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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Thank you, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 15) (#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 / 15) (#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.



    The hubris is really kicking in here (5.00 / 8) (#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.


    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.


    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!


    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

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

    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.

    VP (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.

    I didn't say Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    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.


    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?

    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.  

    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?  


    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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?

    No (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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
    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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?


    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]


    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.  :-)

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

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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
    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.

    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....



    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.

    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.

    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..."


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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?"


    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!

    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
    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.

    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.  

    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?


    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 !!


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

    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.

    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

    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 !


    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.

    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... :)

    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
    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!

    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.


    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!

    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.

    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

    I AM GLAD (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by IKE on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST
    I don't think she should accept the ticket. She will be better off in the senate. Why accept such a position where your only job is to do what the president wants you to do.

    Six months ago (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by denise on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:39:12 PM EST
    I would have agreed with you. I never thought I'd ever feel this way, but I just can't support Obama. And it seems a lot of others here feel the same way.

    It's a crying shame that it's come to this, but it's what he & Dean have brought about.

    Big whatever (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    Robert Wexler is saying "the polls that say Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama don't count"  He is insisting that we will all fall in line when Clinton warmly embraces Obama.  No concern at all that there is a problem.  Wexler may be a good progressive but he has become a total bully for Obama.

    Wexler Has Definitely Never Talked To Any (5.00 / 3) (#241)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:14:52 PM EST
    of my family or friends. I do not do falling in line. I have made up my own mind for decades and Hillary will not influence my decision one way or another. Obama has a slim chance of changing my mind but so far all this talk about me falling in line isn't doing the trick. So If Obama has any sense at all, he will shut down his supporters using that talking point real quick.

    This comment (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    was off a list I'm on.  I can't verify it, but generally the list is a good one and is on the up and up.

    Okay, so now that Hillary has issued a statement to the press, I'll elaborate on what I know:

    Basically, on Tuesday Hillary spent the day at home calling superdelegates.  In doing so, she discovered that Obama supporters, Uncommitted supers and a few of her supporters had essentially made a pact with the DNC that they would not support Hillary at the convention.  She was essentially told that she needed to get out of the race asap.  Someone told the press that she was going to get out last night, but Hillary didn't want to exit the race when someone else told her to do it (the media) and instead, decided she would exit on her own time, under her conditions.  ...  In fact, during the meeting today, she joked that she had realized that she wanted to be a person who "talked for a living", as you always had work and the things you said didn't even have to be true.  Anyway, apparently, the idea that Obama isn't going to be able to win the nomination came up while talking to the DNC/supers and the response she received was that Obama brought in a lot of new Democratic voters (and ultimately, a lot of new Democratic money) and thus, while the party might lose the election in the short term (the presidential election, that is), the long term would be good, as the party would have lots of new voters and money.  The belief was that even though Obama might not be able to win the presidency, the fact that he had "all these new voters" would help to ensure that the party won the congressional and senatorial seats in play in November.  I asked if Hillary had read the comments posted by her supporters and was told that she did and that if she felt she could win the election (garner the superdelegate support at the convention), she would have stayed in the race.  However , the DNC and supers made it very clear to her that they would not support her and that she needed to get out.

    If this is right, I think nobody cares who Obama picks as VP, much less a desire to force her on the ticket or even support any efforts by her to be on the ticket.  It might be part of why she isn't interested in VP:  the DNC forced the Supers to give her her walking papers.  It would be rude not to walk after being so strongly invited to do so.

    This is what I believe (5.00 / 7) (#207)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:58:01 PM EST
     "while the party might lose the election in the short term (the presidential election, that is), the long term would be good, as the party would have lots of new voters and money."

    This is what I've said for a while. The DNC doesn't care if Obama wins. They want all of those lovely new voter's. I hope it pays off, because I'm not sure those new voter's are going to support the party - I think they are simply in this to support Obama.


    If the information in your comment is (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    accurate, and Obama doesn't invite Clinton to be VP on his ticket and/or he does but he loses in Nov.--think of the tell all book Hillary and Bill Clinton can write that much sooner.

