When Obama Does Not Pick Hillary As His VP

One of the most clever aspects of the McCain race card play last week was the defense of the Clintons against the disgraceful smears that came from many quarters, including many Obama supporters. Of course the defense was cynical - politics is politics. But consider what will be said about Hillary and Bill Clinton when these same people start justifying why Obama did not choose Hillary as his VP. The Politico asks the obvious question - what happens when Hillary is not chosen by Obama? Mario Cuomo says:

No matter who he picks, the question is going to be raised: Are you telling me that this person would be a better qualified vice president than Hillary Clinton?

Indeed. And the response to that query from some Obama supporters will denigrate Hillary Clinton. That will hurt Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Turns 47, McCain Heads to Sturgis | Pelosi: No Vote On Offshore Oil Drilling; So Why A Vote on FISA Capitulation? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cuomo (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:31:35 AM EST
    seems to have his finger on the pulse.

    Anyway, it seems that many are determined to repeat McGovern i.e. supporters turning off potential voters en masse. Dems are now mimicking the GOP too---the insanity of somehow thinking something that has failed time and again will somehow work this time.

    To your point Ga6thDem (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:57:11 AM EST
    For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama/Axlerod haven't gotten the word out to their over exuberant disciples to cool it with their unbridled and PUBLIC expressions of hatred for Hillary. You can just sense the panic as more and more posts like this one are popping up....and not just on HuffPo...........  
    "Enough of these addle-brained poor losers. I just wish they would shut up. You can all vote for McCain if you want, but please stop imagining that we care."

    yeah, (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    comments like that have finally helped me accept my fate Under the Bus instead of trying to crawl out and saddle up on that damn Unity Pony.  

    Stupid Unity Pony.

    Anyway, you think The One at some point would come down hard on these people and tell them to cool it.  Despite what he believes, he NEEDS those votes and they aren't just going to magically appear because he has a (D) after his name.  He seems to be completely underestimating the disgust people feel for him.  Or he lives in a HUGE bubble where no bad news gets in.  Or both.

    Then again, Ludacris got a gentle and loving pat on the wrist for his new lyrics calling Hillary a b*tch and hoping John McCain ends up in a wheelchair, so ...

    Sorry.  I'm just not going to be feelin' the Unity anytime soon.  Or voting for Obama.


    maybe Obama really does (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:22:53 AM EST
    believe he can do it by registering new voters and ignoring the Clinton supporters.

    I don't believe that, but.....


    they do seem to believe new enrollments will (none / 0) (#56)
    by Nettle on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM EST
    carry the day, or at least Hildebrand does but, well, Steve's been wrong many times and he/they are overlooking the myriad problems they're causing state party orgs, who need to help the downticket even in nonpresidential/congressional race years.  

    I'd suspect there is a tremendous amount of negotiation (if Obama/Axelrod/Hildebrand are even willing) going on over the new "machine".  There can be no doubt that all the new data is going to the Obama campaign, into Hildebrand Tewes computers as "assets" and whoever runs in '12 is going to need access, as well as state orgs.  The DNC is looking so weak its hard for me to believe they're going to "own" the work that's been done in this cycle for the next - and surely top level Dems are taking note and playing their cards accordingly (not to mention the superdelegate payoffs from the Obama campaign, thanks Daschle).  Letting Clinton on the ballot messes up their control of the party.  I say screw the "movement" message, its all too cynical.  


    Isn't winning the goal, though? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:12:05 AM EST
    I mean, won't all these plans about a new party machine fall apart if Obama, you know, loses?

    If that's why they aren't picking Hillary -- who clearly gives them the best chance of winning -- and they lose, then wouldn't that actually strengthen the Clinton wing of the party?

    Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise.  Seems to me that he could win with HIllary, still change the direction of the party, and do it from a bigger base, by making a few compromises.

    Otherwise, it seems like he's going "all in" without the strongest hand.


    If he loses, they will blame Hillary. (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:18:29 AM EST
    They will blame her for beating him up in the primary, they will blame her for not campaigning enough for him, they will blame her for Bill's less then enthusiasm, they will blame her because they talked more about her possible candidacy as vp then his as pres. Inotherwords, she will be part of the blame if he loses. You can bet on it.

    He's saving all the compromises for the GOP (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    He only stands his ground against the Democrats.

    Just imagine... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:15 AM EST
    if Obama had asked HRC to be his VP a week after she suspended her campaign...all of the press coverage about this "team"; some more of HRC's supporters would have felt better; independents would have seen a better side of Obama; and Bill Clinton might have actually been used as an asset (which he is!).

    Instead, Obama and Friends have squandered an enormous opportunity.  Even now if HRC is offered/accepts that position, he's lost so much and will lose in November.

    Not smart.  Is this the kind of person you want as POTUS?  Not me.  We have had a dumb one there for the past 8 years.


    in all actuality (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is a much more powerful figure in Democratic Politics WITH THE VOTERS than Obama and the DNC currently are.  And they know it.

    Americans are many things and are far from perfect.  But we do have a basic sense of fairness and of right from wrong and, in many people's eyes, what Obama and the Media obviously did to Hillary and Bill was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  And I think it still rubs people the wrong way.

    And then you have a still very popular President asserting he's NOT a racist on Morning TV immediately after Obama was caught red-handed playing the Race Card against his opponent -- AGAIN!!! -- and people still wonder why his poll numbers are, at best, anemic when they should be strong?

    But, hey, Axelrod and Obama, Donna and Dean made this bed.  Now they get to lie in it.


    losing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Nettle on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    Maybe they're just pushing it as far as they can without Hillary for ownership and control and will have to pick her up, afterall, but I don't see that they've ever thought they would lose, the "magical movement" obscuring the better sense of reality for much of the campaign cycle or at least feeding the "movement" meme.  If, now, they must pick up Hillary I still believe there is much, much finangling going on within the ranks of those with power in the party and those who control the assets of the Obama campaign thus far - which I don't see as the DNC.

    i don't compromise in the future (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    for the obama/axelrod machine in regards to core democrats and their leaders. this horrific campaign will have to reach its natural conclusion and that is over the cliff in my view.

    Well, shallow is as shallow does (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    Having forged a cadre of supporters consisting of uneducated students, guilt ridden faux liberals, understandably proud A.A's, and fanned the number of Hillary Haters; He then got the endorsements of the biggest group of cynical losers and insiders, each with their own private agenda of how they're going to use this neophyte, he's now the prisoner in the prison of his own making

    wow, nicely said (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:55:49 AM EST
    I think you just characterized the building that Obama stands on very nicely.

    face turning red... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    shuffling my shoes, gulp.......tanks

    I've been thinking this all along but (none / 0) (#135)
    by WillBFair on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    didn't have the words for it. Thanks.

    feet of clay or a castle built on shifting sand! (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    Don't forget Bernie Mac....as long as (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    you are dissing Hillary/women, you won't be severely chastised and you can party on with obama.

    I've always believed (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:14:07 AM EST
    we'd having something of a re-run of McGovern.  Record-breaking high turnout in the Primaries with a Nominee supported by everyone BUT the Dem Base followed by record-breaking low turnout in the General with a Republican President at the end of it all.

    What I think they counted on (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:22:34 AM EST
    was the adoration of all those college students.  Now, there's nothing wrong with getting young people involved in the political process, but let's not forget that these people, as a group, have short attention spans and expect instant gratification - Obama's the nominee, but it's a long, frawn out process until the election.  They've moved on.  By Election Day, it will be around mid-term time or the time papers are due, it will be getting colder in the north, the holidays will be starting to creep up, and I predict the young supporters just aren't going to be there in the numbers they were in February when everything was new and everyone was in the first throes of love.

    add to all of that (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    the bloom coming off the Obama Rose, so to speak, and I don't know if he'll get enough people fired up to vote as he believes he will.

    Here by NYU, I saw a dramatic decrease in Obama Support after the NY Primary -- especially when he lost it -- and a sense of "ugh, is that STILL going on?  Geez"

    If he's counting solely on AAs and the Youth Vote, he's looking at being buried in a landslide of embarrassing proportions.


    Those students were last year's (none / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    conquest. Many graduated, many dropped out, many won't vote from school AND home for the GE, and many are over it. His campaign is going to have to repeat their efforts to get the new freshmen in college, and seniors in high school registered and interested in Obama for the GE. Teenagers really hate being spied on, I wonder how they took to his FISA vote.

    On a related note (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:36:14 AM EST
    Stu Rothenberg proves yet again he is clueless:

    [T]he next big decision that each candidate has to make -- the veep -- is likely to benefit Obama, not McCain, at least if the names most widely circulated as on the "short list" of potential running mates are correct.

    Only a fool thinks that the VP choice issue is a possible benefit for Obama. If he could, Obama would abolisuh the VP right now. There is no good in this for Obama, only potential bad.

    Hell yeah (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:56:20 AM EST
    I think if Obama could get away with not choosing a VP until after the GE, he'd go VPless.

    Agreed, and this is a (none / 0) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    problem he created by himself, for himself.

