Rove Says Obama Should Pick Hillary

Via Greta: Karl Rove was on Hannity and Colmes tonight:

He was just asked who he thought Senator Obama should pick…he said the criteria should not be a political one (eg should not be whether VP can deliver a state) but rather who is ready to be President should something happen. He then said the choice should be Senator Hillary Clinton.

< ABC Says Biden Backtracking on Denial | Negative Branding: Obama's Lost Opportunity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    I'll eat my hat if this happens but it isn't going to happen. The losers running the Obama campaign don't want it to happen so it won't.

    Rove previewed GOP attacks on Kaine (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    in a recent appearance on Face the Nation:


    Basically, they would say he's unqualified and was chosen by Obama for purely political reasons.

    I also suspect the GOP would play up the fact that Kaine, like Obama, is a fancy-pants Harvard graduate.

    They are good (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:06:23 PM EST
    Note how seamlessly they fit a seemingly irrelevant issue like the VP pick into the pre-existing narrative of "Obama values winning an election more than the national interest," the sort of thing Lieberman and McCain have been spouting over and over.

    They understand the role of narrative in campaigns.  We still don't.


    I also think calling for Hillary might be (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    a ploy as well.  Although i do recall Rove saying some time ago that Obama should "adopt" a compelling issue to run on.  As time has gone on, it seems right.

    I really (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    don't think they'll waste a lot of time attacking Kaine. They've already got a perfect target with Nancy Pelosi. She'll be Obama's running mate and with an approval rating in the single digits she'll make the perfect foil for them.

    its not about attacking Kaine... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:07:29 AM EST
    ...its about using Kaine to re-inforce the GOP narrative about Obama.

    In fact, its not really the "GOP narrative" -- unlike with Kerry, whose GOP 'narrative' was completely ficticious, their "Obama narrative" is simply Obama's own narrative from a different perspective.  Obama was deliberately vague about who he was and what he stood for -- instead of establishing a clear identity, he told people that he was whatever they wanted him to be.  All the GOP had to do was say "we want you to be a shallow, waffling, inexperienced, arrogant elitist" and it stuck, because there was more than enough of a basis to make it stick (and of course, Obama keeps feeding into that narrative.)


    Rove was working for Republicans then (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    and he's working for Republicans with this one.

    They wanted to face Obama, not Clinton.  And not Clinton and Obama.

    Rove would only say this now if he knows it will mix it up even more for Obama.  I.e., it's not Clinton.

    Rove is always working for Republicans.  Period.

    If it's fancy pants vs. pantsuit (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    The Dems go for fancy, upscale, elitist pants.  Even when they're faux working-class pants.

    Spandex wind-surfing pants, duck-hunting insulated pants, alpha male khaki pants, etc.  Even if they don't keep it in their . . . no, I'm not going there.

    He is trying to use reverse psychology (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Saul on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:00:17 PM EST
    By saying this to Obama then he thinks Obama wont't pick Hilary because he is trying to make it look like Karl wants Obama with Hilary because it would be a winner for the republicans but deep down inside Karl knows that if Hilary and Obama are the ticket their republican goose is cooked.  He is just hoping we do not figure it out.

    On the one hand (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    I agree about reverse psychology.  However, I think Rove believes Hillary will not get the call, for reason I won't go into.  After Obama announces the choice, Rove will say he just sunk his campaign.  Really, Rove would never give good advice unless he was certain it would never be followed.

    It's hard to tell what Rove is thinking (none / 0) (#73)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:08:09 PM EST
    One thing is clear - he just said that Clinton was the candidate who is most ready to be President should the need arise. That seems like a slap at Obama to me, since it's reinforcing her campaign argument that she was "ready to lead on day one". As for the rest... Rove may be trying to psyche Obama into picking Clinton by making people think he's trying to psyche Obama into not picking Clinton. Trying to move based on how your enemies tell you to move is a loser's game. Obama has to pick Clinton if he wants to win, whatever Rove says. Or Nader says. Or anybody else.

    Funny -- I wonder if Rove (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    is starting to worry that Obama could actually do the smart thing and pick Hillary, so has thrown out this poison pill?  

    The Repubs were always (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    going to attack Obama for not picking Clinton. Who didn't see this coming?  They were always going to go after her voters by being nicer to her than the Dem party was perceived as being to her.  It's a great opportunity for them to talk him down by talking her up.  Blah, blah, she had the economy, experience, the working class and gasp, he didn't pick her.  

    I wonder if they will use a 'more votes than any candidate ever' line.  They already used the 'selected not elected' line (they like relating that Clinton got the working class to the DNC debacle and the 'selected not elected' line). Funny stuff.  Wonder if Fox will do a special round up of Clinton's historic run.

    As a former Republican (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    The Repubs were always going to attack Obama for not picking Clinton. Who didn't see this coming?

    it was obvious to me. The meme is "Obama brands himself as The Uniter but can't even bring his own party together"


    Rove++ (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:11:43 PM EST

    If you ever seen Rove on an election night he is clearly the smartest guy going. He makes the other tv analysts look like pretenders.

    He knows all the precincts and their voting history and margins without looking. He can tell you what the trend is and what is shaping up and two hours later you see he is right.

    On the primary night he said exactly how HRC was taking down Pennsylvania and which districts were showing that Obama was getting little traction.

    If you switch to another channel you'd see them cut to a reporter with some fatuous line like "my sources are telling me the Obama camp is expecting great turnout here in Philadelphia tonight". Really? Thanks.

    No doubt in my mind Rove already knows how much Clinton is worth to this ticket and in which districts.

    I find Rove interesting (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    to listen to. I take him at face value now. I think he just really likes the game of politics and is good at it.

    I was also surprised at how low key he is when (none / 0) (#114)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:39:21 AM EST
    explaining his views. I always had the impression of him being brassy and snooty. He's quite pleasant to listen to, unlike Hannity and O'Reilly.

    Sounds like a polished con person (none / 0) (#125)
    by splashy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    Who is slick and slimy, making everyone think they are nice and pleasant when they are the worst of the worst.

    When I come across people like that, I am very suspicious because most people are not like that naturally. It's a studied behavior, acting for a purpose, hiding a dangerous core. There aren't many people like that, but they really like to run things if they can, and make the rules. They put such a pleasant face to the world that no one believes just how bad they are.

    Check out the  book "Evil Genes" for more about people like this.


    Echo (none / 0) (#120)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:39:48 AM EST
    Study your enemy. You might just learn something.

    Hillary saying there will be a real roll call vote (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by athyrio on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    and she won't be releasing her delegates beforehand but doesn't expect to win.

    Has she stopped the Obama delegate poaching? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    that better stop if Obama wants to win (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    the whole point of doing what the party has always done, go through the "rules" and work through the roll call, is so that things appear proper and fair, and all the Hillary supporters feel they've been heard and their votes counted. If they do the roll call and the votes don't seem to add up because of the poaching, it will seem fixed and rigged. Which of course defeats the purpose. But then I'm only speaking for 18 million voters... snark.

    Yes. The first vote she should net at the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:58:17 PM EST
    very least, her pledged delegates, imo. Basically, unless the convention is open and fair, he will have disenfranchised 18 million voters, imo. It's the only thing that can come close to righting some of the wrongs.

    At the very least, is right (none / 0) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:21:37 PM EST
    otherwise, lightbulbs will be coming on over the millions of heads that just didn't want to believe the caucus stories they were hearing because they didn't see it for themselves.

    The convention needs to be 100% the democratic party all democrats recognize. Any "in your face" adjustments that show this process wasn't done democratically will backfire on them. The undecideds will have no trouble figuring out who NOT to vote for.


    perhaps (none / 0) (#53)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    the RCP electoral college math flipping to McCain, IN going to McCain by 6 (without McCain having spent a dime there), LA Times/Bloomberg's 15 lead for Obama disappearing to a 2 point dead heat and New York being now only an 8 point lead (Kerry won it by 16 and Gore by 25) is enough to stop delegates in their tracks from allowing themselves to be poached or to flip.

    Or perhaps having taken the shiny new car around the block -- and figuring out that it's much better in the lot than out on the road --, they're ready to flip back to the one who doesn't sputter, stammer and false start?  (Brazile, her Momma, Dean and Pelosi all be damned!)


    The SDs will never go against the party elite and (none / 0) (#115)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:42:06 AM EST
    pay the price should he get the nomination anyway! It's a done deal, nothing will change in Denver!

    I think Obama should pick Rove. It will be a (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    whole lot of fun.

    Brilliant move by Rove (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:42:02 PM EST
    Since he is considered worse than Satan (for those who believe there is a Satan) by the left, his endorsement of Clinton guarantees that she won't be chosen.  And with anyone else at this point, Obama loses.

    Rove dares the Dems to throw him into the briar patch again.  And he wins again.

    Of course Rove is right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by chopper on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    But, even though he is right, Obama would say, "Oh no, the bad man is tricking me".

    I don't like Rove, but you have to admit he's brilliant and not much of a liar.

    Ha. Rove is smart in a sort of sick way. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    He's simply stating a truism and one Hillary herself said.  Indeed, she said exactly that, it's not primarily a political choice but who is believable as a step-in President.  Hence herself.  Here Rove has covered his bases.  If he picks her, Rove says, well, that was my advice.  If he doesn't, Rove says he blew it.  

    Wow, Seriously? (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    I mean... seriously?  

    I've Read That... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:25:38 PM EST
    And judged it as the paranoid conspiracy theory  that it is.  Are you kidding me?  A secret conspiracy, nearly a decade in the making between Donna Brazille, Howard Dean, and Karl Rove to give the nomination in 2008 to Barack Obama by training an army of activists to crash the caucus's in 12 red states?  Seriously?  

    My caucus had irregularities. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:03:40 AM EST
    I know 2 Hillary delegates who when they went to the state convention were not allowed in because they were told their names did not appear on the list (a list they had signed)! Many weird and strange things occurred that evening and I've heard stories in other parts of Tx that were more underhanded then in my precinct. So, maybe it was just a coincidence that there were so many things wrong throughout the state. Perhaps!

    Sorry I Guess. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    I didn't see anything like that when I joined, I still don't see it on the page about 'Comment Policy'.  If I've posted too much today, this'll be my last.

    PS.  Secret or not, I don't buy the idea that those people got together and colluded to do what you seem to think they did.  


    I don't believe it was a concerted (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:10:16 PM EST
    effort either.  I think Karl was one step ahead of them all and played them.  Donna Brazille does not strike me as brilliant.  She ran Gore's campaign and was held responsible for its failures much like Penn is being castigated for Hillary's failures. Donna wanted to change the party and Rove stepped ahead of her and led her down that path, his way.

    Donna Brazille is still smarting at Bill Clinton, (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:25:04 AM EST
    blaming him for Gore's electoral loss. Had Gore won, she would have been a star, reaping reams of cash, therefore she feels Bill robbed her of her deserved glory/fortune. What she did on May 31 and her accusations, against the Clintons, of racism were nothing more than payback for Gore's electoral loss + exonerating her ineptitude at running a successful campaign! Hell has no fury.....

    I believe that article. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:52:14 PM EST
    Based on what we've talked about during the primaries and all of the under the table lies we know about, I believe this. It would also explain why the Obama campaign is actually running the way it is. No matter what they do, they are going to win. It is rigged, and it would also explain why so many are complaining about the dem brand not being that way anymore and ignoring the blocs it is ignoring to shore up new voters (young ones and repubs) as the new dem brand. It would also explain why the dems have not gone after the likes of Rove or Bush or Cheney with any big push.
    And, if it is true, all media should see it, report it, investigate it and be repulsed by it.

    doing, and apologize up-front for any offense or error on my part.
      I am replying regarding the conspiracy aspect. I hope to delineate the long ago plan (at least 4 years) to annoint Obama, and how all has played out according to plan, until now.
      I hope BTD reads my comments, critiques them, and either confirms that what I post makes sense, or I am an absolute fool. I can accept either determination as fair if the links and material are given a thorough examination.
       I hope to call attention to the fact Obama's campaign is merely a re-run of Dean's campaign, organization and all.  Contrary to the hype, Obama has organized nothing regarding this campaign. The Dean machine elements selected him as their candidate following his convention speech and "crowned him then". Everything since is just a footnote!  I do not base this on conjecture, I base it on a Rovian style "playbook" re-cap! A book by Dana Dunnan titled "Burning at the Grass Roots(Inside the Dean Machine".  http://tinyurl.com/6556xx

    over-determined... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:54:29 AM EST
    the idea that there has been a four year plan to benefit Obama is simply not credible.

    What is credible, however, is that there has been a consistent effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination.

    One need only look at the primary schedule to see how it put Clinton at a disadvantage -- Iowa went first... and at the time Edwards was WELL ahead of Clinton.  Edwards was also expected to de well in the next state (Nevada) because he was the favorite to recieve the SIEU endorsement there at that time.  And the choice of South Carolina as the fourth "early state" is simply insane unless you look at it as an anti-Clinton move.... why would the Democrats choose a DEEP RED state for one of its early window primaries?   Could it be that SC was one of the few states that Edwards won in 2004?  

    When these decisions were being made, no one knew how well Obama would do in the early states -- but Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina were obviously states where if Edwards had a shot, he would do well.

    One does suspects that Rove had a hand in Obama's gaming of the caucuses and concentration on Red States.  Its the perfect strategy to sell to someone like Brazile, whose entire reputation rests on scapegoating the Clintons for her own abysmal failure in running the Gore campaign.  Nevermind that a caucus/red state strategy does nothing to advance the Democratic Party's chances in November...to someone like Brazile, that is far less important than destroying the Clintons.


    I found Dana Dunnan's book, (none / 0) (#101)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:28:46 AM EST
     "Burning at the Grassroots", and much more, quite by accident when I started researching Aswini Anburajan. She is a MSNBC/NJ First Read writer who saw fit to pejoratively call WJC "Bubba" in a First Read headline, (IE: First Read "McPeak's sharp tongue stabs Bubba"). I was appalled that she felt the need to use such a headline demeaning Clinton, it simply seemed even above and beyond the "norm' for First Read. I started a bio search to see who she is and possibly why she was so anti-Clinton.  I discovered she was, and apparently still is, a full-fledged member of the Howard Dean/MoveOn "machine", being an early, dedicated "grassroots" organizer in his primary campaign, and continues a fervent loyalty to him today. Possibly other First Read/NJ writers share the same background.  (see Aswini Anburajan, page 38 of Google review (pdf) http://tinyurl.com/59ef74

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#103)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:58:47 AM EST
    As previously stated, I do not base (none / 0) (#104)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:12 AM EST
     my "Obama was chosen theory" on conjecture, I base it on all of the Rovian style machinations re-capped in Dunnan's book. Please view it and explore chapter summaries (http://tinyurl.com/682rhq), as well as a "sample" chapter on their "race baiting/gotcha" treatment of Kerry (http://tinyurl.com/5g3z66),  which actually mirrors their tact against the Clintons re racism. Even to the point of saying South Carolina would be the best place for such to occur. Check it out.

    Dunnan was part of the (none / 0) (#105)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:31:59 AM EST
    Dean/MoveOn movement (working the press, "spying", posing in Kerry crowds, asking questions to "trip Kerry up", such as one regarding Malcolm X (ironically). The author says Kerry would later, when asked by a child to name his heroes, first cite his supporter Max Cleland, then Christopher Reeves, and Mother Teresa, all for their inspiration to others in rising above their adversity.

    Then he states that as Kerry did so, he (Dunnan)was struck by how Kerry was describing Dunnan's own vision of Malcolm X's life.  And intrigued that Kerry's heroes were all white folk (authors term). He implies that he saw that as a "weak spot" for Kerry, and one to be expolited if he could do it in front of cameras and the right crowd. He goes on to aver that people asked him about civil rights and he waffled for minutes without answering. Dunnan says that politicians should  always have a pat answer on civil rights in their head.. That Dean did!

      Dunnan says his effort was aimed at getting Kerry to commit a gaffe of the magnitude of Dean's Confederate flag controversy . Dunnan then laments that  if  he(Dunnan) had been black, surrounded by a black audience in South Carolina (certainly has a familiar ring, does it not), he  would have fared differently in his effort to trip Kerry up. He says what Kerry did (re the Malcolm X question) was try to be another white guy talking about race- he just couldn't figure out how to do it.

      He talks in another chapter about how Wesley Clark ("a general threat") had to be minimized.and states that given a chance to bird-dog Clark and work the media, the author (Dunnan) jumped all over it, and cultivated his own "press scrum", to Clark's consternation and detriment.


    Dunnan apparently is still (none / 0) (#106)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:47:46 AM EST
    a part of the "machine". ."Burning at the Grassroots" starts with the phrase "Lincoln must come again.".  He later talks about finding a "Lincoln"(apparently Dean), then later laments regarding Kerry being compared to Lincoln stature wise. Lincoln seems to have been an obsessive image for the campaign.

    In a later added footnote(2004), the author says that Lincoln may have come again from Illinois, as Barack Obama. He held a book signing for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. Obama's Us Senate race was never meant to make him "a sitting Senator", as he has not been. The Senate was just a short pause in the quest "the machine" started mapping out for him in 2004. When Dean lost, the new search for their "Lincoln" began. They found him quickly, having "discovered" him at the convention. http://tinyurl.com/675ozq

    As I have stated before, I would never have imagined that "far-left", Rovian type plans were in play at the time, and planned for the current election, until I found this book. If you just read the "chapter summaries" and the Kerry sample chapter, while mentally substituting Obama for Dean and Clinton for Kerry, I feel that you will  possibly be stunned, as I was, at the mirror of the current election cycle.


    Perhaps, you will also (none / 0) (#107)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:00:05 AM EST
    wonder, as I do, why Kerry and Theresa are "hooked up" with Obama considering their treatment by this "machine" ( perhaps they have never seen the book), and maybe ask yourself  how Dean could so smoothly, and subtly pass the MoveOn/Youth alliance to Obama, while at the same time heading the DNC.

    However, I feel you will have no trouble seeing "why". The why is a desire to "root out the old party", replacing it with "theirs", establishing a self-perpetuating tightly held and controlled party that will equal the "far-right" in its desire to hold power indefinately.  

    The "why" is only intensified by a deep disdain for anything Clinton, which explains the viciousness. For them to succeed,"their" candidate must be controllable and beholden to them. HRC was their worst nightmare in this regard.

     Many of Dean's supporters of the time, very much resented Dean's comments following his defeat when he referred to the Democratic party, they preferred "Progressives".They contacted Dean saying they were not Democrats and did not wish to be labeled as such unless they could "convert the Democratic party to their ideals". Perhaps now they have.


    Dunnan apparently wrote (none / 0) (#108)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:13:17 AM EST
    this book, to chronical the campaign, show that they were willing and able to take on the far-right with duplicate tactics, and to prove how "slick and advanced" the Dean apparatus had been in 2004, until the scheme ran off the rails with the scream, and the loss in NH.

    However, they quickly tweaked it, determined to be even more ruthless , and not fail again. They feel entitled after their previous chosen candidate Howard Dean lost, and they have a revenge list a mile long. The Clintons are at the top!

    Please read the summaries, the  Kerry sample chapter, and explore the entire site. Decide if you perhaps think I am making more of this than I should. For me, it simply parallels everything happening in this election cycle too closely to be mere coincidence.

    It says to me that they did "get their act together" with a vengance, selected a candidate to "fit the mold", ran Devall Patrick as a prototype, then presented us with what they thought was the finished, unbeatable model , Barack Obama. Perhaps you knew the Democratic party had such an element in the making since 2004 or so. I did not!


    Oh, I agree 100% with the Dean aspect. When (none / 0) (#113)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:33:06 AM EST
    Edwards endorsed Obama, I think it was the following day, I got an e-mail from him demanding cash for his charity.

    Since 2001, when I saw Kennedy literally embrace Bush, when he walked into chamber to give the State of the Union Address, therefore legitimizing him, I stopped contributing to the democratic party. I did give to Dean's campaign though and to Hillary, period! So the only way Edwards got my e-mail address was through Dean. I guess that was the bargain Edward accepted in return for his endorsement!

    Am I getting Obama's e-mail because Hillary gave him her list of contributors or did he get it through Dean again?


    Comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:20:37 AM EST

    Of course he would say that... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM EST
    the he can watch all the Obama blog sites go nuts.

    You know the way they did when she had lunch with Murdoch.  Of course they were all thrilled that Obama met with good old boy, T. Boone Pickens.


    if he doesn't want Hillary (none / 0) (#8)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:58:00 PM EST
    he should pick someone whose qualifications cannot be challenged.

    this is why I disagree with those who say Biden would be a bad pick. My 60-something Jewish cousin in Florida, an Obama leaner with serious doubts about whether he is ready for the job, told me weeks ago he'd love to see Obama pick Biden.

    Biden Does Bring That (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    Which is more than Kaine, who is just as bad on many issues, brings.  He at least has experience.  Now, like McCain, it's often bad experience (in Biden's case, overseeing the disaster that was the Clarence Thomas hearings and supporting credit card companies), but at least he provides some reassurance that someone in the Administration has been around long enough that they can find the men's room.  And that's not nothing.

    and for many women (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:51:40 PM EST
    the treatment of Anita Hill (who happens to be black) by all of these white men on the Senate panel still angers and offends those very voters Obama is having difficulty with:  women.

    Don't think that someone from the GOP or a 527 isn't going to bring that up.


    Oh oh. Prof. Hill, take your phone (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    off the hook, because some media with any sort of memory will figure out to call for an interview on how torn you may be by an Obama-Biden ticket. . . .

    Leave Anita Alone.  And this is no youtube joke.


    Biden has an easy charm (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeannie on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:36:43 PM EST
    that wears well. It would be rather fun to listen to him until November - you never know what he is going to say. He is likeable - worth a lot.

    Yeah! If you don't know much about him! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:18:14 PM EST
    Hillbuzz reporting tonite that Hillary put in an (none / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    emergency call to her delegates and big supporters tonite....Something must be up....

    it sounds as if (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    she's striking while the iron is hot and reaching out to shore up her support -- and perhaps bring over others -- on the day when RCP has the Electoral College math flipping to McCain, Obama drops 10 points in NY (now with only an 8 point lead;  Kerry won it by nearly 16 in '04 and Gore by 25 in 2000) and the LA Times/Bloomberg lead of 15 points evaporates into thin air.

    I sincerely doubt she'll be the VP pick.  Perhaps something more interesting is up?


    Nader also says Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    should pick Hillary, and he's even predicting it.

    "'Count Ralph Nader as unimpressed by the crop of supposed finalists to be Barack Obama's running mate.

    "I don't think he's that dumb," said Nader, commenting on widespread speculation that Obama's choices are down to Sens. Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

    The smart pick, according to Nader, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Nader phoned into Politico Tuesday afternoon to offer his prediction that a surprise nod to Clinton is actually what Obama has in store--never mind the talk of mistrust between the Clintons and Obama.'"

    Nader (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:17:12 PM EST
    will say anything to get attention. This just looks like another of his stunts.

    I doubt it's only a stunt (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:28:14 PM EST
    when Obama has dropped 10 points in NY.  That is very bad news from Hillary's state, but, being a western New Yorker myself, I'm not surprised. I'm hearing none of what was the early enthusiasm  for Obama.  What I am hearing is a lot of bitter comments about the Democrats' process of picking a candidate....and the comments are from Democrats. The most common is: Where was the vetting?  

    it isn't like nader is a fan of hillary. he (none / 0) (#24)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    is no friend to democrats, so he wants to stir the pot.

    And although I am not (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    as well known as Nader, I say he should pick Hillary for VP..

    Sure, it would show he has a brain cell still functioning outside of his ego, but also
    I would love to  
    see Matthews, Shuster, Maddow and Gregory's head all explode on television when the evil woman they hate gets the VP slot.
    That would just make me smile.


    They'd love it (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jb64 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:24:58 PM EST
    It would be like Christmas candy falling from the sky.

    Well they might love (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:00:06 PM EST
    the media part but personally Matthews would go bonkers... probably Olberman too.  Maddow would claim she was never against Hillary, and Gregory would be worried if he has a job.  Shuster would hide under a rock.

    No. Matthews advocates Hill as VP. (none / 0) (#61)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:14:58 PM EST
    Sorry, I don't believe Matthews (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    I really despise the man and believe he is a pig sexist creep who personally has hurt Hillary with his antics.  I will never forget him and Delay thinking they  were off air, chattering like two middle school boys about how MEN would never put up with listening to her.

    Do you think he is being honest???


    Oh, he's all of those things. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM EST
    But I think he knows his guy can't win without her, despite BTD's belief that he's a "shoo-in".

    Well maybe (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:38:15 PM EST
    But I so can't stand Matthews........I avoid all things about him.  He's such a jerk.

    You forgot Olbermann. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    I have been trying to (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:47:36 PM EST
    forget him........grrrrrrrr......what an egotistical jerk.

    Politico and Rove say it's Hillary (none / 0) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:20:28 PM EST
    Politico's editor (John Harris) put his name to this story of Nader predicting Hillary as VP. Neither Politico, nor Rove, like to get caught with their pants down. They want to be first with the scoop, always.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...


    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    Rove said he should pick Hillary not that he would pick her.

    OK. Coulda, woulda, shouda, prada... (none / 0) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:39:59 PM EST
    I said in June that the Obama camp didn't want (none / 0) (#79)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    HRC for all the reasons everyone has given, over and over.  However, I also said that Obama would wait until the last minute to see if he was coasting to a landslide or not.  Then he would pick Hillary if things got dicey.  She can bring a lot more to the table than any of the others talked about and she will be one hell of a force.  Her supporters will be out in force  I will also predict that she and Obama, if they pair will be a working team that will stun this country.  They liked each other once, before the 'handlers' and smart asses took over.  Look fot it to happen.

    I want to see Nader/Rove 2008... (none / 0) (#87)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:57:55 PM EST
    ... as a last minute Third Party entry.  

    It would be a perfect team up of "Not a dime's worth of difference" with "The lesser of two evils is... daaaaaaaaam! that is eeeeeeeee-vil!"


    Here's why Biden will HURT (none / 0) (#25)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    The video is out there when Biden said his comments about Obama being "clean", "well-spoken" and everything else.


    The GOP will use this to speak about Obama's judgement.  

    Oh, and here's a YouTube video that may haunt Biden and Obama:


    What votes will Obama lose (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    for those videos?

    You're kidding right? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    The racial overtones?  Especially the second video.  

    Heck Teresa Heinz Kerry just walked away/refused to speak to a reporter and that got played over and over.  Did quite a big of damage.  

    I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.


    You're saying he'll lose black votes? (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:32:58 PM EST
    I don't follow.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:48:35 PM EST
    if the comments seem racist, he'll lose votes of people who aren't racist. That can be people of any race of course.

    I don't those (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:29:02 PM EST
    videos themselves will hurt Obama but his response to those comments were very damaging to himself. He came off as overly sensitive and wimpy.

    Hannity (none / 0) (#34)
    by Andy08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    said Michelle is resisting Biden b/c she thinks he will overshadow Obama... I have no clue where did he get this but that is what he said...

    And if that is so - (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Jeannie on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:39:59 PM EST
    then Hillary is definitely not going to be VP.

    Perhaps Hillary can keep her ego (none / 0) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    in check more than Biden. Hillary knows how to be  modest. Biden, not so much.

    One problem (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:52:10 PM EST
    the cat's out of the bag about her wonkiness and fight for the people drive. Yes, I think she would just put down her head and work. We've seen that. BUT, Obama is such a light weight, she can't be anywhere around him when he's not at peak performance. He's going to be a training wheels President and to see the more qualified winner of the popular vote playing second fiddle to him is going to be ugly.

    I don't think of Hillary as ego driven. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    Agreed, I'm coming from the same place (none / 0) (#126)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:51:12 PM EST
    as you Hairspray.

    I don't believe any of these (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Esme on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:52:40 PM EST
    Michelle is resisting candidate X stories. It's just the start of the "controlling, evil wife" meme that so many women are brushed with, including HRC.

    unfortunately (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    her public comments and obvious reluctance in even responding to a simple Politics 101 "would you support Hillary if she were the nominee" question with clarity as a "good Democrat" fuels the fire.

    If she had just said "yes, of course!", it'd be story over.  But she didn't.  She said she'd have to "think about it".



    People make gaffes all the time. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Esme on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:24:01 PM EST
    She publicly said otherwise since. I really detest smearing women this way. I hated it when it was done to HRC, and I see it beginning to start for MO.

    I believe (none / 0) (#64)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    that Michelle did say she would enthusiastically support Hillary if she was the nominee a few minutes later in that interview. But she screwed up,no doubt.

    I don't either, actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:54:44 PM EST
    It's a little too perfect a fit into the wife-from-hell thing.

    Michelle did lay the groundwork during the primaries, no question.  So maybe it's karma that these sorts of stories are getting some bit of traction.

    But where would people like Hannity be getting this?  From Michelle?  As much as I do not want to see Obama be the next president, I just can't picture BO and MO sitting around having the VP pick discussion in front of the interns so one of them could run off and call up cable news, I just don't.

    It just has Rovian fingerprints all over it..


    who won't overshadow obama? (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    bring kane to the stage i guess.

    Whe are we going to know? (none / 0) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    Is Obama texting in the morning?

    What about free haircuts... (none / 0) (#88)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01:12 AM EST
    ...and movies?

    Kos and Jerome think it's Daschle. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:12:23 AM EST
    He's not as bad as  Biden or Kaine, right?
    On the other hand, he is anything but a fighter.
    Daschle as V.P. would mean that the gloves are off for the rest of the campaign..... to be replaced by VELVET gloves.

    That's not taking off the gloves (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:42:48 AM EST
    More like taking off the arms!  Obama's choice for a VP will be a Majority Leader who couldn't defend his own policies or even his own seat?

    I don't buy it.  Even Obama isn't that crazy.


    Daschle is one of Obama's most (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:43:56 AM EST
    enthusiastic supporters, and I think Obama's political philosophy matches Daschle's better than anyone else I can think of.

    And who couldn't even (none / 0) (#99)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:43:28 AM EST
    carry his own state for Obama in a Democratic primary! This is a joke, right?

    Daschle (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:46:06 AM EST
    is the worst of all possible worlds.

    He is the Democrat most responsible for the war, for one thing.  Setting that aside, he is like King of the Lobbyists right now.

    Funny, how people say he can't pick Hillary for VP because she would mess up his change message, but then those same people have no complaints about Daschle.


    No, I thought it might be Daschle or Kerry - their (none / 0) (#117)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:51:22 AM EST
    only path to the presidency once Obama is out of office and the reason why they backed Obama instead of Clinton - they could shine better under Obama because he's so inexperienced, but both would be lacklustered under Clinton.

    I'm going for Kerry because he's got more foreign policy and economical experience!


    Daschle: The man behind the curtain (none / 0) (#121)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    If it's Daschle, then it's always been Daschle, and this was a set up all along.

    If this is the case, we're in even worse shape than I imagined.

    How pathetic.  I hope they are proud of themselves.


    Yeah, Daschle would truly be an analog (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    of Cheney.

    So Rove thinks (none / 0) (#94)
    by jen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:52:50 AM EST
    something's going to happen to Obama? Are the Pro-O blogs screaming about this, yet? Didn't Hillary get raked over the coals for mentioning at one point that the vice president needs to be someone who could take over should something happen?

    I do think there's a chance that enough information will come out regarding Obama's past that he could be disqualified. Would his VP pick automatically take his place even before the election? If that were the case, only then would I wish he'd pick Hillary.

    For those who support Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#95)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:59:23 AM EST
    My Hunch: Obama Will Pick Hill for VP (Updates)
    by: masslib
    Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 19:53:26 PM EDT

    I'm starting to think Obama will pick Hillary for VP.  Here's why:

    1.  He's tanking in the polls, most importantly in the electoral college.  He's bleeding, and he clearly needs more strength with her voters.  Only she can give him that.

    2.  Rumors Michelle is influencing his decision.  Wha?  You say.  Yeah, I know, but lots of folks don't hold a particularly high opinion of MO.  If Hillary supporters thought she were part of the decision making process it might help.

    More Alegre

    I hope not because Hillary should be on top of the ticket, not save BO's ass. I find the reasons interesting and logical.

    I should have made the post a quote (none / 0) (#96)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    except for the "I hope not...." part

    Link (none / 0) (#97)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:16:53 AM EST
    I have a trouble getting the links right.
    Lets try:

    More Alegre


    Discussing VP BO uses "he" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:04 AM EST
    It's not a she:

    August 19, 2008 8:18 PM

    RALEIGH, NC -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is almost always diligent about saying "he or she" when discussing his potential running mate.

    But at a lively town hall meeting in the Tarheel State Tuesday evening, the senator -- who is expected to announce his vice presidential pick at the end of this week -- used a decidedly male pronoun.

    Jake Tapper

    Rove is trying to put Dems against Hillary (none / 0) (#102)
    by laurie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:57:15 AM EST

    Oh, he's pissed alright because her supporters (none / 0) (#118)
    by suzieg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:54:29 AM EST
    defied the party and forced them into a floor roll call, taking away his golden coronation as the nominee of the unified party which will be in plain view, that it is not!

    He is a liar, (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lil on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:18:21 AM EST
    IMO of course. He didn't back Bush because he was "ready" to be President. I'm sure he would advise McCain to choose someone who would politically help him gain the Presidency, not someone who may actually be ready.

    well if rove says so (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    than it must be right