Last Chance: Hillary For VP

Want to put the election away, Barack Obama? Yep, one more time, with feeling, pick Hillary Clinton as your VP. The most compelling reason? Obama is underperforming with Clinton supporters, the most persuadable group for him. Picking Hillary Clinton is the most powerful action Obama can take to persuade them. It is that simple.

Some people have additional arguments. David Gergen writes:

The Hillary game changer — If he were to surprise the country — and the press — by naming Hillary Clinton as his running mate, he could turn the race upside down. Making the announcement in Springfield this Saturday, drawing from Lincoln’s experience in assembling a “team of rivals” (the glorious book by Doris Kearns Goodwin), would be transformative. No one else would so galvanize the Democrats, bring a fighter to his side, and send a clear message that an Obama administration would bring experience to solving problems both at home and abroad. Has anyone looked what happened to jobs and wages under Bush vs. Clinton? The comparison is startling. And remember that a quarter of Hillary’s voters still haven’t “come home” to the Democratic column.

Margery Eagan writes:

So he picks his vice president today, tomorrow, whenever. None of these contenders will give Obama more than a one-day buzz. I like Joe Biden, despite snide asides that he’s been preparing a 500,000-word acceptance speech since Iowa - and the hair plug jokes. (Is America ready for its First Plugged President? Must Biden be unplugged to lead?) After Obama picks whoever he picks, we’re back to the once soaring candidacy now fallen back to earth.

I know. I’ve been an Obama cheerleader. I’m still trying to muster a respectful thumbs up. But let’s face it: The excitement during the primaries was Obama v. Hillary, not Obama alone. It was Obama vs. Hillary, and what’s loose-cannon Bad Boy Bill up to today? It was Obama, this completely unknown black guy, out-vaunting the vaunted Clinton machine. It was the audacity of his audacity, to steal The Messiah’s favorite word.

The only person who’d bring some excitement back is Hillary herself as veep.

Of course, Obama won't do it. If he loses the election, this decision will be remembered as probably the most important reason why.

Post Script - Poblano does an about face on whether Hillary "can stand up to the attacks," even making some good points I should have made:

I think that if Obama picks Clinton, the Republicans are likely to overplay their hand. One thing that Obama has not really been able to do is to generate some organic level of backlash when he is attacked. This is separate and distinct from the notion of "fighting back"; it is voters stepping in and refereeing the match themselves. Voters recognize that McCain has gone negative but they aren't really punishing him for it -- his favorables haven't moved at all. Why not? I think it has to do with the nature of Obama: he is new, he is confident to the point of being arrogant, and up until recently, he has been leading. To the extent there is any genius in the "celebrity" line of attack, it's that nobody feels much sympathy when celebrities are made fun of (well, except for this guy); it is a sort of sport to try and pierce their bubble.

With Clinton, on the other hand, voters naturally want to come to her defense -- and overzealous attempts to whip the Republican base into a frenzy will be counteracted with outrage from significant numbers of older and working-class women.

It was quite an oversight by me because I noted back in January that many of us completely underestimated the tremendous passion Clinton generated with women voters. And in February, it was my primary argument that a Unity Ticket would be needed no matter who won the nomination.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Text Message Watch | Intrusive New FBI Surveillance Guidelines Proposed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My feeling now (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:06:47 AM EST
    is that 50-60% of the remaining undecideds were Hillary supporters. They need a reason now to to stay home, or worse, vote for McCain. Joe Biden will not give them what they need to hear.

    Obama can lose by two points, win by two points, or win by five. The latter is only possible with Hillary IMO.

    If you are correct (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    what possible reason would he not pick her. Makes me question the brains over there. Risk a win or outright win it? Seems like a no brainer to me. That couple of ticks will not be enough in my opinion, as we talked about yesterday.

    I remember way back Randi Rhodes screaming for a Unity ticket when people still thought HRC would win. She was screaming that it was the only way Hillary could heal the rift, yadiyada blah, blah. Where are the screaming voices for unity now, except for BTD and a few others.

    No way of knowing but if Hillary was the nominee and she didn't choose Obama, would there be blood on the streets?


    "what possible reason would he not pick her (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    Obama proposes to tackle the Economy, Education, Iraq War, Lobbyists, Health care, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Ahmad...that guy in Iran, Russia, - but he can't handle Bill, one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history.
    Tells me all I need to know about Obama's "unity" schtick.

    You're (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    right about Biden. He's already turning into a net negative.

    Biden has the potential to be a negative, (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    but I suspect he would be a small positive. He could serve as a pretty effective attack dog.

    Overall (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:15:11 AM EST
    I think he's a NET negative. The negatives outweigh the positives he would bring to the ticket imo. His statements that Obama isn't qualified to be President will end up helping McCain.

    the Polls (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    already give McCain a strong leg-up on the Experience Question by almost insurmountable numbers.  Choosing Biden -- or, conversely moving in the other "inexperienced" ticket direction, anyone else -- would just aid that argument and, heck, the commercials would write themselves! (and probably already have)

    Hillary is his strongest hope, but I would be absolutely shocked if he were to do it.  I strongly believe he won't.  He's surrounded by too much entrenched CDS to seriously consider it.

    I suspect in his Fantasy Land, he won the Primaries  handily, is an odds-on favorite and everyone will "come around" after his Amazing Acceptance Speech in Denver.

    It's just smooth sailin' from there.


    Yes, but the DNC can't rig the general (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    election for obama.  

    What is ironic is that CNN (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kenosharick on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    is reporting over and over that the mccain campaign is using the Clinton "playbook." They seriously want us to believe the mccain people would not have questioned Obama's experience w/o the Clinton "tipoff."  THey (CNN) are also pushing Kaine, not Biden as the guy. Just get it over with already!

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    That is a truly hilarious talking point from the media.  Apparently the GOP never would have thought to suggest the Democratic nominee is weak on national security (even though they do it every election), or to question the experience of a 47-year old first-term Senator, without help from Camp Hillary!

    And yet CNN's candidate bios they've been (none / 0) (#167)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    running lately, paint Obama as "inexperienced", "ambitious", no "real" voting record, etc.

    So in that sense, the pundits could easily say that the McCain campaign was using the CNN handbook.



    The same could be said about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    on the qualifications issue.

    But I think the key aspect of this project of winning the White House is really much more about loyalty and coalition building than it is about what the Republicans will say or not say about our nominees.  Obvious I know, but still something that few pundits, consultants and bloggers have given much thought to until now.  BTD is an exception of course.

    The reality is that Obama is new - he is as new to Democrats as he is to the rest of the world.  Biden is reasonably well known, but nothing like Clinton is.  He has a quixotic following that like him some days and on others are ready to primary him.  

    Clinton has followers in the party who are beyond that sort of emotional swing - they like her and accept her warts and all - they feel they know her and they trust her.  That's pretty special in politics.  Obama has a following that feels the same way about him.  

    Teaming those groups up together creates an energy within the party that should be - should be - unstoppable.

    There is an awful lot of focus on saying the word "unity" amongst the Democrats right now, but what they should be thinking about is "getting it together" so that they look like they have it together - so that they appear to be competent and ready to lead and all that stuff.  

    Unity in and of it self does not telegraph competence and readiness.  I think in choosing Clinton the Obama camp will appear to have made a smart political and organizational choice.  Whether or not some people like Clinton or not - or like Obama for that matter - they will get credit for making the smart choice rather than the easy one.  

    I thin that given the choices that the Obama camp have floated out there - the only really interesting, smart and energizing candidate is Clinton.  And I think Bill will be just fine - all that handwringing is silly imo.


    He's Sure A Net Negative (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    to anyone who remembers the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and Biden's hanging Anita Hill out to dry.

    If you don't, a refresher course is available here.


    Didn't Biden have a hand in giving the (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    credit card industry the tools to snatch away the souls of the consumer, i.e. high rates, big penalties, etc. or am I thinking of someone else?

    So will Biden be called a racist? (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    From the interview:

    Biden: "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black."

    And I am another who never will forget what Congressmen, chaired by Biden, did to Prof. Anita Hill.  When they did it to her, they did it to all of us.


    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    Do we need to get Geraldine Ferraro's opinion on this as well?

    For those of us old enough to remember, it truly was surreal to watch Bush insist that he picked Clarence Thomas solely because he was the most qualified person for the job, yes sirree.  I don't know if a single person in America believed him.

    I was in law school at the time of the Thomas-Hill hearings, and I remember two things about it.  First was when the local paper ran a really offensive pro-Thomas editorial, basically saying that anyone who believed Hill was a complete idiot, and my roommate (who was black) forced me to cancel our subscription.  It was a pity because they had a really good sports section.

    The second thing I remember is when the school organized a mock debate regarding the whole spectacle, and they almost had to cancel it because they could not find a single person on the entire faculty to take the pro-Thomas side.  That says something!


    That Joe (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Lahdee on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:59:01 AM EST
    I'm sure he'll give us some entertaining moments, if nothing else. Who could forget this classic from 2006?
    "You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."
    But wait, there's more! How about this from 2007?
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    K-tel should to a compilation of his greatest hits. You could use your MBNA card to pay for it.

    An attack dog isnt (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    very useful when his owner will chide him saying "Down boy, we're above that sort of thing."

    When he manages to keep it brief (none / 0) (#51)
    by Iphie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    he actually has some pretty good one liners. The observation about Giuliani and his noun, verb and 9/11 pattern seems to get mentioned any time either Biden or Giuliani are discussed.

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:08:23 AM EST
    BTD! You are like a dog after a bone on this one. Anyway, at least you are interested in winning. It seems that the Obama campaign really isn't that interested in winning.

    I had thought that Biden might be a good pick until all the oppo research started to surface on him. I can see repeated commercials stating that "Even Joe Biden thinks that Obama isn't qualified to be President."

