Hillary Statement On Biden Pick

Hillary's response:

In naming my colleague and friend Senator Joe Biden to be the Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Obama has continued in the best traditions for the Vice Presidency by selecting an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant. Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country.

< Saturday Morning VP Rollout | The Previous Statements Gambit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Style, grace, and brains (5.00 / 26) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST

    It's funny how (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    people with CDS and some of Hillary's staunchest supporters think the same thing on this statement.  

    But her statement is about as big a vanilla cookie cutter statement as you can get.

    Someone snarked below that this statement will be seen as "not enough" by the CDS crowd.  I'm with MilitaryTracy in that I think it was a classy and smart statement.


    "Strong, experienced leader" (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    The problem is, we need a strong experienced leader as President, and as for the VP slot we had a strong experienced leader who got more than half the votes.

    I agree with Hillary in a limited way about what she says but that's not the end of the story for me. This is the best one can say about the Joe Biden pick; unfortunately there are a lot of other things that are not so good about it.  


    Hillary Knows This Is Her Chance! (1.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cugel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    She has to help Obama win. That's all.

    If Obama loses, 1/2 the Democratic party will blame her for "not doing enough." I don't care if you agree. Hillary supporters will NEVER agree.

    But, you can bet that Obama's supporters WILL. And that will finish her. There will be endless bitterness and finger-pointing and Republicans laughing at Democrats for failing to rally together.

    And she will need those voters if she ever wants to run for President again. Think the black community would ever forgive her? Think she wouldn't need their votes (the most reliably Democratic constituency of all)?

    If she goes all out and campaigns hard until November, and Obama still somehow loses, she becomes the sentimental favorite for 2012. If he wins, she can have her pick of either a cabinet position or an appointment to the S.Ct. or she can become Senate Majority Leader (her natural position).

    Screw Harry Reid! Hillary should be majority leader and she will be!

    She will only have the tremendous influence she craves if Obama wins. Help him win and she can pretty much write her own universal health care proposal.

    Think about that for a minute. Back in the 90's Republicans privately admitted that the main thing that was wrong with Hillary's health care proposals was that "it lost." The went all out to defeat it because they knew it would be popular and become another Democratic advantage like Social Security that they would try in vain to repeal for the next 75 years.

    We can have that in the next 4 years, but only if Obama wins. It will be a vindication of everything she fought for back then. She will have a LOT of power and influence and Obama will not only OWE her a LOT, but she will have even more influence in the U.S. Senate.

    Personally, I think that would be a very good thing.


    "the tremendous influence she craves"? (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    I think you're slightly off the reservation with this.  Hillary has already answered the question "What does Hillary want?"
    "Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential. And I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible."

    Sigh (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    Can we have Hillary back?

    Do you understand (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    how sick it is to have fallen for all that nonsense?  You poor thing.

    Why does Hillary have to help? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    Those same demands aren't being placed on anyone who isn't a Clinton.

    Can't have it both ways, and the cake is too stale to eat.

    Obama drove the wedge in the party, with the help and guidance of the party. If anyone needs to find a way to unite, it's Brazile, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Clyburn, Biden, Obama (both of them), Olberman, Matthews, Gregory, Cafferty, and all the others who orchestrated the divide.


    Third party (none / 0) (#134)
    by delandjim on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    I wonder is we could have a third party sometime. A lot of Dems to the right of leadership AND a lot of Repubs to the left of most of their leadership.

    The thing is whoever had the guts to do it needs a ton of money, big name recognition and armadillo skin to withstand attacks.

    I would love to see it.


    Successful third party will not happen (none / 0) (#143)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    Until either one of the two major parties collapses, or elections are changed from winner-take-all to include something like instant runoff voting, or proportional representation in the case of Congressional elections.  There might be other ways, but these three stick out in my mind.  What the likelihood of any of these happening is, I couldn't say.

    I know (none / 0) (#155)
    by delandjim on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
     I just like to dream sometimes.

    Her chance? (none / 0) (#137)
    by 0 politico on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    I've said it before - in 2016 the argument against her running will be that people don't want Grandma in the Oval Office.

    That is not how I would feel about her age then (69), but it is how all the detractors will start off.

    And, if BO loses this election, I am sure plenty of folks will try to deflect the blame on to HC.  That is their purogative.  But, they really need to look closely at their candidate (BO) and understand that beneath the suit and the tele prompter speeches, many see a really flawed candidate that does not represent what they want from the party.  The more his well hidden background and embossed narrative get exposed, the worse he looks.

    Sorry, but you must recognize where the problems are if he loses, and they are not with the Clintons.


    What does CDS (none / 0) (#52)
    by dutchfox on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    mean? Thanks in advance.

    Thanks Pal. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    It essentially refers to those who find a negative interpretation to or sinister reason behind anything Bill and/or Hillary Clinton say or do.  The people who believe the Clintons are the "evil empire" that must be stopped at all costs.

    The most intelligent being knows (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM EST
    when and how to apply the big vanilla cookie cutter.  As I grow older I ever learn how to better choose my battles and not allow them to choose me.  I accomplish much more now, live happier and more fulfilled, realize that I am always able to address my goals and concerns and nurturing mutual respect only broadens those horizons.  There is a time to fight.....yet there are many many forms of winning and it is vitally important in my older age that I master knowing when to cash my winnings in to play a new game on a different day.

    Like Maria Garcia said, below..... (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    IT ISN'T ENOUGH!!!!!!!

    Not sure what you thought she should say. Why does her cookie have to be bursting with flavor and sprinkles. She didn't have to say anything at all.

    What did Bayh say? What did Edwards say? What did Kaine say? What did Dodd say?

    The only really important comments are the ones coming out of Obama, himself, and Biden.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    but I just love this line:

    Why does her cookie have to be bursting with flavor and sprinkles.

    and hereby request permission to use it liberally.


    Bill did say he would make a statement at the (none / 0) (#142)
    by BronxFem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    end of January, 2009.

    Always A Classy Response (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    She'll always be the epitome of class and loyalty that no one else in the Democratic Party -- least of all the man who's now been chosen to lead it -- will ever exhibit.

