home

Hillary to Step Up Campaigning for Obama

Hillary Clinton's advisers tell the New York Times she will increase her campaigning for the Obama/Biden ticket. One reason: McCain's choice of Sarah Palin and Palin's co-opting of her campaign theme.

Mrs. Clinton’s friends said she was galled that Ms. Palin might try to capitalize on a movement that Mrs. Clinton, of New York, built among women in the primaries....Guy Cecil, the former political director of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said it was “insulting” for Republicans to compare Ms. Palin to Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary's advisers have no problem making the inexperience argument against Palin: [More...]

Mr. Cecil said he believed that the McCain-Palin ticket might initially intrigue some Clinton supporters, but that they would ultimately choose Mr. Obama.

“It is insulting to compare Hillary’s lifetime of service and her commitment to progressive causes with that of a novice, right-wing governor,” Mr. Cecil said.

Good for Cecil. I think the Dems need to take off the kid gloves and go after Palin with all that they've got on her record and her lack of a record, as well her position on issues. Palin has zero national experience and 60 days on the campaign trail isn't enough time for Americans to have confidence that she's learned how the country runs, let alone how to run it.

Barack Obama may have been in a similar place 17 months ago, but since then, he's been briefed by experts daily on every facet of government and had his knowledge tested through more than a dozen debates. No matter how quick a study Palin is, she can't catch up in 60 days, not on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the justice system, health care. She's too big a risk for the number two position.

The radicial right and evangelicals will support her and continue to argue Barack Obama is unexperienced. That argument no longer flies and Obama should take it on, not ignore it.

My suggestion: Deploy Hillary immediately to Pennsylvania, Ohio and to Michigan and Florida. Let her make the argument that a woman is great on the ticket, but only if it's the right woman -- one who can step in and be ready to lead on day one if need be.

The RNC keeps airing the commercial of Hillary's statement during the campaign that McCain and she are ready to lead and Obama just gave a speech in 2002. She is in a great position now to get out there and say why that's no longer true.

She can also hit home the point that Palin is wrong on the issues and, like McCain, would undo years of social progress in this country, endanger all that Dems have been fighting for and economically and militarily give us four more years of what we got with the Bush Adminstration: war and recession.

< Wolfson For Obama | Labor Day Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • That's great news (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by domerdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    Hillary will be the most important, powerful and persuasive voice on why her supporters should not be swayed by Palin's selection.

    From the blogs i'm reading (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    many Hillary supporters are already swayed by Palin.

    Hillary needs to understand, the decent is not all about her... there is alot of discourse within the party and Hillary is just a small piece.

    Obama camp want to have their scapegoat if he fails to win.

    Parent

    I'm afraid (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    if they send Hillary to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida -- and Obama ultimately loses in those states -- they'll blame Hillary.  

    I think she should stay out of the battlegrounds and campaign in places they will win in.  She'll be in the news anyway, and they'll hear what she has to say in other states.  

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by domerdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    that every time Hillary does something -- like visiting a battleground state -- that helps Obama this election cycle, it also helps her next time around.  It not only allows her to meet more folks in critical states, it also allows her to win over more supporters of Obama and other primary opponents.  Seems to me like a win-win

    Parent
    Doubtful (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    Real Hillary supporters are not swayed by Palin. Only female candidate supporters who backed Hillary because she is a female are swayed by Palin.

    No one that voted for Hillary, based on Hillary's views on the issues, would give Palin a second look.

    Parent

    precisely (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    thank you.

    Parent
    Then why the panic (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    if there is no threat. Then Hilary shouldn't have to do anything to dilute Palin

    Parent
    Clinton Was Always Going to Campaign for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    Now McCain has provided her with the perfect counterpoint to remind voters what a qualified woman looks like.

    She won't even have to mention Palin. It will be obvious.

    Parent

    Hillary attracted some conservatives (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    Palin won't attract core Democrats, but she might get those moderate votes, Republican crossovers go back home etc. I think the percentage of female voters voting solely on gender is small. It's the economy, healthcare etc, that was attracting voters to her. She showed passion on the issues and competence. Obama needs to do that and draw the lines clearly on the differences. Focus should be on McCain/Republicans. That is who Obama is running against.

    Parent
    As long as they are aware of who (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    Palin really is and that her positions are extreme on many issues which is one thing that Senator Clinton will likely make clear in her campaining.

    Parent
    What qualifies you (5.00 / 10) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    Real Hillary supporters are not swayed by Palin.

    to opine on what REAL Hillary supporters think?

    Again, Palin was not chosen to attract the votes of Hillary supporters. She was chosen to assure they stayed home on Nov. 4.

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    what I'm thinking. And the more the Obama campaign attacks Palin with smears and rumors the worse it gets. If they keep this up, then downticket races are going to start suffering too. I'm hearing more people say they won't even show up in Nov.

    Parent
    Palin (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by RalphB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    also draws the votes of some Independent men and women.  She may also pull in some of Ron Paul's supporters.  Yesterday, Ron Paul said Gov Palin was wonderful.

    Parent
    I guess you want to ignore (5.00 / 12) (#65)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    what people who are very angry will do sometimes, even if its not in their own best self interest. Sometimes in life things happen that can not just be "wiped away" because everyone says so. And although most people are very rational we ultimately make emotional decisions which are stronger.

    I think it is very unwise to ignore the emotional consequences of how Sen Clinton was treated through the primary and at the convention. And trust me statements like "Only female candidate supporters who backed Hillary because she is a female are swayed by Palin" can be seen both as offensive and comes off as whistling past the grave yard at the same time.

    Parent

    No, this is wrong (5.00 / 11) (#222)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    From February on, a very consistent percentage of Clinton voters said they would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee.  There's no evidence that these voters (of both genders, btw) were voting for Hillary just because she's a woman.  That is the line pushed by Obama supporters for months, it doesn't mean it's true.  

    There's way too much conflation of groups going on, it's a very bad mistake to make, and if the NYT article has any validity, the Democrats are making it too.

    Here are some things that are not true but seem to messing up everyone's analyses:

    Women = Clinton supporters.  Many Republicans are female.

    Clinton supporter = women.  Many Clinton supporters are male.

    Women = pro-choice and will be frightened off Palin's views on abortion.

    Clinton supporter who might vote for McCain = PUMA.  

    PUMA = Clinton supporter who might vote for McCain.

    Most of the argument I've heard so far is based on one of these false categories.

    McCain's choice of Palin primarily shores up his own base.  Beyond that, he's aiming at the people who are in the middle of the political spectrum, Independents, and undecideds.  He's be glad, I'm sure, if he snags some people for whom being able to vote for the first female VP is appealing, but that's not where the game is, and not where the Democrats should concentrate their arguments.

    Parent

    If that Times article is acurrate, then McCain (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    may be in BIG trouble. There was also news of a GOP focus group reacting to Palin that suggested that while she may be a competent and smart politician, the choice was seen as little more than a stunt.

    Parent
    FYI: NYT articles are NEVER accurate (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    They have a team of political writers who's sole job during the Primaries was to monitor Bill and Hillary for gaffes and anything that could be misrepresented.

    Parent
    You need to read that article (none / 0) (#58)
    by americanincanada on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    about the supposed GOP focus group. It was run by GOP pollsters but the people there were undecided voters and the only person they quoted was a Hillary delegate who attended the democratic national convention. Not exactly a GOP voter.

    Parent
    Sorry if what I said was (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    open to misunderstanding but by GOP focus group I didn't mean the VOTERS themselves. There would be no real point to asking partisans do they support their own party's ticket in the GE. I thought that point was baked in the cake. Sorry.

    Parent
    Poor Hillary (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    They didn't want her, though they never could win without her, but now she has to to do their work for them.

    Hillary's advisers are making it worse... (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    The last thing we need is Hillary being dragged into this. She'll end up being BLAMED for all the slagging of Palin.

    I guess she had to be dragged in though because her initial, even-handed, statement made Obama's derisive statement look really bad by comparison. Obama backed off and made a further statement that mirrored Hillary's statement. And now, she has to do the dirty work for him so he can keep his hands clean. Ah, a woman's work...  

    Parent

    Not 'Poor'...POWERFUL Hillary (4.25 / 4) (#74)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    This ongoing Hillary-as-victim wail is really insulting to her and to the sophisticated politician she is.

    What this looks like to me is that she is taking an opportunity to get points by actively supporting the Dem ticket while at the same time defending her own brand.

    Palin and McCain are attempting to piggyback onto a popular tide of support that Clinton created and mobilized through her own ideas and hard work.

    Clinton seems to be signaling she is not willing to have her image and her campaign co-opted by people whose own agenda is so diametrically opposed to her own.

    Good for her! The fighter returns.

    Parent

    If Clinton thinks these points are going (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    to earn her anything, she's a fool.

    She's doing this because she has always been duitiful, not because it will get her anything (it won't).

    Parent

    Hardly a fool. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    The fact that the Democratic Party desperately (and I do not consider that an overstatement) needs Hillary is indicative of the power she yields. Her campaigning might not "get" her points, but she's powerful enough now to demand those points. And I don't think anyone will fight her on that.

    Parent
    What points do you think she's getting? (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    Do you think the party is somehow likely to not try and beat the hell out of her again in 2016? That's just irrational. Yes, they need her. Yes, they are using her. No, they aren't going to give her a thing. Should Clinton run in 2016, she'll race face first into the wall of the DNC, of the Iowa caucus, of Brazille and Daschle and Kerry and Pelosi (if she's still around).

    If Clinton thinks this work she is doing will earn her any help from the people who stood in her way this time, she is most certainly a fool.

    Parent

    No... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    The fact that they need her is telling. It demonstrates that there is a serious lack within the Party that they CANNOT account for. For the very reason that she's a "dangerous reminder" of the primaries, she should be the very LAST person to be given such a highly public role in the campaign. As commentators and pundits declared, she finished the unfinished business with her convention speech. People once again talked of the end of the Clinton era. Yet--the Party CANNOT cast her aside. She's the only person capable of picking up the slack in the Party. Using her implies that she has no choice in the matter. I think she sees this political landscape quite clearly; I think she understands that she's bigger than the Party. She's choosing to help.

    From her speech at the Convention, I don't believe for a moment that she thinks her opponents this time around will be her cheerleaders the next. But, she has circumvented that entirely. She is more powerful now than Brazile, Pelosi, Dean and the rest of the Democratic leadership for the precise reason that they depend upon her. Coupled with the massive support she had from voters, I don't think anyone is under the impression that Hillary is gone or ineffectual.

    Parent

    No Fool Hillary: A Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    Maybe you think that's the same thing?

    You have a compelling case, if so. Many people would agree with you.

    She's a politician who has many employers: her country, the senate, her constituents in New York and the Dem party. The party provides her path to advancement (along with her constituents) although she can't do it without both.

    She's an ambitious woman who is not finished yet with her career of public service. She's doing what she needs to do to keep her options open.

    Strong, smart move.

    Parent

    Ha. The fighter "returns"? (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    Those who think that a Clinton ever stops fighting for the party's principles are the fools.

    Parent
    Indeed (3.50 / 2) (#181)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    The fighter returns to the stage in a role that is not about merely endorsing Obama.

    Parent
    The fighter never left. (5.00 / 8) (#176)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    If Hillary were as powerful as she fully deserves to be, she would be free to fight for her OWN issues - like universal health care and the economy. Not making up for the glaring deficiencies in this Democratic ticket.

    A woman with her own power is not referred to as a weapon for someone else to use against or for his or her agenda.

    Let Obama and Biden campaign for women's votes. They're the ones who want to be governing them. They're the ones who need to learn how to attract their votes and address their issues.

    Parent

    What On Earth Makes You Think (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    she isn't out there fighting for "her own issues like universal health care and the economy" ???

    It's exactly because she wants to see her agenda prevail that she is and will continue to be out there making sure McCain/Palin aren't elected.

    The fact that Obama recognizes Clinton's value to his campaign and is enlisting her support is all the proof you need that she is powerful--and he knows it.

    She--unlike your previous 'poor Hillary' post--is in a position to decline or to do the bare minimum. But she is a professional who sees the advantage to herself to participate and oppose McCain/Palin.

    Parent

    She is not powerful. She is useful. There is (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    a huge difference.

    Parent
    Kerry: (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    "Universal health care is off the table."

    Parent
    The big question is "Can obama win (5.00 / 6) (#213)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    WITHOUT Hillary?"

    Parent
    can we get past the divisions yet? (4.20 / 5) (#6)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    If HRC had won, others would have been saying "they didn't wan him, they they never could win without him, but now he has to do their work for them."

    The point, quite simply, is this: (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) -- if we don't hang together, then surely we will hang separately.

    Perhaps focus on how awful it will be with four years of McSame, and a hard-core-RW-evangelist as a VP, who doesn't believe in science.

    Parent

    I HRC had won... (5.00 / 15) (#21)
    by dianem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    ...I would bet any amount of money that Obama would have had a full roll call, half of the convention would have been spent celebrating his accomplishment, and he would be in the VP slot on th ticket. There wouldn't be so many divisions.

    Parent
    This just in (1.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

    No one knows what would have happened in a situation that didn't and will not take place.

    Did you have a point, other than to remind us of your own personal loss?  Are you having a hard time deciding between Obama and McCain?

    If so, what are the issues where they are too close together for you to make a choice?

    Parent

    Look, many Republicans were (5.00 / 12) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    happy to see Ford lose to Carter, because they saw Ford as a weak President, and one indifferent to Conservatism. They were pleased to see Reagan undermine Ford's strength in the Republican Party because they realized they could build a Republican Party far more to their liking in 1980, rallying around Reagan. They no doubt rightly saw Carter as someone who would be a weak, and very beatable President in the 1980 election.

    Many progressives I think are also viewing the current circumstance in the same way. They don't see McCain as viable in 2012. They think that the Obama wing of the Party is destructive both to the long terms electoral viability of the Party and to progressive ends. They can see reconstituting a far more effective, far more progressive party in 2012, most likely rallying around Hillary.

    For some reason, Obama supporters seem to act as if the last term of office of any President starts in 2009, and we need pay attention to nothing else.

    Those of us who take a longer view beg to differ. We believe that 2012 will come to pass, and election cycles beyond, and we had better prepare for that long run.

    Parent

    Um, You're Way Off (5.00 / 10) (#99)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    If HRC had won, others would have been saying "they didn't wan him, they they never could win without him, but now he has to do their work for them."

    If HRC had won, she would have picked Obama as her Veep the same day she claimed presumptive nominee status.

    She knew during the Primaries, and still knows (judging from this development) that unifying the party as quickly as possible is the best way of assuring a win in November.

    I guarantee, Hillary would not have waited nearly two months and strung her supporters and the media through a week of childish carrot-hanging ploys.

    A Clinton/Obama ticket announcement on June 7 (a day after her formal suspension speech) would have sealed a win and guaranteed Democratic rule for the next 16 years.

    McCain would have been relegated to planning his retirement with Cindy, not a Veep pick.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by tek on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    hillary had been CHOSEN to lead the ticket, Obama would be VP and that would be very appropriate.

    Parent
    And who better to defend the need for (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    qualified women candidates? And who better can comment  and campaign against Palin without being bombed by  irrelevant sexism charges to the right and  stupid sex bias charges to the left? So the substance of the issues involving Palin can be heard more clearly. No man could do that.

    I've said it before. The huge difference between Hillary and Palin in particular is that in Hillary's case, proof is present in the primary results  that she was in fact able to win the support, devoted support, of a sizeable percentage of the relevant voter group on a national basis. Palin has no such demonstration in her own party or at all. And for a lot of people, cuteness and children still small (are you more acceptably female with children still small than you are with children you raised up well who are now adults?) and mooseburgers does not fill in the gap.

    Parent

    Um, Obama. And Biden. (5.00 / 15) (#54)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    They ARE the ones running, no? It's about time THEY defend the need for qualified women candidates, since Obama and his minions spent the entire primary saying Hillary was not qualified. They dug themselves into that hole. It's not her job to fill it for them.

    As for campaigning without being bombed by actual relevant and perfectly accurate sexism charges, it's about time they learned how to do that too. A man COULD do that, and certainly SHOULD do that, if he wants to earn women's votes. Let's see if Obama and Biden can do that, mmmmkay?

    Let them carry their own water for a BIG change.

    It is not her job. It's more insulting to say it is than it is to say Palin is an alternative to Hillary.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 13) (#138)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    I'm sick of the party using HRC as some punching bag and now against Palin.  Let Obama and Biden do their work and this is their job, not HRC's.  Because she will be blamed once again for not doing enough.  Well I say ENOUGH!  

    Right now, I'm angry again especially after Obama said of HRC's brilliant, fair and balanced comments about Palin that "it will do, for now".  Who the hell does he think he is?  It will do?  For now?  Talk about being tone deaf once again.  Obama just doesn't get it.   This reminded me of the comment to HRC he made in the debate in New Hampshire (which turned my stomach)"You're likeable, enough." Wince. Slap. This is the side to Obama that curles my toes in not a nice way.  It's the side to him that turns me away from him as a patronizing git to women.  With every misstep like this one, he will lose women like me who are still on the fence with little wiggle room left for him to convince me in my gut that I should pull that lever for him instead of just voting down ticket.

    Parent

    It certainly is their responsibility (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    but if she wants to do this, it's up to her.  She should do what she damn well pleases.  It would be fine with me if she went to Tahiti and sat on a beach for the duration.

    Parent
    Perfectly (none / 0) (#142)
    by tek on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    accurate sexism charges?  What does that mean?  The media's sexist stuff is perfectly accurate?

    Parent
    It means (none / 0) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    the charges of sexism are perfectly accurate. ESL?

    Parent
    Christy, with respect (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    this is belittling in a way I think women of any stripe should not be belittled.

    "for a lot of people, cuteness and children still small (are you more acceptably female with children still small than you are with children you raised up well who are now adults?) and mooseburgers does not fill in the gap."

    I think you know if you think about it that there's much more to Palin's selection, and appeal to the people she appeals to, than cute kids and mooseburgers.


    Parent

    They Better Tread Carefully (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    I think the Dems need to take off the kid gloves and go after Palin with all that they've got on her record and her lack of a record.

    'Cos they are now on notice -- Laura Bush has spoken:

    "Laura Bush warns Dems away from anti-Palin sexism"

    This is exactly what I've predicted several times already.

    The Republicans will protect Palin against sexist remarks, which should shame a lot of the people in the DNC.

    That's why they are using Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    Use a woman to go after a woman (I won't discuss that stereotype)  and who better than Clinton?  She is the poster child for misogeny and sexism after this, she can discount the Repubs accusation of sexism and laugh them off.  The Repubs might have a hard time coming up with examples with which to compare the two as Palin will never be treated the way Clinton was.

    Parent
    There is no evidence (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    That Hillary will do this. There is no evidence that Obama WANTS her to do this.

    What Hillary WILL do is campaign FOR Obama and AGAINST John McCain. It would shock me to hear Hillary do more the a mere mention of Palin's name.

    I am positive she will not.

    Parent

    You're right, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    She's way smarter than that.  Which is why she was the candidate and people like Paul Begala et al were not, no?

    Parent
    The media won't let this go (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    I can agree Clinton won't bring this up.... but I can't imagine the media letting this go.  Clinton will be asked about Palin as a woman who has run.  Clinton will be asked about sexism.  Clinton can give her speech and then refuse interviews but some in the audience may carry this primary issue to the GE.

    Why would the Obama campaign be ramping up Clinton's involvement?  Would they have if McCain had picked Pawlenty?  

    Media like a dog with a bone... is Palin experiencing sexism, do women see this as more sexism, do you think you are being asked to help because you are a woman, was that commercial sexist, was that Palin article sexist.....

    The major negative memes of the primary are front and center in the GE.  The question is ... does the media stay with Obama on these issues?

    Parent

    Yes. I agree...the question (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    is what will the MSM do?

    They are in shock at being PUBLICLY bamboozled in their predictions of who the maverick would pick.

    Now they are scrambling...desperate to look relevant again and decide who will be elected.  Who will they choose?  Will they split into two factions?  TWO media darlings?

    Or is Obama old news and Palin a great story?

    BTD chose Obama in the primaries mainly on his 'media darlingship.'  The question now is, can he keep it?

    Parent

    The operative word (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by parttime on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:47 AM EST
    The operative word here is "use Clinton". Hillary is savy enough not to let anybody use her. And what's suggested by panic here is to use Hillary's legacy to put Obama to office. Not gonna happen.

    Parent
    We're talking aobut (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:25 AM EST
    Palin's record, lack of it, and her position on issues and her co-opting Hillary's campaign them. No one is advocating sexism. Please stop chattering about it.

    Parent
    But Hillary will not (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    In Any Other Context (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    doesn't it seem odd for a Republican to praise Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro?

    Parent
    Clinton praises Margaret Chase Smith (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:01:41 PM EST
    and it isn't odd.  Chase Smith was a moderate, and the moderate Republicans of that era have more in common with core Dems now than some of the New Dems.

    Reagan, the standardbearer of the New Neocon Repubs to the dismay of many moderates -- now, Reagan getting praise from a Dem, that's what's odd.

    Parent

    Do You Really Equate The Republican Party (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    of Chase Smith and Palin?

    Really?

    I'm surprised you apparently see no cynical calculation in Palin's shout-out to Clinton and Ferraro.

    Parent

    John McCain is quoted (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    as saying before a group of Republicans a couple of years ago that he and Hillary were friends and that she would make a great President.

    So, no I don't find it odd.

    Parent

    Oh, It Was Clinton's Populism (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    Palin was referring to?

    And Ferraro's as well?

    Parent

    She didn't, as far as I've seen (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    She's been giving entirely appropriate and honorable shout-outs to Hillary's (and Ferraro's) very real role in cracking the glass ceiling so Palin has a chance to wedge it open, and other women who will come later walk right through it.

    Could we PLEASE criticize this woman on the basis of the things she actually says and does rather than assumptions based on the fact that she's a Republican and therefore evil and bad on all counts?

    Parent

    Maybe a new headline is needed (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    on this post then, as the headline and first several paragraphs are talking about Senator Clinton.

    So, not surprisingly, many of the comments are talking about Senator Clinton, too.

    And so, McCain wins again.

    Parent

    As far as I can tell, they are talking about (5.00 / 13) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    the fact the Palin mentioned Clinton's name, and riffed off the 18 million cracks line.  If that's not working for them, she'll just take it out of her speech.  Not hard.

    I'm not sure how Hillary can really help, here, aside from deflecting accusations of sexism against her.  But she's not the one who's deficient in that area anyway.

    Hillary's experience is not at issue.  But she is not on the ticket.  The Clinton advisor in the NYT article specifically stated that this in no way indicates any sort of closer working partnership between Obama and Clinton.  Had Clinton been picked for VP, then Clinton's experience against Palin's would be relevant and worth pointing out.  

    But Clinton can't give Obama experience.

    Personally, I think the 'women should be insulted'  meme the Democrats are trying to push cuts both ways.  If McCain picked Palin just to appeal to women (not true, imo but they're going with it), then obviously the Democrats are just pushing Clinton out on stage just to appeal to women.  At least Palin's on the ticket.

    Parent

    I Am Not Chattering (5.00 / 8) (#141)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    What I wrote is fully on-topic which addresses the issue of Hillary stepping up campaigning as a result of Palin being named VP.

    Expect the media (especially Olbermann and Matthews) and pro-Obama blogs to dictate what Hillary MUST say and how she should say it (as they did her convention speech) ... and this will all give rise to the Palin slams, which undoubtedly will include sexist remarks.

    The media and the blogs won't realize what you and many of us do: the protective response they'll draw from the Republicans and the damaging comparisons they'll highlight with Obama who's at the top of the ticket.

    Parent

    All Due Respect to Laura Bush (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    Do you really think Hillary Clinton needs advice from anyone at this point on how to conduct herself in a campaign?

    Parent
    I haven't heard Palin or McCain say (5.00 / 11) (#103)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    that Palin is running as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.  

    What I've heard was Palin give credit to Hillary and Geraldine for making it possible for a woman to run.  

    Palin has not tried to co-opt any of Hillary's platform.  She obviously doesn't have Hillary's experience.  But she's not running as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.  I don't believe she is trying to steal Hillary's "movement" -- and if Hillary had a movement, why weren't the Dems smart enough to capitalize on it?  Why was it always about Obama's "movement"?  

    To attack Palin for stating that Clinton and Ferraro came before her would be as hypocritical as the Obama campaign attacking Ferraro and the Clintons for stating historical fact.  THIS IS A TRAP!  Don't fall for it!    

    Parent

    There's an awful lot of (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    'might', 'maybe', 'think', and 'expect' in that article and a whole lot of 'sources said' and 'friends said'. There is also the statement from Lewis saying:

    But asked if the Palin pick would lead to a new political marriage between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, a senior Clinton adviser, Ann Lewis, said: "Not a political marriage. She is not on the ticket. Senator Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. Hillary will do what she can to help."

    I think I would prefer to hear from Hillary herself or to actually see if Obama can put aside his feelings about Clinton and actually use her. I would love to see her more on the trail. I miss her spirit. It probably won't cause me to suddenly decide to not leave the top of the ticket blank on election day though.

    good catch (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    I suspect there are many in the Dem Party who are now seeing how effective Hillary was on the stump and how effectively she connects with people -- two things Obama still seems to be relatively ineffective at -- and now seem to be planting the story ("might", "think", "maybe", "expect", etc) in the HOPE that Hillary will accept and dedicate her life to getting Obama elected.

    I, for one, don't want Hillary out there doing anything more than what anyone else who lost in the Primary is doing.  Those at the top who were so insistent on pushing Obama forward had many opportunities to include Hillary in the process and chose, instead, to shovel more dirt on her.

    If they need someone campaigning in PA, OH, MI, etc to speak to the Working Class voters, they can send Biden.  Wasn't that one of his strengths?  And, being on the ticket, it is HIS job, not hers, to do so.

    Hillary is NOT on the ticket and should be allowed to return to her life.  This is now Obama's race to win or lose.  He's going to have to step up and take responsibility as is the DNC.

    Parent

    "Allowed To Return To Her Life" (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:00:44 PM EST
    Comments like these and others which relate to Senator Clinton as some oppressed victim really leave me scratching my head in bewilderment.

    If there is one thing I've witnessed in the seventeen years that I've known Hillary Clinton as a public figure it is her strength.

    Time and again when so many different challenges threatened her she has met and mastered them. She epitomizes the image of making lemonade when life throws lemons at you.

    Even in this campaign where she did not win the nomination, I've no doubt she will survive, perhaps re-invent her destiny in other direction, perhaps make another (and ultimately successful) run at the White House.

    She doesn't need to "return to her life". She has never left it.

    Parent

    This is all very nice and rosey. But what (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    other direction is she supposed to re-invent her self in? Will she start hosting a talk show? Is she going to hit the Tennis circuit? Clinton doesn't have many options.

    And if she ever does try to run for President, I'm sure she'll meet the same fate she did this year.

    Parent

    Reinvention (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    I would like to see her dedicate herself to the condition of women -- not only here, but internationally. Then in a few years I would like to see her get a Nobel for her work.

    Just like Gore. Only for women.

    Parent

    Wow, Better Rosy Than Bleak (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    You really believe Hillary Clinton has no chance of ever being elected president?

    I'm not saying I think it's a shoo-in but it's hardly impossible.

    And there are many career paths in politics and the private sector where she can exert influence and make change.

    Even as someone who was never a supporter for her presidential aspirations, I have no doubt if Clinton wanted to 'hit the tennis circuit' she'd be a champion. Did you see her stamina on the campaign trail?

    Parent

    Hillary is doing her part (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    Hillary has always been a good solider for the Democratic Party, even when the party has been craping on her for the last year.  Threw her under the bus, they tried.  

    So, HIllary has to do all Obama's dirty work for him??  And I just read that Obama did not get a bounce from the convention?  That's can't be right... or is it???

    It's not Hillary's job to get Obama elected, it is Barack's job to get himself elected.

    it's all of our job (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    to help get him elected -- if you believe in values that are anywhere left of center.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    But I don't like seeing Hillary used like this.  She's doing her job as a devout Democrat, but I don't want people to act as if it is her obligation to take care of the PUMA problems.

    I don't see anyone (Gore, Kerry, etc) busting a hump too much or getting the pressure to go out and campaign for Obama like Hillary is doing.

    Parent

    A good thing, since Gore and Kerry are (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    terrible campaigners.

    Parent
    Well, Kerry is out there and I personally (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    wish they'd find him a job talking to private donors or something - well out of the media's ear shot.

    Parent
    Re-read the post. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    She isn't being used - she is responding to the fact that Palin is trying to co-opt her hard fought reputation.  She has worked her heart out for this country for decades and this Palin person is suddenly plucked out of the Alaskan wilderness to become her "replacement"?  Um that's a no.  And she's going to make sure it doesn't happen.

    Parent
    No YOU read the article (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    Hillary said nothing of the sort.

    And Ann Lewis, who I assure you is much closer to Hillary Clinton than some Cecil I personally have never heard of, is a better read of what Hillary will do.

    Parent

    So you're telling me that Cecil (none / 0) (#124)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    was speaking to the New York Times as a named source without getting permission from the Senator?

    I don't believe that.

    Parent

    She would hardly be a replacement! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by americanincanada on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
    Hillary didn't want to be VP. She was running for president.

    Parent
    Obama co-opted Hillary too (none / 0) (#62)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    And of course the Republicans are going to use Hillary.  They were doing so before he announce Palin.  And they are going to use Obama's words against him too.

    Hillary better separate herself from Palin, but will women in general separate themselves from Palin.  That's the question.

    Parent

    Would have been nice (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    if he hadn't spent all that time on the right of center. He should have been shoring up his base, not going after pro-lifers (among other things like FISA).

    Parent
    actually, i do, (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    it's all of our job to help get him elected -- if you believe in values that are anywhere left of center.

    which is why i'm glad va has a write-in line on its ballot, since obama is very clearly NOT left of center, in his postions on the issues that matter to me, as a progressive democrat. that is, when you can even figure out what his position might be.

    frankly, let him and biden carry their own water, for a change. if they're as great the candidates, as the DNC would have us believe, they should do a bang up job, and i'll be happy for them.

    don't take it personally, if i don't hold my breath.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton should focus on ... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    talking about Obama's play for fixing the economy.

    The number of people who care about Palin is dwarfed by the number of people who care about the economy.

    And Clinton is an expert in talking about the economy.

    I highly doubt - given the high quality (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    of Senator Clinton's political discourse - that this campaigning is going to be centered exclusively around Palin.  What Senator Clinton is going to do is talk about what the American people need - a better economy would be one thing - and probably continue to talk about things like equal pay - something that Palin seems not to be interested in advancing - the right to choice which Palin completely opposes - and other issues that women care about that the McCain/Palin campaign are diametrically opposed to - and it is important that we make these clear distinctions now.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    with you inclusiveheart.

    Parent
    Obama should talk about Obama's plan (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    if he wants people to put a check next to the name of Obama on the ballot.  

    Parent
    please guys (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by johnsgirl on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    this is not the time for obama this and that,my grand ma and my mum who are hillary diehards are so upset that hillary fought for years for women rights and a nobody who opposses abortion even for rape is trying to ride her coatails.
    the wing nuts even booed hillary,she succeeded in making them obama converts something obamas speech didnt do.

    no more mention of Hillary? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    This article notes that Palin gave essentially the same speech the next day . . . but dropped references to Hillary.

    No doubt, they didn't like the boos in that part of the speech.

    Parent

    Palin scares me... (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by justinboston2008 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    I think it is great that the Obama campaign realizes that they need Hillary to get over the top. Too bad they didn't a couple weeks ago. The Obama campaign has already botched their initial response to the Palin announcement. They went right to her "inexperience," which opens them up to the sexist charge just like those who criticized Obama became open to the racism charge.

    Hillary will be the best advocate to get out there and attach Palin's policies.

    The reason that Palin scares me is that she is a stealth candidate. While I find her policies ugly, I haven't found a reason yet to dislike her. If she can withstand the scrutiny of the next 2 months and not wither under scandal, campaign gaffes, or media glare, she will help win the election for McCain. Centrist voters who are not comfortable with Obama but are not happy with Republican rule have been given the opportunity to look at the McCain candidacy for a second time, and vote for it without guilt.

    The Right Woman (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by mudlark on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Let her make the argument that a woman is great on the ticket, but only if it's the right woman.

    Please remind me again why Hillary is not on our ticket. What does it take to be the "right woman," anyway? It's very mysterious to me.

    stop beating that horse please (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    We have a ticket, it's Obama/Biden and Hillary supports it.

    As for "the right woman", one who is qualified for the job by virtue of her relevant experience and accomplishments, as well as her judgment and will advance the values of her party.

    Parent

    i agree 100% jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    As for "the right woman", one who is qualified for the job by virtue of her relevant experience and accomplishments, as well as her judgment and will advance the values of her party.

    which of course begs the question.............................

    Parent

    With all do respect (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    Why? Isn't this an issue exactly because Sen Clinton is not the VP? If she had been chosen this would be a non issue. So why are we supposed to pretend this is not a primary element of any discussion about Palin as VP and whether she is qualified or not?

    Sen Clinton as VP would underscore all points you are trying to make much better than thousands of pages of opinion, imho!

    Parent

    Funny how (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by Andy08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:03:48 PM EST
    noone ever talks about "the right man"

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    And i read more than one piece this year that said that Hillary was not the "right woman" because she had gotten to the top on Bill's coattails.

    Parent
    I think in Florida most of all (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    John McCain is really going to regret choosing Palin as a running mate.

    I am really happy to hear that Senator Clinton is going to attack this head on.  She should.  McCain has pulled a classic old boys network move which in my opinion will have the exact opposite effect of advancing the cause of women being taken seriously in the workplace - and I also don't think that Palin's decision to accept this nomination reflects well on her judgment and temperment at all.

    She is not (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    Hillary will NOT attack this head on and there is nothing in the article that says she will.

    The reason she will not is because she is not a political fool.

    Parent

    Um - this is what I meant by attacking (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
    head on:

    "It is insulting to compare Hillary's lifetime of service and her commitment to progressive causes with that of a novice, right-wing governor," Mr. Cecil said.

    Seems like a pretty straight-forward and direct response to me.  It is also one that I completely agree with.

    The sexism and pure political calculation in McCain's choice is so transparent in my mind that it is stunning.  At least with a Kay Bay or Ms. eBay he would have had some cover.

    Parent

    I do not know Cecil (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    I am pretty sure you never heard of him either.

    I HAVE heard of Ann Lewis though.

    Parent

    Cecil served as her national political (none / 0) (#152)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    director during the primary campaign.

    He's a pro.  I doubt he spoke with the Times without permission from Senator Clinton.

    And I am not sure why you think that Lewis' comments are in opposition to his.

    Parent

    I seriously doubt it (none / 0) (#210)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    myself.

    Parent
    No one is making a comparison of (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    Clinton's experience to Palin's.

    Trying to put Clinton's experience up against Palin's is silly.  Clinton's not on the ticket.

    Parent

    How about Cecil and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    deal with the issue head-on, rather than again with this using Clinton when it suits them as a way to not address it themselves?

    Or maybe you think that Cecil speaks for Clinton?  Uh, no.

    Parent

    Guy Cecil (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by Josey on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    a GUY - telling P.O.W.'s (pissed off women) to vote for Obama.
    Funny.
    Where are the nationally known women who supported Hillary?
    Yes, let the public see more of Hillary having to pull Obama over the finish line - after he's brushed her off the bottom of his shoe and is perfectly pleased with leaving intact the narrative that the Clintons are "racists."

    Today - McCain ordered all negative comments about Obama in speeches at the RNC to be scrapped.

    Parent

    Florida is okay with Palin (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:10 AM EST
    I read the blogs down there, many conservative women are very excited about her.

    I don't underestimate Palin... I hope no one else does either.

    Parent

    of course consrevative women are (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    excited by her, that was the point of her selection, to energize the evangelicals and radical right.

    Hillary can rally the Democratic women, particularly those that supported her.

    Parent

    Which leaves the gamechanger (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    election-decider Independents in the middle...as usual.  Well, almost as usual.  Oddly, this year, the Rs have solidified their base and the Ds have not.

    That's a problem for Obama/Biden and Hillary can't fix it for them all by herself.  She can't fix either problem (the base lukewarm, mad or staying home or the Independents who are up for grabs.

    Parent

    yup that would be me an independent. (5.00 / 6) (#226)
    by kimsaw on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    I am willing to get to know Palin BEFORE I judge her. I had two years to listen to Obama, Clinton and Biden, even MCain. I supported Clinton for a variety of reasons especially her common sense, centrist views. I don't agree with Palin's abortion stance and her anti-gay positions. I didn't necessarily agree with all of Clinton's positions either, like her vote on the Iraq War, but I listened to her. I listened to Obama, I heard everything that he plated up for everyone and yet I heard nothing of substance. The post partisan leader who stands up for nothing is the message I got loud and clear.  I respect both Obama and McCain. Long ago I could see McCain as president, today my skepticism has grown. I don't agree with his base, but I don't much care for where Obama is leading the Dems either.

    I'm the voter who is still struggling with not pulling the lever for either candidate. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of. Nothing either candidate has forwarded has made me want to, but I am still listening.

    Parent

    My point was about Florida voters (none / 0) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    who were considering McCain who are not conservatives - who will likely be turned off by Palin's extremism and perhaps get a clue about how conservative and NOT moderate McCain really is from this choice.

    Parent
    This is good but tricky (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Nike on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    If Hillary goes around saying some version of" a woman is great on the ticket, but only if it's the right woman -- one who can step in and be ready to lead on day one if need be," then it may only confuse those who wonder why Hillary is not herself the "right woman."

    Yep. I don't see it working well (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    and I worry that it's another way for Obama to not address "women's issues" himself.  If this is the way he would handle the need to address them when they come up in his presidency, I am not reassured at all.  

    I am reminded again of the SNL skit about the way the 3 a.m. call really could happen -- constant 3 a.m. calls to Clinton, not in the White House but from the White House . . . as Obama keeps calling for her help to fix what he can't figure out.  Or what he broke.

     

    Parent

    Cabinet etc (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    I can be spun...  He is also trying to set the precedent that he will select the appropriate person to advise him and manage issues.  He, again, knows he has a weakness and is stretched to thin to manage all issues.  He said he would surround himself with knowledgeable people... isn't he demonstrating different skills by using someone to win?  That's why he picked Biden. Doesn't the fact that he will use (trust) someone he doesn't care for to provide input, reassure Obama supporters?

    Parent
    I don't see explanation here (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    of why he would put Clinton in his cabinet if he couldn't pick her as VP.  

    And then it gets more confusing here.  Obama picked Biden as someone he trusts but doesn't care for?  

    Perhaps it's a problem in poor use of pronouns.  But that certainly doesn't make this persuasive, only puzzling.

    Parent

    Let me try again (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    I have a hard time spinning things for the positive as I am by nature a cynic.

    Was Obama smart to pick Biden?  Answer yes and list the reasons why.  Is Obama smart to ramp up Clinton's involvement?  Answer yes and list why.

    Therefore... his campaign can argue... Obama can make responsible decisions about who to surround himself with to win office.... it demonstrates he will make responsible decisions regarding those he selects to work with him in the WH.

    Is that better?  I suck at this perception stuff.

    Parent

    Fortunately, HRC campaigns on issues (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    and doesn't need to reference anything personal (or obvious) in order to win support.

    Watching the differences between the campaign styles of the two candidates is the best way to find out who is talking issues, and who is talking about their opponent.


    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Andy08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:24:01 AM EST
    on Palin's experience but your paragraph:

    Barack Obama may have been in a similar place 17 months ago, but since then, he's been briefed by experts daily on every facet of government and had his knowledge tested through more than a dozen debates. No matter how quick a study Palin is, she can't catch up in 60 days, not on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the justice system, health care.

    is a bad sell. I wouldn't go there. Obama is running for POTUS himself. Palin for VP and unless you think McCain will die within his first couple of months (unlikely) the argument of "training" by campaigning is a loser (the counterargument being  training while serving--as VP).

    The Obama versus Palin comparisons are a really bad argument. Obama will lose every time he gets compared to her.
    Obama is still running against McCain: go after him. You cannot vote for Palin without voting for McCain.

    Agreed (5.00 / 7) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    I think pushing 17 months of campaigning as 'experience' won't wash.  People aren't stupid.

    There's no evidence that Obama was briefed daily on world politics, or even domestic politics.  Most of that time Obama was campaigning -- meeting crowds, having photo ops, fundraising events and giving speeches in auditoriums.  His briefings were surely more about the polling for the next primary in the lineup.

    Who was briefing him and instructing how to govern?  Axelrod?  It's not much different than arguing that he's got more experience because he took a couple classes at the local college on Contemporary Events.

    Every time the experience comparison is made between the VP candidate and the Presidential candidate, Obama loses.

    Parent

    Hillary will NEVER say what you wrote (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    Barack Obama may have been in a similar place 17 months ago, but since then, he's been briefed by experts daily on every facet of government and had his knowledge tested through more than a dozen debates. No matter how quick a study Palin is, she can't catch up in 60 days, not on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the justice system, health care. She's too big a risk for the number two position.

    I do not know or care who Cecil is.

    Does no one wonder WHY Obama, Biden and the Clintons are NOT taking this politically ill advised tack? Think about it.

    They will NOT "take off the gloves" on Palin's experience and will instead focus on McCain as Bush' Third Term.

    When will you notice this Jeralyn?


    Ann Lewis on the other hand IS somebody (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    [A]sked if the Palin pick would lead to a new political marriage between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, a senior Clinton adviser, Ann Lewis, said: "Not a political marriage. She is not on the ticket. Senator Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. Hillary will do what she can to help."

    Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they expected that in light of the Palin selection, she would focus her efforts especially on working women -- middle- and working-class, married and single -- in swing states where she ran strong, like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    Sarah Palin will not even be mentioned by Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    More from Lewis (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    With Palin, there is a core group of Hillary supporters who are not available to this ticket or any Republican," Ms. Lewis said. "Supreme Court appointments is the bottom line. There is a second group who are now giving McCain-Palin a second look, and it depends on how Palin performs. These voters see Hillary as someone who fought and rose to challenges with persistence, and who spoke in real ways to their lives. "We don't know yet how Sarah Palin will perform," Ms. Lewis added, "and if she lets these voters down, gender is no longer an asset, and it could backfire on Republicans."

    I think it is clear that Hillary Clinton does not plan to be a part of any anti-Sarah Palin jihad.

    I DO think she will campaign very strongly against John McCain and his quest for Bush's Third Term.

    Parent

    Hillary doesn't have to be part of any anti Palin (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    movement. All Hillary has to do is be seen and heard and the comparison will be obvious and Ms. Palin will be the worse for it.

    I believe you are right, all Hillary needs to do is make the case why John McCain and  Palin are more of the same.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    PRECISELY my point.

    I am just amazed that this obvious point is not understood.

    Do not waste time on Palin.

    Parent

    It needs to be stated AGAIN (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    that the vast majority of voters do not vote based upon VP. Making her into the next Dan Quayle isn't necessary.

    I've looked at her and her record and her positions. All she does for me is confirm what I already knew - the GOP is wrong and out of ideas.  

    Parent

    McCain/Palin could be worse than Bush (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    Bush never seemed driven as President, if M/P are . . .

    I think a little of "If you think Bush was bad . . " might work. Especially if folks don't see McCain as Bush3. Some folks are thinking they can ride out 4 more years with a bigger majority in Congress.

    Parent

    when has Obama ever stood up to Dems? (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by Josey on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    Palin took out corrupt Repubs and good old boy Repubs in Alaska.
    McCain has been called a "liberal" by Repubs because he stood up to Bush and Repubs.
    Obama went along to get along with basically everything Pelosi/Reid - even claiming Bush and Cheney had not committed impeachable offenses!

    Parent
    Exactly BTD. My point (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    also-- above your comment--. I agree with you 100% here.

    Parent
    I aaw the commercial twice last night (4.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    during the local 10 pm news of Hillary saying Obama is not ready and only wrote a speech. It's probably playing all over the country. The McCain campaign isn't running it, the RNC is. If they continue to play it, I think Hillary is the best person to defuse it and has to defuse it.

    Maybe she'll come up with a better argument for his experience, but they igore it at their peril in my view. It's an effective commercial.

    Parent

    arguments for Sen. Obama's experience (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by marian evans on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    Justifications for Senator Obama's level of experience or details of his abilities have to come from Obama himself. He has to prove it to the electorate. It is going to be his backside occupying the hot seat in the Oval Office - he has to prove that he is up to the task of governing.

    He should be his own best advocate (Hillary Clinton certainly is hers) - and if he cannot do this, then the Dem. ticket is yesterday's news.

    Parent

    I am stating what I think they should do (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    you can disagree, and you do, but you won't convince me. You have your own threads to state your point of view. And that's what it is, a point of view.

    Parent
    Hillary should stick to issues, imo (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    you may think Obama is more experienced now, but I'm not sure the average American is going to see campaigning as job experience. They aren't going to be thinking about daily briefings etc. I didn't until you said something the other day. And I'm still not convinced. I'm still very concerned about his lack of hands on experience and his judgment. Having Hillary tell me he's more experienced now than he was a couple weeks ago isn't going to cut it. It's going to look like pure politics.

    If she gets out there and simply contrasts the two tickets (Dem vs Rep), I think she'll convince a lot more people. And she gives those speeches so well, imo.

    Agree completely (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    Hillary should stick to the issues. They all should. I'm more than a bit taken aback by the virulence at which this blog and others are going after Gov. Palin. I would never ever vote for her because I disgree with her on the issues, but the incredibly nasty tone makes me want to defend her. Let's concentrate on what matters instead of acting like she's the gd anti-christ.

    Parent
    I wouldn't vote for the ticket either (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    but I find the reaction to her interesting. It's a shame. What message is it sending to young women/girls? If you toss out Palin's politics, she  has many great qualities and her story about how she got to Gov should be inspiring. Instead . . .

    Glad I'm a middle aged woman, not someone looking at what I want to be when I grow up!

    Parent

    the objections to her have (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:54:55 AM EST
    nothing to do with her being a woman and she has not been personally attacked on this site by any of the authors here.

    This isn't about gender. It's about her record, lack of a record on national issues and lack of national experience for the number two slot and her position on issues.

    The gender attack comments are becoming repetitive chatter and are false. If you are reading them elsewhere, complain there.

    Parent

    But gender is there no matter how you slice it (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    The push for Hilary to dilute Palin is precisely to stop those woman that were voting for Hilary just because she would be the first woman president.

    Parent
    Sorry, didn't mean to imply here (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    It was more of an observation of the reaction to her in general, not really a complaint.

    Parent
    I never said people were attacking her here (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    because of her sex and I do not think the attacks have been personal. But the ferocity of the attacks are striking and unusual for this site. That's all I'm saying.

    Parent
    What Message Does It Send (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    to young girls and women that when a POLITICAL candidate is running you're not treating her fairly unless you 'toss out' her POLITICS and assess her instead on her 'great qualities' and gender?

    That seems like a patronizing double standard to me. There are other Republican women with similar politics whose selection--sans politics-- could be inspiring, because they would also seem more suited to the job.

    And, by the way, I have no problem enjoying her bio and liking her lifestyle, and if it were just that she is governor of Alaska, I wouldn't be concerned about experience. (But then, I don't happen to live in Alaska.)

    But VP is a different story.

    Parent

    I'm with you (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    I find the ferocity of the attacks on Palin curious, especially since we really don't know very much about what she's actually done in Alaska.  Lotta assumptions about her flying around instead of facts, seems to me.

    Parent
    Completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by daria g on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:10:46 PM EST
    Seems to hurt credibility to just go out and throw the kitchen sink at her, instead of sticking to one or two simple points.

    Parent
    If the argument in your 4th paragraph was (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    logical, George Bush would have been a great President. I don't think many people are going to fall for that.

    When will you acknowledge (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Roz on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    Palin isn't running for president? She's not running against Obama. It is very unlikely she will have less time than Obama has on the national stage, being "briefed by experts daily on every facet of government" and studying "the economy, foreign policy, national security, the justice system, health care." She doesn't need to catch up in 60 days in order to step into the office of the presidency.

    You make a fallacious argument on experience.

    Perhaps she should take the John Kerry method of building foreign policy experience by arranging a whirlwind tour around the globe.

    If something happens to McCain (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    while in office, she would be President. For all we know, that could happen on day one or two. Too big a risk in my view. The VP should be someone who is qualified on day one to be president if the need arises. She isn't.

    Parent
    Dems seemed to reject that idea (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Roz on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    When passing over HRC for Obama. They rejected the argument just last week at the convention when aiming their guns at McCain. Now Experience is the new black.

    (Of course the reverse could be said about McCain's experience argument.)

    Parent

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    nearly 1 in 4 Presidents have not served their entire term in office.

    Parent
    Fascinating statistic! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    How did you come to this conclusion? My 2 seconds of research shows 4 presidents died while in office.

    Parent
    Let's see (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    Harrison Taylor Lincoln Garfield McKinley Harding Rossevelt Kennedy Nixon That would be 9.

    Parent
    Ummm, note died (none / 0) (#201)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    I don't think this entire list "died" while in office. And how many died, resigned or were impeached on the day they were sworn in?

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    Of the 9, 8 died in office and one resigned. All 9 of them required a Vice President to assume the office of President. Perhaps you should re-read my initial comment?

    Parent
    These two arguments (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    McCain's age and campaigning = experience, are very weak.  They are being made because the Democrats don't have any better ones, but that does not make them valid arguments.  They are responses, but not answers, to the experience question.

    I think there is probably a name for these sorts of arguments within logic discipline, but I don't know what they are.  But basically, you're taking a couple of true premises and adding them up to an 'ergo' that does not necessarily follow.  At best it weakly follows.  It's akin to assuming facts not in evidence.

    McCain is old, yes.  But if campaigning counts as experience, then as long as McCain does die within the next 17 months, Palin would have as much experience as he (arguably more relevant experience).  I'm betting McCain won't die in the next 17 months.  He's pretty healthy now and has access to the best medical care in the world.

    According to insurance mortality tables, is McCain MORE likely to die in the next 17 months than Obama?  Probably.  But that is not the same as he's likely to die in the next 17 months.

    Parent

    It is (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by JThomas on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    great to hear that Hillary will be campaigning even more for the Obama/Biden ticket. She is an outstanding advocate as she has shown since June.

    I do believe that it is helpful that Hillary can make it very clear that this is about the issues and how McCain/Palin are diametrically opposed to virtually everything Hillary has supported her whole life.

    Way to go,Hillary!!!

    Yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    Right on!

    Parent
    I agree completely..... (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by sallywally on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I think Hillary, Bill, Al Gore, possibly Biden and even the DNC have pushed Obama a bit to the left, based perhaps on Hillary's showing in the primaries and the courage she and her supporters showed in staying in those primaries to the end.

    I think now that regardless of their personal feelings, the Clintons have determined that a Democrat must be elected this time and have both made the case for this, which Obama can use in his campaign now.

    I believe they do this not just for their own political careers but for the party and the nation, and as their supporter I want to stand with them in this. I really hope Obama has the brains to use them as much as possible.

    They can be of inestimable help during this campaign and can continue to advocate for their values afterward, as can we all.

    Parent

    It will be viewed as back pedaling and desperate (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    The RNC keeps airing the commercial of Hillary's statement during the campaign that McCain and she are ready to lead and Obama just gave a speech in 2002. She is in a great position now to get out there and say why that's no longer true.


    I hope this is not true. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    She should go out there and do what she wants for the party and ticket but I hope she doesn't allow herself to be used by the campaign. She isn't the VP it is the job of the VP to be the attack dog-not Hillary's.

    Sending her out there plays right into the meme from the primary that she would do anything and say anything to get elected. Now apparently she's going to be blamed for stopping Republicans from electing a woman because if she can't be the first nobody can.

    During the convention David Brooks said on PBS that Hillary's people stopped Sebelius from being the VP and now the media will be all too happy to blame Hillary for stopping Palin's chances.

    She's not a janitor! (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:44:26 AM EST
    It's Obama's turn to make his case for himself! If HRC jumps into the fray -- she will be blamed again! Please, Hillary, go to the Senate and put your mark there!

    Please, Hillary, say it ain't so. You come from the great liberal tradition where women support the efforts of other women -- even if they disagree with them, even if you aren't going to vote for them. ALL women of whatever political stripe benefit from your example.

    Don't in any way join the misogynist crusade against a woman.  A crusade, alas, that has been taken up by too many other women!

    You are setting yourself up for sexist slurs about catfights, women fighting other women, and all these stereotypes. There is already rightwing talk about the hypocrisy of feminists going after a woman.

    Hillary, if they really wanted you -- they would have put you on the ticket. Don't let a guy use you.

    Moreover, folks, seeing Hillary being recruited by Obama, now that the slacker candidate needs mom once again, will bring back terrible memories of Mrs. Spitzer being paraded by her husband after his public confession. Hillary, don't be a prop!

    Wow (3.66 / 3) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    This comment is pretty sad. So women should support other women regardless of whether they agree with them? Are you serious? So women should support other women if when they advocate for policies that you find noxious and unacceptable? Since when does Hillary Clinton concern herself with right wing hate radio? This comment is divisive and against the very core beliefs that Hillary Clinton espouses.

    Parent
    flyerhawk (5.00 / 8) (#206)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    You should really take a course in Feminism 101. And critical thinking, because you consistently exaggerate and misstate to hyperboliuc levels what people whom you diagree with are saying. This is not a credible way to make an argument for your case. It's counterproductive.

    One of the most basic precepts of feminism is that you defend women even if you do not agree with them. Even if you hate them. It is not being feminist to say, "I'd love to see a woman president, just not THIS woman."

    Please note that defend does not equal vote for.

    Parent

    Feminism 101 (2.50 / 4) (#223)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    That may be YOUR definition of feminism but it is not and has never been mine.

    Defending women because they are women, whether you agree with them or hate them?

    Well, c'est la vie, but please don't reduce the term or the movement of feminism into this narrowed mold. It's much too expansive for that.

    Parent

    Exactly my thoughts, Upstart Crow... (none / 0) (#227)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    especially in "...seeing Hillary being recruited by Obama, now that the slacker candidate needs mom once again..."

    This situation, of having to deal with the Palin factor now, could have been avoided if the message of "Change" had been genuinely felt by the Democratic nominee. The fact that choosing Hillary, despite the personal antipathies between and among the candidates themselves and their respective spouses and surrogates would have been proof the message (change)to be true  and would have also shown political maturity and judgment.

    Sadly, by his "omission", rejection rather, Obama has shown not only lack of personal and political immaturity and judgment, but also obscenely displayed his arrogance megalomania. As a result, The One has committed the worst political blunder possible by not choosing Hillary as his running mate.


    Parent

    This site has banned personal attacks on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    and bringing up her personal life or that of her children. All comments about it will be deleted and commenters banned.

    Thank you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#148)
    by americanincanada on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    Don't play into McCain's hands here (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    My suggestion: Deploy Hillary immediately to Pennsylvania, Ohio and to Michigan and Florida. Let her make the argument that a woman is great on the ticket, but only if it's the right woman -- one who can step in and be ready to lead on day one if need be.

    I think McCain's choice of Palin isn't as much a play for the female vote as it is to solidify his conservative base.  There are some Independents who will vote for a Republican and McCain might pick up some of them.  The other group is one that probably won't vote for McCain but are angry enough at Obama that they may not vote this election.  Putting Hillary front and center to push a message of "having the right women on the ticket" will only keep that frustration front and center in these women's minds.  Is that going to help get these women to the polls to vote for Obama?  No and that is good enough for McCain.  

    If you believe this statement: (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    I predict the more she appears at campaign rallies the more it will remind people that she should have been on the ticket--somewhere--and the Democrats were too vengeful and chicken to do it.  I think it will eventually enrage women.

    Then it shouldn't be hard to imagine why people consider her an immensely powerful figure. If she can inspire that in others, she's not a politician to be taken lightly. The DNC might not reward her for her work, but that's irrelevant. They need her. And that says it all.

    Jeralyn: Why was my comment about Governors, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    and what they do, deleted?  I was stating facts, from my point of view, having worked in a Governor's office.

    What was wrong with it that was deemed inappropriate and warranted removal?

    you added a sentence about (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    a topic about her personal life that I have repeatedly warned not to discuss. By repeating it, even if to agree it shouldn't be discussed, you are furthering it.

    Her personal life and that of her children are off-limits here.

    Parent

    Ok, My Apologies (none / 0) (#193)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    But you could have been considerate to let me know and I would have reposted my comment without the offending statement* (as you have done for a couple of my comments before).

    I was simply responding to this statement you made...

    No matter how quick a study Palin is, she can't catch up in 60 days, not on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the justice system, health care. She's too big a risk for the number two position.

    ... and I think I made a valuable and insightful comment --based on my own experience-- about what governors in this country do and that they should not be ignored as people who are clueless about national and global issues.

    *I honestly have no idea about what that was either.

    Parent

    Margaret Chase Smith.

    Why isn't she talking about the Republican women who ran for president.

    Um, probably because (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    they didn't get anywhere, and Smith was so long ago, the reference would probably escape even most Republicans?

    Hillary is here and now, she did without question bust cracks in the glass ceiling and her strong showing in the race made it possible for Palin to be picked, seems to me, for just that reason.

    Parent

    Just when they thought Hillary was out... (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Pol C on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    ...they have to pull her back in.

    However, I'm not sure how much Hillary can help. She's not running, Obama is. And those bitter guns & God voters are just not going to vote for a Brahmin type like Obama. Obama, Dean, et al were always foolish to think they could win that group by default. The best they reasonably could have hoped for was the rural voters staying home. And now Palin will most likely rally those voters behind McCain. I hope for his sake Obama can scrape up enough electoral votes in the Rocky Mountain states, because I think the places where Appalachia meets the Rust Belt may now be out of reach. I only hope Hillary doesn't get scapegoated if Obama loses.

    http://polculture.blogspot.com


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    while I agree with most of what you are saying the 17 months on the campaign trail counting as experience is really a bad road to go down. This kind of thing is just as insulting as thinking that Hillary can be replaced with Palin.

    Well said Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by AF on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    While I don't necessarily agree with the strategy of going after Palin, you are 100% correct that she is on the wrong side of the minimum experience threshold and Obama is on the right side.

    If I or another commenter had made this argument, BTD would have called us silly or idiotic.  So much the worse for BTD.

    he disagrees strongly with me (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    but that's happened before and will happen again. He and I don't think in lockstep, which I think gives readers a broader view.

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#187)
    by AF on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    The difference is you don't insult commenters when they disagree with you.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of BTD too, but it's amusing when the positions he is ridiculing in comments are the ones you are arguing for in posts.

    Parent

    Palin Drops HRC From Speech (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sallywally on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    I haven't read the comments, so don't know if this has been sited before:

    From Mark Ambinder today:

    "Palin Drops HRC From Speech
    31 Aug 2008 08:08 pm

    After her mention of Sen. Hillary Clinton drew boos yesterday in Pennsylvania, Gov. Sarah Palin dropped Clinton's name from her remarks today in Missouri...."

    Just one more reason to use both Clintons a LOT in the campaign, esp. in swing states.

    I personally think (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Bluesage on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have been "used" enough and it is now up to Obama and Biden to win this election for themselves.  It is not the job of Hillary to drag him over another finish line, that's now Biden's job.  Obama made a huge mistake not offering the VP slot to Hillary after she left the race and he may pay for that mistake in the end.  I would like to see Bill and Hillary working hard for down-ticket Democrats to get us a veto-proof majority in the Congress.  If that were to happen and if those Democrats showed some strength then McCain/Palin would not be too powerful if they were to win this thing which I think is a real possibility.  This election should have been in the bag months ago for Democrats but the media and the DNC have actually made it possible to once again grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Bluesage on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:14:07 PM EST
    The Democrats have put themselves in a corner.  They cannot claim the GOP VP pick is inexperienced because the Democrats Presidential pick is even less experienced.  They cannot attack her conservative/religious views because Obama has the Wright albatross around his neck along with the faith forum and the faith-based initiatives.  The Democrats were disgustingly sexist throughout the primary campaign toward Hillary Clinton, not to mention the racism charges they threw at her and Bill and now Hillary needs to step up to the plate and save their butts.  If she does this and he loses she will be blamed.  She needs to stick to helping down-ticket Democrats and leave the rest of it behind.  I agree, let Pelosi and Brazile handle this. If the Obama campaign now needs help beating down another woman, let the women who have been so accommdating to him during the primary take care of this one.

    Well Sarah Palin (3.00 / 2) (#185)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    has already compared herself to Hillary on several occasions.

    Um (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    her Vice President acceptance speech on Friday?

    Parent
    Apparently flyerhawk thinks (5.00 / 8) (#225)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    praising Hillary for being a groundbreaking/glass ceiling cracking presidential candidate is the same thing as comparing herself to Hillary.

    Which would be kind of like if I were to say Hillary is an amazing person I would be comparing myself to her, but if a MAN said it, it would not be him comparing himself to her.

    Flyerhawk isn't long on logic.

    Parent

    excellent move for Hillary (none / 0) (#171)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    I think that just shows what she's made of. Of course I'd like to see her take some time off, and I don't like the idea that they need her to win, but still it's great for her.

    And by the way, a big high five to Jeralyn for your latest post about not commenting about personal matters of candidates. I don't think dems should go there. If there are problems, dems don't need to be involved in any of it.

    couldn't find ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    an open thread.

    supporters.  Anything Hillary does to suggest that her opening a doorway through the walls of discrimination should only be available to the deserving will cost her her political future. While Affirmative Action, in part, brought us Clarence Thomas, we don't get to choose who gets the benefits of our affirmative action efforts.

    McCain chose Palin to appeal to conservative Independents.  He doesn't need Hillary supporters.  Obama does.  McCain needs the Independents.  Hillary going after Palin in the wrong way will play right into the GOP intentions.  Don't forget the "no time to bake cookies" fiasco that nearly derailed Hillary's role as an active First Lady.  

    Dems need to appeal to Independents now, and not get bogged down in a fight over how fit one woman is compared to another.  Warning!  Warning!  Step away from the microphone, Hillary! Let Brazille or Pelosi do the dirty work if the DNC has suddenly decided it takes a woman to challenge a woman.

    Looking at the Palin selection from partisan perspectives will keep us from seeing the real threat.  There are so many landmines here. For all the cries of the left saying the Palin choice is pure political pandering, the RNC has shown itself willing to have a woman become president while the DNC was not.  They are thinking in the long term once again. While the DNC could have had 16 years with a Hillary/Obama ticket or 12 with an Obama/Hillary ticket, they are now locked in to an 8 year stretch.  If McCain/Palin wins, they are looking at a 12 year control. Time enough to rebuild their losses in the congress.

    The RNC has once again done an end-run around the Democrats.  And, the Dems have only themselves to blame.  Campaign maturity does not a president make.  Obama has no executive experience.  He is simply learning how to be polished in large groups of people. His managers handle the campaign, not him. Yes, he is being exposed to the details of national policy.  But Palin is a fast learner and a plain talker and will do well enough in the debates.  As we know, accuracy of responses matters for not in this country. It's style, style, style.   It does't matter whether she thinks the founding fathers created the Pledge of Allgiance.  What matters is that most Americans think she is right.  Remember that George W. didn't even have to know where other countries were located or name any world leaders.

    Obama was a state senator of a relatively small and forgotten chunk of a bigger city.  He has campaigned for President more than half of his US Senate career, missing untold meetings and votes.  Palin has done in-the-trenches executive work on all the local issues that matter to Republicans and many Idependents.

    Raise the experience issue too high and Obama looses.  That is what the RNC hopes for.  They are saying "Let the liberals choke on their own political correctness". They understand that the media can't handle parsing.  They only go after what moves, what bleeds. The more Democrats react to Palin, the more the media will think they are worried that Palin poses a threat, which in turn, will be interpreted as her having substance. The media will mishandle this whole issue.  Guaranteed.  The conservatives are joyfilled. They see the sheer brilliance of McCain's selection of Palin.  Their very own Margaret Thatcher in the making. Watch their faces.  The expressions.  The confidence.  Look at the conservative media faces.  Relaxed.  Smiling.  Poised.  Patient now.  Unconcerned.  The Palin choice has just made this a close race.  Now it's anybodies.  Too bad.