    Obama's campaign is so (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:09:15 AM EST
    arrogant that they will CHOOSE to lose without her or think they can win without her rather than choose her and guarantee a win. It will NOT be her.  I know it. I have never doubted it and I see no reason why it would be now.   They could win in a landslide together.  Alone, it is a nailbiter with McCain gaining.

    This assumes (5.00 / 17) (#5)
    by sister of ye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:10:29 AM EST
    These commentator assume that Clinton would have influence and a significant role in an Obama administration. I anticipate just the opposite - him sending her out to do his dirty work, while disrespecting her every way behind the scenes. And setting her up to be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

    Even if he were smart enough to offer her the job, she'd be an idiot to accept it. Party loyalty is one thing, masochism is another.

    Masochism... (5.00 / 9) (#58)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:56:27 AM EST
    is right.  One of the problems with the idea of Hillary as VP is that Obama wants to portray himself as 'post-partisan', which means that the VP will have to do all the "attack dog" heavy lifting.  

    Hillary would have to be a masochist to do that -- it would feed right into every negative stereotype about "the Clintons" and how they do politics, and if she refused to be the attack dog and campaign with a positive message, not only would she be blamed for Obama's loss, she'd be accused of doing so deliberately to advance her own prospects.

    Even if Obama were willing to pick Clinton, there is no reason for her to take the job -- and lots of reasons for her not to do so.  

    And I think that the assumption that Clinton would guarantee victory is unfounded.  What it would do is give Obama a nice big bump, and 'change the game', but with Obama at the top of the ticket, the game could be changed back quite easily.  


    I can't argue with that..... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    ...and that's what makes it really ironic. There's far more upside for Obama if he picks her than there is for her to run with him. In fact, as demonstrate, being Obama's VP pick is actually a losing proposition for Hillary.

    But in spite of that, I doubt he ever seriously considered her.


    I tried to suggest this the other (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    day -- that if Hillary came on board, the MCM would talk nonstop about the vicious Clinton Attack Machine.  Strong hints of dirty, gutter politics.  

    You'd get not only the Repubs cranking up the anti-Hillary ads, but the media would eagerly embrace and run with it.  Not so much though with Biden, who would offer far less of a downside for the ticket -- a bit less on the upside too, probably ...

    Yet Obama clearly needs an attack dog for Veep, especially since he doesn't do attack well himself.  And his campaign ad team also is deficient in this category, I might add.

    Bayh and Kaine just aren't the attack types, and not many Dems other than Biden, Hillary and Dodd are plausible in this role.  

    Because TeamO has run a soft post-primary campaign, with the virtually tied race instead of a 5-8 pt lead, they are now faced with having to deal with this last-minute surge of support for Hillary.  And right now, it's a far more plausible argument than it was a month ago.  


    100% disagree with that (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    His only shot at my vote. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Lysis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:11:56 AM EST
    If she's not by his side, I'm not voting for him. Period.

    McCain thanks you (none / 0) (#85)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    McCain can thank Pelosi, Kennedy, (5.00 / 13) (#98)
    by honora on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    Kerry and the media.  

    And Donna (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:26:59 AM EST
    Don't forget Donna. I know I never will.

    And the netroots Obama Blogs (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    McCain owes them a large debt too.

    McCain can thank whomever he wants (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    but the most accurate thank you would go to Kennedy and Kerry who refused to represent their own constituence; Axlerod and his rovian mentality; and the media and the Obama bloggers.

    McCain thanks YOU (5.00 / 12) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    In a Democrat's year,

    The Republicans nominated someone who could win.

    The Democrats nominated someone who could lose.


    Should have been the other way around. (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:12:20 AM EST

    I think Clinton (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    Would make Obama a better president.

    For me, the idea that he won't win without her is still more incidental to the process of making this decision.

    The crux of the matter is that her supporters, the ones who care enough about this, or think about politics differently enough to make this whole a thing a dealbreaker for them as far as Obama is concerned.  These people are probably also going to determine a distinction between Clinton being picked to get their support.

    A distinction between that and Clinton being picked because Obama values what she has to offer his administration.

    In my view, if i'm witholding my vote, an electoral strategy decision here does not net my support.

    A comprehensive understanding of the kind of role Clinton will have in Obama's white house very well could.

    And, in the end, the simple fact remains, we are becoming more and more convinced every day Obama himself lacks the self-confidence that allows one to admit that other people have something beneficial to offer.  (Because to do so is to acknowledge that "the one" himself does not offer everything.)

    And in case anyone was wondering that's one of the differences between self-confidence and arrogance.

    Will Obama continue to impose his "go it alone" strategy on the DNC?

    But he's forging a (5.00 / 13) (#18)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    new coalition and a new Party.  He's not interested in people like me:  working class, older white woman - And it's purely political - I don't see racism btw.  He doesn't want us.  And we are largely Clinton people.

    Here in Chicago - the University of Chicago independents are really working hard for him - going off to various cities to campaign.  Which one of us would get time off to do this?  

    He is rewiring the Party - it will be interesting to watch it play out.

    Oh and as to independents - they're not loyal.  That's the whole point of being independent.  After Obama, what's the institution got - does he have a plan, or is he out for Obama?  I don't know - I just know he isn't interested in me.

    He is a political animal, not a transformational individual.  That's why he worries me - what about us?  Will he give us a fair shake when and if he's president.   We'll see.

    He's attracting a lot of (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:35:47 AM EST
    "voted for George W. Bush TWICE" Republicans.  I knew he was attracting quite a few but I never realized how many until last night.  

    One ex-Republican posted on a thread that she liked all that "we are the ones we are waiting for" stuff because it puts the onus back on we the people to do something, to not depend on the government for anything.  Not wanting government to do anything is a very Republican principle.  It goes along with "No taxes, no social services, no socialism, etc."    


    Oi - depress me more, (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:39:56 AM EST
    why doncha!

    Look at the ages of the people who are (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    voting for him.  Most of them are under 30.  Some of them had the chance to vote for GWB twice but no chance to ever vote for Bill Clinton twice.  

    They weren't around through Nixon and Jimmy Carter and they think GWB is the worst president evah (and he may very well be but he's got some competition).  

    Anyway, it's not shocking they are Repubs turned Dem since the Dem party appears to be changing right before our eyes.  


    This is the big story of Obama - (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    not his possible presidency but his possibly causing a third party - and his romance with a post partisan, globalization hugging new party.  Problem:  The Republicans.  The Republicans have a sense of place - of belonging.  Forget the marverick business - they know McCain is a Republican.

    What do we have?  We've lost some roots here - this is a huge seachange.  And let's face it, we can't expect the young to understand it.  They're better and smarter than we - in their minds.  Unfortunately, I get it.


    If Obama had run as a third-party (4.80 / 5) (#101)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    candidate, with his message of post-partisanship, hope and change, and bringing people together, he'd be polling in Ralph Nader-Bob Barr territory, and the big question would not be "who's he picking for VP?" but "which party does he hurt as a spoiler?"

    Frankly, I would have much preferred him to go third party than to be tearing the Democratic Party down to a hole in the ground and thinking he could start over and re-make it to suit his vision.

    Selfish, very selfish.


    That's the whole point, Annie (none / 0) (#110)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    we didn't see it coming.

    Again:  and this is important.  In the end, McCain offers the Republicans a sense of place and belonging - this is no small matter.  

    I wish McCain would pick Rice for VP.  As much as I have disliked her - there is a small kernel there...Anybody?


    not so fast (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    Obama lost 12 points with the 18 - 25 age group in the latest Rasmussen Poll -- with 40% going to McCain --, so he may not have the lock on the Youth Vote that people assume he does.

    12 points.  In one month.  That's a nausea inducing drop in support.


    Young voters are the least anchored, ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    ... easiest to spook and tip with late-breaking thematics.

    Which side is good at that?


    Yes - least anchored but also (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    open to new ideas.  I mean we need each other in the Party (older and younger voters) - we have to respect each other.  This is what shocked me on the blogs - the absolute meanness of some of the bloggers toward other long-term older posters.  

    And, of course, many have student loans - so they are becoming aware of day to day political ties to their own needs.  And the job market - God that's got to hurt!        


    Is This True? (none / 0) (#145)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:08:40 AM EST

    not Ras -- (none / 0) (#178)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    my mistake.  It was Reuters/Zogby and, although I don't know how to link without screwing up Jeralyn's page (sigh), I have included the relevant paragraph from the article:

    "Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters."


    Interesting: I'd like to (none / 0) (#147)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    see the questions and demographics.  But cc, isn't Rasmussen a Republican leaning group - I may be wrong.

    Most of the under 30 crowd (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    Did not vote for G.W.B. twice.  More like Al Gore and John Kerry.  Which is why we're much less "misty eyed" about the whole process than people expect.

    She used the word "some" - (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    of course, we know that Democratic younger voters voted for Gore and Kerry.  She's talking about Republicans or Independents, I think.

    I don't think of you as misty eyed - what I'm talking about is clear eyed changing politics and cultural affiliations.


    I don't believe that for a second. (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    99.9% of those Republicans are going to go home to their party when they get into the voting booth imo.  And even many of them don't, I don't think there are enough of them to make a significant difference in Obama's favor.

    I was watching a profile on CNN during the primary season of a Republicans for Obama group in Texas.  The piece was quite long with interviews with the founder fawning over Obama and his message of Hope and Change.  At the very end, mentioned completely off hand by the reporter it was revealed that the group had 300 members.  300 members in the great state of Texas.  300 that is all.

    Meanwhile Senator Clinton got 15 MILLION votes or whatever it was.  I will take her millions over those Obamacans' hundreds any day.


    :: snort :: (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by sj on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    Too true...

    I noticed that too (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by OxyCon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    I used to read MyDD everyday and I watched as the Obama supporter's behavior became more and more thuggish by the hour. If someone posted anything positive about Hillary, they were immediately swarmed, stalked and harassed, in an attempt to silence them. I took note of the worst offenders and later one of the worst offenders admitted that he was until recently a Repub who voted for Bush twice.

