Obama's "Flip Flop" On Hillary Clinton

My title is a joke. As is Newsweek (here is J's writeup on the poll):

Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. . . .

What a hoot. So Obama's problem says Newsweek is his "embrace" of Hillary Clinton. My gawd, not even Andrew Sullivan came up with that one.

But back on Planet Earth, most sentient beings know why Obama's gained a flip flop image - because he HAS flip flopped on some key issues. Most notably on FISA Capitulation. We wrote here that not only was the flip flop craven on principles but stupid politics. Maybe Obama will learn now why Congressional Hoyerism has a 9% approval rating and why he should avoid the political tactics of Hoyerism. Because it is the only conceivable path to defeat in November for him.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Brandeis v. Sullivan | Politics As Usual >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think I missed a memo (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by mwb on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    So one of Senator Obama's strengths that his campaign and the media spoke of is the ability to work across the aisle effectively and be post-partisan, etc. (I'll tactfully ignore how true or untrue that really is.)  Thus reaching out, working with and associating with Republican is good.

    But doing the same with a fellow Democratic Senator with very nearly identical stands and overall voting history is bad.

    I'm convinced that the media has secret meetings with dare contests to say the stupidest things in public...

    You have to read that very carefully... (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:03:44 AM EST
    ...The "some Obama supporters" it referred to in BTD's excerpt are probably the article's authors referring to themselves and their own CDS.  

    Yep- (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by magisterludi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:18:35 AM EST
    Evan Thomas, a managing editor at Newsweek and frequent tv pundit, has had CDS from the get-go. One of the first DC Bluebloods, like Sally Quinn, to turn up their patrician noses when the bumpkins came to town.

    They fancy themselves (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:27:55 AM EST

    The voters in New Hampshire and other states must have given them fits.


    they also fancy themsevles eltitist. (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    what most of these so called elitists are is barely removed from the factory or farm. very few are kennedy or some other dynesty. so shame on their for being wannabes and doing a pathetic job.

    There was much more to the sentence (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    than Hillary.  Really if you read the sentence the "seriously" has more to do with:

    ...and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics.

    In other words "lavish fund-raisers" has as much to do with his image concern with his supporters as does Hillary - both of which highlight a turnaround in image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. It's silly to take a complete sentence and chop it up for effect. As I read other pro-Obama blogs people seemed more concerned with his current fund raising methods than they do Hillary, although some do not like Hillary campaigning with him but that is a very same segment which I think Newsweek kind of made clear.


    The problem was combining the two (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by dianem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
    Somehow, embracing Clinton is on a par with courting big donors.  If you go back to basic grammar (a long way back, for me, so please forgive any improper terminology), it is completely appropriate to take apart a sentence like this and independently judge each portion. If the two clauses aren't presumed to have parity, they shouldn't be in the same sentence. At best you have to assume that it is the embrace of Clinton combined with the big donors that is the problem.

    Essentially, this guy is saying that the most "serious" reason Obama has damaged his "new kind of politics" image is that he has taken big donations and made friends with Clinton. FISA and all of the other issues are secondary.  Of course, the reporter threw in the "some Obama supporters" weasel phrase to cover this rather daring analysis. But it's nonsense, nonetheless. I'm willing to bet that very, very few Obama supporter's (other than the reporter and his associates, of course) think that Obama's association with Clinton and his fundraising are more serious offenses than his new, centrist positions on FISA and the death penalty.  


    Fair Enough (none / 0) (#53)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    The thing I think was meant that 'both' embracing Hillary and the new fund raising both fly in the face of new politics. The not so new jump from small donors to big donors is embracing old politics. And according to Obama himself in the primaries Hillary represents old politics. So for me including the two in the same sentence made sense because they both make the same point - Obama embracing Old Politics - with two examples cited.

    Again I do read people concerned about these things on other blogs so I don't think it was a leap of any kind for the author to say what he did.


    The New Baloney (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:20:35 AM EST
    with the big donor is, if Obama had been ahead of Clinton during the primary in big donor money (vs small), it would have been all we heard about from the Obama campaign.

    So I doubt turning to big donors will hurt him with his base (fans) now.  If they can rationalize FISA, they can rationalize anything.  The only remaining interest really, is to see what flavor of pretzely logic they accompany their endless logical switchbacks with.


    An awful lot of them (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    are not rationalizing FISA. Oh sure the brain dead at dkos are I guess (I don't bother reading that trash) but go to openleft where the general IQ is higher and you  will see many posters including Matt Stoller very upset about FISA and a host of other things. They have finally come to the conclusion that Obama is no Progressive and are asking how they can help keep him in check.

    Of course Bowers is clueless and nothing seems to phase him but that is par for the course for Bowers.


    "Some supporters" like (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:46:58 AM EST
    Klein, Kinsley, Altermann, Wolfe and that bunch?

    They will always hate Hillary. But like it or not (4.69 / 13) (#16)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:10:44 AM EST
    she is the most dynamic political person around.  And they just hate that fact.  And the fact that she's so much more intelligent, caring, and real than the caricature they present and would like us to believe.

