Unity: The Day After

Hillary Clinton gave a great speech yesterday. And Unity is at hand . . .

I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party - unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate - the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

I hope someone is thinking about that. Because since today is "Why Hillary Lost" Day in the Media, they need to remember that Hillary Clinton got half of the votes. Yes, she lost . . . barely. Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< Late night: The Shape of Things To Come | Sunday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think you may mean (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST
    indeed, in dividing the Party by NOT choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

    In which case I wholeheartedly agree.  I think Obama may be sorry she did so well yesterday.

    Hey, she's under consideration. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:01:42 AM EST
    Whadda ya want?

    But first (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by vigkat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    Hillary apparently has more penance to serve. Dianne Feinstein is on This Week with Georgie.  They are spelling it all out.  I was surprised to hear george ask, "what must Obama do now"?  Dianne is explaining that it will take Hillary's help in bringing her supporters to Obama's camp.  George shows a clip of Carter stating Hillary would be bad for Obama's ticket and Dianne is disagreeing.  George seems to be surprised that Dianne insists Hillary does have a major following.  Now Hillary is being described by George as baggage for Obama.  Nothing seems to have changed.  Same as last week, same as it ever was.  

    I revert (5.00 / 7) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    of all the women who have worked in the party for decades, of all the women who are professional, he picks Caroline Kennedy to represent "women" on the committee?  What the heck is that saying?   What political qualifications does she have?  These guys are so bonkers they don't get it.  

    He should have picked Barbara Mikulski... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    ...but then she might have advocated for Clinton, and we mustn't have that.

    I hope his plan is not (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:01:46 AM EST
    to make Hillary give another great speech consoling/rallying her supporters the day after he picks Sebelius as VP.  You only get to go to that well once.

    I suspect in that event (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:03:04 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton's speech might not be quite so rousing on his behalf.  

    Heh. I would bet not. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST
    Really, can you imagine making her and Chelsea go out and campaign at all for an Obama/Sebelius ticket?  I hope to god that is not the plan.

    Obama/Sebelius (4.84 / 13) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    is about the worst ticket that I can imagine. It looks like pandering to women, brings a candidate who won't carry their own state and doesn't help him in any way with all his national security weaknesses.

    My worst nightmare (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    Which means it will probably happen.

    Obama/Sebelius vs McCain/Hutchison


    KBH (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    says she doesn't want to be VP, but maybe she's more willing than she has let on. I don't know how the meeting with Sarah Palin in Alaska went.  She would actually draw more of Hillary's supporters, I think.  She's got better environmental creds, although I wished she was more worried about the polar bears than she is. She's pro-life, but then all but a few Republican women are. Her husband is a commercial fisherman.  Can you eat what you catch in the Potomac?

    KBH is a terrifying choice (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    but she would probably force Obama's hand re Clinton as VP.

    McCain isn't going to name his VP (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    before the Dems name theirs.  That's the Repub strategic advantage this year since their convention comes after the Dems'.

    So what could happen is if O doesn't have a woman on the ticket, it would leave a huge opening for McC to go after disaffected women by naming one to his ticket -- KBH being the most likely, maybe Gov Palin could do.  It would be the sort of non-insane bold stroke that could galvanize the Repub ticket in what's clearly a Dem year.

    They might even do it, or be compelled to go woman, if O names Sibelius or Hillary.


    If he picks Sebelius, he'll lose. (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    The Hillary supporters will detest him.

    We went over this the other day (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:50:34 AM EST

    There is no picking of VPs right now, just talk on the internet and in the MSM.

    O's team isn't stupid, and if they are leaning both against picking Hillary, which I think is almost certainly the case, and also leaning in favor of Sibelius, they know they'd have to carefully prepare the PR ground lest they offend Hillary and her backers with a shutout snub.

    He has two full months to prep the terrain and make it more suitable for the kind of pick he has in mind.  I suspect this will be done.


    Obama (5.00 / 9) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    has boxed himself into a losing situation with this one. He picks a woman because he thinks it will help him with women but it won't. And he gets a woman who really isn't a very good candidate and adds nothing to the ticket. Obama/Sebelius is a ROTFHLMAO ticket. Will Pelosi's head explode? She didn't think that Obama should pick any woman.

    Won't Work (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by talex on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    because it is so transparent. I think he knows he can't plow the ground for two months and then pick another woman (or man) for VP.

    Clinton supporters are smart 'high information' people and won't be fooled by such amateurish tactics. If Obama thinks he can fool us with more of his BS for two months and then have us roll over he is the worst politician of all times!

    As each day passes without him picking Clinton our disdain for him only grows exponentially - not vice versa.

    For Obama it is VP Clinton or nothing at all. If he tries to "prep the terrain" otherwise he will only be prepping his own grave (metaphorically speaking).


    Agreed... (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by NYCDem11 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    Each day that does pass and Clinton isn't selected is more time for the hard feelings to cement. I so enjoyed yesterday's speech and know the right thing to do is put the country first and support Obama, but I'm left clinging to the bitterness I feel for our party's passing up on the candidate of a lifetime. In retrospect -- though well said and delivered yesterday -- it just seems silly for the more experienced Hillary to be telling others to vote for Obama. It's a weird perversion of true rank and ability. I'm looking back and wishing the party had the insight to push for Clinton/Obama...and to control the White House for 16 years.

    People will disengage (5.00 / 6) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    I know I will.  I don't support Obama without Clinton on the ticket.  The feeling of abandonement by the party, to it's ideals of standing up for the working class and the less unfortunate got pushed aside while the party spent $10's of millions on MTV etc. to appeal to youth.  It bothers me, that someone who represents these ideals, and has worked for them is not wanted.  To reject the symbol of the average joe, is to reject the average joe.

    Both parties have imploded.  The media focuses on the Repubs... but I saw the dissatisfaction with govt (Ds and Rs) and the Dem party not paying attention.


    You hit the sticking point (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    know the right thing to do is put the country first and support Obama

    Many people will be struggling wether it is the right choice for the country to put an inexperienced pol who is sort of correct on the issues, or put someone you know can do the job but is wrong on issues. We have a checks and balances government, in theory. So, in the past, people have voted for the person first and issues second for president.

    To the extent that our checks and balances government has broken down, I put the blame at the Democrat's door. Opposition may be difficult but they haven't done it. It is hard to blame Bush for grabbing power, if there is a void there, and the Democrats won't fill it.  Jeez, even the Republican-appointed judiciary has stood up to Bush more.


    "each day passes w/o (none / 0) (#168)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM EST
    picking Clinton".  

    Huh?  It's only early June, ferchrissakes.  


    Yeah So what is your point? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by talex on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    I don't know about you Mr. 'ferchrissakes', but for most of us the last two months have gone by awful fast and with summer a few weeks away and a General election unfolding at the same time the next two will pass even faster. We are now in a compressed time frame where every day, every hour, and every minute has increase intensity, relevance and scrutiny attached to it. That is the way it has been in every election from June until convention like forever in case you never noticed.

    KBH is so associated with Bush (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    that I would think he'd pick someone else. She has said she wants to run for Gov. of Texas. She is also a close, personal friend of Bush, and there are photos of all of them partying, very young and things have been published about them smoking pot and the like back then. I don't think he'd pick her.

    Christie (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    Todd Whitman. He could pick up NJ with that one and a whole lot of women's votes too.

    This would be genius on McCain's part (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    I think - she has long severed her ties with the Bush admin, and I believe she is pro-choice (right?) and is not too bad on the environment for a Republican.  I think McCain's strongest bet is to bank to the middle and get these swing voters that HRC was drawing in droves.  I think Whitman would do it.

    This would be an incredibly effective way to torpedo Obama-anyone but Hillary ticket.  And Obama may just be clueless enough to let it happen.


    I really don't see how... (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    they overcome Christie's post-9/11 performance. Her knuckling under to Bush's zealots and declaring the air safe at ground zero is a trust-buster.

    If you're a Repub office holder, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    you're automatically "associated with BUsh".  There's that type of loose, but necessary, association, then there's the close association in the administration -- Condi Rice for instance -- which would be fatal to the McCain ticket.

    KBH wouldn't be disqualified on the association score.

    As for Christie Whitman, some of you folks need to get some fresh air.  Repubs aren't going to be too happy with a VP pick from the "librul" wing of their party.  Good grief.  

    Especially so since McC himself has been working so hard to build trust with the hard conservative base.