    Huh? (5.00 / 7) (#227)
    by Davidson on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    His "new" voters and money are only in it for the Idea of Obama, which will surely be dead once the GE is underway (i.e. they're not being sold on any Democratic principle, assuming the Party will have any after this election).  And all those new and young voters were no match for Clinton's coalition so there's goes their "winning" theory.

    What complete and utter fools they are.  God, I hope Clinton still just suspends.  Even if they still decide to choose political suicide in Denver, she is the first serious woman candidate for president and deserves to be there rather than be forced out.  Besides, if there so committed to not supporting her in Denver then what's the harm in letting her stay?  It makes no sense at all.


    That' what a bunch of us (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    already thought. $$$$$$$$$$$.  It means nothing to them who's in the WH.  Changes their lives nor prospects at all..... it's govt by the wealthy for the wealthy.  I just thought they would at least throw the people a crumb this time.  That's all I was looking for.. a few crumbs.  Not even for myself, just some healthcare for others.

    Sounds about how I imagined it went down (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:00 PM EST
    Though I would like to see a VP Clinton, In a way I would like to see Obama stand or fall on his own.  If he wins on his own with a clean break from the past, maybe we do have a chance for a fresh start in this country.  If he loses, though I don't want to see Pres McCain, at least we will still have the House and Senate to keep him in check.  He will be easier to work with than Bush.

    So I hope Hillary does what she truly wants to do and does not get talked into helping the party, after they have so disrespected her service of 35 years.


    You know what's worse? (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by Davidson on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    Voting for a candidate who courted those misogynists and is unelectable against McCain.

    You're a failure at extorting votes from women and others who loathe misogyny.  The fact you're trying to show betrays how weak Obama is as a nominee, especially as a Democrat.  What woman in her right mind could honestly trust a man to fight for her rights when he only fights for himself and his core base is misogynistic?

    I think they ought to run together. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    If they run together, they win.  It's that simple.  And, winning is the first priority.

    We are in complete agreement (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    Your comment surprises me. (none / 0) (#214)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Don't tell me... (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:46 PM EST
    ...you work for Regnery Press, right?

    My take on this... (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by reddan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    Totally aside from the fact that I support Obama...

    Is that while the platforms espoused by both candidates are quite similar in the basics (and yes, different in the details, practicality, etc), the main reasons why Clinton will not be offered the VP slot, nor would she accept it if offered is as follows:

    1. The two candidates truly represent vastly different wings of the party...wings that are not compatible in terms of overarching outlook on how to "do" politics both inside and outside the beltway bubble.

    2. The people surrounding the two candidates (consultants, advisors, pollsters, political allies, etc), have extremely different visions about how to run campaigns, how to deal with special interests of various stripes, and how to go about "forging consensus" and with whom to do so.

    I do not think that personal animosity will be the prime factor in determining the VP choice (or not)...it will be more influenced by overall outlook, style, and strategy surrounding the electoral process and the political world.

    They do not fit well together.

    What is the vast difference... (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM EST
    ...between the Daschle/Nunn/Kerry/Kennedy wing of the Dem party, and the Rangel/Rendell/Stubb-Jones/Murtha wing of the Dem party, pray tell?

    What does Hillary owe? (5.00 / 7) (#203)
    by hellskitchen on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    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.

    Emphasis in quote above is mine.

    Unfortunately, the DNC and the Obama crowd are saying otherwise - not that she owes it to them to be the vp, but that it is her job to unify the party.

    However, Hillary can't go into the voting booth with 17 million people and force them to pull the lever (or press the appropriate square on the touch screen).

    The Democratic Party is a continuing disgrace.

    You Are Doing An Excellent Job As Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#204)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    ambassador.Good to see people like you providing us with Obama's views and being such a good example of exactly what his candidacy is all about.I'm sure that Obama appreciates your efforts on his behalf. Keep up the good work.

    You forgot! (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:57:32 PM EST
    Keith Olberman suggesting she be snuffed -- you know, a superdelegate go into a room with her and only one of them come out.

    How can you forget that? (Why should you forget that?)

    He's not my candidate (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    I left the Democratic Party, after 30 years.  He's all yours.