    We had an exciting primary, and now that excitement is gone because the most exciting candidate is gone.  Obama and McCain are a couple of twin suits, and they're both boring as hell.


    well as hillary's supporters are well on (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    their way to canceling out hillary's campaign debt, then the obama supporters can have their way as far as i am concerned. tell you what, let hillary go to the senate and work for those she represents. let bill go back to doing international work that he loves. hillary supporters and donors? why we can do whatever it is we will do. some will vote for obama and some wont'. how about that? happy now! hope so.

    of coure, then you have a probably long term split in the democratic party. but heck we don't want those supports of his upset do we. so let them have at it and let's see what happens.

    or you can do the unity routine. give up the rock star venues and get out there senator obama and campaign with the people. roll up your sleaves and really tell the folks who you are and what you plan to help us. go talk to all those folks we joke about under the bus and take hillary and bill with you.


    Yup (none / 0) (#21)
    by mwb on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:24:02 AM EST
    Of course, it is.  That is the usual media ploy to create the illusion of reality for their own beliefs.

    That's why I focused on the media and didn't say refer to the supporters of Senator Obama.


    O/T Rest In Peace Tony Snow.... (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:30:44 AM EST

    Just saw this online. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:58:11 AM EST
    He put on a brave face.

    Condolences to his family.


    Oh My! The crime of (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    "eagerly embracing" his fellow-Democrat!! When did HRC become the enemy to all things Obama? Gee, and here I thought we were on the same team and everything!

    Didn't we also hear (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:50:51 AM EST
    it's Hillary's fault that his fund raising is down?
    I suppose it good that they get this out of their systems now so that come Fall they don't look like they represent a total whimp who blames everything on others. We wouldn't want the narrators to grab hold of that now would we.

    Blame everyone.... (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by DoggieDaddy on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    but yourself.

    Right out of the Rove handbook.

    Press needs a foe other than Obama (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by gabbyone on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    After the primary when Hillary went on a little
    vacation, the press lost the target they had used
    so they could ignore Obama's major flaws.  Now
    that his flaws are in view of all, they can't criticize him so they have to find someone...and of course they choose Hillary.

    Press needs a foe other than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gabbyone on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    After the primary when Hillary went on a little
    vacation, the press lost the target they had used
    so they could ignore Obama's major flaws.  Now
    that his flaws are in view of all, they can't criticize him so they have to find someone...and of course they choose Hillary.

    gosh no, (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. . . .

    any sentient being knew this was BS from the start; you can't put "chicago politician" and "new kind of politics" in the same sentence, it's a clear violation of strunk & white's style rules. not to mention, it'll cause your head to explode!

    truly, sen. obama needn't concern himself with his image, in a few short months, he'll be merely a footnote in the history of american politics anyway, possibly a case-study in poly sci classes.

    I suppose his fundraisers (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:22:21 AM EST
    have gotten more coverage recently, since there's been little other campaign news and so many of them.  But I seem to recall an EXTREMELY lavish fundraiser Senator Obama attended back in the spring...a fundraiser in which he said some rather stupid comments...

    and they're upset about fundraisers NOW?  Maybe the Obama Rationalization (EVERTYHING-HE-DOES-IS-CORRECT-AND-SECRETLY-REASONABLE) train is just out of steam.

    Speakign of stupid comments (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    Stay classy.

    He promised to help Obama and that he would be there "like the Jackson Five" and ended his irreverent riff with a joke involving the women in the families and living with two "hoes"

    Who was Bernie Mac calling hoes? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    ...I don't get the full context of the comment. Was he referring to his own wife of 35 years and Michelle Obama as hoes? How could he have thought that was funny at an official campaign event? I mean, I actually really like Bernie Mac, but this was just really stupid.

    Does it matter? n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    Well a little bit..... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST
    ...cause if he was calling Michelle Obama a ho, Barack should have kicked his ass. ;-)

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    if he was calling ANY woman a ho, Obama should kick his ass.

    But we already know we can't expect that.


    He was calling his own wife (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    and daughter "hos," according to reports I read.

    And then Obama thanked him.

    It was a day or so more before Bernie went under the bus. Well, under the Obamabus.  I bet he was under his wife and daughter's bus already.


    well who set the tone with "wiping (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    the mud(hillary?) off his shoes? you open the door and the rest come in with their stuff.

    Kinley needs a dictionary (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    An arbiter is someone who settles a dispute.

    Perhaps he meant "harbinger"?

    Kinsley is using "arbiter" correctly. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    American Heritage Dictionary

    ar·bi·ter  n.

    One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; an arbitrator.

    One who has the power to judge or ordain at will: an arbiter of fashion.

    Just FYI.


    Yes, it is correct. Obama is (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    an arbiter of the fashionable new politics.

    Not doing so well on mediating disputes, though.


    Newsweek is one of those ole male (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Salt on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:04:11 AM EST
    bastions hopefully the emerging young change orientated hopeful management will retire this out of touch conflicted old guard and hire a more diverse talented younger team.

    Obama's "flip-flops". (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:24:25 AM EST
    To me, the worst of his moves is not FISA, which is terrible enough.
    So much for his support of civil liberties. So much for his reputation as a constitutional scholar.