    It seems (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    Obama has no problem thinking about picking a pro life man for the ticket. Obama has huge problems with the base too you have to realize. I guess the difference is that McCain seems to be interested in placating his while Obama thinks trashing or ignoring his is the way to go?

    Wow (none / 0) (#158)
    by talex on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    next to Condie KBH is the most known Bushie there is, what are you talking about? During the war there was no woman more visible on the airwaves than KBH. And not just on the war - but on a number of issues.

    KBH on the republican ticket (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    would really turn me off and make sure I wouldn't cast my vote for McCain.  

    After all the misogyny and sexism thrown at Hillary, to now see both parties running around trying to find a suitable female candidate is really ridiculous.  It's a consolation prize -- "see, ladies, we really aren't sexist at all.  It's just Hillary Clinton that we don't like.  Other women are just fine, as long as they know their place."  


    That dog won't hunt (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    It's only Obama who has dug himself this particular hole.  No one expected McCain would put Hillary on his ticket, so picking a woman, as long as she wasn't completely unqualified (and if Obama's the standard the experience bar is very low) isn't a flap in Hillary's face.  

    It is a grave misunderstanding of what wins campaigns if anyone thinks they are about fairness.

    I know the Republicans are just throwing out the bait to see if they can take advantage of Obama's poorly executed strategy to alienate the base.  Obama's new-found respect for Clinton's supporters is the same thing.

    Disclaimer: I'm not voting for McCain, no need to respond with all his sins and/or how disloyal I am.

    But if you are a person who feels you have to vote for one or the other, and they're both being hypocritical, why not go for the one who was quicker to realize he needs you?  The one who isn't still trying to run down your value to the party?


    Depends on how determined you are (none / 0) (#174)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    in your frustration or anger to view such a pick so negatively.  I would have thought there would be room after HRC's historic candidacy to open up the field a little more wrt which types of people can be considered for a ticket in either party.

    Apparently not.  Apparently Hillary only opened the door for Hillary.  

    I don't think though that she said that in her fine speech yesterday.

    But I too don't want to see her being offered some consolation prize with the VP post, one which she's already held in effect for 8 yrs with Bill.


    Just to get this straight (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Faust on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    Are you suggesting she shouldn't be given the VP slot because she was already the de facto VP to Bill Clinton? Is that what you are saying?

    If Obama does not pick HRC as his (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:51:24 AM EST
    VP McCain will pick a woman. Bet on it.

    Remember McCain (5.00 / 8) (#171)
    by talex on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    tried to get on Kerry's ticket as VP?

    So don't be surprised of the cagey old guy wouldn't try to woo Clinton as his VP!

    Now of course she would reject the offer and McCain knows that...

    But as a political move it would be brilliant for him to offer Clinton the VP spot. Just think of the political capital it would give him with huge blocks of voters.

    Doing so would also make Obama look like an amateurish fool.


    But but but...he is! (5.00 / 6) (#192)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    "Doing so would also make Obama look like an amateurish fool."

    Sarah Palin (Gov. of Alaska) (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:47:05 AM EST
    was touted on TV this AM for McCain's VP.

    I went to her web site - she would be interesting...she's young, pro-choice, environmentally concerned, has 5 children, one about a month old with Down Syndrome...very interesting.


    She's not pro-choice (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    and while she's not rabidly anti-gay like some (she vetoed legislation that would have forbidden the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners), she's against gay marriage.  Not that either of those is a minus for a Republican, of course.

    She would be an interesting choice, though, if for no other reason than as a signal of McCain's campaign strategy.


    Oh, please...let it be Obama/Sebelius (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    Can you imagine the backlash!!!  After falling asleep during her acceptance speech, ALL Dems will wake-up and realize what a mistake they have made.

    And... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    Sebellius has more relevant experience than Obama and might outshine him.  This wouldn't be acceptable especially for the fragile male ego.

    Sebelius couldn't out shine (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:27:58 AM EST
    a stuffed shirt.  She has no foreign policy experience.  No national policy experience.  It's a non-starter.

    When her name first came up, (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    I did some research on her.  A magazine article praising her began the list of her accomplishments with she "held a garage sale" to get rid of excess cars in the state fleet.

    You don't want your VP to be (3.00 / 1) (#102)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    outshining the P candidate.  FP?  A secondary matter this election yr, which will turn on the economy, as should be obvious.

    She's got enough exec experience, being a vy popular two-termer, to easily pass the threshhold question about qualifications, and has a family background on both sides in politics.

    There are many more picks O could make which are far worse.

    And I don't think he wants to have to deal with not just one but two Clintons as part of his campaign and admin.  That's just the hard reality, as I view the situation.  


    He doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    have a clue as how to win then. FP may not be the main thing in Nov. but all McCain has to do is get 5% and he wins.

    Well that's just sad (5.00 / 13) (#165)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    He won't want to handle two Clintons but I'm supposed to trust him to handle the Republican establishment, Iraq, Iran, the economy, etc.?

    And maybe you weren't paying attention during the primary: a family background in politics was not viewed as an asset by many Obama supporters.

    I'm hoping Obama supporters have some better arguments than yours, or the Dems will lose in November.


    You're talking to a HRC backer, (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    DemCat, albeit in the minority among her supporters who doesn't want to see her taking marching orders from the less qualified younger guy for the next 8 yrs.  I'm very firm about this, as most here know.  I see VP for her as a bit of a humiliating undertaking and probably a step down careerwise.

    And I think it's quite sensible and necessary for our nominee to pick someone he's comfortable with, both on the campaign trail but more importantly in office.  

    I'm not convinced she'd be overall a net plus for him in getting elected, but I'm far more certain that there would be some uncomfortable and unworkable JFK-LBJ moments once in office.


    Ooooo. (none / 0) (#200)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    Good retort.

    Who has (5.00 / 14) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:30:56 AM EST
    less experience than Obama? I think it would be hard to find any candidate less qualified than Obama unless they started looking at state legislators and governors who haven't completed one term in office.

    Maybe Caroline Kennedy will (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    do a Dick Cheney.

    that would be an interesting choice (none / 0) (#108)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    though she doesn't have first hand political experience, she does have lots of experience, and she is a kennedy. Hmm, interesting.

    She would certainly (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    fit the description of having less experience than Obama.

    Telling Choice (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by NYCDem11 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    When I heard that Obama put Caroline Kennedy on his 3-person VP search team, it struck me that Hillary has no chance of landing that spot. I hope I'm wrong. Either way, despite the respect I have for Caroline for her dedication to charitable works, I'm bewildered by her participation in this process. Am I missing something? What on earth puts her in a good position to make the most strategic choice for VP? Her last name? The toddler years she spent in the White House? This whole thing is becoming a made-for-TV movie.

    Caroline is Ted's proxy (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    She is just there to make sure Ted's wishes aren't ignored. I am of the mind that Obama gave Ted the right to pick the VP, to get that wing of the party in line, along time ago.

    Nah, He Can't Chose Sibelius (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    They're both from Kansas.  /snark

    SOTU (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    Is she the one who gave the after-SOTU adddress?  I hope not.  She was more than a little robotic.  I usually find the after-address interesting, not that time.

    I agree he can not pick another woman.  It makes no sense that he would pick another when she is the most qualified woman in politics today.  

    He needs experience on his ticket and she has it.  If he doesn't think having a woman at one of the highest offices in the country is change, I doubt his message strongly.


    Yes she was (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    in all her soporific glory.

    (sigh) No VP candidate is going (none / 0) (#89)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    to be without a downside.  But you're making far too much about the NS business.

    This one is shaping up, clearly, to be an election that turns on the sorry state of the economy, and one where wars and rumors of war are going to get far less traction than in the past.  Not unlike 1992.

    Many people have their basic economic survival at stake right now, thanks in no small part to the incompetent and uncaring Bush admin.  

    They aren't likely to be swayed by overriding NS matters this time.


    If that is true we are a very shallow nation (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    When we have 200,000 troops in the field, that should be out number one priority. The two issues are connected of course, and that would be Obama's strongest argument unless he continues framing it in terms of spending all the money we would save by withdrawing from Iraq.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    classic trap Dems fall in to: they ignore national security. 1992 was a time of peace. We didn't have a war going on. Ignore that at your peril. Voters apparently have serious doubts about Obama's ability to handle anything related to Iraq, National security and being c in c. It doesn't have to be a huge percentage. Only enough to put McCain in the White house.

