Obama's VP Dilemma

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

One of Barack Obama's biggest assets in the upcoming campaign is his relationship with the Media. In short, he is their Darling. They have tossed over their long love John McCain for him. This is worth a ton.

The Media has told Barack Obama that he can not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. To use the parlance, they have "jammed" him regarding his VP decision. Of course, since the Media is doing the jamming, they will never write that Obama's not choosing Hillary Clinton BECAUSE the Media jammed him is a sign of weakness.

On the other hand, I believe most honest observers know that if Barack Obama picks Hillary Clinton, the November election will be a lock. Of course, Barack Obama can win without Clinton. But with her, he WILL win. More . . .

George Will writes today:

That this idea [of an Obama-Clinton ticket] survived her off-putting speech Tuesday night, after Obama won the right to choose a running mate, is evidence that many Democrats do not fathom the gratitude that less-blinkered Americans feel for Obama because he has closed the Clinton parenthesis in our presidential history.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is funny to hear a bow-tie wearing, fuddy duddy elitest lecture on what "less-blinkered" Americans want. The only people George Will talks to live in Georgetown. What George Will is saying is that his Washington cocktail party friends are grateful. Uh George, we knew that already. Here's the problem for you - most of the American People have disagreed with the Beltway Media about the Clintons for almost two decades. It was these same "less-blnkered" Beltway bloviators who were thankful George W. Bush beat the "blowhard" Al Gore in 2000. 8 years later, the blinkers are off. Some of the less astute people in the world are in George Will's circle. Maybe he needs to go to an Applebee's once in a while.

But there is Obama's dilemma. Some day in July, Barack Obama will announce his Vice Presidential choice. And the story will be Hillary Clinton. Whether she is chosen or not. If she is not, Obama will be showered with "gratitude . . . because he has closed the Clinton parenthesis in our presidential history." And for a week, there will be stories dancing on the graves on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Obama will be answering questions about Hillary Clinton, NOT Kathleen Sebelius or Jim Webb or whomever. And he will anger a good deal of the Democratic Party - what I call the Clinton Democrats. And then there will be a week of questions about THAT.

If he chooses Clinton, the Media will be enraged. But here's the real question - will they be able to run stories about how weak about Obama is because he did not listen to them or will he be hailed as showing maturity and being the "unifier" he claims to be?

It will be interesting to see the run up to the choice to see how the Obama campaign positions itself in the following weeks on this. So far, they have played it well. Obama has "taken control of the process" without disrespecting Senator Clinton. But there are weeks to go.

And at the end of these weeks, the dilemma will remain.

See also Anglachel.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Spanish Newspapers: Edwards Say No To VP | Friday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's VP Dilemma | 238 comments (238 topical)

After what the DNC did to her (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:06 AM EST

she really has to stay away from this.

: I agree (none / 0) (#230)
by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST

Hillary should take the moral high road.
I have a feeling that Obama was specifically chosen by his backers to dethrone the Clintons. This because they were the two politicians who were most capable of pushing thru Universal Health Care. (I would dearly like to know who his real backers are.)
However this strategy will eventually fail, simply because of the genuine affection felt in the country for the Clintons. (A working-class hero is something to be...)
Talking about other VPs I saw this in New Reason:
"Who should Obama choose as a running mate? Obviously, Colin Powell. He fixes Obama's national security deficit, strengthens the Republican/independent appeal, and completes Obama's narrative about post-partisanship." (the rest of the article made me mad.)
http://reason.com/blog/show/126834.html

[ Parent ]

I have been with Hillary from the Very First (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:21 AM EST

I signed on to this project in January 2007 when I was very lonely indeed. I have signed on to be the man of the Party that I am, and I am with Obama from now through the election.

Let me explain that I think Obama has a chance to establish his leadership ability by assembling a 21st century team of rivals, much as Lincoln did and Doris Kearns Goodwin has documented. I believe Barack Obama feels the weight of history, and if he behaves that way and proves himself a man of supreme leadership, he can make Hillary his vice presidential nominee and cope with the situation in a way that will benefit the nation, the party, and himself.

I hope he chooses Hillary. I think it would say something about his mettle. But if he chooses someone else, it is not a deal breaker. I stand with my party now because I choose to be a voice in the party in the years to come.

Well (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:23:32 AM EST

if he has shown any leadership in his career so far I haven't seen it.

[ Parent ]

There have been several (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM EST

small events the last couple of days that indicate to me he is testing the waters. I agree that we can't conclude anything based on that evidence, but we have the situation we have. We can be members of our party, voices inside the party, or we can take our marbles and go home, that is, voices outside the party.

I choose to stay.

[ Parent ]

I'm not convinced (5.00 / 12) (#31)
by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST

that voting for Obama is really putting the long term interests of the party at heart.

I personally don't believe BTD went far enough with his point about Obama and the media. BTD calls Obama's media darling status his biggest asset. I think it is the only reason for his success within the democratic party. Letting the media choose our candidate is both undemocratic and un-Democratic.