    But to me, much worse is his statement of July 3rd regarding the war in Iraq.

    Obama, whose anti-Iraq war posture has been greatly eggagerated, showed his true colors, and they ain't pretty.
    He said:
    "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

    This is not what most people think that he has "always said". Most think that he was prepared to begin a phased withdrawal from the hell of Iraq to be completed in 16 months.

    What he articulated on July 3rd is exactly what Bush has been saying for years - almost verbatim.  We have gotten nowhere.

    I think this is worse that his FISA betrayal because of the deaths that are occurring every day in Iraq - for no good reason.

    Best laugh I've had all day (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    So let me get this straight....his small donors won't donate to him unless he only gets money from them?  Sure did not stop them in the primaries. Seems to me he spent at least one fateful evening in San Fran among the 'unbitter'.

    Newsweek kills me. A whole epidemic of CDS right there.

    ah, so it's all Hillary's fault (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    nope, I didn't see that one coming from a mile away. Sooo, if she stays out of it, it's her fault for not doing unity, if she's embracing Obama and doing the unity thing, it's her fault. And this is best of all, if Obama is embracing Hillary for unity, then it's also Hillary's fault. Are there some medications these people can take to help with this problem.

    I see some really good skits on SNL if they have the guts, or if they're allowed to by their GE taskmasters. I think showing how completely insane these people are might be just the medicine they need.

    Great title. (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    Today, according to Huff Post, Clinton is "still in the running."

    Obama is in a deep bind here. (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    If he selects Hillary as VP he will anger all of the younguns' who still believe he is about HOPE, and CHANGE. And of course the Hillary haters as well. However, if he doesn't he will lose more than  40% of her voters (CNN poll).  So what to do? Play like he is vetting all sorts of people and wait and see if the polls show him trailing badly by August, then ask her to climb on board. Bad poll numbers for him in August mean that he is not pulling in the GOP and Indy's (who voted for him in many states, ex. Iowa) and his message is not resonating with those who crossed over for him. That is using her, but hey all's fair in politics, right?

    Shut the f*** up and send Obama more money! (4.66 / 3) (#103)
    by lambert on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    He needs it!

    Seriously, it's the only leverage we have, because it's all they care about, and unlike withholding your vote, withholding your cash works now.

    My God....the b.s. never stops. How about (4.62 / 8) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:29:06 AM EST
    they just put the blame where it belongs....on obama and his continued missteps, flip-flops, whatever you prefer to call it.  Noone knows where obama is coming from; that is the problem.

    Obama followed the money... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    The night before the vote, Sen. Telecom Rockefeller escorted Obama to 2 fundraisers. The first, at his lavish Washington estate replete with caviar, the whole enchilada.
    Would Rockefeller have held those fundraisers if Obama hadn't signaled he was flip flopping on FISA?
    imo - Obama's FISA vote was less about appearing weak on terrorism and more about money. But, it's easier for some to rationalize his vote to prevent the Repubs casting him as a terrorist-lover than admitting the Dems and Obama forego principles for money.

    I Have Heard (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    The same thing from Obama supporters (not cultists) that Hillary would hurt him as VP because she represents the opposite of "change".  I then asked them 'would it affect your vote?', and the unanimous answer was no.

    So those voting for Obama will vote for Obama, period.

    According to Jill Iscol,  a faithful Democratic donor who was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Obama is apparently concerned not about Hillary but about Bill, and whether or not that would add an extra layer of complications to operations in the WH.

    She said:

    "He said, once you're a president, even if you're a former president, you're always a president," Iscol said.

    ....Obama didn't say that Bill Clinton would be a disqualifying factor, but he conveyed that he needed to grapple with what it would mean to have a former president as second spouse.

    Evidentially she walked away thinking that Hillary has a shot.

    Hillary as VP is another issue (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    Yes, that would hurt him among some of his supporters.  But appearing with her at fundraisers hardly rises to the same level.

    Some Of His Supporters? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    I imagine only the hard core cultists that also have CDS would not vote for him with Hillary on the ticket. My guess is that is even a more insignificant number than the Hillary cultists that will never vote for Obama. I agree that his appearing with her is a good thing, whatever anyone says.

    But, Hillary as VP is a big net positive, imo. And I can't blame Obama for being worried about the big dog. Having an ex president around would certainly be a factor that would weigh into my final decision for VP, if I were the nominee.

    Of course I would go for it in a heartbeat, with only minor palpitations over Bill.  


    The problem I have with the Anti-Bill (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    argument is that it's a talking point/excuse for not  having Hillary on the ticket, not a reason.

    Yes, Bill is a former POTUS.  Yes, that brings up issues that have never been faced by a current POTUS.  But if Obama has the hubris to claim he can change politics itself, then working things out with Bill is a minor although novel snag, not the end of the world.  I mean, what Bill going to do -- rush the floor of the Senate, grab the mike and declare war on Canada or something?

    Every potention VP has equal 'baggage' in one form or another, but the Bill Baggage is repeated ad nauseum.

    I didn't notice Bill getting all up in Hillary's Senate business.  And he has nothing left to prove now, he'll all about his charity.