    While true... (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    Of course, Obama won't do it. If he loses the election, this decision will be remembered as probably the most important reason why.

    While this may (or may not) be true, if the failure to pick Clinton goes down in history as the reason that Obama lost, there will be a huge demand for 'revisionist history' in the future.

    If/when Obama loses, it will be because he adopted a primary campaign strategy that was tailor-made for an effective GOP campaign.   Obama's 'appeal' was based on people seeing what they wanted to in Obama -- and it only worked because Hillary Clinton chose to run an entirely positive, issue oriented campaign through mid-February.  The moment Clinton made any effort to define Obama (starting with the 3 AM ad) Obama starting losing....and losing big, because most people don't buy into the "I'm who you want me to be" approach, making it extremely easy for his opponents to define Obama in their own terms.  (I think Obama's race plays a factor in this -- white voters are less likely to be susceptible to the appeal to project themselves onto a black candidate.)

    And, IMHO, the "he lost because he didn't choose Clinton" explanation is too close to the "its Hillary's fault" explanation -- Obama's defenders will blame Clinton for not being the person that Obama could pick (e.g. "Obama would have picked Clinton, but she had said XXXXX about him, and that made it impossible.")

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:28:07 AM EST
    we are talking about the main reason he would lose and I think it would pretty clearly be because he did not pick Clinton.

    So while I agree with your critique of his post partisan unity schtick, as you well know, The main reason WHY HE LOSES, if he does, would be this imo.


    the difference... (5.00 / 20) (#41)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:43:32 AM EST
    I guess the difference is whether you see the reason that a boat sank is because it had a big hole in it, or whether you think the boat sank because the hole wasn't patched.

    I personally think it sinks because of the hole that was there to begin with -- you shouldn't go out in a vessel that isn't sea-worthy, because it means that your depending upon the patch working, rather than the soundness of the boat itself.


    Whoa! That was fricking brilliant (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    I am in awe.  What a great metaphor.  I swear, PB2.0 has some of the best writers.  

    The ship has sailed. (none / 0) (#144)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    We have to patch the hole.

    Did you know that shipwrights sailed with the ships to do repairs and maintenance?

    Lots of ships have sailed with holes in them.  A lot of them have made it around the world too.

    Survival at sea - as in politics - is about being able to adjust to changing, harsh conditions and the ability to deal with stuff breaking - a lot of stuff - constantly.


    The Ship Has NOT Sailed (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    It will not depart until after next week.

    The Democratic Party has been on (none / 0) (#165)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    this voyage for two years now.

    Many in the pundit class believe that the only part of the race that counts is the last stretch after the convention.  While it is true that there are often more changes and the intensity ramps up in those last weeks - most of what happens during that time is a reflection of tactical and strategic decisions (good and bad) that were made much earlier on.

    The Obama camp is looking at the cold hard reality of their decision way back in June not to play to Clinton's supporters.  They thought it would be a problem that would go away or not be that bad.  It didn't.


    Hillary would not help him for long (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    Obama would still be at the top of the ticket.  Whether Hillary is on the ticket or not, there are many, many voters who will not vote for him die to his lack of qualifications, lack of scruples and lack of a clear message.  Hillary does not help his ticket for very long because it is still OBAMA who has to debate McCain.  OBAMA who has to campaign like he knows what he's doing.  
    If we wanted Hillary to save the day for the Democrats, then the only solution is putting Hillary at the top.  Then the Democrats rally behind her and Obama as VP and defend her to the media like they should have done in the primaries.  
    BTD, I think you, Gergen and Egen are not quite getting it.  I wonder if it is some residual distaste for Clinton that is preventing you from seeing the one guaranteed path to victory.  

    This is getting so old (none / 0) (#102)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    The party is not going to pull an upset at the convention and nominate Hillary.  Can we at least get down to dealing with reality?  May have happened in the past but it will not this time.  

    Reality: Obama is not the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    It doesn't matter what the party wants.  It is who the pledged delegates and superdelegates vote for.  And from what I recall, the superdelegates can change their mind whenever they want.  
    You want reality?  I'll give your reality.  The possibility of Hillary winning the nomination is so close that Obama is busily intimidating, courting, disqualifying and poaching every Hillary pledged delegate that it can get its hands on.  That is not the sign of a confident Obama campaign.  That is the  sign of a campaign that knows that it is too close to call and getting closer.  
    Never say never.  

    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    You are not giving me reality.  You are no where near reality.  Obama is not the official nominee yet but it is only because we have not concluded with the formalities.  

    I am a Hillary supporter but I also know this is a no win situation with the convention.  There is no way in he!! the party will risk alienating the African American community or discouraging the youth voters at this point in the race.  Regardless of how many Clinton supporters they lose, Obama will be the nominee.  Clinton wouldn't even allow it to happen at this point.  She would have no chance of winning since there is not enough time post convention to deal with the anger to get the votes she would need.  


    Hubby Says (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    if Obama loses either the nomination or the GE, he's going to go out and buy a gun.  Stupidly, I asked him why.

    "Watts," was all he replied.


    You bought the illusion (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    You have been the target of a brilliant perception management scheme wbut let's puull back the curtain:
    1.) Obama just barely "won" the primaries with virtually every African-American in the U.S. voting for him.  This is a finite population and the Democrats have a lock on it.  It can not be expanded outside of the party.  WOMEN OTOH, make up slightly more than half of the population and moderate suburban Republican women are more likely to vote for Hillary.  
    2.) Obama has actually LOST young voters in the past several months.  See one of yesterday's polls on the subject.  
    3.) If he ends up as the nominee, he will lose.  The writing is on the wall,  He can't break the 50% mark in the polls.  McCain is gaining ground.  Obama will be toast by the end of September.  The superdelegates are perfectly aware of this.  
    4.) We have no idea what Clinton would allow.  Have you gotten a secret message from her that you aren't sharing with the rest of the class?  Clinton could prove to be a more loyal Democrat by  putting herself forth as the nominee and pulling Obama's @$$ out of the fire.  
    5.) Most people are not zealous Obamaphiles.  Most Democratic voters just want to vote for a Democrat who can win.  Most people would be perfectly satisfied with Clinton.  If Clinton made Obama VP, and Obama worked (for a change) to unify his base, the anger would be minimal.  If the Democrats get behind her and defend her to the press, the party could right itself relatively quickly.  They'd look like they'd regained their sanity and put the Republicans in the hot seat.  In fact, it is so damn rational that it is very likely the scenario that is being tossed around behind closed doors.  
    Because in a year when the Democrats had everything going for them, to pin all of their careers and credit on a sure loser, would be incredibly foolish in the extreme.  

    No (none / 0) (#189)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    I just refuse to be delusional.

    respectfully disagree in part (none / 0) (#154)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    while I agree that the likelihood of Hillary getting the nomination at this point is beyond remote (like one in a trillion chance), I disagree with the assertion that two months isn't enough time for her to "deal with the anger to get the votes she would need." Just because Obama has seemed intent on squandering the summer without making an effort to try to shore up the Dem base, I think two months is more then enough time for Hillary to do it. Heck, it better be enough time for Obama to do it, especially if he insists on NOT picking Hillary for VP.

    There is only 9 weeks (none / 0) (#185)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    after the convention before people go to the polls.  Hillary suspended her campaign over 10 weeks ago but half the Democratic party and media still treat her with the same contempt as they did during the primaries.  Think she can win without a strong majority of Obama's voters?  Think she can win with nonstop media coverage of how she stole the nomination from the first African American nominee?  

    She's already further in the polls (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    then Obama is over McCain and she hasn't been running over the last 10 weeks (as you point out). And she isn't Obama -- she will court his supporters, not ignore and insult them. So, yeah, 9 weeks is more then enough time for her to do it. BUT, as I've said, it is very unlikely that she will get the nomination, so you better start worrying about whether Obama can win without a strong majority of Hillary's voters. And if 9 weeks isn't enough time for Hillary to shore up the Dem base, then it sure as heck ain't enough time for Obama.

    I don't think Obama (none / 0) (#200)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    has time, with the momentum shifting but I also could care less if he wins.  There is a slim chance Obama might choose Hillary as his running mate but this talk of Hillary being nominated at the convention is sheer lunacy.  Not going to happen.

    you're right... (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    it would be 1968 all over again, when Humphrey lost to Nixon because there was so much anger about how Humphrey got the nomination that a lot of anti-war types voted for Nixon or stayed home.  

    The only way that Clinton could win is if 'party elders' go to Obama and tell him to step aside, and Obama does so and endorses Clinton.   And the odds of that happening are ridiculously remote.


    You had better worry about (none / 0) (#196)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    whether Obama can win without a strong majority of Clinton supporters.

    Gotta disagree with (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    the idea that Obama supporters might under any circumstances effectively blame Hillary for his loss.

    Losers never have any credibility, and most especially when they lose elections they should certainly have won.

    Look at how even now, simply because Obama is perceived as underperforming, he and his campaign are losing major credibility. How much credibility do you think they would have if they actually lost the election?

    While you worry about Obama supporters rewriting history if he loses, the simple fact is that losers don't get to write history -- only winners.

    Try if you can to come up with an example of a loser of an election that was quite winnable successfully pinning his loss on someone else, and damaging the other politician's political prospects.

    Carter couldn't do it with Ted Kennedy, for example, though he certainly had ample justification.

    I just don't see anything resembling an example of the concern you're raising.

    If Obama loses, it will all be on him, his campaign, and his supporters.

    So they all better hope that he wins. Because if he doesn't, they will all be in disgrace.


    I'd love to agree with you but..... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:05:58 AM EST
    ...we are talking about Democrats for whom it isn't so much a case of losers having no credibility as it is winners having no credibility....how else to explain attitudes within the party about the Clintons.

    I agree that the (none / 0) (#86)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:14:37 AM EST
    activists in the Democratic Party love losers (even while pretending that they only want winners).

    And no doubt these activists will blame Hillary.

    But the exact consequence of Obama's losing is that the activists in the Democratic Party -- who massively favored Obama -- will lose all credibility themselves.

    Democrats at large -- that is, actual real live breathing Democrats in the real world who vote -- do not love losers. If Obama loses, the great majority of them will be more than happy to back Hillary in her quest for the 2012 Democratic nomination. Already half of them voted for her in this election -- certainly well over enough to get her the nomination will vote for her in 2012, given the disarray that the Obama wing will be in after his loss. And in the general, she will be properly positioned with the voters to win the center by impressive margins -- all the more so because we can expect the public to be even more fed up with a Republican President than they are now.


    Have to agree with... except... (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by jeffhas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    If Obama loses, there will be no Obama wing of the party.

    This election was supposed to be a foregone conclusion that the Dems would win.  If he loses, it will not only be the normal "losers don't write history, winners do" mentality, it will be a "burn the DNC down to forget this history" moment.

    Sadly, the only sliver of satisfaction some of us HRC supporters can look forward to is THAT MOMENT.  The moment Dean, Brazille, Pelosi, Reid et al realize they have no credibility anymore, and they will be gone, reduced, or vulnerable.

    A part of me knows this is vengeful and not healthy... and yet after the way Obama was forced down our throat, and the candidate he really is vs. the candidate he pretends to be - and his supporters threats/extortions...  They all deserve what they get.  

    How sad that I look to his demise not exactly with glee, but I'm not crying for him either.

    If he loses, when this is over... we will have our party back, and those that supported Obama will be scattered to the four winds - because they will be shamed into non-recognition.

    So he better win... he better do whatever it takes to win for their sakes...

    ... because here's the really funny thing... I've already figured out how I can live with the results of an Obama victory OR loss... I wonder if the Obama supporters and SD's and DNC have figured out how they live with it.


    Just tot add to my point (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    the one thing that will come to be the consensus view if Obama loses is pretty obvious:

    The Democrats should have chosen Hillary as the nominee. She would have won.

    All the analyses will show that it is Hillary voters who would have made the difference. Hillary would have brought them in. It's going to be pretty much an open and shut conclusion.

    And that will lend massive credibility to Hillary's candidacy in 2012.

    So, again, Obama and his supporters had better see to it that he wins, because this is their first and last chance for credibility and clout in the Democratic Party. There won't be any do-overs.


    Burned bridges (4.33 / 6) (#149)
    by mm on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    Obama's defenders will blame Clinton for not being the person that Obama could pick (e.g. "Obama would have picked Clinton, but she had said XXXXX about him, and that made it impossible.")

    In fact the reason he can't choose Clinton is because he made it impossible.  He chose to run as the anti-Clinton.  


    Disgusting.... (5.00 / 17) (#25)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    Gergen and Eagan should have been Hillary supporters if this is how they perceive a Hillary VP.

    I swear, I don't care what any of these Obama cheerleaders have to say about anything. Their shallowness, their vote-for-the-cute-guy senior class president mentality at a time when our country is in one hell of a mess is revolting to me.

    Gergen: No one else would so galvanize the Democrats, bring a fighter to his side, and send a clear message that an Obama administration would bring experience to solving problems both at home and abroad. Has anyone looked what happened to jobs and wages under Bush vs. Clinton? The comparison is startling.

    Gergen is a total OBama fanboy, believing the narrative that Obama is a rags-to-riches character whose symbolic value is more important than Hillary's experience, knowledge, and competence. This is outrageous.

    My opinion is that (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dk on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:45 AM EST
    the pundits are suddenly crying for Hillary because they see how boring the election will be without her on the ticket, and a boring election means less ratings/readership for their work.

    The first thought for these people is how they can become more famous/rich/revered.  I think it's unfortunate that BTD keeps quoting them.  BTDs arguments to Obama for choosing Hillary stand just fine on their own.  Why give Gergen, Bill Maher, and all the other bozos any more bandwidth than they already have.


    It's Good To Be Reminded Of This (none / 0) (#161)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    For the trad media, this is all about ratings.  They don't give a d@mn about substance and would cheerfully sell the entire country down the tubes for one more Nielsen point.  Celebrity is all that matters.

    Despite everything, years of (5.00 / 10) (#82)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:11:54 AM EST
    denying it, these guys will not, cannot ever take a woman as the best choice for the first position. I can see and feel it every time I talk to men like them.  They talk down to women in their own lives...
    they STILL see politics as a boys club.
    They KNOW Hillary is the better candidate and have known it all along.  They USED Bill's baggage to hide their own sexism....and some of them don't even get that they are doing it.

    Younger voters, voters the age of my nephews, are all about Obama.  Now my nephews both pride themselves on being independents.  The were kids during the Reagan era and loved the rah rah America of that era.  They came of age during the "slash and trash the Clintons" era of news media.  They have a blind spot when it comes to the Clintons.....they don't even know when they are repeating right wing bytes.
    In 2000 they voted for W, going along with all the Gore mockery of the media....they, like many their age, get most of their news from media.  I have had to prove to them that some of the Gore sound bytes were lies.

    I am tired of fighting them.  They are convinced that Obama is THE ONE.  

    My niece, their sister was for Hillary, now she just doesn't care at all.  It's a weird year.  All of my friends, my age, over 50 female, some hispanic, some AA, most white, are disappointed Hillary supporters.  This was the first year in a long time they became more active. I have always been the activist.  Now, I feel done. I am going to Denver to march in the parade to honor Hillary and after that I am pretty much done.  I will not vote republican, will probably vote straight dem but will no longer work for, care about democrats. I feel betrayed, attacked for my gender and my age and the party can stick as far as I am concerned.  Hillary as VP may revive me.
    But for now, I am done.


    You have it exactly right (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:35:50 AM EST
    The pundits who ridiculed the very idea of Hillary as president have no problem seeing her in the "subservient" role of VP. Of course, if Obama is smart enough to pick her, I suspect these same pundits will go back to "joking" about Obama needing a food taster as they did when the idea of her being his VP was first entertained (and dismissed) in June.

    this is hilarious (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:29:49 AM EST
    BTD would love this one: yesterday Theda Skocpol and today David Gergen want the person whom they reviled day in and day out for the past few months to come and save the party.....but didn't Obama say that he was sure that all of the Democratic party will vote for him as would Republicans in droves because he is a transformative candidate who is hard to dislike. Oh I forgot that was before the Republicans did a number on him!!
    Unfortunately Hillary will not be the VP. Why? Because he has Kerry and Daschle as advisers who still want to blur party lines. Already we know he has distanced himself from Wesley Clarke, mayor Villaraigosa and other Clinton loyalists. That Evan Bayh was even in contention this long is amazing. No, it will be some boring non-entity and Obama loyalist like Tim Kaine or Sebelius (both of whom bring no new enthusiasm on the table but the same old blur the party lines Repub-lite talk) or worse still Kerry (yeah we can see a rerun of all the 2004 ads again) or Daschle (that would be the very worst pick). So people can speculate but barring someone really electrifying and someone who can complement the base we are looking towards a very boring VP pick (maybe Bill Richardson again....he can go t sleep during the VP debate if we have one).

    I have no respect for Theda Skcopol (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    Not even for laughing at purposes.

    Her insistence on discussing confidential discussions during the Clinton Administration  in order to attack Hillary were so beneath contempt that I wonder that anyone would ever tell her anything again.


    she is a tool alright (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:49:25 AM EST
    a few months back she wrote a diatribe about how Obama should not retire her loan (which incidentally he did not). But I guess in the greater scheme of things the groundwork is being laid that if Obama slips further in polls and if, g-d forbid, Democrats snatch defeat in a year when they should have won handily, then the Clintons would be blamed for everything. Call me a cynic but I have seen enough in this primary season.

    There seems to be some second thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    in the 'sphere on the wisdom of Clinton bashing.

    And I am with BTD and Gergen. The O campaign has become lackluster and lethargic.

    Let's really give them something to talk about. McCain who?

    If he can't make a good decision now... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by sj on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:31:24 AM EST
    ...out in the open, I don't have a lot of confidence in decisions he makes in private.  Pride over prudence.  My way or the highway.  Leaving us with bad or worse.

    I was relieved to find that O has an interest in one thing I care about.  But I'm not sure the crumb is big enough.  How the h*ll did we end up here?  Dem "leadership" turned a "can't lose" election into a "can't win" presidency.

    I don't think it's going to happen, (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:36:48 AM EST
    especially if there have been no sightings of a beaming Bill Clinton, because you know Bill would have to feel completely vindicated, his stature restored, if Hillary is the one.  Unless one of the conditions of Hillary being chosen is that she can't tell Bill.  Ever.

    Obama has to do something to change the subject, because the topic of conversation now seems to be slightly less "Who's the VP?" and more "Obama's numbers are looking bad."  If the pick is not Hillary, I think it's covered as "oh, look: Obama finally made up his mind -  ____ is the pick...hmmm, yeah, okay, now, where were we?  Oh, yes - the falling Poll numbers for Obama and the rise of John McCain."

    I just have this feeling that not only is the VP announcement going to land flatter than weeks-old soda, but the Invesco Field event is going to hit all the wrong notes.

    Like a lot of you, who Obama picks will not change my mind about not voting for president this year; he's the wrong person and so is McCain.  If we could figure out how to run the country by plebiscite for a couple years while we come up with better choices...but that's not going to happen.

    Feel like I'm stuck in traffic on the highway, I can see the flashing lights from the emergency equipment, and the traffic reporter is telling me that it's really, really bad.

    LOL.......... (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:41:13 AM EST
    Unless one of the conditions of Hillary being chosen is that she can't tell Bill.  Ever.

    That's sounds like the plot of a screwball comedy.


    My thoughts exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    Hillary and Bill can have their own reality show, where she and audience know she's the VP but she's constantly trying to fool him into thinking she's still Senator.  Magic!

    I suspect (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    that if Hillary were the pick (which I really really doubt), they would not tell her until the very last minute, because it seems that Hillary does not have one single solitary friend in the world who does not leak like a sieve to the media!

    You call those friends? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    I call them moles.

    Well then (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:24:17 AM EST
    maybe she has no friends, because there is a distinct absence of non-leaky people.

    It's really odd (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EST
    that people who were bewildered by the NH results in the primary now rely upon a similar thing happening with Hillary on the ticket.  The older woman pushback.

    I agree with poblano, but I also think that Clinton might help kill off the celebrity line of attack on Obama.  The text message thing, and the new upscale Obama clothing line, are vulnerabilities for Obama on both the celebrity AND the elitist fronts.  Having her on the ticket says there's something for everyone, even those without text messaging.  She'll reach people in a different way.

    Because McCain could turn that ridiculous text messaging thing into an example of Obama's elitism ("you don't need a fancy phone to be involved in my campaign!") faster than a New York minute.

    "Clothing Line"??? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    This can't possibly mean what I think it does.

    Can it?


    Geez, It Does. (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    The list of participating designers, which includes Derek Lam, Isaac Mizrahi, Tracy Reese, Charles Nolan and Diane von Furstenberg, covers the full spectrum of the market, from high-end to inexpensive.




    Ineffingcredible (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    you took the word right outta my mouth.

    seriously (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    that cant be true.
    what next.  perfume?
    Eu D'Bama

    Read all about it in the new ... (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    ... Obama Magazine.

    It's not a POTUS, it's a lifestyle!


    Believe it (none / 0) (#182)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    I know, I know, it seems like a joke, but it is true. Read about it here.

    And with this, it is now beyond debate that truth really is stranger than fiction.


    The clearest sign it isnt Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    is the delay in announcing it. I think they're set on not picking her, know it will affect the polls and want as little time as possible before he gets the nomination and polls come out showing the hit he's going to take. Its the only reason that makes sense for dragging this out.

    That makes sense to me (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    but, boy, is it bizarre. In essence, you are saying that they're afraid to announce their VP pick.

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    and don't forget the Friday announcement.  They're hoping people forget all about the VP.

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    Friday - "Take Out the Trash Day" as it is affectionately known in press circles.

    Maybe the reverse (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    Obama may have decided at the last minute he needs her, and that is the reason for the delay.....

    Well, probably not.


    that a consideration.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    The problem is that Team Obama needs two things right now -- Hillary Clinton, and an effective attack dog.  So let me suggest the following scenario...

    ... Obama's internal polling probably was reflecting the public polls that have come out during the last few days, showing that Obama was in trouble, and Clinton could help him 'change the game'.

    Its perfectly feasible that Obama had made up his mind for someone else -- and was going to "interrupt his vacation" and fly to Virginia or Indiana or whereever, introduce his VP pick, and let him/her carry the ball for the next few days.... then the polls started showing he was in trouble.

    So for the last week or so, thrre have been desperate, behind the scenes efforts to get Clinton to take the VP slot -- but the negotiations aren't going well, not just because of the CDS of so many Obama insiders, but because Clinton (rightfully) refuses to play the "VP as attack dog" thing.  


    Why would HRC refuse to be (none / 0) (#152)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    on the attack as VP?  

    Because she's said some nice things in the past about McCain?  Which major Dem hasn't ?

    Did she not go on the attack in the primaries?  Of course she did -- a little late for sure, and not as consistently as she should have.  She was however hamstrung going negative given the nature of her opponent and how that camp and the O-favoring MCM was portraying the Clintons negatively at every juncture of the race.

    But help me out here -- I can't think of a reason why Hill wouldn't do what was necessary and expected to help the ticket.  She's going to get negative coverage whether she does it or not -- and even if she disappears into the backwater boonies like Edwards did, the media would cover that (rightly) as a negative for the ticket.


    because Clinton doesn't want to... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    ...Clinton would be unwilling to be the attack dog because its not how she wants to be defined -- and because it feeds into every negative stereotype about "how the Clintons do politics".

    Clinton never really "attacked" Obama so much as drew the contrast between her and Obama much more sharply.  For instance, the 3AM ad didn't even mention Obama, and followed the exact same themes she'd been using before ("ready on day one"), the only difference was the overt inference that Obama represented a dangerous risk because of his inexperience.

    Hillary Clinton spent eight years working on redefining herself, and lost the nomination because she tried to run an entirely positive, issue oriented campaign for too long despite being attacked by Obama.  I don't see why she would throw all that effort away, just to help Obama.


    But She's 'A Fighter' (none / 0) (#201)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    I don't think Clinton assuming the knees and elbows role as a VP candidate is at all inconsistent with an image she successfully crafted for herself in the primary, and with great respect and dignity.

    Okay, so what if it is Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:44:37 AM EST
    If he does pick Hillary, what grade would you give his campaign for how they did it?

    On the one hand, you could say they totally botched it and should have put her on the ticket as soon as she suspended her campaign.

    Or, on the other hand, you could say they played it genius by letting themselves drop in the polls so that the media could think that picking Hillary was a good idea.

    "Letting himself drop in the polls" (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    as a strategy?  You may need another cup of coffee this morning...

    Pelosi (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by jedimom on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    I think the big holdup in selecting Hillary may be the peeps like Pelosi who kept running their mouths about how there would be no dream ticket, take it from me, yada yada.

    Swallow your pride, leadership means more than writing books, it means doing what it takes to unify the party. After the first week of June, everyone called on Hillary as the one who had to unify us.

    She has done her part IMHO and with the polls like this there is just no reason NOT to pick Hillary. ANY person they pick has things to be used against them, anyone. but NO ONE else can bring the moderate DEMS IMO but Hillary.

    I know many PUMAS wont come over, but I will. I trust Hillary to address our issues and keep our families needs on the table and not sell out.

    Nancy should be telling Obama to pick Hillary, all the leadership should. Better still IMO she should never have said a word about the dream ticket to begin with. But since she did, and often, she should tell Obama to go ahead and do what needs to be done now.


    Exactly jedimom (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    I am already voting for Obama but, if Hillary is the VP, I will work my @ss off to get them elected. Why? Because it is a beautiful, feelgood, democratic ticket that, if successful, will mean real progressive change gets done IMO.

    I wish i felt the same way (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    Where I work the most competent, successful and wonderful woman was passed up for the president of the sales division of our company because a man who was 9 yrs her junior and had 1/2 her experience got the job.

    No way would I ever reward negative behavior by voting for it.  For all the hands-off that BHO seemed to perpetuate, he seemed to tacitly approve of the poor treatment HRC received at the hands of his surrogates.

    Reminds me of the billboards around town here of the christian radio stations that say "safe for the whole family" to listen to...cut to the next billboard of Hannity or OReilly.  The Christian radio stations would distance themselves from the likes of Hannity or OReilly but support their junk none the less.

    So no vote for Obama.  His message was safe for some, not for others.


    The movie (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    "Nine to Five"  has been playing in my head for a while now.  I LOVED it when it came out in the 80s because it rung so true for women.  We all knew or were one of the women who got passed over for some younger male who did half the work and took the twice the credit he deserved.

    I HONESTLY thought that it would change by the time the millenium rolled around. But it hasn't.  The democratic primary was a real life playout of that movie.   Hillary has worked twice as hard as the men whom she ran against.  And yet still the bossman (Dean) used his power to get HIS choice on the ticket.

    Now, I have to daydream like the women in that movie.  And Dean, more than anyone, is the object of my derision but I could easily and readily substitute Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle.   And any of the pundits from Matthews to Fineman to Cafferty to Olberman.  

    "We've come a long way baby" but they have not.


    number 2 (none / 0) (#93)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    picking HILL early would have been the dumbest things he could have did... would have looked very very weak and pushed into it.

    Hillary kinda gave it away when she said " i will do whatever Barack asks of me"

    she already knows shes the pick.. but she is savy enuff to know OBAMA has to play this a certian way


    Exactly (none / 0) (#180)
    by IzikLA on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    If he picks Hillary then my answer is that he played this brilliantly.  If it's not Hillary then they royally messed it up because all this build up needs a good payoff.

    She would be powerless (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:46:40 AM EST
    What person in their right mind would agree to a demotion?  

    Hardball (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    I don't think that any politician has appeared more times on Chris Mathews TV show. There is so much that he has said. I watched the show alot until this past primary season when the Clinton Derangement Syndrome began. I was so sick of seeing Biden on that show day after day. Put a camera before him and he will run his mouth until they put the lights out. I bet if its Biden,  it will be because the MSNBC crowd loves him so much.

    He was also a fixture on Imus. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:54:00 AM EST
    It would be interesting to know (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:54:36 AM EST
    if the people who say they will only vote for Obama if he chooses Hillary for VP are currently being counted as Obama supporters or not. Pollster asks, "Will you be voting for Senator Obama?" Answer - "If he chooses Hillary for VP." Yes column or No column? How do they record "under a limited number of conditions"? Most of the non-Obama Dems or former Dems that I know will still not vote for Obama if he chooses Hillary. Some of them would be less likely to vote for him if he chooses her under the current circumstances than if he had asked her in June. If he doesn't pick her, are his poll numbers going to stay the same (excluding the bounce from his choice if there is a bounce) or go down?

    Thank you BTD (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by jedimom on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:00:55 AM EST
    FWIW I know you have tried to encourage the Obama campaign to help bring the party together while looking after their own interests by selecting Hill as VP for some time now.

     I vividly recall your words to Sen Clinton on the blogger conference call also, and you have always made it clear that while you felt that Obama was more electable, that you respected Hillary and her campaign.

    If most of the Obama supporters on the blogs (and appearing on TV and radio for that matter) had framed their arguments in the manner you did, I think we would be in a much different place as a party than we are right now.

    The CDS coming from some of the Obama supporters on the blogs then and now IMHO was far worse than any GOP CDS I have ever experienced.

     Maybe we were more sensitive to it as it came from our own 'side'.

    In any event, whatever happens from here forward, you have been a pleasure to follow through the primary season and I hope Obama takes your advice. It is the only way I can feel comfortable voting for him and I know I am not alone.

    Absolutely Saul - (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    I feel the same way.  I keep meaning to read his biographer (?)  He is a huge presence in the American political theatre and even though I hated the war - I had an affection for him in my heart of hearts.

    I remember one evening my dad and I were sitting and watching tv.  We were feuding at that time about Vietnam.  My dad turned to me when LBJ came on and said:  Anyone can get a job under this man - even if it's pushing a broom.  People will remember this later when things change.  I said:  I agree dad - he's a good domestic president.  A moment I cherished because we called a truce.  

    Oh no you don't, Poblano (5.00 / 18) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    This quote is just the same demeaning NH 'girlfriend vote' crap:

    With Clinton, on the other hand, voters naturally want to come to her defense -- and overzealous attempts to whip the Republican base into a frenzy will be counteracted with outrage from significant numbers of older and working-class women.

    What voters?  What naturally?  What defense?

    They still don't get it.  The reason Obama can't close the deal with those older (35+) white women isn't because of some innate 'protect the women and children' bullsh*t.

    The is just the same intentionally obtuse cr*p we've heard all along.  People voted for Clinton because they believed she'd make a good president, not because she's some melodrama herione tied to the railroad tracks.  Even now, still, they can't admit that Clinton inspired 18 million voters on her merits -- oh no, it's some sort of mysterious inbred reflex that exists outside Clinton, she's just the lucky beneficiary.

    And all the groups that 'naturally' came to her defense (which didn't include Poblano or his merry friends) came to her defense because of the actions of the Democratic Party to destroy her and that part of the party she represents.  

    Attacks on Clinton were attacks on the voters themselves.  Only the Democrats are stupid enough, and myopic enough, to think they could get away with that.  

    At least the Republicans respect her enough to treat her like the formidable opponent she is, and not like dirt on their shoes.  Poblano is just projecting the Obama-side misogyny onto Republicans.  The Rs have misogyny of their own, but it's of a quite different character, and they are smart enough not to stick it on a sign 50 miles high and parade around with it like it's a badge of their infinite cleverness.

    Obama waited too long.  If he picks Clinton now, it's not a sign that he respects her and her voters; it's only a sign that the O-resisters were right all along that he has no respect for her or her voters.

    attacking voters is right (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by aquarian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM EST
    Because I am not into cult of personality, my anger about how Clinton was treated is not tied to my love for Clinton.  I was outraged because I felt attacked, demeaned, and marginalized.  Obama supporters are clueless - they thought they could get away with the theory that they don't hate women, just THAT woman.

    And your comment:
    "The Rs ... are smart enough not to stick [mysogeny] on a sign 50 miles high and parade around with it like it's a badge of their infinite cleverness."

    Wow.  Hear my angry laugh.



    Obama supporters and the media (5.00 / 11) (#148)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM EST
    are clueless or hateful or both.  Their attacks of that woman, or that old woman or that shrill woman or that *itch was their humor.  The little boys (regardless of their ages) thought it was funny.  And the little girls that joined them were a part of that group that says things, like a poster I read yesterday, "suffrage event or some other feminist thing." DUH?  HUH???

     How sad.  We have  young women who see "getting the right to vote" as a feminist thingy.  Did reading that depress other women as much as it did me???  How can anyone, let alone a woman, write off the years and hard work and danger that women worked for for decades, centuries probably as a "feminist thing?"  

    Meanwhile the pundits and the Obama campaign and perhaps society in general is STUNNED at the anger of older women.  Maybe they need to wake up. Maybe they are too stupid.  Maybe they have selective memory.   Some of us old enough to remember the sixties and have been a part of it.......and also remember the blatant sexism in this oh so liberal movement.  Some of us remember the guys all sitting around so serious, plotting, organizing and demanding "civil rights for all, end the ward, end discrimination" while ordering their women to get them food, coffee or whatever.  They also expected us to worship THEIR sacrifice, admire their angst and their strength for taking on "the man."  At the same time, even mentioning "equal rights for women" was a non starter.

    So they are shocked by the push back of older women???  And on the Oblogs they are calling us selfish, stupid, and whatever.  Here's a clue kiddos: name call all you want. Been there, done that.  We know the game. Women who do not bow to your every need are selfish; women who dare say enough already are selfish; women who say "sick of it" are all coming together because we are done being talked down to, ignored, mocked or trashed.
    Do your thing. Don't expect us to prop you.


    Great Rant, Jjc2008. Thanks. n/t (none / 0) (#193)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    meant misogyny --doh! sigh-- (none / 0) (#95)
    by aquarian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:20:39 AM EST
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM EST
    I perceive some validity to it.  I personally developed a lot more of an affinity for Hillary during the primaries because she was being so unfairly attacked.  It caused me to think less about her flaws and more about the fact that despite all that, she's a fundamentally good person and Democrat who doesn't deserve all the BS.

    agree (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by aquarian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    but at the end of the day, I voted for Clinton because I knew she would fight hard for issues important to me.  That's what I need in a president.  I absolutely do like and respect her for dealing with the rash of crap thrown at her.  Had she been nominated and won, her grace under fire would have made me very proud to have her as my president.  Frosting on the cake given the current administration.  

    to me the interesting question right now (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    is who is mccain going to choose. i have given up on obama and is suspect others have also.

    I really think it is (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    going to be either LIEberman or Ridge.  last night Tweety had two rockribbed conservatives on saying not only could he get away with it but he SHOULD do it as the smart thing to do.
    republicans know how to win. unlike others.
    I think this new attack on Obama about the abortion thing makes this even more likely.  they are going to make Obama a baby killer.  have you seen the nurse who "cradled a dying baby in a dirty utility closet for the 45 minutes of its life" alledgedly because of the law that Obama was the only IL senator to support?
    they are going to milk this one so much that Ridge or LIEberman will look prolife by comparison.

    also (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    I saw an argument last night that IF it is Biden it makes Ridge almost a certainty because of the influence Biden, sometimes known as the third senator from Pennsylvania, could have in that state.

    Because Biden is from Scranton (none / 0) (#186)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    Maybe that is why Obama is looking at him also.

    My guess - and this is a long shot I know (none / 0) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    is that he will pick Carly Fiorina or maybe that lady he mentioned at Saddleback from eBay if Obama does not pick Clinton.

    He said something about his VP pick yesterday and was careful to be gender neutral in his comment.

    Another reason that I think picking Clinton would be extremely smart because it would be just like the Republican Party to pick up on the clear trend that our primary's polling showed - a woman on the ticket can be a real asset.


    true (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    but a pro choice man would have a similar, if less dramatic, effect.
    I said months ago he would pick a woman but I dont see many republican women who seem to fit that well.
    perhaps the ones you mention.
    but I agree.

    McCain is staunchly anti-choice. (none / 0) (#168)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    I think it could be possible that he might select either one of those business women whose track records on politics would be difficult to figure out - who could also be rabidly anti-choice for all we know - just to hold either one up as a symbol that people might make assumptions about - like that they are pro-choice.  That would be very "McCain" - paint a picture of moderation while everything about the reality is as rightwing as he always has been.

    also true (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    I really think it will either be Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    or Kaine.  but Kaine and Biden and Bayh are all looking more and more like fake outs to me.
    I still think Hillary is got real chance.  
    how can he ignore what pretty much everyone else in the country seems to know?
    if he does I think it tell us a lot about what kind of president he would be.  the Bush kind of president.  in that he listens to nothing and no one but his own whims.

    Your last paragraph..... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    ...is scary.

    CAPT HOWDY is a genius (none / 0) (#109)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    Kaine and Bayh  are 100% fake outs.  So is Biden.

    I am an Obama supporter  but not a cultist..

    i love hillary and want her on the ticket.  I have said before... i would love to see her rip McCain up and down until her and Obama take over the WH.

    would be great to see.... hopefully the NOBAMAS will come on in.


    openly dispatching people to Indiana (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    spending the day with Kaine.  letting people stake out Bidens house.  its a fake out.
    (but Ive been wrong before).
    I just hope to god its not Nunn.

    Personal experience (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST
    I always hate to make a generalization from personal experience, but from the women I know who are very political and Hillary supporters, unless she is VP, they are not joining.  And by the way, they did not like all the jerking her around before about the floor vote and her speech.  

    The joint appearance will be in Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    in the state legislature where Lincoln served and Obama began his campaign.

    Lincoln.  Team of Rivals.  The opportunity is there.....

    he picks Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:41:25 AM EST
    and the crowd goes wild.  he picks any of the others named, and the crowd goes back to sleep.
    it seems like such a no brainer.

    Hubris (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by downtownted on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    it is impossible for the Democrats to lose this election. There is a despised Iraq War, a terrible and imploding economy, and a Republican President with horrible poll numbers,  etc., etc.  The only way the Democrats could lose would to be so full of themselves that they nominated a candidate who couldn't close the deal with the American public. A candidate who won't nominate for VP the person who helps the most. That couldn't be happening could it? To coin an old phrase: "say it ain't so, Joe."

    puhleaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzze! (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    sen. obama is no lincoln, by a looooong stretch; he has neither lincoln's focus or political instincts.

    picking sen. clinton for vp won't change the basic fact that obama is still obama. he's not qualified to be president, any more so than is mccain. clinton can't change that salutory fact.

    sen. clinton is a team player. if asked, i've no doubt she would accept, for the good of the country and party.

    that said, i'll still utilize that write-in option on my ballot.

    The question I have is (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    Does Hillary want it? I don't see any benefit to her being VP. Staying where she is allows her to keep her powerful Senate position and her base of support from which to re-launch her own campaign in 2012. There's a pretty good chance Obama will lose the election, even with her as VP, so all that does is tie her to a losing ticket and kill her own political career. Even if he wins, it's doubtful he'll allow her any real clout or independence. She has much more power as a Senator. Why would she do it? As the Godfather used to say, "there's no percentage in it."

    Also, you need to read what the PUMAs are saying if you want to understand whether this will switch their vote. As Valhalla noted in her outstanding post, Hillary's supporters dont' follow her in lockstep. Many of them do NOT want her to be VP, and won't just transfer their support automatically even with her as VP.

    As one commenter at a PUMA site put it, "That would just make me sad, to have to vote against her." I think that attitude may be pretty far and wide among the Dems who don't support Obama.

    P Lukasiak, I wanted to add my own thumbs-up to your totally excellent "sea-worthy boat" metaphor.  

    What Kaine brings to the ticket (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    ....is abject adoration. The way his starry yes are stalking Obama as he paces across the stage is comedy gold. Hillary would never do that.

    Live on CNN.

    Ah (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    The Nancy Reagan adoring stare factor.

    When Hillary came under the sexist attacks (5.00 / 12) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:13:19 AM EST
    she was center stage demonstrating what women in this country deal with every single day.  Yeah she generated some passion alright and then she handled the situation with so much damned style, grace, and bare bones gut level strength and intelligence that it was clear who was presidential material and who wasn't to all the women in this country and many of the men who are brave enough to love such women.  I will be a long long time in regaining respect for many folks I once had respect for, Kos and Keith Olberman along with Maher will probably never be able to rekindle my respect for them again and so what.  The fallout from this primary is radioactive and it is going to have a longterm affect on the party and the future......AS IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!

    ok (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:53:08 AM EST
    when this starts appearing on HuffPo I think you can identify a definite trend:

    Summer Love, Fall Freak-Out: The Bradley Effect and Why Obama Will Lose Without Hillary

    BTD (4.72 / 11) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    while I agree with you that the Clinton supporters are the most persuadable I find it extremely interesting that the campaign has not tried to get these supporters on board and has spent more energy courting evangelicals who are even less likely to vote for Obama. It looks like very poor campaign strategy to me.

    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:26:16 AM EST
    Read me for the last 4 years on this "values voters" nonsense.

    This is key.... (4.82 / 17) (#37)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM EST
    Obama wouldn't "need" Clinton if he'd put half as much effort and energy into getting their support as he did kowtowing to the GOP base.

    I suspect that Obama really thinks that Clinton supporters are like his own -- part of a personality cult -- and that Clinton had as much control over her supporters as (he thinks?) he has over his followers.

    The distinction betwenn "supporters" and "followers" is key here -- and one that Obama doesn't understand.


    You have the key distinction (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by stxabuela on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    "supporter" v. "follower."  I am a Clinton supporter, but I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone just because she said I should.  I make my own decisions, so I don't consider myself a follower.  

    BTD said he underestimated the passion of Clinton's women supporters.  I would say "determination" is a better term.  Passion can quickly cool--determination is much more solid and long-lasting. Look no further than this primary season.  It wasn't passion, it was determination that kept Clinton's supporters turning out in record numbers, even when the MSM and the DNC told us 10 times a day she was finished.    


    cult of personality explains it for me (4.42 / 7) (#61)
    by aquarian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    Obama's supporters love their candidate and are unwavering in their support notwithstanding some of his recent unprogressive positions.  His supporters take it for granted that Clinton supporters love Clinton in the same way they love Obama.  This leads them to the logical fallacy that Clinton supporters are not supporting Obama because they can't or won't transfer their love to Obama (i.e. are "sore losers" who can't "get over it").  If Clinton supporters were "real democrats," in their view, they would be supporting Obama already.  They are confused, and fail to appreciate I voted for Clinton because I thought she was good on my issues.  Her recommendation to vote for Obama does not influence me because my vote is not tied to cult of personality.  

    I cannot be alone in this.  Obama's campaign is oblivious, and running a very poor campaign to date.  Come November, I will be very hard pressed to vote for a lousy politician who is so tone deaf about the democratic base.


    I think it is worse than what you (4.00 / 3) (#136)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    describe actually.  Up until this latest poll, they seemed to think that they could do without Clinton and her supporters because their supporters were so enthusiastic and energized.

    What they don't get is that when we enter the polling booth each vote - no matter how much enthusiasm is behind it - is given exactly the same weight as every other vote cast.

    Now if we voted for someone and also rated them on a scale of 1-10, Obama might be able to do without voters like me who aren't very excited - it might be in his best interest if I stayed home...  But we don't.  My vote for him will be given the exact same weight as each and every one of his biggest, most devoted and loyal fans.


    OTOH (none / 0) (#6)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:10:44 AM EST
     "I can see repeated commercials stating that "Even Joe Biden thinks that Obama isn't qualified to be President." "

    I see endless tape-loops of the "3 a.m." spot.

    bull (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:17:48 AM EST
    The 3 AM commercial doesn't mention Barack, doesn't have a picture of Barack, there's nothing Barack about it.  It was all inferred.

    Biden, on the other hand, explicitly said -- twice! -- that Obama was not ready to be President.  Hillary never did that, deftly deflecting the question because she saw the trap.


    Exactly. She never said that. (5.00 / 12) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:19:49 AM EST
    It was about HER. It was about how SHE was ready.  Not everything is about Obama, after all. Geesh.

    RNC made that ad - it's on the net (none / 0) (#213)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    Here's the ad.

    Biden has a good line in the ad.


    Do you buy any of the arguments (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:19:23 AM EST
    that the gain in support from Hillary supporters would be cancelled out by a reenergized right-wing base that would come out to vote against the Clintons, plus loss of independents supporting Obama?  

    Just curious.

    I don't buy it at all. (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:20:32 AM EST
    The Clinton-hate from the right is overblown. I had several Clinton-hating Republicans tell me during the primary that they were impressed with her. Some even voted for her!

    defining (and redefining) Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:10:08 AM EST
    ... Hillary was able to redefine herself with a lot of voters, despite the constant media barrage of Clinton hating, because when people saw her, the image and the reality were completely at odds.

    But as a VP candidate, she wouldn't be the same Hillary who was running for President -- and she wouldn't have the kind of exposure she would need to redefine herself.  

    Additionally, there are a lot of Clinton haters in Obama's organization -- and the minute there is a perceived "Hillary problem" the impulse will be to blame Clinton, and downplay her role in the campaign, effectively eliminating any real advantage she brings to the ticket.  


    i dont buy those arguments (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by sancho on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM EST
    republicans always employ depress-the-vote or, in this case, depress-the-candidates strategies. great tactic but one should not fall for it. dems dont seem to have a depress-the-candidate strategy--except with their own.

    McCain has consolidated the GOP base (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:25:21 AM EST
    Obama has NOT consolidate the Dem base. Since Dems outnumber Republicans and Independents, and since Obama is underperforming with Dems, his most persuadable group, even if it shaved on some anti-Clinton votes, the gain is much larger.

    The polls are clear on this now.


    Exactly, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    forget the Saddleback crowd. They are now and forever unavailable to national Dems.

    I think that's a false argument.... (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:28:58 AM EST
    First of all, the Republicans are already coming home to McCain now and probably starting to get a teeny, weeny bit energized because they think they might actually have a shot at beating the Dems. The notion that Obama was going to get a lot of Republicans to vote for him was always a pipe dream. But the fact is he didn't need them, never did. There are more registered Democrats.

    Second, the polls are showing that there are far more Hillary holdouts than the "experts" thought there would be. These are the votes that Obama needs. If these voters stuck with Hillary through thick and thin, they won't jump ship because suddenly the right wing attacks that they've been ignoring for years will make them turn against Hillary.

    The biggest problem for Obama if he picks Hillary are his own CDS-afflicted supporters. But if he can't hold on to them, the ones that were behind his ascendancy, then he is truly a weak candidate and that is not Hillary's fault.


    Wasn't that one of his allegedly biggest (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    selling points?? Parents of young liberals that always voted Republican were simply dying to vote for Obama. What happened to them??

    They never really existed (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:22:59 AM EST
    Someone discussed a poll here on TL (which I unfortunately didn't bookmark) a couple of weeks ago showing that McCain's getting far more crossover support than Obama, and all those crossover primary voters have faded back into the Republican woodwork.

    Right - a calculated (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:37:01 AM EST
    decision by the campaign.  Annoying that - that he uses the Democratic Party in order to destroy it - though in his mind he's creating something better - something post partisan, post modern.  

    If I were still in school, I think an interesting paper would be linking this thinking and globalization.  But let's face it - it just makes me tired.  I might get a first paragraph off.


    I do not believe (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    that Clinton-hatred has the ability to galvanize the right wing any more than Obama-hatred already does.

    I mean, for goodness sakes, the guy is a secret Islamofascist who wants to take away everyone's gun, kill all the babies in the womb, and confiscate all your property and give it to lazy welfare cheats.  Or hadn't you heard?

    It's true, the GOP hasn't succeeded in generating the widespread antipathy for Obama among Independent voters the same way many of those voters tend to dislike Hillary.  But as far as the Republican base is concerned - and BTD has said this for a long time - they will be energized to vote against Obama just like they would have been energized to vote against Hillary.  There's room for more than one liberal demon in the conservative pantheon.


    LOL, sounds right (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:55:43 AM EST
    So basically, the GOP base are equal opportunity haters. And as far as this goes:

    I mean, for goodness sakes, the guy is a secret Islamofascist who wants to take away everyone's gun, kill all the babies in the womb, and confiscate all your property and give it to lazy welfare cheats.

    Don't forget that he's also into infanticide (props to Santorum).


    Roadapples (none / 0) (#16)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:21:58 AM EST
    "there's nothing Barack about it"

    Yeah, I see your point

    Obama Hints At His Choice? (none / 0) (#24)
    by bmc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:26:18 AM EST
    Karen Tumulty offers her perceptions of Obama's comments during an interview with her, and says she thinks it's going to be Evan Bayh. I'm not sure she reads his comments the same way I do, but there ya go:


    He's got to swallow hard and pick Hilary (none / 0) (#28)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:29:33 AM EST
    As Nader says.  He said Kennedy had to do that with Johnson.  

    One thing is for Obama to stay with his core initial principal that he is the new type of politician and the Clintons are everything I hate about the past of politics.

    The other is for Obama to say do

    I want to cinch this election or not.  
    If the answer is yes then he has to swallow hard and pick Hilary.  

    If you believe Sy Hersch (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM EST
    Kennedy was blackmailed into picking Johnson - From his book:  The Dark Side of Camelot.

    Hersch has a lot of credibility - and the book is well documented.



    I do not doubt it. (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:58:37 AM EST
    Johnson was an extremely powerful person.  Everyone owed him a favor and when he called in his markers you better deliver or that would be the end of your political life.  After Kennedy died, Johnson was probably the most powerful president since FDR.  History will show that even though Johnson got into his political positions using very crooked ways, he will be shown as one of the few presidents who  passed  so many major pieces of legislation during his adminstration.  Very few presidents get major pieces of legislation passed under their watch. So in a funny way his crooked ways and power was used to achieve some good.

    It's largely a media myth, helped (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    by some lazy historians or those biased in favor of a more positive JFK-LBJ ticket story line, that has misled so many over the yrs to assume Kennedy really wanted Lyndon.

    Only two people knew the truth -- and only one lived long enough to tell about it.  THat would be RFK, the only other person in that hotel room constantly with his brother who was in on the decision, first to make a mere pro forma offer which Kennedy expected and counted on to be rejected, then the decision to have Bobby go down to Lyndon's room twice to try to talk him into getting off the ticket.  No reason for RFK to lie or dissemble about this, and when you read his oral history testimony about it, it's clear he's passionate and insistent upon his version (as against the Lyndon camp version, the myth still repeated today).

    Kennedy knew well how Lyndon on the ticket would greatly upset the labor leaders and the liberals -- that is how much LBJ was hated by these groups -- and had just made firm and unequivocal assurances to them that he would not be selecting Johnson.  It makes no sense for him to have done so had he intended to pick Lyndon -- on the contrary, he would have been trying to massage the liberals and CR leaders in anticipation of putting Johnson on board.  No such prep work was done, whatsoever; only damage control after the fact, after Lyndon refused to step aside.

    As for the curious Sy Hersh, he is a well-known and, iirc, a self-confessed Kennedy Hater.  Wouldn't trust a thing he has to say about the Kennedys, and have no idea what sort of "blackmail" nonsense he's talking about.  If there was legit blackmail material Lyndon had, he would have used it against JFK to get the nom, not to get the #2.

    Oh, btw, Lyndon had a huge Dem majority to work with, plus a post-Dallas sympathy factor working in favor of passing some of Kennedy's major legis.  But it was Kennedy, against the advice of his overly cautious VP, who put the CR bill in motion ...  


    Saul - I answer you downstairs - (none / 0) (#70)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:06:57 AM EST

    Nader (none / 0) (#171)
    by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    Nader has changed his tone considerably.

    This is what he said earlier - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252392,00.html

    Nader said Clinton, a Democratic front-runner for the White House, has "no political fortitude."

    "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the armed services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.''

    No he has suddenly changed his tone!!!
    I wonder why? Has he recognized that Obama is even worse than what he says about Hillary
    or is there some other reason?


    Is HRC best way to get HRC voters? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Exeter on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    Perhaps not, but that is the question that the Obama question should be asking.  I can't think of a better candidate to get HRC voters than HRC and Bill.  Maybe Kerry or Wes Clark.

    Not Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    Not after he endorsed against her in that big press conference.  Not a lot of Kerry fans around after that.

    No Hilary No votes (none / 0) (#74)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    I have always said that the passion of the democratic nomination will make or brake the general election.  

    This time its different.  The passion is hardcore and will not be compromised or be diluted even if it means loosing the GE to McCain.

    Most of the Hilary supporters  want Hilary in some capacity.  If they could not get her as President then only VP will do.

    Failure to do that will doom the GE.

    Again Obama has to swallow his pride and pick Hilary.

    i think (none / 0) (#88)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    i think for HILL pick to be effective and make the repubs scramble

    1  He has to float names to deflect his real choice of hillary

    2  He needs to keep these names floating to make it LOOK like he made very tuff choice and finally picked Hill.

    its so obvious.   I ever suspect the REPUBS are prepping anti-hillary stuff now in anticipation.

    If it is Hillary , the press will go wild (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    It would be such a positive event....

    They have been preparing anti-Hillary stuff (none / 0) (#94)
    by DemForever on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    for years, as well as Bill's library donation list, etc..  It will be a wild election season if he picks her.

    Bill's library is the only new issue (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    That can be handled any number of ways......But it should not be a big issue.

    Everything else is old stuff.  And, Hillary never did anything wrong....The Right just did not like her....The Right demonizes everyone.....

    The Right needs the validation from those in authority.  They had to tear down Bill, to de-legitmize him, because otherwise it ruins their sense of self.  Those on the Right tend to believe those in power are right and valid in what they do.  This is also why beating them makes them compliant.

    The reason why social conservatives are relatively quiet now is not because they have become more reasonable.  No, they just feel defeated because Bush is such a disaster.  I re-llearned this from the Saddleback debate.  Let them feel close to winning, and they will come out in full force...Let them--or McCain--win, and they will be resurgent.


    Gergen is right (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:19:44 AM EST
    They were talking about Hillary as VP last night on MSNBC.

    Let it happen.

    I think people read this blog.  I hope the Obama folks do.

    Whatever happened to (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST
    Gephardt? And Jerome Armstrong is saying KERRY? Can't believe it's come down to this.

    I can't believe ANYONE (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    would pick Kerry.  I was under the impression that losing a presidential bid is major bad publicity.  I liked Kerry, although I thought his campaign stunk.  But Kerry lost.  

    At least Hillary can campaign competently.  


    He and Obama give long answers (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    they both play in the surf and give 80-word answers where a 5-word one would suffice.

    Gephardt? (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    IIRC Gephardt was one of the biggest cheerleaders for supporting Bush on Iraq. Kerry would be a great choice. He would silence the meme that Obama is an elitist immediately. <snark>

    there is one other selfish reason (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    I want it to be Hillary.
    I dont think they would win.  they might, but I think not.
    Hillary would campaign her heart out and so would Bill and they would not be able to say "they didnt do enough" or some crap.

    of course she would (none / 0) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    she would be foolish not to.

    This is a chance for Obama to show some judgment (none / 0) (#217)
    by Romberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    Obama keeps telling me that he is going to use his judgment (which frankly scares me) and here he has a chance to show us that he can actually has some good judgment. Of course if he were to offer Hillary the VP slot, she would have to suspend her own good judgment and sacrifice for the political interests of Obama. I can't see that. At this point I think Hillary would decline. Rightfully so.

    Incredible admission (none / 0) (#218)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    "But let's face it: The excitement during the primaries was Obama v. Hillary, not Obama alone. It was Obama vs. Hillary, and what's loose-cannon Bad Boy Bill up to today? It was Obama, this completely unknown black guy, out-vaunting the vaunted Clinton machine. It was the audacity of his audacity, to steal The Messiah's favorite word."

    This is one of the incredible admissions of stupidity I have ever read.

    The fun was in destroying Clinton.
    She refers to Obama as the "black guy".

    And these people are still being quoted?
    They should be run out of town.

    And we may wind up with 4 years of McCain.
    Thank you very much, you infantile fools.

    Last Chance for McCain/HRC?? (none / 0) (#219)
    by AlSmith on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    Local Clinton backers, McCain adviser meet

    Kind of an odd story- HRC's brother spent a day meeting with ICarly.

    Perhaps they are seeing if a McCain/Clinton ticket can be put together. Not totally impossible since McCain is not going to run for re-election anyway.

    Then she can take the better offer back to Obama? Oh who knows this week?!

    If he doesn't pick Hillary (none / 0) (#220)
    by scourtney on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    we can get used to saying "President McCain" or more likely "How fast can I move to Canada?"... it's really unfortunate and I think it's because she is a superstar in her own right. I think he doesn't want to share the thunder. I posted a video about Obama and the VP pick... I'm a comedian so check it out, BTD!

    If he doesn't pick Hillary (none / 0) (#221)
    by scourtney on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    we can get used to saying "President McCain" or more likely "How fast can I move to Canada?"... it's really unfortunate and I think it's because she is a superstar in her own right. I think he doesn't want to share the thunder. I posted a video about Obama and the VP pick... I'm a comedian so check it out, BTD!

    Pick has been made (none / 0) (#222)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:10:05 PM EST
    Obama stated the pick has been made  but it wont be announced just yet.

    Still not giving up hope on Obama (none / 0) (#223)
    by shmerritt on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    I still have a faint (though not strong) hope that Obama will be wise enough to have chosen Hillary Clinton for his running mate to be vice president and that the machinations (e-mail list, mobile text messaging list announcement) are just deflective hype (as someone says above).  In any case, I will be voting for the Obama/? ticket; but, as I've said since day one, I do not feel that Obama has the political or life gravitas (read: "experience") to win this election (to be decided by the undecided); he ''needs' Hillary Clinton on the ticket to win against McCain.  He has my vote; but I fear he does not have the vote of other Hillary Clinton supporters to prevail in November.  He must be smarter, and announce that she is his choice for VP; otherwise, he will lose even more substance and appear even weaker than he already does.  Of all the floated possible names, only Hillary Clinton has what it takes to be President of the United States if she had to take over the job.  That is the key factor that a VP candidate must have.

    Faint hope (none / 0) (#224)
    by shmerritt on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    That he's announcing his pick in Illinois does not rule out Hillary Clinton, Illinois native and reignites glimmer of faint hope. (Meant italics in prev. message, sorry for typo. error.)

    I'm beginning to believe that (none / 0) (#225)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    Anyone Obama picks as VP will be killing their own career.  Hillary would be a fool to accept his offer if it's made which I really don't think his ego or his wife would let him do.