I think it's a reasonable question as Democrats whether it is better for the party and the country to vote for Obama now, or to push for a more substantive candidate in 2012. I personally haven't completely made up my mind yet (there is a lot of time between now and November) but I think it is a perfectly reasonable choice to make.

[ Parent ]

I agree with you and I'm glad you said it first. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:43 AM EST

..you expressed yourself more reasonably than I would have so now I can pull an Obama and say I agree with dk!

[ Parent ]

Whether or not (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:41:53 AM EST

voting for Obama is in the long-term interest of the Party, voting for Obama is in the long-term interest of Clinton supporters. To maintain our credentials in the Party, we have to be women and men of the party, people who stick with the party when we win and people who stick with the party when we lose.

Imagine the other situation. Imagine if Hillary had won the nomination. Imagine the hurt and anger among the Obama supporters in such a situation. What would our reaction be? It would be, "Buckle up. Swallow you medicine. Be a good sport." How can we be less than our own advice?

[ Parent ]

That's well and good for Clinton supporters... (5.00 / 6) (#49)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:32 AM EST

....who want to stay in the party. Some of us have changed or are considering changing our affiliation to Independent. I don't think that by bowing to the iron will of the party I am keeping myself viable within the party.

[ Parent ]

As I have said, (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:43 AM EST

there are only two institutions in the United States with the organizational structure to influence the politics of American life, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Indeed, who do independents vote for? For a Republican or for a Democrat. Independents do not have the organizational ability to put up a viable alternative candidate.

You can be inside, or you can be outside. That is your right.

But if you choose to be outside, you hardly can expect to be a voice with influence about what should be going on inside, and you are doomed forever to choose between two candidates you have had no voice in selecting.

[ Parent ]

That's exactly right.... (5.00 / 10) (#149)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST

...I don't expect to be a voice because I already know they don't listen to me. So no more money, no more generic phone banking. I am an Independent voter now, and ironically as such I probably matter more to the party than I did when I was just an appalachian puerto rican old lady.

[ Parent ]

: And that is your right. (none / 0) (#169)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:06 AM EST

I always will defend your right to sit on the outside and talk about the bad people in the inside.
It's as American as mom and apple pie!

[ Parent ]

I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#202)
by Manuel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:14 AM EST

The national parties don't lead, they follow. You can have a lot of influence by working directly on the issues you care about and supporting the candidates that best represent those issues.

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 5) (#215)
by cal1942 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST

that there are only two private institution that are able to move the nation. That's why I've always been a strident partisan.

But I have to ask what good did a Paul McClosky do by remaining in the Republican Party for so long after it was captured by its extreme right-wing. If people like McClosky had bailed as soon as the Reagan crowd got control of the party would that not have been more effective than hanging around for more than 25 years, in effect giving his tacit approval to the degeneracy of the Republican Party?

McClosky changed his registration to Democratic only within the last year and still many other old liberal lights of that party remain silent as good party men only stepping forward occasionally to endorse a Democrat.

When your party makes a wrong turn the only message that's clearly understood is rejection.

Yellow Dog doesn't mean what you SEEM think it means.

[ Parent ]

Well, if Hillary had won, (5.00 / 11) (#59)
by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:48:34 AM EST

I would not have used the loyalty argument to browbeat Obama supporters.

I would have followed Hillary's lead, and tried to win them over with arguments about the merits of Hillary's policy positions, and trusted, as a result of her obvious intellect and toughness, in her ability to push through those policies.

[ Parent ]

If Hillary had won, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST

I would have used loyalty to brow beat Obama supporters, because it's like Thomas More says in A Man for All Season to his daughter:

"When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands) And if he opens his fingers then--he needn't hope to find himself again."

Me, personally, I pledged to abide by the results. If the results had gone my way, I would have been delighted, but I am not going to pick up my marbles and go home because they didn't go my way. And I am sure as hell not going vote for McCain or throw my vote away on a third party. But that's just me. Everyone needs to hold their own selves in their hands. Like water.

[ Parent ]

: huh? (5.00 / 7) (#210)
by jjsmoof on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:27 AM EST

"I pledged to abide by the results."
even if they were tainted? The DNC willfully disenfrachised half the party and were to just fall in line. no thanks.

[ Parent ]

It would not be (5.00 / 8) (#64)
by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:17 AM EST

in my nature to tell someone to "be a good sport" if the evidence showed that the rules were bent/broken, that the ref wasn't honest and if the game was tied but the sports reporters were bored and wanted to beat the traffic and to get home to bed, so the game was called prematurely. Personally, I might just keep my big mouth shut.

[ Parent ]

My advice, (5.00 / 10) (#67)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:32 AM EST

and I would wait until it was asked, would be to vote your conscience, as I will vote mine. I would never be so tacky as to say: Buckle up. Swallow you medicine. Be a good sport." And saying things like: "taking your marbles and going home" is insulting and condescending.

You have a perfect right to do as you see fit. Please have the decency to see that others have the same right. Even when you don't agree.

[ Parent ]

have (5.00 / 9) (#84)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:30 AM EST

you thought about the fact that Dean/Brazille/Obama and their supporters have treated us like garbage and voting for Obama would be rewarding said behavior? How many times do you have to be abused and taken for granted before you say enough? That's where many voters are coming from.