    Especially classy (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:27:49 AM EST
    given that the rollout was at 3 a.m. They just can't help sticking it to her in these petty ways, can they?

    I think she is relieved he didn't pick her. She would have had a hard time saying no because she is a loyal Dem, but I doubt she would have had much influence in the administration if he somehow were elected. She would not have been his Cheney - she would have been his Quayle.

    Some got the text message around 2am ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    ... some at 2:30, 2:45 ... 6:00 am, etc

    There's no reason to believe this was intended as a snub to Hillary.

    As has already been pointed out here by others.


    Oh gosh, of course not. (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    The Obama team would never do anything to snub Hillary. /s

    Very true, but this isn't it (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    Now not vetting, that's another kick in the teeth.

    Patti Solis Doyle? (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    Yet another.

    I suppose you've all decided this wasn't intentional, but I don't agree. Why didn't he release it on Thursday, when he said he would?

    And the different times could have to do with time zones and server overload.


    You tell 'em madamab....for some it is (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    always better to just keep their heads in the sand.  I don't see the Biden pick putting obama over the top in the GE....just saying

    I agree with someone (Jeralyn?) (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    who made that point that she is one person in America who did not need to be vetted, what more could be found out.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by massdem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    there was some financial info that Clinton refused to release until after the primaries, and from what we've heard, she was never asked to turn over anything at all to Obama's campaign.
    If they were smart, they would have gone through the motions, anyway.
    As much as I like Joe Biden, I vote for the President, not the VP, and I find Obama lacking.

    EGADS!!! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    Are we facing a public release of all of Biden's financial and personal data?

    Actually, I don't remember McCain ever releasing everything in his and Cindy's financial portfolio. The distraction ahead will be to start screaming once again for those documents and disclosures!


    Were those on Obama's list vetted publicly? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    ...by the media?  (See: Public release of Clinton's financial material.) Or was it a private and confidential process?

    Also, wouldn't the Obama team request the participation of any of the folks they were vetting?  I doubt if they used some sort of secret subpoena power to get the information that they needed.


    How do you find McCain? (none / 0) (#96)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    Usually you can find McCain (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    by looking just slightly to the right of Obama  :-)

    However, if Obama keeps morphing you may find McCain on his left by November.


    Ah yes, the most convincing argument (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    anyone can muster for Obama: he's not as bad as McCain.

    How inspiring. How motivating. How convincing.



    Those are our two options (none / 0) (#133)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    The real world sucks

    If we expand our majorities in Congress (none / 0) (#106)
    by justinboston2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    He would be an ineffectual neutered president who could keep the seat warm while the DNC is gutted, and rebuilt. Our nominating process is made more fair and democratic. IE no more caucus gaming and rule massaging.

    If we do not expand our majority, he would be a disaster. The thing is I feel like a majority of the disaffected dems who cannot support Senator Obama are going to go third party. Vis a vis Gore/Bush/Nader or Clinton/Bush/Perot.

    Not necessarily vote for McCain. Either way I do not see this ending well for the Democrats. The only thing potentially positive thing about a President Obama is that we'll have a good team supporting him.


    The fact that Obama did not even consider (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton for the VP should cause "unity" supporters to question how interested Obama is in party unity.  

    I've been talking with former Obama supporters who are now wondering if the "least-bad" thing that could happen now is for McCain to win and for us to regroup in 2010 & 2012.  Personally, I don't know what the right thing to do is, or what would be the best thing to happen, but I don't have the conviction to come out and tell them that they are wrong, as I would have in previous years.


    Only option now is (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by chopper on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    To vote for McCain (who will be controlled by a Democratic Congress) and HILLARY CLINTON 2012.

    It's better than putting up with a trainee and a second-rate politician.  Biden may know a bit about foreign relations, but he doesn't know how to create another Greatest Economic Expansion in History.  That was a Clinton specialty.

    Obama dissed Clinton's Great Economy, so I guess we can expect something more in the way of Jimmy Carter's economy. Hold on to your spare change.


    Yeah he dissed it BUT (none / 0) (#156)
    by delandjim on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    He hired the two leading economic advisers from Clinton that helped engineer it.

    It won't happen again because of many things. For one we start from a bigger hold in that larger segments of the economy are shot. (energy, real estate/financial,etc.)

    Also no peace dividend in the foreseeable future. We will have to spend billions to rebuild the broken military and Russia is not poor anymore and needs to enter the equation.


    Of course they have (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    As I suspect Hillary also has done.  Just don't think there's a valid case that this was done to snub Hillary.

    The text message roll-out was just (5.00 / 16) (#59)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    another way to vacuum up more information in the hope of raking in the cash the Obama campaign will need in the coming weeks.  

    Yesterday, I heard someone on CNN, I think, say that someone in the Obama campaign disclosed that they had a goal for how many cell numbers they wanted before they did the roll-out, and that explanation made more sense to me than all this baloney about whether Obama's first choice may have turned it down.

    The roll-out itself was not a snub to Hillary - it was the way they kept up the illusion that she was ever under consideration.  Imagine hearing the "she'd be on anyone's short list" and all the other disingenuous statements that have been made, knowing that either no one from the campaign has even raised it with you, or you were told flat-out that you weren't even under consideration.  Imagine coming within a hair of being the nominee, and all that says about your strength and popularity, and not even getting the courtesy of the same phone calls that went out to Kaine and Bayh - how is that not the ultimate snub?

    The night in NH when he said "you're likeable enough, Hillary," I knew all I needed to know about Barack Obama's character.


    right (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:13:18 AM EST

    He's not that into you


    I'm deciding that this is (5.00 / 11) (#87)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    an "hell with women" campaign.  Biden and his Anita Hill past and of course Obama treatment of Clinton and the cheeky smiles at the misogyny happening in the primaries.

    Of course, Obama could have chosen a woman for VP but he needed a man who was "tough" and experienced.  Of course there are no women in the US or state government who could possibly fit that role according to the Obama campaign.

    He appears to have gotten the message that he was inexperienced and that seniors were not in his camp, so Biden is the missing link. Maybe it will work and women will fall in line again.

    So now we have Biden for the experience, foreign relations, national security, seniors, political savvy, age, delivery.  Sort of like President Biden and Acting President Obama. Oh yeah.  That works.  


    Not just women, but economic populists (none / 0) (#144)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    and Jacksonian Democrats, too.

    Jacksonian Democrats (none / 0) (#177)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    that's the "old" Democratic Party. The new one is like an America caste system; ranked by income, education, age and, it appears gender.

    We're screwed.


    I don't think this was a snub to her (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    I think the rollout got botched after Mrs. Greenspan broke the story at 6pm yesterday that Kaine and Bayh were out.  Why they delayed the rollout after that, I have no idea.  Maybe the IT guy who was supposed to push the button was out to dinner?

    Hillary's statement is pure class, and despite the persistent attempts by the MSM to suggest that she will undermine the ticket rather than truly support it, I think she will do everything she can to get them elected.  


    Nah, not his Quayle. (none / 0) (#76)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    Danny Boy was shunted aside because the once clueless Poppy woke up to realize he came to office with an absolute lightweight and public embarrassment.  Better to quietly keep him off stage or at least out of substantive decision making.  

    But Hillary is no lightweight or embarrassment.  In an O admin, she would have (in the not unlikely and worst case scenario which I've brought up here before many times) been deemed (along with Bill) as too much of a headache to have hanging around the Oval -- more like Lyndon to Kennedy in that sense.  LBJ was increasingly given fewer private meetings w/Kennedy as the years went on, and was largely given frequent and lengthy overseas duties.

    O would have likely found himself in somewhat similar uneasy circumstances with another highly intelligent, experienced and ambitious VP, and being human and not liking how he would have been forced to take her on the ticket like LBJ forced Kennedy, would have likely found ways to have her be somewhat less of a full working partner than she should have been given her qualifications.

    HRC never was a good fit for O's VP, not after the bitter primaries, and not when a few other Veep alternatives were available.  I just wish somehow the O camp had found a way to make this a little clearer to Dems pre-VP pick.


    Oh (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    appointing Patti Solis Doyle made it clear for a little while.

    3 am (none / 0) (#164)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    Had nothing to do with Senator Clinton.  TV got a jump on them and they rushed to get it out ASAP.

    Nicely said, Hillary. (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    We'll be watching your next four years with more interest.  That's for sure.

    You make us proud.

    Grace under pressure (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    But make no mistake, everything will continue to be all Hillary's fault.

    IACF! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    But anyone clueless enough to believe that has an incurable case of HDS. There's nothing she can do about that.

    I'm sure some of the Cheetos are already finding fault with her statement.


    There's never any shortage (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    of condescending, carping criticism of what women "need to do" or "have to do," in my experience.

    This is silly... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    I haven't seen a single comment from an Obama supporter that criticizes Senator Clinton's statement.

    It's not enough!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST

    Well, Hillary is still relevant no matter what (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    anyone else says. Who cares, for example, what Chris Dodd thinks about this?

    Well, I do but I'm strange :) (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    You're not alone... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    Chris Dodd's children also care what he thinks about this pick. ;).

    Yeah, except her relevance (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    seems to consist mainly of the media and the O Boys constantly questioning her motives and bashing her for 'not doing enough'. If I were her, I think I'd rather be irrelevant like Dodd right now.

    She'll never be relevant in the sense that the boys club thinks Biden is, for example.


    Class all the way (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by justinboston2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    I was hoping that Senator Obama would have picked her but alas it is not to be. I now feel relieved that she doesn't have to clean up the mess he caused and she can come back in 4 years. Sometimes you have to destroy something to rebuild it.

    Profound relief is what I'm feeling too. (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    I didn't want her anywhere near this sinking ticket.  We're going to need her in the Senate for the next 4 years standing up to whichever one is president on liberal issues.

    What you said, plus (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    relief this non-stop talking and speculating about the VP choice. The only thing that glared at me over the coverage and anticipation is how vitally important the VP is this time. I don't ever remember such a frenzy.

    Java....yep, Hillary dodged a bullet :) (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    RE: "how vitally important the VP is at this time"...wouldn't be an issue if the presumptive nominee had the experience he needs.  AS far as a frenzy over the announcement, it turned out to be a snore fest for many of us...think Chicken Little and "we are on orange alert"...

    I'm taking back (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    the word "liberal" from the GOP slime machine and all the lousy dems, too.

    I am a proud Liberal with a penchant for social justice and fundamental fairness. I reject the "progressive" label. To me it symbolizes the craven dem party and their slow march to total corporate fealty.

    And right now, I'm a person without a party.


    Me too (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    Me three (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    I guess that makes me "me four" :) (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    Very true (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by blogtopus on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    As of August 28th, 2008, the Liberal political spectrum will officially no longer have a party representing them.

    Not hyperbole, folks. Make a list of Liberal goals, and see how many of those the Obama campaign is either ignoring or damaging.


    Greens are liberal (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by splashy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    Unabashedly so. They aren't big, but could be.

    I think this is right (none / 0) (#147)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    but with one caveat: that a lot of self-identified liberals  were arguably duped into thinking that Barack was the second coming of liberalism.  So the ones still 'clinging' to 'hope' feel as if their liberalism, such as it is, is represented, because he said a lot of the right things in the primary and was supposedly against the war.

    Yaay! on all counts (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    ITA, on all points.

    I'm without a party too.  But I'm a PUMA, and I don't apologize for that.  I'm a feminist, and I don't apologize for that.  I'm a liberal, and I don't apologize for that.

    I'm also a lawyer, but I do sort of apologize for that.


    This is a good subject for PB 2.0 discussion (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    What is a 'progressive'?  What is a 'liberal'? And which legacy do we consider ourselves more a part of?

    On the one hand, a year ago many were calling themselves progressives and contrasting it positively to being liberal. See shystee at Corrente in January:

    my own personal definition* of Liberal: people who want things like universal healthcare, out of Iraq, privacy rights, help for the homeless, good public schools, justice, equality, etc... but accept the excuses made by politicians and the media for why these things are not possible.
    FWIW, there are others at Corrente that might have a beef with that statement, but it seemed worth highlighting.  Matt Yglesias had a different take:

    while the historically Progressives did stand for some good things, and are a part of the backstory of contemporary American liberalism, they also stood for some very bad things. Certainly, whatever sins liberalism may have committed in the 1970s as it fell into disrepute were distinctly minor compared to the problems with the Progressives.