    Ugh, Preview is my friend (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    that's 'what's Bill going to do' not 'what'

    and 'Every potential' not 'Every potention'

    and 'he's all about' not 'he'll all about'

    Need stimulants....


    Thanks...you saved me a trip to the (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    dictionary...although I kinda like potention... :)

    Not Analogous, IMO (2.00 / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    I didn't notice Bill getting all up in Hillary's Senate business.

    The senate is small fish for the big dog. I am all for Hillary as VP but to suggest that Obama, or any potential POTUS who was considering selecting Hillary as VP should not think twice about Bill in the WH as a VP spouse, because he is busy with his charity,  is simply unrealistic, imo.

    Had he stayed out of her campaign, because he was busy with his charity work and had nothing left to prove, you might have had a more believable argument..


    BC seems stepped back to me (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    He went back to work and isn't even around.  He doesn't seem to be involved in the negotiations going on between the two camps.  I already wrote that Obama would need a guarantee BC would be busy with his foundation... BC's proving it right now.   My concern is if he comes back into the media for anything other than being mentioned for his work.

    Actually it's very simple, and you're wrong: (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    Think of the value that any spouse adds in the WH. What does Michele add? Very little, and Obama says he doesn't want to use her at all.
    What does Bill Clinton add? Tons---he's a huge asset. If Obama is so small a man that he can't have  Bill in the White House too, then he's not really Presidential material, is he?
    It goes the other way: choosing Hillary, and planning to use Bill, gives a hint that he has the largeness of spirit needed for the job.

    Oh no! It's Mr. Bill! (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by lmv on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.  (Apologies to the kids who missed Bill Murray on SNL.)

    Mark - I agree 100%.

    Having a former POTUS, the only Democrat re-elected in decades, as an informal adviser should be a no-brainer.  The idea that Bill is a "complication" is the worst kind of sexist drivel.  The Obama campaign should be ashamed of Michelle's unwarranted innuendo about "keeping your own house" and other unseemly references.    

    I guess I just miss peace and prosperity, that kind of old politics.  


    As One of His Supporters (none / 0) (#79)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:40:45 AM EST
    I have to say I've mellowed on the issue of Clinton as his veep. It was never a deal breaker for me. But I had initial misgivings.

    I've never hated Senator Clinton, although I got pretty provoked and angered by her and her campaign at times during the primaries. That's long gone and if she were to be the nominee, I'd be most worried by the Repubs resurrecting all those primary sound bites where she questioned Obama's competency for the office.

    I am mystified, though, when people don't get it that having a former president as the spouse of a current VP is something reasonable to explore as an issue. And it is not a knock on the Clintons to do so. If anything, it's a testament to the strength of Bill's legacy.

    If it were Barbara Bush in Hillary's place (!), it wouldn't matter as much. Pappy Bush has long since given up his bully pulpit as ex-prez. (And even if he hadn't, who would be listening, really?)

    Worrying about the gravitational pull of an ex president like Bill Clinton, though, whose brand is still dynamic and who still commands the international stage whose influence can be considerable, just seems pragmatic.

    ANY president (including Senator Clinton--maybe, especially Senator Clinton) would have to be concerned about how to construct things for the best results and the fewest snafus. It's uncharted territory, after all.


    IF there was a real discussion going (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    on about the difficulties of having a VP with an FPOTUS as a spouse, and the discussion included considerations both for and against, or (gasp!) discussion of how it could be worked out, then I would agree with your point.

    But rather it's just the sheep bleating.  'But Bill!' has replaced 'But she's a monster!' as the mantra.  Even the worst of the CDS crowd has figured out that he needs her donors (if not also her supporters) and that the full frontal attacks have to be reined in now.

    They're just laying the talking point groundwork for keeping her off the ticket with this refrain.  It's the same market research they did through the whole primary -- through out some tpm and see if it gains traction.


    No Doubt About It (4.00 / 1) (#107)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    There are a couple of tracks that co-exist and inter-thread with one another where these kinds of discussions take place.

    You're right. There is a blaring one that gets dominated by the distortions of people with Clinton bashing agendas. The quieter, more thoughtful considerations of how to negotiate this unique situation are not as much "fun" for most of the media and the sharper partisans on all sides and so get lost in the noise.

    If nothing else, an Obama-Clinton ticket would blast McCain-Whomever right out of the water for sheer media over-fascination.


    Problem for Obama is that (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    it makes him look weak to worry about this -- or if it's his supporters' worry, it looks like those who know him best worry that Obama is weak.  A president has a lot worse to worry about than a former president.

    Alternatively, it looks like the "not this woman" whine again -- from those who say that they sure wouldn't have a problem voting for a woman, but it was just that it was this woman . . . but they can't come up with any woman anywhere near her caliber for whom they would vote.  And then to justify the "not this woman," they bring up stuff about her spouse -- so it really is not about her at all, etc.  That exposes a lack of logic that then leaves the only explanation is CDS.

    The argument has to be made based on a potential vice-president's abilities, and that's all.  

    Plus, it opens up a line of argument about other spouses, and why go there?


    Why Go There? (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    Well, I guess, because there's a tradition of 'there' being gone to. Witness John Zaccaro, Geraldine Ferraro's husband.