[ Parent ]

Not from me (5.00 / 8) (#104)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST

I would never tell Obama's supporters to buckle up or whatever, because I'm distinctly aware, as so many of his supporters are not, how counterproductive that is. That wouldn't be my advice so I can hardly be 'less' than it.

Were I an Obama supporter, I'd be giving out a little less advice on how to act and doing a whole lot listening to Clinton's supporters. You know, asking questions and stuff like that. To find out what they need or want to bring them back to the party.

Maintaining party credentials -- that's a joke, yes? The Dems just threw their base under the bus specifically for being loyal supporters. Why on earth would they respect me more for my capitulation? Do bullies generally respect their victims more when they give in?

[ Parent ]

For the first three decades (5.00 / 5) (#139)
by alsace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:37 AM EST

of my voting life, in this state where one does not register by party, I called myself an "Independent who usually votes Democratic." I remained so even through Reagan. It wasn't until Gingrich and his slash and burn tactics so repulsed me that I became a self-described Democrat. Now that I'm again repulsed, this time by the Dean-Brazile-Pelosi crowd, I'm just "Independent." I have no "loyalty" to today's Democratic Party. At least I'll save a few bucks by not making any more political contributions this cycle. (Well, maybe to PUMA and some other 527s...)

[ Parent ]

"media darling" (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM EST

Let me add to that. I think Armando is way off base here. Certainly the media picked Obama to be our nominee with the likes of David Brooks singing his praises. When someone like Brooks is touting a Democrat you know something is not right and the fix is in.

Plainly speaking the media wants and always wants a tax friendly - non-regulating - no ownership limiting Republican in office every time. So therefore in order to win they push the weakest Dem to run against so their Republican candidate will win. This has happened cycle after cycle and I don't understand Armando not understanding this. I have seen no evidence of the MSM throwing McCain under the bus. All that is happening at this point is that the MSM is sticking the final dagger into Clinton - they don't want here and her anti-big oil mouth around.

Meanwhile Obama has said he will disassemble the corporate chock hold on media ownership by breaking them up and giving the remnants to racial minority owners. Anyone who thinks the the MSM is going to back that candidate needs to reexamine how this country has been run.

There is NO WAY that the MSM will continue to support Obama. Their support of him was more anti-Clinton than pro-Obama and that fact is very clear. their support of him was choosing the weakest candidate. Their support of him was choosing the easiest to carve up in the months to come.

[ Parent ]

Havng been (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST

Part of the media, you couldn't be more wrong. The only agenda (save FOX and MSNBC) they have is to find a story. Honestly, they are trying to sell papers/airtime. They really couldn't give a crap about who gets elected.

[ Parent ]

I have seen what they have done to Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#153)
by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:58 AM EST

election cycle after election cycle so there is no convincing me of anything other that what any person can already see.

That you were part of the media doesn't count for much unless you were in the boardrooms where the decisions are made and I highly doubt that.

It's easy even for the novice political observer to see what the MSM has been up to - all you have to do is listen.

[ Parent ]

Boardrooms? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST

What on earth are you talking about? THEY WANT MONEY!!! And while I was never in one of these non-existent boardrooms, I do have a very close friend who produces for CNN. Another is an anchor. Maybe I'll ask them where the boardrooms are....

[ Parent ]

Whatever Dude (5.00 / 1) (#200)
by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST

They make money though programming advertising which has nothing to do with their news divisions. Their news divisions are their 'Power' to drive the political agenda and their political agenda has never been Democrat friendly. Look how they pushed the Iraq War to drive profits for GE and their other Military Industrial Complex friends.

You seem more interested in name dropping than reality. Big deal - a producer and an anchor. Anchors read text and a producer of what? Neither are directly involved in the big money political aspect of the MSM. Don't be naive.

[ Parent ]

: You asked Me (5.00 / 1) (#216)
by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:27 AM EST

And which names did I drop. {Crickets} And don't call me dude, dude. Read your Chomsky and get back to me.

[ Parent ]

having been witness to the media. (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by kimsaw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST

Defending that they're in it to find the story makes me laugh out loud. They don't find stories, they make them up as they go along and add the commentary. Think Iraq, did they find the story before the war? War makes news, war is good for the media's pocketbook and defense contractors too. Did the Fourth Estate do it's job? Ah...that would be a resounding NO! Did they even want to? A war gives them something to explore and talk about.

Why do you think MSNBC allowed their boys' sexist rants, double standard and innuendo? The media doesn't want to tell a story it wants to be part of the news story. Think Olbermann. Journalist and commentators are now the equivalent of the front pagers on the National Enquirer. They can influence the news its bigger news to anoint an African American to the presidency over a woman, especially if that woman is Hillary Clinton. They give a crap who gets elected, it drives money into their pockets. They may turn on Obama who knows, but this is history and news brokers like sports teams, need to break into the record books one way or another. It's the medias new scam and its their biggest shame.

[ Parent ]

Giving too much credit to the media (none / 0) (#219)
by 1jane on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM EST

Thanks Claw! Great comment.

