No VP Hillary

Not that it needed saying but, the Secretary of State said:

"I don't believe what I read," Clinton said laughing during an appearance at the 12th Annual Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit, adding: "I have absolutely no interest and no reason for doing anything other than just dismissing these stories and moving on."

Someone explain to me how this helps Woodward sell books exactly? I'm not following the theory. Sure Woodward is briefly mentioned in the story but then he's not and it's over. I don't get it. Any PR wizards out there to explain this one to me? I understood the Casey "I believed" nonsense back in the day (who else remembers that?) and other gossipy stuff from Woodward's book, but obviously this is not about Woodward's book. IS my writing this post also helping Woodward sell his book (FTR - I have no clue what Woodward's book says - something about Afghanistan I know, but other than that . . .)

Speaking for me only

< The Domination of Online Media | Feds Issue New Subpoenas in John Edwards Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I still can't believe it took (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    this long for Hillary to respond to Woodward's CNN blurt - which, since you asked what this had to do with his book, was really just shameless self-promotion, an effort to turn "ho-hum" into "WHAT DID HE SAY???" and draw attention to the book.  I mean, don't we all know that all one needs to do to get the entire world to stop what it's doing and pay attention is to utter "Hillary" in connection with a political campaign?

    It seems to have worked to get attention; whether it will sell any more books than would otherwise have been sold remains to be seen.

    Or maybe Woodward was trying out a skit for Saturday Night Live...

    Alot of media people keep floating the (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    Clinton as VP idea. I suspect mainly because they'd like another shot at beating the hell out of her.

    exactly what I think. (none / 0) (#21)
    by ghost2 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:33:41 PM EST
    They want to blame her for everything, and take her out for good.

    BTW, nice seeing you around.


    Or, undermine her present position (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:40:18 PM EST
    and work.   And, to make Biden a lame duck.

    Maybe not this book (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    But Woodward makes his money off of his aura of the fly-on-the-wall insider. The more he throws out supposed insider information, the better his odds of selling anything in the future.  I guess that's the theory anyway.

    but does that make sense (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    when Woodward's gossip turns out time & again to be wrong - like about this & about saying Cheney would run for president in 2008?

    Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    media lives off the titillation that maybe he's right this time.

    It's basically just something for them to talk about and speculate about for fun and profit.

    Anything Hillary gets eyeballs and ratings.


    This whole concept is a political wet dream (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    Unless HC wants to do a Teddy and split the D party even further than it is right now, there is no way in hades that she would do it unless she is willing to totally compromise her previously stated beliefs.  It would require her to say I was wrong in the past and Obama has the better ideas and plan.

    Just ain't gonna happen.  

    However, speaking from the other side of the aisle, go for it.  Your mileage may vary.

    Hmm, if Woodward can't bring Vince Foster (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    into the discussion, he's strictly a B-lister.

    Am I the only one (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    disappointed if that news is true?  

    Look, the reality is that she would have said that whether she felt it or not. She'd undermine her role and biden's otherwise. That's the answer she has to give just as she said she wouldn't run for POTUS during her Senate campaign.

    My conspiracy theory is that Woodward was probably right. Something like this makes too much sense for Obama not to think about it. And it is too good an opportunity to shatter more glass ceilings for hillary not to think about it.  In other words, I bet both Obama and Hillary think about it fairly regularly when they see each other.

    But would either of them actually say that? Of course not. The bottom line is that Woodward may be taking heat now for saying a truth that all the parties are almost required to deny.

    We'll see in a year or so whether he was right.  For my two cents, I hope he was.

    What glass ceiling? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by observed on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    We've already had two women VP candidates on losing tickets.

    Actually 3 but I guess that depends on (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    the definition of "we"  ;-)

    We have not, however (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:11:36 AM EST
    had a woman actual VP yet.

    sorry, but . . . . . (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:49:52 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't need to shatter the VP ceiling. that's just f'ing insulting imo. she is more than capable of handling the job as POTUS without the VP in her res.