    Myself, I favor more attention to avoiding even the hint of conflicts of interest rather than giving presidential or vice presidential spouses a pass. I'm wondering if Cindy McCain's current working life is supposed to continue if her husband was elected. Surely not, but I haven't heard the discussion of that in the MSM yet.

    Ultimately, Obama will look a lot weaker if he chooses a running mate with unforeseen baggage, or if he doesn't realistically prepare for the potential pitfalls. I'm thinking about Eagleton.

    I'd hope the vetting and examining of scenarios would occur in private, but leaks will occur. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done thoroughly and realistically.

    Myself, I never advocated Obama choosing a woman other than Hillary (or Hillary for that matter) as Veep. I don't have a favorite.


    Grace - over what? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    >>>I've never hated Senator Clinton, although I got pretty provoked and angered by her and her campaign at times during the primaries

    Oh, Josey (none / 0) (#112)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    I lurked here for a while before signing up, and one of the things I committed to when I did sign up was not to come here and 'pick fights'.

    This was (and is) a site with far more Clinton supporters than supporters of any other primary candidate (esp. Obama) and I've seen the arguments that develop over who was more slimed, and whether the evil one supporter saw perpetrated by the other campaign was 'real' or 'true.'

    Frankly, I'm not carrying that grievance around with me any more. I only mention it from time to time to illustrate where I once stood in relation to HRC and her campaign and where I stand today.

    I prefer, when commenting on Senator Clinton, to focus on the things I respect about her: her formidable grasp of policy, her awesome stamina for campaigning and her dedication to public service.

    For the record, during the primaries, I probably felt more disgust and enmity for Wolfson and, especially, Penn than I ever felt for Senator Clinton. It was their comments, I think, that annoyed me the most.


    ok - thanks (none / 0) (#119)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    My argument for Bill... (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    was... he has a job with his foundation and would still be focused on it.  For me, this is an area where he has built a legacy and maintains power.  I didn't agree he would dump it.

    I thought the Obama campaign should get a guarantee that he would keep doing the work he does and give him ambassador type tasks if they mesh with his work.  I could be very wrong, but I thought Bill's focus was getting Clinton elected not himself in the White House.

    I hope your data with regards to Clinton as VP is correct, as I remember during the primary that Clinton supporters polled higher at having Obama on the ticket than the Obama supporters willing to have Clinton on the ticket.  That's a change if true and gives Obama some room if he wants to pick Clinton.


    Could Be An Incredible Twofer (none / 0) (#114)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    in the best case scenario.

    In the real world of complications, there's certainly the potential for problems.


    So This Is About His Supposed (1.16 / 6) (#30)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    Flip flop on HRC (You'd never know by some of these posts)?

    I agree only if the the same could be said for HRC. She hated his guts and is now saying what a terrific guy he is. Total B.S.

    This is about his hypocrisy (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:49:48 AM EST
    since Obama is supposed to be the pol that doesn't do that pol stuff.  

    This is about him.  And you're supposed to get over it about her.  Really, your comments sounds a bit obsessive.


    Wait . . . (1.00 / 3) (#35)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:24 AM EST
    what? I'm pretty sure this was about that person writing the article who had the "audacity" to imply that embracing HRC is political flip flop and that his zombie supporters all think the way the author does.

    Obsessive? How so? And what am I supposed to be getting over and why? I honestly don't understand where you're coming from on that.


    You can't see it. I see that now (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    from your other replies here.  So I will leave you alone, very alone, in your worldview.

    you go ahead (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    and do that :)

    Cream...you probably know site rules (none / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    better than most....at what point does one become a chatterer?

    Yeh, my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    but I checked the comment policy, and this one meets some of the conditions but not all.  A clever one.

    But click on comment policy and see what you see.  I didn't think it through a lot, not wanting to waste more time on this one.


    Along with some others, I believe he is (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    best ignored.... :)

    She was never (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    as insulting to him as he was to her. In fact she criticized his policies, not him personally.

    While all he did was attack her personally.


    Beware of absolutes. (1.00 / 4) (#39)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    Still, it was obvious that both didn't like each other, and for him to embrace her and act like nothing happened is just as much donkey doo as her embracing him and acting like nothing happened.

    Actually, no. (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    Still, it was obvious that both didn't like each other,

    It's politics, which can be nasty without being personal.  I think you're projecting your biases on their relationship.


    Ha, you're kidding, right? (1.33 / 3) (#44)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    Whatever, free country. I think you're projecting your biases on my opinion, which has been stated enough, so I won't yet again repeat myself.

    So it's your opinion (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    that they don't like each other?

    I see. I'll file it with all the other ones then.


    I keep hearing this (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    from O supporters - how she "slimed" him and threw all sorts of negative campaigning at him.

    No one has ever been able to point to an actual example, though.

    So yeah, I think you're projecting.