[ Parent ]

The Obama base is a more desirable demographic (5.00 / 4) (#154)
by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST

for tv unlike us old, disabled, discriminated against, 2 job FDR ClintonDems.

Plus their corp ownership is afraid of Clinton's more progressive domestic policy. In either McCain or Obama we have a Republican agenda, and one guy is the cool guy you want a latte with.

So I think the media will not turn on him. The ongoing voters revolt will continue regardless. And in 2012 I hope Clinton runs again, and restores The Fairness Doctrine (and much else).

[ Parent ]

: They will turn on him (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:28 AM EST

David Brooks has already started to and he is always a bellwether of what the Republican press is up to.
Remember Obama has already said he will break up the media monopolies. that is the kiss of death for him in the same way Dean saying that was the kiss of death for him.
What means more to them - their monopoly or the younger market that they already have via youth programming? That is an easy call.

[ Parent ]

Your post makes NO sense (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by Rashomon66 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST

Seriously. Do you even know what you are saying? You are saying the MSM pushed Obama into the limelight so we 'dumb' voters would choose him so that then the MSM could offer his head on a platter and make us vote for McCain.
Ask yourself just who these gullible voters are. You are taking about 36 million voters who for the most part hate Bush and want change.
Will the MSM make Obama supporters suddenly see the light and turn to McCain? Will the Hillary supporters turn away from their core beliefs and vote for McCain? It is possible - but not because the MSM controls us and our voting.

[ Parent ]

Can you/someone please tell... (5.00 / 8) (#118)
by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST

me "WHY should this country want to close the Clinton era"?

I am really lost. What in the world did Bill Clinton "do" that makes the world want to close his era. My God, some of us voters actually remember the '90's with fondness - no, not everything was perfect, but compared to Reagan and Bush we were dancing in the streets.

That was bad? Wrong? Must be closed and put away like bad memories?

A serious question. Please help.

[ Parent ]

: We are at war with Eurasia (5.00 / 3) (#158)
by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST

We have always been at war with Eurasia

[ Parent ]

No offense (5.00 / 10) (#37)
by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:44 AM EST

But THE PARTY is an abstraction and need not dictate to individual voters on their voices or what to do. Creepy language, as in 1984-Orwell-creepy. Not the supporting THE PARTY is not equivalent to taking marbles and going home.

[ Parent ]

All things are abstractions. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:02 AM EST

We never touch reality. All representations of reality are the firing of neural circuits in the brain. The party is as real to us as the keyboard on my desk: Neurons firing in my brain. If we are not good soldiers now, we do not have the credentials to call on others to be good soldiers when our position is in the hegemony.

[ Parent ]

Um, yeah, whatever (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST

Go be a good soldier for THE PARTY then.

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 6) (#103)
by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:54 AM EST

What is this the Communist Party? This sounds very dangerous to me. Calling it the "Democratic Pary" is meaningless to me now. It is not. It is the Dean/Brazile/Kennedy/Obama Party. I will not be a member. They do not represent my best interests.

[ Parent ]

What if the shoe were on the other foot, (none / 0) (#75)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:28 AM EST

what if the Obama supporters had lost and were behaving badly, would you advise them to act like grownups? Maybe not. At least that is the consistent position.

[ Parent ]

Personally (5.00 / 4) (#122)
by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM EST

I advise everyone to vote their conscience, but mostly I don't advise anyone what to do with their vote at all.

[ Parent ]

Ultimately, (5.00 / 2) (#135)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST

that is the advice that I give, too. Because the fact of the matter is that people are going to do what they are going to do. What I have told my disgruntled fellow Clintonistas is that

they should abstain if that is what they believe they should do,
they should vote third party if that is what they believe they should do,
they should vote for McCain if that is what they believe they should do, or
they should vote for Obama if that is what they believe they should do.

Those are the four choices on the table. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is not one of those choices this year. But if this Democrat who is staying in the Party has anything to say about it, one day it will be one of the four choices.

[ Parent ]

matter of opinion (5.00 / 7) (#134)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST

Voters who don't share your opinion are not "behaving badly".

People and the media are certainly free to dis Clinton's behavior this week. But, they can NEVER 'dis' the behavior of voters.

Personally I think the pundits and the super dels caused the problem Tuesday night. On Sun and Mon the pundits were all reporting that the super dels would give Clinton thre respect she deserved and WAIT until Wed to put Obama over the top. That was Clinton could have Tuesday night to thank her supporters. Obama's night could have been Wed or Thursday. It would have gotten as much, if not MORE media attention that way.

[ Parent ]

We are acting like grownups (5.00 / 6) (#227)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST

Grownups understand that you don't get what you want by submitting like a whipping boy.

It isn't hurt feelings, it isn't being immature, it's understanding that this party is no longer for us, no longer supports us, so we're moving along.

The reality, is that our perspective IS maturity.

[ Parent ]

Leaving a party that no longer represents you (5.00 / 5) (#234)
by Calvados on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST

is not "behaving badly". Sometimes "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the [body politic], the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."

There are actions and outcomes so egregious that apparently some people need to separate themselves from the party. If Obama supporters felt the same way, I would respect them and consider whether anything I did to repel them can be remedied.

