Why Obama Won't Pick Hillary for VP

Unlike Big Tent Democrat, I don't care about a joint ticket with Obama and Hillary. As I said this morning, if Hillary wants it, I think he should offer it to her. If she doesn't, she certainly should not feel obligated to take it just so she brings him more votes.

That said, here are three reasons I think Obama will not offer it to her regardless of what she wants. I don't agree with a single one but I'lll raise them for your reactions:

1. Both racism and sexism are very much alive in this country. He fears there are too many voters who who would never vote for a woman and another set who wouldn't vote for an African-American candidate. He wants time to conduct polling and if the polling shows his campaign would suffer by giving both groups a reason to leave the Democratic party, he won't choose Hillary. [More...]

2. He will give strong consideration to whether he might benefit more from choosing someone who is
more conservative than he is with strong national security credentials, to help insulate him from some of McCain's attacks. Who might fit this bill? From his vantage point, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel, Wes Clark or Joe Biden, but not Hillary.

3. He has concerns about being overshadowed by Hillary and Bill and maintaining control over his own Administration, if elected.

Now, if he doesn't choose Hillary, how will he sell it to her supporters?

Will her supporters agree it is not out of disrespect for her or her supporters and accept that he is just making a cold political calculation that choosing someone else is the best way to win and govern afterwards?

Now, assuming he doesn't choose Hillary, and I am pretty confident he won't, how will his campaign try to sell it? They will ask her supporters to ask themselves:

  • Will the goals that Hillary so eloquently and vigorously supports be better advanced with Barack Obama or John McCain in the White House?
  • Who will better achieve national health care?
  • Who will better protect women's rights?
  • Who will be a champion for labor and who for capital?
  • Who will protect the environment and who will despoil it?
  • Who will be beholden to the radical right?

What's missing from these questions?

  • Does he have the necessary experience to lead?
  • Is there substance behind his message of hope and change? Will people get so tired of those words they start to roll their eyes when they hear it?
  • Will concerns about his past associations and questions about his judgment grow as the race progresses?
  • Can he win the swing states like Ohio, PA and Florida?
  • Can he win older voters, women voters, rural voters and Hispanic/Latino voters? Can he beat McCain without them?

Now, for some of my views:

  • The worst thing he could do is put another woman on the ticket. That will appear to her supporters as the most traiterous act yet.
  • Second worst: Pick a conservative. What's the difference between that and McCain?
  • Third worst thing: Don't try and sell that his not choosing Hillary is not a diss. It is and Hillary supporters are not stupid.

What's his way out of this mess?

He needs to work like crazy to have Hillary say she doesn't want to be on the ticket so she can make the case on the other issues to her supporters.

If her supporters believe she wants to be on the ticket and he declines to offer her the spot, his reasons won't matter. A diss is a diss and this would be too big a diss for them to get past.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary Event to Be Held Saturday in D.C. | Weds. Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Another missing question. (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:01 PM EST
    What about all those Hillary supporters who are angry about how she was treated by the party and by the media, and want to know that their views and their candidate are respected?

    In other words, don't act like you won in a landslide. Act as if you finished in a tie and happened to prevail because of some rules.

    This diary is right on (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    I posted on another thread that the winning candidate will need between 60-70 million votes. Historic turnout as it was in the primaries. A lot will turnout just to vote against him based on race. I believe McCain will get at least 20% of the vote out of the gate. I don't know if he can reach 60-70 million but maybe he can.

    The fricken mandate... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:03 PM EST
    In other words, don't act like you won in a landslide. Act as if you finished in a tie and happened to prevail because of some rules.

    I thought only Republicans won by narrow margins (or not at all, see 2000) and then claimed mandates.

    That's got to be the thing that's ticking me off the most about all this.


    Hillary as VP (4.00 / 1) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    Lanny Davis has started a web site campaign to encourage the Clinton VP decision.

    Included on the site is a way to write to the superdelegates.


    No thanks (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    I don't understand (1.56 / 16) (#105)
    by fireback on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:23 PM EST
    the comment that Hillary wants her supporters respected.  What do you want?  You want national health care?  Ok, Obama's plan is similar.  You want to end the war?  Ok.  It's not like Hillary and Obama are much different in their policies.  So, what is it.  Why can't you just face the fact that disrespect is the natural outcome of a bitter campaign.  How do you think I feel when Hillary supporters say I'm just a koolaid-drinker.  Do yo realize how insulting that is to hear from Hillary supporters?  Not very respectful either don't you think?  Let's just face reality.  Both fought hard.  Things got little personal.  Water under the bridge - let's move on.

    oh, but (4.50 / 8) (#124)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:00 PM EST
    your suffering is great. how have you borne it with such grace?

    Disrespect is the outcome of a bitter campaign?

    I think you are confusing cause and effect here. Not saying that it was all one-sided, but you are not making any valid points.

    There are reasons to support Obama. "His plan is almost like Hillary's" isn't one of them.


    I would hope (1.00 / 5) (#227)
    by fireback on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    that I'd have the same grace if I were on the other side (assuming you're not be sarcastic)  It's impossible to tell - but that would be my desired side.  

    My point is that with any hard-fought campaign, it's not unusual for it be become bitter.  I'm not going to get into the ridiculous argument over who hit  first.  I personally think that Hillary was much more negative, first and often, but in fairness, I'll step back and just recognize that it goes both ways.  That's not confusion, that was acknowledgment and respect that Clinton supporters might feel otherwise.  

    Of course their are better reasons to support Obama, but him not being as experienced as her, not speaking specifically enough, not knowing the issues as well as Hillary, being too wishy washy, or feeling disrespected by some of his idiot supporters, are not good ones considering how similar on the issues they are.


    As a fellow Obama supporter, (1.00 / 2) (#121)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:03 PM EST
    I think you'll get the best results by being the first to move on rather than trying to push others to do so.

    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM EST
    Obama should make a point of bringing Clinton and her supporters into his coalition.  I'm not sure Hillary herself needs or wants to be on the ticket to accomplish that.

    If they decide that the best place for Clinton is as a leader in the Senate, one scenario I can envision is Hillary offering one of her close associates for the VP pick.  I can imagine a joint  rally where Hillary introduces Wes Clark as the next VP of the United States, the General says a few appropriate words and Obama closes by explaining how he and Clark are going to make mincemeat of the GOP in November and lead America at home and abroad.

    Clark has been a favorite of mine for a long time and I think might complement Obama better than HRC does as a running mate....not to say he's "better" than Clinton but maybe more complementary for Obama.


    I have my own opinion, of course, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    (I think he should put Hillary on the ticket), but I also have to say this: if Sam Nunn is chosen, I will have serious reservations about voting for him in November.

    Thankfully, I think he will not.

    That would make me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    angry and I'm an Obama supporter!

    Sam Nunn is who (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:05:36 AM EST
    Ii'm speaking of, as making me angry not Hillary, just want to make that clear.

    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:45 PM EST
    Deal breaker.  So are Chuck Hagel and any other Republican or DINO.

    Not that I've reached a deal.  If the election were held tomorrow, I'd vote 3rd party, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.  Sam Nunn, et al, closes that door because it's confirmation that an Obama Administration is going to be the Republican-Lite Unity horror show that I already suspect it's going to be.  At that point I would even consider working for McCain against Obama.  Even I'd rather a real Republican than a fake one.  At least then we keep the opposition party from moving even further to the right.  Otherwise, we'd basically be agreeing to an ideological merger with the GOP.   Which is even worse in the long run than McCain.


    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#15)
    by phat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:04 PM EST
    Sam Nunn?

    I'd vote for them. But Sam Nunn?


    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    is a troglodyte!  He interfered with Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays in the military and has been nothing but a DINO as far as I can tell.

    Furthermore, he has been virtually absent from the public stage in recent years.


    Yeah, Nunn is a weird mention for BP (none / 0) (#38)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    I'm mean he's been kinda out of the loop, for what a decade or more.  

    I agree Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    It would be a HUGE mistake to ask Hagel, and I think Nunn too.  A conservative sends the wrong message.  Wes Clark would be okay.

    I would be very happy with Clinton on the ticket. But I am willing to admit that might be more out of emotion right now. I have not been able to absorb the rationale against putting her on the ticket yet.

    I don't know if Wesley is interested... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    again, a far more qualified person behind a novice to boost him up.

    If Obama is all that, let him make it on his own.


    I'd bet he would (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    turn it down flat.

    I don't know... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    ...he was an ineffective campaigner in 2004, but he has improved quite a bit since then.  He is already doing much of what would required during the campaign.  

     He is charming, attractive, well-respected by the Clintons.  He adds a hell of a lot more military experience than McCain.  The real problem, from a political standpoint, would be that he is not someone that can be easily nurtured, like Gore, for the presidency, largely because of age.

     I think he might be interested...and I think he could be persuaded.  


    I agree.....but he would say yes to Sec of Def. (none / 0) (#233)
    by BestinShow on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:32:05 AM EST
    That's where his heart is. He was part of re-building the army after VN and now after Bush & Co. the military needs to be re-tooled.

    Gert Clark mentioned in small talk with supporters in 2003 that prior to even thinking of running for Pres., Sec of Def was a "dream" job for Wes

    he has one year left on the 10 year rule, but an exception can be made by congress -- been done before


    But Clark is a novice (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST
    as a pol.  

    And before you can govern, you need to politic.

    I like the guy and respect his nat'l security creds.  

    But he doesn't strike me as a great fit for the VP slot.


    Wes Clark (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    has spent almost his whole life serving his country.  I'm guessing he could set pride aside to serve as Vice President and help beat the GOP.  Especially if both Barack and Hillary asked him to.

    If Hillary doesn't want the VP job, I think it'd be an appropriate gesture by Obama to her supporters to nominate one of her close associates, with her public blessing.


    During Obama's BitterCling speech (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    he spoke about how he didn't need a VP with FP/Military creds as his were fine.

    That's what got me about the speech, bitter/cling wasn't great, but his VP comments told me more.


    His credentials (1.00 / 2) (#184)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    are fine!  Obama has as much military experience as either of the Clintons.  Why would he say he "needed" someone to bolster his military cred?

    That Obama doesn't need doesn't mean that someone with military experience couldn't help, both in the election and in protecting the country.


    Obama won't pick Hillary because... (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    he doesn't like Hillary and Michelle hates her.

    No need to analyze it too much.  

    Well, yeh, there's that............. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    No love lost.  

    Some questions (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:57 PM EST
    You say you do not care. That raises the following questions for me.

    Do you think having Hillary on the ticket improves Obama's chances of winning?

    If the answer is yes, should you not care about that?

    If the answer is no, then no further questions.

    I have no idea (5.00 / 21) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    if she would help his chances.  If he can't win without her, then why is he the nominee?

    Which is the 64 million dollar question! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:17 PM EST
    Or at least... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:13:55 PM EST
    the 17 million voter question.

    He is the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    because the system in place selected him.

    What matters now is winning in November.

    I am in agreement with you that Hillary has earned the right to be asked but honestly, that is a very down on my list consideration.

    We desperately need to win this election.

    It is why I was for Obama - the only reason as I believed them to be equal in almost every other way with differing strengths and weaknesses.

    I admit I was wrong about that.

    But all I have cared about is winning in November always in terms of who wins and loses.

    Of course, I also care about the issues, fairness and the hypocrisy, sexism and ugliness we have seen in this campaign.

    But in terms of who is the nominee? I do not care at all who was going to be President. I have no idea who would have been better. I suspect you can make a good argument that Hillary would be better. Perhaps you would be right. I can never know.

    Heck, I thought Bill Clinton stunk in 92. I cast a protest vote for Jerry Brown in the NY primary that year - because of Ricky Ray Rector.

    I was wrong.


    But you never talked about and never do talk (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:41 PM EST
    about who would do a better job.

    I have no idea who do a better job (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    I go by what they say they are going to try and do and in terms of their chances for getting it done. both had weaknesses. Maybe, if I had to do it all over again, I would have been for Clinton. I doubt it. At the time, Iraq was sticking in my craw.

    Plus I hate Mark Penn and I did not like Hillary's campaign.

    What she has become is the type of pol we Dems need. But it came too late, for all of us.


    You Must Have Missed (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST

    In terms of VP choices based solely on electoral math, If Ohio gov. Strickland can deliver Ohio to Obama, then he should pick him. In addition, Strickland was a strong Clinton supporter and this a unifying choice. The question is can Strickland really deliver Ohio? I have no idea. Polling needs to be done in Ohio to determine that.

    In terms of other VP potentials....

    Well... (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    The Ricky Ray Rector stunt was atrocious. I can't think of anything a Democratic candidate has done that was anywhere near as awful as that.

    I can think of at least half a dozen (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:30 AM EST
    as bad or worse than RRR in my book.

    How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    How about Vietnam?  Johnson staying in for political reasons?  (59,000+ dead Americans and 300,000 maimed and wounded Americans...add in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam itself....thousands and thousands...Mei Lai....


    I would be very disappointed (5.00 / 14) (#62)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:57 PM EST
    in Hillary if she took the VP job. Too many of us have seen the more qualified woman passed over for the lesser qualified man. I would hate to see her in this position where she would have to support and work for someone I doubt that she respects and who has not respected her through the primaries. I really hope she wouldn't take it if offered. It is like a slap in the face for the person who won the popular vote to always be in the second slot.
    And why would she ask for a job on the Titanic? I really don't think Obama will win it. Kerry didn't and Gore didn't - and they were up aqgainst BUSH. McCain, for all his obvious defects, is a lot more moderate....IMHO.

    Unlike their supporters (2.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Lesser Dane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:18 PM EST
    I would assume that the candidates have a lot of mutual respect. That is, I do not think Clinton views Obama as unqualified, and I do not believe that Obama disrespects Clinton (nor have I heard him express the disrespect you ascribe to him).

    I am in two minds about the Clinton-as-VP option. I am not overly concerned about November - I believe Obama can win with most VP choices, and am more interested in which candidate

    • Will positively influence the day-to-day politics
    • Would be a good candidate in 2016

    He's more malleable by those who want (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM EST
    to retain power (Pelosi, The Woman in power; Kennedy; Kerry, Daschle et al).  The Clintons probably 'rule' in a way that doesn't make them feel important enough.  Or, they just want the reins, the first two having run hard themselves to get into the WH but failing.  It always amazes me that Kennedy did challenge a sitting Democrat president all the way to the convention while Kennedy was 750 delegates behind.

      I don't imagine there was the daily call for him to get out and speculation about any insanity or narcissism to stay in, from The Powers That Be.

      But we do admire his guts, and currently too.  Amazing guy.  A woman doing that though just won't play the same way, as a woman should know her place.

      I agree with you, by the way, that it would be an insult of the highest order to run another WOMAN as they keep suggesting because that supposedly would get her voters back.  It's not because she is a woman!  It's because of her particular deep knowledge, experience with how all the disparate parts of DC work, intense interest, enthusiasm, energy, and immersion in the tedious details of how we can fix some serious problems.  She's not in it for the glamour.  She doesn't tell us to go to her website to see what her solutions are.

      It is, though, that she was dismissed on a daily basis, in words that convey a lot of contempt for the female state.  A lot of ridicule was involved, and it continues.  That doesn't mean another woman would nearly qualify.  But another female would probably weaken the ticket because she isn't Clinton.

      They are so clueless.


    Another woman? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    Other than Hillary?  if Obama does that, it would be PROOF that he just does not get it.  What a friggin insult that would be to Hillary supporters.  

    It looks like his VP will be whoever the Kennedys decide it will be.  Who is Ted's choice?  Since he's so ill, Caroline will let him choose.    


    Could you explain (none / 0) (#191)
    by Lesser Dane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    how another woman is more of an insult than a man? I do not undertsand it, unless you assume that women are always chosen based on their gender, rather than other qualities.

    not the right question (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    The right question is: "Do you think having Hillary on the ticket improves Obama's chances of winning more than anyone else does?"

    I don't see any grounds for confidence that she does vs. several other candidates.


    Yes, she does. (4.33 / 6) (#26)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    Millions of people like me will probably sit on our hands if we don't have a reason to drag ouselves to the polls.  We'll vote VP, which is highly unusual. But, also, she has the support of tons of activist who will sit on their hands, but they'll work for that ticket.

    Yes she does. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by magnetics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    Case in point: I am strongly considering sitting out November, if she is not somewhere on the ticket.

    I don't say that lightly.  I am a loyal yellow dog who has pulled the Dem lever in every presidential contest since McGovern (my first vote.)

    I wouldn't vote for McCain dogcatcher, but I will not support a candidate who I feel is unqualified, which is the case the with Obama.


    I honestly don't get this... (4.62 / 8) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:12 PM EST
    the VP is a nothing office, and its pretty obvious that Obama isn't going to want to give Clitnon any power as VP.

    I just don't understand why people would say "well, its really important to have a strong competent leader in a position where her hands are tied, and she'll be force to act like the President isn't an idiot".


    Gore and especially Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST
    have really broken the mold of VP as funeral specialist.

    I think Hillary wants to lead, and would only take the role if as part of the deal Obama promised her a leadership role on a particular issue she cares about - like healthcare.

    That might be a very interesting administration.  The more I think about it the more I warm up to this ticket (thought I'm still a big Wes Clark fan too).


    Gore and Cheney had willing presidents (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    ...willing to give them more serious things to do -- and in Bush's case he needed Cheney, who accompanied him to the Iraq hearings and spoke for Bush when questioned.

      A recent poll pitted Obama with various vp candidates against McCain.  He did not do well with any of them, except for Clinton where there was a large gain.


    Actually (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    I think Edwards helped Obama the most in that poll (if it's the one I'm thinking of).  But whatever.

    I think Obama would want to avoid the appearance of a "co-Presidency."  And I don't think HRC would want to accept a traditional (pre-Gore) ceremonial role as VP.

    But they might work out a middle ground where she were granted considerable latitude and leadership on a particular issue.  Healthcare is the first that jumps to mind.


    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#210)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:01:40 AM EST
    to the polls you refer to?  I tried the Google.

    I have only seen the SUSA ones, which did not include Clinton (and had Edwards as the stand-out choice)


    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM EST
    It will not advance her political agenda in the least.

    The only, only reason I can see to be for a Unity ticket is to help him win the WH.  I agree with BTD that a joint ticket is the only way to beat McCain.

    I can't see him being a good President.  I'm afraid even being a competent President might be a reach.  I don't trust him in the least to advance any of the issues he mentioned during the campaign.  Maybe it's just my particular life experience, but the idea of a Reagan Redux after a failed Democratic presidency terrifies me.  I'd rather let McCain fail to overcome the problems presented by the war and the economy and then let the Democrats pick up the WH in 2012.  


    Gore and Cheney beg to differ n/t (4.75 / 4) (#42)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:37 PM EST
    I don't see it (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    I don't deny that the phenomenon you describe exists but we really have no idea how deep or broad it is.

    The four demographicgroups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites. I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than one of those groups, and I can think of a few people who would be considerably better than she is among several of them.

    There's a fifth group to consider too, of course, namely partisans of Hillary Clinton. But it's way too early to tell (she hasn't even done the formal endorsement yet) how stable and potentially recalcitrant that bloc is.

    So Obama should take his time, but any authoritative statement about his best choice right now is really premature.


    Name those people (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM EST
    Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    "The four demographic groups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites. I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than one of those groups, and I can think of a few people who would be considerably better than she is among several of them."

    Those ARE the Hillary Democrats.  Heh.  I can not fathom who better could appeal to those groups.


    That made no sense (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    Did you even read what you wrote?

    The four demographic groups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites.  Then who was the stronger?

    I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than ONE. Really?  When she was the stronger in all of those areas....

    Obama supporters really need to learn to stop smacking Clinton supporters around.  You know that 5th group you condescendingly refer to as 'recalcitrant'?  That's the 5th group she brings to the ticket by your metric.


    Check your reading (1.50 / 2) (#100)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:25:19 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton outperformed Barack Obama among those groups. That implies nothing, one way or the other, about her ability to bring them in vs. another VP nominee.

    check your logic (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:35 PM EST
    and give us some names.

    One (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    You do realize he gets to pick only one VP right?

    I think... (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    ...he is probably a riskier candidate, but a lot of the fears about her strengths in these areas arose as it became clear Senator McCain was emerging as the nominee.

    Really? (4.40 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    Who would be a better candidate to appeal to Latinos?  Oscar de la Hoya?

    The Champion Campaigner (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
    Bill Richardson. <snark>

    waits for the mention of .... (none / 0) (#81)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    Bill Richardson in ... 3....2...1....

    Again... (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    Yeah, Richardson probably would do more for Obama among Latinos than Hillary Clinton would. Also, lots of Hillary Clinton partisans hate Richardson, which would cost votes.

    But that's beside the point. The question isn't, who would be the best VP choice to bring in Hillary Clinton partisans --- that's only one consideration. The question is who brings in the most total voters. Apart from the New York-Puerto Rico connection, was Hillary Clinton known as the choice of Latinos before, say, February?


    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:56 PM EST
    Hillary has always been very strong with Latinos.

    During her years on the national stage, she's worked very, very hard to build bridges with virtually all of the minority constituencies within the Democratic Party.

    Bill Richardson means nothing whatsoever to most Latinos.  From where I sit, they're not even in the same galaxy.


    No he wouldn't. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST
    He could not even get traction among latinos in the primaries vs. Hillary.  More latinos came out to support Hill in these primaries than they ever have before.  They are a very really voting block for her.

    Yes, she was the latino choice well before February.  She started her outreach, seperate from Bill(who was beloved by latinos), early in her Senate career.  Her domestic agenda was written with an eye towrd latinos.  Yes, there were several mentions that latinos were more enamoured with Hillary than Bill Richardson very early on.  There was a CA poll that showed Hillary woas recieving very high support among latinos as early as last summer.


    Richardson is still viewed as a Turncoat (none / 0) (#231)
    by janedw420 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:15:43 AM EST
    with way too many Clinton supporters. He was jeered tonight on LKL. He was ineffective in PR. MCCain would likely scoop loads of latinos

    in a word: (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST

    You are really revealing how little you know about HRC here.


    Yes and no. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    Lots of people will be really pissed if she doesn't get the VP nod.  That's an advantage to Clinton over various others that has to be taken into account.  It's not a very satisfying answer, since you'd hope liberals would vote for Obama over McCain regardless of whether his VP is Clinton or some other decent Democrat.

    But I think you can read a lot of comments even on this site that suggest that isn't really the case.  Maybe emotions will cool down as Clinton bows out, but if they don't Clinton might actually be the most politically effective choice.

    Again, this is not the ideal way to be choosing a VP, since it amounts to trying to convince Democrats that the Democratic candidate is better than the Republican, but that might very well be where we are at the moment.


    One other point (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:24 PM EST
    This is just a hunch, but...

    How many voters definitely would vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket but definitely wouldn't otherwise? Very few, I think. Which militates against choosing her provided there are better prospects for the other voters Obama wants to target.

    (Webb, Clark, Schweitzer, Strickland, Sherrod Brown, possibly Biden IMO, and I really like Janet Napolitano.)


    We know 59% want her on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    Per BTD in another thread. We do not know how many will not vote for him if she is not. But I personally can count 9. If everyone else can count one more than themselves, Houston we have a problem.

    thanks for the names (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    but you really don't know much about these folks, do you?

    Webb is anathema to most feminists and a lot of women.

    Schweitzer is an interesting choice but has only been in a gov's office for 2 years. He certainly does nothing with Hillary's constituency of voters.

    Sherrod Brown? Is that a joke?

    Biden has some cred on FP, but hardly has any traction and certainly not with the groups you are describing as reflecting Obama's weaknesses.

    And choosing a woman other than Hillary is a suicidal move if the object is to appeal to Hillary's voters.

    Strickland is the only one of your names that is interesting or realistic (to achieve the goals you are hoping to achieve), because he is popular in a battleground state and is a Clinton ally/supporter.


    Strickland (none / 0) (#197)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    is anti-abortion, isn't he?

    he gets a 30% from NARAL (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by dws3665 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
    So it's not a strong issue for him, no. I don't think he's "anti-abortion," like, say Casey, but it is a knock. Thanks for pointing that out.

    I don't want Clinton on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
     because I don't want her to go down with the titanic, but you are being ridiculous.  Please post everywhere and do it often.  Sen McCain will thank you later.  

    Agreed, but.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    Blog comments obviously aren't anything more than a collection of anecdotes, and you know what the plural of "anecdotes" isn't....

    The one bloc for which Hillary Clinton has a decisive advantage vs. any other potential candidate is Hillary Clinton partisans. But again, we really don't know how deep or broad a bloc they are. We won't be able to gauge it at least until a few weeks after she endorses Obama and the emotional pique subsides.

    (This points out another disanalogy btw. this race and Ford/Reagan in 76: there were clear ideological contrasts between Ford and Reagan, and picking Reagan could have done a lot to drive up conservative enthusiasm for Ford (though I actually think the Watergate and Nixon pardon stench were insuperable obstacles and putting Reagan on the ticket in 76 would have just wound up squashing his national career.))


    The emotion pique (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    Man, you guys want to lose, don't you?

    Um (1.00 / 2) (#148)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:14 PM EST
    I really don't see why you have to read anything sinister into the (obviously true) observation that the emotional complexion of this thing will change as the party, including Hillary Clinton, rallies around Obama (just how much we don't know yet, which is why she might turn out to be the best choice). But anyway, the marginal effect of anything I write here ≈ 0, so I'm not too worried.

    Have you ever (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    heard the word 'pique' used of a man?  It's always used of women who indulge in a fit of pique over something trivial.  Trivial, like, I don't know, seeing the first serious female contender for the Presidency mobbed by a bunch of misogynists in the media and on the Left itself.  That sort of trivial.  But I'm sure we'll all get over our little fit and fall in line in a month or so.

    yes (1.00 / 1) (#214)
    by dmk47 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    I'm not using it w/r/t Hillary Clinton, who will shortly be campaigning for Barack enthusiastically; I'm using it w/r/t to her millions of supporters who include millions of men.

    Aw, but each of our voices represents (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    Blog comments obviously aren't anything more than a collection of anecdotes
    I have to add; I am one voice here and have never met any of the people on this blog that I am aware. I have a lot of friends and family and even though I am in Penna, that group extends to Fla, Calif, Vermont, New Hamp, Mass, and Texas. These are the people I am in contact with on a weekly basis and these people all vote. None of them Blog. So my one voice now represents another 25 voices. 4 of them were for Obama. If each of us are averaging this same amount, then I would have to conclude that our little bloc represents a lot of the Hillary people. I know half who are in limbo about voting and the other half have said no vote but would if Hillary is on the ticket. Only if she is on the ticket.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#108)
    by befuddled on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    This has been discussed frequently and while I have made no tallies, the arguments boil down to how attractive the VP choice will be to the presumably disaffected constituents. But, they are a diverse lot with diverse grievances. It looks very amenable to a lot of analytical methods but there is hardly time now to do that accurately, have to cobble up a guesstimate from polls. And then try to find the best match in the available pool.

    Also, those whose attitudes are negative are a lot harder to turn than those whose attitudes are positive.  


    I want a DEM in the WH; Obama's not a Dem to me (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    He's a panderer to right wing interests and I regard him as little more than the kind of mascot Sody Pop companies use to sell more product in black neighborhoods. (Oh yeah, Sprite's the Hip Hop drink.)

    At least Bush was up front about his agenda. Obama's a stealth right wing tool and his list of bigotries, with sexism at the top of the list, is too long for me.


    Why not someone from within his own camp? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:12 PM EST
    What's wrong with his movement that he can't pull someone from one of the many vastly superior people from his movement to be his VP???

    It would show strength, and it would reward his own base for their support!

    That is a better idea (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST

    However, I honestly think he's afraid of not choosing Clinton.  In fact, when she concedes/suspends, or whatever, all heck is going to break lose unless he does so.

    I'm well-stocked on popcorn.  It'll be fun to watch.


    Party unity is too important, that's why. (2.00 / 0) (#229)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:43:05 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is not like just any other potential VP candidate. She finished the primary campaign in a virtual popular-vote tie with the presumptive nominee.

    I don't know whether she really wants the VP slot. All VP candidates are routinely hounded by the media for any sign of independent thought -- especially any disagreement with the presidential nominee on any matter of substance. This time-honored ritual humiliation of the VP nominee would quite understandably be viewed by her supporters as irredeemably sexist, and they would, I suspect, get angry at Obama for his ungallantry in not stepping to her defense.

    If she does want the VP spot, she is certainly going about getting it in totally the wrong way.

    Anyway, I think Obama should offer the spot to a Clinton loyalist -- Ed Rendell is my first choice,  with Wesley Clark a distant second.


    Caroline Kennedy (none / 0) (#163)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    is the head of his selection committee. I suspect that is to represent Uncle Ted.

    Clinton should make it clear what she wants... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:36 PM EST
    and do so publicly and openly.

    If she wants it, she should endorse Obama for President, and announce that she is running for Vice President.  

    Or she should just say that she's not interested in the job, and that if she is not the nominee of the party she plans to continue to represent the people of New York as a Senator.

    But she should make it clear that SHE is not a supplicant here, while putting an end to the ridiculous media speculation.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    For the same reason that it's ridiculous for Obama supporters to demand that Hillary abase herself, I think it's misguided to insist on some kind of heightened stature for her.

    This is supposed to be about the country and winning in November, not about egos.  In fact, dare I say it, that's a somewhat masculine way of looking at it!


    The vice presidency is a constittuional office... (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    and she should treat it that way.

    Screw Obama and his feelings.  If he doesn't want a strong, independent, competent woman with millions of supporters he should say so.

    She has just as much right to run for VP as she does for president -- and as President of the Senate can have a GREAT deal of influence on what happens with legislation....


    Obama spent much of the primary demonizing Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    ..as untruthful, beholden to special interests, and that she doesn't represent change. Many of his supporters and campaign staff actually believe that, so if he picked Hillary as VP they would be confused and disillusioned.

    So? (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    They are not the voters he needs to be concerned with.

    I'm not saying that it would be smart (none / 0) (#116)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    not to put Hillary on the ticket. I'm just saying that most the people around him think that she isn't change and they are going to be shocked if he does pick her.

    Well, if they really believe she isn't (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    change, but a machine pol from Chicago is, they are in for some shock anyway.

    That's true (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    Who knows what Clinton's pastor has been saying about Obama.

    He has a right to know that.

    sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    i <3 you

    but not when you make me laugh when i have abdominal problems :(


    Either way, he is screwed (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:37 PM EST
    As BTD pointed out, his margin of "victory" was painfully slim.
    He can't live with her and he can't live without her.

    But that's not her problem anymore, nor is it mine. Obama and his campaign will have the sole responsibility of figuring out what to do.

    Stay tuned.

    what margin of victory? (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    I don't agree there was one among voters.

    Disproportional Representation (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
    There wasn't.  He just got more pledged delegates for fewer voters - as all voters were not created equal.  Some really did count more than others.

    Unless you're NBC (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:08 PM EST
    and don't count Puerto Rico, I think she has won the popular vote.

    i really don't think he'll pick her (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by doberman pinche on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    & i'm not sure it's that good an idea for her to be too involved with him. for her sake, i mean.

    overshadowed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by margph on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:10 PM EST
    "3. He has concerns about being overshadowed by Hillary and Bill and maintaining control over his own Administration, if elected."

    Yes and no.  That is the primary reason.  BO couldn't debate with her anymore because she showed a better grasp of the issues.  He couldn't afford to lose face on a regular basis with her anywhere around.  Bill is a non-starter in my opinion.  To repeatedly bring him into the picture is insulting to Hillary's credibility.

    IF BO and HRC agree on a 'more important' role (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    ... for Hillary, that gets them both off the VP snag.

    Maybe Bo can yield on his non-universal version of UHC, and leave Hillary in the Senate (which solves his Bill-in-the-Administration problem) to shepherd it through (which probably fails, taking Hillary down another peg).

    and the good sen's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:01:38 PM EST
    bears some responsibility for fostering this. i have no sympathy for him.

    Both racism and sexism are very much alive in this country. He fears there are too many voters who who would never vote for a woman and another set who wouldn't vote for an African-American candidate.

    it really doesn't matter what he does, the die is already cast, by his own hand. by running a sleazy campaign, he crossed the rubicon, burning bridges behind him as he went.

    frankly, he could have jesus christ as his running mate (though why jesus would want to ruin his reputation escapes me.), and most of those same people still wouldn't vote for him.

    of course, this all assumes (and you know what they say about assuming!) that sen. obama is actually nominated at the convention, or that sen. clinton concedes before then. neither event has occurred as yet.

    Asked and Answered (5.00 / 14) (#37)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    She doesn't really have to rescue him.  She offered herself up as the most electable nominee and the party said no.  What else does she need to do?

    If the party wanted a winner, they would have selected Clinton.

    Her future is brighter than Obama's IMO (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:02 PM EST
    Having had a closer look at both of them, I'd prefer that she steer clear of Obama.

    He'll be IMO a huge landslide loser, as he's alienated too many voters and is personally so arrogant -- as is his inside group of courtiers -- to work the kind of machine that Bush/Cheney had.

    She's a better politician, better leader, better everything. If she doesn't look good to the Dems in August, she'll have the White House in 2012 (or pretty much anything she damn well wants.)


    Very Strong (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM EST
    I agree that she has finished stronger, he has finished weaker.  Her power is widely recognized now, and she has lasted long enough and suffered enough slings that many women who did not sign on with her have even come to identify with her.

    She at the very least will lead a burgeoning movement of many women-identified voters that could be larger than any ethnic group.

    And he is just beginning a campaign where the media will not be so high on Hillary-hatred that he will exempt from scrutiny.  

    And here comes the GOP.  Obama's attic - Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, etc. - will be flung wide open.


    Please don't mistake her movement (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM EST
    as women only!  It's far from it.  Many men are just as inspired by Hillary and her campaign.

    On to Denver!


    This is exactly what needs to be addressed (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    By media and public alike. Dems need a huge wake up call.

    Too many politicians and media idiots used CDS and sexistm to diminish Sen Clinton's strengths a leader, and to carve out a future for their personal agendas.

    Although she's inspiring to women and girls (for obvious reasons) her credentials as the leader we need right now are still in place.

    I hope the Dems come to their senses in August.


    I'd also prefer that his own impending losses (none / 0) (#202)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:07 PM EST
    Not be blamed on Sen Clinton, and if she were on the the ticket as VP, scapegoat, whether in the race or in governance, would be her first "role" (ie, if the Obama/Clinton ticket won, whom do you think the media would be bashing?)

    Obama needs to stand or fall on his own. The Dems who coronated him should stand or fall with him -- and all of it in the open for all to see.

    I know that there will be a substantial group of voters quite apart from Clinton boosters who won't be pulling the lever for Obama, and that she'd be scapegoated for that too.

    If she were the Dem presidential nominee, she'd win it. He won't and, I hope, won't have her close by to blame for it.


    non-issue (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by dws3665 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:05 AM EST
    If he loses, it will be Clinton's fault whether she is on the ticket or not.

    It's the 21st century version of A-B-C: Always Blame Clinton -- this time, it's the Democrats' turn.


    I'm part of this camp (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:16 PM EST
    Keep away from Obama; his name will be mud in a few months. And everyone will be shaking their heads going 'how did this happen?'

    McGovern 2008.


    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by suisser on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    very thoughtful post. I'll have to read though again in the morning.

    You impress me daily with your work and what you have made in TL. Thank you.

    Amen to this. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:16:07 PM EST
    I was very angry this afternoon. Reading your post calmed me down somewhat.

    I really don't know what I would have done these past few months without you and BTD, in different ways keeping things focused on what matters.


    I hope you will all stick around (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:26:36 PM EST
    It's been great to have you here.

    I'm not a centrist and one of the reasons I started this site was to move people left.

    Now that my favorite candidate is out of the race, no one is getting a pass on my issues.

    (While Hillary was no better or more liberal on my issues than Obama, I appreciated that she didn't pretend to be and you always knew where she stood.)

    And I will probably write more about my issues than the presidential race until the convention comes around.


    I'm pretty left (none / 0) (#186)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:49 PM EST
    too.  Your issues will be quite interesting.

    Gee Jeralyn (none / 0) (#190)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:08 PM EST
    the reason I started reading TalkLeft was your coverage of crime issues!

    Oh how I wish we could get back to that discussion (and thanks to those who have made such posts recently!).

    It was just a bit of serendipity that this blog turned into a "safe place" for a bunch of us during this campaign, and you and BTD deserve a lot of credit for that.

    And dollars, however weak!


    her statement on the NY conference call yesterday (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    sounded just right to me: i am open to it if obama thinks it's best for the purpose of unifying the party.

    that's the right talking point, to me. not 'i want it' or 'i don't want it,' but 'if you think it is the right thing to do.'

    that sends a unity message and makes it clear that, yes or no, it's his call, and he can sink or swim with it.

    Just my thoughts... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:39 PM EST
    I've said before, I'm not sure that I want to see HRC in the VP slot - I'd much rather have her stay as my Senator and be Senate Majority Leader.

    That being said, if Obama does not offer her the VP position (as you suggest he will not) even pro forma, I've thought that was the only thing left to  him to build a bridge to the part of the party that's felt thrown under the bus. Does he have any other play?

    Whatever he does, he needs to make it clear that HRC will play an important role in our national life from now on, he needs to solicit her input and make it clear that he is doing so, he needs to acknowledge the contributions of the long-time Democratic voters he's (even if implicitly) dissed... in short, he needs to show a little humility and respect.

    For all he's made a few feints in this direction, he had not really done these things.

    Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe he feels he has to wait for Clinton to pull out of the race first?

    It's really, really hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt after all that I've seen and heard from his campaign these last months. But I'm willing.

    I am not, however, willing to be "guilted" into voting for him. He needs to correct the impression he's given me that he finds me expendable.  If, in fact, that impression is false. He needs to own this. If he does not... well... I really don't know.

    I just don't see her as his VP. (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:13:39 PM EST
    But if I knew he would definitely put her on the Supreme Court that could convince me to vote for him.

    Has she ever (none / 0) (#209)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:01:33 AM EST
    expressed any interest in being a Supreme Court Justice?  I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to her being on the court but I don't see her there.  She connects with people and has such an incredible grasp of policy issues.  What would be the benefit of her being a SCOTUS?

    What's HMS? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    Her Majesty's Ship? Maybe I'm just being dense.

    To me, Edwards isn't enough. He was a distant second in 2004, and an incredibly distant third this year. He has his core of supporters, and he's a decent man, but he doesn't bring enough right now, I don't think.

    No way in hell she'd give up (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:20:58 PM EST
    a Senate seat for that position.  And, beware of that sort of polling.  Southern white guy.  Sounds good.  Ultimately would not win.

    Why a southern guy? (none / 0) (#142)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    Obama isn't going to carry a southern state, no matter who he adds to his ticket.  Maybe a white guy from a swing state, like VA or MO but not from the deep south.  

    No way those polls are accurate. (none / 0) (#119)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    Or will still be accurate by November.

    And nobody becomes famous by being a second-tier Cabinet secretary. Those are technocratic jobs, important, but not influential.


    Hillary is too big for a cabinet position. (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:16:05 PM EST
    Let's be serious.  Health and human services is an insult to her.  Edwards is a lousy choice.  He just ran as VP.  And, frankly, watching the two guys run together who couldn't hold a candle to her in the debates, I think is a losing scenario.

    Health care will be written in Congress (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    She already owns that issue.  She doesn't need permission.  She can write the legislation from the Senate.

    HHS? what a joke (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:44 PM EST
     No one would give up a secure Senate seat for cabinet job.  Who here can name three people in the cabinet?  Who can name 30 Senators?   No one cares who is running HHS or DED or any of them, other than State and Defense.  No one resigns the Senate for a dopey cabinet job.  

    Agreed... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    ...I said the exact same thing on dailykos when it was suggested.  

     Also, HHS is a real slap in the face and would stink of sexism to a lot of people.  It just so happens that Senator Clinton is a leader on a lot of these issues.

     The cabinet positions are important, but the senate is the most prestigious legislative body in the country.  


    I am going to (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:20:29 PM EST
    say he will go with someone who is NOT a FP heavyweight. In fact if Howard Dean had not bungled his finageling of the system, I would have chosen him for Obama. But Dean has really disgraced himself beyond redemption (at least this season).

    He will pick someone youngish and attractive, much in the same way Bill Clinton did. A man I am thinking. Who has more policy and/or economic experience. I don't know who that person will be,  but he won't be a national figure.

    That is my guess.

    No Hagel, for heaven's sake. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:39 PM EST
    What a way to absolutely guarantee that a huge chunk of Dems will sit this one out at best and vote for McCain at worst. If we wanted to vote for Republicans, we'd be Republicans already. Jeez, that they're even considering him is frightening. Obama's got a serious problem with core Dem groups already, running with an R would just set those problems in concrete.

    I trust Hillary to do what she thinks is best for the Democrats and our country, so I'll follow her lead on this. If she thinks she can swing the deal for him, she'll probably take it, even at a great personal cost that I hate to see her pay. If he's not smart enough to at least offer, I give up.

    Landslide (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:27 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 Obama/DNC 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.


    Check out what McCain just said in a speech (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:52 PM EST
    "Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent."  

    Has Obama said anything remotely this gracious?  Of course the Obama supporters will dismiss this and say McCain just wants their votes but shouldn't Obama also WANT THEIR VOTES? Oh right, he doesn't think he needs them and is not planning to go out of his way to court them.  


    Jeralyn, you should consider this. (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:53 PM EST
    "The allegiance of her supporters is not hers to give. All, repeat ALL, of the responsibility for securing the support of the disaffected half of the Democratic Party rests with one person and his name is Barak Obama. The worst possible thing Hillary Clinton could do for the Democrat's interests in November is to dispose of her supporters and symbolically "hand" them over as though they were chattels. She does not own them; quite the opposite, she is in fact beholden to them. Many, if not most of them, would see such an act as abandonment precisely because it would be."


    I Don't Think Obama Has Any Intention (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    of offering Hillary the VP spot. He and his campaign has been working behind the scenes through surrogates and through discrediting tactics to make it appear impossible for him to select her.

    IMO it would not be in Hillary's best interest to become Obama's VP.  If he was somehow forced into offering her the slot, I have no doubt that he would make sure that the VP position had limited responsibilities and Hillary would be delegated to attending funeral and ceremonial teas.  

    I don't think it solves Obama's problems (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by facta non verba on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM EST
    entirely anyway. Having Hillary on the ticket won't bring me to vote for Obama and I don't think I am alone on this. Certainly it is a smaller number than with her on the ticket. My guess is that as of right now, some 6 million of Clinton's 18 million voters won't vote for Obama and even if Obama gains half of those back, that's still a 3 million vote loss.

    There is a new RNC ad out today on Obama:

    New RNC Ad on Obama

    Love the RNC Ad (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    and it's so truthful.  This is the first Dem they'll be able to flail without a single lie.  I'm not sure they're up to that part  :-)

    I'd bet on more than a 3 million Clinton voter loss in November.


    The Dems can go over the cliff without me (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by splat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:41:24 PM EST
    That said, I don't care any more. I can't even watch Obama on TV. I dated too many smooth-talking guys like him. Nothing underneath. Hope. Change. Clean for Gene. Right on.

    I think he'd be a lousy President, way over his head, and can't root for him. (I see Jim Webb in his VP mix, btw: Tough guy, kid in Iraq, Bluedog Dem. No experience either.)

    This lifelong Dem is planning only to vote for local candidates if Obama is on the ticket.

    I don't feel any loyalty to these so called Democratic leaders and their stage-managed charade.

    Real Dems are scruffy, fighting for the nomination at conventions, they're democratic. There's nothing Democratic about what they're doing to Hillary.

    It's okay with me if she feels so shut out that she runs on a third-party ticket. Then I'd get interested again, very interested.

    If there's no room for Hillary Clinton in the  Democratic leadership, there's no room for me in that party any more either.

    Even if she decides to be a good girl and say admiring things about Obama, I'm not going there.

    The Uniter can't do anything to bring me back but withdraw from the race.

    VP (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by alexaii on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    The impression I got from Obama's interview today is that he won't ask Hillary to be VP. He didn't say it but I feel that he'll wait to make the announcement at the convention. By then he'll reason that he's won Hillary's supporters over and that he's home free. He's going to be in for a rude awakening if this is how it's going to go down.

    the man without a clue (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:08 PM EST
    just like his supporters.

    Why help the DNC? (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:41 PM EST
    I filed my voter registration today.  I'm officially out of the Democratic Party.  I'm not alone. Did anyone notice that the CBS poll out today says that 12 percent of Democrats say they are voting for McOld, and included in those 12 is 25 percent of Hillary voters.

    In 2004 only 8 percent of Democrats voted Republican.

    Bill Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST
    As soon as he came out in support of Obama, I knew he would be Obama's choice.  He had to have a HUGE reason to betray the Clintons.

    Has anyone noticed how Richardson has become more Hispanic looking?  His skin is much darker, he's got the beard/goatee thing, and he's lost weight.  He is preparing himself for the campaign.  He will appeal to Latinos, and he has lots for foreign policy experience, a former ambassador.  
    He will also guarantee NM for Obama and will be a big help in CO and NV.  

    I think Obama has gotten enough (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:01:23 AM EST
    by using Hillary's back as a step ladder.

    What she brings to the ticket is the experience and judgment he so sorely lacks.

    The ability to relate to all the people of this country he so sorely lacks.

    The commitment to work the hard, for as many hours as it takes that he so sorely lacks.

    The grace and dignity to negotiate with people of all cultures that he so sorely lacks.

    He needs her, she sure doesn't need him.

    Here is to all of you, ladies! (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by Thankful4women on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:16:42 AM EST
    I just registered to say one thing: honest to God, I am overwhelmed by what I am witnessing on this site.  Mother nature decided to bring me into this world (somewhere in west Africa) a black man. For the past month and a half I have quietly browsed the posts on TL and slowly come to understand the passionate support for Hillary, and the reason why many say they won't support Obama after his camp's attitude. But tonight I'm simply stunned by the conciliatory posts coming from what has to be disappointed loyal supporters, beginning with Jeralyn. The fact that women are capable of taking such a blow and yet continue to appeal to reason makes me now think that a woman POTUS (took me a couple of days to figure out this and other TL jargon, lol) would probably have been more effective, after Bush, in once again lighting that American fire which gives hope to those of us living in tyranny. This amount of reason is simply not present in me and my fellow men. I was already inspired by African mothers and daughters in my country, and this truly adds to my belief in women. As it is, I really don't think Obama deserves your vote. If he wants it, he knows what to do in the next few months. But, in the end, whether you vote for him or not, I pray that your daughters, future grand-daughters, and women everywhere continue to make this world a better place.

    #1 Reason Not To Choose Hillary For VP (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Lacy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:06:07 AM EST

    Indeed,the #1 reason as seen by Obama not to choose Hillary is that it will remove the excuse of blaming the Clintons when Obama loses in November.

    Hillary owes BO nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by vicsan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    Why should she have to say she doesn't want the VP spot just to save his A&&? No way should she do that. If he can't win over her supporters, that's because her supporters are too smart to drink the Kool-Aid and fall for "just words." We know he's an empty suit.

    Nope. Hillary should do nothing to help him win. He wanted this nomination and chose to get it any way he could. Now it's his problem. Not hers.

    HE has to figure out what he's going to do about all those Republican "Democrats for a Day" he encouraged to vote in our open Primaries who have no intentions of voting for him in November. Then he has to figure out what to do about all those Bitter voters, gun clinging voters, religion clinging voters, seniors, Catholics, Jews, Baby Boomers, Garlic-Nosed Italians, typical white voters, the working class voters and WOMEN.

    Women are his biggest problem. HUGE problem actually. Women are 50+ % of the Democratic Party and WE VOTE. Too bad for BO that we are mad as he&& and we're not gonna take it anymore.

    The onus is on BO. His problems are his problems. He got what he wanted. He alienated every voting demographic in the Democratic Party in order to steal the nomination and now it's HIM who has to figure out how he's going to dig himself out of the hole he dug to get there.

    THIS woman is leaving the Democratic Party after 35 years. PUMA PARTY for me!


    He ought to run with her. (4.33 / 6) (#9)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    The same voters who are racist are sexist, though some sexist voters are not racist.  Hillary passed the threshold with a set of voters who are not comfortable with a black or a woman and she can help Obama cross that threshold too.  Obama's supporters won't dump him for picking Hillary, they'll be voting top of ticket.  I disagree with you about national security.  She's earned her stripes with the public.  She won those voters.  She has been endorsed by more top brass than Obama and McCain combined.  She can bring those guys along.  That helps Obama.  Bill is not interested in being President again.  he's got his foundation.  He'd probably be happy to go around and talk to the international community again, and that's in the best interest of our country.  But, he's not interested in a third term.  

    No, Obama is missing a golden opportunity if he doesn't choose Hillary, and I will see it as a personal weakness.

    The talking heads on NBC would go ballistic (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by imhotep on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    with HRC on the ticket.  Brian Williams interviewed BO tonight and asked him if he felt that Clinton tried to emasculate him.  Yes, he really asked him that on national TV.  BHO didn't seem concerned.  What is with the NBC guys and their fear of women?

    I don't think Hillary should be in VP slot (3.66 / 3) (#198)
    by Hill4Prez on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:47 PM EST
    I am a Hillary supporter, however I don't think she should nor should Obama offer her the slot for VP. I think she should end this race as she will Saturday and pledge her support Mr. Obama and then leave it alone.

    I will NOT vote for Obama with or without Hillary on the ticket and it has nothing to do with race. I am all about having an African American for President, I am just not about having a person being black, white, male or female as President of the most powerful country in the world that has little to no experience. It is like putting the mail room manager in the CEO spot of a major corporation.

    Hillary does not need to associate herself with the Obama's particulary Michelle Obama. These people are racist in their own right and it will come out before the November election.

    I implore Hillary to refrain from getting too deeply involved with the Obama's. She needs to hang tight and let them "hang" themselves. McCain will win in November. Unfortunately we will have 4 more years of bad Republican policy but by then America will be so sick of Republicans and the democrats will remember they put their faith in a man with little or no experience and that has "race issues" of his own to deal with that ultimately cost the Dems the White House in the year that was deemed the year of the Democrat.

    Great post (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:05 AM EST
    I totally agree.  I am sick to death of Obama and his racism.  His wife is worse.  I am sick to death of the whole race issue since I know that the vast majority of Americans, don't give a rat's fanny about his race, or anyone's race.  Now, we'll never hear the end of it.  Now we're all back to being called racists if we don't love Obama and his wife.  Michelle's problem at Princeton, her lack of popularity, had nothing to do with race, as she claims, but everything to do with her obnoxious, arrogant, nasty, personality.  

    Obama and Michelle's noses are so far in the air that if it rains they'll drown.  


    Obama will NOT pick Hillary for VP (2.00 / 1) (#237)
    by The Other Steve on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    For the same reason Ronald Reagan didn't pick Gerald Ford in 1980.

    You don't ASK to be Vice President.  You don't make demands of the President.

    I think the bigger (1.00 / 3) (#139)
    by fireback on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:01 PM EST
    question is, even if Hillary improves the chances of winning in the General, what is the cost?  As an Obama supporter, I'm concerned that that the cost will be the hope he has installed.  If the HOPE is to work together in Washington, a divisive VP like Hillary may not be consistent with that effort.

    Can you not see beyond the campaigntalking points? (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    Hillary is no more divisive in reality than Obama is. She was just as effective at working with Republicans in Congress as Obama was.

    The idea that she is inherently divisive is just a talking point of the Obama campaign that was adopted from media narratives of the past.

    The only evidence that anyone offers that she actually is divisive is that she has high negatives. That is only because she has been constantly attacked by the media and the Republicans. Now that Obama is starting to be attacked by the Republicans his negatives are also starting to go up.


    Obama's "change" thing is so funny (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:06 PM EST
    As someone who grew up in Illinois and worked on my first Democratic campaign at the age of 4 (parents took me canvassing for Adlai Stevenson in 1956) I have been so perplexed by this idea that Obama stands for a new kind of politics, a politics of "hope" and "change."

    Obama is a product of Chicago and Illinois state politics. Trust me, he did not get where he is because of his wholesome and pure new politics. And in my home state politics sure ain't pretty.


    You're right. (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
    Obama has the monopoly on hope.

    No other candidate has appealed to voters' sense of hope.

    No other candidate has brought out new voters in droves.

    No other candidate ...

    sheesh, it's hard to not throw up my hands in frustration. or just throw up.


    Of your reasons, (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Maggie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:31 PM EST
    #3 is the one I would put on my list, though I would phrase it somewhat differently.  It's just not good to have two strong power centers in one administration.  It's not clear how the Clinton's move easily into the subordinated power that is the vice-presidency.  Nor is it clear that such a position would represent the best use of Hillary's talents.

    I would add two other reasons that are not on your list:

    1. Hillary still has high negatives with the Republicans and would likely energize their base.

    2. Obama has been camapaigning on a different brand of politics and a turning of the page.  Clinton does not reinforce either of those messages, and I'm willing to bet that whoever he picks will be someone who is seen as more complementary to his approach.

    Additionally the events of the last few days make it more difficult to chose Hillary.  There's a widespread perception that she and/or her camp are trying to force the issue.  And it would be a sign of weakness if he gave in.  He already has to deal with the perception that he's weak.  

    I do think Obama will try to find a way to be respectful to Clinton.  She certainly has earned that respect, as he has said repeatedly of late.  Based on his speech on Tuesday, I'd say he's thinking of offering to put her in charge of the push for universal health care.  Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me much if he ended up agreeing to advocate for her plan rather than for his.

    Yes (none / 0) (#215)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:03:26 AM EST
    Obama has been camapaigning on a different brand of politics and a turning of the page.  Clinton does not reinforce either of those messages, and I'm willing to bet that whoever he picks will be someone who is seen as more complementary to his approach

    I have heard that from some relatives that like Obama. When I mentioned a unity ticket they said that he could never do that because it would contradict his whole "change" schtick and the Clintons are part of what he is offering a change from.

    Ironic because it is all smoke and mirrors because they are both so similar in their  positions.


    A few questions of my own (1.00 / 8) (#174)
    by StatMan89 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM EST
    Can you name one instance in political history where the winner had to negotiate with the loser?

    Why is Hillary entitled to a veto if Obama wants to select a woman? If that isn't sexist, nothing is.

    Why would Hillary be exempt from the vetting process, particularly the financial disclosures of donors to the Clinton Library?

    Bottom line: Hillary is entitled to nothing. Let's get on with the campaign already.

    You're candidate is going to lose his f*cking *ss because of stupid, ignorant jack*asses like you.  Enjoy getting the crud kicked out of you and your ignorant neophyte movement you stupid SOB.  I'm sick of this freakin garbage.  You're candidate is a freaking loser you troll and I hope he burns in HELL!  

    If this is what supporting the Dem nominee is Jeralyn, then I want NO part of it.  Let's just invite Obama's trolls over at MYDD so that they can write "Is this snark?" 10,000,000,000 times a day.  Jesus, what do you expect us to do with people like this?

    No need to ban me, I guess I'll just take the night off, this is just getting stupid.  I do apologize deeply to you and BTD, but damn, I'm a human being and can only take so much of lying BS!




    Why do I bother? (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Manuel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:35 AM EST
    Can you name one instance in political history where the winner had to negotiate with the loser?

    Unconditional surrender isn't common in any arena.  Hillary has something Obama wants, her support.  He also doesn't want her to continue the contest to the convention.  No one gets something for nothing.

    Why is Hillary entitled to a veto if Obama wants to select a woman? If that isn't sexist, nothing is.

    You are missing the point.  Choosing someone who isn't the most qualified woman would be seen as a slight by that woman's supporters.

    Hillary is entitled to the respect she has earned.


    Um (none / 0) (#223)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    pretty much all the time when the winner doesn't have a decisive victory?  Just off the top of my head, when Kennedy was forced into taking on Lyndon Johnson as VP.

    Ironic Anti-feminism (1.00 / 1) (#239)
    by vshawnt on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    I disagree!

    1. You say he is obligated to offer it to her, but she's not obligated to take it.  HE WON!  Please defend why his winning means that he's betrothed to her.  
    2. Nobody earns the VP slot.  The only person who earns anything in a primary contest is the nominee, and one of the main things they earn is the right to pick a VP of their choosing, on their terms and schedule.  He is the only one who EARNED anything in this process.
    3. Suggesting that if he picks ANY other woman except Hillary he would be traitorous is blatantly anti-feminist.  You are suggesting that she is the only woman qualified for the job, and the only woman who deserves the job.  I REJECT THAT.  
    4. Obama's only responsibility is to choose a VP that gives him the best chance to win in November and govern effectively over the next 8 years.  

    Biden or Daschle... (none / 0) (#11)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:46 PM EST
    are who I am guessing.

    But in truth, nothing beats kicking back and waiting to see.

    I won't vote for a ticket (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:50 PM EST
    with Joe Biden. Ever.

    Or any other (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    hard core warrior in the war against drugs and crime.

    Well... (none / 0) (#36)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    I am not advocating anyone at this point, but it's my intuition.

    I actually think that Daschle would be his first choice.


    I'm sure... (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:55 PM EST
    ... that Daschle is a nice guy and all, but to me, he symbolizes a lot of what's wrong with the party--weak, ineffective, and a loser of elections.

    He also helped (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:58 PM EST
    Obama lose SD last night.

    In truth, Daschle lost one election... (none / 0) (#101)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:25:40 PM EST
    so far as I know.

    With him in charge... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    ... the Democrats lost plenty of elections.

    But I never saw him as a leader (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:55 PM EST
    He talked like Jimmy Carter. He lost one election, but when you are the Democratic Senate leader and you lose your home state, that is pathetic. And even Tuesday, he could not carry his home state for Obama. I don't think it would be a wise choice.

    Because he helped him (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:59 PM EST
    so much in SD?

    Because he is as close... (none / 0) (#93)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:07 PM EST
    to a mentor as Obama has.  Plus, Obama's staff is loaded with Daschle people.

    I suspect that the election will not ride on winning South Dakota.


    Daschle & Nunn: Change You Can Believe In (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:25 PM EST
    I cannot believe "change" means resurrecting Daschle and Nunn.  One of whom never met a Republican he wouldn't capitulate to and one of whom was going to back Bloomberg a few months ago.  

    People need to quit telling me that Daschle is Obama's mentor, because I may never consider voting for him.  That's way worse than Jeremiah Wright being his minister (admittedly I never cared about that beyond Obama's inept handling of the situation).  

    Daschle was the Democratic leader for the AUMF vote.  He not only voted for it, he was in charge of party strategy.  Hillary gets vilified and can't be VP because she represents the old ways, but Daschle all the way?  Screw that.

    I will also note that when Clinton got to the Senate she recommended Senate Dems start a war room to help respond to the GOP spin.  Daschle refused.  As someone up thread noted, he lost plenty of elections for Dems besides his own.

    I cannot believe this frakker could come back into power in any role.  Why can we never shake these losers?  And he may bring Sam Nunn with him?  I'm so glad that we're moving beyond the 1990s by destroying the good Democrats and bringing back the awful Democrats.  

    Change you can believe in.


    a moronic choice (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:07 PM EST
    if he makes it. Daschle would not even deliver SD's 3 electoral votes, he is (rightly, imo) viewed as a loser. He lost an election when he was Majority Leader.

    He's an "insider" - how is this consistent with the "change/hope" meme?

    Daschle would be a horrible choice.


    I am not advocating... (none / 0) (#103)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    just stating my opinion.  I can think of more moronic choices, actually.

    I doubt (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:48 PM EST
    Daschle is even under consideration. he'll get a cabinet post of some sort.

    Chief of Staff (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    is my guess.  As I said the other day, he'll bring to the White House the same strategy he used in the Senate.  Confusing Republicans by giving them everything they want.

    The beauty of it... (none / 0) (#126)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:36 PM EST
    is that it's way too early to know and it's all speculation.

    I thought it was mentioned (none / 0) (#211)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:01:47 AM EST
    before a few weeks ago that he wants to be Chief of Staff in the WH.

    Isn't Daschle a lobbyist now? (none / 0) (#120)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    And hasn't Obama declared he will not have lobbyists in his WH?

    He is either a lobbyist or akin... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:56 PM EST
    to one.  But Obama has several such people working for him.  I think all he requires is that you are not lobbying at the moment.  It's all BS on that front, as the lobbyist ties were always there, just stealth.

    No VP potential is going (none / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:48 PM EST
    to be perfect on all the issues.  JB is better than most on most of 'em however.  

    And for moi, he's not a deal breaker like Hégel or Nun.  He would also offer (ahem) assassination insurance, which the Repub and the socially conservative Southern Hawk would not.

    Of course, Biden's been in the senate since the beginning of Tricky's 2d term for goodness sakes.  

    An Obama/Biden ticket certainly would muddle O's theme of Change/New Politics.

    And he doesn't help put in play/win a tough state for Dems -- like Webb could do in VA or possibly Bayh in IN.


    Me neither. (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:27 PM EST
    But for me it's because of his need to side with corporate America over the people every possible time he can. Especially the credit card industry. And his behavior during the Alito confirmation hearings left me cold.

    Here's my position against (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:16:50 PM EST

    One of the great thing about having new readers is I'm not repeating myself to you.

    As for Janet Napolitano, who is also mentioned, I won't for a ticket with her either, here's why.


    Me either but (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:27:40 PM EST
    my antipathy goes back to his spinelessness during the Anita Hill hearings.

    Actually, as I think about it, I seem to remember some 'No one has done as much as I have for women' coming from him during that disaster, so personality-wise they may be matched.

    Huh.  And Obama supporters think I'll 'get over it' by November.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST
    Biden didn't get enough votes to earn himself even 1 delegate. Daschle is out of elected office because he was voted out.

    Choosing either would show some interesting judgment.


    Daschle? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    He was the one who led the Dems into the AUMF vote prior to the 2002 mid-terms.  And his lobbyist connections are contrary to Obama's anti-lobbyist (cough-cough) message too.  

    True, yet nothing is black and white... (none / 0) (#140)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    and he is one of Obama's top advisors.

    Again, I have no clue, but sometimes these connections are important.


    I think it is far to early for (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:29 PM EST
    this.  I think immediately after a tough campaign, Hillary is going to seem like an awful choice to most of his supporters.  But jeez give her a month for him and his supporters to not see her as an advisory, and things might look really different.

    If you think Hillary would be a great selection, go to his website and let him know tell him, why she would be good, and not you can't win without her or i will never vote for you without her.  I think you should let him know what you think she would bring to his ticket and administration.

    Obama/HIllary will always be a silly question right after an intense campaign, but give it some time.

    Jim Webb or Wes Clark (none / 0) (#43)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:40 PM EST
    Obama has made his token gesture to women by putting Caroline Kennedy on the search committee.  

    He needs someone with foreign policy and/or military experience to act as a counter to McCain's obvious advantage in that area.  And if hubris hasn't made him totally crazy, he knows that he needs a lot of help in the arena of foreign policy.  His resume is strongest on the domestic side and weakest in the foreign policy arena.  Webb would also help him connect with the low information voters in the rural areas who are clinging to guns and religion.

    Uh, No (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:08:32 PM EST
    That's some token.  Most of us are not enchanted by vague intimations of Camelot, and Obama as the reincarnation of JFK.  THose the faux theatrics that got Tweety and the guys swooning.  

    his "token gesture" to women (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    would be instantaneously undone with the selection of Webb.

    n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    It's not about Kennedy, it's about Obama.  It's his intent - to dangle the Camelot incense before people who are looking to recreate JFK.  

    Not a chance . (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST
    LOL.  There will not be a serious female contender for a long while, save Kay Bailey.  She would need to build up her foreign policy credentials though.

    It's interesting (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:30 PM EST
    well, maybe not all that interesting, how much easier it is as a man to say that sure, there will be another female candidate before you know it.

    I mean, that's my honest opinion.  But it's hard not to notice the demographic difference between those who believe it and those who don't.


    Tavis Smiley was (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:23 PM EST
    the only media personality I know to really talk about it.  He and I are in agreement.  No serious female contender for a long time to come.  Hillary has a broad and deep base of support because she has been so well known for so long. Without that, I doubt she could have done this. Also, there are very few females with the FP credentials.  They need more experience there than men.  There's an extra hurdle.  This is a patriarchy, whether people want to accept that reality or not.  There is no elected office like the American Presidency, and electing a woman to that office is no small affair.

    Also Not a Coincidence (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    that most women to win presidencies, as opposed to Prime Minister positions (which only require being elected head of a winning party, not a national election on you), tend to be related to successful male politicians.  The male essentially vouches for them - don't worry guys, she's not "FILL IN STEREOTYPE HERE", she's cool.  Without that, you're facing all the sexist crap with no anchor in the male world.  Imagine Hillary without Bill, you think it would be better, but it would be worse.  A lot of those voters in KY and WVA were willing to give her a look because if she's married to Bill, she must be okay.  People think she would've done better without him, but they are wrong.  A lot of people wouldn't have even considered her without him and not just because she was First Lady.

    I am still trying to figure out why she was... (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    selected to be on the search committee.  She has many admirable qualities but has no relevant experience.  

    Since when has "relevant experience" (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    been a criterion in the Obama campaign--why start now?

    Why Do You Think Teddy Backed Obama (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    He needs some place for his people to go work.  Clinton has an intact organization.  Obama does not.  Kennedy people are going to staff a lot of Obama positions, that's what Teddy gets.

    In a lot of ways this election was a fight by Kennedy and the other old-guard Democrats to keep control of the party.  They do that through their organizations.  If you loved the party that brought you Dukakis and Kerry, you're going to love the Obama Democratic Party.


    Whatever for? (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:09:28 AM EST
    What kind of experience does Caroline Kennedy have? She lives so privately, that I don't even know what she does. If asked, I would say she is a stay at home mom with a legal degree.

    McCain has no military experience advantage (1.00 / 2) (#222)
    by digdugboy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    He graduated 894th in a class of 899 and is a reverse ace -- he crashed five planes while flying in the Navy. He is no student of military history. He can't even tell the Sunnis and the Shias apart. Having been a POW does not give him any military experience. You will not see anybody with military experience sing "Bomb Bomb Iran."

    As far as general foreign policy experience is concerned, I don't see any there either. There's no reason to cede these advantages to McCain.


    Based on what qualifications? (none / 0) (#113)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:46 PM EST
    she has eschewed politics (none / 0) (#177)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:16 PM EST
    at least overtly, for her entire adult life. i do not know what makes you think this will change now.

    not saying it won't, but this is very left field for me. i think it's partly what gave her endorsement of obama such the "wow" factor it had (if it had one) -- that she is a "non-political" Kennedy.


    Do you think (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    that anyone will be screaming about dynasties if she runs?

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:21 AM EST
    She'll face all the same crap Hillary faced.  She'll benefit as Hillary did from being related to famous male politicians who serve to "vouch" for her.  But underneath it all, there's almost as much Kennedy hate as there is Clinton hate, it's just dormant because the Kennedys aren't as overtly powerful as they used to be.  Put one in a position to be President again and it would come flooding back only with all the misogyny added in.

    The press thought Gore (none / 0) (#55)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    picking Liebermann was genius and look how well that turned out!!

    Well... (none / 0) (#59)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:17 PM EST
    Gore did win the election.

    You bet Gore won, but Liebermann (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    did him no favors and was actually detrimental when the election was being contested.  My point was Liebermann did not end up being such a great choice after all.

    All of What You Say is True (none / 0) (#66)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    But, also, there are all those quotes of Hillary Clinton comparing John McCain's credentials on national security  favorably to Barack Obama's.  Who wants to have Tim Russert keep having that read back to them?

    Bill Clinton was a double-edged sword for his wife's campaign.  As the spouse of the VP candidate, Bill Clinton will be an even bigger risk to Obama's campaign.

    Obama will want Bill Clinton to campaign for him and to use his considerable gifts to help out.  But Obama will not want to be welded, inseparable, from Bill Clinton's (potential) foibles.  

    Hillary Clinton as a running mate will make it that much more difficult to shed Bill Clinton or distance Obama from the former president should something crop up about a Clinton donor or personal imbroglio.  

    Even I agree that putting (none / 0) (#79)
    by Serene1 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:11 PM EST
    Hillary on the ticket as Veep won't help either. Obama's whole stance till date has been change and a different way of doing politics by putting Hillary on the ticket he will only expose the hypocrisy of his stand further.

    I honestly feel Obama will have a better chance choosing a Veep who is more suited for him and one whom he is comfortable with. He has the right to choose his team and Hillary should not be forced onto his ticket because of plitical compulsions. That will be defeating the message. Let Obama form his own team and fight on the strength of his own message and team. If he is good and if people believe in him he will win irrespective of who the Veep candidate is.

    #1 (none / 0) (#95)
    by s5 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST
    is sad but exactly right. I'm really looking forward to living in a time when that's no longer the case. Hopefully at the rate we're going, after Obama's presidency, we'll be ready to consider candidates of any gender or skin color, as long as they're qualified, American, and age 35 or older.

    One nitpick, Wes Clark is definitely not a conservative. He ran on a progressive platform for his 2004 Democratic primary bid. So in that sense, they'd be a good match. Unfortunately, he's been out of the limelight and his campaign skills seem to be awful. I can't shake the "Mary, help!" moment from my memory.

    While I disagree with your first point, (none / 0) (#118)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    I know that lots of democrats believe that America is still filled with racism and sexism.  Most people I know do not believe that, but I accept that many democrats believe it. So for that reason, Obama won't pick Hillary.  He too believes America is filled with racism, despite the obvious, that he is the democrat candidate and the runner up is a woman!  

    Points 2 and 3 are right on the money.  A year ago Bill Clinton was Hillary's biggest asset in campaigning.  Now he's a huge liability.  

    Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.  If he does choose Hillary he must abandon his campaign of change in Washington since Hillary and Bill are not the face of change.  He's also saddled with Bill.  Not a good thing.  BUT, if he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket, he risks alienating 18 million of her supporters.  He's screwed, no matter who he chooses for VP.  

    Hillary has political capital (none / 0) (#129)
    by CSTAR on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:47 PM EST
    By that I mean, and this is primarily an anecdotal observation, that her relentless campaign has built a base of supporters who believe she has a set of progressive agendas (this base is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the 18 million or so that voted for her, but it's big and is solid) including UHC and support for other progressive issues (such as court nominees) which would have to be spelled out.

    She now can regard herself as a more or less independent agent, though still a senator and still a member of the democratic party, but unlike the pope, an agent with "divisions" to shove the democratic party out of its perpetual lethargy and ineffectiveness (and worse). Since she's not running for anything (presumably) she doesn't have to pull her punches. Losing a battle isn't the worse thing that can happen, if you can still wage another one.

    In my opinion, the fact that people for whatever reason are pissed off at the democratic party is a good thing and could be used creatively for progressive causes. If Hillary can use that energy effectively for a progressive agenda, more power to her.

    This only makes sense if she is willing and able to motivate her supporters to do something other than traditional party politics. That of course is a very big IF.

    Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#151)
    by martineunseen on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:07 PM EST
    Hillary should refuse if offered the VP non-job.
    She should exhort her supporters to support BO and go back to the Senate and deluge him with Progressive legislative proposals. Starting with universal health care.
    This, of course assumes BO will win the GE.
    I believe that as BO has relied on and prevailed because of employing a strategy that sought out delegates without regard to the rank and file (see the WP today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268.html?hpid=topnews)
    that he will lose to McCain and has thus paved the way for 4 years of the same vaguely fascist governace that our ruling elites find so profitable and that we unhappy few find so odious.

    So he won the battle, but will he (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by abfabdem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:39 AM EST
    win the war? They did a great job of exploiting the quirks of the Democratic primary system but it sounds as if it was at the expense of adequately preparing for a general election campaign.

    Also interesting in the Wash Post article given that many Obama supporters posting here denied that Obama was against re-voting in Michigan and Florida is the statement, "And Obama supporters in Michigan and Florida quietly helped scuttle proposed revotes in both states that were Clinton's best shot at changing the dynamics of the race."


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#165)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM EST
    what do you think of our own Gov Bill Ritter? Is he possible?

    There is one area where McCain (none / 0) (#230)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:55:34 AM EST
    will absolutely annihilate Obama and that's national security.  A single, even slight terrorist scare before November and a lot of semi-rational people will run to McCain.  And McCain will skewer Obama on each and every gaffe he makes.  If Obama has any chance at all to win--and I think the chance is slim--he has to arm himself with a strong foreign policy/military presence in his VP.  Better yet, a military presence who was outspoken in his opposition to the Iraq War before the invasion.  That's former NATO Commander and 4-star general Wesley Clark.

    Although he was criticized by lesser intellects for it, Clark served as a military analyst at FOX for two years with good reason.  He wanted to reach/inform FOX viewers with something other than right wing views.  He's the only one who could wade into that pit and come out having continally bested Hannity and O'Reilly.  This innoculates him somewhat from criticism from FOX.  He is a brilliant, throughly honest, experienced and savvy man.

    Wes Clark has always, always put this country first. For that reason I think he might be persuaded to serve as VP.  Obama should be so lucky!          

    The Democratic Ticket: Obama - Kennedy ??? (none / 0) (#234)
    by jginnane on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:30:48 AM EST
    OK -- before you throw up in your mouth a little, consider this:

    1.  Caroline Kennedy has also completely bypassed the traditional vetting process.

    2.  Obama needs to reflect the 18 million voters from the Democratic primaries who have been invisible to him & his cohorts.  What better way than a wimmen... but not just ANY b*tch, someone with a 24-K solid gold bling-bling name! Take THAT, Schwarzenegger!  Trophy, who-WEEE!

    3.  You need the downticket to not upstage the top draw. As seen, those Kennedies add a bit of zazz, but only in an "As-seen-in-Camelot" sort of way.

    (I'd add more, but at the moment I feel an imminent need to purge myself. :)

    I disagree..It robs her (none / 0) (#235)
    by Kefa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:07:00 AM EST
    of being the 1st female VP....another slap in the face if he does win. I thing it will lower the voter turnout and send votes to McCain with someone else under him esp. another woman.