    Everything but the kitchen sink (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by dianem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    That was what Obama repeated (over and over and over again). It was based on something an anonymous Clinton "aide" said to a reporter about how Clinton was using a "kitchen sink" strategy against Obama, at around the same time that the media decided to take Drudge on faith that a "Clinton staffer" had sent him a photograph of Obama wearing African garb (in spite of the fact that the photo had been circulating on right wing sites before it appeared on Drudge). Obama, who had been proclaiming himself Mr. Nice Guy, claimed that he was now officially justified in attacking Clinton and began openly attacking her for her supposed dirty campaigning against him. Once Obama officially established himself as the victim candidate, he was free to attack over anything he wanted and be considered justified in doing so, while Clinton couldn't open her mouth to say anything about Obama without being criticized as a bully.

    I have to agree with Obama's supporter's that he ran an excellent campaign in terms of gaining sympathy from voter's and making his opponent look bad. If Clinton had run a slightly more ruthless (aka "better") campaign herself, she might have won. I only wish his campaign had been equally good in terms of expressing his true ideals and positioning himself well for the general election, so that there was no need for him to reverse course on so many things he had previously claimed to support in order to do have a shot at winning.


    Ok. (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    I understand and respect where you're coming from.

    Never did I say (1.50 / 2) (#45)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    anywhere that she "slimed" him. There was, however, negative campaigning on both sides.

    Honestly, I don't care what you think. I don't know who you are, so why should I sit here and judge you? Who are you, and for that matter who am I? I do know what I think, and I've already stated my opinion about this particular blog post, and there's no need to repeat myself. It's right there, in black and white.


    You said (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    She hated his guts and is now saying what a terrific guy he is. Total B.S.

    You made a statement of fact, not opinion. You provide nothing to back this up and no credible rebuttal to all the posts pointing out that your statement is false.

    Please, show me some proof that she ever "hated his guts."


    It was an opinion, (1.33 / 3) (#51)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    regardless of whether or not you believe to know exactly what I think.

    But since, In My Opinion, you're waiting to hear this, I'll go ahead and bite. I can't give you specific proof to back up my state, which was an opinion, but I can give you my perceptions of the primary season which lead me to the conclusion, which is by the way an opinion. I perceived awkward body language, I noticed negative campaigning which I perceived to be personal, or not related to his policies at times, and I noticed her supporters, whom I perceived and noticed as not liking him or not trusting him or believing him to be presidential affirmative action, and when she didn't directly call out these moments, (just as when some HRC supporters attribute BHO's lack of action on the media sexism to him personally) I could only come to the conclusion that she condoned (sp?) these thoughts and perhaps believed them herself.

    Since I am way off topic, I feel forced to reiterate my opinion about the post: please see original post


    But no specifics. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    So your "opinion" is based on nothing but what goes on inside your head.

    Thanks, that's all I needed to know.


    I just gave you a specific (none / 0) (#62)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    in the post above. Your refusal to see what's in front of you and assume what goes on inside my little head is all I need to know.

    I am basing my opinion on perceptions, by the way, which is not nothing. For me to say, "I think Leif Erikson Day is the most important holiday of the year," and someone asks me "Why?" and I say, "I don't know," would be basing my opinion on nothing. I specifically and annoyingly repeated that I am basing my opinions on perceptions and the subsequent conclusions. I gave you one specific, and in my opinion (God!), you are trying to goad me into naming something that I perceived as negative or personal so that you can go on the attack and say that I am just looking to be offended or that is nothing compared to what BHO such and such or some crap like that. Where will that get us? WTF are we arguing over opinions for? I'm just trying to make my own opinion known. That's it. Period. I have an opinion, it is based on perceptions (which make it an opinion), and I don't give a flying flip on what you seem to think what goes on in my head. I don't even know who you are.

    Say what you want, but I'm done with this petty crap. My opinion has been put  out there and I'm done. Da jia, Zai Jian.


    Going back to the original point, though... (4.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    ...regardless of how Clinton and Obama felt or may feel about each other on a personal level, on a policy level both have admitted that they are very close. So Kinsley's ridiculous point that Obama "embracing" Clinton is a flip-flop remains total BS.

    Unless, of course, new politics means that one's personal likes or dislikes for people are what should dictate whom they support or work with on public policy. I seriously doubt that's what Obama meant, which is why I think that Kinsley is a fool.


    Sorry, I'm getting my threads confused.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    ...Kinsley is still a fool, but the Clinton flip flop remarks were not his. Those pearls are from the good folks at Newsweek.

    Thank you for saying this, (2.00 / 0) (#66)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    apparently I didn't make my statement clear enough. Obama hasn't flipped or flopped on embracing Clinton. I mean, how is that even possible? The whole notion is just garbage.

    we know you by your words here. (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    so far you assume hillary hates obama's "guts" and that she slimed him. then you wonder how could they possibly support each other now? i'd say that is rather naive. that is my view only. as btd puts its, "pols are pols". they get out there and campaign and sometimes it is tough. that is politics. you need to see the difference. i don't think you will but i put it out there.

    I never said nor do I think she slimed him (2.50 / 2) (#75)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    You assume that I think Obama is incapable of doing no wrong, that I'm young and naive, and that I'll just say anything to justify my rabid hatred for Hillary. You seem to think that I believe that all of the negative campaigning was personal, and it was just as simple as "they didn't like each other." That, after all, is how all Obama supporters think, isn't it? Personally, I wish Obama would've been nastier to put to death the talk that he wasn't tough enough to beat the so-called Republican Machine. You need to understand that there are actually people who support Obama that don't fit your personal stereotype. I don't think you will but i put it out there.

    "words matter" i made assumptions (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    by your comments. i see no reason in your response to think otherwise. you have a nice day!

    curious (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Amiss on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    I've already stated my opinion about this particular blog post, and there's no need to repeat myself.

    Then why must you keep on repeating yourself?


    I've repeated my original statement/point only (3.00 / 1) (#124)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    once or twice. That is what I'm referring to. The reason I'm referring to it is to actually try to stay on topic. But I guess you guys are determined not to let me do that, hm?

    I missed HIllary giving Obama the (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    finger, or telling audiences over and over that he would "say anything to win".

    She consistenly said she (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    would do whatever it took to promote the democratic candidate.  She consistently said she would campaign her heart out for Barack.  She is doing exactly what she said she was going to do all along.  Is the fact that her words and her  actions are aligned difficult to grasp?

    Aura release (none / 0) (#3)
    by koshembos on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:29:37 AM EST
    I am sure that Hillary haters, of which the faux-left has aplenty, do believe that embracing the devil is a major sin. After all they are not much different the Dobson and Robertson.

    In reality, Obama's first dealing with actual leading as opposed to talking and talking, whether it is a real reversal such as FISA or not, will damage the aura of a messianic leader. By the time November comes around Change will be long gone and everyone, except the faux-left, will have to deal with concrete ideas Obama have to offer.

    Obama has a long way to go until November and I have no idea where he'll land. I am clear from 2007 that he is not a progressive, but how much to the right he really is is not clear. He is lucky to run against an empty suit, McCain, and should win in November.

    McCain is no empty suit. He is not (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    a maverick, but he does have a long history and so his record can be examined.  Obama made sure he abstained or was out of town on many votes, so his is more sketchy.  To me McCain seems like a true conservative, but he is so busy twisting his message to reach all of his potential....oh wait, that is Obama.  Now I'm all mixed up.

    I am now convinced (none / 0) (#5)
    by crabbydan on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:32:50 AM EST
    that the problems we have are due  to corrupt and clueless politicians. God gave more brains to turtles!

    true but they want to be clueless. (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    denial is not just a river in egypt. they are running after power and money on both sides. otherwise why would a democratic congress have lower poll numbers than bush.

    Maybe not with Obama supporters (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:42:59 AM EST
    but more with Hilary Supporters.  Maybe that is what he should of said.  Of course when you hear Obama say things like I heard  the other day , " I desperately need her" (Hilary) then fine, make her your VP otherwise why put on this charade if the only thing you want is Hilary's voters.  I could not do that if I was Obama.  I would have to do this on my own.    It so blatant against everything Obama stood for as he makes these flip flops.  I am surprised he still has the original Obama supporters.

    As theses changes or flip flops continue the Rep and the 527 are gatherng so much ammunition to use against Obama.


    Obama the candidate of change.  Yeah that's right he changes on a daily basis.

    He still has his original supporters because of (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by leis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:54:16 AM EST
    the simple fact that he still isn't Clinton. And that unfortunately, was always what this was about.

    Simple Fact That He Still Isn't Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    Most Obama supporters aren't Hillary haters as has been proven time and again by polling that showed most of them would accept Clinton if she won the nomination.

    He has morphed into a Hilary politician. (2.66 / 3) (#13)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:01:26 AM EST
    If true then why say things like I need herdesperately. Like he did the other day.  He is no longer that different politician he always claimed to be.  He has become the same type of politician Hilary was from day one.

    Um. (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:10:41 AM EST
    He always was the same kind of politician, and many of us weren't fooled by his or his supporters' claims to the contrary.

    He hoodwinked and bamboolzed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:17:15 AM EST
    many of the voters on who he really is.  If you think he has not change from the type of Mr.different holier than thou politician he started out to be to what he has become then you are in denial like many of his supporter are.

    Sorry wrong reply (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:18:35 AM EST
    He never was the different politician he (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by leis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:13:02 AM EST
    claimed to be.  Smoke and mirrors for a group of people who needed another Democrat to help justify their hatred of Hillary. And even though for all intents and purposes she is out of the race, they still can't let her go.  

    You know, (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    all this is doing is hardening people's opinions about him and wistfulness about Hillary.

    It's a slow bleed that doesn't bode well for November.


    If Axelrod hadn't gamed the caucus (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    system and DNC turned Michigan over to Obama, he might be a more legitmate candidate. This whole idea that the system was gamed and now we see who he really is....THAT is the problem.

    and those two facts (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    coupled with his recent stunningly inept flip-flops are turning more and more Democrats away from him and toward their couches come November.

    If they're running neck-and-neck at that time (something I'm beginning to suspect won't be the case, sadly), a couple million couch-sitters could easily determine who sits in the Oval Office.


    No (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    He's the type of politician who lies about what type of politician he is.

    That's not like Hillary at all.


