More Signs Hillary Won't Be the VP Candidate

The group Vote Both is shutting down:

The two former Clinton staffers who started the group Vote Both say Obama's decision to offer Clinton a prime-time speaking role at the Democratic Party nominating convention and other signals suggest Obama will not chose her.

"Because it seems that Senator Obama has made his decision to offer the slot on the ticket to another candidate, we believe that continuing to ask him to pick Hillary is no longer helpful to our party's chances of winning in November," Adam Parkhomenko and Sam Arora wrote in an e-mail they planned to send Thursday to the 40,000-plus supporters who signed onto their online petition.

Hillary is likely to speak on the second night of the convention, August 26, which is the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving the women the right to vote. Here's my recap of what it was when she spoke at the 2004 convention in Boston.

Obama's acceptance speech is on August 28, which is the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" Speech, which by the way, included this line:

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Update: Lanny Davis makes a final pitch for Hillary -- like a last chance college try. Too late I think.

< Obama's Plan for the 75,000 at Invesco Field: Get to Work | Is Kaine a Smokescreen for Kathleen Sebelius? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:25:31 PM EST
    You'd think they would stay up through the official veep announcement.

    The world is upside down. (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Lysis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:32:21 PM EST
    The woman who earned 18 million votes is considered not good enough, while an anti-choice first-term governor who isn't even popular in his own state leads the pack.

    I agree about Hillary. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:53:53 PM EST
    I'm not satisfied with the ladies night. Just throwing us a bone.

    As far as Kaine, we only have first-term governors because they can only serve one term. He has held other elected positions previously. He's more popular than you would think if you only read blogs.  Most folks who live here like him. He's an affable guy. He's just not a Progressive. He would never have been elected here if he was. This is still a reddish purple state.


    Yeah, here's an interesting take on Kaine (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:03:58 AM EST
    that probably somewhat explains why he's being considered:
    Suffice to say, I'm really, really unexcited about any prospects of him as Vice President.

    But if the only measuring stick is, "how good of a stump candidate for Vice President" would Kaine be, I'd have to say excellent. He can speak in Spanish, delivers red-meat to the base without becoming too partisan or overshadowing Obama, and can honestly tell a real-life story of flipping conservative states red-to-blue.

    He's one of the worst choices for anyone who cares about policy, but is a damn good choice for anyone who only cares about politics.

    Interesting post. Thanks. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    Raising Kaine is really on a mission to bash Kaine. Suppose they are bored now that they don't have Hillary to bash. Sorta surprising since Kaine is such a rah-rah Obama supporter. Lowell is mini-Kos to me now.

    I agree that Kaine would complement Obama on the ticket. Politics will probably trump policy but that's usually the case. Maybe someday...


    yes, because if for some reason (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:44 AM EST
    he had to take over for Obama, this guy would be the one that Obama supporters would really want as president because of that little policy thingy.

    I think that both (none / 0) (#85)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:06:09 AM EST
    will agree on economic poilicy though. I think that is very important to Obama. Remember that in Ohio Obama made the statement that "America needs to move away from a blue collar economy to a white collar economy." My sense is that Kaine would agree with him on that.

    He ain't that popular (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:31:49 AM EST
    I live in SW Virginia and I don't know a single soul that sings his praises. He got where he is on Warner's coattails and since taking office has done little to laud.

    I doubt I'll vote for him or Obama and I certainly won't be manning any booths or running around singing their praises to neighbors.


    You know, this is nothing new (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:52:06 AM EST
    for good women.  Women are never good enough.  Hillary could have raced him around the Capitol, dropped 100 3-point basketball shots in 60 minutes, cooked his breakfast while she was doing that, and responded to all his constituent mail at the same time -- and he would have said that she didn't make advantageous use of her time.

    Anyone who thinks women are equal to men hasn't lived long enough.    


    You hit the nail on the head.... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:31:36 AM EST
    Sad but very true.
    The boys club around the country is now sarcastic and nasty about it.  I feel like I am reliving my adolescence when I go on some  blogs.  There was a diary on one blog that seriously had a "Boys are cool, girls droll...." mentality.  Former right wings sexist neocons have been given the welcome wagon treatment and are cheered for trashing Hillary or any woman who cares about sexism.



    The fact that Obama didn't give Hillary the (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:15:54 AM EST
    opportunity to say NO to the VP position shows lack of courtesy, generosity, respect, and grace (personality traits I so admired in Bill Clinton) IMO

    incl. the fact that she wasn't asked first before talking "short list" in public

    and the fact that Hillary Clinton - who had 18 Mil people voting for her - wasn't even on his short list at all AFAIK seems a mockery to me. A mockery.

    Those are all the latest dealbreakers for me (which will cost him in the vote department)
    although not really since for me the deal was broken months ago.

    just saying -


    If you have watched obama, at all, you (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    know he is lacking in all those areas you mentioned.  And one of Bill's best traits, empathy, is NOT to be found in obama at all.  It is like he is lacking a soul.

    Yes, Empathy! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    you said, PssttCmere08!

    It's America's loss.... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST

    Lanny Davis had an OpEd in today's WSJ (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    Poor guy, he tried. I googled him and emailed him a couple thank-yous when he was advocating for Hillary. He was very effective.

    Had he picked Hillary, it would be a tough (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:38:53 PM EST
    decision. I can't vote against her. But he doesn't appear to listen or be open to listening to people he doesn't like.

    Same here. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Lysis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    My plan was to just go in and look at the VP name.  I can always vote for Hillary.  

    That Kaine is even being considered, let alone being on top of the shortlist, is unbelievable to me.

    If he goes with Kaine, Obama's supporters can remove the Supreme Court from their nearly empty bag of tricks.

    I'm sure NARAL will explain to us why an anti-choice man a heartbeat away from the presidency furthers the cause.  


    Cindy McCain wrote about Rwanda's Women (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:48:44 PM EST
    leading the country back after the genocide there. I'll bet they roll out more women than we expect at their convention.

    Obama's team is still playing on their turf. Guys, get out from between our legs already and talk about women in leadership positions.


    Women will be all over the place (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:59:39 PM EST
    The Democratic Party will put on the biggest "We Love Women" show in party history. They have to, since they have shown no interest whatsoever in actually opposing sexism in the real world. Will women buy it? Probably some will. But some, like me, saw what the party really cares about, and it ain't women. Families, yes. Minorities, yes. Independents, yes. Women in power, fighting for other women... not so much. Well, maybe they'll want to fight for my vote now that I'm an independent.

    Yup, a big farce (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:34:36 AM EST
    I'll tivo Hillary's night and watch her only.  I wouldn't watch a second of the convention if she weren't giving a speech.

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:58:15 AM EST
    Me too.  As I've written before, Thursday night (when Obama gives his greatest acceptance speech ever), is the start of college football.  My TV will be tuned to ESPN that night....

    I'm a woman too (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:04:41 AM EST
    but I'm old enough now to wear a purple hat and say "F you!" when they don't do what I want.  

    I wish this was a marginal issue for me but it isn't.  Hillary would have at least balanced out the Obamarama "I don't know what I'm dooooooing" thing I keep hearing with my 7th sense.  This is the weakest candidate the Democrats have put up in years and years and years.  Seriously.    


    They'll make Hillary do the women's night (none / 0) (#13)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02:39 AM EST
    That is going to be awkward - Pelosi, McKaskill (sp?), Sebelius, and Hillary. Of course also Feinstein and people who DID support Hillary.

    No Woman's Night (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:08:16 AM EST
    It's wrong. It puts us into the category of "minority who needs to be appeased", instead of recognizing that we are half the population, cross ALL racial lines, and deserve to be co-leading the convention, not being given a nice table to sit at while the big boys make all of the serious decisions.

    I'm so very tired of men making all of the big decisions. When is it our turn?


    Dianem... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:54:09 AM EST
    it's your turn now.

    You decide whether or not, once again, to enable the 'big boys' by giving them your vote.

    I say no.  Won't even consider it unless Hillary is on the ticket.  That would indicate that the 'get rid of the Clintons' scheme had failed.  That I would reinforce.

    Otherwise?  No.


    Sigh (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:42:42 AM EST
    I thought that before I died, I would see women actually living as equals in this society.  I believed President Hillary Clinton would be the first step on that road.  
    I have been waiting since the first time I was told "No, girls are not allowed to .........(fill in the blank.) back in 1955 as a little kid wanting to play baseball, wanting to take more science and math and even, egad!! mechanical drawing instead of home economica!!!!

    I remember being talked down to during the 60s when trying to enter serious discussions about politics....and strategy.  I remember being told  "You don't understand!" and feeling really uncomfortable asserting that I did.

    Now I suspect, at 62, the chances of seeing the change that should have happened 20 years ago, will not happen while I am still alive.


    Now, instead of "no girls allowed" (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    ...we're getting "Girls are allowed, as long as the boys approve of them". It's worse, actually. We can join the party if we get their permission first, if we are not too dominant or assertive, or "masculine". We can get in as long as we wear skirts instead of pant suits and act humble and don't challenge their leadership and don't make waves.

    I still remember the fuss over Clinton's headbands. That may seem trivial, but... this woman was working at a law firm to support her husband, who was in a low paid job (governor or Arkansas was not a big money position, believe it or not), she was leading numerous charity groups, sitting on various boards, and raising a daughter... and the public wanted her to provide cookie recipes and have her hair done professionally and wear more make-up. It was as if we had slipped back to 1950, where women did housework perfectly coiffed and wearing heels and pearls.


    Not advocating Repubs (none / 0) (#12)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:59:52 PM EST
    Just saying they are being stealthy, which should surprise noone.

    they will explain it (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    the same way they have been all along

    "Obama '08, he's not as bad as McCain"


    I'm sure NARAL won't mind. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:59:48 PM EST
    I'm sure NARAL will explain to us why an anti-choice man a heartbeat away from the presidency furthers the cause.  

    I have two words for you:  Nancy Keenan

    What's wrong with Nancy Keenan, you ask?

    Jane Hamsher can answer that for you.  Link here


    Again, the question begging for more attention (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:28:53 AM EST
    Why is Teh Most Awsummest Candidate Ever even within 8 % of Bush 2.0?

    He's acting like that's not within kissing distance of the MOE. How Arrogant, Entitled and Rude does he have to act before we're allowed to call him on it?

    He can nominate anyone he damn well pleases to the VP; he's not going to win, not if this is indicative of his decision making.

    So Angry, I'm ready to check out and Not Care anymore.

    within 8% ???? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:37:44 AM EST
    Find me a poll from TODAY that shows Obama up by 8.  The three I see on RealClearPolitics show +7, +4 and +2.  And the 4 and 2 come with downward arrows from where they were two days ago.

    I was being generous (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    I didn't want someone coming in with 'But but but his numbers are much higher because of poll A and poll B' and then using that to distract from the meat of the question.

    Why is Obama struggling to keep these barbarians at bay?


    ok, so I'm listening to CNN (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:31:59 AM EST
    again and they are talking about Clinton NOT getting the nod for VP.  And, once again they are talking about Obama's worry that he could be "eclipsed" by her.  And, they are also saying that a presidential nominee doesn't want to have people confused about who is at the top of the ticket.

    Now, if this is what the Obama camp really thinks,  jut what does that say about their own level of confidence in their guy?

    If Obama is the "One".  And the "be all and end all" his supporters claim, and as Chris Matthews puts it, the world's gift to the US, how could Hillary or ANY pick possibly eclipse him?

    wow! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:28:37 AM EST
    if that's the discussion over at CNN -- and God bless you for watching, 'cause I just can't these days --, then Obama's campaign is in bigger doo-doo than I thought.

    How strong is the Candidate if people are talking about who WON'T eclipse him as VP?  Sheesh!  Not exactly what the Obama Team had in mind for their Message of the Day, right?


    Obama campaign never gets outraged (none / 0) (#21)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:37:55 AM EST
    over those statements. Probably wise, it would call more attention to them.

    he could instantly make thm go away (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:09:17 AM EST
    One announcement. "Hillary Clinton is my Vice Presidential running mate." Instantly he goes from "coward afraid of being dominated by a woman" to "confident uniter of the Democratic Party".  

    Pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:34:16 AM EST
    but why ruin our chances of ruining our glorious losing streak? /snark

    Ahem.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:57:31 AM EST
    That's our winning streak, (though it could be confused with a losing streak since nothing seems to be getting accomplished...)  

    From where I'm sitting (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:10:14 AM EST
    We won by default last time and I daresay the electorate have had their faith restored with a Congress that has pretty much sat on its hands(in between applauding the idea that government spying on citizens is good).

    This whole thing is so staged it's sick (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:39:24 AM EST
    the minute they booked the stadium, it was over (imo). Okay, imo, it was over way before that in the game playing aspect, but it still makes me incredibly sad that it is happening.

    Eriposte has a great post (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:40:46 AM EST
    bashing a stupid argument from some Obama advisers on why Hillary can't be the VP.

    ...""Mr. Obama's advisers say that a central message of his campaign -- that he would represent a break from the way politics are conducted in Washington -- would be tarnished by the simple act of linking himself to the family that has dominated Democratic politics since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.""

    Well, I can certainly understand why voting for warrantless spying and dutifully seeking post-partisanship all the time is definitely a "break from the way politics are conducted in Washington" whereas doing largely the opposite is the very embodiment of Beltway mentality. ...

    you just don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:51:38 AM EST
    that you can have a "central message" without actually having the same set of "central actions".

    I understand.. (none / 0) (#34)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:40:51 AM EST
    the quote was sarcastic.

    These people are so stupid (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:08:25 AM EST
    if you said "A nuclear bomb was set 5 minutes ago and the only man who knows the codes is that old man sitting in the corner over there" they would say "Old man?  We don't need an old man!  We represent something new!"

    And the world would blow up.  

    Why is it suddenly fashionable to tolerate idiots?


    We've gotten used to it (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:15:47 AM EST
    It isn't like we haven't had an idiot in charge for the last eight years. It also isn't like the Democratic party has not only "tolerated" that idiot but enabled it for the last eight years. I so want a third party because I am so done with two parties we have. They suck.

    I think both parties suck too (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:02 AM EST
    They don't have our interests in mind when they vote on things.  

    It appears that we are on the verge of another Great Depression style rout but everyone wants to prolong the agony instead of getting it over quickly.  


    Good Point (none / 0) (#81)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    If you were to line up Obama's resume, SANS Race / upbringing, and tell people in 2000 that He would be Teh Second Coming in 2008, they would laugh in your face or scream in outrage.

    After 8 years of Uniter, Obama is ready to cash in on a nation of lowered bars. Good for Him.

    I think I'll see if I can put together a blind comparison of accomplishments and experience without any pesky distractions like Rhetoric and Popular Bands as Opening Acts.


    So it's official then? Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jake Left on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:48:44 AM EST
    has decided he doesn't really want to be president?

    Stupid and arrogant come to mind. Oh, well. Us middle aged, middle income white guys don't suffer as much under the republicans as most others, so I guess I will survive the next four years under mccain.

    I'll vote for Obama. I voted for Gore and Kerry too. Voted for Carter when he lost. Voted for Dukakis. I guess Democrats losing is just too hard a habit to break.

    It will be 9 Repubs of the last 12 terms (none / 0) (#26)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:03:23 AM EST
    Democrats: 3 of the last 12. Unless Obama wins, in which case it will be 4 of 12.

    I'm still hoping it's a fakeout (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:09:24 AM EST
    and he chooses her at the last minute. I'm a dreamer.

    Kaine (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:11:57 AM EST
    would be a deal-breaker for me.

    No embryonic stem cell research just because his particular brand of religiosity forbids it?

    To hell with that.  If Barack Obama chooses this man over the most qualified Democrat in America, he forfeits my vote.

    What I would like to know: How exactly does Obama (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:40:12 AM EST
    want to change how business is conducted in Washington? What is it he (and his VP) are planning to do business in Washington? How? What?

    After 18 months of campaign speeches and interviews, debates and whatever, I still haven't the slightest idea. Until I know that the following statement makes no sense to me:


    "Obama said this week that he wants a running mate who will help him change how business has been conducted in Washington -- seen by many as an indication that he won't pick Clinton."

    Nonstop rock concerts? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:27 AM EST
    That would be a change.

    I think he wants to help his Uncle Dick (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:45:54 AM EST
    by making it even less transparent.  

    This is another reason I don't believe I can vote for him.  


    I used to not like Lanny Davis (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:26 AM EST
    But I have become a fan.  Obama should choose Hillary but he is far too arrogant an individual to ever pick her.  It's his loss.  And the country's.  

    Thanks for linking Lanny's (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Makarov on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:43:42 AM EST
    article. It was excellent, and tears apart the three most cited arguments against her.

    I don't think Obama sees the forest for the trees, though: that there might be a significant number (and in recent elections, 1-2% of the electorate has been rather significant in some states) of voters who decide to sit it out if he picks someone else - and that there is no downside to picking her. Don't pick Hillary - some chance I could lose. Pick Hillary - I'm guaranteed the win. If he's somehow unable to work with her on a personal level, then he doesn't belong in the job to begin with.

    I'm one of those who'd like to believe I will definitely vote for Obama in November. If things go as I predict - Hillary's name not put in nomination, Hillary not chosen as VP - I doubt I will do so. My local rep, the first Dem to hold the seat in over 20 years, who supported Obama before and after his district went for Clinton 2:1, who voted with Nancy et al for the FISA "compromise", may also not earn my vote.

    Which representative is this? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:00:25 AM EST
    Jason Altmire?  

    I was upset when Henry Waxman endorsed Obama after Hillary won our district.  Now it was only by 3% but considering the demographics should have made California's 30th deep Obama territory, that's like a 30-40 point win.


    I was equally upset when (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:14:15 AM EST
    Adam Shiff did the same thing.  Our district also went to Clinton while he endorsed Obama.  

    Waxman has been in office a lot longer than Shiff has been.  I would think that Shiff's seat would be more fragile but he's been good as far as covering his "Armenian district," his political donors that hate copying intellectual property (mostly big money donors) and his rightwing rich folks.  It's a delicate balancing act he has to do --

    But still!  We voted for Clinton!  He should have endorsed Clinton, not Obama!  


    Patrick Murphy (none / 0) (#73)
    by Makarov on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    representing mostly Bucks County in suburban Philadelphia.

    It should be noted (none / 0) (#74)
    by Makarov on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    that he beat 1st term incumbent Mike Fitzgerald (R) in '06 by just 4500 votes. Ironically, Fitzgerald lost because of '00 gerrymandering that added small portions Dem-heavy Montgomery and NE Philadelphia counties to the district. That was an attempt to help out potential Republicans running next door.

    Fitzgerald was hand picked by the local Republican Party after Greenwood (6+ term Republican) abruptly announced his retirement in May '04, after the primary, and went to work for big Pharma.


    Once Obama picks someone other than Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:48:18 AM EST
    we'll see his support start to erode since many people who don't follow the elections closely thought he was going to pick Hillary to run with.  

    Oh well.  

    There is always 2012.  

    You might be right (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:03:53 AM EST
    I'm curious to see if not picking Hillary is considered a snub and if it brings down his poll numbers.  I don't know that we have time for 2012.  Here's the thing though, people keep saying they don't want another 4 years of George Dubya Bush.  I don't know about anyone else but I look at Obama as Dubya, just black and a registered Dem.  

    I'm sure his numbers will fall (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:22:00 AM EST
    A lot of voters (particularly "low information" voters - ha!) thought he would pick Hillary since she came in second.  Since he isn't planning to, they'll have to look at things again.  

    One thing against Obama is that he doesn't come across as an ordinary guy.  He's not good at retail politics.  There are lots of photos of Hillary just mingling with ordinary people and the local TV stations covered it a lot.  You don't see that much with Obama.  His one time out bowling was a total disaster.  (I'll bet, if you asked Hillary to bowl, she could put one down the lane -- not the gutter -- even though she doesn't bowl on a regular basis.)  

    Obama is a celebrity.  


    Depressing....! (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:48:21 AM EST
    Oh, well.  Let them text their hearts out.  

    Blogging Cowards (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:25:51 AM EST
    I always knew the folks at blogs like Dailykos were big talkers, and the second they actually had something to lose on the political stage, they would behave in an even more cowardly fashion than the folks who ran the DLC.

    And I was right.

    When it's the DLC and Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine circa 2006, ...


    then they would call those Dems spineless cowards.  At best they were the past.  Bland politicians no one could ever get excited about.  Nothing to lose their.  Not their necks on the line.  Talk talk talk.

    Now it turns out all those same people who bashed the DLC think bland centrism is exactly what the doctor ordered with respect to Obama.

    All this means is that when there was nothing to lose, they were big talkers.

    Now it's their candidate, and guess what?  they have something to lose.  And they have now outdone the DLC in terms of the sheer velocity with which they have decided to shun political risk.

    You see, the real test of any revolutionary is not how violently they shake their pitchfork when they don't have power, but how they deal with the power once they acquire it.

    And they are always novices.  I laugh at them, because all it takes is a brief perusal of the history of political activism to see this is invariably the case....

    let us now contemplate the following:

    "We need someone boring who won't upstage our candidate."


    mull that over.....

    "We need someone boring who won't upstage our candidate."

    I think Kaine is a smokescreen and (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:33:11 AM EST
    he's going to pick Kathleen Sebelius. I just wrote a very long post with my reasoning, but it's too late at night to proof read and add in the links, so I'll take another look tomorrow. Shorter version: He let rip the "no hillary" "maybe Kaine" ta;k the same week. He's looking for something to anger women more than not picking Hillary and it's the prospect of Kaine. If he ends up with Sebelius, he's counting on a collective sigh of relief from women that he didn't completely abandon them by picking Kaine. There's lots more to my post, but that's the teaser, What do you all think?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53:59 AM EST
    I won't be collectively sighing. Obama doesn't appear to be in touch with his feminine side if he believes women are that easy to manipulate. It's his funeral though.  

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nemo52 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    if he picks ANY woman other than Hillary, he has 18 million seriously annoyed glass cracks to deal with.

    i think (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:07:35 AM EST
    that would an even bigger political mistake.

    I though that feeling was over with (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sociallybanned on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:50:32 AM EST
    ... I am still sad and had teared up when I read the post.  YUP, wholeheartedly agree , America's lost.

    It is possible (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:55:12 AM EST
    that this is still something of a trial balloon.

    If this really is the way they've chosen to communicate the fact that Hillary will not be the pick, it's awfully clumsy, but whatever.

    Here's an interesting post on why it's good (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:12:17 AM EST
    that Hillary NOT be the VP:

    Link to psychodrew's post at Taylor Marsh's site.

    I think this poster makes some excellent points.

    Riding the coat tails of MLK & JFK (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    is a mistake IMO.  It takes away from any originality.  I have always felt Obama used all the beautiful King and Kennedy words as if they were his own.    I do not think Obama is in the same league as King or Kennedy.  Going to Berlin, speaking where Kennedy spoke shows he thinks he is in the same league.  Now he wants to incorporate the words of King in his acceptance speech. He uses JFK and King as a crutch.  He needs to stand on his own.  

    I'm sick of Obama using everyone and everything (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by OxyCon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    I really wish Hillary would not allow herself to be used by Obama, especially after the damage Obama deliberately caused her and husband with the AA community.
    You look at every single move Obama makes, and you will see that all he ever does is use people and locations in order to extract something of importance to himself through the use of symbolism, that he then throws into one of his empty speeches.
    I'm telling you, the guy stays awake at night dreaming about who and what he can use next in a speech in order to make himself look good.

    Hillary Allowing Herself to be Used (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    if there's one thing I know for sure about Hillary Clinton it is this: She does not 'allow herself to be used' by anyone, and even though I am not a Clinton supporter I find that characterization of her silly, if not insulting.

    She is in a hard spot, with Obama as the presumptive nominee and herself as a competitive candidate in the race. Anything she does during the run up to the  GE will be, I'm sure, calculated to do herself and the party the most good in service of her future ambitions. She is doing what savvy politicians have always done. She is not submitting to the will of anyone else.


    Kennedy (3.50 / 2) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:03:16 AM EST
    Ted Kennedy did not want any Clinton near the WH. He wants a beholding President who he can be a mentor. Sorry. But Ted, John, and Tom all lost. It reminds me of a Mother who all her life wanted to be an actress but could not be one. Thus she pushes her daughter to be the person she could not become. When Carolyn Kennedy was announced for the vetting committee, IMO, it was so that she could continue the plan set forth by Uncle Ted. Thus, there can be no Clinton in the WH. In the end, it is all office politics.

    I would never.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by AX10 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    vote for Ted Kennedy.

    WOW (none / 0) (#67)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    did the OBAMA announce that KAINE is the VP pick.... I havent seen that.   All i have seen is people speculating he was the front runner.  Maybe Obama camp is floating his name as a test..or as a smokescreen.  Attacking OBAMA on who some people are PREDICTING is the front runner for VP is crazy to me.

    and (none / 0) (#69)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:03:45 AM EST
    Hillary would have less power and be less effective as VP  than say she would be  as Sect of State  or Sec of the Interior... or HEALTH CZAR...  

    In any of the positions you've mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    she'd have to kowtow to whatever Obama wanted.  It would be a demotion over her current senate seat.  

    so as VP (none / 0) (#72)
    by MrPope on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    So as VP  what powers would she have that doesnt KOWTOW to the President of the United States.

    "experienced?" (none / 0) (#84)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    Just as well; if Hillary were picked then everyone would realize that she's only experienced relative to Obama (in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king).  She is even the junior senator in New York to Chuck Schumer, who was in Congress since 1980 and the Senate since 1998.  If experience really mattered anyway wouldn't we want Biden or Dick Cheney?
    Hillary is the experienced heroine of the working classes because she is being compared to Obama, who has relatively less experience and happens to appear more upper class and black.  In 2007 she was not the darling of the working classes and she wasn't exactly running on her stellar legislative record as a senator introducing and shepharding through controversial legislation.  People who say that Hillary is competent use as proof that she is a good pork barrel senator for New York and didn't make trouble as a junior senator.  She sure didn't organize a good campaign team, which is a bad sign as to her ability to organize a good White House staff or cabinet.
    Somewhere in this country among governors and congressmen/ex-congressmen there is a humble sort of highly competent person who would never dream of joining the circus of running for president.  Pick that person for vice president.