    In 92 we'd just completed two wars (none / 0) (#159)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    -- Gulf and Cold.  People were fed up as they sensed Poppy was neglecting serious domestic matters.

    This cycle is somewhat similar.  We've had two long wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and people are fed up.  O's position in 2002 opposing the Iraq vote should hold him in good stead as showing good judgment in FP.  McC still has his "100 yrs' in Iraq to defend plus the growing perception that he's (cough, cough) somewhat uninformed about the region.

    And saber rattling over Iran isn't going to pull the Repubs' chestnuts out of the fire this time.



    Yeah (5.00 / 13) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    those "wars" were over not continuing as they are today. Actually O's opposition to the war has become a joke to many. Have you seen the GOP going after him on this already? He's voted to fund the war and then not fund the war. He was against it before he went to the senate and then supported it once in the senate even to the point of saying that "voting against funding was the same as voting against the troops" or somesuch.

    Obama has now said that we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama's judgement argument is completely shot. Is it good judgement to sit in the pews of TUCC for 20 years? To indoctrinate your children into that kind of theology?

    Really, get your head out of the sand. Obama is NOT a shoe in to win in Nov. With the problems with the democratic base rupturing, his inexperience and the fact that he isn't really running on issues, it is going to be an uphill battle for him to win in Nov.  He wants to run around and give speeches for months and then wait for the votes to come in Nov. He's not working to earn votes, he seems to expect them as do you.


    Unity (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    isn't going to happen IMO. He will not pick Clinton. Michelle has said no. He hasn't a clue as how to unify the party. He thinks a speech will solve all problems. They don't---case in point Rev. Wright and the speech there actually made the problem WORSE.

    I don't think the party is really interested in winning in Nov. It reminds me of what I read about in the 1972 election--party members thought that McGovern was a good candidate because he could raise money. History can tell us how that one turned out.

    I perceive Obama's choice to put the (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    golf clubs in the car yesterday while Clinton's supporters waited for her speech to begin means he will not select Clinton as his running mate.  Clueless, or disdainful, or something.

    Or Maybe He Knew It Was HER Day... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    And it would have been disrespectful not to give her the entire spotlight?

    Some people won't be satisfied no matter what, I think...


    "Some people." Good call. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:16:04 AM EST
    The longer he waits to announce his VP selection, though, the he'll acquire the support of Clinton voters who are willing to listen.

    Both candidates will not pick (none / 0) (#123)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    vp choices until the dem convention. For Sen. Obama, his convention will come first.

    Re: "Maybe he knew it was HER day" (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    What is your opinion of Obama campaign's statement re Clinton's speech yesterday?

    I think he wrote it before he heard it. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    And although I don't care if he went out and played golf, wasn't he going home to spend some time with the kids? I think he should have sat on the sofa and watched Hillary's speech with them.  Behind closed doors. Out of sight.

    Her day (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    I was actually fine with it.  I think he could have paused in his day... BTD said he was able to watch it on a computer?  and watched it live.  I think it would have been nice to responded to her actual speech, but he did stay out of the media for the day and I liked his statement honoring her and her work for this country.

    It really did allow the attention to be on her.  I was able to focus on her speech, the supporters and the reaction afterwards on c-span and (unusual for c-span) the comments were mostly positive.  The Obama supporters were for the joint ticket and quite enthusiastic about it. :)


    How much attention could really be (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    on her...he went and played golf, which showed how much he (didn't?) care about what she did. I agree that it might have "looked" better had he stayed home to be with his children. He told Brian Williams that he had only been home 10 days in the past year or so. Instead of the spotlight being on her, it was on him because he was playing, imo!!!

    Speech (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by gaf on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    He thinks a speech will solve all problems.

    All those people who can be convinced by just a speech are already on his side. It will take far more.


    I was at the Texas convention this weekend and (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    ran into an old friend who I hadn't seen in a year or so.  He was an Obama delegate and I was surprised at that because he had always been a Clinton supporter.  In fact, he named his young son Clinton.  I asked him why he switched and he said "I heard Obama speak."  As if that explained it.  Seriously, that's what we're dealing with.  

    The Houston Chronicle reported (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    today that nothing will be address about the Tx two step until 2010, which tells me they are going to do nothing!!!

    Good Point (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by vcmvo2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    I hope somebody in his campaign is paying attention. I have my doubts though.

    And all the "Why Hillary Lost" commentary is just may I say ..."ugh!" As BTD notes "she lost...barely."

    Why they ask "why Hillary lost" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mickeleh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    It's true that the outcome was very close and that Sen. Clinton barely lost.

    But it should never have been a squeaker. She should have won going away.

    And since the final result was so close, it's natural to ask whether some different strategy or tactic would have flipped the outcome.

    Flip the question, if you will: How did Obama manage to win?


    It is very clear that the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    managers knew how to game the delegate system and create a momentum based on the red state caucus system. Pulling in independents and Republicans was part of the Democratic la-la land methodology. Obama also outspent Hillary 2 sometimes 4 times as much as Hillary did.  Mark Penn served Hillary very poorly.  If she and Maggie Williams had taken charge in the beginning (along with ACE Smith) she would have won.  The Democrats have an idea that their caucus methodology will bring in a flood of new voters and cash.  Maybe!  We will see how this plays out.  After all Hillary brought in millions of Reagan Democrats and Latinos but they don't seem to have the money like the latte volvo liberals do.

    Answer (5.00 / 9) (#173)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    How did Obama manage to win?

    I believe P. T. Barnum had the answer to this one.

    And, by any reasonable count, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    won the popular vote, by approx. 74,000 votes. Here's my calculations (courtesy of RCP):

    Less MI & IA, NV, ME estimates: Obama +41,000

    With IA, NV, ME estimates: Obama +101,844

    With MI: Clinton +176,465

    With WA, NE, ID primaries (Clinton +71,000):
                      Clinton +247,465

    With MI Uncommitted by Exit poll (Obama +173,000):
                      Clinton +~74,500

    With ALL MI Uncommitted to Obama (Obama +238,168):
                       Clinton +~9,000

    My thesis is very simple: if you allocated a single MI Uncommitted vote to Obama, than you must in turn count all 3 nonbinding primaries in place of the caucus results in those states, with a corresponding vote gain for Clinton. If you accept the exit poll as an adequate measure of the popular will and voters' intentions, than you must to the same for the nonbinding primaries, all of which saw a far higher turnout than the corresponding causcuses.

    Any thoughts?


    Exactly, BTD. You sweet lovable man. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    God, have you lived up to your username.

    Obama will have to top ABBA, that's for sure (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:07:39 AM EST

    Boney M? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    I never got ABBA, even with a heavy kitsch warning, but I LOVE (disco warning) Boney M. (So what, I love disco.)

    I don't deride ABBA's hardcore fans. I generally don't eye-roll on what people put into their various holes -- eat! listen! enjoy! dance! live! bless you!

    I'm tapped to go see Mama Mia, though.


    Two things (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    1.  Picking Clinton as VP all by itself won't unite the party.

    2.  He could unite the party without picking Clinton as VP.

    Yes, it will. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    I don't think (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    It will.

    I'm not against it anymore, I'm just saying that if there's problems with Obama, it doesn't solve them.


    Oh, and no he can't. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    He could throw CDS under the bus, and then I'd be fine with him no matter who he chooses as VP.

    Choosing Clinton as VP doesn't, in and of itself, throw CDS under the bus.

    It could inflame CDS if not done right, see cosbo's comment above.


    It's all but impossible (5.00 / 8) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    to throw CDS under the bus without picking Clinton as VP.

    CDS has been something that the campaign has used, or been the recipient of, since the early days of the campaign. Every right wing talking point that is implicit in CDS has been used by supporters, surrogates...whatever...with relish.


    I know (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    It's almost as bad as sitting in that church for 20 years and pretending not to be aware of the sermons.

    But that's the threshold.


    Then we're DOA in November (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    exactly--and more succinctly said than my post (none / 0) (#93)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    How? He's not even started to (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    try. His campaign is not sending out those sorts of messages.

    First thing I heard (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    at work the other morning overhearing two Obama supporters.

    Obama's problems aren't his VP choice.  

    Speaking of dis-unity! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    ...did anyone see Maureen Dowd's "article" this AM.

    Keep it up MODO...and you'll just keep digging BO a deeper hole.

    I am quite sure (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    that she's isn't speaking for Obama.