    Not insulting (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    because capability has nothing to do with winning elections as I am sure most hillary and kerry fans agree.

    This is about winning elections.  I want dems in power and if that means Obama get beaten, so be it. If that means Hillary as VP, so be it.

    Fear of President Palin/Roney/Thune/Huck trumps all other concerns.


    trust me. insulting. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    With respect (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    I don't find it insulting.  It's certainly no longer revolutionary, but we haven't yet had an actual woman VP.  I don't think HRC would think it was insulting, either.

    And there are a heck of a lot of people who were capable of being Pres. who took VP nominations without loss of dignity.  Al Gore comes to mind, for one.


    sorry, but the idea that being O's VP (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:09:37 AM EST
    sets her up for POTUS is just wrong. And she doesn't need to be VP to do 'it'. I think her run shows we don't need a woman VP to have a woman POTUS. We certainly didn't have a male AA VP to have a male AA pres . . .

    How many of those VP's actually became POTUS?

    The fact is, she's already run on her own merits, if he hadn't been propped up by the party, we would have a broken ceiling. why on G*d's green earth would we want to have to rely on a man to actually break the ceiling next time around?

    yes, I find it insulting. I'm sure I'm not alone . . .


    And the idea (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    that the black guy won only by being "propped up" isn't insulting?

    Right back at ya nycstray. Saying that Obama cheated to win is much more insulting than suggesting that Hillary could be aided by a term as VP.


    uh, i didn't say he cheated (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    propped up by the party means they chose him and made it pretty darn clear. i guess you missed all the WWTSBQ coming from some of our 'esteemed' dems.

    did you know that if you followed his resume on project vote (i think that's the name) he actually had the committees he sat on expand while he was on the campaign trail? yup. new committees were formed and on some of them there was only one other person besides him, like Kerry and some of his other 'backers'. i call that propping someone up. others call it padding the resume etc . . . . this isn't about the color of his skin sweetie, but about his lack of experience.

    i think hillary's resume speaks to her qualifications for pres and her run for the nomination and the support she received from the public shows she doesn't need the VP position to 'aid' her if she chooses to run again. she may actually be in a better position NOT being too closely related to obama's domestic policies when it comes right down to it. and if you think they really want hillary as vp to help HER . . . personally, i don't think they give a sh*t what happens after 2012.


    lol (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    You sure looooooove Hillary...   funny to see people put their heart into a politician, a profession not so far from that of a used car salesperson.

    projecting? are you not? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ghost2 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 06:42:30 PM EST

    Are You Joking? (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    Craziness for Hillary, was here big time and the embers are still burning. If that is not loooooove, I do not know what is.

    Easy Response (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    More than 50% board that made the decision at the convention were Hillary supporters based on their various positions, statements and endorsements at the beginning of the primaries.

    She was the overwhelming favorite for a reason.


    his lack of experience (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    Jesse Helms had a lot of experience too..

    As for being "propped up": ANYONE these days who can accumulate a war chest worth 400 mil + and is required to do things on the campaign trail like sitting down and smoking the peace pipe with Richard Mellon Scaife, is being propped up to some degree. And, (brace yourself for the shocking truth..) not because they represent any kind of liberal-progressive threat to undermine the corporate-Wall St stranglehold in D.C.  


    Well, what do you call it when (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:57:28 PM EST
    rules are broken, voters are disenfranchised by having their votes - and delegates - apportioned to a candidate who wasn't on a state ballot, Obama campaign workers perpetrate election fraud in Texas?  To name just a few things.  Oh, wait, I know: "politics," right?

    And please, don't rest your case on the technical detail that it was "the party" that was behind most of this, because if Obama had been a man of principle, he would have and could have stopped the clear breaking of the party rules and the backroom wheeling and dealing, and his campaign would not have tolerated what went on in Texas, much less the strong-arm and intimidating tactics that went on in caucuses in other states.