    Can you tell me why the Democratic leadership (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:04:55 PM EST
    is willing to trust this country and all of its massive problems with an inexperienced guy with barely two years of senatorial experience? It is clear that the person or persons who caused the divisiveness were the people who put Obama up to this charade. Not Hillary. She would have walked away with the presidency because she had the whole coalition.  But now the Obama handlers have divided the country by peeling away the AA vote and we will see if it gets us another Dukakis or McGovern fiasco.  You probably don't know about that.  Why don't you read up?

    You're right (5.00 / 4) (#232)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    She was rotten.  No wonder Keith Olberman suggested snuffing her! She deserves it. She's just like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.

    Good thing that rotten women is gone. And all of her rotten supporters are going with her, and we're taking our votes with us. You don't need us. It's a whole new party now! A whole new coalition is forming. Hey! You're part of the new vanguard, the brave new world! Why don't you sound happy?

    What a difference a day makes (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by Isabelle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    I hope Hillary turns him down if asks her to be VP.  She has been and continues to be trashed by his supporters and the media hacks on cable news (and I don't mean Fox).  I've had it.  If he  thinks she was too rough on him, then he's not ready for what's coming and the republicans won't care what his supporters call them.  If he had any character he would have put a stop to the trash talk a long time ago, and if he had the judgement he claims to have, he would have known he can't win in November without Hillary's supporters.  

    This secret meeting (5.00 / 2) (#246)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    is irritating me.  Seriously, can he NOT let the woman have her shindig on Saturday, say thanks to her supporters, and, oh by the way, ask them to support him, without horning in?  For pete's sake give the woman the time and space she has EARNED.  

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#247)
    by tek on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    I agree totally.  What could Hillary accomplish as VP anyway?  She would be marginalized and overlooked.  If he messes up big time, she'd be blamed.  I can't even stand to think the Clintons would campaign for Obama.  The way the pundits are still bashing her, it will be out of the question anyway.

    This brings up a great point (4.91 / 12) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    One I had not thought of, and I'll cut right to the chase.

    1.  It is NOT Clinton's job to seek this out.

    2.  Obama can offer it and then it's Clinton's choice to accept.  Or not.  Her choice.

    3.  Regardless of anything else that happens, if Obama loses in November, what does that mean?  It means the wrong candidate was chosen in May.  That's all it means.  It means nothing more than that.  Nothing at all.

    I know (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
    They're idiots.

    I'm thinking long term.


    At least (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:54:39 PM EST
    you'll get to say "I told you so" when McCain invades Iran and appoints more troglodytes to the Supreme Court.  

    Weren't we supposed to invade Iran (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:55:46 PM EST
    4 years ago?

    You know (none / 0) (#67)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    exactly what I'm saying.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    I still look forward to Seymour Hersh's next article.

    I read that earlier in the day (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    and my reaction was that it was the Clinton campaign trying to set up a situation in which Obama could ask Clinton and it wouldn't seem that she demanded she have the VP.  I think this statement was in response to the spate of articles about Clinton backers encouraging Obama to pick her, and the other articles about how if he does so now, he'll appear "weak."  I have no idea how it would make Obama seem "weak"; to me it seems more like changing tracks but keeping the momentum going.  

    Anyway, to me it looks like the Clinton campaign is joining in on the game of media appeasement.  That is, if this statement is meant to set up Obama to be making a decision from on high about this, a decision that affirms his authority.  But remains:  Hillary!  The media, by really working this "but Obama would be weak!" angle, is making Hillary's campaign's role now that of the humble.  The respectful supplicant.  They will make this into a medieval romance before July, I'm telling you.  

    Don't think so. I think she's reminding (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:03:39 PM EST
    everyone that she hasn't conceded and she's not going to. Note the "Democrat in the White House" not Obama. "She speaks for herself" means everyone is wrong about her forcing him to give her the job and she has never said she wants it. I think the somewhat strange wording is very precise.

    Obama is meeting with Clinton right now (4.00 / 1) (#104)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    at her house.  Apparently he loaded the press corp on a plane and then did not board but instead headed to Hillary's house for a "press-free" one on one.

    Loaded the press onto a plane! (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:29:52 PM EST
    Ok, I actually have to respect that.  Lol.

    Still not voting for him, but he did go up one iota in my estimation.


    MSNBC (4.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    says Clinton and Obama are having a secret meeting now.  Woo woo.  

    On the contrary (3.75 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    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 that it is the only consideration. I want a Democrat in the White House in the fall.

    Um, no. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
    What about what Hillary wants?

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    Being the generous and beneficent leader (3.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    that she is, I expect that she will do what's right for the country, if asked.

    What she thinks is right (5.00 / 12) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:37:50 PM EST
    for the country may not be to be Obama's VP. She could prefer Senate Majority Leader.

    She has earned the right to make her own decision. She does not have to clean up after Obama after he has done his best to destroy her and her husband.

    I am all right with whatever she does.


    madamab (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:55:46 PM EST
    Your comment is right on. Excellent. I agree with you 100%.

    madamab (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:12:47 PM EST
    So do I.

    Funny that the statement was perceived as sexist.
    I am female and I took as being a Cleaner.  You know the mob Cleaners. They clean up the mess.:-)


    You know, this is really tiresome (1.60 / 5) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:41 PM EST
    She does not have to clean up after Obama
    I would be saying the same thing if Hillary were a man with the same electoral strength. This suggesting that it's somehow sexist to ask for Hillary to be on the ticket is fairly insulting.

    You are the one (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:43:37 PM EST
    who injected sexism. I did not. I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman, I think it has to do with her being Hillary Clinton, the one Obama hates.

    I'm sorry you disagree with me, but I really think that IACF! is a big part of why people want Hillary on the ticket.

    I don't think she should fall into that trap. She is going to be blamed if Obama loses and she goes anywhere near that ticket.


    I know perfectly well what you meant (1.50 / 6) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    when you said "She does not have to clean up after Obama." You were manifestly brining in sexism.

    And the IACF crowd will blame her NO MATTER WHAT. That's an omelette you can't unscramble.


    Okay, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    you know better what I meant than I did.



    It is not credible (1.33 / 3) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    for you to claim that quote means anything else, frankly.

    So now you're calling me a liar. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:51:48 PM EST
    That's lovely.

    Buh-bye everyone.


    No (1.20 / 5) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    I'm saying that you should own up to the implications of your language.

    Madam was NOT 'manifestly brining in sexism' (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:22:56 PM EST
    Not marinating in it, not bringing in sexism at all.

    Look is this on today's Turfing Points Memo?

    Way too sensitive wimmins deep sea fishing for sexism in every nook and cranny?

    It's been turfed. It's lame. You'll have to do way better than that.


    andgarden, (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:48:50 PM EST
    I understand your point, but there are better examples. For example, this comment on another thread by P. Cronin, who authored the caucus primary report I link to so often, which she ends with, "....let him iron his own shirts."

    Sorry, but I thought it was funny.

    By the way, check out her final numbers, not that it matters any more. But, for posterity:

    Final election data:
    Clinton:    18,046,271 votes
    Obama:   17,869,497 votes

    Clinton + 176,774 votes
    Obama + 165.5 Net Delegates

    Yes, it is more manifest in that comment (none / 0) (#216)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    And frankly, I think that kind of talk lowers Hillary in a way that she doesn't deserve. It makes me angry, in fact, because it gives evidence to the naysayers who claim that people only voted for Hillary because she's a woman. I simply don't believe that.

    As for the popular vote, well, I think you, P. Cronin, and I disagree on how best to calculate it. In my opinion, no fair count gives Hillary a 175,000 vote advantage. But It doesn't seem worthwhile to rehash that point. The bottom line for me is that both candidates had lots of support, and that the superdelegates made their decision at the end of the day.

    My focus is on November now, and from what I'm reading, so is Hillary's.  


    Yes, as we know, only the chicks can (none / 0) (#134)
    by wurman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    clean up.  Sort of opposite that Augean Stables thing with a sly cross-reference over to Hercules in a skirt, wasn't it, there on the Isle of Lesbos. Madame has referenced this several times, without a gender component.

    The statement about cleaning up after the (male) children was originally applied to Bu$hInc & any Dem winning, then having to dung out the White House, all the cabinet posts & the military.

    Yup, that Hillary sure is qualified to be Obama's downstairs maid.


    Insulting (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Davidson on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    That she was denied the nomination by the establishment for a unqualified, grossly inexperienced man that is all but likely unelectable.

    And in case you hadn't noticed it, she's not a man.  This is different.  Do you honestly think the Party "leadership" would have did what they did to her if she were a man?


    Edit (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Davidson on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM EST
    "....would have done what they did to her if she were a man?"

    It DOESN'T MATTER (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    I want to win in November.

    Crawl off your high horse! (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:16:31 PM EST
    If she doesn't want to be VP on the ticket, suck it up and move on.  This election is not about making you or me happy.

    Hello? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    This suggesting that it's somehow sexist to ask for Hillary to be on the ticket is fairly insulting.

    Andgarden said I suggested it was sexist to ask for Hillary to be on the ticket.

    Is there another way to read that?

    I don't think so.


    The way you posed it (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    suggested that Clinton would be cleaning up after Obama as a wife does her husband, or children.  "Clean up after" just has that context.  It's not like it's offensive or anything - but I think that's just a largely accepted, perhaps default, context.  "Not clean up after" has a feminist context.

    I think andgarden's point is that any losing candidate should be prepared to clean up the unsightly messes of the winner.  To assuage those who didn't like the winner.  VP is not necessarily glamorous work.  It may even be dirty work.  But hey, maybe Hillary will win a Peace Prize one day!  Seriously, she would have the capacity to do great good as his VP.


    I think she'd be a better Majority Leader (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    than the figurehead known as the VP.

    Let's face it, if she's the VP candidate...after she helps him win, she'll be sent off on a variety of "good will" missions that will keep her out of the limelight.


    my understanding is that she has (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by bjorn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    no shot at this, Reid is not giving it up and she is too junior in status to be able to get the job.

    I'm betting (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    there are of ways to put her on the fast track...at the very least with a major committee chair slot.

    But should she become the VP, she will be disappeared.


    If Obama wanted to...... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    ...he could do anything. ;-)

    Thinking the same here (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    If the DNC leadership can steal votes for him, why can't they arrange Senate Majority Leader for her?

    I'm sure it could be arranged.


    I don't think so (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    HRc  is not Joan D'Arc and her life, personal and political is not yours, not his congress peeers, nor the DNC nor Obama's  to decide.  She deserves much more respect that than. If  Obama cannot win on his own he should not be the nominee.
    If he needs HRC to lean on then he is weak and should not be President.  Enough asking HRC to be the savior of the gigantic mess
     the DNC has made.  Knock it off asking her this or that.
    She has earned the right to do what she wants and what she thinks is best for her.

    Excuse me, but how is it (2.33 / 3) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    disrespectful to say that she has immense power to deliver the most important office in the world to her party?

    Just maybe (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    she does not need to be used and abused again....by her own party.

    She has a voice.  Again a voice. She can do what she wants.


    It's disrespectful in that (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    you appear to give no credence to what she may want for her life.  It's all about you wanting to win.  It's pathetically disrespectful.

    if she is the one who needs to deliver (5.00 / 8) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:48 PM EST
    that office to her party then her party should have cut out the middle man and just nominated her.

    She wants it and maybe she should get it (3.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ksh on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    But this was the result of Clinton being told the obvious: if she wants it, she can't box him into taking her.

    There are a lot of good reasons to pick her...wide support and appeal, intelligence, all her other abilities. There are some reasons not to pick her (Bill being foremost among them).

    I think what really matters is: is she able to be president if something happens and can she help with the electoral map.  Clearly, she'd be able to be president....I haven't developed an opinion on the electoral map.  I don't think it's enough to think all dems that voted in the primaries would vote for the ticket.  That may be right, but it feels shallow now.  I'm really eager to see some good analysis on the issue.

    But as for "forcing her on the ticket" -- she'd take it in a hot minute.  It would be good for her future presidential prospects because the dems are going to win in November.