    MoDo speaks only for her deranged self.


    Yes, CDS is not the only derangement (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    syndrome MoDo suffers from, either.

    I think the Clinton hate will continue like that (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    because some people just can't let go. Or they realize despite the media saying otherwise, the Clinton's still have lots of power.

    I saw MD's column... (5.00 / 8) (#181)
    by NYCDem11 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    I had high hopes after Hillary's speech that the Times would have a nice piece on the barriers broken and the barriers still faced. But instead of a tribute to summarize the Clinton campaign, Maureen just kept on slapping her in the face. Maureen: Since I'm a woman, we'll agree that it's not sexist for me to stop reading your columns.

    I wish they would fire Dowd and replace her (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    with Alessandra Stanley who covers TV and pop culture for the Times.  I think she actually has something to say and wrote some excellent columns on the media's impact on the election.  Dowd is totally bitter and angry, clinging to her op-ed column.  I can't believe the Times has not been sued for libel because of Dowd.

    disagree, the media doesn't want him too (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:32:33 AM EST
    and as we've seen with a tied race, the media decides. If the media doesn't want Hillary as the VP, Obama has no choice, he can't chooser her. The analysis for the VP needs to be strictly about what the media wants and what they would like.

    After all, the dems have picked their candidate not based on who could win in November, not based on who has experience or who can be a great president and fix the mess we're in, but instead have based it on who they think the media likes the best right now. Same should hold true for the VP slot.

    I of course disagree with this strategy of going for the media darling over the media proof candidate for two reasons. One, what if the media shifts over perhaps based on more Obama bashing or new information to back McCain instead. And of course two, how about back the better candidate who is the more electable. Well, that would be my crazy approach, but what do I know.

    Ironically, it is the media who says that.... (5.00 / 8) (#177)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    ...picking Clinton will make him look weak. What they are really doing is threatening him. In reality, picking Clinton would make him look strong to a lot of people, including myself.

    Looking at comments on Hillary's speech (5.00 / 24) (#71)
    by esmense on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    on Obama supporting blogs, it looks like about 20-30, may 40% of Obama's supporters are paranoid Clinton haters.

    This troubles me. The problem I, and many people like me, have in supporting Obama has nothing to do with support for Clinton. It is this paranoid, conspiracy-minded, hateful element in the Obama "movement."

    Obama is, more than any candidate in my voting lifetime (other than, perhaps, George Wallace or Perot), selling himself as the leader of a "movement" bringing all kinds of "new" people into the the political process and the Democratic party while promising "change" that "reforms" or weakens some parts of the party's traditional coalition.

    But there appears to be evidence, from their own mouths, that many people attacted to this message and movement are voting on the basis of hatred, paranoia, resentment and exclusion (as the Wallace people were), and, often VERY forthrightly and unapologetically, on gender and class prejudice, rather than on a new, positive, more expansive and eqalitarian view of politics and the party.

    I'm deeply uncomfortable associating myself with such a movement. It goes against every principle I've stood for over a lifetime.

    I know other Obama supporters will point out that not all Obama supporters can be judged by the haters. But when will they, and Obama, stand up to and condemn the haters?

    Will Obama's campaign continue to ignore this dangerous and ugly element in their movement, or even encourage it, because they believe they can continue to exploit these people, and their prejudices and resentments, for their candidate's benefit?

    This is the part of the Obama movement that will not tolerate putting Clinton on the ticket. Is Obama really willing to lose their support? And can he win without it?

    The result of Obama's campaign (5.00 / 9) (#101)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    is that he can't hold on to one group of supporters without alienating another.  In this day of YouTube and the blogs, he  can't pander without its being caught right away so he's being called out as a flip-flopper.

    I too am concerned (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    look at what has been done to the intertubz.

    Anyway I have a feeling that Obama would prefer to stretch his idea of unity over to the Republicans and avoid Hillary women altogether. Perhaps a Republican youthful VP.


    Republican? In which case, (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:09:39 AM EST
    he definitely will not get my vote.

    Man. And only a couple of months ago I was saying that I would happily vote for whichever one got the nomination.

    I wish I thought he would never even consider doing this, but it's all of a piece with what I've been hearing from him and his campaign.

    Obama: you broke it.


    Thank you!! (5.00 / 12) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    I am not just a crazy battle axe.  I don't think he can control the movement.  The movement sustains him.   Axelrod created the movement with some powerful propaganda techniques.  "It" has to be fed and brought out on an as needed basis.  The frightening thing is that the "movement" was their creation, now they are starting to believe that it was organic.  

    I am at the crossroads of a distasteful McCain, or a weak candidate with a powerful propaganda machine with "a movement".  It's not good I tell you.  


    Nagourney article in NYT says (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:26:05 AM EST
    Obama's campaign team is planning a tour on the economy, then a possible foreign trip and a "biography" tour.  

    Oh, the greatest story ever told. (5.00 / 14) (#169)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    If he picks Hillary, and she (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM EST
    accepts, and he tells his minnions how wonderful this all is, they will follow and obey and praise.

    It's worth bearing (5.00 / 6) (#194)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    in mind that it is not as though Obama's core constituencies are only, while running at the Presidential level, consumed with hatred and divisiveness.

    The plain fact is that this is how his core constituencies were composed and disposed for the greatest portion of Obama's political life -- namely, while he was a State Senator of the Hyde Park District in Chicago.

    This really is the inescapable implication of his 20 year involvement in the The United Church of Christ. I don't think any of us have seen more obvious hatred and demonizing of the Other in a public venue than was in unabashed display in that "church".

    For all his talk of unity, his history is one of courting and empowering some of the most divisive, paranoid elements to be found in American society. It's been his real power base throughout his political career.

    Why imagine that this will change at this stage? It has been his MO throughout his political career. There is a symbiotic relationship there; he gives something vital to these distorted individuals, and they give something vital back.


    Just to add a bit, (5.00 / 7) (#211)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    people keep wanting to somehow distinguish and disentangle Obama from his crazy supporters, as if they are some foreign element. But I don't see how one really succeeds in doing that, given Obama's message of a "movement", and given his history of representing and empowering these kinds of elements.

    There is no teasing out of one from the other. There may be more to Obama than his supporters, but they are core to who he is.


    Maybe higher (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    Some of my more liberal friends believe that the fix was in for Hillary to win because the Clintons are a part of a global conspiracy to keep power in the hands of a choice few. Clintons, Bushes, and the Vatican, I suppose.

    WTF? I imagine they think that Hillary will angle for VP and have Obama secretly taken out, only to be revealed after two years have passed, so Hillary can then run for two full terms afterwards, thereby maximizing her time of 10 years as President (unless, of course, she uses her scary mind control to repeal the 22nd amendment).

    Seriously; I'm sure this is on the minds of a lot of people. /snark


    You said it better than I did.. (none / 0) (#147)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    When I asked the same question a couple of days ago, the answer seemed to be that people here have not spent much time thinking about it. In short, it may be an anti-Heisenberg (i.e. you have to do it to be able to observe it :-).

    Tell It To Bob Reich (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Blue Jean on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    right here. He seems to have drunk the CDS juice, despite the fact that the Clintons gave him his first chance at the top.  With friends like these, the Dems are looking at a landslide defeat in November.

    Reich is not a friend (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    and has never been.

    Or as my Obama-supporting friend (1.00 / 2) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    sd., did you ever stop to consider all those ex-Clinton administration people may be correct?

    Uh, no. I know Reich personally. (5.00 / 10) (#88)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    He's a sexist, angry little man.  The best of the Clinton admin supported Hill.  

    Obama Can't Pick Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    He  and his buddies were way too effective at character assassination of both Hillary and her husband.  He would have to spend a lot of time correcting the strange notions of his supporters that he allowed to fester during his primary run.

    Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    And I wasn't even a Hillary supporter.

    They're still talking Webb ... (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    on the Sunday Bloviations today.

    Webb?  Really?

    Do they just want every woman to vote for McCain?

    I worked very hard for Webb's (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    Senate campaign, and I think the man has the charisma of the average opossum.  He didn't beat George Allen -- George Allen defeated himself with his macaca remark and Webb's staff people were smart enough to take advantage of it.   As VP pick -- yikes!

    heh, that would be the absolute worst choice (none / 0) (#113)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    they could make. I wonder if they even know that though.