    But then, anyone who looked at how Obama won his previous elected offices knew that he would stop at nothing to eliminate the competition - when there's no one left to run against you, you always win.  It's the Chicago Way, I suppose.

    The man did little else once he was elected to public office but start working on his next job, which is great for him, but not so great for the people he allegedly represented; his resume was thin, his accomplishments as puffed-up as the ones he's claiming now as president, so yes, he needed "propping up" and that had - and has - nothing to do with his race - at least not for me - I don't care if he's pink with purple polka-dots or rainbow-striped.  


    I didn't say (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:44:55 PM EST
    the VP job sets her up for POTUS, now did I?  That's somebody else's argument, and one I don't find convincing.

    I think you're way too easily insulted, really.

    I repeat, we have not yet had a woman be vice president.  She would have taken it gladly if it had been offered after the primaries, and I don't see how it's any different now.  She certainly wouldn't go off in a snit huffing and puffing about being insulted by being offered the second most powerful job in the U.S., for heaven's sake.


    I doubt Joe Biden (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    found it insulting.  Despite his many years of experience, and "capability" (desire even) for the presidency.  I'm pretty sure that's why he was picked.

    It's beyond me how someone could see the second most powerful job in the country (and yes, vp is actually a very powerfull job these days) as insulting - just because it's not the #1 most powerfull job.


    Really. (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    If they didn't scare Obama and his young army (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    ... during his rush to power -- the plan being that Obama would win them over -- why the hell should Hillary and her supporters and/or Obama's former supporters be afraid now?

    Plenty of other serious problems to worry about right now than Obama's political fortunes.

    (Am I the only one who's tired of every single story going through the prism of Obama's ratings, 2012 outlook or ... my fave ... his feelings?)


    I know what you mean (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:14:44 AM EST
    but this particular story derives directly from Obama's political fortunes.  Otherwise, there's no story at all.

    Hillary would be president today had it not been (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    for the backroom deal brokering that went on during the primaries in 2008.   So, no, she doesn't need to 'shatter' any more glass ceilings.  Hell, she's more than qualified to be POTUS and she's more qualified than the current occupant.  You have insulted Hillary with your comment.  

    Says you Angel (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    This fight gets old, doesn't it?

    The man has been President for 2 years and he's still not as qualified as a person (any person) who has never been President?


    GW Bush was POTUS for 8 years (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    The man has been President for 2 years and he's still not as qualified as a person (any person) who has never been President?

    So much for that logic.


    No the fight doesn't get old. I will never tire (none / 0) (#82)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    of telling the truth.  I will never tire of telling people how Hillary was treated by the Democratic Party in 2008.  I will never tire of telling people how George Bush and the Supremes stole the 2000 election from Al Gore.  I will never tire of telling people what a scum George Bush is and what he did to this country.  I will never tire of telling the truth.  So, no, ABG, the fight doesn't get old.  Remembering the truth makes me want to work harder so that these things don't happen again.  

    The Fight (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 08:54:27 PM EST
    But you will apologize for all the racism that showed its ugly face around Obama because he is an empty suit?

    Your commendable mission of never forgetting loses credibility quickly.


    Makes no sense (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    But you will apologize for all the racism that showed its ugly face around Obama because he is an empty suit?

    Your commendable mission of never forgetting loses credibility quickly.

    Are you saying that the racism arose was because he is an empty suit?  Or that anyone concluding he is an empty suit is being racist?  Or maybe that, for anyone to conclude that HC was treated unfairly by the party in 2008, one must give equal credence to the constant cries of "Racist!"?

    Ohhhhh .... a trifecta!

    Three equally ridiculous premises.


    Oh squeaky, grow up. Who is talking about (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 08:20:58 AM EST
    racism other than you?  

    As far as not forgetting the truth, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  You would be wise to remember that.  


    Selective Humanism (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    Is an empty gesture. To speak of never forgetting in such grand terms is rather disgusting, considering all those you are willing and eager to throw under the bus.

    It makes you sound like a very small person.

    Not sure why you would want to advertise such a position.


    You are delusional. I have never (none / 0) (#89)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    'thrown anyone under the bus.'  Get a grip on reality and quit projecting yourself and your habits onto others.  Sheesh....you just love to argue but this is the last post I'll have on this with you.  The original comments were between me and ABG, so go find your own playground and quit barging in on other conversations.

    Not Projecting on Anyone (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    You made a grand statement about "never forgetting", recalling the Holocaust and other great human tragedies that were borne out of racism and bigotry.

    Clearly your compassion for oppression is extremely limited.

    Not sure why you are not embarrassed by your cherry picked humanity in the face of a bold grand statement about never forgetting.

    Almost as pathetic as launching a crusade against an unreciprocated teen crush.


    Oh (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    And if you want to have private conversations with someone, your best bet is telephone, email, snail mail, or in person.

    Posting a comment on a public blog and then being outraged that someone responds to your comment is more than silly.


    I don't think she said she wouldn't run (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    for President during her 2006 Senate campaign. Everyone knew she was going to.

    Thanks, but no thanks. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ghost2 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    She is far more qualified than Obama. It galls me to see a competent women cleaning up after an empty suit.  On top of that, the media is just itching for an opportunity to bash her every day, and blame her for everything.

    VP's just attend funerals.  Hillary is far too competent to be wasted in such a role.


    A tale as old as time; I've heard ALL the excuses (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    ... by now; not that there are many, as that would involve actual creativity.

    Surely there's a Doomsday Book somewhere listing them numerically.


    Not just you; Obama will be crushed to learn (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:02:01 PM EST
    ... that he, alone, will be held responsible for his dismal performance.

    Maybe he can find another more experienced and more qualified woman to clean his mess, someone not unlike the one he leap-frogged by showcasing his innate qualities like Talent and We-All-Can't-Stand-That-B'yotchedness

    That's the answer she has to give just as she said she wouldn't run for POTUS during her Senate campaign

    Obama said he wouldn't run either in '08. Maybe if he emphatically discounted a '12 run now, the Dems would have something better than the leaden WH anvil to use for a flotation device.


    Oh, dear Lord... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    the only thing that's being shattered here is my - and I suspect, others' - tolerance for this endless bullsh!t; even with fairy dust sprinkled on it, it's still BS.

    Yes, I grant you that Hillary is not going to say, today, that of course she'd love to kick old Joe Biden to the curb and take over the VP spot in 2012 - but that doesn't mean it's some secret wish that she and Obama are simultaneously fantasizing about whenever they're together.

    As for shattering more glass ceilings, here's my take: the woman who got more votes in the 2008 primaries, survived backroom wheeling and dealing, the breaking of rules and the manipulation of votes has put more than cracks in that ceiling, and she has nothing to prove to anyone.  

    You may not intend to sound patronizing, but that's how your comment reads.


    I think you're right that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:11:03 AM EST
    the denials are essentially meaningless, for the reasons you cite.

    However, remember that Woodward isn't exactly Mr. Credibility on this kind of thing, a la Cheney being replaced as VP by somebody or other, and then Cheney running for pres. in 2008, and many others.

    I don't think Woodward is able (or willing) to tell the difference between staff wishful thinking/speculation and hard reality.


    You are speaking for me in all your comments (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    in this thread.

    It would be hard to find a non-incumbent presidential candidate that did not deny being a presidential candidate two years prior. I don't pay any attention to denials. You will notice that every reporter from now on will ask them to repeat the denials - no one will ever believe them until the race starts and they aren't in some Iowan's living room.

    I don't think running for or being VP is an insult to anyone, no matter who the POTUS is at the time. Was Ford insulted to be named VP to a felon? Of course not.

    And no one has to be VP first before being POTUS. It is just an easier path to the nomination. It's not an insult to suggest someone might want to take an easier path to the nomination, especially when that someone just got done walking that hardest path ever without being nominated.

    We'll all see what happens.


    Yes, you're the only one. (none / 0) (#9)
    by itscookin on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 05:02:56 PM EST
    Bob Woodward's comments (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    could be a mix of gossip,  trial ballon and  mischief--for both VP Biden and Sec. Clinton.  Moreover, Woodward loves to be the go-to-guy for scoops (and all the wrong ones are forgotten.)  Woodward tried last week with another one, that Sec. of Defense Gates has one foot out the door, and the "talk" is that Colin Powell will be his replacement. That one did not seem to get traction, thank goodness. Hopefully, that will be one of the many wrong ones gone unnoticed by history.

    Gates himself announced he is leaving (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    in 2011.

    No the part about Powell may be a Woodward storyline.


    Yes, the Gates part (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:37:52 PM EST
    was not exactly breaking news.  And, hopefully, the Powell part will be news that will never break.

    Your mouth to God's ears (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:17:26 AM EST
    I've also heard Powell plumped for as chief of staff.  To which I say, Run away!  Run away!

    Why does Powell have even a tiny shred of credibility at this point?


    I think its a good idea IMO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    Obama and Biden will have a ruff time getting re elected.  Unless the economy comes back strong they will have a hard time.

    However, a Obama Hilary ticket will get more people to vote than a re election of Obama Biden

    What sounds out of sight now may just happen.

    Hilary and Bill have been in lock step loyalty to Obama.  Both have tried to help him any way they can. IMO Obama owes Hilary and Bill.   Since Hilary would not run against Obama in 2012 her best shot for president is in 2016 but she would have a better chance going into that election as the VP of Obama than starting from scratch.   As a rule the heir apparent is the VP.

    As far as Biden running for president forget that he would never make it. I think he knows that

    How much (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    success have VP's had being elected? I would think that maybe your thesis holds true for the primaries but it wouldn't bode well for the general election.

    In the 20th century (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by itscookin on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:15:26 PM EST
    the only VP to be elected to the presidency immediately after serving as VP, unless the President died or resigned from office, was George H.W. Bush. Nixon eventually became president but not right after serving as VP. Being VP is not a good path to being the President unless the president dies in office.

    Just why do you think Hillary wouldn't run (none / 0) (#17)
    by beefeater on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:00:03 PM EST
    against a weakened Obama? Did you feel the same why about Teddy Kennedy in '80 too.

    There is no reason to believe that Hill and Bill aren't considering a possible primary challenge, what do they have to lose?

    Didn't Bill famously muse that a few years ago Barrack would have been fetching coffee for them in the White House?


    Remember that Carter lost (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Saul on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    and part of that loss was due to Teddy running against him.

    That is why she will not run against him.  It would weaken the party in the general


    Sure, but remember the GOP had Reagan (none / 0) (#34)
    by beefeater on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    walking through the door in '80. Who does the GOP have now that would even be close? And don't think Hill and Bill haven't inputed that into their calculations.

    Close friends? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 08:44:33 AM EST
    You gotta love people who think they have the ability to divine the innermost thoughts, feelings, motives and "calculations" of the Clintons (or any pol), simply by reading about them.

    No way no how (none / 0) (#44)
    by Saul on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    Here is a good response from another blog about this subject:

    Not a chance, if Hillary beat out president Obama African Americans voters would stay home in droves and the democratic party would cease to exist and what about the white liberal media, do you think they would jeopardize their own careers by backing Hillary and exposing themselves to being portrayed as racist and what about white congressional candidates, can they survive without the minority vote, sorry Hillary fans it ain't going to happen no way no how.

    Good response? No (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:23:25 AM EST
    but it is a sadly predictable response.

    I would hope that Angry Black Guy and other African Americans would see it as sad, too, to see themselves portrayed as such erstwhile voters.  This bloc has turned out to vote, again and again, when ballots did not include an African American.  Again and again, they have voted on principles -- and principles other than candidates' pigmentation.


    Well let me blow this out of the water anyway (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    because Hillary Clinton is not beating Barack Obama amongst AA voters.

    AA approval of the president remains very high.


    Doubt it ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    Didn't Bill famously muse that a few years ago Barrack would have been fetching coffee for them in the White House?

    Just because Heilemann and Halperin put it in their book and hyped the "quote" while selling it, doesn't mean he said it.


    This is just dumb (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    Both Clintons are party people through and through. Loyalty looms incredibly large for both of them. Neither one of them is ever going to undermine a Dem. president, particularly one who appointed one of them SoS.

    Where on earth do people get these ideas?

    And no, I don't remember Bill musing that Barack would be fetching coffee for them in the White House.


    I remember it (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    From the book Game Change:

    "Bill's handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."


    There's a reason it wasn't in quotes (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    As was pointed out by Media Matters and several other places,
    "Note the lack of quote marks around the statement attributed to Clinton. That means it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. That means that Heilemann and Halperin did not or could not verify that Clinton said those exact words -- their source is not Kennedy or Clinton, but someone else who was supposedly aware of a later, alleged conversation between Kennedy and a "friend." As The Plum Line's Greg Sargent points out, the authors do indeed admit in their book: "Where dialog is not in quotes, it is paraphrased, reflecting only a lack of certainly on the part of our sources about precise wording, not about the nature of the statements."


    But, of course, all those looking for signs of racism to use against Clinton didn't care about those pesky little things called "facts".


    I suppose this post might help sales (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    of Bernstein's new book.  I do hope my library buys it!

    It's amazing to me (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    How quickly these discussions devolve into the fact that Obama in some way stole the election.  

    Do people that say this ever stop to think about the optics of claiming that the first black president "stole" the election from the defenseless black woman looks from the perspective of black people who have a lot of pride in Obama's achievement.

    And the ironic thing is that they couch it all in how "insulted" they are.

    Let me tell you a little something about being insulted . . .

    "white woman" (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:10:04 AM EST

    Yeah (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    That is the general take here, good thing you were not here at TL during the primaries. It got nasty.

    The eye cannot see itself: Nary a word about racism, but tons about sexism.


    Oh, lots and lots of words about (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    racism.  All directed at Bill Clinton.

    lol (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    .0001% on one story, compared to the regular fainting spells over sexist comments in the media.

    And most here vociferously denied that Clinton's comment was racist.

    It was clear that racism and sexism were rampant in the primary campaign and afterwords. Most here were in denial about any racism.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    There was racism and sexism all over the place. It was bad all around, from the non-existent Michelle Obama "Whitey Tapes" to the anti-Hillary folks with the vulgar t-shirts, a lot of otherwise good people were behaving badly.

    But here is the thing from my perspective:

    When you say that Obama stole it or that it was given to him by the ever present Democratic Establishment and that he didn't earn it, you are basically sh***ing on what many (including myself) see as the most defining and proud accomplishment by an African American (and possibly any person of African decent) ever. I don't think I can overstate how important it is to many. And you have people using the language and accusations that have been used against successful black men and women from the days we were first allowed to compete on equal footing in this country.  It's still happening today in the work place ("he got that promotion because the diversity program", etc.).

    Now it's a free country. You can say what you want.

    Just don't expect people like me to take complaints of being insulted very seriously when you lead with one of the biggest slaps in the face you can possibly deliver.

    I believe Obama won legitimately. I would not insult Hillary or her supporters by suggesting that she wouldn't be a fantastic president. She would be. But I'm not going to lie, I used to be called Mellow Black Guy before I started reading PUMA blogs.

    Anyway, it's 2010 and we've got republicans to beat and Palins to laugh at. Stay focused people.


    Here's the problem: (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    The RBC gave Obama votes that he DID NOT earn. That is a fact. The party kept yelling at Hillary to quit. If the party had just let the whole primaries play out and not got involved and looking like they were pushing Obama there would not be this problem. It was like Obama was being shoved down our throats and we were called all kinds of names by Obama supporters. You could never debate his strengths and weaknesses which we are now seeing is a HUGE problem since he has not shown an aptitude for governing.

    If you want to be mad at someone, then you should be mad at the RBC for making it look like Obama couldn't win by himself and he had to be propped up. I think in the end unfortunately, Obama is going to hurt African Americans more than help. How does a weak African American president help African Americans in general? I don't see it much like having Sarah Palin for president wouldn't do much for women.


    The RBC gave hillary votes (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    that she agreed she wouldn't count.

    We can do this all day.  It's not going to change the fact that at the start of the primaries everyone agreed to a set of rules and Obama won pursuant to those rules. The only real discussion is whether Hillary could have conceivably won under some arrangement to change the established rules later.

    It's always funny that people are up in arms over the rules changes later in the process while completely ignoring the rules changes at the beginning that made the subsequent rules changes relevant.


    No (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    Obama did not play by the rules because there were no rules. Obama decided to pull out of Michigan to keep Iowans from being upset at having a primary before them. He made that choice and he should have suffered the consequences of that choice but the RBC decided not to hold him accountable and hence the problems and the reason why only 1/2 of the base supports him right now. He never dealt with this reality and there was never an attempt by him to heal the party. The only thing he said was you better show up or else Roe v. Wade will be overturned etc. etc. etc.

    The primary change dates were made by the legislatures not the DNC.

    Obama has trashed everybody who voted for him which I find very sad now. It started with Hillary supporters but has been expanded to almost everyone in the country. They guy has NO empathy and poor communication skills hence the current problems.


    Oh (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    and it was clear to most people that Obama did win by himself.

    missing the point (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    I find this statement to come from an incredibly.... white point of view.

    "I think in the end unfortunately, Obama is going to hurt African Americans more than help."

    You are looking at it from the point of view of how white people view black people.  You're not looking at it from the point of view of how black people view themselves, particularly black youth.

    Spend a day teaching in an inner-city school.  You can already see the difference it has made on the perception these children have about themselves and their potential, and it is vast.  The impact of that cannot be underestimated.

    As for the Michigan fiasco, it was just that, a fiasco, with no possible positive outcome.  And those who would give no votes from Michigan to Obama care no more about what the actual voters of Michigan would have wanted - than do those who would give him ones he didn't earn.


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    perhaps you have point with the inner city youth since I am not a teacher and can't speak to that but I see it like Jimmy Carter hurt the reputation of the south and nowhere is he more hated than down here IMO. If Obama can't get it together and be a success how does that help?

    It would have been fine if they had just split up the none of the above voters between him and everybody else but that is not what they chose to do and it was wrong. Obama chose NOT to compete in Michigan but people did vote for him using undetermined or whatever. Obama is the one that left the Michigan voters in the lurch by abandoning the state.

    I understand the sense of pride many African American voters have in having an African American President but then you would have to say that if Sarah Palin was president it would be giving little girls hope all around the country that one day they could be President despite the fact that her policies would be bad for women. I have yet to see any policies that Obama has put forward that have helped African Americans any more than any other middle class group in this country.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    I could not agree more. The identification issue here and elsewhere made this, and continues to make the primary politics bring out the worst in people.

    For two candidates who were identical in almost every way politically, the divide between liberal/progressive voters made it seem as Hillary and Obama were at opposite ends of the political spectrum.


    Not only that (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    people now completely confuse their positions.

    There are people seriously arguing that Hillary was a super liberal crusader while simultaneously arguing that Obama was always a republican in disguise.

    Both of them were moderate democrats and always have been.  The only thing that changed is our perceptions and a whole lot of anger and fighting during the primaries.

    My sense is that from a policy perspective, Hillary and Obama would have accomplished largely the same things (and had similar hurdles). They are both pragmatic people.

    The Clintons defined triangulation and Obama is following the same path.


    Ridiculous (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    There are people seriously arguing that Hillary was a super liberal crusader while simultaneously arguing that Obama was always a republican in disguise.

    But those straw arguments sure are easier to knock over, ...

    ... aren't they?


    total straw argument.. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    nobody here or anywhere else has ever said explicitly or implied anything remotely like that..

    Really, where do people get this stuff from?


    Easy (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    Overactive imaginations.

    But nice try at trying to hide the straw by expanding the argument to include "implying anything remotely like that".

    Funny stuff.


    Funny stuff.. (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    go back and read some of those primary threads..

    After you finish that D'Souza-like quest for more examples of loony malcontents who insist on seeing racism everywhere..


    The truth hurts, huh? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    Seriously funny.

    But I don't have to tell you ...

    "D'Souza-like" ... nice touch.


    Right (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    just the "facts" and nothing but the facts -- which (somehow) that prove how the thoughts and actions of one person are representative of the majority. Or something. Just the way Dineesh and Fox do it.

    And speaking of hyper-sensitivity bordering on the delusional, thanks for being the even-handed voice of reason when your compatriots were caterwauling about obscene gestures disguised as face scratches awhile back. Cuz we just deal with facts here; unlike those other people.


    "Caterwauling"? (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    Interesting choice of words ... you have a habit of doing that.  But speaking of "hypersensitivity bordering on the delusional", aren't you the same guy who went ballistic with charges of "Racist!!!"  when someone quoted Simian Mobile Disco?

    That was a classic.  Google it .... seriously funny.

    BTW - I'm not in charge of critiquing my "compatriots" ... I speak for myself, and when I feel like it.  But if that upsets you, it's okay, sweetie.  We understand how it can be when you're feeling down .... periodically.


    "Simian Mobile Disco"? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    interesting choice of words..

    Seriously funny. Classic..

    Google the word simian and then maybe go revisit some photos of the signs some Tea Partiers bring to their rallies. Now, why would anyone assume the word "simian" would have a racist connotation in that context, Dineesh?

    Yeah, I know you're not in the habit of critiquing (ever) even the wildest speculations and charges of Our Lady's avenging angels. After all, they're part of that majority here that deals exclusively in facts..  



    Fail - try again (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    Ooooohhhhhhh ... scary Tea Party story.  So the fact that someone, somewhere, at some point in time is racist, means that this remark was racist?


    The problem is, of course, that was not the context.  It was a post right here at TL discussing how Obama sold out to the insurance industry with his health "care" plan.  Yeah ..... lotta Tea Partiers criticizing Obama for being too conservative and selling out Progressives.  As usual, you just assumed someone was making a racist reference, despite the fact that they were clearly quoting someone named "Simian Mobile Disco", which a 2-second Google search (or just plain, common sense) would have shown was a band.  Now you try to rationalize that ridiculously funny accusation.

    Too funny.

    But I guess when you prefer fairy tales to facts, it's much easier to make up stories - sort of a "Peter and the "Racist!" Wolf", as it were.  The problem is ...

    ... eventually everyone just laughs at you making a fool of yourself.


    "Most here" ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    ... base their conclusions on facts, rather than an overactive imagination.

    One of the looniest theories was a guy who claimed  that a driver honking his horn at an AA was "racist!".



    Definition of a Strawman (none / 0) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    The guy not on this chain who said:

    "a driver honking his horn at an AA was "racist!".

    Just saying.

    Enough about race/gender though.  Back on the enemy.


    Not straw at all (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    The guy who made that claim was the same guy I was responding to.  Not supposed to link to prior posts, but if you Google it, ...

    ... it's pretty funny.


    Hillary Clinton IS NOT the POTUS (none / 0) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 12:37:55 AM EST
    The Democratic party did not want her to be their candidate. She moved on. I've yet to see a clip of her saying she would consider a run for any public office again. Until she does, this is nothing more than food for uproar.

    I don't regret her loss. I think she could only have been a great POTUS if this country was capable of tolerating anything other than a white male Republican in that chair.