To answer your question, though, I have suggested to Obama supporters who have behaved badly, particularly by bullying in caucuses and making sexist remarks, that they act like adults. It did not help much in that instance, but I persevere.

[ Parent ]

I am not going to call on anybody to ever... (5.00 / 10) (#54)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:04 AM EST

...be a good soldier again. A lifetime of being a woman in the Democratic party has taught me that lesson.

[ Parent ]

Neurons firing in your brain (5.00 / 2) (#226)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST

and your desk are real.

You're right, the party is an abstraction. However, we'll find ourselves another abstraction.

We're too learned in our ways to think that if we submit, it's going to get us anywhere at all. All it's going to get us is more of the same in the future.

[ Parent ]

He takes for granted, imo, that (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST

the Clinton's are not very smart. He thinks he's smarter and that is his substitute for leadership. George Will also said the womens wing of the party will come back in Nov. as soon as they "cool down" That may be true of some, but others will not. BTD, who really makes us think, says all these negative things about all these negative people's remarks, yet he stays steadfast in his Obama support. I wonder where his breaking point is??

[ Parent ]

Slightly off topic but (5.00 / 4) (#195)
by abfabdem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST

I still can't get around the fact that she is the more formidable candidate so talk of her being VP still rankles. In fact in today's NY Times an article by Neil dGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, cranked the numbers and shows she would beat McCain but Obama would not. Check it out (article called Vote by Numbers).

[ Parent ]

The lobbyist (5.00 / 5) (#205)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST

thing is a joke. Obama has been taking in lobbyist money he just has it funneled through their wives or others. He has lobbyists on his campaign.

You call those leadership? Naw, he has shown zero leadership though his term in the senate and the il legislature imo. That's what I'm basing my opinion on.

I have given Obama a chance. Did the primary not go on for months? I didn't start out feeling this way. Obama is the one who ran me off no one else. He's run a lot of voters away with his race baiting and blatant sexism. Besides, he is unqualified. He reminds me too much of W.

[ Parent ]

I dumnno if I originated this thread's theory (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:21 AM EST

but the time stamp is on my comments.

The media have presented Obama with a dilemma.

keep us (and have a shot at winning and governing) or keep Clinton (and win the map).

[ Parent ]

Explain this a little more. (none / 0) (#32)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST

I don't know that I understand. Are you saying, "keep us," meaning, "the original Obama supporters," and have a chance to win, or choose Clinton, and have a guarantee?

[ Parent ]

Keep us=media (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Hey, I didn't get a chance (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by Dave B on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:11:40 AM EST

to respond to your comment yesterday...

No, I don't think SD will swing, but I love your state. Beacon of hope in a sea of Obama caucus states. Great finish to the primary season. Great for the women of SD. I heard 3 of 4 pro-choice SD women won their primaries. I like to think Hill helped make that happen. Great send off anyway.

One of those pro-choice women that won her primary in South Dakota is my sister-in-law, Pam Merchant. She won her primary and will run against the Republican Orv Schmidt for SD State Senate in District 7.

I'm glad she didn't lose by one vote. I'm registered independent, and didn't get my registration switched to Democrat in time to vote in the primary. I didn't have the heart to tell her...

[ Parent ]

: Dave, I am sorry about your registration, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST

but excellent news about your sis-in-law.

[ Parent ]

The press (us) or the people (Clinton voters). (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST

It causes Obam trouble either way...

Unify the party and you lose the press.

[ Parent ]

He'll be hailed. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:19:35 AM EST

Hillary Clinton Democrats will take it as the clearest signal of respect he could offer. He ought to pick her. He needs to sistah souljah the media and put them in their place anyway.

: I agree totally. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:24:03 AM EST

...I think that just like the fact that this is not the year to be a Republican, it is also not the year to be the media's darling. The media may have forgotten their role in helping select GWB and cheerleading us into war, but the public hasn't.

[ Parent ]

The media (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:19:40 AM EST

is destroying all chances Obama has in Nov. Their disdain for the average voter and their propping up of Obama will do nothing but make it more and more palpable to vote either against Obama or for McCain. If they couldn't get dem primary voters to accept Obama then they aren't going to have a whole lot of influence when the election moves to Obama/McCain.

Will's column pretty much proves what I have been thinking anyway: Obama is really nothing more than a tool to get rid of the Clintons. Once that is done then they can move on to eliminating Obama's chances in the fall. Will will support McCain in Nov. There should be no doubt about that.

George Will (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by airwon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM EST

Yeah, I saw Will on Charlie Rose and he was saying that the Clintons are done and that Obama's liberal agenda is not what the country wants or needs. Will just seems so out of touch on so many levels.

And yes, he said that he will listen to McCain's mom and vote for McCain.

[ Parent ]

: Every time George Will (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:06:15 AM EST

stupidly pontificates about the state of American politics and criticizes dems, I remember with satisfaction the story about his first wife throwing his belongings on the front lawn of the home they shared when she found out he was cheating on her.
:)
People who live in glass bubbles, georgie...