    I honestly - (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    - honestly do not understand why anyone would think that Bill Clinton would be a liability under these circumstances.  Look, I would grant that you were correct if Bill had a history of, I dunno, storming into the Senate and haranguing Senator Clinton's enemies on the Senate floor over the past eight freaking years, but he doesn't.  She's been Senator from New York for 8 years and has somehow managed to handle THAT office without Bill being "a problem."  And, had the media been more fair and less sexist, they would have recognized that he was a genuine asset to her on the campaign trail and that all the commentcritter chatter about how awful he is/would be was dead wrong.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 9) (#132)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    the only successful Democratic President in my lifetime, is a liability - because the media and the Obama camp have declared him to be so.  

    Obama - hoist on his own petard.  He started out dissing the Clintons in SC - there's no turning back now.  


    Al Gore (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Dave B on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    Thought that Bill was a liability.

    Al Gore lost.

    Well, he didn't necessarily lose, but he did not become president...


    Yep! (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    Gore could've won so big that it would've been impossible for Bush to steal the election, but he distanced himself from Bill foolishly, campaigned poorly, and won the most narrow of victories that was close enough that - aided and abetted by the Media that crowned Obama nominee and Bill Clinton baaaaaad - BushCo stole it.  Sad.

    Remember, Bill was busy on HRC's (none / 0) (#176)
    by ksh on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    campaign at the time as well.  I think there were complaints on both sides.

    But Al Gore won that election....a squeaker, but he won it.

    People don't get defined for all time just by virtue of being a president.  Clinton had some real problems at the end of his last term.  I think his philanthropic work has overcome that, but he had real problems.


    Problems? (5.00 / 9) (#194)
    by Dave B on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    I bet Bush would love to have a problem like the 65% approval rating Bill had at the end of his term.

    Or peace. (5.00 / 6) (#220)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:54 PM EST
    Or prosperity.

    Or both.


    what quote do you have (none / 0) (#167)
    by ksh on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    that shows the Obama camp thinks Bill's a liability?  Wolfson was the one who said to Mitchell or Fineman that the library contributions may not make it through vetting, wasn't he?

    Oh, please (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    it's all over the Obama-loving media.  Obaua supporters loathe the Clintons  - heck, they've built their campaign on anti-Clinton sentiments.  Just turn on your TV or go to DKos and I'm sure you'll see a few examples.

    I heard it from a very nice, Obama-supporting black guy in the elevator of my building recently.  He really didn't think Rev. Wright was a big deal (I was too polite to disabuse him of that notion) but he didn't think Hillary could be VP b/c Bill would keep interfering.

    And in a way, he's right. Both Bill and Hillary are stronger and smarter than Obama.  Obama knows this.   He and the other losers in the Dem Party are seeking to ostracize the Clintons b/c they think it'll make them look bigger.

    Say hello to President McCain.


    here's why I think he could be a liability (none / 0) (#164)
    by ksh on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    1. His personality, influence, and that he's accustomed to being the big dog in the room. I think they could handle that, but the media will be looking for "Bill is making a wiener out of Obama" meme.  When Bill was in the White House, he had a faction problem between his and Hillary's team (it's mentioned in her book), so there's some precedent for at least being concerned. The thing with Obama's team, from what I can see, is that there is strict discipline in terms of infighting and message. If anyone could handle it, I think he could.

    2. His financial dealings since leaving the White House, in particular the donations to his library.  He hasn't been forthcoming on this issue, so the press is salivating about it and will jump on it. I'm hoping it's all good, but you don't know since they haven't come up the info.

    As for Hillary....is she the personality type to lay low and be a vice president?  I don't know. I guess it also depends on what kind of vice president Obama would want.

    Everybody in the media is talking about Clinton making a case for VP, but I say Obama SHOULD NOT DO IT unless she is absolutely on board, takes on all his hope and 'yes we can' stuff, and becomes a believer.  That may be hard for some of her supporters to digest, but I think that's what would have to happen.  The position of VP demands it.

    Do you think she could do it?


    I want Clinton as VP (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:56:15 PM EST
    - to be a strong partner and an independent voice in the Obama administration, one who can advise him and guide him and, yes, criticize him privately when and as necessary.  I want her there to push UHC and to hold him to Democratic commitment to social security and the FDR coalition.  So no, I don't want her to turn into a 'yes we can!!!!' high Broderism sycophant.  I want her to be a strong clear voice for her coalition of voters.  Were Obama to ask her to join the ticket under those circumstances, I would gain a good deal of respect for him.  I fear, though, that he lacks the political courage to do so.