    Actually Hillary looks pretty good (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    at this point. She was honest, she stood as an FDR Democrat, wanting to make government work for the material well being of its citizens, bringing back fairness into government.  Look at who supported her.  Now lets see about Obama: independents, disaffected (maybe) GOP, first time voters, and people making over 150K.  What does that say about him?

    Too much stereotyping going on (none / 0) (#128)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    hmmm! it must not suit your goals. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    i can't agree. he is a chicago politican. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    if he were a hillary politican, his poll numbers would be very high instead of barely there.

    Accrording to Howard Wolfson he's not vetting her (none / 0) (#8)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:49:21 AM EST
    I've also seen a new deluge of pundits, Republican ones, attack her. All at the same time, the word is out going around, i.e. Wolfson says he's not vetting her. Frankly add the Brandenburg Gate request, the change of venue for his acceptance speech and WHOEVER said Hillary's ego and presence would undo HIM???

    If only "THE BODY" were running for PREZ: we'd get rid of the press entirely, lobbyists and you know what ALL THE OLD WASH STYLE POLITICS OBAMA SAYS HE HATES.

    This is the change we were waiting for...

    How long (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoulin4 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    before you are no longer a "new" poster? Just want to know.

    email jeralyn! (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    i am sure she'll be looking at your comments and getting back with you. it is after all her blog.

    No bind, just an important decision... (none / 0) (#113)
    by mrmobi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    If he selects Hillary as VP he will anger all of the younguns' who still believe he is about HOPE, and CHANGE. And of course the Hillary haters as well. However, if he doesn't he will lose more than  40% of her voters (CNN poll).

    IMHO, I doubt there are very many Obama supporters who would be angered by his selecting Hillary as VP. There are lots of reasons why I think she would be the very best pick, among them that the campaign would already know what the disinformation machine of the Republicans would be throwing at them. That's an important advantage, I think. On the downside, while vetting Hillary is already done, the campaign must make sure that there are no "surprises" in Bill Clintons' financial dealings in funding his Presidential Library. If Obama does pick Hillary, expect the usual suspects to be demanding Bill "come clean" on his Presidential Library funding. It will provide a nice distraction from the actual issues.

    Second, if you believe that CNN poll, or any poll at this point, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Polls will begin to matter as we get closer. (re: after the conventions) While I have no doubt that many in here will not vote for Obama, I doubt strongly that 40% of actual Democrats who were Hillary supporters would sit this out or vote for McCain. It's one thing to hate Obama, it's another thing entirely to shoot yourself (and the country) in the foot while calling it a "protest."

    FISA is a bigger deal, certainly, but her camp (none / 0) (#120)
    by halstoon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    is not the only ones who got sincerely angry during the primary. Some of his supporters may be upset that he is now embracing her, especially after all the talk about it being time to move past the '90s, ie, the Clintons. I don't imagine it's a whole bunch, but certainly some of his supporters think he's not doing enough on that moving on front.

    Me? I'm not in that group. I think he should make nice with the Clintons. But then again I knew all along that Barack was no dyed-in-the-wool liberal, so I understand how he has been consistent in his views, despite the attempts here and elsewhere to make him a flip-flopper, FISA excluded, since he did flip, though he explained why to my personal satisfaction.

    Hillary on Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    The fact is any speculation that Hillary "hates" Barack is tenuous at best. The public comments she has made that remotely bear on her personal opinion of Barack have been laudatory. She has said things like "proud to be on the same stage with him". And this is before the primaries ended. Since then in public appearances with him, she has not only spoken well of him (which can been seen as "politics") but I would argue that her body-language, her smile, etc. have shown that on a personal level,  she does not "hate" or even dislike him. I am sure she wishes she was the nominee and not him. I  am sure she has gotten over it at this point. And the fact is, her campaign did not "slime" him. If you want to see an example of sliming, look at how Axelrod & Burton exploited Hillary's awkwardly-worded RFK statement, and worked overtime making sure the media would interpret this as Hillary "wishing" for Obama's demise. Nothing remotely close to this came from the Clinton campaign. But,  again, this is politics. I can see why Obama would approach the idea of Hillary as his VP with some trepidation, in spite of the obvious benefits. And it is Bill Clinton. whom I admire very much, who is a good reason for trepidation. As a former President,  at some point he would be asked to comment on the actions of a President Obama. And at some point he would comment. And the media would parse his words to find some "criticism" of Obama there. And then there would be the endless specualtion: is this what Hillary thinks as well?

    if some of these silly "hate" each other (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    pundits and supporters ever said bull like that to jfk, he'd have laughed at them and rightly so. pols work together all over the world who might not truly like the other. who give a happy damx! i want them to work for us.

    Newsweak (none / 0) (#122)
    by Miri on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    Where were you in the 90s?

    Newsweak is a Clinton hating organ. During the 90s they were Kenneth Starr's house organ. Their "star journalist" Isikoff colluded with Starr and Tripp setting up the Clinton entrapment.

    New poster (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    versus chatterer.... I thought new poster the least restrictive route to go.  06/09, 06/10, 06/13, 06/17 and today (5 days is 'new')  Others noted the chattering.  If someone is a listed as a 'chatterer' I believe it's permanent.

    correct (4.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    a chatterer is permanent. One doesn't have to be new to become a chatterer.