[ Parent ]

Also interesting is that Kos prides himself (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by nulee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM EST

on having renegade viewpoints that are the voice of those outside the beltway but this is belied by his flaming hatred of Clintons, which, as you point out effectively, is a point of view that comes straight from the Georgetown cocktail party effetes.

A majority of voters just love the Clintons, I daresay, including many in the AA community. Many voters would like to have them back as the competent stewards of this country that they were for 8 years. Hell, if things were run as well as they were under Bill Clinton, we could all go back to living our lives rather than having to be in constant political crisis mode since the stolen election of 2000.

Or, (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:24:49 AM EST

let's say he offers and she accepts.
Perhaps some percentage of his supporters get their fur up - "that old, dishonest elbowing blah blah... and they walk because they are political virgins and were only in it for the rush anyway
And a contingent of core Clinton supporters (I'm in this group) just can't bring themselves to watch her take the back seat to him and check out from the process in 08
And the dems for a day, who were unreliable to begin with now head for the door because they were only playing dems on TV so they ditch for Mcain
Meanwhile the press has turned on Obama, while maintaining their current attitude on Clinton ?
Maybe I need more coffee, but I'm not sure about the "will win" part.

: the soap opera... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:34:01 AM EST

I've always opposed an Obama/Clinton tichet (even back when I was willing to vote for Obama) because the media will turn the whole thing into a soap opera.... and a very ugly one at that.
It will be all about the humiation of Clinton and/or the weakness of Obama. The media always tries to create some kind of conflict between a candidate and the VP choice, but that gets ignored because nobody cares about the VP. But the media won't be able to resist making the relationship between Obama and Clinton (and Hillary and Michelle, and Bill and Barack...) a constant topic of speculation.

[ Parent ]

Obama sets "tone" with press corps! (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM EST

CBS News online (link) lays out the bait & switch for "secret" meeting between Senators Clinton & Obama.

From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic
CHICAGO -- Barack Obama took the meaning of "secret meeting" to a different level last night, after he slipped away from the traveling press in order to meet with Hillary Clinton. While it is not uncommon for a presidential candidate and for the president to have private meetings, it is uncommon for those meetings to be as secretive and misleading as this one turned out to be.

[snip]

With the doors locked on the plane, the press safely inside, they took off for Chicago while Sen. Obama met with Sen. Clinton.

It would appear that the journalists now very clearly understand their on-going relationship with the nominee-in-waiting.
[snip]

As the plane rolled down the tarmac, the press quickly realized that Obama had never boarded the flight and we had all been duped.

Now, if the Obama campaign would invite all the chattering class of the punditocracy to a mansion in Georgetown, lock the doors, and go take care of some Democratic Party business, perhaps, then, Mr. Will & his self-congratulatory pals could bore each other into oblivion with their foolish, lame stream, asinine opinions.
"speaking only for myself"

LOL, but he locked them up on an airplane... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:47:50 AM EST

...snakes on a plane. Actually, IMHO, that's the best thing Obama has done in weeks.

[ Parent ]

: I agree (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST

This was Obama's finest moment. LOL I say lock up the press and throw away the key.

[ Parent ]
: Snakes on a plane! (none / 0) (#185)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST

LOL. Brilliant!

[ Parent ]

Yes, Sen. Obama's die is cast with (none / 0) (#166)
by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:55 AM EST

the media. It would appear that his campaign can foresee the impending lame stream media pivot to Sen. McCain as their darling. Locking those folks on an airplane & flying them to Chicago ensures "bad press" from here on.

It may take time for the anger to filter upward from the journos assigned to the Obama campaign into the newsrooms & editorial offices, but it's for sure that Sen. Obama (Axelrod) threw the press corps under an airplane, rather than a bus.

The honeymoon is sooooo over.

[ Parent ]

If Clinton is not selected as VP, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Esme on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:10 AM EST

the Media will say that it is all Clinton's fault. They've already began to spin that narrative: The RFK comment, the supposedly horrific speech, Bill Clinton, she hasn't been vetted enough, etc. The Media doesn't care that not picking her would anger Clinton Democrats. They've been angering us for decades. They think Clinton Democrats are racist, low information voters, anyway. And the party doesn't care either-they've said that loud and clear.

Hillary Clinton Democrats don't (5.00 / 7) (#18)
by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:31:08 AM EST

give a rat's ass about the media. So it really doesn't matter what they say.

[ Parent ]

: 18 million Dems gave a big FU to the media (5.00 / 2) (#168)
by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:29:58 AM EST

what a huge success that was. There is the beginning of a revolt, there.

[ Parent ]

Does not matter what the Media says (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:46 AM EST

on that point.

What the VOTERS say is Obama's problem there.

He will get GREAT press personally if he does NOT choose her. But the Clinton voter will not be happy.

Hence, the dilemma.

[ Parent ]

Then there is no dilemma. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:36:29 AM EST

He ought to pick her. His base isn't going anywhere if he picks her, and her base doesn't listen to the talking heads.

[ Parent ]

: you haven't checked dailykos in the last 4 months? (none / 0) (#186)
by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM EST

his base was easily lead to stoning That Woman in the stadiums...
Surely they'd wake up from the hypnotic trance if he turns them around and says I choose her as vp?