    If he does not pick (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    Hill, I will know Obama is a weak man.  He will have given in to the very worst of his supporters.  I will write-in Hillary without hesitation.  If he picks her, I'll know he puts Party and country before the worst of his supporters, and I'll see he has potential.  I'll vote for her as VP.  It's that simple.

    No to Hillary V.P. (5.00 / 12) (#87)
    by pavaoh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    I was and am a Hillary supporter.  Sen. Obama decided how to game the primaries and he is the choice. Now let him figure out how to get elected after trashing the Clintons without this woman by his side.  If she accepts it, who do you will get blamed if he loses it?  If she campaigns for him how will the press cover it?  All eyes will be on her and Bill Clinton looking for "got you" moments.  Personally I have followed this much closer than the average person since I am disabled and at home alot.  My vote will be very hard to get if not impossible.  I always knew the press would give them negative coverage so I wasn't sure she should run but I never expected to hear democrats use republican tactics to defeat her.  Their tactics and lies are why I became a strong democrat.  I am one of those people who watched Cspan during the Clinton years and know how dishonest the republicans were about charges against the Clintons.  Now I have seen democrats bring up the same talking points.  Sorry I am not sure I can even vote again.  If you can't trust your own party, how can you vote for them.    

    Top Notch doesn't go for Second Class (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    Without all the gimme's and gaming that Sen Obama got on his wheeze over the finish line, and without all the historically unprecedented hobbling Sen Clinton got from her own party, this wouldn't even be a close contest.

    She's overqualified to be VP to the less qualified candidate, and to be the earmarked scapegoat for his failings as a candidate and -- should he win -- in governance.

    She should step back from this and rest on her laurels and considerable muscle until the convention in August. She might even take the time in between to finish collecting her well-deserved applause and admiration while stumping downticket races ... well AWAY from Obama's ambitions.

    If the Dems aren't suffering from buyers' remorse before going with the Obama/Non-Entity or ticket (or Obama/Propper-Upper ticket)

    That has been another unsolicited Machiavelli Moment (TM).

    Totally agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:17:20 AM EST
    Sen Clinton should take a nice vacation and let this thing go without her to kick around.  Tomorrow is another day and a very good day for her I imagine.

    Unity Schmunity (5.00 / 9) (#105)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    That's the problem.

    It's beyond disingenuous for the Obama camp to even touch the issue of unity, given everything that's transpired the past few months.

    As for picking Clinton as the VP, not sure that would do too much to help. I believe a deep and dangerous divide has been exposed and amply reinforced, and a token move like that won't heal it.

    That divide was intentionally opened (5.00 / 8) (#148)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    and I don't see it closing soon.  I don't know how many of Sen Clinton's supporters want to be unified with the squealing hordes anyway.

    It's not about Hillary, but about Plouffe! (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    The top lining article on Memeo is Obama Maps a Nationwide Push in GOP Strongholds.

    In short, I'd think it would be more interesting to talk about the real strategy for Dems in the Fall, that Plouffe seems to be pushing.  Either Obama's new-coalition/new-voter/Red-State strategy can effectively counter the potential loss of old Dem coalitions (I choose not to engage whether Hillary's choice of VP will effectively stench that loss right now) or it will not. What say you?

    Second, and this I think will actually be the more important question for voters in the Fall. While the focus will be on economic issues -- two stories in the Globe this morning illustrate that the economy is increasingly a global economy and the link to foreign policy and the war in Iraq cannot be ignored. (see Maliki visits Iraq, and China seeks to protect oil lanes). I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, but increasingly, it seems to me that a longer term US military presence in the Gulf might be necessary for stability -- not just in  terms of politically combating terrorism and keeping an eye on Iran, providing buffer-zones for Turkey and Israel -- but to ensure stability in the oil markets which directly impacts the US markets and the global economy.

    What does this have to do with Barack Obama -- well, IMO, these sorts of issues are going to potentially test Obama's ability to triangulate thus far. How does he see the linkages between foreign policy and economic interests long term? How does he see these strategic interests? What does hope and change really translate to in terms of concrete policy proposals? (I hope I'm making my position clear -- albeit in a roundabout way. Every day Obama spends in 'campaign mode' -- and mere puffery about 'hope and change', and droning on about McBush -- it's one more day wasted to win real votes. Which, in the end, may mean more about  his performance in the Flal than Unity that is influenced by his VP pick.) JMO (just my opinion).

    Crossovers (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM EST
    I don't believe that Obama can maintain is progressive base and move that far to the right to pull the disgruntled Republican's away. The country is a lot more polarized than when Reagan used that strategy. And the rift between the ideals of each party has gotten deeper. I'm not even convinced he can pull the independant's away from McCain. In the open primaries I think more went for McCain than Obama according to exit polls.

    What do you think a candidate Obama will say campaigning in Red States? Think about how those statements will shape his thinking?

    Why is Plouffe pushing this? Why isn't the party, and by it's extension -- people on dKos to TL/BTD -- telling them right now that there is danger down that road!

    That's the strategic question people should focus on right now. Not his VP pick. And if Obama responds or not -- it will provide people who ask such questions valuable information about how their candidate thinks through these issues. That is what vetting should be about. JMO.


    Woops.. typo (none / 0) (#129)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    What a difference a single letter makes? That should be "Maliki visits Iran", not Iraq! Sorry.

    I noticed the other typo (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    Did you mean to type stench?

    D'oh.. I meant stanch.. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    Gotta go get that second cup of coffee.. spent the morning lugging the air conditioners out of the basement -- and signed the oil contract papers for the summer, so my mind is on energy related issues, clearly not on typing or spelling. (Don't know why these blogs don't support textedit plugins like wikis do -- would make such typos easier to catch :-)

    According to NYT's Nagourney, (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    Obama is invoking the 50-state strategy.  Won't he need Hillary and Bill Clinton?

    A serious question... (5.00 / 8) (#132)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    Upthread there is a comment about an Obama supporter saying "I heard him speak" as his reason to support BO.

    If that's all it takes...hasn't all of America already "heard him speak"?

    And didn't half of Dems want someone else?

    And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?

    And why did he only win via Super Delegates?

    And why - seriously - isn't he ahead of McCain by 25 points in the polls right now?  I mean, these are his glory days...but the "old man"/Bush II is right there with him?

    I have my answers to these questions?  What about some answers by a BO supporter or two?

    Don't these facts actually make you (even) slightly nervous?

    Club Obama should get over their Clinton obsessing (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    They didn't do enough to highlight Obama's qualities as a candidate nor expressly say what he'd bring to the office. I'm speaking as someone who was at neutral about BOTH Sens Clinton and Obama roughly two mos. ago.

    I'd easily have gone with either one, as my earlier choices were winnowed out.

    The ensuing campaign showed me a lot about each candidate. She did more to prove herself as a campaigner and leader

    He did not. His focus was more on tearing her down -- whether explicity or obliquely in a riff complaining about "politics" and "the politicians in Washington". (WTF?!? That's his whole platform?) He didn't affirmatively show his own qualities and explicitly offer his own original solutions.

    He still needs to do that and time's running out. Club Obama better get off this Clinton focus. It was a wheeze during the Clinton admin, when WJC's approval ratings were huge, and it's just embarrassing now.

    Ha - weren't BO and Friends complaining (5.00 / 8) (#163)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    just last week that the B*tch won't quit - and that makes it hard for them to target McCain.

    So...what's stopping them now?  Other than Hillary Hatred Part II?


    Jimmy Carter's Advice on a VP (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:41:01 AM EST
    This is priceless:

    "What he needs . . . is a person who can compensate for his obvious potential defects: his youthfulness and his lack of long experience in military and international affairs."

    Great. So what Carter (who more or less endorsed Obama with a wink and nudge months ago) is saying, in essence, is that we need a completely different Presidential nominee. No biggee. Heckuva job, Jimmeh. And you wonder why he only won 6 states in 1980 . . .

    So maybe now Carter is angling for the job?... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    ...Just kidding, just kidding.

    I have written a response to (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    a former Hillary supporter about unity:


    It's the leadership, stupid (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    <to paraphrase Bill>it'll be his first big test of leadership.
    If Obama can't unify the party, so much for all his soaring rhetoric. IMO, he's walked himself out on a ledge from which it will be tough to crawl back. if he picks Hill, his dittoheads 2.0 will hate him. if he doesn't, or if he picks some other woman, he'll have a tough time bringing a whole lot of Clinton supporters on board.

    good luck with that

    His only chance to get my vote... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    is if he selects Hillary as VP.

    If he's not smart enough to do that, not strong enough to stand alongside Hillary AND Bill, then he's not strong enough or savvy enough to be president anyway...

    I don't understand this (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by The Other Steve on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    In 2004, I remember after the Dean and Edwards camps lost, their supporters went on to demand that their policy ideas gain some signifigance within the Democratic party.  For Dean supporters, it was the campaigning strategies of 50 states, and using the internet and connecting to small donors, as well as the war.  For Edwards supporters it was the issues of poverty.

    But that's not what you are arguing here.

    How about addressing what policy ideas of Clinton's do you think the DNC should take up as part of it's platform for 2008?

    i don't think deep down that (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    hillary wants the veep slot. she knows what awaits the dems in november. and to think that obama will offer it just plain doesn't make sense. of course it would be ideal for him in regards to winning. but there is nothing in his campaign and comments that show that they are really thinking stragtically about the general election. i don't see it. his support system just won't allow clinton anywhere near their power base.

    i think hillary will bide her time.

    A Question (4.00 / 2) (#17)
    by The Field on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    BTD -

    Since I can see we're going to be reading this column in many different forms between now and late August (as we have for a while already), I'm hoping you can devote just one to answering this question:

    Even if Senator Obama were to decide he wanted Senator Clinton as his running mate, what does he do about his campaign demand, as early as last year, that former president Clinton publicly disclose the donors - their names and the amounts - to the Clinton Library?

    Clearly, in the vetting process, this will be asked. But what if former president Clinton determines that he is not willing to do that?

    Should Senator Obama simply flip-flop and back down over that call for greater transparency?

    It would be a question that would pop up repeatedly on the campaign trail, during debates, etcetera.

    How should he answer that that question?

    What about this? (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    Should Senator Obama simply flip-flop and back down over that call for greater transparency?

    Senator Obama would have to answer questions about his own lack of transparency, re: his Illinois State Legislative papers, and his tax returns from the 1990's.


    No short of hypocrisy in VP picks (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    All campaigns have to swallow the false claims and distortions they made about former opponents if they choose them as VPs. Library donors will all of a sudden be a non-issue.

    But what about Obama's scorched earth tactics on issues and character central to his campaign? Those are harder to ignore. How is Obama going to go back to PA and tell them that Clinton really wasn't responsible for their economic hardship? How about being the bestest friends with monsterous racists all of a sudden?


    Simple Answers to Simple Questions (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    1. Asked and answered already.
    2. Bill's finances aren't an issue nor should be a continuing one even for expedient deflection purposes.
    3. Obama's financial relationship with his supporters, including delegates and superDees, will matter more to opposition and to voters.
    4. Barack and Michelle Obama's finances will be explored and exposed during the remainder of the election process.

    I believe Geraldine Ferraro's (4.50 / 2) (#107)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    husbands business dealings and finances caused her some grief in the election.
    The GOP is looking for anything they can use.
    I think he should pick Hillary, but I also think Bill needs to fully disclose NOW so it has time to get accepted prior to November.

    yes... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    and it was pointed out...at least by me...that it was strange that a husband's finances were being touted about as some sort of hit on her character.

    I totally agree with you, I am (none / 0) (#205)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:55:55 AM EST
    just noting the fact that it has been used successfully in the past.

    None of these are real answers (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Field on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    They're attempts to diminish the question or create excuses.

    I guess I'll wait for BTD's response, if any, instead of risking hijacking his thread.



    What you seem to be saying is that Bill (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    would be a drag on the ticket if Hillary were the VP.

    I think you're right, not because he has a worse "transparency" problem than Obama (as others point out) but because he would be a lightening rod--as would Hillary--for another nasty round of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    The media and the Bill Bradley liberals in the party hate the Clintons. They hate the Clintons as much as the dittoheads and freepers do--maybe even more.

    I'd rather Hillary NOT be on the ticket because I think that Obama is too inexperienced in national politics to win the confidence of the majority of voters in November. Most Independents are going to break for McCain, as will Reagan Dems, even if Hillary is on the ticket, and having her on the ticket will only give the haters more opportunity to hate her. Today at HuffPo, some of the Hillary-haters are obviously jonesin' already.

    Anyway, let Obama run without Hillary. He'll lose whether she's on the ticket or not. (And I'll vote for him, btw.) The Democratic party will learn that their "new coalition" is the same old losing coalition, and they'll return to their roots. Hillary can run in 2012 and the Hillary-haters will have less credibility--maybe. They won't hush, but perhaps after the post-election scrutiny of the Hillary-hating media, fewer people will listen to them.


    You make some very good points. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    I think MCain can tap a popular governor like Sarah Paulin of Alaska as VP (solid conservative) and offer Hillary a top spot in his administration and realy shatter the Bradley/Daschle/Kerry/Kennedy etc cabal.

    I think you're right on the money. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    and it will be a winner for him.

    This scenario, I favor (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    The only thing is I don't think the Hillary-hate matters so much in this situation.  Obama needs some of the 18 million, and they certainly don't listen to the Hillary hate or they wouldn't be there.

    Well said, and indeed 18 million + voters are not (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    listening to the Hillary haters now, just imagine how much credibility the haters will lose when Obama' ass is handed to him on a plate in November.

    Clinton's foundation finances (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by kimsaw on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM EST
     are and should be separate from Clinton's personal finances. Why should he have to open the financial records of a private not for profit charitable foundation.  You're doing more harm than good by playing politics with a charitable foundation that does good works. Maybe we could examine Obama's church finances for fun while we're at it. They did good works too and Obama donated to them and I'm sure it would be very surprising who donates to the church where Obama worshiped for 20 years.

    Let's take a real look at the Obama campaign donations. In fact let's vet Obama for a change.  It's disingenuous on Obama's part to offer that the foundation donors need to be examine thoroughly yet Obama's own donors go unexamined. Rezko comes to mind and all those lobbyist with rich spouses. If Obama's game is guilt by association, he's got enough to worry about on his own.

    On a charitable note perhaps Obama just wants some more names for his donor list.


    Just a Suggestion (none / 0) (#225)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Perhaps Bill Clinton could agree not to take donations going forward from any government/party that would create a conflict of interest for an Obama/H Clinton administration.  I can't see his disclosing names of those who may have donated on understanding same was anonymous.

    Obama Definitely Should Stick With The (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    meme that the Clintons have not been properly vetted. That is a sure way to win over her supporters. {shakes head in disbelied}

    Of course, Obama can persue the idea that he does not have to do anything to win over Dems who are currently saying that they will either vote McCain or stay at home and concentrate on pleasing his base and winning Indies and Republicans. He is the nominnee and he has the right to persue whatever strategy he pleases. OTOH, if he persues this strategy, I for one don't want to hear that the Clintons are responsible if he loses in November.


    Simple. McCain sd. he won't disclose (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST
    campaignn donors names as they asked him not to.  

    So what's the gotcha here? (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    "Why did you stop asking about President Clinton's library donors?"

    Hint: no one cared before, and no one cares now. It's like Rezko.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    Obama should be so lucky to have that be the hardest question he is asked.

    It can't be the case... (none / 0) (#45)
    by The Field on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    ...that nobody cares about transparency in financing of the projects of political leaders. I'm among those that care. And Independent voters of the "swing" type are very much influenced by these "process" issues that apparently disinterest you, and the cosponsor of McCain-Feingold intends to compete with Obama for those voters. An issue like this could decide states like Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado and others where these kinds of issues really do matter, and many really do care.

    Already this cycle we've been treated to NY Times stories on former president Clinton's activities with a uranium mining company in Asia, and we've certainly watched how former president Clinton repeatedly sopped up attention in ways that was not helpful to Senator Clinton's campaign. Indeed, his activities and statements were deeply harmful to her on repeated occasions.

    The comparison to "Rezko" is apples and oranges: at its worst, the accusations about some kind of special deal on a house involved a couple hundred thousand dollars. The Clinton Library donations (and those to the Clinton Global Initiative) involve more than a hundred million dollars, coming from the likes of the Saudi royal family and other multinational sources that can easily be exploited in a TV ad.

    If you're the McCain camp, and you want to provoke the vice presidential nominee's spouse into another finger-wagging explosion on national TV, you use something like this in a TV ad and sit back and watch the fireworks.