    The pundits over te week-end (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:41:57 AM EST
    were repeating again what I have often heard about VP picks.  That being the first rule of a VP pick is to "do no harm".

    the first thing that popped into my head was, how does picking anyone BUT Clinton "do no harm"?

    If Obama doesn't pick Clinton, there will automatically be "harm" because there are a sizeable number of Clinton supporters who will only vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:45:39 AM EST
    Obama is choosing to do harm here. IT is unbelievably stupid.

    maybe he has done some polling that (none / 0) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    hasn't been reported.  Ther only real way to tell about the effect of the various VP picks would be to do individual state polling.

    The national polls don't mean much.  The VP pick of McCain or Obama isn't going to matter in CA, NY, TX etc.

    So, the decision should really come down to what the effect is in states like FL, OH, PA, MO, CO, MI, NM, NV, VA, WV, KY, TN, NC, AR etc.  I add those last 5 in because I believe it is possible to take those states with Clinton, but not without her.

    And, I honestly DON'T believe there are many Obama supporters who would honestly abandon him if he picks her.  they have proven over the last couple of weeks they're on board no matter what he does.


    Naw (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:54:55 AM EST
    I think the polling is pretty clear, clinton adds some, no one else does really.

    The real fallout is two fold - clinton supporters and the Media.

    The Media will write about Hillary whether she is the pick or not - and what they will write about, perhaps in gleeful tones - is that Obama snubbed Hillary.

    It will be disaster for Obama.

    this is just such a no brainer.


    we agree on this (none / 0) (#16)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    I'm just suggesting that the state polls in these states would likely PROVE that she brings what no other can and that without her, he will have problems in these states.

    Despite what the media says (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    picking her will probably help him with white women (the close polling in Missouri comes to mind).  And if she is disgracefully attacked, white women will probably be more energized than usual and respond by working harder for her...and Obama.  

    Plus now that the McCain camp loves the Clintons, it might be perfect timing to choose her.  What, are the McCain people going to go attack the new American hero they have set up?  


    And (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:48:41 AM EST
    amazingly, a friend of mine who is an Obama supporter (frankly there aren't many so this is very anecdotal) seems to think that he can't win without her. She's what many Obama supporters would call "low information" so I was surprised to hear her say this.

    Maybe your friend (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    is good at math!

    The real question is (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:02:54 AM EST
    Those 18 million voters don't just represent votes for personality or gender or race or pandering, but votes for policy, philosophy and issues.

    So how does Obama represent Hillary's take on policy and issues in order to appeal to that portion of the voters?

    If his attitude is "She lost, so now you are stuck with me and my policies.", he's going to have trouble.  If he rolls out a platform that has a whole lot of "Hillary" in it, then he has a chance.  Hillary herself doesn't actually need to be on the ticket in order for her voters to support it.  But the things that people think Hillary stands for do need to be on the ticket.

    I'm an issues voter.  If McCain became Al Gore's best buddy and took a committed stand against Global Warming and for alternative energy, I'd vote for him.  Ditto for Obama.  For the record, "a committed stand" means M-O-N-E-Y, not platitudes.  You tell me how much money you want to spend on something and I may believe you.  You tell me you are "fully committed" to something and neglect to put in dollars and it is just words to me.

    (Gas prices?  The Columbus Dispatch had an article Sunday called "No More Oil?" detailing the dwindling supply.  I was a bit shocked, but pleased.)


    obama had an epiphany....tap the oil (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    reserve to help out with the gas price crisis....always late to the party this one is....

    I brought this very topic up on a previous post (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:48:33 AM EST
    Here it is again
    The subject was:
    So whats so wrong if he picks Hilary?

    If he picks another woman no matter what the backlash will be:  

        Okay, Obama  you could have picked Hilary so why didn't you?

    I would love to hear his reasons for not picking her and have someone debate him on each of his answers.

    Some of the honest answers could be:

        Yes she is the prefect choice but I could not swallow my pride and pick her.

        It would some how be admitting defeat to her

        It's really all about me and I don't want any competition.

    etc etc

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:53:25 AM EST
    think he'll pick another woman. He thinks "women have no where to go" so they'll just "fall in line." I think he's concerned about the working class catholic vote so he'll pick Kain or Biden. Of course, this will really be a clueless pick because if Catholics wouldn't vote for Kerry who actually IS a Catholic then why would some VP pick help him with that demographic? It won't but it's typical Obama imo.

    Speaking for myself only.


    Obama's only way to explain (none / 0) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    not picking Clinton would be if Clinton came out and said she didn't want it.  And, that might still not work, because then the media would spin that as here just saying what she had to say.  Her ardent supporters still wouldn't believe her statement eiether.

    A repug pundit, over the weekend, is still pushing the idea that Clinton wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012.  He went so far as to suggest she will support him all she can in public and will then vote for McCain at her polling place.


    The 2012 meme (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:04:44 AM EST
    has been around since this spring.  I don't believe it, but it makes the CDS victims point and shriek like pod people.  Bleh.

    I think she will run in 2012 even if Obama wins. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    Especially if things are going bad for Obama at that time.

    She has no interest in becoming (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    a repeat of Ted Kennedy. She would never try to take the nomination away from a sitting democratic president.

    I think Hillary already has (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM EST
    turned down being VP. If Hillary Clinton wanted to be the VP, I think she and Bill would be out there in full force campaigning for Obama. Bill's latest interview is "tepid" about Obama at best. Hillary has appeared with Obama when asked but certainly has done nothing to discourage the JSND groups. Lanny Davis has even appeared on the group's blog radio show. I think the deal Hillary struck with Obama is that she wouldn't publicly say that she does not want the VP slot.

    I believe you are right samanthasmom. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    Hillary in all probability has already turned down the VP post.  Why should she want a free ride on the Titanic?

    i think you are misreading things (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:29:10 AM EST
    If Bill is in the background, that's because it's where they want him right now. Part of the whole "concern" about picking Hillary for VP is "What about Bill?" In other words, can he be trusted to stay on the reservation.

    As for your contention that Hillary has done nothing to discourage her former supporters from backing away from Obama ... what planet are you on? She has REPEATEDLY made public statements doing exactly the opposite. She has refrained from calling them names and shrieking at them, like some others have done, because she understands that it's a process. But you are just way off base if you think she hasn't done everything she's been asked to do - including repeatedly appearing this week with the candidate.


    ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    I don't know if appearing with the candidate is going to be enough to bring him the votes he needs.

    The two of them together is a stark reminder of how dirty a game he played and how great a Nominee she would have been compared to The One.

    I suspect eventually, especially if she doesn't get the VP slot (she won't, is my strong guess), appearing together will backfire big time on him.

    What?  Are those boooooooos you're hearing, Barack?  Whoops!


    could be (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    but really, most Clinton supporters, though not necessarily those at TL, are not anti-Obama. They have transferred their support to him, even if somewhat tepidly. There is a serious tendency to over-estimate the breadth of one's own opinion in the population, and I think that is especially true among the most seriously disaffected supporters of HRC.

    The problem for Obama is, he needs ALL the supporters of HRC, not just the ones who have already hopped on board. And he's doing nothing to get them; in fact, he's alienating them even more, and not picking Hillary will set it in stone (if it's not already there).


    The number of Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:09:26 AM EST
    is declining:

    From Rasmussen on August 2nd

    During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%. That's the first time since January that the number of Democrats has fallen below 41% (see history from January 2004 to present).

    While the number of Democrats declined, there was virtually no change in the number of Republicans.

    If Obama's voter registration drives are being successful, then that's a heck of a lot of Democrats leaving the party, and it would seem that they are just leaving - not becoming Republicans. It does support the JSND claims. The number of Democrats also declined in June. What could have happened to trigger this? Hmmm


    in other words, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:14 AM EST
    the pool from which McCain can draw potential voters is growing bigger while Obama's is growing smaller.

    I don't follow the polls as much as some (okay, I don't follow them at all), but I am curious as to how The One's independent support is holding up.

    A Hillary VP pick could help with that regard, but I truly believe Obama is looking at her potential for the ticket from a potentially immature personal viewpoint rather than a mature and reasoned politically mature one.

    That's what happens when you put the brand-new ball boy up to bat in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded.



    She has done everything she has been asked. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    That's exactly what I said. However, she has not discouraged the JSND groups from raising money to pay back her debt in ways that bring them publicity for their own cause, she has not discouraged them from insisting that her name be put in nomination, when someone who has been a surrogate for her on many occasions publicly acknowledges that the primary process this time was severely flawed and that JSND should continue to voice their objections about it, and when the only thing she asks of us is to vote for the "Democratic nominee", I think we are not upsetting her much.

    putting her name in nomination (none / 0) (#62)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    and JSND are absolutely not the same thing. They may share that interest, but there are plenty of folks outside the JSND faction, myself included, who want to see her name come up for a vote.

    And I think she'd accept $ to defray the debt from just about anyone at this point.

    But, maybe you're right and she has turned down the VP slot. I doubt it, but what do I know?


    so let me get this straight. the only 2 term (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    anc most successful democratic president since lbj can't trusted to stay on the reservation by an arrogant not even one term senator who hasn't even held a meeting of his one major committee. did i get that right? also i don't appreciate the term about hillary shrieking. ok! bill is the best thing to happen to democrats in 25 years. what a pathetic shame the do nothing democrats scorn the good times they had for this ongoing tragedy.

    Look At It Another Way (3.00 / 1) (#182)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    Aside from the fact I don't know how the one term or two term aspect measures in on this, I see it this way:

    Obama is going to pick the person he feels he can work with the best, and the one who he feels will do his candidacy and presidency the most good.

    Looking at it from outside without taking his own personality etc. into account, that person may very well be Hillary Clinton. But looked at from within himself and his inner circle of counsel and advisement, it may have to be someone else.

    Not a reflection of any contempt for either Clinton necessarily. Maybe simply a reflection of who he thinks will best complement the plans he has for his presidency.


    The first step in the plans (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    he has for his presidency has to be to get himself elected. His campaign is bleeding support right now. Does he need a Bandaid or a tourniquet?

    'Campaign Is Bleeding Support Right Now' (none / 0) (#202)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    Don't really see the evidence of that when they get 100,000 donations in one day in the wake of the latest McCain attack ads--a third of them from first time donors.



    Bill isn't in the background (none / 0) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    thanks to ... BILL!

    See the top story at

    (as of 6:30amPT).

    If I didn't know better, I'd say Bill is working on McCain's campaign! ;-).


    Pres. Clinton was quoted in British press (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by wurman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    (& he retained totally plausible deniability) that "Sen. Obama will have to kiss my [expletive deleted = gluteus maximus]."  Mostly ignored in the USA & blown off my the Big Dog.

    Take it to the bank.


    I think this is beyond that (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    It's more a piling on.  I think Bill Clinton's statement that he knew would be front page news on ABC at least, was purposeful.  Hillary definitely isn't going to be chosen as VP, so now Bill has free reign to pile on and help McCain.

    clicked on the link (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    and noticed off to the side a link for Obama's new ad "In the Pocket of Big Oil" and I thought 'wow, what a strange ad to make trumpeting your vote for Bush's Energy Plan" and then realized it was probably an attack ad against McCain.

    You see how McCain is going to jujitsu something as stupid as that back into Obama's face?

    Ugh, ugh and ugh again.


    I doubt Clinton would turn down the VP job (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    she cares too much about this country and she wants to break that glass ceiling for women.

    My theory is that Clinton's remarks and absence are front and center in the minds of many Clinton supporters and die hard Dems. They are playing the party line, holding fire, and offering support all while being treated with great disrespect by the MSM and other Democrats favoring Obama.  I think the Clintons  are actually demonstrating their power by their silence, selective wording and Bill's comments are a piggyback to remind voters of Obama's race baiting tactics.  It's an ever so subtle warning to Obama, which means that the Clintons are still willing play by party rules but are working to force issues on to the agenda and possibly even Hillary on to the ticket.

    Bill Clinton got his shot in and I don't think it wasn't planned because he certainly is not a novice with the press. The timing pretty perfect. Clinton's in Africa shaking hands in Rwanda, its a backdrop that plays to Clinton's strength and is the complete opposite of the racist image that commentators like Herbert in the MSM and Obama tried to impose on a powerful figure who by his record of service doesn't have a racist bone is his body.  


    Slightly less than subtle (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    it's pretty "in your face" but I don't see how anyone can disagree with it.  It sure happened.

    Bill Clinton suggested he is still mad at one politician, South Carolina's Rep. Jim Clyburn, who abandoned his neutrality to back Obama after claiming that the former president had injected race into the campaign.

    When Clyburn's name was brought up as a supporter who criticized the former president, Clinton interrupted to say Clyburn was never a supporter of the Clintons.

    When Clyburn's description was changed to "longtime friend," Clinton replied, "Used to be."

    Pressed on whether Clinton "severely damaged" his standing with African-Americans as Clyburn has claimed, Clinton snapped, "Yeah, that may be. By the time he got through working on it, that was probably true."

    I think Bill will stay mad for a long time.


    Timing is everything (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:50:03 AM EST
    As I said last night, The ABC interview shows Bill was not very happy with what happened in the primary. He was nice and glossed over anything he might have done or not. But then when he says "I Am Not A Racist. I have never been a racist" it was very adament and you could see how much that accusation had affected him. Obama owes Hillary just on that alone. He muddied a successful Democratic President to win the AA vote.And I do not believe that there is a better VP candidate other than Bill or Al.

    I wonder why people 'hate' her. I wonder if their reasoning is really justified or just a I hate Spinich and thus it is bad and should not be eaten by anyone. I was for Hillary, but I don't 'hate' Obama. I am aware that he is the nominee but I am aware that he used the race card and is still using it. I don't like that. If you can not get elected on your own merit, then don't run at all.

    After reading the interview of (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    Bill Clinton in Africa, I foolishly read a few comments at Huff Post.  Vitiolic against the Clintons would be an understatement.

    From what I have seen (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by BernieO on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:55:37 AM EST
    the media is overlooking the part where McCain defends Clinton by pointing out that his record on race is above reproach. Big surprise. Many in our "mainstream" media gleefully joined in when the Clintons and their supporters were accused of racism because they suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. They never bring up Obama's admission to Tim Russert that it was the Obama campaign that combed all the statements by Clinton people for anything that could be interpreted as "racially insensitive", then shopped their list to the media, which of course, willingly fell in line. Obama admitted it was wrong, but he paid no price since this was conveniently ignored by the MSM who will do anything to trash those hicks who are smarter than they are. Remember, they also mocked Jimmy Carter as just "a peanut farmer".
    It is bad enough that Obama - who claims to want to heal this country's race relations - is willing to use these despicable, inflammatory tactics but it is deeply unprofessional and irresponsible for the media to allow him to get away with it just for their own amusement. Had the media come down on the Obama campaign for this dishonest, disgusting tactic the issue would have never again raised its ugly head, which would be better for our country and, in the long run, Obama. Axelrod should have known the Republicans would not allow this charge to be levelled successfully at them.

    Clinton supporters are not overlooking it (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:00:30 AM EST
    Nor are they forgetting what was said about Bill and Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters like Bob Herbert.

    they are high fiving themselves over Herbert's performance on Morning Joe. They really do not get it.


    McCain;s people are high fiving (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:01:11 AM EST
    and of course, Daily kos is as well. Daily Kos does not get it.

    the democratic core does. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    they are out there everday, some with two jobs, fighting to pay their bills and just get by while these tone deaf democrats go about ignoring them to their peril.

    Herbert prejudiced against Italians with E.D. ! (none / 0) (#201)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    OMG, the panel did all they could to stop from laughing when Herbert tried to imply that the RNC was really using the Washington monument and the leaning tower of Pisa as phallic symbols.

    Clearly, Herbert is a racist who harbors deeply-rooted prejudices against Italians with erectile dysfunction!


    18 Million Democrats remember it well... (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    ..as do millions of other Independents and Republicans.

    Want more proof?  Check out Rasmussen Reports:

    Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation's voters say they've seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

    However, Obama's comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.


    Not surprisingly, the McCain ad generates significantly different perceptions along racial and ethnic lines. Most African-American voters--58%--saw the McCain ad as racist. Just 18% of white voters and 14% of all other voters shared that view.

    As for Obama's comment, 53% of white voters saw it as racist, as did 44% of African-Americans and 61% of all other voters.
    There were also significant partisan divides. Democrats were evenly divided as to whether the McCain commercial was racist, and they were also evenly divided on the Obama comment. Republicans, by an 87% to 4% margin, rejected the notion that the McCain campaign ad was racist. But, by a 67% to 26% margin, GOP voters believe that Obama's comment was racist.

    Unaffiliated voters, by a five-to-one margin, said the McCain ad was not racist. By a much narrower 50% to 38% margin, unaffiliateds viewed Obama's comment as racist.

    Millions of Americans remember and recognize the Obama's penchant for playing the race card.  Not only is McCain right for calling them on it, he's also smart for reminding us all how the Obama's did it to the Clintons!


    Yes, I saw this (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by frankly0 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    poll -- it shows with impressive clarity who won this round.

    It was, without question, a huge win for McCain.

    Pundits like Herbert might imagine they can convince the larger American public that it's McCain that's playing the race card, but these numbers show with remarkable confidence how much that will backfire.

    To me, the single most important number is that only 18% of white Americans believe that the McCain ad was racist. Simply consider how far to the extreme left these people must be to agree with the idea that the ad is racist. So when people like Herbert and Josh Marshall and the NY Times Editorial Board declare instead that it is racist, the inevitable consequence is a huge backfire: they simply lose major credibility for Obama and themselves. Every time they push it, they make Obama and themselves look worse. So, as Somerby said on Friday, knock yourselves out!


    I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:43:30 AM EST
    Obama's poll number will fall after this, if they haven't already.

    In fact, I'm now beginning to believe that Obama's Convention Bounce may bring him just about even with McCain by the time late-August rolls around.  Just in time to nosedive once the REAL attack ads start.

    Safe to say that Axelrod and the other stooges assumed (you know, assume makes an a** out of u and me?) Barack's poll numbers would be much, much, MUCH higher than they are.  And it feels as if they're in a state of denial and Hoping that somehow in some way the numbers will just magically Change to where they "should be".


    What bounce? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    But you may be assuming anykind of "bounce" from the convention.  The Repubs are the very next week, where McCain will get a bounce (also the first week of school, when people are back in their normal routines and maybe actually paying attention).

    I see that either McCain gets a bounce, or they both get one that cancels each other out.


    ordinarily (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    there's some type of Convention Bounce due to the breathless coverage of the Nominee in the news.  As we're now in a 24/7 info cycle -- still a fairly new thing as early as 2004 with regards to the blogs -- and Obama's speech coincides with the opening night of college football (I think), the bounce he gets may not be what people are expecting.

    It all really boils down to the mood of the country about his candidacy, the current news dominating that week and what salvos the GOP chuck his way before, during and after his accepting the Nod which may or may not throw him and his message off their collective game.

    It also depends on how well Hillary is received during her speech and whether or not the image of him accepting the nod instead of her reflects poorly on him -- and the Democrats -- and rubs a lot of people the wrong way.


    If McCain is successful (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    in painting Obama as a "pop star" candidate with little substance, then the giant football stadium rally finale, complete with the world's largest cell phone bank, to the Democratic convention is going to play right into it. The bounce after the convention may be a bounce for McCain.

    Just to add a bit to my post (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by frankly0 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    If I were the McCain campaign, here's what I'd do.

    I'd run a very careful campaign against Obama, one which absolutely eschews any message or ad that in any way embraces racist dogwhistles.

    Note that I did not say: eschews any message or ad that might be interpreted by some as embracing racist dogwhistles. Because it's obvious that any criticism of Obama can be twisted into representing such a "dogwhistle" by his side.

    But the McCain campaign should embrace any and all messages and ads that they would use if the candidate were white. Thus, they should not shy away from, in effect, calling Obama presumptuous and arrogant, provided that Obama behaves in such a way that, if he were white, they would not hesitate to pursue such a tactic (as, of course, Democrats have certainly done with Bush).

    If McCain does this, the result is certain: 1) the Obama campaign and supporters will find "dogwhistles" all over the place; 2) the American people will reject the notion that they are dogwhistles, because they will accept that the same campaign message about a white candidate would be quite standard and predictable; 3) the American people will reject the Obama campaign as engaging in divisive, race baiting smears.

    This is what's taken place so far with the recent flap. And such a strategy is a clear and great win for McCain.

    But its success is predicated on McCain explicitly eschewing deliberate dogwhistles. If he were to engage in them -- which I really wouldn't expect anyway -- it would be an enormous strategic (not to mention moral) mistake on his part, because it would win sympathy for Obama on the issue.


    Thank you...there is a God! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    one has to wonder (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    what other cards Obama has up his sleeve to play.  Seems to me that during the Primary the "race card" was the only one he played time and time again.  Without that, what does he have left?  The Experience Card?  The I'm Younger Than Him Card?  The ... heck, even I'M out of cards now!

    It'll be interesting to see what he pulls next.


    the short answer-there are no cards that (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    haven't already been played. the dog whistle is broken.

    then how is he (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    going to run his campaign?  That's basically all he had going for him!

    I think they underestimated McCain.  And they thought Hillary was being tough?!

    Oh well.


    i will never understand (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    how anyone can consider that Paris Hilton ad to have any tone of racism in it.  There was no suggestion in that ad anywhere about any kind of sexual interest between Obama and the "white" girls.  But, the only explanation I have heard for the racism tries to compare this ad to the ad that ran againsr Harold Ford where the "white" bimbo actually came right out and asked Harold to "call me".

    I don't think anyone who finds that ad racist on that point can actually show any place in the ad where any relationship other than the "celebrity" link exists between Obama and the "white" girls.  And, to argue that just the existence of two young white girls in the ad is subliminal doesn't cut it.  There was a legitimate reason for selecting those two when the point you are making is "here are two other examples of fame with no talent".  And Paris, especially, is the most famous person in the world for this "type" of fame.  There is no reason to NOT put her in the ad.

    I suppose about two yaers ago you could have made the same ad and replaced Britney and Paris with American Idol contestant Sanjaya.  At the height of his 15 minutes he was also very famous with no talent to back it up.  But, I have the feeling that the Obama camp would have found a way to say that comparing Obama to another black person was also racist.

    If someone finds it racist for another reason, I haven't seen it articulated anywhere.


    44% of African-Americans" (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by TruthSayer on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    So there you go. When you have almost half of the Black voters admitting what Obama said it was racist then it must have been racist.

    But where on the Liberal blogs do you see one bloggers saying what Obama said was racist? Can anyone name one? Instead they put the racism on McCain who is only defending the accusation that Obama made against him.

    So my question is this, are Liberal bloggers not talking about Obama's racism in this instance because a) they are as dishonest about the facts as the MSM is at times, or b) they don't want to tell the truth for fear of being called racists themselves just for telling the truth?

    I think the answer is b). And that being the case they themselves have fallen into Obama's trap for it was Obama who with his dollar bill statement was trying to set it up that any criticism of him was racist. If people cannot be honest and speak up about the race card that Obama played then any arguments they make are questionable regarding Obama. You are either honest about him or you are not. And if you are not honest once then you won't be honest again.


    that dollar bill (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    excuse was blown out of the water as soon as people started to quote what Obama had said the motnh before in his FL speech.  In that one he didn't use the dollar bill example, he came right out and said theh they willl say "and by the way, he's BLACK you know".

    I'm guessing that is wht Axelrod and Obama had to come out the next day and admit they were talking about his "ethicity" with the presidents on the money comment.


    you mean in the debate (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    where Russert confronted Obama with the 4-page memo?

    Yes, Obaama admitted it was wrong, but he took no responsibiltiy for it.  He did the standard dance that the memo came from some local SC low-level staffer, blah, blah, blah  and that both campaigns had some over-zealous supporters who do thinkgs that are not condoned by the campaigns, blah, blah, blah....

    Anyone who doesn't think that Axelrod was behind all of that crap and that it was fully orchestrated by the campaign, just doesn't think.


    Axelrod (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    isn't too bright imo. He's run Obama's campaign like he's run a primary on the south side of Chicago. He doesn't know how to run against Republicans.

    well, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    it shows.  His campaign has been embarrassingly inept against a surprisingly milquetoast Republican candidate.  Well, one who does have some really good ads, I should say.

    At some point, don't you think the Dem Party Leaders are going to insist on Axelrod's ouster or at least a serious demotion?  You know, replace him with someone who knows how to win Presidential campaigns for the Dems ... oh, wait.  That might be a problem.

    Never mind.  

    In any case, Axelrod is NOT ending up anywhere NEAR me under this bus!

    Grrrrrr ...


    Axelrod has done the same kind of job that (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    Omar Minaya has done as Gen. Manager of the Mets, in my opinion.

    McCain's ad shop is excellent. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    Does anyone know who is doing his ads?  

    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:18:45 AM EST
    That explains much of why Obama would so easily blow away a big chunk of the base, as well as why the primary strategy was so tight but the GE strategy is so all over the place.  In Chicago, the primary is the election.  Once that's over, nothing to do but smile for the cameras and wait for Swearing in Day.

    Hmm, I wonder what that Transition Team is doing these days?  


    The transition team is probably trying (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    to get their old jobs back.  It is frightening
    how clueless obama is...standing up in front of people, exuding inevitability, thinking "I will be king, the people love me".  He, in many ways, is as off the rails as MoDo.  I'd like to think, at some level, he knows what is going on, but it seems as though it is easier for him to just ignore what is going on.  

    I just posted up-thread (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    that I believe his campaign is in a state of deep denial about what's happening.  The pathetic strategy that if one acts like it's all okay then it'll be all okay while ignoring the facts on the ground and changing one's responses accordingly.  

    All the things they naturally assumed would be happening -- high poll numbers, Hillary's Supporters falling into line, the Race Card working, the MSM doing all the heavy lifting for him in attacking McCain and writing Obama daily love letters -- aren't and they don't know how to respond.

    In fact, I believe they keep Hoping the poll numbers will just magically Change somehow.


    Great minds ccpup.....great minds!! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    he is a one note kinda of political (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    operative. i listened to rove talk about past conventions on tv one night and was quite surprised at the depth of knowledge the man had. axelrod is probably talented but he can't and won't turn on a dime for the general.

    he can't and won't? (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    try he HASN'T turned on a dime for the General!

    I view Axelrod as a moderately talented Chicago thug who wins contests the dirty way.  Problem is, he's no match for the Republicans who have turned that into a veritable art form.

    He's small potatoes compared with them.


    he can't and won't? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    try he HASN'T turned on a dime for the General!

    I view Axelrod as a moderately talented Chicago thug who wins contests the dirty way.  Problem is, he's no match for the Republicans who have turned that into a veritable art form.

    He's small potatoes compared with them.  Trouble is they're all in denial and refusing to see they're being outplayed.

    Well, at least Obama can complain endlessly about how the Presidency was robbed from him.  Yeah, that'll make him popular at those Georgetown cocktail parties.


    it's never good news (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:01:15 AM EST
    when the Dem Candidate spends the weeks following the announcement of his VP pick defending said VP pick.  And that's what's going to happen.  And McCain will, of course, be asked his opinion about why Hillary wasn't picked and he'll drench her in praise thus shifting a few more votes into his column.

    I sincerely believe this comes down to The One's fragile ego and his abject fear of having to compete with his VP when he's supposed to be the Star of the Show.  Hillary would effortlessly and without breaking a sweat show him up at every turn.  She's either just THAT good or he's just THAT bad.  Take your pick.

    Most Americans who followed the Primary -- and there were millions -- and may have returned to "normal life" (i.e. not following politics) are assuming, I suspect, that it'll be Hillary.  And some may even comfort themselves with that belief when they find themselves having doubts about voting for Obama.  

    But when he doesn't pick her, it'll be an unpleasant shock -- especially if it's another woman with not even a 1/4 of Hillary's experience or accomplishments -- and the fears about his competency and present ability to effectively lead will return in full force.  And there will be nothing to comfort them anymore.

    More votes for McCain, I think.

    Not picking Hilary will be his waterloo (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:09:22 AM EST
    Thanks for putting that song in my head (none / 0) (#155)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    We all knew this time was coming, (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:08:57 AM EST
    but I'm guessing that Obama and his advisors counted on Obama having such a commanding lead over McCain, even at this stage, that his choice of VP would barely be subject to second-guessing about why he didn't pick Clinton, because the numbers would be testament to his not needing her in any way, shape or form in order to win.

    Alas, here he is in a neck-and-neck race, losing ground in some key states, the expected huge bounce out of Berlin not happening, and on the defensive now for a couple of weeks.

    One gets the feeling that the Obama campaign never saw this coming, which I would have to characterize as more of the Obama short-sightedness we have seen before; he has a real flair for painting himself into a corner because he refuses, apparently, to consider the possibility that things don't always go the way he envisions them.

    It's hard to have any sympathy for him when the answer is so obvious and he allows his ego and his pride to stand in the way.  Yeah, that man's got some great judgment, doesn't he?

    Maybe Hilary will turn down Obama's offer for VP (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:15:18 AM EST
    Maybe he will pick Hilary but Hilary could say to him:


    Sorry Obama thanks but no thanks. You waited too long to decide and you were to wishy washy on picking me and just because you are hurting now and you really need me now I feel you are just using me to cinch your election.   See you in 2012.

    I believe Hillary has already turned down the VP (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:35:28 AM EST
    position.  The 2-hour meeting at Diane Feinsten's house in DC was probably 1/2 hour fund-raising issues, and the rest of the time Hillary reitarating she  would not be VP

    If Obama had offered Clinton the VP spot (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    and she turned it down, I have to think that would have been made public weeks ago, and by Obama himself.  The only way to neutralize the anger at him for not choosing her is to make it clear that he did, that it was the first thing he did when he became the presumptive nominee, and that she turned him down.  That would have taken all the heat off of him, probably directed some anger at her, and it would have freed him to search for a VP without all the ugly undercurrent that now shows all signs of becoming a rip-tide that he's going to have some difficulty getting out of.  

    On the other hand, (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    what does it say about Obama that so many people have respectfully, but publicly declined? How would his supporters feel to know that he had "lowered" himself to ask their nemesis to be his VP? I think that Obama thought he could get some mileage out of the "I don't need her" tactics. I think he thought he'd be so far ahead in the polls by now that his VP wouldn't matter much.

    BTW, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:45 AM EST
    I don't think it was offered. I think she told him not to ask.

    Samanthasmom, I totally agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:35:11 AM EST
    There were no reporters, no tape recorders at this meeting.  What you say makes a lot of sense.

    If so, that would (none / 0) (#196)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    be the most brilliant stroke of all to bring him down, if that were what a Clinton wanted to do.

    Just look at the results...

    Nah...don't think so.  Hillary has said publicly that she would accept if chosen.  And she would.  She is a team player...and what we used to call "a fighting Dem."

    Oh, right...that's the 'old politics.'


    Not. Gonna. Happen. n/t (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM EST
    Right on. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:27:21 AM EST
    It's a repeat of the primaries strategy.  

    They planned to sweep the primaries so that the MI/FL issue would die a quiet death, and Clinton would be irrelevant.

    How or why they ever thought, in a million years, that Clinton would just roll over and apologize for running against Obama is inexplicable.

    Any good strategy, whether in a campaign or elsewhere, has a few backup plans.  But Obama's only got one basket, and refuses to chivvy up some cash to buy another one.  Oh well.


    There are some picks (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:13:33 AM EST
    Biden or Clark basically, who would lessen the pain in this regard.  If he picks someone bland or someone nobody has ever heard of, then yeah, the reaction will be like "who are you kidding."

    Obama has painted himself (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:30:17 AM EST
    into a very tight corner.

    If he picks a Biden or a Clinton, Obama will pale in comparison and that will be the story:  how the VP is better suited for the Presidency and how the whole ticket is structured the wrong way 'round.

    If he picks someone who DOESN'T upstage him, Obama runs the risk of adding NOTHING to the ticket with his VP pick that might help those voters worried about his inexperience and lack of knowledge feel better about voting for him.

    I feel he's going to go for the I'm The Star of the Show pick and then chuckle away the inevitable experience questions as if they're not, you know, serious questions he needs to answer.

    This is really turning into a nightmare no matter how you slice and dice it.

    Thanks Donna and Dean!  Grrrrrrrr ...


    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    I recall a lot of talk about whether Bentsen should be at the top of the ticket, but at the end of the day, I don't think that talk was really a big factor in the outcome.

    Well, Steve, (none / 0) (#91)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    I think that comparison is something of a stretch.  Dukakis had been governor of Massachusetts for years.  He was hardly a neophyte, except on foreign policy.  And I don't think that Bentson was a foreign policy guy either, was he?

    Shrug (none / 0) (#140)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    of course there are differences.  But the salient point is that the narrative that the ticket should be the other way around was all over the place that year.

    Yeah but that narrative (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:35:07 AM EST
    wasn't there at the time of the pick -- there was no talk at that time of Mike being insufficiently experienced for the top position.  That media meme arose only when MD began to do odd things post-convention -- like leave the campaign trail, literally, to return to govern in Boston, while leaving Atwater & Co free to negatively define him with no rebuttal.  It was Mike's competence as a politician and campaigner which came into question, and perhaps his aloof temperament, but not his basic qualifications for being P.

    As for today, I doubt we'll hear much about ticket switching as we did in 88.  Obama has shown he's vy able as a campaigner, and it would appear he's met the basic threshhold question about his qualifications to be P -- with more firming up on this CinC question to come in the fall debates against the aging, fact-challenged and often confused McCain't.


    As I recall (none / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:41:44 AM EST
    the narrative had much more to do with people getting a first look at Bentsen and realizing how much more presidential he appeared than anything you mentioned.

    I doubt that we will hear much chatter about how the ticket should be reversed simply because Hillary is a known quantity, and we've already had that discussion.  But as usual, I think you are way too glib in asserting that Obama has crossed the threshold.  His numbers on those questions are pretty unimpressive vis-a-vis a feeble candidate.


    Well, people didn't really get (none / 0) (#175)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:34 AM EST
    their first look at him until the fall -- well after Mike began imploding the ticket's chances -- when he debated Danny Boy.  We all know what happened there.  A crushing rebuttal to Dan as JFK (well anticipated and rehearsed in advance, btw) helped the media talk him up as the better choice for Dems.

    As for Obama, I did carefully note that while I believe he's met the threshold test, he will need to seal the deal in the fall debates against the allegedly more CinCish McCain.  I dont' have any doubt this will occur.  

    The question, as things are shaping up, is whether TeamO can regroup after a flat-footed week, and beat back the Charlie Black character assassination attacks while going on the offensive themselves.  That's going to be the key to winning -- will O's team stupidly try to play the post-partisan politics of positivity and allow the other side to define him, with Dukakis-like results, or will they recognize that winning means playing hard ball right back.

    I'm betting the latter will eventually happen.  


    To be honest, I don't (none / 0) (#157)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    recall that narrative being "all over the place" that year with regard to those two.  But maybe we had different news sources.

    Not unlike 1960... (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    He has to pick someone bland, Steve M, and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:54:47 AM EST
    that is why he will pick Bayh.  He needs a bland canvas from which to paint his charisma and political brilliance.  Yes, Bayh is the perfect foil for this.  

    sadly (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    I think you are correct on this one. Either Bayh or Sebelius. Both dullsville and relatively unknown.

    But Bayh has more experience! (none / 0) (#95)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:13 AM EST
    Plus Hillary would support Bayh (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    Since he supported her and they have been close.

    I think in the view of the Obama fans, it would be up to Hillary to bring her supporters around to supporting Bayh. But it's really not her job - and if Obama wants to win he better not count on that. Picking her directly would be so much better.


    Heck, even Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    herself won't bring a lot of her supporters.

    Can't. (none / 0) (#199)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    But picking her would probably get my vote.

    It's his only chance now IMHO.


    Yes, Bayh has been close to the Clintons and to (none / 0) (#100)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM EST
    the Kennedys.

    There is always the rule (none / 0) (#167)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    traditionally that the VP pick not upstage the P nominee.  That's true whether or not the Veep is bland or highly charismatic, though being soft-spoken as Bayh is doesn't hurt in some calculations.

    Bayh has some things going for him though -- he's politically experienced and comes from the HRC wing and is a moderate centrist, the type who might be able to help in the MW and in his home red state of IN.  Not a bad debater either, despite his bland personality.  Knows the issues, FP and DP.  

    Doesn't harm the ticket in ways other possible picks could -- perhaps the most important consideration -- and therefore is a relatively low-risk pick.



    for just that reason, given Obama's antipathy to Hillary, who SHOULD be the pick.

    No one can say he is not as qualified as Hillary Clinton.

    They won't pick Clark as you well know.


    The unstated factor (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    Anyone who is a job seeker is invariably going to be the Anybody But Clinton camp.

    Even though Obama is the boss, if Hillary is on the ticket she is inevitably going to command some percentage of the appointments, patronage, etc. for adherents of the Clinton Machine.

    Many non-Clintonites were drawn to Obama precisely because he represented their only chance to get a foot in the door in Washington with a non-Clinton administration.  If Hillary is on the ticket, that lessens the number of available jobs and makes the competition that much more fierce.

    The relevance of this is that Obama is surrounded, day in and day out, by people who are desperate to keep Hillary off the ticket and who are unlikely to say one good word about her.  It's hard to see how this would not impact his thinking.  No one on Team Obama is going to be making a case for Hillary as VP, unless they hired Lanny Davis while I wasn't watching.


    I thought (none / 0) (#174)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    that the only viable option (in terms of what would help Obama both by garnering disaffected voters and in media spin) was Clark. But then they threw him under the bus as well. Now I'm just utterly confused about the entire Dem strategy. Can they possibly be so overly confident about Dem landslide this fall that they think they can essentially do anything?

    You know desperation and panic (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:13:51 AM EST
    has set in when legions of cognitively inert Obama acolytes, following him out of pure idol worship, scream at 54 year old Hillary supporters, "Do you wanna go back to the days of back alley abortions? Huh? Well do ya?"  LOL

    even better (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    they keep screaming that and I'm a 54 year old gay male.  I don't think I'll be needing an abortion anytime soon.

    If Obama wants my vote, he can put Clinton on the ticket and apologize for his acceptance of the Rev Donnie McClurkin and kick Rev Meeks under the bus.  Preferably a new bus, because i don't want under this one.


    Has Obama ever apologized? (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    I mean, sincerely and not in that passive-aggressive "I'm sorry you misunderstood me"-type of way?

    I suspect, in his mind, it's the other person's fault if Obama finds himself in the inevitable inartful pickle.  It's not HIS fault, but YOUR fault for not reading his tea leaves and figuring that what you wanted to hear was actually what he said.  Or meant to say.

    But I don't ever remember him apologizing without flipping it out of "I'm responsible and I apologize" and into "it's unfortunate I was misunderstood".


    no he has never apologized (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    the closest he ever came to that was to say if his "team" had vetted McClurkin better, they wouldn't have had him on the Gospel Tour.  Note, even in this it is his "team" who is at fault.

    My biggest issue with this is that it proves to me tha Obama considers racial bigotry to be more dangerous than anti-gay bigotry.  You don't see him treating racial bigots the way he is willing to treat anti-gay bigots.

    He likes to excuse the anti-gay bogotry by saying it comes from "deeply held" religious beliefs.  And, that he can disagree with them without being "disrespectful" of their beliefs.

    Is that what he says about racial bigotry?    I think not.


    OK, I'm only 50 (none / 0) (#107)
    by talesoftwokitties on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    but thanks for that - needed a good laugh!

    McCain should surpass party boundaries (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    and pick Hillary as his VP!

    Third Party, Yeah!! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    I've voted Democratic since Humphrey/Nixon. Today's "democrats" don't want me, and I don't recognize them either.

    I said this months ago. What (none / 0) (#42)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    an inroad it would be. I do believe, however, that their ideologies are too different, like oil and water, and altho' they seem to have worked together well in the past, I imagine that the electorate would not buy this team. Some might, tho'.

    i know this is sorta snarky... (none / 0) (#52)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:38:12 AM EST
    but a) Hillary would never, ever in a million years get within 1000 miles of McCain's platform, personal friendship or not, and b) if you think the Republican base is uncomfortable with McCain NOW, what do you suppose would happen if he invited their version of the Succubus of Satan onto the ticket?

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    what would happen, but I'll bet it sells tickets! ;-).

    Indeed it would sell a lot of tickets! (none / 0) (#63)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    I'd buy one... (none / 0) (#65)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    with a large bucket of popcorn. But it'd never happen.

    First, no need to call Hillary (none / 0) (#60)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:44:04 AM EST
    any other name but her own. Second, I believe there are alot of repubs. liberal and moderate who might vote for her. Anyway, it sure would show there's a chance for unity which is lacking at the moment, imo, for many in the dem. party.

    um ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    you really take from my post that i was calling Hillary a name? That interpretation is about as whacked out as the idea that McCain would ever, in his most lurid fever dreams, even consider Hillary as his running mate (or that she would consider it).

    Whether you meant that the repubs (none / 0) (#98)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    call her names or you inserted your own, it's still calling her a name. How long do we, the people, have to wait until we have something resembling some sort of unity of the parties. Haven't we seen enough anit-unity for 8 years? I don't believe that sort of ticket would work, but what a novel idea....something akin to Kerry/McCain?

    Kerry/McCain wouldn't have worked, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    trans-partywise because they are both veterans.

    if unity of the parties is what you want (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    then Obama should be your guy. He loves the GOP!

    Personally, I am not a fan of uniting the parties. They represent fundamentally different strains of social thought, and in many areas they are, and should be, in constant tension.


    I read a post here, I think (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    stating that the only dust Obama would kick up would be to take a stand against his own party on issues should he be elected.  I believe this.  Look at some of his comments, i.e., Reagan vs. Bill Clinton's presidencies.  Whether he is inherently a moderate Republican, or he thinks that this is the only way to reach some comity on behalf of a divided country (we, The Dems, lay down) - or it is his nature to always seek the middle - I sure don't know.

    I know this:  After 8 years of the bush presidency if we can't stand up for progressive values, then when the heck will we ever do so.  If not now - when?  


    If 18 million Hillary voters crossed over, (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    I'd say they have a pretty good chance :)

    They won't (none / 0) (#136)
    by MMW on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    The problem with what Obama and his campaign did in the primaries is that they have effectively written the ads against any Clinton included ticket. She can carry the top - because she has the record and the policies. It would be difficult but Hillary Clinton is accustomed to difficult.

    He can't adopt her policies because the Republican media would crucify dems on choosing an under qualified man (black or white) over a woman, then that man adopts the very policies the woman advocated. That's the kind of guts the Republicans have. They will stir up female resentment. And echo affirmative action.

    He can't pick her as VP because everything he ever said about her including the racism, brushing her off his shoulders, she'll do anything to gain power, etc. will be used against them. They will point out that she is just being a good Dem by working for the good of the party. This argument will be further framed as women taking a back seat to a man again despite the abuse that was thrown at her in the primaries. It will once again stir up female resentment.

    I'm sorry, but even if the Obama camp can't see that - Clinton can and knows she'll be blamed for the disaster. Best to stay away from it.

    What's more there is nothing for her on this ticket. She gave the American people a choice - they chose otherwise. IMO - Clinton on the ticket doesn't add anything to it for Obama. He would be President not her.


    Don't get me wrong.....Hillary should be (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    president, not McCain OR obama.  That was just one more scenario I was throwing out there.  obama has acted foolish and continues to...cutting off his nose to spite his face.  But, I really can't see Hillary as second in line to an inexperienced upstart.  If Hillary's name is on the ballot for a vote at the convention, I think we are going to see some real fireworks.  Why does anyone think obama doesn't want her on that ballot, along with the dnc stooges?

    Think about it..... (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:57:42 AM EST
    Both parties have redefined themselves out of historical positions. Plus, there's something terribly wrong about a ticket where the seasoned warrior is subservient to a trainee. With McCain probably being a one termer anyway, a third party with McCain/Clinton  could shuck the loony fringes of both parties and leave a natural segway for Hillary into the top spot in  2012. Center/right Dems combined with center Reps could be a winner.
    I don't know many longtime D's or R's who are happy with what's become of either party or what they've morphed into.

    NYShooter, that party redefinition occured with (none / 0) (#131)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    the onset of the DLC, a Clinton creation.

    I'd vote for a McCain/Clinton ticket (none / 0) (#195)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    with the same thing in mind:  Hillary would naturally move to the top slot next.  

    While McCain and Clinton may be ideological opposites on a lot of issues, I think they have enough respect for each other (and political experience) to be able to work things out.  That could be the true Unity ticket.  


    Excuse me, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Roz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:32:06 AM EST
    Have you explained how McCain played the "race card" last week? You keep making that assertion without substantiation. You're coming off cynical.

    Perhaps you should define "race card".

    Do you consider exploiting the resentment the Obama camp created by playing the race card against the Clintons, playing the race card itself? Are you saying any preventive action taken to avoid the same fate is playing the race card? Does McCain get tagged with "injecting race" into the campaign merely by criticizing Obama's vocal prediction that he will in the future try to scare voters from voting for Obama because he is black?

    Nobody wants to be tagged as "playing the race card." It is a smear if not true. Please explain how McCain (not generic Republicans present or past) have played the race card, or point me to where you have already done so.

    I decided not to (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    Because it will lead to a pointless food fight.

    Smart move ;) (none / 0) (#82)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    We're discussing this at Corrente this morning too (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BoGardiner on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST
    Looking at the latest Rasmussen poll and (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:45:30 AM EST
    checking the crosstabs, Obama really needs to pick Clinton if he wants to win more Democrats. I'm absolutely sure he won't pick her, but it's a big mistake.

    I believe the perception is... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:56:50 AM EST
    ...that by picking Clinton, Obama might gain more Democratic votes, but he almost certainly will lose at least some independent voter support, and the enthusiasm level of about half his supporters will diminish a bit (meaning less money, fewer volunteers, and slightly lower turnout).  

    Plus there's the x-factor of the media's CDS going into overdrive, and dredging up whatever they can between now and election day (and beyond).  

    So, my question is, what do the cross-tabs on any recent Obama-Clinton ticket polling say about independent support?

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    If you believe any of that, then I have no real wish to discuss the issue with you.

    If they are looking for excuses to not pick her, they can make up whatever they want.

    sort of my point.


    What do YOU believe... (none / 0) (#85)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:10:43 AM EST
    ...the effect of picking Clinton as VP would have on independent support?

    Simple question.


    Help (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:48 AM EST
    you are on your own (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    I have given up.  be happy.  embrace the horror.

    Independent boogie man (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    Pray tell, there are actually indies out there who adore Obama, but if he picks Hillary they will bolt?  

    Why not just rebut... (none / 0) (#142)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    ...with actual polling data that shows Obama-Clinton winning as much, if not more, indie support as anyone else?

    If not, it kinda tells me this is a weak spot of the "Clinton for VP" argument.


    If you're right, then (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    Find the polling that says what you speculate.

    okay, how about this one? (none / 0) (#151)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    Whoops (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    I should have said a "current poll".  This one is from a month and a half ago.  A month and a half is an eternity in electoral politics.

    That's what we have to work with... (none / 0) (#166)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    ...since we don't have copies of Obama's internal polls, and since polling outfits have largely stopped polling a O-C ticket because it seems unlikely to actually happen.

    You can't just take it on faith that putting Clinton on the ticket is all upside and no downside electorally.  That's what I'm getting at.  I will support the ticket if Clinton is on it, for the record.  I just don't think it's as clear cut as people are claiming, that selecting her as veep is a slam dunk proposition politically.  There are some negatives to it, which I wish people here would at least acknowledge in passing if nothing else.


    There (none / 0) (#179)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    will be negatives with every pick.

    The point is what are the positives she would bring compared to the others?  She beats the rest of them hand-down in that respect.

    Indies either support Obama or they don't.  If they offer the excuse that Clinton's a problem, then Obama must be a bigger one.


    No question but that (none / 0) (#185)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    the many HRC for VP posters here have been ignoring discussing her potential downside.  

    My take, as someone who strongly supported her in the primaries, is she still is the one pick who leads the pack both in potential upside and downside, making her the riskiest pick of them all.

    And I haven't even mentioned Bill yet, nor all the headache-inducing complications that could arise in governing with the Clintons not being in charge but constantly being around.

    I think she is only going to get serious consideration if the polls in key states show a serious downturn for O in the next 10-14 days.    


    Oh god (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    Having someone as knowledgeable and competent as Bill Clinton around to offer advice and bounce ideas off.  WHAT A HEADACHE!  Lord knows, if I were President, I'm not sure how I could stand to live that nightmare.

    If he picked Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    He could tell his independents and CDS fueled supporters to just get over it.

    It's either him or McCain.


    This (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    is the best laugh I've had all day. Thank you.

    Ouch! (none / 0) (#191)
    by sj on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    Oh, Snap!

    Demand it loud and now: Obama, do the right thing. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by BoGardiner on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    It is the only socially just decision available to him.

    From my post at Corrente:

    Let's think beyond our own hurt and look to the future of our young girls, scared by the primary into submission, EVEN IN THEIR OWN CLASSROOMS. This is the ONLY step Obama can take to heal the wounds our party allowed to be inflicted on our girls. Otherwise the misogyny wins and is more hardwired into the next generation. This is Obama's only moral course, and if he's too blinded by his yesmen to see this, it is the party's MORAL OBLIGATION to explain it to him.

    Sen. Clinton waits until 2011. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by wurman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    As soon as the Clinton campaign recognized that Solis-Doyle was a mole, the present kabuki stage was set.  Sen. Clinton continued her hopeless primary efforts, knowing that Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, the DNC (esp. the RBC) were stacked against her.  It appears that she may not have known that the super-delegates were already lined up by the New England kabal.  But her staying in the race clearly "surfaced" all of the not-so-covert operations of the Democratic Party.

    It seems to me that Sen. Clinton was given the choice to capitulate & be rewarded, or she could campaign & be permanently shunned.  She fought on.

    In my arrogant opinion, the Clintons are going to watch the utterly foolish Obama campaign destroy itself with Chicago-style bravado. Sen. Obama was convinced that he could "win" without her.  I'm personally convinced that the head-to-head at Sen. Feinstein's home was very quick, dirty, & perfectly understood--sayonara turkey.

    Sen. Clinton told Obama that he's on his own.  He said "Thanks sweetie," & closed the door.

    Gov. Cuomo knows the score: Obama loses.  Door closed.

    Wurman, you are a sage! (none / 0) (#133)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    I'm looking forward (none / 0) (#200)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    to the movie...

    Obama supporters will tell you (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by ChrisO on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    that McCain played the race card by using Britney and Paris in their ad. Because if he had used , say, Michael Vick and Flava Flav, Obama supporters would have never seen anything racist in that.

    And I wonder when it's going to sink in to many OBama supporters that Hillary has no "secret agenda." She's a loyal Dem, and while there are undoubtedly some practical reasons for supporting the ticket (2012), the fact is that she is committed to a Dem victory. Knowing how I feel, I can't imagine how it must kill her to support Obama so openly. But she's a good soldier. If it's determined that the best way to defuse the controversy is for her to publicly say she doesn't want to be VP, I have no doubt that she'll do that.

    But of course she could never be Obama's pick, because that would be a return to the old style of politics. You know, back when we had all of those woman Presidents.

    In the meantime, Obama supporters will continue to castigate her and call her every name imaginable. A lot of them tried the whole "I respect her" lie when they thought it was necessary to get her supporters behind Obama. Now that the dust has settled, they're returning to their real beliefs. To me the low point came when his supporters vilified her for voting the right way on FISA. According to them, she should have voted the wrong way, but just wanted to "embarrass" Obama. Not one of them conceded that Obama's FISA vote, and subsequent rationalizations, removed any doubt about how he would have voted on AUMF.

    Somehow Hillary'supposed to be able to turn every PUMA into an Obama supporter, or she's working against the ticket. I guess that means that all of the Obama supporters who fling racism charges at everyone are his responsibility. I'd say Hillary has worked much harder to ger her supporters on board for Obama, than Obama has worked to stop his supporters from blatantly playing the race card.

    I guess they're going with the strategy that the best way to elect the first black president is to call anyone who opposes him a racist. That's really helped him in the polls. Idiots.

    the problem with that assertion (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    is who the hell knows who "flava flav" is?  Everybody knows who Paris Hilton is.

    And, if they had included Vick, they would have screamed that they were trying to link Obama to animal abuse.

    For the message McCain was trying to send, Paris Hilton was the perfect example and there is no way to deny that.


    That is unacceptable (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:11:30 AM EST
    Are you under the impression that Public Enemy was all Chuck D?  Heresy!

    It doesn't just hurt Obama (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    It hurts the entire party.

    And it's not just about the naked aggression of Rev. Wright and Markos Moulitsas.

    It's also about people who think they know on any given day what Bill was attempting to do.

    And, yes, it has caused a lot of damage.

    I agree with much (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    of what you said, save for the branding of Hillary's primary efforts "hopeless".

    Because of her run in the Primary, she has now rebranded herself as a "fighter", has more respect and excitement about her than ever before and is perfectly poised to run in 2012 when Obama loses.

    People won't soon forget -- or will quickly remember when they see her again -- her grasp of policy, her intelligence with foreign policy and her stunning ability to take punch after punch (from her OWN Party, even!) and still keep going and winning contests.

    I still get the sense that Hillary was the one people wanted running (based on Obama's fairly anemic polling numbers) and they'll just be counting the days 'till they can vote for her next time around.

    But Obama -- due to the ambition and blatant short-sightedness of the DNC and the Party "Leaders" -- will probably lose, blame it on Hillary and then be roundly ignored in the Senate because, really, just what DOES he bring to the table other than his b*:-)&n' and moanin' about losin'?

    I still wonder how he's going to win re-election in 2010 as it's hard to believe he's done anything for his constituents.

    Hillary will win for sure next time around. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    People won't soon forget -- or will quickly remember when they see her again -- her grasp of policy, her intelligence with foreign policy and her stunning ability to take punch after punch (from her OWN Party, even!) and still keep going and winning contests.

    This side of her won her many votes from Independents and even (gasp!) staunch Republicans who hated her going into the primaries.  Many of them saw her as just an accessory to Bill and disliked her "stand by your man" attitude from the Impeachment.  Once they saw the real fire in Hillary, they changed their minds and grew to admire her.  

    Next time around, she won't have to work so hard to get their votes.    


    I don't think Obama has offered Hillary the VP (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    position.  However, I do think she would say yes if asked.  She is mature enough to swallow her pride and do what is best for the country.  Obama, on the other hand, is not.  

    I don't think there is anyone who Obama can choose who would bring as much to the ticket as Hillary.  Not only because of the reluctance of Hillary's supporters to support Obama, but also because there is no one who has her experience and the right qualifications to lead.  All will pale in comparison to Hillary.

    Obama has painted himself into a corner and if he doesn't choose Hillary to get out of that corner then it says a lot about him and how he will govern and the type of leader he is.  

    Does he do the right thing?  The best thing for the country?  Or does he do what's best for Obama's ego?  My money is on Obama's ego.

    I still (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    can't believe he hasn't selected Hillary for precisely that reason. The primary race runs for its full extent and ends up virtually tied, yet the winner doesn't pick the runner-up.

    A year that could have been a slam dunk is turning out to be a nightmare of epic proportions.

    The Most Important Factor (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by bob h on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    in choosing the VP should be who would be best qualified to take over the Presidency should something happen to Obama, and that is clearly Ms. Clinton.  Aside from Biden, the other names being mentioned are not Presidential material themselves. Another factor should be who the Party wants to inherit the Presidency in 2016, and that again should be Ms. Clinton.

    No Senator for VP pick (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    This is my first time reading or posting here. I can finally say how very disturbed I was by the treatment of both Hillary and Bill in the primary by the msm and the Obama camp and never understood why it wasn't blatantly obvious to anyone watching and listening where this was coming from.  

    As a life-long Democrat and a voter since 1968 I may have to sit this one out.  At least the vote for President.  I cannot vote for McCain and I've really tried to find some common ground and respect for Obama but it just isn't there.  He's not a progressive and he's not really a centrist.  He's an appeaser wanting to be everything to everyone which is not good for anyone in America. I don't get the impression this is "our" time as much as it is "Obama's" time.

    As a VP pick, I don't have a clue but I don't want to lose any Democratic Senator because with the seats we will pick up in Congress in Nov. it will possibly keep McCain in check should he win in Nov.  As unbelievable as it may sound I think that is very likely.

    Obama's media support will be tested (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    This doesn't just concern Clinton voters.  It is a huge test of Obama's media support.  He gets elected or not depending on his most important demo, the media.  Does the media try to focus on the VP pick or do they focus on Clinton?  After a quiet summer, does the media try to help Obama get his momentum back after the convention by focusing on the celebration and the team's life stories or do they do like other talking heads said 'there is time to get to know Obama after the primary'.

    It will be interesting to see if the story is Clinton.  How about a tv special on her run, why not Clinton will be on the Sunday shows just before the convention will the media continue with Clinton on the Sunday following the convention, do the Repubs act aghast at the party not picking Clinton and try to pick up Clinton's supporters, will all of the Clinton supporters be brought to all of the shows?  

    The media can run with the Clinton story or they can try to stand with Obama and ignore her. For me, this will be a test of Obama's chances for Nov.

    Problem for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    Is that his ego will not let him pick someone too well known with too much experience because it will take some of the shine off him.  And if he picks someone that is unfamiliar and doesn't have the experience the voters need to see he will still just be the empty suit with the gift of gab which I think is wearing pretty thin.  He's made some bad choices in votes and positions lately and more questions are finally being asked.  I think the Obama camp thought they would make it all the way to November without substance.

    Cuomo did an interview during the primaries (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:54:40 AM EST
    He has not backed down from what he said then.  

    Obama must pick Hilary as VP to insure a win.

    That is why I will not vote for Obama unless Hilary is on the ticket.

    I believe i stated the same thing (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    several times here.  Who would make a better VP?  I have yet to see anyone on this site make an argument for someone "better".  I don't care if she "helps" him win, what i care is that she would be light years more influential and more policy strong than any other name out there. Too much is made on winning, i think Barack with any of the reported candidates for the position is a much weaker president.

    The Obama Boys Club of (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    Kerry, Daschle, Dean and Kennedy, the DLC and Brazille were never going to let Hillary Clinton in.  Her abilities threaten their egos.  She's smart, she's savvy, she WORKS HARD.  Often that last one really scares these people.  Hillary has never been afraid of hard work, and like most women, she can multitask quite well.

    Recently my b-i-l who became a widow when my sister  died, was whining to me about how hard it is to "do it all himself."   He has to do the parent thing, the work thing, the house thing....the grocery shopping, the bills.  ALL OF IT.  Do you know how many women do ALL OF IT ALL THE TIME and it's not just SINGLE moms.  Even married women still do 90% of child rearing, domestic chores, even if they are working.

    Hillary threatens the egos of the Obama campaign.
    What a shame.  Women really know who Hillary is and we believe she truly represents every woman.  She was beloved in the minority community until Obama and his nasty team slandered her with the help of the media men as a racist.  Still though, none of my African American female friends in my age group bought it.  

    Hillary is the smartest choice.  But it won't happen.  The INDIES, aka former wingers or libertarians out here in the west (the wannabe cowboys) hate Hillary, have always hated her.  Some of my friends married those types.  Their husbands are fond of mocking me for supporting Hillary.  They're jerks........
    So Obama and friends will appease them good old boys and make sure women again are told to step down, step aside and go home and cook and clean.


    Reminds me of the campaign (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    bumperstickers in '92 (the year of the woman - candidate):  A woman's place is in the House - and in the Senate!

    Patty Murray won, tennis shoes and all.


    Anyone think it will be Kerry? (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    it would be hard for anyone to question his qualifications, since we all thought he was qualified to be pres in 2004 - and rightly so.

    saw Chuckie Todd on this on sunday (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    too qualified.  he cited the 88 VP picks, Bentson and Quayle, as textbook examples of what NOT to do.
    pick someone laughably under qualified or, in Bentsons case, someone so much more qualified than you that it highlights your own shortcomings.
    btw, the sunday talk shows were pretty entertaining this week.  

    I forgot about that (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    probably because I never like that line of thought! I'm not sure it actaully works that way, but hey, he's the expert.

    Yeah, they were entertaining.  


    How 'bout some fab veep picks? (none / 0) (#111)
    by wurman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    1. Richard M. Nixon (notice how well that went!)
    2. Lyndon B. Johnson (guns & butter anyone?)
    3. Spiro T. Agnew (nolo contendre?)
    4. George H. W. Bush (old spy chief for sure!)
    5. James D. Quayle (not John Kennedy, ayeh?)
    6. Richard B. Cheney (Buckshot the NeoKon?)

    Cactus Jack Garner: ". . . not worth a bucket of warm [expletive deleted = urine]," commonly Bowdlerized to "spit."  Veeps galore, no doubt.

    what happened to sebelius? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST

    I looked around while I was cleaning (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    up after last night's party, but she doesn't seem to be under the bus yet.

    which reminds me (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    have you seen my lampshade?  

    This (none / 0) (#192)
    by sas on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    former Democrat will not sit out in November.

    I don't like McCain, but I loathe The Precious.  He is the reason I'm now an Independent.  I'm one of those Democrats who has left the party.

    I'll definitely be there in November.  It's too important to sit out.  I'm not voting for McCain, but against The Chosen One.