[ Parent ]

Temporary (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST

great press! They will turn on him in due time as ai said upthread. You are way off base thinking that the Corporate MSM wants Obama as president. they want him because he is the easiest of the two to defeat.

[ Parent ]

: Charlie Rose (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST

Had a show on about the news media a few months ago with 4 or 5 media experts. They admitted that today's media is conflict driven. If there isn't any. They'll create it. At that time they were upset because Dem primary was too civil. I have no doubts they will do the same with the GE. And they have invested years in promoting the mystique of McCain. I don't see them turning on him now. Obama will lose his main asset, the media.

[ Parent ]

But do you think that Hillary (none / 0) (#35)
by Esme on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:40:29 AM EST

is the solution?

I think that he thinks he wwould be better served if he picks a high profile Clinton supporter who is more media friendly. That way, he'll see himself as appeasing both the Media and the Clinton Dems.

And on a completely different note, I sort of wonder if Caroline Kennedy's placement on the VP search committee will result in her as VP.

[ Parent ]

Caroline Kennedy is Ted's proxy (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:37 AM EST

I think Obama sold his soul to the Kennedy's early on. Ted probably has the right to pick the VP. As long as she/he isn't to out there for Obama. Look for a Kennedy heir. This is Ted's last chance to pass the torch.

[ Parent ]

I don't want him to pick a Clinton supporter... (none / 0) (#40)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM EST

...that would really piss me off because the media would spin it into a rebuke of Clinton. They'd say that he know has all her supporters except for the stupid old diehards like us. He should pick one of his early endorsers. Richardson or Daschle come to mind.

[ Parent ]

: My motivations, since you wondered... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM EST

...are pure snark.

[ Parent ]

Caroline KennedY?!! (none / 0) (#66)
by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST

She's deliberately stayed out of the public eye for years. You think she wants to jump back in now as a vice-presidential candidate?!! What governing experience does she bring? What qualifications does she have?

A heartbeat away from the presidency...

I don't think so.

[ Parent ]

Will the great press (none / 0) (#228)
by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST

bring in enough Independents and Republicans, or further energize Obama's base, to make up for the po'd Clinton supporters. That seems to be the question.

As time goes by I think the answer will be yes. Even I, not even having sipped the Kool-aid yet, am starting to see the advantages of a fresh start.

Maybe it is the Clinton-hate-fatigue. I'm just not sure I can listen to it anymore. A week ago I was solidly behind the Unity Ticket. Now, not so much.

[ Parent ]

I disagree with you, BTD (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:32:24 AM EST

I don't think the Media has switched their love from McCain to Obama. It was more like a quick fling and now that they've vanquished their "enemy" Hillary Clinton -- or so they think --, they'll start to phase out their Obama-Love and get back to the one who truly has their heart: McCain.

You won't see it in full-blown reality until AFTER Barack is the official Nominee, but expect to be buried under footage that reminds you McCain is a war hero and a straight-shooting Moderate while Barack is a Chicago politician who gamed the system and has a history with dubious characters who "hate America".

Like 2000 and 2004, I fully expect the Media to give the Republican Nominee a free and total pass on everything while sucker punching the Dem left and right.

I agree with YOU (none / 0) (#72)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:51:58 AM EST

(thanks for the shout about my handle the other day, I missed it till the thread was closed)

[ Parent ]

didn't i used to see you comment over at (none / 0) (#94)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST

AmericaBlog?

[ Parent ]

indeed (none / 0) (#105)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:19 AM EST

back before he lost his mind.

[ Parent ]

: i think it was (none / 0) (#190)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST

a short trip for him. LOL

[ Parent ]

Yin and Yang (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST

I guess the real question is can Obama control the media? It would seem he has done that already.

There is no question that the media and Obama supporters don't want her in.

Certainly if he picks her and the media scoffs and decides to favor McCain, one would have to question who's control is driving this very disparate group in one direction?

It's a catch 22 for him, because one way or another he's going to get flak, from his core or the press. Lose with or without her? both would place blame at her feet.

The press is both obsessed and annoyed by the Clintons, much the way they were/are about the Kennedys. Certainly that family tree has its share of scandals and subsequent bad press. If Carolyn Kennedy is honest, she'd be the first on his VEEP team to recognize this.

So, I don't buy the negative association as a detriment to winning; it's just a reuse. She has a loyal core and a growing base who know and don't care. Just like Obama supporters know and seemingly don't care about his skeletons.

If he's smart he'll pick her; it's a yin and yang thing.

: No he hasn't (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Salo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM EST

The press are acting in concert as an independent power in this election.
They do want to exclude Clinton and pick his running mate by exclusion.

[ Parent ]
: Obama ticket is a looser (5.00 / 0) (#79)
by clinton dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:54:37 AM EST

Please let's not insult the intellegence of millions of voters who voted for Hillary against all odds and full 24 hour pro-Obama anti-Hillary propaganda by Obamamedia! People don't like what they see and more and more voters are becoming aware that media and DNC elites basically selected incompetent Obama over competent experienced Hillary. besides, I don't thing it is a good idea for Hillary to be vp. Because she will be doig what Obama has to do and has not done it so far, work and earn his candidacy rather than just give it to him. This ticket is a looser and I don't think Hillary should be part of it.