    This is a media lie. (5.00 / 16) (#47)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    BC helped Hill immensly.  He brought out voters in rural areas who had probably never voted in a primary in their lives.  Let's please drop the lie.  Dem's need to trewat BC like the repubs treat Reagan, if they have any hopes of being the Party with brand recognition on the economy.

    The Clinton Foundation (5.00 / 9) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    is not a political organization.  As a charitable organization its expenditures and various other details are subject to public scrutiny. I don't care about its donors, any more than I care about the donors to the Bill Gates Foundation, and  Bill Gates potentially has as much impact on public policy as any politician.

    Then Obama counters with the photos (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    of the Saudis leaving the U.S. by plane immed. after Sept. 11 when U.S. citizens could not fly.

    meh (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    America already knows Bill Clinton. It won't go anywhere.

    And Obama should HOPE that McCain brings up campaign finance reform.


    I agree with Masslib. (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:36 AM EST
    The repeated dismissal of Bill Clinton is a non starter for the voters Obama wants to attract. Race baiting was played on him and the half of the electorate that Hillary gained understand this. But keep it up, because McCain will put a woman on his ticket like Sarah Paulin and maybe even offer the Secreatry of something like state to Hillary and the game will be over.

    You Mised Your Calling (5.00 / 12) (#153)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    we've certainly watched how former president Clinton repeatedly sopped up attention in ways that was not helpful to Senator Clinton's campaign.
    You should've been a reporter.  Media talking points roll off your keyboard like water off a duck's back.

    The tragedy of this campaign is how Bill and Hillary were treated by the lying media and the party they have worked tirelessly for all their lives.  Posts like this virtually assure that Clinton supporters will not be pulling the lever beside Barack Obama's name this fall.

    Damndest thing I've ever seen.  You need us desperately but that rankles so much you can't help but continue the Clinton-bashing.  

    When your guy loses in November and you're looking for a reason why, see me.  I'll have this post bookmarked.


    That you think you represent... (1.00 / 5) (#187)
    by The Field on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    ...a groundswell of voters is merely a continuance of the same kind of delusion that had so many thinking that Senator Clinton had a chance at the nomination after losing 11 primaries and caucuses in a row in February.

    Only a very small echo chamber believes that it speaks for most - or even a significant minority - of Senator Clinton's supporters. The great majority of them - including their candidate - have moved on to support the Democratic nominee.

    So, how to put this delicately? No, I don't think you are needed. And I frankly think that most of you were never there in the first place with any Democratic nominee. (The ones really considering sitting it out or voting McCain do exist, but they're quiet right now - folks like Jerome and Alegre - nursing their wounds. Those of you that have been yapping puppies screeching about this before the body of the presidential nomination fight is even cold are just plain unreliable allies that I wouldn't let near my foxhole.)

    I don't think that delusional thinking by self-proclaimed supporters helps any campaign (and the evidence is sure in that delusional thinking among some of her supporters hurt the Clinton campaign).

    I think people making statements like you've made are engaging in an unattractive attempt at emotional blackmail after the train has long left the station.

    I do think that others here, including BTD, are being more mature and rational about the new realities. It is to them - not you - that I addressed my question. Because I sure don't need delusional and aspiring emotional blackmailers as allies, and I don't think anybody that cares about winning does.


    So, "be mature you yapping puppy!" (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    heh. Good luck Al.

    Good luck with what? (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by The Field on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    Clearly I'm not trying to convince anyone that is so irrational and ego-driven to read into my words that I'm trying to convince them of anything.

    I think a lot of these comments sections on blogs have long been infiltrated by an orchestrated "operation chaos" type of sock-puppetry among some that claim to be passionate supporters of one candidate to try and whip up the emotions of the more malleable of her supporters into thinking that they should base a profound decision - who to vote for in November - based on their hurt feelings over what supporters of the former rival do or don't say. Anybody making their decisions based on that should please go sign up for the Republican party today.

    Anybody that still thinks "it's about Meeeee, and my feeeelings!" is not a desirable ally. And in my humble opinion, they've brought down the level of discourse of various blogs, cheapening them in the process. I am going to watch with interest as the hosts try to deal with the consequences, now, of having let them in the door in the first place.

    Anyone who can't handle "tough love" ought not to be in politics or even activism. Those that think politics is about stroking their wounded egos have made a mess of progressive politics in the United States for decades now. When they say to me "oh, but I'll leave and join the opposition if you don't suck up to me" I say, "there's the door. Don't let it hit your behind on the way out."

    And the childish inevitable response - "well, you're not going to get my support because you didn't kiss my butt" - along with the absurd suggestion that what I or others that don't speak for any political candidate determines someone's response to that candidate - only proves my point.

    Nobody that can't handle being referred to as something as benign as a "yapping puppy" really doesn't have the backbone or inner fortitude to be an effective political organizer or supporter.


    You have a tin ear (5.00 / 6) (#223)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    Or do the implications of "yapping puppy" need to be explained to you?

    Well aren't you special? (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    I don't think that delusional thinking by self-proclaimed supporters helps any campaign (and the evidence is sure in that delusional thinking among some of his supporters will hurt the Obama campaign).

    Pull your head out of the sand.

    18,000,000 Clinton voters weren't wrong or delusional.


    Two ways (none / 0) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    One Bill Clinton gets permission to disclose from his donors.  Just as there were rumors about there tax returns (which turned out to be true, but were nothing) there are rumors about who his donors are.  If the rumors are true about the actual donors... eh, nothing new.

    Two... Obama's team researches this and declare the donors privacy needs to be respected, will pass legislation requiring this info be public in the future and there is nothing to indicate influence peddling.

    I'd would to number two, leak a bunch of data, and then do number one so the media impact would be lessened.

    I agree the money is important just as B Clinton's work will be.  Will he be busy with his foundation or will there be some type of ambassador position that uses his skills.  I think his foundation does important work and I want him to continue with it.


    I doubt the strong arm tactics will work. (1.00 / 0) (#193)
    by halstoon on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    Naming Sen. Clnton as his VP choice is not the only way the party can be united. Maybe you should focus on the abominable nature of a McCain presidency as reason enough to unite behind Barack.

    Unity is also not solely on the shoulders of Obama. Will Bill Clinton agree to being fully vetted? Will Sen. Clinton be more forthcoming about her time as First Lady? There are a lot of things that would have to be scrubbed in order for her to join the ticket, and there is no guarantee she wants to do that.

    I had a thought (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:04:46 AM EST
    What if at the secret meeting between Hilary and Obama, Hilary said something like this:

    OK Obama I will help you get elected.  I will convince my supporters to vote for you but with the following conditions:

    One, you pick me as VP
    Two, you do not run for two terms, so I can run in 2012, and then it will be your turn to help me get elected.

    Obama says.

    OK its a deal.

    Just a crazy thought I had.

    that was my crazy unity (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    idea a few months ago.  Except it was the other way around where Hillary was president first.  Then Obama could get two terms and lead the party into the future.  I honestly can't understand why the brain trust in the DNC can't see the logic in that.

    If he agreed to do... (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    ...Hillary would be a fool to believe him. And Hillary ain't no fool.

    No way Jose (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    Politicians are walking egos.  I know Gordon Brown was to come after Blair, but politicians don't share power in this country.  Obama is very young, what would he do after President?  He needs to create his own power structure and systems of control if he wants a future in the top eschalons of influence.  He doesn't have the long term history/power of someone like the Clinton's, Kennedy's or even McCain.

    What If She Doesn't Actually Want It? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    While I'm sure Obama and his camp may not want to, they aren't stupid enough to completely discount the possibility of a "Unity Ticket". As good as it sounds, it also has its downsides for all parties involved.

    However, what Hillary may not actually want is the VP slot, but just to be asked publicly as a show of respect. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

    If I were Obama, I would definitely reach out to her and try and sincerely get her to be a strong part of the campaign one way or the other, even if it's a Cabinet post, Senate Majority Leadership, or what have you, if she didn't want the VP.

    She's not going to be Majority Leader (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    If anyone's moving into that post, it'll be Dick Durbin, and probably only after 2010.

    Nope, VP is the right slot for Hillary.


    Totally agree (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    These same Senators that rejected he in the campaign are not going to embrace her as majority leader, not in the near future anyway.  And I'm not even sure that is wrong - she is, after all, only a 1.5 term Senator.  Durbin would be a great choice.

    If she really loves the senate she can stay there as long as she wants and do well and maybe be majority leader eventually.