    "Liberal," by contrast, is an important term with a noble history and a contested legacy. I think the notion that something like contemporary American liberalism is, in fact, the correct instantiation of the historic liberal project for our times is a proposition that's worth fighting for.

    If you recall, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. called himself a liberal:
    ''I'm an unrepentant and unreconstructed liberal and New Dealer,'' he said in an interview, peering over a cluttered desk. ''That means I favor the use of government to improve opportunities and enlarge freedoms for ordinary people.''
    Here's another perspective from Bruce Miroff:
    Miroff shows that it is largely the McGovern campaign alumni who shaped what's legitimate and doable in Democratic Party politics since that time. They have been convinced that there is a fixed center in American political life, that this is a centrist nation and that successful politics can only occur close to that center.  This group badly misread a series of elections after McGovern.


    Becoming the party of new professionals and new entrepreneurs, Democrats were now defined by social progressivism and economic restraint. Miroff argues this is exactly what the Republicans want them to be and why so much effort went into defeating Clinton's health care initiative; if the Democrats delivered big time to working people, they might win. Unfortunately, that was only a Republican strategic understanding.

    Thoughts on this distinction between liberal and progressive?  What do TL readers consider themselves?  I bring up this topic because it seems important that we know who we are and what we stand for going forward.

    Personally, I always thought the right path was a mixture of New Deal liberalism and an appreciation for both the liberal and conservative cultural elements in American society (otherwise we risk looking extremely out of touch).  I don't mean caving to religious right demands, but rather adopting that cultural conservatism in a way that aligns with our values.  Just to use one example, consider the John Edwards affair story from any number of angles: the betrayal of his wife's trust and his marriage vows, the lying, the double standards in how men and women are judged in these matters, the lack of judgment in running for President and possibly denying Hillary the nomination, and how many liberals or progressives' first instinct is to say "so what? to each his own, none of our business, etc."  In a way it was none of our business, but I hope what I'm trying to get at is clear.

    I'd love to hear others' thoughs on these matters.


    In my book (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    MY and most "lefty" bloggers are more neo-liberal, than old school Everyman liberal  or even progressive. That's why they like Obama. They were brought up to accept a lot of things at face value.

    Just like my generation was conditioned to equate communism and socialism with evil and grayness, they have been conditioned that "free markets" are teh awesome and to think otherwise is blasphemy.

    As far as social issues go, when the Right to Life crowd starts acting like they actually care about improving the lives of others rather than just lecturing and throwing elections, maybe I'll listen. AFAIC, they're the ones who should be making some concessions. I do believe we've made too many already.


    Agreed in re too many concessions (none / 0) (#130)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    I hope it didn't come across as me advocating concessions; I suppose with regards to Edwards I was just trying to point out that sometimes what we might see as social conservatism isn't really their exclusive domain.  For another example, think of the effect that divorces brought on by infidelity have on women and children: often a careless affair leads women to rightly want out of a marriage, and divorce can thrust a mother and child instantly into poverty and affect the child's development and future opportunities, not to mention have profound psychological distress.  As many others have pointed out, being 'pro-family' is not the exclusive province of the religious right.

    Progressives began as Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    and many still are.  You can tell by their orangey tint.

    Progressives evolved from "status anxiety," unquote Hofstadter, and that's still true of today's, too.  

    You bet Progressives stood for some bad things.  Eugenics was quite popular among them.  And they did not stand for racial and gender equality when it mattered.

    They accomplished many good things, too, from their start in standing up to the first big business, railroads.  But as the saying goes, even Mussolini made the trains run on time.

    I don't like the label at all.  I'm a proud liberal.


    Thanks for the comments (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    I appreciate your insights.  Good point about eugenics and the failure to stand up for gender and racial equality.  I also have to say that I would consider myself an "unreconstructed" liberal.

    A while back when reading up on this subject to see what others thought and were reading now, I came across this Campus Progress article that troubled me somewhat.  Here's what it is telling the young people of America about 'progressivism':

    So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called `progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically.
    I'd hardly say that this is all they were known for, but such information is conveniently omitted.
    "At its core," John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, "progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society....Sound enticing? It should be: The future of America's progressive political landscape is in your hands.
    Sounds very hopey-changey-grass-roots-ey, much like the Obama campaign itself. Except, of course, so-called progressives do not have much influence or have the future 'in their hands," if anything it seems like they gave up the goose without getting anything (Lambert's "And we get?" comes to mind).  In being so proudly "non-ideological," (because liberalism is apparently so...icky) this kind of so-called progressive ends up standing for nothing at all, and we're witnessing that right now aren't we?

    It's not liberalism.

    The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

    Does this sound like a bunch of malarkey to anyone else?  Unity08, anyone?  There's a grain of truth in there somewhere, as politics isn't always black and white, but it seems like a definition that is wildly open to interpretation.

    On the other hand, there are a good many HRC supporters concerned with core liberal values that have also taken to calling themselves 'progressive,' even HRC herself (in one of the debates).

    Anyway, sorry for cluttering up the comment thread, but this is an interesting issue that seems worthy of discussing.


    Great stuff -- I'm copying and pasting (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    from this and magisterludi's comments for my files.

    And, yeh, malarkey is one of the words for it all.  And not "just words."  

    Those who do not know their history are destined to repeat it, and all that.  But why the h*ll do they get to repeat it on us.


    Progressive (none / 0) (#167)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    is an old label that has nothing to do with corporate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

    That's what MY President looks like! (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    Too bad the Repug-fearing Dems find her Girl Cooties "divisive".

    Clinton/Feingold in '12.

    In passing, Obama's comment about seeking a "sparring partner" bugged the p!ss out of me.

    I've met sparring partners. I've had my delicate @ss kicked by sparring partners. I've BEEN a sparring partner (of people's worst nightmares) -- and Biden, suh, is no sparring partner. He's just another tropic creature following the glare of camera lights and workin' the teeth, as usual.

    Don't care if this is written off as Sour Grapes of Bitter Knitting.

    I didn't like hearing Sen Obama dismiss Sen Clinton -- who was tied or ahead at that point -- as a good "workout" for him;  his "Spring Training" (while fauxgressive @ss-kisser Jon Stewart fawned and nodded agreeably on The Daily Show).

    Of course it was a media-given the Silly B!tch should and would quit, as helpful women who are more qualified, more experienced, and earned more votes would do the right thing.

    Best of luck to the Old Boiz' Network. Coffee machine's that way, guys.


    Senate (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    What if any odds are there that Hillary will take over Reid's job?  

    Hopefully high (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    She would be so much better than Harry

    I hope that is the deal... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    cause no matter what happens, gooffy Dem boys will do nothing.  And the gal over in the House is not so un gooffy herself.  

    And that's why (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    she won't get the job.

    It depends on who's elected. (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:47:09 AM EST
    If it's McCain, then absolutely, I can see her in that job, if Chris Dodd doesn't trample her trying to take it away from Harry Reid.  Dodd was, if I recall, vying for it against Reid in 2006, so, he may still want it.

    If it's Obama, there's no way Hillary gets that job.  The last thing the Obama Fan Club in the Senate will want is the vanquished opponent in there to make trouble for the brilliant and transformative agenda that will be coming out of the Obama White House.  Pelosi will call in as many chips as she needs to with her Senate colleagues to convince them that Clinton would be a speed bump on the Obama Highway to Nirvana.

    Would that we could send Nancy to the back bench, but I don't see that happening, either.


    Obama Highway to Nirvana (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by justinboston2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    That made me spray coffee all over my laptop.
    Thanks :)

    One consideration, of course (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    If Obama were to win this election, 2 Democratic Senators are out of the Senate. The majority members could easily be Republicans.

    Two Dems leave the senate to (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    be replaced by two other Dems.  No net change.  No issue here at all.

    Don't the replacements depend on the (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    governors of the states in question?

    Even if so... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:38 PM EST
    The Delaware and Illinois governors are Dems.

    If you don't know about Ruth Ann Minnner, Delaware governor, you should check her out:


    Great breakdown. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    Slim to none. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    I think that there will be some..... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    ...big jobs that will have to be done, no mattter who wins.  Edwards probably torpedoed any serious health care reform for a while, but that will definitely have to be addressed at some point, and I'm not sure who else could do a better job of leading that fight.  There's also the question of what importance will be placed by the new president on women's and reproductive issues.

    I think Clinton's survival in this campaign has enhanced her gravitas to a remarkable degree.  I'm sure she'll use that as she sees fit.

    If she excercises more power in the senate as the result of this whole process, whether Clinton is part of a new "race" for the Majority Leader position seems to be almost beside the point.


    She's probably one of the best qualified, (none / 0) (#27)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    but she's a Junior Senator.

    Seniority has little to do with it (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    with picking a Leader.  It's who the majority of the Dem caucus in the senate wants.

    Right now, last I checked, HR has publicly stated he wants to continue in his job.  Haven't heard about major dissent w/n the ranks to cause him to lose it, either.

    Frankly, as a major HRC backer in the primaries, I was somewhat taken aback, to say the least, as the endorsements came in in 07 and to my chagrin I found that the even more junior senator from IL had received slightly more endorsements (iirc) than did my candidate.

    That does not augur well for her swooping in against Reid to take over his job.

    I'd prefer she become a major progressive voice in the senate, like TKennedy, and not go for the ML spot -- unless Reid decides to step aside.


    The Senate has to remain majority (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    Democratic. Two Senators have been placed in contention for the WH.

    Huh? Both senators, when (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    they get elected to higher office, will be replaced by two more Dem replacements.

    And that's in addition to our party picking up probably a minimum net of 5 senate seats this yr.  There is no issue of Dems retaining majority party status in the senate for the upcoming session.

    The question here was only about who would lead them.


    At 3 AM (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    Hillary is ready to be President.
    Hillary '12

    The rest is just waiting.
    I'm getting used to the idea of President McCain. Too bad about the war, the economy, the Supreme Court, the environment, and civil rights for anyone, much less women and gays.

    I just don't see the Dems pulling this one out.

    HC12 (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by blogtopus on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST

    That'd make a great bumper sticker to sell Nov 5. I should come up with a full set of paraphernalia.


    I think instead it's 2016 (none / 0) (#170)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    Biden won't be interested anyway.  Senator Clinton has eight years to become the established and very successful leader of a Democratic senate under a Democratic President.  She'll be like Senator Kennedy, only electable.

    I know her supporters are unhappy, but really, truly, Senator Obama is on the same page with almost all policies as Senator Clinton and the Dems are going to wipe up the Republicans this election.  


    Gracious to the core, as always (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    with not a scintilla of resentment.

    Of course, as I read it, it was obvious to me that the line about Biden being an "exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant" could have been said about her, and when I read, "...who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country," I couldn't help but think that the rest of that passage could have been, "because there's no way he can do it on his own merits, and as for governing - you're kidding, right?  Joe Biden is the required adult presence in the car with the rookie driver."

    She would never say that, and I'm not even saying she could have been planting those thoughts, but it's what I couldn't help thinking when I read it.

    I eagerly await her and Bill's speeches, which I think are going to be barn-burners.

    Which Is Well-Illustrated... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    Joe Biden is the required adult presence in the car with the rookie driver

    ...In The Graphic That Jeralyn designed and uses in her posts about her disappointment with the Veep choice.


    Heh, apply the same rules many (none / 0) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    states now have with the "graduated license".

    only thing i can add is hillary (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    showed again why she should be heading the ticket. let the games begin, oops let them continue.

    Boiler plate (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST
    In naming my

    a) colleague and friend Senator Joe Biden
    b) colleague and friend Senator Evan Bayh
    c) friend Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

    to be the Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Obama has continued in the best traditions for the Vice Presidency by selecting an

    a) exceptionally strong, experienced leader
    b) strong, exceptionally experienced leader
    c) strong, experienced leader

    and devoted public servant

    a) Senator Biden
    b) Senator Bayh
    c) Governor Kaine

    will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country.

    Suggest a re-write (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    seriously, what is she supposed to say?

    I shudder to think what the media and (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    Obama supporters would say if she found the nerve to take a relaxing vacation to work through some grief for her friends who have gone, and the battering she has taken for so many months.

    As much as I aspire to be like her, I sure as h*ll wouldn't want to be her.


    I'm an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    and I'd have no problem with her taking a break at all.

    All national politicians are battered.  It's part of the job.  She's as tough as any of them out there, and has been at this for a long time.  She is probably no more bothered by losing than any of the other candidates who didn't happen to win this time.


    exactly what she said.... (2.00 / 0) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    my point is that there is nothing especially "classy" about the statement, nor is it in any way "not enough".  

    Boilerplate is what is required -- anything other than boilerplate takes the focus away from the candidate.  Boilerplate fulfills the media's demand for a comment without being a story itself....

    and my comment was meant as an expression of annoyance at the ridiculous praise that Hillary is getting for just doing what is both appropriate and glaringly obvious.


    Boilerplate. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    Took the word(s) right outta my mouth.

    Written by a solid staffer who churns this stuff out just as I used to do.

    Ready to go...fill in the blanks.


    Can't wait to see this pair on the stump! (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    Yep, just a couple'a modern guys doin' what guys do.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Gee, I'm going to have to hone my photoshopping skills again.


    The good soldier (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    We all know this about Hillary.
    Willing to take one for the team.

    This is, however, a sad moment.

    She got 18 mil votes (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by delacarpa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    and wasn't ever considered, and didn't he say she would be on anyone's short list. Anyone but Obama's short list. There aren't words to express my feelings that someone who won the popular vote, someone who had more experience than he did and was not even given a consideration. You would think that he would at least tried to make it look like he cared. There is lots of built up anger and look to that being fixed come Nov.

    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:02:22 PM EST
    Of course she was considered.  What does that even mean?  Senator Obama wants to win the election, of course he considered her.

    The "popular vote" thing I know is a rallying cry, but she only won that if you look at it from a very particular angle.

    I would imagine not being picked has far more to do with her husband than with her.  Sorry that it's that way, but it would be a huge leap of faith for any nominee to take on the burdens of another politician's long-time philandering partner.  That's not a direct criticism from me, as I frankly don't care what any of them do in their marriages, but the rumors continue, and in addition, Mr. Clinton was apparently not willing to open up his finances for review by the Obama campaign.  I know its hard to think there are valid reasons for things not turning out the way Clinton supporters want, but I doubt there is anything personal here between these politicians in the way that there are all these personalizations online.


    Biden has plenty of weaknesses, as will (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    be brought to the forefront soon enough.  He must be excited, as this is as close to being president he will get since his presidential runs have all fallen flat.

    So (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    he chooses a guy with

    *a 36% NARAL rating (I know about NARAL).

    *and someone who, in the past, wasn't well liked by women for his treatment of Anita Hill.

    In a year when people are screaming misogyny, was this the best pick?  

    Maybe so, since there wasn't a single good pick out there for such a weak candidate.  Both Biden and Clinton create a bottom-heavy ticket.

    CreamCity, I'm looking forward to your bibliography on Biden and Anita Hill (please).

    the downside of experience (none / 0) (#97)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    the downside of someone with a long record is that they will have a long clip reel.

    I really will mow the grass at some time today but I found this on The Corner:

    "I remark in passing there that Biden used to be pro-life. I'm traveling now but somewhere in my files I have a copy of a 1982 letter the senator sent to a constituent bragging about voting for a constitutional amendment to reverse Roe."

    May not be accurate, but there you go.


    You rang? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    Where, oh where, is Kathy?!

    This all brings back so much for me that makes me so angry that I barely can type.  And from me, that's saying/typing something. :-)

    But -- a classic starter for the reading list on the hearings is Phelps and Winternitz's Capitol Games.  And for less than a book, see the relevant reading in the book with the better title: Hull, Smith, and the great Ann Scott's All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave.

    Btw, read anything by Scott, one of the founding mothers of women's studies.  I saw her recently at the great gathering of women's historians, the Berks, and it still is something to see when she takes the podium.  A woman not even five foot tall now still has more stature than any men making the news today.  She has fought such good fights.


    Curb Your Enthusiasm. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by rise hillary rise on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    what was she supposed to say, really, after Team Obama's treatement of her-and her supporters. I give her credit for keeping it polite and staying above the fray. she can go out with her head held high.

    It will be interesting to see how much the Clintons do for the campaign between now and the GE. To be honest, I doubt we will see or hear much from them.

    obama interested in unity? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    oh puhleazzzzzzzzzzzze, spare me will you? obama is interested in............obama. nothing more, nothing less.

    the statement by sen. clinton was, as always, a class act. effusive in its glowing praise? nah. why should it be, neither obama or biden deserve it.

    if i were sen. clinton, i'd be breathing a sigh of relief, that obama didn't ask me to be veep, thus sparing me from having to witness this upcoming electoral disaster from the inside.

    perfect statement from Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    Couldn't ask for more. And now that there is a VP choice, it's time for Hillary to get back to her job as NY senator. I don't expect her to do anything more for this campaign as she's done everything humanly possible. I'm impressed and amazed. She's a better person than me by a long shot. Here's to you Hillary.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by anon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    and I grew up together and I worked my heart out for her and as I said to Senator Biden in a message sent this AM, I will now join with Hillary and work for him and Senator Obama. This is the ticket and we have to win.

    Start working with us.....WE HAVE TO WIN!!!

    Yet you have said here, and I quote (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    that Obama cannot win the general election.

    So what was your year at Park Ridge High?


    He could have had it all (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by chopper on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    Hillary's quote:

    "exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant. Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country."

    Stupid choice.  He could have had all this, and the winner of the People's Votes, and the winner of electoral votes, and part of the team who gave us the Greatest Economic Expansion in History, who left Biden in the dust long ago, and who would mean real 'Change', a woman.

    Now, change just means a black guy and a guy with hair plugs.

    Division... (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by leftofcenter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    Well, I hate to speak for all Hillary supporters, as I am but one person...but to the degree that you think this may be the case amongst most people I hope it is useful.

    Hillary's supporters were at first driven by the idea that only she was tough enough to take Republicans down (as before Obama decided to throw his name in the ring...no Democrats existed that even seemed like they were in the ballpark of a successful presidential bid).

    Obama's supporters, on the other hand, were more inspired by the man than by electoral concerns or policies.  This is fine, he is an inspirational man.

    But, because of this cult of personality around Obama, any Democrat not supporting him was branded a racist, or part of the "old guard."  Meaning that Obama supporters took advocacy for Hillary personally.  It was never personal, for most Hillary supporters it was about tradition, and chances for victory.

    Only after this, did things begin to get nasty...and Hillary supporters hunkered down and began stating that they wouldn't vote for Obama.

    I am a life-long Democrat, so I always figured I would vote for whoever our nominee was.  Lately, every time I read a post from an Obama supporter I have this angry reflex, because Obama supporters just don't let up...you are terrible winners!  It almost seems like you won't be truly happy until Clinton is in a gutter crawling on her knees.

    I hope you realize that you didn't so much win, as you outmaneuvered...which of course deserves praise from us, and pride from you. But also should point you to being more humble and conciliatory.  If Hillary's supporters do not vote for Obama the blame can be placed on how little was done to leave us a space where we could feel our opinions were respected (though, of course, throwing her name into nomination was a great, GREAT! step, if largely symbolic).

    I think we wanted her as VP because she could get Obama votes, Biden only brings experience.  Didn't Obama say experience was not as important as judgment?  What happened?  It almost seems like he went out of his way to avoid the votes that Clinton got.

    If we lose the election, put the blame on that...not on Hillary.  She may wind up saving you from a 4th Republican Administration in 2012...unless you are as terrible at losing, as you are at winning and decide to be vindictive.


    don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:20:10 PM EST
    Only after this, did things begin to get nasty...and Hillary supporters hunkered down and began stating that they wouldn't vote for Obama.
    That it was Obama's campaign and supporters who first said that it had to be Obama because his supporters would not vote for Hillary.  There was some discussion of this on Corrente pointing out that in polls it was mainly men that made this claim.

    Too true! (none / 0) (#159)
    by leftofcenter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    I forgot that part of the narrative.

    An Obama supporter says... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    I'm not quite sure what's going on here.  I like your first three paragraphs, but am not sure I agree with a lot of the rest.  I'm certainly not calling you terrible or anything, though I think you are calling me that for some reason.  

    I was hoping it would all work out for Senator Clinton to be the VP, but for reasons that we don't know, it didn't.  Could be taking on a partner who's spouse has recurrently strayed, and may do it again (and has been rumored to do it since leaving office).  Could be that the spouse wouldn't release all his financial records.  Could be that it was just too much connection to a previous administration (imagine a new CEO taking on the spouse of a previous CEO as second in command).  Could be that too non-white-men on one ticket wasn't polling well.  Could be that a lot of people just really don't like Senator Clinton and she was deemed to ultimately be a liability (Republicans and some independents, but still voters).  Could be just too much bad blood after the primaries.

    I don't know.  You don't know.  No one here knows.  

    I do know that if Senator Clinton had been elected in the primaries, I would have liked to see Senator Obama as VP, but if it didn't happen, I wouldn't personalize it like some here seem to be doing.

    But my main point would be there is a big picture, and it's about Supreme Court nominations, reclaiming the power of the government from the corporate contractors, bring sanity and science back to governing, working with the rest of the world if for no other reason than that we literally can't afford not to.

    I think Senator Clinton is decent and honorable, even though politics is sometimes dirty.  I wish her the best in her career and hope that she is able to continue serving America.  I still hope she is President someday - it just didn't go that way this time.  In the meantime, I'd love to see her as Senate Leader working with the Obama administration to make this country get back on track again.  I know everyone fixates on the executive branch of the government, and with good reason, but the legislative branch is where power originally was, and I'd like to see a partnership that over some years puts some of the power back.


    Good Greif (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by delandjim on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    Why don't you just write a script and get them to read it for you.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#158)
    by leftofcenter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    Who was that for?

    Please stop saying "change" ! (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    It's under the bus already!
    There's a little hidden paragraph in the AP story about the VP choice that informs us:

    "A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a "reverence" inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics."

    I dunno. Can "hope" be far behind? "Anti-war" is sure nowhere to be seen

    Hope is under the bus too (none / 0) (#150)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    I see President McCain in our future and although that sickens me I just can't get excited about the alternative.

    Wow, that's funny (none / 0) (#154)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    This should be e-mailed to all Obama supporters, I wonder what they would think to hear that.

    How does that saying go about (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by BronxFem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    "she/he who laughs best laughs last"?   (or doesn't understand the joke)  Hillary's best laugh will be on November 5, 2008.

    You're confusing her... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    with yourself, maybe. Senator Clinton is a good Democrat who is concerned about what will really happen if a Republican stays in power another four years, especially this Republican who has sold out everything he ever stood for to try to get in good with his party right-wing controllers in order to get elected.

    Senators Obama and Clinton are very similar in policy preferences.    McCain wants to end abortion.  You may not remember the time before Roe v. Wade, but it is one justice away from being that time again.  He is also a part of the system that has given away billions upon billions of dollars to war contractors and wants to keep it that way.  I'm not talking about being hawkish or a strong defender, I'm talking about outright and pure corruption of all that used to be America.

    Choose your sides, and don't think that staying home isn't choosing a side.  There's a big picture here.


    "you people"? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    I'd love for Obama to give me a reason to vote for him, one that doesn't come in the form of a threat.

    I want commitments, not vague promises to "work something out" with the GOP.  I want to know what he's going to fight hard for, to push til it gives.  As lambert says, say we do vote 'trpidly' for Obama...."And we get?"  This is not a football game, real issues are at stake here.

    reasons? (none / 0) (#179)
    by cleek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    look at the Democratic platform, then look at the GOP platform. if you are a Democrat, the differences between the two are all the reasons you need.

    listen to McCain's speeches. is that what you want for this country ? that's your choice. you either vote for McCain or you vote against him by voting for Obama. no other option helps keep the GOP out of office. no other choice helps advance the things the Democratic party stands for.

    This is not a football game, real issues are at stake here.


    President McCain.

    think about that for the next couple of months. listen to his speeches. think of what he would do in office. see if you can find a way where he's a better Democrat than Obama.


    See further up in the thread (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    about the arguments of Obama and his supporters early on that Obama had to be the nominee because his supporters would supposedly not vote for Hillary Clinton.  

    By your logic, the superdelegates can go ahead and nominate Hillary at the convention and Obama supporters will have to vote for her, because McCain is so much worse, right?  Would you?

    Just got off the phone with a friend. (4.63 / 11) (#61)
    by snstara on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    Both of us agreed: had it been Hillary as VP, we would have supported this ticket absolutely.  In my friend's words, 'I would have been excited to go and vote!'  But for us, the choice of Biden pushes the ticket from extremely questionable to utterly unthinkable. We are lifelong democrats.  We will not be voting this year.  

    This statement above underscores the fact that Hillary Clinton is not only a class act, she's also able to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in a genuine way.

    On that note: It's fairly interesting to see the pretzel logic some bloggers now use to justify the choice of someone they heartily derided as 'Senator D-MBNA'.  Someone who has helped credit card companies make Americans much worse off has no business calling themselves a democrat, let alone being in the VP slot.  

    Dislike Of Obama and his team (4.42 / 7) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    Going over the top.

    Ok, I am a nut case, but none of this makes me get the warm and fuzzies.  I still cannot watch him.  Cannot listen to him.  I think I need to check in somewhere to figure out what it is about him pushing all these buttons at the same time.

    On Biden, I used to like him, then I cannot remember, I think it was the run up to the war and the Anita Hill hearings, I cannot remember, but I turned on him cause he just did not have any pith or guts. I remember it was something on  C-Span that got me really mad that he was just the same old.  

    Maybe it was the cutesy suck up to (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    Alito in the SC nomination hearings, where he put on his Princeton Tigers cap, and joked and joshed around with Alito like he was his best bud.

    That made me throw up in my mouth a little - a definite turn-off.


    If there is excitement about Biden (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    from Obama supporters, it's probably simply because they think it's going to get him closer to the Oval office (power).

    If Obama getting elected is not particularly high on one's priority list, it falls flat.


    I think that this was an interesting (none / 0) (#3)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    choice of words "Senator Obama has continued in the best traditions for the Vice Presidency"

    That could be interpreted a couple of different ways

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#7)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    I'm not sure of your persuasion, but if you even think that it's somehow a slam at Obama, you're reaching too far.

    So, either explain your insinuation or don't even bother to suggest something, if your intent is to slam Hillary.


    In terms of my persuasion (none / 0) (#20)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    I am a Democrat

    In terms of the phrase, if could be read to mean that for a change candidate, it was a pretty traditional, non-dynamic pick.  


    i guess (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    if you didn't read the rest of statement:

    Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country

    Hey I could be (none / 0) (#39)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    totally wrong, sure wouldn't be the first time, it just caught my eye.

    I will be interested to see if anyone else picks up on it.  


    you're wrong (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    but hey you can probably find a bunch of people who still think clinton voted for CAFTA so keep doing what you do.

    i expect nothing less.

    i will be interested to see if anyone picks up on obama's statements in support of torture.

    i mean i could be wrong.  we'll see what happens.


    I take that as a slam on Cheney and.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    ...a possible shout out to Gore.

    I took it as (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    "thank Gawd it's not me." ;-)

    LOL (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    force of habit i guess.

    Joe Biden. (none / 0) (#18)
    by KYJurisDoctor on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:40:02 AM EST
    Joe Biden appears to be an EXCELLENT pick for Barack Obama.

    And John McCain has a new ad in which he uses Joe Biden's "loose lips" against Barack Obama. This one HURTS, folks:


    OK choice under the circumstances BUT ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    ... the ticket still has zero executive experience.

    And Q: How many houses does Biden have?
    A: "It depends ..."

    On the bright side (none / 0) (#131)
    by chopper on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:40:55 PM EST

    Hillary won't be associated with the Obama  debacle.

    For those that consider the nomination (none / 0) (#145)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    to have been stolen, there's the added bonus that the VP selection was a failed Presidential candidate that only got something like 2% of the vote.  

    Stolen? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    By the candidate who earned more delegates?  That makes no sense.

    I love the smell of threats (none / 0) (#146)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    in the morning. You might consider that driving away voters who have always voted Dem in the past may be counterproductive to your long term goals.

    But what if Obama's strategy/candidacy (none / 0) (#149)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    damages the Democratic party irrepealably?  And he seems to be trampling all over the concept of party unity...what you're advocating seems more like unconditionally falling in line.  I see what you're saying, but I can respect the point of view of people who may prefer to take a page from the conservative movement's playbook (so to speak) and teach the party not to take our votes for granted.

    The analogy I am thinking of is with Bush 43; a large part of the GOP base abandoned him, and in 1994 on the GOP began to tend more to its base.

    Not that I'm one to advocate emulating the GOP, but this would seem to be a values-neutral strategy that could be replicated.

    The only thing that makes me really hesitate is, if McCain blocks action on climate change, which really can't wait another 4 or 8 years, or other critical issues.  But that just brings us back to the question of whether Obama and the Dem Congress will act; so far the GOP has successfully governed from the minority.

    Obama will unify the party.... (none / 0) (#169)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    And he seems to be trampling all over the concept of party unity

    the day after the election, ever Democrat will be unified in saying "I never really supported him...."

    and every Oborg blogger will be desperating searching their archives for the one time they expressed doubts about Obama -- and claiming to be prescient.


    I think he's a great candidate... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    and will have no problem telling my grandchildren that I supported him, win or lose.