceful as she has been, and as much as I admire her, she said when she endorsed Sen. Obama that it was her children who wanted her to. That puts her square in the same situation as Claire McCaskill (her children said they wouldn't speak to her anymore if she didn't)etal who endorsed that way. Not exactly a ringing endorsement!!Teddy endorsement, so he told colleagues because he didn't like what Bill Clinton said, not because he thought Obama was the next JFK.

    Sorry, Jeralyn, I misread (none / 0) (#117)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    thought you were talking about Caroline Kennedy. I agree with you about Hillary.

    If Hillary makes Obama look weak (5.00 / 17) (#13)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    I'd say that's his problem, not hers.

    I believe it is technically NOT (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    Obama's choice, VP is decided by vote at the convention.  If the voters tell their delegates they want her, she will be voted in whether he wants her or not.

    By the same token (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    the folks who want Hillary to surrender need to quit howling for her head.  If it's not already apparent, that sort of thing doesn't achieve the desired result.

    A colleague walked in my office earlier.  "What has you more upset," he asked, "the fact that Hillary isn't going to be the nominee, or the fact that she's being such a b*tch about it?"  Charming.  I'm surprised MSNBC hasn't hired him already.


    You comment (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    is a perfect example of everything that is wrong and ugly with Obama's campaign and supporters.

    Keep reminding us !!


    Why do people keep saying she is (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    "making Obama look weak"??

    If these sorts of intra-party negotiations are all it takes to make him look weak then we are in trouble.

    Honestly, all people are doing is kicking the can down the road when they insist that Obama be siloed here.  This primary was as close as they come.  Deal with it.  And dealing with it means finding ways to find common cause between the two groups.  That isn't "weak" that is democracy.


    Its not that one reason alone... (1.00 / 3) (#104)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    ... there are four reasons Clinton is bad for the VP Slot.

    (1) Hurts the main message: CHANGE. Clinton is tied to the past.

    (2) The ticket will have no military experience running against a MccCain

    (3) Although she can pull in democratic blue collar/women voters --> will this translate into something helpful for the general?

    (4) It looks like he is being strong-armed into it.

    I know the primary went 50/50 and Hillary deserves a significant stake in the next administration -- however there are a few other posts that could be suitable.

    (1) Cabinet Position -> responsible for health care plan transition

    (2) Supreme Court Justice (presuming her legal background is well qualified enough)

    (3) Senate Majority leader -> this one  might be a little difficult, because its not in Obama's control.

    Any of these three latter positions would not hurt the ticket, and still allow Obama to pick someone with extensive Military experience to shore up the tickets credentials


    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    (1) Cabinet Position -> responsible for health care plan transition

    (2) Supreme Court Justice (presuming her legal background is well qualified enough)

    (3) Senate Majority leader -> this one  might be a little difficult, because its not in Obama's control.

    Any of these three latter positions would not hurt the ticket, and still allow Obama to pick someone with extensive Military experience to shore up the tickets credentials

    1. Cabinet position - and fall into the black hole of nothingness.  Besides the SOS and SecDef, do you ever hear about the other cabinet secretaries?  (Can you even name the rest?

    2. SC Justice - not really her temperament - she's more of a partisan policy wonk.

    3. Majority Leader - only if Harry Reid is going somewhere and the 20 other people ahead of her (who probably just endorsed the Precious One) decide to roll over.

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    (3) Although she can pull in democratic blue collar/women voters --> will this translate into something helpful for the general?

    Only if you prefer to win the general.


    Oh, I dunno... (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    Although she can pull in democratic blue collar/women voters --> will this translate into something helpful for the general?

    You just described roughly 80% of the U.S. population (women 51%, working class 30%).

    Do YOU think that might be helpful in the general?



    I didn't realize... (1.00 / 0) (#170)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    ...that ALL women and blue collars voted Democratic.  Learn something new every day.  

    They don't (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    But a lot of them would vote for Hillary.

    I am offended by your insulting comment. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    "keep her mouth shut in public" (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    Stay in the background, be supportive of the man, heh?  Sorry, we aren't going back to those days no matter how much you and others might like wish.  