    We're on opposite ends of the spectrum, clearly.


    Wow. She doesn't want it and she's (none / 0) (#239)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    not forcing anything.

    than she and her (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    supporters will not be offended when she is not selected. I will be sore, but i voted for Obama. Edwards i love but doesn't balance O out, and Bloomberg I like becuase he would provide economic brainpower, Easley I like because i think he is a good guy, Sebellius i like but doesn't help in areas of weakness, so that leaves hillary. He is not going to pick her, Carter floated the trial balloon for him. Expect a Nunn or a Biden or some other old white dude.

    I will vote for "the democrat" - (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    - but if Obama picks Sam Nunn, I very well might not.  Ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a weeeee bit at the thought.  The only bright spot would be to watch the Obamablogs go into paroxysms of quivering joy about what an awesome Democrat Sam Nunn is!

    Good choices (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    my opinion only.

    Obama needs a little more than a slogan.  These guys can show him the ropes....tell him when and what and how to vote for Democratic legislature.


    Do you realize... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    ...how your statement makes Obama look very pathetic?

    Thanks, but I don't think we need Sam Nunn's POV on what Democratic legislation Obama should sign; either Obama supports/opposes such legislation or is way too weak to be in the position of commander in chief of our country.


    Nobody votes for VP (none / 0) (#11)
    by pluege on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:35:04 PM EST

    In reverse (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM EST
    There are a few picks Obama could make that would cost him my support. Joe Biden for one, Janet Napolitano for another, Chuck Hagel or an anti-choice candidate for others.

    So people may well vote based on who the VP is.


    You'd better believe it. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    And I can't believe Caroline Kennedy would even consider a republican.



    I'm still trying to figure out what qualifies her (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:51:55 PM EST
    to be an adviser for who should be VP.

    His sudden "part of the family" with the Kennedy's is hard to grasp.


    Maybe this was the deal for her support (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:59:44 PM EST
    that she get to be a kingmaker (or queenmaker).

    It's power.  Kennedys like power.


    Other than the pundits. . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:46 PM EST
    who has said he is considering a republican?

    A VP Candidate Would Not Make Me Vote (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    for Obama. If Obama put a Republican or an anti-choice candidate on the ticket as VP, it might make me consider actually voting against him.

    Jeralyn, could you elaborate (none / 0) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    on Joe Biden (I understand the others). I'm really interested.

    I don't like him but his name was floated for Sec.ofState.



    Here's Jeralyn on Biden (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    Thanks waldenpond! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    I have missed that completely.

    In Dan Quayle's case (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    you might be correct. I think the VP choice for McCain will be very important this year with the concern with McCain's age. In Obama's case, his VP will also be important since he has some very big shortcomings to overcome.

    In my case (none / 0) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    The VP would make or break my decision to vote for Obama. If he put Clinton in I might believe that he'd not be adverse to not surrounding himself with yes men and women. Anything other than her loses my interest and that includes the guy who was my first choice, Edwards.

    They're trying to appease Obama (none / 0) (#147)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:37:25 PM EST
    I think he's pouting because he is feeling pressured to appoint Clinton to the VP slot, and apparently he doesn't want to do it because they want him to. They have to keep the pressure off so that he will have a chance to appear to make up his mind (or at least to come up with excuses for why she isn't his choice). Or I might be totally wrong. Clinton may be aware that he doesn't want her and is trying to dampen the expectations so that more of her supporter's don't abandon Obama when he picks someone else.

    No Foul Language (none / 0) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    use #$%% etc.  This is a legal issues site.  Using foul language will get your comments deleted.  Thanks.

    Reply to reddan above (none / 0) (#245)
    by zebedee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:17:02 PM EST
    So he would rather polarize than unite these so-called wings?

    He's like Dubya (none / 0) (#248)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    A uniter, not a divider!

    Remember, Dubya ran on "changing Washington" too!

    The two have so much in common it is downright frightening.