[ Parent ]

George Will (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Lahdee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM EST

and his ilk will always get it wrong. They'll always do a quick mea culpa (most often in latinesque terms so no one quite can pin them to it) and then move on to the next delusion.

Anglachel (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:32 AM EST

had a good post about this yesterday:

The Trap of the Media Darling

Obama owes almost the entirety of his good press to the fact that the MSM hates the Clintons, Hillary even more than Bill, and he has deliberately and aggressively courted that same press with the story that he is the anti-Clinton candidate. Given that his public record is thin, he hasn't had a lot else to run on.

What happens to his media darling status if he allies himself with the object of their irrational fury?

: Good post (none / 0) (#81)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:55:16 AM EST

I added a link in my post.

[ Parent ]

The path that the Party took this year (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST

is not set in stone for all time to come; like all new things, it is fragile. There are two parties in the United States that have a snowball's chance in hell of affecting meaningful change in the life of the nation. One is the Republican Party, and one is the Democratic Party. I surefire am not a Republican, so by default, I am a Democrat. If I want to be part of the process, the only viable alternative for me is the Democratic Party. Riverdaughter's idea of the PUMA party is cute, but it is not a force in American life. If all my like-minded Democrats all jump ship this year, we're abandoning our Party to the hands of people who do not think the way we do, the way Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Humphrey did: the way Hillary and Bill do.

I do not like what happened this year. I wanted Hillary to be our nominee, and I did everything I could to make it so. A number of events and processes, many of them phenomenally unfair, even illegal, coalesced to prevent that result, but the Party will not be reformed if there is no one left to reform it. If we leave the Party in a snit, we no longer are insiders; we will have become outsiders. Affecting the changes the Party needs demands the presence of insiders; outsiders have no voice. At the moment, we stand perilously close to becoming outsiders. If there were no hope of ever moving the Party back to its roots, I would encourage you all to do the very thing that many of you now are contemplating. But we must allow ourselves to heal and get on with it.

: I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#116)
by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:09:33 AM EST

The greatest message Democrats who disagree with the illegal nomination can send is to leave the party and not support such conduct. To now go along and support the party, no matter what, will not effectuate change at all. If you now go along with the party you become part of the problem.

[ Parent ]
: What's the difference (5.00 / 5) (#124)
by Mari on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST

between a disenfranchising Republican party and a disenfranchising Democratic party. They are both corrupt and venal. I'm just as powerless in the Democratic party.
I can no longer pretend that the basic tenets of fairness, supporting the working class, opposition to misogny and racism have been not been abandoned by my party. To support it would be to give the Democratic powerbrokers my acceptance and approval of their corruption.
This primary election was the last straw after years of supporting the lesser evil and look where we are now. Frankly, both parties will now have to court my vote by promoting the values I believe in. Perhaps this will break open the stranglehold the 2 party system of tweedeldee-and tweedeldum. The same old strategy doesn't work anymore.

[ Parent ]
: Evidently, the new party (5.00 / 2) (#137)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:15:52 AM EST

values independents waaaaay more than they value actual Democrats. Have you not been paying attention? The new coalition doesn't want the base anymore, they going to put their resources toward creating a new base from independents and moderate Republicans. So as an independent, people evidently have more power over the DNC agenda than the yellow dogs.
If you are trying to make an argument that working to change a bad leadership from within is better than trying to change it from the outside, then please make that argument, don't talk in creepy tones about blind loyalty.

[ Parent ]
: What insiders? (5.00 / 7) (#177)
by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST

The DNC is about the DNC not voters. Voters constantly fight to get representation it isn't given to them.
The R&B wasn't the only debacle. The SDs declaring in secret to push Obama over some 'number' was appalling. The declared in private? WTF? The DNC and the media enabled it. You can't vote against your Rep if you don't know how they voted.
BTW: Mauro on teebee saying we are waiting for Clinton to give us our marching orders. Ha! goes perfect with your request that people be good little soldiers. Priceless.... Ha!

[ Parent ]
: I'm already an outsider, (5.00 / 1) (#235)
by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST

I'm not in a snit, and I have no intention of "healing".
Political parties rise and fall, splinter and reconfigure. The Democratic Party will be no different. If this is a year of reformation for them, well, so be it. It's been a long time coming.

[ Parent ]
: If you are what you say you are (none / 0) (#131)
by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:23 AM EST

which I doubt very much, then you're no insider now. By the way, you can shove the DC Democrats, they do not represent a large portion of their party. The old northeastern liberal elite have grabbed control again with their toxic identity politics. If you support that, you deserve to be the loser for another generation.

[ Parent ]

my humble opinion is (5.00 / 0) (#68)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:41 AM EST

that we would all be FAR better served if Obama and Clinton BOTH come out ant tell the media where they can put there "rumors" and/or unsubstanciated pronouncement

Obama's VP Dilemma

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

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats