home

Howard Wolfson: Hillary is Not Seeking Vice-Presidency

Hillary Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, sent out this message today:

"While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her. The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

As I've opined several times, if Hillary doesn't want the Vice-Presidency, we should honor her wishes. BTD believes Obama has a better chance of winning if Hillary is the nominee. That's one consideration, but it's not the only one.

I believe Obama needs to win the White House on his own, with support from those who believe he's the best choice for the country. While I believe he's a far better choice than John McCain, I don't believe we should force Hillary into thinking she owes it to him or the party to be on his ticket. She's given enough.

Comments closed

< Want To Solve Obama's "Appalachia" Problem? Put Clinton On The Ticket | News Reports: Obama And Clinton Meeting >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:10 PM EST
    The only reason Obama supporters want Hillary on the ticket is so that she can help him win.

    Mmmm, no thanks. Let's see what he can do on his own.

    It's hardly her fault they nominated a loser (5.00 / 16) (#14)
    by MMW on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    All the signs were apparent.

    If you have to shove him over the finish line in the primary - he is probably not electable.

    If his background is filled with handy factual Repub 527 ad fodder - he is probably not electable.

    If he has no accomplishments to fall back on - he is probably not electable.

    If he has no resume, character issues and no experience for the job he is applying for - he is probably not electable.

    It's his party let him cry if he wants to.

    Besides, I think she should teach them a lesson.

     

    [ Parent ]

    The hubris is really kicking in here (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    And I thought Bush had that Sh!t Midas Touch for turning everything in his proximity to crap.

    Having Hillary-Hate as a major plank in his "platform" was a horrible strategy. (Divisive! Ambitious!)

    But then she easily ran rings around him even under full blast CDS from TeamObie and the media, and 'nads-out won over even voters who couldn't stand her before. (She was way down on my list and now I'd campaign for her! My lifelong Repug dad is a total fanboy!)

    THEN when it's clear she's too much of an ace to roll over, it slowly dawns that he can't win without her TeamO pitches this VP offer but only looks desperate doing it.

    Next karmic kick in the groin: if the Repugs pair McCain with a female VP, Obama's a future Trivial Pursuit question.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he would be completely out of line (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    choosing Hillary purely for his own purposes.

    If he were to outline to the country exactly what her authority and areas would be, and why this would be a position greater than what she has as a Senator so that it's for HER and not him, I would listen. No more taking from the Clintons for nothing more than advances his own interests.


    [ Parent ]

    Whatever The Case... (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by talex on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:10:18 PM EST
    Wolfson sure put Obama in a Baaaad position when he said:

    "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

    If Obama asks Hillary then he is doing something we all know he doesn't want to, for he wants Hillary's support without strings attached.

    But if he doesn't offer it to Hillary then as Wolfson said it is all on Obama for rejecting her!

    Ha ha! It's a no win situation for Obama either way.

    Way to go Wolfson! Way to go Hillary!

    [ Parent ]

    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    I heart Wolfson.

    Over to you Obama - first major decision you have to make.  You'll see how sometimes the answer is not as clear as it is when you are looking in from the outside.

    [ Parent ]

    Wolfson Tells the Truth (2.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Spike on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:57:40 PM EST
    Of course, the choice is Obama's. The choice always belongs to the victor. Wolfson was forced to say this because the growing pressure of Clinton pressure was making Hillary Clinton look bad. And they were only reducing the chance that Clinton would be chosen because the last thing Obama wants or needs is the impression that Clinton forced her way on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction (none / 0) (#213)
    by Spike on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:59:53 PM EST
    Make that Clinton "supporters."

    [ Parent ]
    If he did promise her authority, (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    do you think he will keep that promise? I don't. I think Hillary ought to stay in the Senate, as far away from the coming disaster that is Obama as she can. Why get splashed with his mud and get dragged down when he sinks? She can run in 2012, and win. By then, I doubt Obama will even be in the Senate anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    VP (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by bobbski on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    "The only reason Obama supporters want Hillary on the ticket is so that she can help him win." -- madamab

    The only reason they want her on the ticket is so they can blame her when he tanks against McCain.

    Actually they are going to blame her and her supporters in any case.

    [ Parent ]

    We can be the (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by cloudy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:54:23 PM EST
    United States of Appalachia.

    [ Parent ]
    Would you suggest... (3.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    ...he pick a VP candidate who WON'T help him win?  He's a naive gasbag in ways, but wanting a running mate who will increase his vote total is hardly to be discouraged or painted as insidious in some way.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't say Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    I said Obama supporters.

    I do not think Obama is professional enough to even ask Hillary to be his VP. Of course he will try to pick someone that he thinks will help him win, however.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama needs Hillary: Does she want him?? (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    Anyone read this article from Rasmussen Reports? http://tinyurl.com/5fmnpa You ladies seem quite pi$$ed, as am I. Let me tell you, I am the IBEW electrician from Pittsburgh and I am on one of the largest union jobs in town for a long time. The Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh's new facilities. There is one white 50 yr/old man, that is an Obama maniac. He is almost causing fights because NO ONE will vote for Obama, I am not kidding. I hear McCain, Nader, blank, or not vote at all. He is the only guy on a huge job,(besides the black guy's) that will vote for him. I also hear, Marxist, Socialist, Racist, Sexist, cheater, and WORSE..... anything but Mr. President. I have never, after twenty two years in the union, seen guys despise a democratic candidate like Barack Obama. He is fundamentally being rejected. I am afraid the democratic party is broken in half. One man said him and his wife would only consider Obama and only if Hillary is on the ticket, and then that is not even for sure. Obama will lose.

    Wow, (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:44:58 PM EST
    though not surprised at all.
    The DNC is underestimating the chasm that there out there between what they want and what the majority of the american people want: rural vote, working class, women, seniors, etc etc etc. It is absurd.

    Jeralyn: I agree 100% with your post. HRC gave enough already.
    BO should stand and earn it on his own.

    [ Parent ]

    Another eastern liberal, just like Kerry. Will (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:50:04 PM EST
    the insiders ever learn?

    [ Parent ]
    I appreciate your perspective. (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    I hope that they'll reconsider over time.  I'm a strong HRC supporter, but I definitely prefer "the Democrat" to McCain.  It's clear from your testimony that Obama has a long (perhaps impossible) way to go to attract support from important Democratic constituencies.  That's my experience, too.  

    [ Parent ]
    You know what I think the problem is? (5.00 / 14) (#79)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:07:06 PM EST
    I think part of it has to do with the Democrat Party itself.  I always thought "any Democrat" was better than a Republican -- but now we have an "any Democrat" Congress and they haven't kept their word on anything.  They've been as bad as the Republicans!  The Senate isn't any better.  All of them vote for things they shouldn't then try to blame it all on the Republicans.  

    Anyway...  I think that is at least part of it.  

    In Obama's case, I think it's actually worse.  I feel like the Dem Party has tried to cram this candidate down our throats over a clearly superior female candidate - and it's an INSULT!  It's an insult to me and an insult to my intelligence!  

    Why should I support the Party when the Party doesn't do things to support the Party?  

    [ Parent ]

    Grace, I too (4.00 / 3) (#117)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:46 PM EST
    - am deeply disappointed in the Democratic party and its leaders.  Even though I plan to vote for Obama, I don't intend to support him financially*, nor do I intend to donate to the DNC*.  Instead, I'll donate my "political money" to Emily's List and Anne Barth, a Democratic woman challenging incumbent Republican Shelly Moore Capito in WV-02.  But to me, the ultimate difference between a Democrat and a Republican is stark enough that - even in my anger - I'll swallow hard and pull the lever.*

    *note, if he picks HRC as his running mate, I will donate to the Obama/Clinton campaign.

    *if the DNC makes a serious effort at primary reform and admits that the Levin compromise was not in teh Roolz anywhere, I'll reconsider.

    ***even while I respect the choices that other folks are making.

    [ Parent ]

    I posted something previously on this board (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:06:52 PM EST
    I would have voted for Maxine Waters if she had run because I feel she does a good job representing her district and I know she reaches out to her constituents.  I respect and admire that...

    So, maybe your answer is the right one:  Pick and choose who you are going to support.  

    The other problem I have is that I think we are being bamboozled with Obama and I just don't think I can vote for him.  I'm still reading things but nothing I see erases the things I already know.  

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. Wow. (none / 0) (#121)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    Who knew that my asterisks would do that?  Clearly, not me.

    Apologies, Grace.  I didn't mean to shout.

    [ Parent ]

    I get that. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    It's about the causes, not the candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is going to ask you (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    to support him on Saturday. Will that help?

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by camellia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:22 PM EST
    It will not help.   She is acting with grace and courage but I will not vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Alright. (1.33 / 3) (#113)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    So your support for Hillary has led you to reject the numerous causes she champions.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey new guy! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    A hint: you're not achieving what you are trying to achieve.  You'd do better if you made a genuine attempt to understand and respect what the people to whom you are responding are saying.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you think I'm trying to achieve? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For new users (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dave B on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    There is I think a 10 post per day limit.  I see you are over that.

    No blogclogging here please.

    [ Parent ]

    I presume that - (none / 0) (#155)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:40:20 PM EST
    - you are trying to persuade people to support Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    I can fully support her causes (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    WITHOUT voting for Obama. He hasn't really given any sign that he's invested in them anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Doubtful (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:47 PM EST
    Hillary could come to my front door offering me a pot roast, and she probably couldn't persuade me. It's his job to persuade me and others, not hers.  

    Sheesh, does the woman have to do all the dirty work? Can't the man occasionally at least wash a dish?

    [ Parent ]

    If she comes to my door (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:50:38 PM EST
    I'll invite her in for tea and a well deserved break ;)

    But, I will not vote for Obama until he earns it [like that's gonna happen]

    [ Parent ]

    Me too, (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM EST
    but I'd make it a tumbler of bourbon.  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    No it won't (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:21:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 12) (#112)
    by honora on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:22:09 PM EST
    I just had this conversation with my Republican husband.  I explained to him that I ,as a Democrat, always felt that I had the moral high ground.  I actually believed that the Republicans cheated and stole elections and they did in 2000 and 2004. But the stole them from the Democrats.  This year, the Republican elite did not like McCain. Did they cheat, did they count exit polls over certified state elections? No  The Republicans let McCain win,because the Republican voters voted for McCain.  I no longer have the moral high  ground.  I was in DC last weekend, I lost all faith in the Democratic Party with the vote of the RBC. Obama did not 'win'the nomination (which will not be 'won' until August) fairly.  The DNC cheated the Democratic voters and I will not be a party (no pun intended) to that.

    [ Parent ]
    I know where you're coming from. (3.50 / 2) (#143)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:35:02 PM EST
    That's why all support for the national party stops right now for me.  Everytime I get a fundraising letter from the DNC, I will respond with a brief letter explaining why I am not returning a check.  (To be fair: I've written one letter; I'll make copies.)  Similarly, I won't give money or support to Democrats who have been, in my opinion, bad actors in all this, now or in the future.  There are many ways to register your unhappiness with the party while still voting for Obama, if it comes down to it.  

    I know exactly where you're coming from; perhaps in time you'll be where I am.  Maybe not, but I hope that you're at least a wee bit open to the idea.

    [ Parent ]

    So are you (1.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    also morally superior to Hillary? Because she is going to support his candidacy and fight for his election and generally support the DNC.

    [ Parent ]
    What does noral superiority have to (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    do with anything. Hillary is enitled to her opinion and others are entitled to theirs on whether or not to support Barack. It has nothing to do with morality or are you insinuating that if you don't vote for Obama than you aren't moral?

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Honora brought up the moral high ground, not me.

    Generally though, people that vote for progressive candidates are morally superior to those that vote against them.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, really? (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM EST
    Because I believe in progressive causes I am morally superior to other human beings?

    No wonder Democrats have such a hard time getting elected.


    [ Parent ]

    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#166)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    and I'm not about to apologize for it. I'll give you one example, and I'm picking it for no other reason than I just read an article on it:

    Voting no on California's Gay Marriage Amendment is morally superior to voting yes on that amendment. Do I really have to explain this here?

    [ Parent ]

    10 comments per 24 hours (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    new commentors are allowed 10 comments per 24 hours.

    Also, check out the site rules.  NO FOUL LANGUAGE.  This is a legal issues site and foul language messes with the filterin software.  The comments will be deleted.  Use #$ etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Your position (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    is not limited to candidates then? You also can detemine superiority based on issues?

    Am I morally superior to Reid or Casey because I am pro choice? Or morally inferior? Does it make them unprogressive to not be pro choice? or me unprogressive to be pro choice?

    You tread a slippery slope when you make issues and people's positions black and white. There are alot of good people out there that disagree with me. I'd never in a million years think they were morally inferior for doing so. I've even gone so far as agreeing to disagree.

    You are more than entitled to support Barack Obama but I would suggest that you do so because of his positions rather than some misguided notion that supporting him somehow imparts superiority. I'd also suggest trying to "sell" him based on his positions rather than expecting Hillary Clinton to do his heavy lifting.

    One of my positions on being a progressive is that it means I engage in critical thinking. It means I don't just go along with a candidate because others implore me to but because I believe that the candidate will cause this country to progress forward. I'm not sold on Obama. I disagree with him philosophically and policy wise I find him weak. I also dislike the ploys and commentary I have seen played out against Clinton on his behalf. I have no desire to be unified with bullies and elitists. I believe in respect and courtesy.

     

    [ Parent ]

    In your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    You certainly are entitled to that opinion but considering the term "progressive" means different things to different people you could undoubtedly find yourself counting folks out as morally inferior simply becuse they disagree with your definition of progressive.

    I don't find having a donuthole in health care very progressive. I don't find making the argument that insuring everyone means you force pople to choose between rent and health care progressive. Does tht make my position morally superior than yours? Nope. It means we differ, not that my values are better than yours.


    [ Parent ]

    This is about the DNC, the blogs and the media (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:36:05 PM EST
    Ruining Hillary's reputation is not acceptable. She was fighting for progressive causes long before the blogs existed, and they trashed her, then passed the talking points on to the MSM. They did the same thing to Al Gore.

    The DNC did nothing to stop it. In fact, they assisted. The only people who can stop it are the voters.

    Voting down ballot but not top.

    [ Parent ]

    you are too cute. (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:50:22 PM EST
    Give it up, already.

    Where were you when the media was lashing out at Hillary (with your help) over her reference of RFK? Over her comment on MLK and LBJ?

    You are insulting everyone's intelligence.  

    [ Parent ]

    I never claimed to be 'morally superior' (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by honora on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    to anyone. I simply stated that I always felt that the Democrats were the 'good guys', I no longer feel that way. Senator Clinton is, unlike me, a United States Senator from one of the largest and most powerful states.  Her reasons for supporting the corrupt Democratic Party are known by her alone. I do not seek to judge people, I merely seek to live my life according to my values and standards. You apparently find that objectionable.  That does not trouble me at all.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    it will take more than that.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:27:17 PM EST
    I like Hillary but I have differed with her beforeand I'm not afraid to differ with hr again.

    [ Parent ]
    I am a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    not a Hillary follower.

    My vote belongs to me.

    If you are concerned about Hillary's causes, you must be a Hillary supporter too.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes it will help (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    and I'll give her the courtesy of waiting to hear her say it. After that, I will credit her for my change of heart.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM EST
    I support Hillary for President.  I don't follow her every wish.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    Yesterday one of my Obama-supporting friends opined the reason the Teddy Kennedys and John Kerrys of the Senate didn't support Clinton was maybe they just didn't like her.  Friend also didn't want Clinton as VP w/Obama because friend is convinced this would hinder Obama's changes.

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    my Obama-supporting mother thinks that Hillary has "too much baggage".  I believe this is a fairly typical attitude from Obama supporters, since my mom gets her info from sources like MSNBC, DKos and Huffpo.  When I bring up Obama's questionable associations, which IMO will cause him serious electiblity problems in the fall, her response is, "But that's not his fault!"

    I truly believe that Hillary would get nothing but grief as Obama's VP.  It may be true that she has too much baggage, but only because the lying media made it so.  In any event, she's over-qualified for the job.

    [ Parent ]

    Whitewater (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by denise on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    I keep hearing Obamaphiles bringing up Whitewater as evidence of Clinton sleaze.

    Maybe they have short memories, maybe they're too young to remember it, or maybe the Obama campaign has brainwashed them; they don't seem to know that the extremely long & expensive investigation never turned up anything against the Clintons. Not in Whitewater, or in Travelgate, or Filegate, or Vincent Foster's death, or any other output of the Republican slander machine. Nothing but the blow jobs.

    [ Parent ]

    Mostly they're too young (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    to remember it.  Or maybe they were Republicans back then.  

    I remember the Clinton years. I remember going to a rally in Union Square in November 1992 and chanting "Three more days! Three more days!" I remember long lines at the polling place in my liberal Brooklyn neighborhood and knowing Bill was gonna win.  

    I've stuck by the Clintons through thick and thin.  I sharpened my debating skills b/c I worked with a very intelligent, but very Republican woman who was, like me, extremely into politics and was all up into that Vince Foster/Whitewater b.s.  It saddens me to see so-called progressives spouting the same nonsense.  And it repels me to see Barack Obama using that crap to further his quest for power.  Bottom line, that's why I will never vote for him.

    [ Parent ]

    And Susan Macdougal being (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    a hero and doing time because she refused to lie and  say there was a crime.

    [ Parent ]
    Shero, for sure (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    Not only in jail, but she was seriously abused while there. I wonder if anyone is ever going to put her experience to film. She's the epitomy of principled strength.

    [ Parent ]
    The book Susan wrote "The Woman Who (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    wouldn't Talk" was a real eye opener about the viciousness of most of the republicans in power today. What Kenneth Starr did to her was criminal.  I'm afraid that the young Obamabots think that O is going to waltz in while John McCain rolls over.  The young do not know these guys.  Another book the young should read is "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. The GOP is really vile.

    [ Parent ]
    Today, one of my friends (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by camellia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    told me "of course she wants to be VP, because she wants POWER".  I couldn't help myself -- I burst out laughing, but I didn't come back with the "bucket of warm spit" remark.  

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry and Kennedy (4.85 / 7) (#20)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    didn't "like" her?

    What is this?  Jr. high?

    Yes, some Obama supporters are in junior high.

    [ Parent ]

    In gym, I heard she puts out n/t (4.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:14:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is not to their credit, and it will not be (4.83 / 6) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:44:42 PM EST
    a tagline of honor on their legacies that they could not give up their prejudices for the good of the country.

    [ Parent ]
    I am already looking (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    into Kerry's challengers in MA. He has a good Dem. challenging him  (besides I think 2 Repub.). I don't know much yet about him but I am finding out and will probably  vote against Kerry in the Sept. primary: he was an embarrassment....

     

    [ Parent ]

    It would be nice to think that (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by bjorn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    some of these guys will pay a price for demonizing the Clintons.  I have no idea what his popularity is in Mass.  but I hope he has a strong dem contender.

    [ Parent ]
    Although realistically (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:07:46 PM EST
    I know that none of the contenders for Kerry's seat will beat him, it will be fun to make him take some time from windsurfing this summer to do just a little campaigning to keep his seat.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd like (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:56:49 PM EST
    to see the commercials, though.

    "56% of Massachusetts Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton.  John Kerry wasn't one of them..."

    [ Parent ]

    Was thinking along those lines (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:50 PM EST
    but I couldn't find anything about a decent Dem challenger.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it wishful thinking (none / 0) (#196)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    to think MA democrats will get organzied to do this?

    [ Parent ]
    Probably (none / 0) (#231)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:05:33 PM EST
    Kerry's probably pretty bullet-proof.  But if there was even a vaguely serious challenger, I would support them just to make him work for it.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is everyone on TV still crying about (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ajain on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    Her Speech?

    Can't they just let go. She was not ready to throw in the towel and many before her have done the same.

    Clueless (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    I don't remember the countdown until Romney endorsed McCain.

    This is a macabre clock ticking down to the exact moment of Hillary's demise.

    A larger point also - would any of these CC chatting types actually learn some history?

    I will lose it if I hear one more bright soul opine about the outrage of a contender going to the convention, trailing in delegates.  That's happened many times - famously, dear Teddy in 1980 - and against a sitting President.

    [ Parent ]

    Definitely clueless. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    Another republican troll, no doubt.

    [ Parent ]
    Because they create the news, and she didn't (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    do what they reported she was supposed to be doing. Through this entire process, she has made them look like fools. They can't predict any of her moves no matter how hard they try.


    [ Parent ]
    She is (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:03 PM EST
    smarter than all of them combined.

    [ Parent ]
    And then some. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:33:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She made them look like fools (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    Not her most difficult accomplishment, I'd bet.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not crying about her speech, (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by honora on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    but as it sure did make me cry.  It was the best speech that she ever made.  I am sure that is why the Democratic establishment is so unhappy with it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, because it was the most (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    victorious non-victory speech ever.  They tried to break her and failed.

    He may have won the nomination, but he did not beat her.  She held onto her 18 million.  His victory was to be the New Coalition's victory.  It was no victory.  They played a giant game of chicken with her.  They blinked first.

    It took all of them, cheating, and gaming the roolz, and they still didn't beat her.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks, Valhalla, for making that point. (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Radical Faith on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but it's true. The New Coalition didn't garner quite as many popular votes as the Old Coalition.

    How will that play in November?

    The New Democratic Party needs to ask itself one question: "Do we feel lucky?"

    [ Parent ]

    They're milking the last drops of venom out of the (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    CDS Narrative they've been working from since, oh, 1992!

    [ Parent ]
    Because they're addicted to CDS (none / 0) (#211)
    by Palomino on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:59:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She HAS given enough (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    That said I don't think she'll be bullied if she doesn't want it.  She strikes me as prety strong willed and not one to suffer fools gladly.

    If she isn't on the ticket I won't vote for him but I won't blame that on her. I don't have CDS. If she choses not to be on the ticket it will be because of Obama, his supporters, and wat she believes his chances are.

    I also think he needs to win it (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    on his own. And I would also be very happy if she stayed off the ticket for other reasons.

    Hillary doesn't want the job (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    but she would take it if the party needed her to.

    Despite what the OFB claim, she really cares more about the party and the country than her own career.

    Amen, sister. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by befuddled on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST
    "I believe Obama needs to win the White House on his own." Truly, when was the president ever legitimized, propped up, rationalized, whatever by the vice president?

    Bush/Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:16:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Since We Will Be Stuck With Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    bipartisan policies and the NEW Democratic (Obama) Party if he wins, I think he needs to prove that the NEW party is viable all by himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Good! (5.00 / 10) (#39)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST
    As I've said before, he needs to sink or swim on his own.  I'm sick of the relentless Hillary-bashing in the media and the popular meme (which I believe is part of the same) that she's after the VP slot.  I believe she stayed in for her supporters, not out of evil ambition.  

    Hate to invoke Richard Nixon, but I want to see how Barack does once his supporters (and the media) don't have Hillary to kick around anymore.  

    Agreed! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Sara F on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:55 PM EST
    I want Obama to succeed without Hillary, too.  Of course, he'll have to choose a VP, all presidential nominees do,  but not Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    The way everything must be decided... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by citizen53 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    so early is troublesome.

    Based on the campaign cycle, why not just move up the election a year?

    The need for instant gratification is what makes for bad decision making.

    In other words... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by citizen53 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    why must anyone be selected this week?

    Because the media tells us so?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's choice (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:51:07 PM EST
    I can't imagine that Hillary will do anything else but what she wants to do, given whatever options are on the table.

    That said, I do believe she and Obama on the same ticket have a lot more chance of winning in the fall.

    Obama winning on his own is all well and good for high school track.  For the presidency of this country with so much at stake, if Hillary increases the Dem's chances of winning (and I believe she does,) then I hope A) Obama offers her the vice-presidential slot, and B) Hillary takes it.

    We must not underestimate the neocons and their dirty tricks.  Hillary has as good a shot as any of derailing them while Obama can be the unity man.

    I predicted that Obama would win the nomination, in part because the neocons wanted him to.  Yes, he has a true, great following, but I can't explain the Mouth Piece Media's consistent and continuous praise of Obama and damnation of Hillary any other way.  While misogyny is true and real and was ever-present, it also made a nice cover.

    I also predicted and do predict that the media will drop their love-affair with Obama and grow increasingly more negative.  Hillary can call them out every time and deconstruct their BS.

    There is a shot with her in the VP slot.

    key word "seeking" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by noholib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:56:42 PM EST
    In my reading,the key word is that Senator Clinton is not "seeking" the VP nomination.  That doesn't mean she doesn't want it or that she would not accept it. I think Wolfsohn wants to tone down  any adverse PR effect of the petition circulating (with Lanny Davis' help) that asks that she be considered for the position.  In other words, given the current climate of opinion, the ever-hostile media will describe a petition by her supporters as a "demand by Senator Clinton," and an overreaching, unseemly one at that. That's why Wolfsohn emphasizes that the decision is Senator Obama's, and no one else's.

    I have no idea really what Senator Clinton wants or what is the best role or position for her from now on.  I'm just doing a close reading of this statement, which strikes me as clever PR on Wolfsohn's part.  That said, I trust her judgment and I support her. I don't know what I really think of the VP position for her, but a friend who is a staunch Clinton supporter said she supports the idea because she'd like to have Clinton's intelligence and talents working to better the country and to help steer the administration if the Dems get elected.  In other words, the argument is not electability but rather having Clinton's competence in the right place.

    Maggie Williams (yes, campaign manager Maggie) (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM EST
    just started a site called Clinton Democrats, for those who think it's a travesty to muscle Hillary out of the race before Denver.

    Here's the web site:

    http://clintondems.com/ (shouldn't skew the site.)

    I saw that (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    and I already sign in the pledge. I was thrilled to learned about it.

    Thanks Maggie !!

    [ Parent ]

    signed --that is. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:03:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Go to Maggie Williams site (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    it is like fresh air. Please sign her pledge. You can all her and email her directly.  She is truly outraged.

    [ Parent ]
    I had trouble getting to the (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    page otherwise I'd have signed it in a heartbeat.

    [ Parent ]
    keep trying (none / 0) (#188)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:10 PM EST
     I can access it no problem.  Here is the LINK AGAIN

    [ Parent ]
    Correction: (none / 0) (#242)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    It is not Maggie Williams site. The petition just says mentions her name to express support.  

    The petition and the site are good !

    [ Parent ]

    Not Maggie Williams's site, I'm afraid (none / 0) (#237)
    by swift loris on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    It looks like SusanUnPC of No Quarter was mistaken. ClintonDems.com is an independently run site, according to the first post there, which is dated May 16:

    http://tinyurl.com/6o9yvt

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it only really works if it is just as good (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    for her as it is for the country, and I guess Hillary is the only one who knows whether being Obama's VP means being something or someone other than who she is; given that it is her authenticity and connection with the people that got her to the brink of being the nominee, the question is whether Obama can be big enough abd smart enough to let her be Hillary, or whether he will require her to be little more than window dressing.

    The problem with Hillary is that she is head and shoulders above him on so many issues and in so many areas.  How does she, for example, go out and sell the Obama health care plan that she knows and 18 million + of us know is inferior to her own?  

    If she's in the Senate, she's in a better position to put together health care legislation that she knows will be better than that watered down thing Obama calls a plan.  Maybe, like Jeralyn, her usefulness is in holding Obama to a higher standard, and pushing him on issues he's happy to ignore.

    To my way of thinking, what comes out of the Congress will only be as strong as the people in it - and what we have seen in the last 2 years tells me that we are a long, long way from being strong.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to go and in their stead we need people who understand what leadership is; unfortunately, if Obama wins, you aren't going to see that kind of change - you are going to see the Obama version: more jello.

    I hope she just goes back to the Senate for now, and we all wait and watch to see how Obama navigates the rougher seas of a general election campaign that he has to wage without the protection of Clinton.


    I say no (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:15:00 PM EST
    She shouldn't accept the VP position.  Let him figure it out on his own.  The cheer leading that is going on right now isn't swaying me.

    He's not the only one who needs to stand (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    on his own.

    First, he won't be standing on his own, he hasn't done that for one minute this campaign.

    The DNC and Dem Leaders anointed him the Chosen One, and were willing to steal her delegates to do it.  They chose him to lead their purge of all things Clinton, or working class, or feminist, or older, or minority other than AA from the party.  They created their own crucible; let them win or fail the test on their own.

    I wanted this to be a Democratic presidency this cycle too.  I did not want 4 more years of Republicans.  But I no longer see that as the choice.  I'd rather trade 4 years of McCain now than 4 or 8 or 12 or 16 years of Republicans starting 4 years from now.  I'm much more afraid of Republicans who have time to regroup and organize themselves for an assault on a Jimmy Carter Redux presidency than to give that role to McCain now.

    If in the end, Obama wins and turns out to be a great leader and a great president, I'll be the first in line to say I was wrong.  But I don't see great president in him, all I see is risking a long term win for the (real) Democratic Party for short term gain.  

    Secret meeting as we blg Hilary and Obama (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Saul on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    Breaking news that Obama is going to Hilary's home right now in NY to talk to her.  Chuck Todd broke the news just now.

    I like that he is going to pay her a courtesy (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM EST
    call instead of vice versa.

    [ Parent ]
    Not much of a secret is it? She was smart (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    to have the meeting at her house.  If she doesn't like what the weasly one has to say, she can kick him out... :)

    [ Parent ]
    It's at her DC home not NY (3.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Saul on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:43:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just want to give an amen to Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:09 PM EST
    I believe Obama needs to win the White House on his own, with support from those who believe he's the best choice for the country. While I believe he's a far better choice than John McCain, I don't believe we should force Hillary into thinking she owes it to him or the party to be on his ticket. She's given enough.

    Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

    It is not necessary for "unity" that Hillary be on the ticket. And I cannot imagine that she'd be happy as VP, a historically frustrating role.

    Wisdom personified, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM EST
    I think she has done enough, also!

    [ Parent ]
    A most peculiar paradox! (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, sent out this message today:

        "While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her. The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

    Is Wolfson speaking for Hillary here... or not? :)

    Well.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:18 PM EST
    I would call that double speak....he says what Hillary doesn't seek, followed by saying no one speaks for her but her.

    I'd call that a Bushism.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    I would call it Nietzschean...at the risk of sounding elitist!

    [ Parent ]
    MessNBC saying Obama going to Chapaqua to (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:32:32 PM EST
    meet with Sen. Clinton. News broke in last half hour, and now there's a stake out at the Clinton residence.

    Interesting. Hope it's just a chat--not sure I want her running with him....

    Work for your issues, our issues, from a position of strength, Hillary!

    I love that he's going to her (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    But then I deserve the title "B!tch". I've earned it.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought she was in Washington DC (none / 0) (#179)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    according to MSNBC

    [ Parent ]
    I AM GLAD (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by IKE on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST