home

Politico: It Won't Be Hillary

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:07:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apparently "anybody's short list" does not include Barack Obama's:

Obama has often said, most recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 27, that Clinton “would be on anybody’s short list.” But apparently not his.

“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?” The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy. . . . “This would be the biggest leap of faith ever,” the official said. “She’s waiting for the text message like everyone else.”

By Big Tent Democrat, Speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< The New Politics | How Do We Avoid Executing the Innocent? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Politico: It Won't Be Hillary | 204 comments (204 topical)
    This is the reason (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    for the Friday afternoon announcement....

    Seems like poor judgment (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    to wait until now to anonymously squelch the "maybe it's Hillary" notion.  All week long people have been buzzing about it, and for the people who think it would be a good pick, there's no percentage in disappointing them.  If she wasn't under consideration they should have established that long ago.

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    This is no surprise to me but I like pinning the tail on this one.

    Parent
    They're hoping (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    there isn't much time for the "why wasn't it Hillary" conversation before the convention starts.

    Of course, there will be plenty of time for that when he loses because of it in November.

    If it isn't Hillary, then who cares who it is.  Really.  If it isn't Hillary, it's just a blob and that's how Obama wants it.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    Tuesday night that will be the big conversation.

    If he wanted to get that conversation out of the way, he needed to announce the pick a few days ago.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    but it will likely be a Saturday through Tuesday conversation now; whereas if he'd announced it last Monday, it would have lots more time to sink in to the "undecided" Hillary voters and he'd go into the convention BEHIND McCain in the polls.

    Just speculating.

    BTW, do you still think he's a shoo-in?

    Parent

    Well, a big oops then (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    Because half of us have already had the conversation, because we knew he wouldn't pick her, while the other half who thinks he might is going to be no less disappointed when it's not her.

    If his instead-pick were someone awesomesly supercalifrajilisticly fantastic, it might take away some of the sting, but no chance of that with the other choices.

    another topic:  I really expected Obama's numbers to start rising leading up to the convention.  They started going up leading up to the European tour with all the media coverage.  I think even John Kerry's number started rising a bit.  But Ras still has him at only 1 up (Gallup isn't out yet).

    Parent

    Personally, I am glad it won't be Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    She has done enough for him already....AND enough from those who think she should do more.  Maybe she will if obama EVER gets it in gear.  He has alienating blocs of voters down to a science, bringing them into the fold....not so much.

    Parent
    No kidding (3.00 / 2) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    She was even keeping her word to Obama by stumping out in FL yesterday. Hours earlier she had lost the second close friend in a week, and the media stomped all over her that she said the word "opponent" (it was the proper word to use in the context she used it, btw), looked tired, and journalist critics complained she still wasn't doing enough for Obama!

    HE should have come out publicly against every single one of those criticisms and cancelled her appearances on his behalf until after the convention.

    Parent

    The other reason (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    (and I speculate) is they're hoping that the convention bounce overcomes the not-Hillary tanking of the polls.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    but who is going to give them a bounce?  By far the largest bloc of undecided voters is the folks who were Clinton voters in the primary.  Even if they're not "bitter knitters," I can't imagine this snub will leave them in a good mood.

    Parent
    Bitter Knitter here (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    I will be celebrating when Obama doesn't choose her. The "snub" happened months ago. It would have been a sad day when I went to the polls and voted against her so I will be relieved when I don't have to.

    Parent
    and it'll be interesting (none / 0) (#157)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    if the night she makes her speech has higher viewership than the night he makes his.

    It wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

    Parent

    I'll make sure to DVR (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    it, but have no plans of watching, unless I'm accidentally poisoned, or something and have a need to vomit....;-0

    Parent
    Here, here! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    Or is it Hear! Hear!

    I'm never sure.

    Parent

    It's here, hear....lol (none / 0) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    Seriously....hear, hear, I think :)

    Parent
    it's (none / 0) (#175)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    hear! hear!

    as in I hear you!  I hear you! (and agree with what you're saying)

    :-)

    Parent

    Actually, it's a Britism (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    from bailiffs, I believe, calling out for those in court to come to attention -- i.e., hear ye, hear ye -- and then adapted (in Parliament, etc.) to your use of hear, hear, i.e., I hear you.  So I was told by an Anglophile friend into medieval Brit stuff.

    Here, here is what we say to puppy dogs. :-)

    Parent

    Dis Dis (none / 0) (#207)
    by Athena on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    I hear ya.  The official disrespect shown to Clinton by the party and its candidate will cost them dearly.

    But they're not that smart.  The arrogance dominates.

    I guess 18 million votes can be ignored.  I'm one of them.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Landulph on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    Heck, have Obama and Clinton issue a very cordial joint statement weeks ago. Especially after OBama's boneheaded comments yesterday, they're just asking for a backlash of epic proportions.

    Parent
    Stupid If It's Not Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    by waiting until so close to the election, it basically guarantees that the one thing Obama doesn't want to happen will happen - Hillary will overshadow him for a lot of the convention.  

    If it's not Hillary (and I have no reason at this point to think it will be), then this has been badly mismanaged, IMO.  

    Parent

    convention, not election (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Too bad for him (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
    I'm sure he would have liked playing President in the White House and not in his mind.

    We'll see, though, whether it is the biggest fake-out or the biggest mistake we've seen in a while.

    Ok, first big decosion and he doesn't (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    consider the best person for the job, tells me alot.

    Just insulting BTD. I thought she was on (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    any one's short list, per Obama. To not even consider her tells me he doesn't have good political instincts. Vet Hagel but not the person who almost beat you and would have under a more fair system?

    Not to mention someone who more than (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    half the party clearly wanted in the Whitehouse.

    I recall Gloria Steinem saying the Democrats had an "embarrassment of riches" in the candidates for president this time. It was after Hillary's suspension. I see the embarrassment part, but I'm really missing the riches.


    Parent

    That would be great (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    I can then spend my money on the things I want for my new house, cook and garden.  Let them do the heavy lifting.  I will tepid out of the process.  

    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    I'm already considering the projects I need to complete with the time I won't be spending working for the campaign this fall.

    Parent
    If you can (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    Consider sending a little money to Bill's foundation.  They do good work, and I'm going to send them the money I wouldhave contributed to Hillary's Presidential campaign.

    Parent
    Good idea...but (5.00 / 8) (#155)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    Hil's primary debt is still in need of support/dollars.  If you're not maxed out...send some there.

    Parent
    All politicds is LOCAL! (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    You can't imagine how harde it is to raise funds for local races in a presidential year.  There are probably some really good local candidates who need your help...time, money.

    Mine paid off...my local candidate got 75% in the top two primary.

    C'mon, Stella...we can't save the world, our country, maybe even our state...but our community?  Especially now.

    Parent

    But look at my veggies... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    Pictures of my veggies...

    Parent
    I am starting to think we may not know (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    until saturday and the "event"
    if its whasshisname that almost makes sense.

    Geraldine Ferraro said yesterday (none / 0) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    the announcement wouldn't come before Saturday.

    At this point, why doesn't he just wait until the nomination on Wednesday?

    He won't be getting a bounce off the VP because of the way he handled the announcement. He won't be getting a bounce from the convention because there's nothing new coming out of it.


    Parent

    I think his choice (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    will have the excitement of a flat basketball bouncing down the court......if it's not Hillary.

    But I knew it would not be.  She would be he smart choice.  She would be the choice that tells me he gets it.  She would be the choice that shows it is not about the competition but about what's best for the country.  She would be the choice that shows he knows what really happened.
    Sigh....it's going to be a long, dull four march to November.

    The AP is reporting he's following Nancy's advice. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    Chet Edwards makes the short list.  This bit of info also says alot.

    Choosing someone nobody's ever heard of (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    would be a bad idea IMO.

    Parent
    Nancy thought it would be cute (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    because Chet is the rep from Bush's district.  Get it?  Really, could there be a better reason for choosing someone?

    Parent
    particularly (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    after all this fuss

    Parent
    And when (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:19:53 AM EST
    has the Obama campaign had any good ideas lately?

    Parent
    The funny part (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    Not that I think it will really be Chet Edwards, but the number of people who have any idea who he is happens to be smaller than the number of people who will get him mixed up with the guy who cheated on his cancer-stricken wife.  Now there would be a win-win!

    Parent
    That was the first thing I thought (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    of when someone commented here with his name. I haven't a clue as to who C Edwards is, but seeing Obama/Edwards graphics all over doesn't sound like a great idea.

    Parent
    or they will think its (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    this guy

    Parent
    Or even better... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    Chet Baker.

    Not too many Chets in the world.

    Parent

    Or Chad Everett (none / 0) (#64)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    Close enough. :-)

    Parent
    That's Who I Thought It Was! (none / 0) (#180)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    Okay, not really, but my first reaction was "isn't that a musician?"

    Yes, let's run two unknowns that the GOP can project anything on they want because nobody knows anything about them.  But, hey, have you heard John McCain's wife is wealthy.

    Parent

    I follow politics pretty closely (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:19:38 AM EST
    but who the h*** is Chet Edwards?

    Parent
    this will be the reaction (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    of 99% of the country.
    mine as well

    Parent
    Dan Quaylish (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST


    Parent
    you (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    beat me to it.  my thoughts exactly.

    Parent
    From his bio (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    As a lifelong person of faith, Chet has been honored by the Baptist Joint Committee and earned the Walter Cronkite Award from the Interfaith Alliance for his principled stand to keep government regulations out of our churches and houses of worship. Congressman Edwards has also been honored with the T.B. Maston Christian Ethics Award.

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    my
    god
    he sounds perfect.  I need a drink for lunch.

    Parent
    I'm right there with ya (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    I have spent the last few minutes reading quotes from him on gay rights and abortion. the guy is a peach. Obama may as well nominate Casey.

    AS a lesbian, I am appalled, as a woman horrified and as a Hillary supporter...DONE. I will wait for the announcement, providing it comes sometime today but tomorrow I will be on my boat, drinking beer, fishing and having a grand time and planning on how I can spend 6 months of the year in Florida and the rest of the time here in Canada.

    Parent

    If you're in SF (none / 0) (#110)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    I'm buying

    Parent
    we (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    will have to share on long distance.  but mine will happen.

    Parent
    aaaargghhh (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    Is he also fighting the good fight against the War on Christmas??

    Keerist - "principled stand to keep government regulations out of our churches and houses of worship."

    Parent

    Well if he has an award for keeping (none / 0) (#118)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    religion out of politics, it definitely won't be him.

    Parent
    you read it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    keeping government regulation out of churches.
    in other words the exact opposite.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    If only.  But it is an award for keeping the government out of religion, not exactly the same thing!

    Parent
    From the SF Chronicle (none / 0) (#124)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    "Edwards is a favorite of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who praised his "extraordinary credentials" on ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 3 and said: "I hope he will be the nominee."

    One Democratic official with knowledge of the conversation said Obama told Pelosi recently that she would be pleased with the choice. Other Democratic officials said he was on the short list. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's selection process.

    Edwards, chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, is a nine-term moderate Democrat representing the GOP-leaning Texas district. He is well-known in Texas but does not have a national profile.

    Asked about Pelosi's praise, Edwards said in July that he "cannot imagine that many Americans would not consider it a privilege" to be considered a vice presidential contender."

    Parent

    hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    the Democratic Party, if Chet Edwards is the pick, will spend the entire Election explaining to voters that the Edwards on the "Obama/Edwards '08" signs isn't THAT Edwards.  You know, the one of recent tabloid fame?

    Or maybe they'll go with "Barack/Chet '08"?  Or "Obama/Chet '08"?

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Yup Chet must have cringed (none / 0) (#147)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    when John's activities came to light

    Parent
    He does have a very (none / 0) (#161)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    solid American sounding name

    Parent
    his name is fine (none / 0) (#185)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    and sounds American to me.

    My point was he unfortunately shares a now infamous last name with a Democrat who got caught with his pants around his ankles (metaphorically, I'm sure) while his wife was battling cancer.

    With that story dominating the news in the recent past, the first association people may make -- not knowing WHO Chet Edwards is -- will be with that OTHER Edwards.

    It's an unnecessary distraction that takes away from where the focus should be:  the issues.

    Parent

    I've had a stomachful (none / 0) (#192)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    of political Tesans.

    They're all dead now but one.

    If I never see or hear another Texan as long as I live it will still be too soon.

    Yes.  Prejudice.  Acknowledged.

    Parent

    Oops... (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    Of the Texans I have liked...they're all dead now but one.

    Parent
    Frosting on the cake! (none / 0) (#208)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    I would sincerely hope the country would be tired of a bible thumping politician from the Crawford TX area. (Regardless of Party)

    Parent
    anti-choice & anti-gay Chet Edwards? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by angie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    Basically, just like Kaine, but from TX instead of VA. I actually think Obama has a chance of winning VA, but TX? Unless things have changed a lot since I lived there 15 years ago, I seriously doubt it. Someone please tell me if I've got the wrong impression.

    Parent
    That occurred to me (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    something tells me this guy wont help him carry TX like LBJ did

    Parent
    TX will not go blue (none / 0) (#209)
    by stxabuela on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    Not this year.  It will eventually be reliably blue because it just recently became a majority-minority state.  All the data points to Texas becoming a majority Hispanic state by 2040, iirc.  

    Parent
    Is that (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    impeachment-is-off-the-table Nancy?  Well, then, I just feel so relieved, because we all know what terrific judgment she's got.  

    Parent
    Ha, I was just going to say that.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    ...the democratic official cited in this report was Nancy. She really really really doesn't want Hillary.

    Parent
    Not Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    No surprise there for me at least. I knew he wouldn't pick her. He makes my voting decision easier every day. If he had picked Hillary there would be a 50/50 chance I would vote for him. Now, theres a 0% chance I will vote for him. None of the others will even make a difference.

    Of course, when you're losing my state by 25 points, it really doesn't matter in the end what I do does it? Can you imagine that in this year that's supposed to be a "dem year" Obama isn't even pulling Kerry's numbers from 4 years ago?

    if, after all this (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    its wasshisname from texas I think the reaction will be harsh.

    Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    doesn't have to "vet" Hillary. Insulting, indeed.  

    No shock. I knew it wasn't her from back in February when she would talk about a unity ticket and dismissed it immediately.

    I gave up on Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    when we did not hear yesterday.
    not that I ever really had that much hope.

    Showgirls (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    This is reminding me of Hollywood's willingness to heavily promote bad movies like Showgirls -- so much was put into the movie based on its potential that it made no business sense not to try and get at least a big opening weekend before audiences abandoned it....

    Ishtar. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't you say anything (none / 0) (#61)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    bad about Showgirls.

    But to complete your analogy Hillary is Cristal Connors and what we are witnessing is watching her tumble down the stairs.

    Parent

    I can't say I am surprised. (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Firewalker on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    But I am disappointed to read this, especially after Obama's leading comments yesterday. You know, it's almost like he enjoys angering supporters of Hillary and pouring salt in his wounds. I must say, he and his campaign are politically tone deaf if they think getting people's hopes up and then announcing some boring VP pick will result in good will and increased poll numbers. The crazy thing is, I've read posts from many Obama supporters on various sites who are now hoping he picks Hillary because they feel it's his best shot to boost his poll numbers and win in November. If many of his hardcore supporters have come around to the idea of Hillary as VP, what does it say about Obama and his campaign that they haven't? Do they even want to win?

    Correction: salt in OUR wounds. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Firewalker on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST


    Parent
    But, but, but (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    Hillary's voters have nowhere else to go.

    /snark

    Parent

    I know... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by justinboston2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    All that talk about scaring me into voting for him by dangling the supreme court in front of me.... That just means I have to push for down ticket dems who will be able to blunt a McCain administration.

    Parent
    I know... (none / 0) (#71)
    by justinboston2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    All that talk about scaring me into voting for him by dangling the supreme court in front of me.... That just means I have to push for down ticket dems who will be able to blunt a McCain administration.

    Parent
    False meme (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mike H on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    They already have the votes in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe if they wanted to.  Stevens is a maverick, and if the right case came his way, he'd vote 5-4 against Roe.  I'm not saying I know what that case would be, but it's no lock.  Some see Stevens as drifting back to the right over the past few years anyway.

    Parent
    They believe they will win (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    regardless of any mundane realities like facts.  But then again, they believed Kerry would win, too.  I would imagine they also have firm belief in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

    Parent
    This is so typical of the problem..... (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    ...It isn't that they didn't pick Hillary, it's that they had to lob a big slimeball her way in the process.

    Yup. They can never just leave her out of it. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    If she's not it, then fine. But why try and insult her along the way? It's what I cannot stand.

    And you mean to tell me when you think of Bayh you don't immediately think of the working-class fighter? LOL. What a joke his whole campaign is turning out to be. They bought their own hype.

    Parent

    It just brings back all the bad memories (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    doesn't it? I try to forget how mad I was and they just continue to remind me. They have really screwed up letting the speculation go on this week if this is true.

    Parent
    What is the slime ball (none / 0) (#197)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    I just don't see how anything that has happened has been disrespetful?  Obviouslly the women is vetted, what else needs to happen.  Would it have been disrespectful if she won and she didn't "allow him" to turn it down?  Of course not.

    Parent
    What is your evidence (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    for saying with a certainty the exact opposite of what this post says?  And if no evidence other than what you think, why say it with certainty?

    Explanation, please.  Thanks so much.

    Parent

    I dont care (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by sas on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    who he picks.

    It will have to be some dull white man, from a state he needs to win in November.

    The guy can't outshine him (which means he has to be like white bread (without any substantive value))  since Obama is an empty suit himself.

    There is no one he can pick who will mean a thing to me.

    Maybe she ain't on the list... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    But I'm wondering what there is left to "vett"?

    We know more about her than anybody.

    BILL BILL (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    LIBRARY DONATIONS blah blah blah and blah

    Parent
    Oh, don't get me started. (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    I have all that CDS spew memorized now.  For fun, I could try to repeat in a way that makes it sound reasoned and insightful but I don't think I have it in me.  Especially the "B-b-but BILL...!" bits.

    Nothing makes Obama sound impotent quite like claiming that the spouse of his VP would take over his administration.   Bill Clinton = Dick Cheney Mark II?

    Parent

    Without her on the ticket (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    my guess is that his support is going to continue to wane. It seems there is anecdotal evidence that people are assuming she will be his choice. I think for people who are following the race a little more casually at this point, it's a given that both of them would be on the ticket and for many people, someone else is going to be a disappointment. My prediction is that he is going to see a bump in the polls that will last until after the convention, but that it will be the apex of his support through the GE. I think putting her on the ticket would have turned that bump into momentum.

    Ah, well -- hello, President McCain.

    actually, (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    I think we've seen the apex of his poll numbers right before the European Tour.  Since then -- and if someone can correct me, that's cool --, his numbers have trended decidedly downward.

    If the pick ain't Hillary -- and it ain't --, any bounce from the Convention (which will be negligible, at best, by now) will be offset and eaten into by the negative "why not Hillary?" coverage he'll be contending with.  

    And there will be coverage like that as these same Media blowhard bobbleheads who grabbed a shovel and started digging when she ran in the Primaries are now suggesting she's the answer to his campaign ... or something like that.

    Hello, continued downward trend.

    And if McCain were to make a wise choice for VP, Obama's choice and his Presidential Decision Making Abilities will pale by comparison.

    I just hope that whoever the big It IS will be half-way decent at debates otherwise it'll be a wash for Dems all around.

    Parent

    Obama's not picking Hillary is (5.00 / 9) (#150)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    going to suck all the oxygen out of the convention, and all the media eyes and ears are going to be on Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

    Can you even imagine the reception she will get on Tuesday night?  And the coverage?  Bill on Wednesday night?

    Hoo-boy, I think this might just be a true jump-the-shark moment for Obama; it's not going to be pretty.

    Parent

    His (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    treatment of Hillary during the primary and after is going to be his undoing. I can't believe his campaign can't see that. They are taking a slam dunk and turning it into a photo finish.  And yes, I am mixing metaphors. :-)

    If McCain can find an economic message that resonates, watch out.

    Parent

    McCain is out there (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    charming the voters with his sense of humor and his ability to connect with them.  

    Both men are making it much easier to close one's eyes and choose the long-time Senator you disagree with, but trust he'll at least know what he's doing.

    Besides, I suspect many will just count the days until they can replace him with Hillary in 2012.

    Parent

    Hillary is great (1.00 / 2) (#184)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    But anyone who thinks that if McCain wins then Hillary will be a shoo-in as the nominee in 2012 is not being realistic.  Unfortunately, I think that a lot of the votes for Obama (and others) were to some extent against Hillary.  Her performance in the last months of the campaign may change that, but she will still enter the race with higher negatives than any other candidate.  

    Parent
    18 million votes (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    and locking up the Big Must Have States of CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH and FL.

    If she can do THAT with high negatives against an opponent who outspent her (in some cases 4 to 1) and with the Media harping on her to Drop Out Now, just imagine what she can do after four years of McCain and with the bitter taste of Obama, Dean and Brazile still lingering in Dems' mouths.

    Parent

    Don't underestimate (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    the great outpouring of sympathy she's going to get from this bump on the head.

    Especially since I have absolutely no doubt she will conduct herself with class.

    Parent

    I don't think Obama's team would vet (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    Hillary. She's beyond vetting. That doesn't mean anything to me.

    the leak to Allen (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    should mean a lot to you.

    This story has a point.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:24:15 AM EST
    You get to do the "Obama Chooses Biden" post.

    I can't wait.

    Parent

    OOH (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    you are mean ;)

    And I can't wait to see that one!

    Parent

    ditto (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    edge of seat

    Parent
    Hasn't there been comments (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    about her needing to be vetted, and Bill also, by his campaign/surrogates? I seem to remember laughing and shaking my head . . . .

    Parent
    Vetting is part of the charade (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST


    Parent
    My reaction as well (none / 0) (#80)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST


    Parent
    no need to vet... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    there is really no need to vet someone when there is already an understanding that its not gonna happen.

    I think soon after the primaries (at Pelosi's house) there was a conversation that went something like this...

    H:  I'm not interested in being the VP, but if you insist...

    O:  I want to go in a different direction with my VP choice, but if you insist...

    H:  Well, looks like we agree that its not a good idea.  

    O:  Right.  So what do we do now.

    H:  Well, we can't say I turned you down, because that would look like I didn't support you.  And we can't say you turned me down, because it would really piss off my suppoters.

    O:  So lets not say anything --and do nothing to encourage speculation.

    H:  Sounds good!

    She didn't turn him down. (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    He turned her down.  I wish people wouldn't excuse him with the whole Hillary doesn't want it thing.

    Parent
    what makes you think she'd want it? (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    seriously -- I don't think she should take it even if it had been offered, but I can't see any reason to think that she'd actually want to be VP under Obama.

    Parent
    I am not going to go into that, though I have (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    several reasons why she might.  But it's not the point.  No one wins 18 million votes and then doesn't want to be even considered.  Did LBJ not want it?  Did running VP ruin his career?  Come on, I think it excuses Obama and I'd rather hold him accountable for his poor decisions.

    Parent
    Racist! Racist! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    You referred to LBJ. It didn't harm his career because JFK was assassinated. You are hinting Obama might be assassinated.

    Bring on the "1"s!

    Parent

    Because Hillary would (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM EST
    put the needs of the country before her own.  Even if she didn't want it, if she knew it would help us get the rethugs out of power she would do it.  Like most women who have learned to do all the work without getting the credit, Hillary would, I believe, put others first unlike most of the other politicians who have been a part of this race.  She KNOWS she has the ideas, the power and the ability to actually get things for the good of citizens done.

    Parent
    I don't think that was what he was aiming at (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    I doubt she does want it; she's much more effective in the Senate, and it would be 4 years extending this hellish kidnapped cheerleader role she's been forced into.

    The people who use the idea that she wouldn't want it as an excuse for Obama not to ask her, or to deflect criticism for not considering her seriously, I don't agree with that.  It's just one more Obama can do no wrong rationalization from the extremely unrealistic.

    But I doubt that's what Paul meant!

    Parent

    It was Feinstein's house (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    Pelosi is not Hillary's friend.

    Personally, I would not have liked Hillary on the ticket in second place.

    Obama's new democratic party doesn't want her followers, so it is logical he would not want to give them reason to stick around by putting her out there as someone they could vote for. I just wish he and his newbies had started their own party rather than hijack ours.


    Parent

    If true, this makes Obama stupider than I thought (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by davnee on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM EST
    That he never even seriously considered putting his ego aside to make the best choice tells me all I need to know about him.

    Oh and Camp Obama has no one to blame but themselves for all the Hillary hoopla this week.  They were the ones that drug this out and played coy.  I don't get their game.  Do they really think that yesterday's hit piece in the Times or this leak is really going to stop  everyone from asking "Why not HRC?"  No wonder they are dumping their choice outside the normal news cycle.

    Is anyone here signed up for (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    the stupid text?

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    I wondered the same thing.
    if so I bet I could name them

    Parent
    I think Dalton was signed up but (none / 0) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    I think she's already traveling.  Dalton?

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    I couldn't stomach being a sucker for their marketing campaign. Seemed like just a ploy to get phone numbers for later moneygrubbing.

    Parent
    ding ding ding! (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Congratulations!

    Now you get to choose a stuffed animal.

    :-)

    Parent

    No cell phone, no text. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    Probably not until my kids get independent and I need an electronic tether for them.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#139)
    by justinboston2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    My partner is... he made the transition much easier than I have. I came home the day Hillary conceded and there was a big Obama sign in our picture window. I made him take it down. I have every intention of donating to the Obama Campaign if the VP choice is a good one. If not, and it's looking like that, I will spend my money on me...

    Parent
    Spending money on yourself (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    equals helping the economy  ;) That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    Sorry you had to come home to an Obama sign in the window! Luckily my cat with opposable thumbs is a diehard Clinton Dem  :)

    Parent

    I signed up for the email. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:00:44 PM EST
    No way was I going to give them my cell number and let them have access to me wherever I go.

    Parent
    Hilary will be the news if he does not pick her (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    and probably overshadow the actual VP pick.  So no matter what his strategy is to quell not picking Hilary it will be the news.  

    In the best of all worlds.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    within 5 seconds of the announcement, all TV's in America are shut off.


    Parent
    If it ain't Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    and if it seems she was not even considered, then I think the SD's have a responsibility to change the math themselves. Obama can be famous as an almost-been in a year when the Democrats could've won with anyone or we can actually have a great President. Their choice, since the committed delegates are very close.

    It would be a huge upset and leave Obamabots screaming but we ain't winning w/ Obama. Even if he squeaks out a win the rethugs have won again IMO.

    An Obama Presidency with his advisors, and no accountability for the last 8 years, and with his disregard for the people and our civil rights.....I think I'd almost prefer a republican who has to play with a filibuster proof Congress.

    I can't imagine (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    that they would wait until Saturday given that they want to make a huge impact on the texting. A lot of people will be out doing their weekend thing tomorrow. Tech saavy people know that the highest usage hours are in the evening.

    I would assume he makes the announcement before the evening newscycle tonight.

    Hillary Who??? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Missblu on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    If true this will be remembered and talked about for years by mothers, daughters, sisters, cousins and fathers too.  I believe in the laws of compensation.
    Who is to be  truly great first is humbled.

    I'll wait for the shoe to drop... (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by justinboston2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    While this is not looking promising, I have to have faith that Senator Obama is not as vindictive and petty as this would seem. Not providing even a cursory vetting of Senator Clinton will only inflame those of us still trying our hardest to get over it. Not picking her is one thing... not vetting her is a whole different issue. I have withheld my financial support and am planning to hold my nose while voting for the guy. If this is true.. I'll vote down ticket Dem but will not vote for Obama.

    That's the way I feel. (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by Firewalker on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    For me, this is the final straw. No, he did not necessarily have to pick her to get my vote, but he had to go about it in a way that was respectful to Hillary and her supporters. You can tell the Obama campaign hasn't given any thought or feeling to her supporters. If they were smart they would have made it clear weeks ago that Hillary wouldn't be picked (not the day before the joint Obama/VP appearance), and Obama shouldn't have been dropping those hints yesterday. So, yeah, the way I feel right now Obama has lost my vote, and I wasn't even someone who felt he HAD to pick her to get it.

    Parent
    I will say this much: (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    If Obama chooses anyone other than Hillary, he and his supporters will not have a single leg to stand on in blaming Hillary for his loss in November, should he lose.

    If it is Hillary's voters who might have made the difference -- and likely it will be -- it will be entirely Obama's choice that they were neglected.

    It was always true that Obama should have to bear the burden of responsibility for his own loss, but choosing someone other than Hillary removes any possibility of a plausible excuse for blaming Hillary.

    I'd go a bit further... (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    If Obama does not choose Hillary, it will largely unburden her from any strong obligation to campaign for him vigorously.

    Either she and her voters are important, or they are not. If they are, he should have chosen her as VP (or at minimum have seriously considered her). If not, then the exact degree of enthusiasm of her campaigning should be irrelevant to his prospects.

    Parent

    Why the title change? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST


    Accuracy (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Chet Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by wasabi on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    Chet's been in the US House since 1991.  The redistricting done by Delay attempted to knock him out, but he along with Lloyd Doggett were the only two Democrats that managed to hang onto their seats.  His current district is heavily Republican encompassing College Station (Texas A&M) and some suburbs of Fort Worth.  Bush won the district in 2004 garnering 70% of the vote.
    Chet was the only Texan who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.  Pretty damn gutsy that.

    He has a Magna Cum Laude in Economics from Texas A7M and an MBA from Harvard.

    H may have voted (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    against DOMA but he also voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

    Parent
    As a graduate of Texas A&M (MBA'93) (none / 0) (#183)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    that would make me happy - not enough to vote for Obama, but an Ag who is a Dem is a pretty rare commodity! (A&M has one of the  - if not THE - largest College Republican organizations in the country)

    Parent
    A&M: My son got accepted there (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by wasabi on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    But after visiting the campus and getting "Howdy"'d to death during the campus vist he quickly decided that the culture was not a good match for him.  Good school though...

    Parent
    Hilary was never a consideration (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    I tire of people who think she ever was...
    The DNC wants to erase the Clintons from their history.

    Bad move.

    Hillary was really done wrong by many in the DNC.  And it will not go unnoticed.

    Hillary should pick her VP (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by swiss473 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    Does anyone remember 1976 when Reagan slightly trailed Ford going to the convention(like Hillary), and he picked PA Sen Richard Schweiker in an attempt to swing the PA delegation and win the nomination.

    Well, does anyone thinkit would be a good idea for Hillary to announce her VP this afternoon/evening and head to Denver presenting the convention with a choice.

    She'd need to pick someone popular and who would guarantee a key swing state in the fall.

    I'm think OH Gov Ted Strickland.  Perhaps Bill Nelson of FL.

    Clinton/Strickland wins OH 100%.  With OH they win the election 100%.  Everyone knows it.

    If Clinton announces Ted as her VP today, I think there's a very good chance she wrests the nomination from Obama.  Especially if he goes with some lightweight like Edwards or Kaine.

    Thoughts?

    If it's Lugar or Hagel (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    I suspect your scenario could happen

    Parent
    Apparently they forgot to vet obama... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    that was the mistake :)

    Maybe he wanted the Foundation papers (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    and Bill said no.

    No, he wanted no papers. It says that in the (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    blurb.  There were no requests.

    Parent
    Interesting speculation (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    since the story says they didn't even ask for a single piece of paper.

    Parent
    It would be in no one's interest to (none / 0) (#143)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    say that he did ask for the Foundation's financial info and was told no by Bill.

    It could easily have been "If I need to vet the Foundation, should I bother asking?"

    Parent

    Quit (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:01 AM EST
    with the Obama apologia. It's been obvious for months that he would never pick Hillary imo. He's not interested in putting someone on the ticket who might bring voters along. He's mostly interested in someone who's a sycophant.

    Parent
    Good point re not putting out (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    any story about being turned down by Bill.  Unnecessary details and very bad PR for all concerned.

    Bill also said, was it back in June?, that he wouldn't be revealing the list of major donors to his fdn -- that their contributions had been made in the understanding of complete anonymity.  For me, that just about said No Hillary for Veep this cycle.  

    Parent

    Bill never said that (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    But keep trying.

    Parent
    Probably true (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    but why believe this "democratic official" over the million others who've speculated this week?

    Cuz Mike allen sez so (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    Actually, just to tweak the Obama campaign to tell you the truth.

    Parent
    Mike Allen wrote that? (none / 0) (#70)
    by wasabi on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    Isn't he the guy who said on CNN defending McCain's response to the "b*tch" question about Clinton: "[W]hat Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that?"

    That Mike Allen??


    Parent

    the very one (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM EST


    Parent
    "Hillary Gets Stiffed" is his (none / 0) (#189)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    charming title.
    Obama camp says they have vetted her-if oppo research equals vetting, I suppose that's true.

    Parent
    NPR (none / 0) (#16)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    has reported (12:01) that the announcement will not come until the rally on Saturday.

    CNN is still reporting (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    it will be within hours. I don't think anyone knows.

    Parent
    Not surprising, but they better be (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:22:40 AM EST
    careful about jerking the media's chain - they can do that some - but if they do it too many times and the nominee is uber boring like Bayh - they will pay for it in the long run.

    Parent
    There has been so much (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    media speculation on the VP that I expect any choice to be sort of anti-climatic at this point.  I think the decision to put out the story a couple of weeks ago that the announcement would be made via text message was a mistake.  The non-stop coverage, who will it be and when will he announce, has grown old.

    Parent
    And it gets worse the (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    longer they wait and the more they say things like, "wouldn't you like to know."

    Parent
    is Team Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    really saying things like "wouldn't you like to know?"

    I hope against hope that you're teasing, but something -- that frightening feeling in the pit of my stomach maybe? -- tells me you're not.

    (sigh)

    Parent

    After all we've seen, you really doubting (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    he said that? Watch for more cheek scratching as this difficult campaign against the republicans continues, too.


    Parent
    The one surprise would be Clinton. (none / 0) (#151)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    In my mind, her odds are improving (somewhat) the longer this thing gets drawn out.

    Parent
    It does sound like him (none / 0) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    And he would know.

    Ummm.. "Democratic offical" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    That doesn't inspire much confidence.  How many Dem officials are really privy to this kind of info?

    Not many (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    Think about it.

    Parent
    Spill it BTD. Are you saying this leak comes (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    from the Obama campaign to stop the Hillary speculation? A little late for that.

    Parent
    The Politico's not Drudge... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    But it's not a hell of a lot better.  They've been known to run with rumors from questionable sources...

    If it were the Times, Post, etc. I'd give it more credence.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    I think Republico is exactly drudge.  with better PR.


    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:42:46 AM EST


    Parent
    IIRC they reported that Edwards (none / 0) (#165)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    was going to withdraw when Elizabeth's cancer recurred - and they were dead wrong.

    Hope they are talking to the same source this time - lol

    Parent

    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    She couldn't take one more day of speculation about Hillary being chosen ;-)

    Parent
    Speaking of Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    what the h*ll was all the "Laura Bush" loving on The View yesterday????   No offense to Laura but the woman seriously has come off as in a state of Valium induced coma for the last seven out of eight years (not that I blame her, living with W would be justification for a daily Valium fix).  I had to switch off......but did she say anything decent about Hillary??

    Parent
    I don't watch (none / 0) (#178)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    and so have no idea.  I can't imagine that Laura will be anything but delighted to leave D.C.  

    Parent
    As i said before (none / 0) (#49)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    this is no NEED to VETT hillary...he vetted her all the way thru the primaries?

    whats left?

    Talking to her about it? (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:26:21 AM EST
    The piece says they have not even talked about it. I think he would need to ask her before announcing it.

    Parent
    Well, wouldn't that be special? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    Ambush Hillary with a surprise VP nomination, leaving her with the choice of being railroaded into accepting it or embarrassing Obama by turning him down in front throngs of screaming media.

    On second thought, great idea!

    Parent

    It would be like (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    a boyfriend who unexpectedly pops the question in front of a bunch of people. I don't recommend this strategy.

    Parent
    Neither do I (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    But sometimes the Obama campaign makes me wonder just how dense and foolish they could be.

    Parent
    Funny, his description of the perfect (none / 0) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    VP relationship includes a lot of up close and personal confidences and decisions, yet he doesn't appear to be including any of the potentials for the job in the interview process.


    Parent
    Weel, it's not going to be a good choice... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    ...with both Hillary and Clark out of the picture. Obama's either getting hung up on the "regional appeal" fallacy, or he's going to go with someone who's too much their own person for the ticket. Regional appeal doesn't count for anything; the only reason Johnson helped Kennedy was because he knew how to get the Texas ballot boxes stuffed. If Virginians really like Tim Kaine, they'll want to keep him in the governor's office; the same is true of Bayh in the Indiana Senate seat. Someone like Biden is too much of a big-mouthed loose cannon for a subordinate position, and he'd be just as valuable if you left him in the Senate. Hillary or Clark would be like Gore, a brilliant individual with an informed, practical-minded point of view to offer, and who knows when it's time to follow instead of lead.

    Pol C's blog

    It doesn't tell me much. (none / 0) (#75)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    While I do agree that it is very unlikely that it is Hillary, I've been hearing way too many stories that quote unnamed sources to attach any value to them.

    If I'd had to guess, it's Bayh, but I'm only basing that on an Obama ad that's been running here. The ad features people hit by the bad economy. There are 5 people in it, and 4 of them are from Indiana.

    Anyway, I'm sick of the veepstakes, and won't pay attention to it anymore.. Fooey.

    Nancy P's pick was vetted (none / 0) (#78)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    Rep Chet Edwards was vetted

    That would be the kiss of death (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    for me.

    Pelosi's_Choice+Obama = Two Thumbs Down

    Parent

    Well, making the "short list" (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    doesn't necessarily mean you get fully vetted.  Could have been 6-8 names on the SL, and they might have done a threshold internal poll to sound out some voters about certain names.  Then only 3-4 actual finalists were asked for all their docs.

    Hillary made the "short list" for Kerry back in 2004.  But the campaign's polling said her negatives were too high, so she didn't make it to the final vetting round.

    Whatever.  HRC's chances for VP were pretty much made clear when PSD was named to assist the to be announced Veep.  Hillary as VP only got worked up to a semi-lather for a few days earlier this week, and by some mighty curious ex-Hill-hating media creatures at that.  

    Most of the talk this summer, by and large, has assumed she would be a long shot because of the lack of chemistry and bitter primary feelings.  

    "chemistry and bitter primary feelings" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    funny never stopped pols who win like Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush etc.

    Parent
    How many times do I have to (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    repeat that Kennedy did not intend to put Lyndon on the ticket?  It was an accident.  Read Bobby's insider account from his oral history interviews.  Jeezus ...

    Ronnie/Poppy, that's another matter.  But being the first rock-ribbed Conservative nominee in that party in a very long while, Reagan needed to temper his sharp-edged political profile, both with his own party and particularly with the general electorate, and Poppy offered probably the only viable alternative.  So, yes, in this case certain bitter personal feelings (though not nearly of Kennedy-Johnson dimensions) had to be put aside.  

    But this cycle, O not unreasonably feels he has other alternatives available.  I don't disagree.   IN fact, I think a lot of the HRC for Veep talk lately, from formerly Hillary-hating quarters especially, is wildly overblown as to her ability to bring home the votes for the ticket.  LBJ did so in TX for the ticket, but Hillary has no such built-in guaranteed ability (certainly not in the  Johnsonian way of ballot box stuffing) to bring in any needed state.  It's just speculation that she'd bring on board all those WWC and older voters for Obama.  I think it's all hyperbole and wishful thinking.

    Parent

    And I think you are wrong. She wouldn't bring (none / 0) (#173)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    Kentucky or Tennessee but she could Florida and Ohio. Where is your political sense brodie? You are trying to justify a bad decision.

    Parent
    Right, she COULD (none / 0) (#193)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    bring this or that state, but there is no Johnsonian "guarantee" as some of these Hillary for Veepers in the media and on the blogs have been strongly suggesting this week.

    As to FL, I think it's going to be tough for our side primarily because of the (ahem) troubled history of Repub election theft down there in the Bush Era of stolen elections.

    Re OH, is that state ever easy for Dems?  O with WWC Biden probably has about the same chance of taking it or not as with Hillary on board.  We just don't know and it's all speculation.

    Parent

    Absurd (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    Being vetted is by definition the short list.

    Parent
    Yes, but being on the SL (none / 0) (#152)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    does not mean you've been or are about to be vetted, the point I was making above.

    Short list.  

    Final list.

    Only the latter gets fully vetted.

    Parent

    McCain is pretty old (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    to be considered childish....

    There's a childish non-sequitur. (none / 0) (#109)
    by tree on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Scan on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    "The official also said Clinton never met with Obama's vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy."

    So...what about the private plane ride with Obama, Clinton and Kennedy a couple of months ago? She certainly met privately with one of them, but maybe not "the team".

    Beware of head fakes.

    They were just making sure (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    their goose that lays golden eggs landed safely at the fundraiser for Barack. If they hadn't escorted Hillary there then she could have gotten lost or stuck in traffic, got held up washing her hair and not have attended that big fundraiser for Barack.

    Parent
    just beacuse we dont know (none / 0) (#164)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    just beacuse we dont know..doesnt mean Hillary wanst picked..

    too many head fakes and smoke screens  and not one peep about it from HILL...she is in Florida right now and aint talking about it

    CNN is staking out bayh's house however

    They added this to their post (none / 0) (#202)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    An Obama aide said "absolutely exhaustive research was done on her over the course of the 16 month primary. She was researched more closely than any candidate in history."
    i have decided the text (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    message will go out at 11:59 and 30 seconds pm just to keep it on friday. smile.

    I hope Politico is right (none / 0) (#211)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST


    Politico: It Won't Be Hillary | 204 comments (204 topical)