    What I'm saying is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    that because Durbin is Whip, it will be his job to turn down--unless he really pisses off the caucus for some reason.

    I forgot he is whip (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:30:16 AM EST
    Yes, that puts him next in line if he wants it and they still like him.  which I'm sure they do.

    It may put Durbin in line, but senority really (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by mikeyleigh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    doesn't count when selecting a Senate Leader.  If it did, Bryd would be Majority Leader right now.  All that matters is getting a majority of Senate Dems to vote you in.  I don't think that too big a stretch for Hillary.  After all, neither Durbin or Reid have been showing great leadership ability since the 2006 elections.  I hope Hillary stays in the Senate, challenges Reid and wins, then becomes the face of the Democratic Party against President McCain while Obama stews in his Senate seat until 2010 when he suddenly discovers his girls are growing up and need a full-time daddy.

    Durbin has first dibs at the job (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    and everyone knows it.

    Also, many Senators had to be (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    strong-armed into flipping for Obama, so there may not be as much resistance as people think.

    Imho, Pelosi and Reid can only use the stamp-their-feet maneuver so many times before it loses its effectiveness.


    Oh, thank you for being so generous... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:30:58 AM EST
    "If she really loves the senate she can stay there as long as she wants and do well and maybe be majority leader eventually. "

    (Sounds like..."if she plays her cards right...we'll maybe let her be important in 10 or 20 years")

    You're still drinking Hillary Hate Juice, I see.


    That is the way the Senate works.. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    nothing to do with Hillary Hate. She is, after all, the junior Senator from NY. A very good and effective one, to be sure, but still the junior senator. Majority leader is usually a senior senator who has been in the Senate longer than two terms. She might get it if she has garnered enough political capital and the Senators in front of her in line for the job step aside. But unless that happens, she will probably have to wait until her next Senate term to be considered eligible by Senate tradition.

    that's really rich (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    She is only a 1.5 term senator so not experience enough for Senate Majority leader. Really? Not experienced enough? Not enough seniority?

    Obama is a 1.5 year senator and he is nominated for president.


    VP is the right slot to bring dems (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    together. I believe it's unbeatable. Everybody gets something and the country gets the best of it.

    Is there a rule? (none / 0) (#118)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    If this was part of the arrangement can't see be made leader? Reid should be more than willing to step down since he never really stepped up. If this would help to get the Dem's the WH I think they'd jump at it. Also Obama needs a strong Senator to push his agenda in the Senate. Kennedy's illness was not helpful to him. I think he had relied on him to be that person.

    She wants it. (none / 0) (#14)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    I'm not so convinced (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    that she's not just angling to be asked, so she can turn it down, and save face, but we'll find out soon enough, I would imagine.

    If she believes what she said yesterday (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    then she'll want it.

    Also consider that it's probably her own last chance at the Presidency, which I think we can be pretty sure she still wants.


    Do you really think ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by eustiscg on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    she has to be VP to remain in contention for the Democratic nomination next time around?  An honest question.

    If Obama wins, yes (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    Which is another way of saying: Obama boosters, you better hope she's on the ticket! heh.

    But if he's sending good ol' Claire (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    out to woo us Clintonistas and he's going to "talk more about the women in his life" in his speeches, we won't be looking at an Obama presidency.  

    To use Obama's own phrase (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    Using McCaskill to woo women voters is a "boneheaded" idea.

    And, sending out McCaskill (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    tells me him and his campaign do not have an understanding of women.

    Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#48)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    He gets to pick the VP. It's not clear that picking HRC is the best way to go, but who knows? Part of the problem is that Bill would have to make public all his financial dealings of the past few years, including donors to the presidential library, not sure he wants to do that.

    What (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    about Obama's financial problems? His donor problems? Why aren't you concerned that they weren't vetted? The GOP will surely vet them.

    I love this new line about vetting (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    Fixing the Democratic tent has the be a first priority, and process BS about Bill Clinton just isn't a sufficient reason to keep Hillary off the ticket.

    We are hrg. a lot about those donors (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST

    Obama talking point of the day ... (5.00 / 12) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:38:57 AM EST

    I can hear the... (none / 0) (#219)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    "But I DON'T want her as my running mate..." going on....

    No he doesn't. (none / 0) (#57)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    What if.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    she decides she doesn't want the job?

    What if several weeks from now, Hillary were to introduce somebody like Wes Clark or Evan Bayh as Obama's VP nominee, throwing her full support behind the ticket and announcing her eagerness to get back to the Senate and work for a Democratic agenda?  And from the same podium, Obama says how the he and Clark/Bayh are going to drub McCain and then look forward to working with Senator Hillary Clinton to pass her universal healthcare plan?  No powerful unity mojo there?  

    Maybe just too soon to think about?

    If not VP . . . (none / 0) (#135)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    Frankly, it's hard to believe Hillary would be happy in the role, given than large sections of Obama's inner circle have made it clear they think she is pond scum (think LBJ--aka "Uncle Cornpone" in JFK's administration). And anyone who thinks Sec. of HHS is "a dignified exit" needs to stop snorting the Kool-Aid up their nose. As for Majority Leader, Reid has made it fairly clear he's not stepping down anytime soon. I suggest, instead, Hillary be given a prominent Senate committee chairmanship--she could surely have a greater effect than as Veep. And there is precedent for this--in 2002, Reid stood aside for Jim Jeffords for the latter to become Chair of the Enironment committed after the latter's defection.

    Pro and Cons of her being VP (none / 0) (#138)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST

    Yes she will unite party, if she is VP but then would have to wait 8 years to run again. Of course as a rule the incumbent VP does had an advantage. Don't know if she would want wait that long though.

    If she does not accept then she can run against Obama but only if he is doing bad after four years.  If he is doing good then it will be very hard to run against him.

    A Win is A Win No Matter The Margin (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jade Jordan on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    That Said- The Nominee has the absolute right to pick their VP it is not a consolation prize.  Obama like every candidate before him will make that choice.

    If people don't want to vote for him because Clinton is not on the ticket, they probably did not want to vote for him anyway, and was just looking for an excuse.

    One man one vote your choice whatever criteria you choose.  No one should tell you who to vote for and no one should dictate to Obama who should be VP.

    Historically (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    ...it WAS the consolation prize and Presidents were stuck w/ a VP who was a bitter rival (and from another party). It was also a reason VPs were given minor responsibility rather than truly being 2nd in command.
    While there are obvious downsides, it occasionally can do great things for party unity and make for a strong ticket.

    I think this year, with candidates with different strengths but similar policies, it could be great. Better with Clinton at the top but I want the best team in the WH we can get.


    Ahhhhh, Jade Jordin, but as this (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    election showed us, it is not "one man, one vote."

    Ahhhhh, Jade Jordin, but as this (none / 0) (#217)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    election showed us, it is not "one man, one vote."

    Here's my crazy Unity idea...... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    Obama should ask Senator CLinton to be his VP. Her choice.
    If she decides not to run with him but wants to support him she is on the VP selection committee, making sure the VP choice has democratic values, adds to the ticket in terms of electability, and shows that she is part of the process and fully behind the team.

    And the she can help lead the transition team.

    Unity Divided (none / 0) (#203)
    by Eternalvision4all on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    Hillary was very gracious in her farewell to supporters and left the door open for a possible seat in the White House as 2nd chair.  In my opinion the offer will never be made as Obama does not want an ally always second guessing his decisions, and the notion that a past president could possibly be calling the shots.  The party has a lot of work to do in bringing the polar opposites in charisma close enough to have a chance on election day.  

    What if......Hillary was given an unprecedented offer from the McCain camp to cross party lines and really do what all the politicians purport to do and work both sides of the aisle?  In a time of uncertainty in our economy and global position we can create a new path and have our confidence and pride re-energized.  Now that would be a dream ticket!  I would just love to see the next four years of human energy channeled into a positive direction promoting and executing real change, instead of another term with half the American public bickering and complaining about what isn't being done.  

    She has to turn it down--publicly (none / 0) (#226)
    by PJ on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
    She brought $250 million into the party. She has 18 million supporters who can pay her debts for $2 apiece. Whether she wants it, whether he wants it, right now she is the Veep nominee who is also the next presidential nominee. As much as I want this I actually think it's a bad fit, but getting around it is not an easy thing. I think she'll turn it down.
     Meantime the Guardian gives us a photo of Obama with his personal choice for a running mate.