    Do not dare tell any woman to shut up (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    and especially not this woman, who has more to say than anything I've seen from you here.

    And did you think that Edwards ought to have conceded?  He still didn't do so, you know.  And he took many months to decide to release his delegates.

    She deserves at least the treatment that Edwards got -- and she deserves far better from you and the rest of this country.  Do not dare to go there again.


    I'll tell you who should keep his mouth shut (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    And it's not Hillary.

    Her move last night closes the door on VP (1.14 / 7) (#83)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    Her conduct last night and today with Wolfson and some irredentist posters here and there  precludes her place on the ticket, because it advertises  that she will seek to use the position for her own purposes, not the purposes of the President or the Party. It advertises she seeks to trade on rather than heal the division in the party.  It guarantees four years of  internal war, against delivery of a really small percentage of the 17 million who will follow her rather than the election results. And it breaks the hearts of supporters who thought her better than that. And you can't go to her website and tell her what you think - I went and the only option there is to approve of her unqualifiedly and then comment. (sigh)

    BTW, the newscasts today say she in fact did not win the popular vote.  

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:42:45 PM EST
    And before that she had ruled herself out because of the RFK comment.  And before that she had ruled herself out with the Commander-in-Chief comment.  And before that, and before that, and before that...

    I just love all the people who have appointed themselves to Obama's VP selection committee.  In reality, if you could watch Clinton's speech last night and conclude that it proves she seeks to become VP for her own purposes rather than the purposes of the President or the Democratic Party, then you were already way, way gone.


    STOP WITH THE GARBAGE! (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    It advertises no such thing. Jesus, you hillary haters are always looking for the most nefarious explanation possible. She's a bigger democrat than obama has demonstrated himself to be. He has ripped the party in half... don't talk to me about internal war. That's been his game from the start. what a sham. There's no 'there' there with this guy. You have NO idea why she's doing what she's doing so stop with the garbage. Man, your guy just inspires infinite hatred from his supporters. You want to kick us in the face and tell us to get in line. NO.
    -- member of the racist "dry p*ssy demographic"

    If posters preclude (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    candidates from office, Obama is scr3w3d big time.

    I am amazed that Clinton's site didn't allow you to go in and bash her.  Absolutely stunned I tell you.  Myself, I am proud of her and the campaign she has run and respect her right to handle the end of the primary process in any way she chooses.  Go figure.  


    Would you really endorse her doing that? (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    To continue promising to support "the nominee" but not Barack Obama? Or to hold out, trying to force herself onto the ticket? Don't you think that would look awful petty and detached from reality?

    If someone finds themselves unable to vote for Barack Obama after supporting Hillary, I would hope they would consider a vote for Bob Barr. He is the first half eloquent spokesperson the Libertarians have had, and it would be great to see them increase their numbers in the general election. The faster we add a third party to the debates, the ballots, and the federal funds on a regular basis, the better, and Barr is more sane than Nader, imo. Plus, the Libertarian platform is generally respectable, and not really built on a single issue, like greenness.

    never Barr in a million years (4.20 / 5) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    He has called for the death penalty for drug traffickers. Can't stand the guy.

    But as a Libertarian, is he not supporting (none / 0) (#16)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    legalization? Is that not part of their permanent platform?

    I care far more about (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    a person's life than their ability to smoke pot legally.

    What he once believed and what he supports (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    as a Libertarian are pretty different. He was once part of Newt's Far Right; now he respects personal liberty as the standard bearer for the Libertarian Party.

    People deserve a chance to realize the error of their ways. Barr seems to have done that.


    Barr's support of civil liberties seems to go only (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    as far as they affect him. Yes, he sometimes takes stands libs/progressives can feel good about, but the he does something off the wall.

    I do not want a Barr presidency.


    Barr has no chance of actually winning. (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    Not to be rude, but there are not that many disaffected Clinton supporters to go along with the true Libertarians. Voting for Barr would simply help to elevate the Libertarian Party, thus forcing the Dems--who have shown their arrogance here, no?--and the Repubs--who are always arrogant--to actually compete for power.

    He helps Obama (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by delandjim on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    Barr's candidacy helps Obama. Same as Nader has helped R's in the past.

    I was upset.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    Gravel didn't get their nom, or Kubby.  Those guys would be easy as pie to vote for.

    Barr will be harder to vote for....but if he's the only guy without a D or an R after his name on the ballot in my state, he wins by default.


    See this comment (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    I made above answering you here.

    if you are... (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    ... not in a clearly Blue state -- a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for John McCain. We all saw how this played out in 2000 with Nader. It's amazing people want a repeat. No matter how disgusted you are with this primary season -- 8 MORE years of Bush/McCain is not worth it.

    Absolutely. (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    If you live in a toss-up state, I would hold my nose and vote Obama, if for no other reason to give Hillary's ideas half a chance at becoming reality.

    I live in Maryland so..... (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    ...I can vote for Crusty the Clown if I want to.

    That's Krusty.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    with a "K":)

    He's certainly more worthy of your vote than any of the stooges...I just hope he isn't taking campaign money from Mr. Burns:)


    Oh geez, you're right..... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:04:28 PM EST
    ...an unpardonable error on my part. I better spell it right on my ballot though cause I don't want my vote going to the wrong clown.

    Krusty/Sideshow Bob '08! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    I'm in a toss up state (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    That said, I feel no compunction to vote Obama. From where I am sitting I on't owe the Deocrats anything. If McCain wins you can put it squarely in the camp of Obama though, not me. It isn't my fault if HE has offensive supporters and failed to make his case.

    There may not be very many toss up states (none / 0) (#177)
    by allimom99 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    this year. Whomever I decide to vote for in November, the person wil have had to EARN my vote by positions taken on real issues. Integrity as perceived by ME will also count. It's my vote, and I don't OWE it to anyone!

    He's won when she decides he has won (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by uncledad on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    He's won when she decides he has won

    Excuse me, I thought we had an election, and by the rules (the one with the most delegates) Obama won. Hillary is not some sort of anointed queen, she is a politician just like Obama. She is a politician that lost, and her followers would be wise to accept that fact and move on. There is no shame in losing only in losing poorly.

    No. Not so, and you know it (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    as you have been here enough.  So stop trying to maintain those untruths.  

    The nomination is not won by a majority of delegates.  It is won by reaching a specific number.  And Obama has not and cannot win that number based on pledged delegates, so he coronated himself based on the hope that his super-delegates who can switch will not do so.  

    It's up to him to hang onto them now.  No more pastor disasters.  No more Michelle Obama mistakes.  And he really needs supporters who are less ignorant or less willing to disrupt blogs.  Buh-bye.


    Here's your problem (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    by the rules (the one with the most delegates) Obama won.

    There is no such rule.

    Everybody say it with me...

    Until one candidate reaches the magic number of delegates (pledged) there is no nominee.

    Superdelegates can change right up to the convention.

    Pledged delgates can too, or at least they can change after the first ballot.

    We do not have a nominee - we have a presumptuous nominee who is not the ACTUAL nominee unless/until Hillary drops out - which she has not - or the convention.

    Obama people sure like the rules; too bad they don't really know what they are.


    There is also shame in (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    winning poorly.  I didn't hear you here demanding that Edwards concede.  Why the hurry with Hillary?

    Rules are the one with the most delegate (none / 0) (#184)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:08:02 PM EST
    VOTES unless someone concedes. No voting by delegates has occurred. Technically, we're in presumed nominee limboland. You can lecture all you want but I don't think it will make her concede any faster or the voting convention meet any sooner. And it just sound mean-spirited.

    Negotiate? (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by smb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    She is a public servant, and she is a Democrat, when you don't have the numbers and everyone realizes (even your supported) that there is no chance to win then there is no place for anything but getting in line behind the candidate. By holding out she is showing that she is a self servant before being a Democrat or public servant. In her speech last night she effectively put 18M people up as hostages of hers, bargaining chips. For what end? Paying off debt? Securing a position on the ticket?

    Can someone give me one reason why she shouldn't have conceded last night? I mean what a better way to get on the ticket than showing Obama that you believe in him? What a better way to bring a party together than to show your supports how triumphant last night was for the democratic party.

    To me it seems the way of the Clintons, trust nobody, the only method to move your position forward is leverage and you have never lost until you decided to end the fight.

    Caroline Kennedy (none / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    in lieu of Ted perhaps?

    As for Hillary, perhaps she can get out and stump for Congresspeople and those Senators up for re-election.  

    It's not only one way of keeping herself in the Public Eye and PUBLICLY working to support the Party -- something she's promised repeatedly to do -- and hold or expand their leads in the House and Senate, but it's also a way of tacitly reminding people of her strength.  

    While Obama's being whittled down and blown away by the inevitable media attack, she'll be earning the respect and gratitude of all those House Members and Senators who supported Barack, but now find themselves fighting for their Seats on their own without Obama's help (he's infamous for taking what he needs and then moving on).

    Yes and no - Caroline's spent most of her adult (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    life doing the institution-building, good-government, foundation and charity circuit of work.  It's actually politics in the most elemental sense - getting people together to work together toward particular goals.  Need someone capable, high-profile and respected for the Board - she's a good choice.

    In doing that over the last 30 years, she's gotten to know everyone who's anyone, and probably knows more about everyone than anyone else.  She's deeply respected.  It's sort of like she's Jackie O., but without the hubbub that surrounded Jackie.

    And, she's probably held in high esteem by everyone.


    She should just go on vacation (none / 0) (#54)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    VPs often aren't picked until the convention. Let the media move on to some other topic. They will get used to saying presumptive nominee for Obama, like they do for McCain. Obama and McCain can spar over the summer. The best choice for Obama will become clearer as a result, to him and to the public. If he is lagging in the polls, she can step in to save his behind. If he is doing well, then good for him. It will be healthier for him, and the party future, for him to consolidate his power base on his own.

    Rezko (none / 0) (#61)
    by anon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    Decision to be announced in Court at 3:45 CST

    Maybe this has already been said.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    but why Caroline Kennedy?  That seems like a weird choice.

    If he picks Bill Richardson I won't stop laughing for days.

    Ok, this is all MY OPINION... (none / 0) (#161)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    I'm currently operating on the assumption that Hillary Clinton does not want to be VP. (sorry BTD!) If she wanted to be VP, she would have given a very different speech last night. Her speech was brilliant, mind you, and I have no complaints, but it was not the speech of someone shooting for the number 2 slot. In fact, it pretty much closed that door completely; Obama can't offer it to her now without appearing weak, and weak is the one thing he can't afford to be. Clinton, whose political instincts are second to none, knows this. She has another goal in mind.

    There is absolutely no chance that she spends the summer 'campaigning for the nominee' without specifying who that is, or anything like that. She may or may not release her delegates, and she'll certainly hang around in case Obama implodes over the summer, but she's not about to start tilting at windmills. There's too much real work to be done.

    Slightly OT - McCain vs. Obama (none / 0) (#174)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    Look at the last sentence - once again Obama rips Hillary off.


    "John McCain on Wednesday proposed a series of debates and town hall forums with Barack Obama. These events would be in addition to the three presidential debates sanctioned by the Presidential Debate Commission.

    Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Baton Rouge, La., McCain said the two major party presidential candidates should appear together so that Americans can get a good look at the differences in their policies.

    "Leaders don't hide from history, they make history," McCain said. "I hope that Senator Obama will accept my invitation."

    McCain later told reporters that he thinks Americans want "a new kind of discussion."

    "I think they want a real chance to express their hopes and dreams and aspirations for the future and I think they'd like to hear directly from the candidates," he said.

    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded that he finds the idea of joint town halls "appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country."

    However, Plouffe said the Obama camp would "recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.""

    The best scenario, IMO (none / 0) (#181)
    by travc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    If Clinton really doesn't want to be VP (I hope she doesn't), then I could see a good way for this to unfold.

    Clinton tells Obama privately she wants to stay in the Senate where she can do more good (IMO).

    Obama makes it known that Clinton is number one on the VP short list.

    Clinton thanks Obama for the respect/recognition, and declines laying out her case for championing policies in the Senate.

    This would give Obama an easy 'out', and setup Clinton to become 'lioness of the Senate' (nice phrase jawbone).  

    You haven't seen anything yet. (none / 0) (#203)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST