Why is Hillary
Why is the Hillary camp talking up the possibility of her being Obama's vice president. The admirable and talented Liz Caputo touted the prospect on cable two nights ago; voluble Terry McAuliffe did the same on Larry King last night.
Perhaps the Clintons feel that if she were the Vice President, and Obama lost, then she'd be the presumptive nominee in four years, whereas if someone else were the vice presidential nominee he or she would be the presumptive nominee. But losing vice presidential nominees don't have that status. Indeed, the Clintons must know that if an Obama-Clinton ticket lost, both the top and the bottom of the ticket would more likely be regarded as akin to Dukakais, the man who lost an all too winnable election.
Maybe the Clintons think that getting back into the White House on any terms would empower them, and that their hold on many Democrats is so strong that President Obama would have to grant them patronage, influence, and a large portfolio of issues, perhaps even health care. If this is the case, not only presumptive nominee Obama but anyone who would want the White House to work successfully should recognize the myriad tensions that would arise from this sort of power-sharing. It would be a terrible idea for the country.
Some speculate the Senator Clinton would want the spirit-killing Vice Presidency because she would be willing to wait for two terms so as to be the likely nominee in 2012. I believe that she could well contemplate this scenario. Anyone finishing a heart-breakingly close second in the longest nomination race ever would search for any possibility of winning the Presidency in the future. But Hillary would prosper as a Senator; she might become the majority leader; her celebrity would hardly diminish but she could burnish her reputation by showing leadership on many issues, particularly if she worked successfully with President Obama. Like Ted Kennedy she could contribute to the country in myriad ways, and be a leader of liberal causes, a possibility she relinquished as she planted herself toward the rightwing but wrong side of many topics in preparation for the current campaign. This is clearly a better life for her than the monumentally frustrating job of Vice President, which she would surely despise. I hope the people around her give her this counsel.
A last possibility is that her folks' talk about the Vice Presidency is a threat, not a hope. It could be a way to pressure the nominee to pay her debts, give her a bigger role at the convention, grant her some power to select members of the cabinet, in return for her not encouraging her supporters to claim that she is entitled to be the Vice President, given her very fine performance in the long march to the nomination. It strikes me as plausible that her campaign has in it people who think this way. But it is far more likely that she would achieve all these goals just by conceding gracefully, eschewing racial comments, stopping negative attacks, and in fact bowing out quickly. Giving up early is more valuable to her than battling on, if concessions are what she seeks.
I continue to believe the best means of Senator Clinton rehabilitating her national reputation and securing an enduring legacy would be an appointment to the SCOTUS.
Such a lifetime appointment would enable her to shed her propensity toward political calculation; and to apply her considerable intellect to matters of national import, satisfying her expressed desire to help the people of the nation.
As for VP
May 10, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
May 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be the equivalent of Bush's attempted Harriet Meiers appointment as Sen. Clinton is deficient in both judicial experience and scholarship. Wehn presdient, Sen. Obama can choose from many far more distinguished legal minds for the supreme court.
May 11, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How embarassing for Reed Hundt to be both so transparent and such a disreputable poster on this subject. Indeed, it was another Vice President, Al Gore, who gave Hundt his job as FCC Chair. In fact, the reason Hundt doesn't feel any Clinton loyalty is because he was protected and supported by Gore. Yet, he is suggesting in this post that a VP has no power. Well then if VP's have no power, then I suppose his career and current fortunes are from the Clintons and not from Gore. And he is merely an ingrate or a phony.
Strange.
May 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that she adds anything to the ticket as VP but negatives.
May 10, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if it's 4 years or 400 years
she will NEVER be president...
May 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
nor will Obama.
unless he is her vice president first.
May 11, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard being a winner, isn't it? All that anger. All that venom. And suddenly you've won and there's no place for it to go. So you keep attacking and twisting the knife.
Reed, grow up. Clinton is about to win West Virginia by a landslide - this, after everyone knows that Hillary can not win the nomination. What does that say. It says that a lot of Democrats don't want Obama. Therefore, no matter how much you hate her, Obama needs her. Quit being a child. Instead of further turning off Hillary supporters, think about the need to beat McCain.
May 10, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize just how racist Kentucky and West Virginia are, don't you? It is especially true outside the "Golden Triangle of Lexington, Louisville, and Covington/Northern Kentucky. Its a different kind of racism. The people will be outwardly "nice" to black folk; but they would never consider them to be equal to them in most ways.
I was born in Florida; but I was reared from age 3 months in eastern Kentucky.
The racists in Kentucky & Indiana might actually come to their senses by November; but I cannot imagine it happening.
May 12, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should refocus her considerable vindictive talents against the REPUBLICANS, for crying out loud! Start trashing MCCAIN's record! There's plenty of material to work with.
May 10, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say that being Vice President would guarantee her place in history, it'd break a remaining glass ceiling and it's probably her last shot at getting a promotion. I'm not in "her camp", but know that I've advocated an unity ticket, primarily because it'd help heal the party and I think it would maximize the turnout in the fall.
May 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've advocated an unity ticket, primarily because it'd help heal the party and I think it would maximize the turnout in the fall"
It would maximise turnout alright - for McCain.
Hillary on the ticket would mean that not only do you lose the racists, you also lose a lot of the sexists who wouldn't vote for a woman, and you activate the consistently more than 50% unfavourability ratings Clinton provokes.
It's a stunning way to activate the republican base.
May 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Her presence on the ticket would simply increase McCain's chances of winning. THEN she could be the candidate in 2012 if Obama and she don't win. (Which may very well be her plan.)
I know Obama is too smart to do it unless the DNC forces it upon him; and I actually doubt if he would do it even then.
May 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Barack Obama beat Senator You-Know-Her without any help from You-Know-Her. He can certainly beat Senator John McBomb the same way. With extortionate "friends" like Bawl and Pillory, the self-absorbed Partners in Pathos, no one needs an enemy. Anyone -- especially a so-called "Democrat" -- vindictive and suicidal enough to vote for John McBomb and not the rightful leader of the Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, ought to go ahead and vote against themselves again. Evolution will select for the extinction of such self-destructive stupidity and the American gene pool will improve measurably.
May 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Barack Obama beat Senator You-Know-Her without any help from You-Know-Her
The insane childishness of the Obamanoids knows no bounds. Now they expected Hillary to help get Obama the nomination while she herself was running for that position.
I hope Obama is not as crazy as his goofy supporters
May 10, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And surely the paternalism of Clinton supporters to continually deride those in a competing campaign who out-worked, out-planned, out-raised, and out-thought their campaign as Obamanoids and Kidz, among others, is the height of maturity.
I understand the temptation to declare that everyone who does not see things they way you do to be under the influence of some cult - how could any rational person ever decide that Obama is a candidate that better encompasses our hopes and dreams for this country?
This just needs to stop.
May 12, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we could point out that with his amazing fundraising advantage, it's proof of his weakness that he could not seal the deal. He outspent 3 to 1 and came in a near tie. That is not the overwhelming victory you keep claiming for him.
Keep showing that your support for Obama is dwarfed by your hatred of Clinton - as Anna Am does when she equates appointing Clinton to HArriet Meirs. Now, I think appointing Clinton to the Court is not a good idea, either, but only someone whose hatred has eradicated all sense of judgment would say Clinton and Meirs are equivalent.
My reason for thinking it's a bad idea is manyfold:
1: Obama needs to do his fighting in Congress on issues, not on appointments. There would be a filibuster against her nomination and she would lose. Why spend political capital on that, save it for issue fights.
2: She would do a better job than Harry Reid.
3: Unless we take enough seats in the Senate to block all filibusters and take Lieberman's committee assignments away, Obama should keep his hands off the Senate. They are plenty in the House as qualified -- or more qualified. There are people in government service or in private life. Leave the Senate alone.
But, if you keep indulging your Clinton hatred as Annah does, this will be a moot point as OBama will lose.
May 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is true. I talk to people who are appalled by the Obamanoids hatred for Hillary. It is pathological and the fact that Obama does not set the record straight that he does not condone it, he is complicit and if he is complicit he is not worthy of ANY vote from Hillary supporters in the general.
May 12, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you have not read my post otherwise you would not respond in such an irrelevant way
May 12, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for those who think Senator Obama needs a white woman on the ticket with him to appease You-Know-Her's frustrated feminist voters, a very sensible selection of Governor Kathleen Sebilius of Kansas would achieve all the advantages of a successful woman Democratic running mate without having to hire a food taster and extra bodyguards.
At any rate, the Bawl and Pillory Horror Picture Show cannot even co-ordinate its own loose-lipped, loose-cannon activities, let alone contribute any effective "help" to Senator Obama who has demonstrated he needs very little of that deluded, dynastic dysfunction.
May 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I find the idea that one middle-aged white woman is interchangable with another, somewhat sexist.
May 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone misses the point entirely about the accomplished Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius as Barack Obama's vice-presidential running mate. No one has derided her by calling her "merely interchangeable" with the three-testicled You-Know-Her. Such a bogus equivalence would constitute both biological ignorance as well as damnation by faint praise.
Many Americans would love to see a woman as president some day soon. They just want a real and self-sufficient woman; one not afraid to wear a dress; one who did not stupidly authorize needless, pointless, and ruinous quagmire war; one who has earned her own success in life -- especially as an elected Democrat in a ruby-red state like Kansas; one who didn't need grandfathering into political office on the "strength" of backlash sympathy over her husband's reckless, humiliating betrayal. Governor Kathleen Sebilius deserves promotion for her enthusiastic support of Senator Obama's campaign as well as her real political success in a tough political environment for Democrats. You-Know-Her, on the other hand, deserves punishment (if not banishment) for her failure to sell herself as a "man."
It should seem obvious to even the casual observer (not to mention the fair minded person) that You-Know-Her's continual shape-shifting, goalpost-moving, demographic-slicing, overt sexist appeal to women-as-women leaves her no room to complain about "sexism" that works to the personal and political advantage of an accomplished woman like Kathleen Sebilius who adds her own electoral strengths to Senator Obama's (the traditional role of a Vice Presdident). In any event, Governor Sebilius more than deserves inclusion on presumed nominee Barack Obama's short list for V.P. because he certainly doesn't need the incindiary and incompetent You-Know-Her trailing him around the White House with drawn-and-dripping fangs like a slithering, poisonous asp.
Senator Obama, as the Democratic Party's presumed nominee now needs to shift gears towards the general election, shrug off the last-gasp extortionate ankle-biting of You-Know-Her, and team up with a real and accomplished woman who will add regional and gender balance to his ticket. Governor Sebilius has made it on her own, as has Senator Obama. The fact that Governor Sebilius can appeal to the 60-and-over white woman demographic as well as or better than You-Know-Her only adds to her political value as a Democrat. If You-Know-Her can claim "ownership" of "hard-working white people" simply because of her white skin color and white-female gender, then Governor Sebilius can do the same -- and perhaps even have something of a reason for doing so.
Americans would really like to see a qualified woman advance on her own merits towards higher political office. They just think this woman ought not to have a "y" chromosome and should have actually done something real in life to deserve even greater opportunities for deserved success. Personally, I don't know that much about Governor Kathleen Sebilius, but I like what little I do know. I also know more than too much about You-Know-Her and so I have good and numerous reasons for not liking a bit of what I wish I could forget but can't.
May 10, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you generate a post outlining the qualifications of Gov. Sebilius, not a lot of hyperbole and attacks on Sen. Clinton, but a who and why about the Kansas Gov. I'll admit that right now, mostly what I know and the reason that I most often hear her name is because she's female. I also remember that she generally didn't get good marks for her response the SotU, her national television debut was kind of boring, she didn't attack and I don't see how she can stand up to the bar which Obama set, a couple of months ago.
May 11, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If You-Know-Her's supporters don't like strong women who have earned their own political offices without needing their husbands to baby-sit and rub-off "experience" on them, then I can understand how comparisons to Governor Sebilius -- who has real elected executive experience in government -- might make supporters of Senator You-Know-Her a bit queasy. You-Know-Her has proven spectacularly incapable of managing a solvent campaign, even one with every possible advantage to blow. Therefore, management skills simply do not appear well established in her case. Senator Obama needs help, not hindrance, in a vice presidential running mate.
Senator Obama can certainly use a running mate with elected executive experience to compliment his proven grassroots organizing abilities. In this regard, either Governor Bill Richardsson or Governor Kathleen Sebilius would fill the bill nicely. Each brings many assets to the situation that deserve serious consideration. Another senator -- especially one with as insignificant a back-bench resume as You-Know-Her -- adds nothing much to complement Senator Obama's own Senatorial background. Senator You-Know-Her, as even she must realize by now, brings not only her massive and growing debts, but the world's biggest albatross -- stupid authorization of Deputy Dubya's Desert Debacle -- to her "qualifications" as Senator Obama's running mate. Not good. Not good at all.
It also seems especially ironic, if you can catch my drift, that since You-Know-Her has such an announced public disdain for "speeches," it would hardly seem a relevant criticism of Governor Sebilius that she has given a "boring" speech or two. Senator Barack Obama gives about as good a speech as any political leader now living, so he requires other assets in a running mate, not more of what he aleady does superbly and which You-Know-Her and her supporters don't value in the slightest anyway. Do I make my point sufficiently here?
I have made these and other points because this thread ostensibly dealt with the putative prospects (insane as one must find them) of Senator Obama picking Senator You-Know-Her as a vice presidential running mate in response to her bullying attempts to force this decision upon him now that she has clearly lost and desperately seeks to salvage whatever she can from obstreperous behavior and campaign name-calling. If You-Know-Her and her supporters don't like these truths when confronted by them, then she and they can, of course, withdraw from the rough-ad-tumble of politics to pursue other, less rigorous pursuits -- after paying off their own millions in debts, naturally.
As only yet another ironic twist, You-Know-Her not long ago hinted at offering the second slot to Senator Obama (then as now securely in first place) for completely crass and transparent "race and gender" ticket-balancing considerations. For her supporters to now find such practical gambits distasteful and "sexist" when applied to another white-woman politician who might figure in them amounts clearly to either sloppy logic or rank hypocrisy. Can You-Know-Her and her supporters please make up their conflicted minds about what, if any, consistent rules of either debate or delegate selection they will agree to follow?
May 11, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you are surprised? Look at this poster's posting history. He doesn't just dislike Clinton, he hates her in an obsessive way. He even does a long exposition on why he won't say her name. This is a sick sick sick hater. Ignore him.
May 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but Andrew Golis sings his praise
May 12, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies to Andrew. It was someone who had a similar avatar.
May 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon Acti
Thank you for your spot-on, blunt comment about Michael Murry's exercises in his hate obsession here. Made me realize I was being "chicken" by not being as blunt.
If it is true what Andrew Strat says in his comment, "Yeah but Andrew Golis sings his praise," I would point out to Mr. Golis that Josh Marshall once described proper TPMCafe comment behavior as coming to discuss "in good faith." Mr. Murry's laundry list rants of reasons to hate Hillary Clinton are not that at all, they are simply taking advantage of any thread that bears her name to practice his obsession, and there is no intent to discuss in them, only to preach, there is no "good faith" looking to discuss with others. The proper place for preaching hate, the Hyde Park soapbox thing, that would be his own Reader Blog, and not someone else's thread where people come to comment to the author or to discuss points related to the post.
I believe Murry's technique is called "hijacking," Mr. Golis, I am sure you've heard of it, and it's pretty clear to me he's not been posting in comments to interact in good faith with anyone. If people want good discussion here, I would think they wouldn't praise this kind of behavior on a contributor's post.
May 13, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the Obama-Clinton ticket isn't nuts
By JOHN F. HARRIS & JONATHAN MARTIN | 5/9/08 5:29 PM EST
Here are five reasons why Obama should offer Clinton the vice presidential nomination—and why she would take it.
An Obama-Clinton ticket would definitely be out of the ordinary. But 2008 is not an ordinary year. Here’s why the skeptics may be wrong. Five reasons why Barack Obama should offer Hillary Rodham Clinton the vice presidential nomination — and why she would take it.
1. It’s not his choice. Clinton’s support among her most loyal partisans, women’s groups especially, is as intense as Obama’s is among African-Americans and young people. The pressure he will be under to unite the party by selecting her may be insurmountable. Without Clinton, Obama would have to spend enormous amounts of time and political capital bringing blue-collar voters, Catholics, Jews and Hispanics on board. There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans.
2. It’s a character test for him. Obama does not like Clinton. Who cares? Dwight Eisenhower did not like Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy did not like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan did not like George H.W. Bush. Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is.
Multimedia
3. The Sicilian hug. If the Clintons have an independent power base — and they do, even in defeat — it is better to have Hillary Clinton under close watch in the White House than in the Senate (and, in Bill Clinton’s case, in foreign capitals around the world) making mischief.
4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. Obama is nothing but disciplined in pursuit of victory, and he and Hillary Clinton might be, as Bill Clinton said, an “almost unstoppable force” (even if he was envisioning a different order on the ticket). The combination would align nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party around the same goal and would swamp Republicans with the most potent fundraising operation in history. The ticket would start off with a paid staff of approximately 1,500 people, and an organization from the national level down to precincts in every state in the country. While John McCain is recruiting county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.
5. She’d take the job — and be good at it. People may make fun of the vice presidency but almost no one turns it down. Clinton, knowing that a spot on the ticket offers the highest odds of becoming president some day, would not turn it down either. And, with her self-described “responsibility gene,” she’d work hard and do well. As a candidate in the fall, Obama would not have to worry about what most presidential nominees do — that the No. 2 will somehow flub a debate or stray off message. As president, he could have confidence that she would be a smart and effective adviser, even if the advice sometimes came through gritted teeth.
________
I would like to add that in the Senate she built a reputation for reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. As Vice President she would be president of the Senate. This could be very useful.
May 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with otto, Obama has and will face much bigger obstacles as president than having Hillary and Bill around the White House. Together, they might even make a great team.
May 10, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being president of the Senate is worthless.
May 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long do you think Obama would live if Hillary and Bill are back?
He's going to have racists gunning for him already. It would sure be easy to have it done when you're a multimillionaire with connections to many, many people who could do it.
May 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Selection of a VP Candidate is in reality the first decision a prospective President makes that tells us something about his/her approach to appointments. Something needs to be said here for just letting Obama filter the potential choices -- a way of letting us examine just how such decisions might be made.
If, for instance, we had looked more critically at Bush's selection of Cheney, we might have saved outselves a lot of hurt. Why did Bush outsource the selection process in the first place, and why didn't he know what he was really looking for in a VP? In hind sight, I would even criticize Gore's selection of Lieberman in 2000 and Kerry's selection of Edwards.
In my mind, the most interesting VP selection in recent history was Carter's selection of Mondale. With it, Carter was making clear his lack of Washington Wisdom, and picking someone who could supply that. They made their "contract" clear well before the election, how they would function together. For Carter it was an admission that he needed something he did not have in his prospective White House -- something that went beyond the immediate election.
I would hope we would put forward a whole variety of choices Obama could make,-- let him know there are an array of talents available, and we want him to engage with the choice. I am sure he has a vision of how his administration might function, and we should be supporting Obama having the freedom to make that first appointment in a manner that illustrates this.
I personally would oppose Clinton as VP, and have very strong objections to the pressure being put on Obama by Clinton supporters on her behalf. The country was given the option in this primary season of someone new, or a restoration of the Clinton Administration, and the choice has been made. Hillary has four more years of her current term in the Senate, and she could well be elected to another -- but there will not be another Clinton Administration. She has to face this, and figure how to make a significant contribution as one of one hundred Senators.
She lost in large measure because she ran a dumb campaign, even though she started owning most of the marbles. Much as Bush outsourced the selection of a VP to Cheney, in large measure because he didn't deal well with details and perhaps because he didn't want to take responsibility for the choice -- Hillary outsourced the planning of her campaign to Mark Penn, in some measure because he had effectively saved Bill's hide in the run up to the 96 election. But 2008 was not 1996, and she was not in touch with the change in the wind direction. She needs to get out of high campaign mode to understand all this, and she won't be able to look constructively at a future in the Senate until she comes to terms with these large scale mistakes.
So let's support Obama having the freedom to offer up his first appointment as an indicator of where he wants to go with both the campaign and an Obama Administration.
May 10, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary "lost" by just a few points and nearly half of the people who have voted, voted for her. She's still winning primaries, so it's not like the voters vanquished her by overwhelmingly going for her opponent. She only "lost" by a couple of points and he hasn't "won" by enough to secure the nomination.
May 11, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short and convenient memory.
She had the talent, the connections, the experience, the name, the money, the political backing, and the insurmountable 20 point lead in the polls not 5-6 months ago.
She was the Inevitable. Today she's "gritty"
And Barack Obama is the reason.
There's much to be said for Obama choosing a woman and a supporter.
Picking a staunch Clinton backer has even more to recommend it...Clark, Strickland, Rendell...
May 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you say about letting Obama pick his own VP...but then you go and ruin it by overstating Obama's apparent victory.
Obama does not have a mandate, he leads by just a small amount and Clinton is still winning primaries after the media announce she cannot win the nomination. That's because there are voters that expect her to fight for a more progressive economic platform and better health care reform than Obama offers.
Obama leads largely because caucus states effectively disenfranchise large number of low-income voters, you all crowing about it with such condescension and contempt when you have only a bare majority is irritating beyond measure.
When you all finally start getting around to that party unity thing, folks might be willing to listen any more.
May 12, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's how I hear it.
May 10, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just a "threat," but naked extortion. No less a long-term "liberal feminist" shill for You-Know-Her than Eleanor Clift of Newsweek writes in "Clinton Agonistes" (May 9, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/id/136214):
"The Clintons know it's over" ... and yet ...
"[You-Know-Her's self-interested] practicality will likely spur Clinton to use her remaining time in the race to run up the tab for what it will cost Obama to make the party whole."
You see, You-Know-Her wishes to "run up the tab" for those million-and-a-half small donors who supported her rival instead of her.
You see, if Senator Obama wants a "whole" Democratic Party, he'll have to pay through a bloody nose for it. Otherwise, what will You-Know-Her see to it that he gets for non-payment of "protection" money? A "divided" Democratic Party? Does You-Know-Her really suppose a loser like her has anything like the ability to do something so monumentally moronic? And she thinks extortionate threats like this will get her back into the white house through the basement back door as America's next Dick Cheney regent for a "president" that everyone really knows simply doesn't have enough good sense and "experience" for the job?
You see, You-Know-Her wishes to punish those poor people who've contributed an average of $100 (in small increments) to fund Senator Obama's campaign, even when they can ill afford to loan themselves eleven million dollars for whatever they want but can't have. You-Know-Her insists that these poor people pay off not only her own stiffed vendors and defrauded creditors but her own eleven (and perhaps more) millions in "loans" (plus accrued interest) to herself.
You see, You-Know-Her really cares about poor, working class people and promises to "fight" for them even as she forces them to ante up even more of their vanishing resources to make her and Mark Penn and James Carville and Lanny Davis, et al, go away just a little bit.
What a champion of the underdog.
What a living, seething example of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." First Bill throws her over for a succession of nubile bimbos, and then the Amerian people throw her over for someone they like and trust a whole lot more than her latest campaign photo-op incarnation.
I used to just not like the Clinton Partners in Pathos very much. Now I simply loathe them.
May 11, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary for VP talk is merely her campaign's way of asserting her vast importance to the Dem's general election chances.
It's another Clinton ruse for power. Thankfully, it won't work.
May 11, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
People keep comparing this choice to the choice Jack Kennedy made by selecting LBJ. Let's remember just what happened to Kennedy.
Maybe it's a coincidence that all those people around the Clintons have died mysterious deaths. Probably is. But would you want to take that chance?
May 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you need further proof that Clinton Hatred is a pathology read the rants above. "you know her", etc, people "dying around the Clintons", "would you want to take a chance?" etc...pure pathology
May 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use the phrase "You-Know-Her" advisedly.
First, because I follow George Orwell's advice to "never use a word or phrase that you are used to seeing in print." I prefer to think, speak, and write for myself; and the first rule of doing that requires one to refuse parrotting conventionally accepted propaganda and jargon.
Second, I refuse to play along with the phony "familiarity" meme implicit in all those signs one sees waving You-Know-Her's first name at anyone unable to avert the eyes or brain. No one has ever introduced the New York Senator and wife of ex-president Bill Clinton to me. I don't know her personally. She doesn't know me personally. Therefore, I do not wish to imply -- nor do I wish for her to imply -- that we feel "really close" and "on a first name basis," and that this "closeness" means, in and of itself, that I really must support my "intimate" friend and heroine. I don't.
Third, I don't want to provide any free advertising for Senator You-Know-Her by joining -- gratis -- her "it's our best-girlfriend/cheated-rich-white-woman's turn now" hallelujah chorus. If You-Know-Her wants to get out her focus-grouped message du jour (and that changes daily), then she needs to pay for it -- cash upfront. She can easily afford to waste tens of millions of dollars doing so. She doesn't need my help for nothing.
Fourth, employing the phrase "You-Know-Her" helps demonstrate the point that supporters of New York's junior female Senator think they know whom I mean instead of supposing that I could have in mind Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, for example. For supporters of Senator You-Know-Her, no other accomplished female politician merits mention or consideration. Everyone just "knows" that "You-Know-Her" can only refer to ... well ... you know ... HER. Why bother naming that which needs no name?
I have other reasons for trying to maintain my intellectual independence from consumer-demographic political "brand" salesmanship (no "sexism" intended by the "man" part of the preceding word), but the above brief listing ought to do it for now. Those intereseted in further educating themselves on sub-rational lizard-language/dog-whistle semiotics could do worse than consult the on-line PBS Frontline program "The Persuaders." The Frank Luntz (R) and Mark Penn (D) types of the product advertising business don't even try to hide how stupid they consider the American buying public. Exclusively using the politician-in-question's first name implies "familiarity." Avoiding the use of this politician's family or marital name avoids unpleasant associations with past humiliations at the hands of a spouse whose otherise "presidential" "experience" one wishes to claim as one's own. And so on and so forth.
Anyway, I'll go on using "You-Know-Her" instead of that other given name. And I'll do it respectully, too, as one might infer from my use of capital letters that begin proper names.
May 11, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please spare me your meandering bullshit. My point had nothing to do with your paranoid use of "you know her". It had to do with your laughable outrage that Hillary had done nothing to advance YOUR GOD'S (i.e. Obama)nomination. I guess that's over your lizard head. See here in America when A is running against B for the nomination then A does not try to advance B's chances of winning the nomination but tries to advance A's chances. Get it?
And if you are so paranoid that you are afraid to use the proper noun Hillary because it might contaminate your lizard brain why don't you simply invent a unique new language and talk to yourself ad nauseum in the privacy of your own lizard brain.
May 11, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll keep this short because you don't read well and don't seem to have much of an attention span.
First, I hava a mammal brain with a well developed cortex. You have an over-stimulated hypothalamus that drowns all possible power of reasoning in a "vat of seething emotions," as John Dewey put it back in 1910.
Further, I do not subscribe to any form of Single Spook Animism, so claiming that I believe in any sort of "GAWD," represents nothing but an unfounded assumption on your part. Typical of you, really.
Finally, when I said that Senator Obama had earned the nomination of the Democratic Party for president without any help from Senator You-Know-Her -- and I suspect you know whom I mean -- I assumed that "without any help from" certainly includes "over the rabid and obstreperous opposition of." I said this true thing simply to address those who maintain that Senator Obama cannot defeat John McBomb without You-Know-Her's "help." Knowing quite well how to win even with You-Know-Her tag-teaming him with John McBomb, Senator Obama has no need of "help" from the wife of a former president who cannot even help herself. Not paranoia. Just proof.
May 12, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what you said. The sentence is not ambiguous.
You are not saying that Barack beat McCain or any such thing. What you said is absurd. But I suppose you might just have slipped up .
When I refer to the lizard brain I'm referring to that portion of our brain that goes back to our lizard ancestors.
May 12, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 12, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Andrew Strat that there is a pathological component to much Clinton hatred. But where he seems to believe the hatred is irrational and childish, I note that whatever its causes, it is real, and it is at least as much of a factor in her "electability" as, say, Jeremiah Wright is in Obama's.
This is a progressive, liberal site, yet we have seen tremendous anti-Clinton vitriol, even though the site's founder, Josh Marshall, once described himself as "about as pro-Clinton as you could get" during Bill's administration.
Hillary Clinton evokes strong reactions from most people. Many love her, and it seems just as many loathe her.
The right absolutely detests her, and I believe it would be far easier for them to raise funds and rally their base around McCain if Clinton is on the ticket than if she is not. So I see the prospect of her being on the ticket as a net negative for Obama, and I hope it doesn't happen.
May 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One concern is Clinton might ask to be offered the VP slot as a sign of respect and unity, promising to turn it down, but go against her word and accept it. Remember that JFK offered VP to Johnson just as a show of unity, with the understanding that Johnson would say "Thanks, but no, I will be more useful to the Party in the Senate." When Johnson accepted VP, JFK couldn't take back the offer.
As for discussions of Clinton's positives vs. negatives, we should keep in mind that her positives can be contributed by a number of other VP choices who don't come with the horrendous baggage of her negatives.
May 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cynic that I am, I think she knows he'll nix that idea. Then her supporters get offended, vote for McSame so she can run again in 2012. I hope I'm soooo wrong.
May 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the concern, but I do not share it.
In watching my DVD copy of (queen) "Elizabeth" last night, I particularly enjoyed the line that Walsingham (Elizabeth's equivalent of MI-6's "M") used on Lord Norfolk (who tried to usurp the throne for himself) shortly before executing the perp for treason. When Norfolk claimed that his death would make him a martyr that people would remember forever, Walsingham corrected him by smiling and saying simply: "No. They will forget."
Not long after Senator Obama officially assumes the mantle of Democratic Party leader and nominee for the presidency, Senator You-Know-Her will begin the short, swift slide into deserved oblivion. Personally, I'll know of that happy occurrence when I use the phrase "You-Know-Her" and someone asks: "Who?"
Political losers do not remain long in the public consciousness, nor do they possess any sort of power to do much of anything, for good or ill, one way or the other. Just ask former failed vice presidential candidates Holy Joe Lieberman (Likud. Tel Aviv) and John "Hamlet" Edwards. Very soon now, Senator You-Know-Her will join their unlamented and irrelevant ranks.
May 11, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes she is SOOOOOOO Evil that woman. What with promoting Universal Health care for all, as opposed to Obama's "option to have health care or not" bullshit plan. Why the woman is E-V-I-L.
May 12, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl Bernstein:
So she can't even manage to win the majority leadership against Harry Reid, and yet she'd be the best VP candidate for Obama? I think not.
May 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The anti-Clinton people on this thread act Like Obama won by a landslide. He leads in seated delegates by 2.8%! She cannot win mathematically, but the margin is 2.8%. If you think she's going away, you're crazy. My guess is that she truly believes Obama will be beaten by McCain and is giving it all she has to stop that. It's an extreme long shot, but if she's convinced he'll lose to McCain, she has nothing to lose.
May 11, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that she truly believes Obama will be beaten by McCain and is giving it all she has to stop that.
So if she thought that Obama could beat McCain, you believe she'd suppress her own personal political ambitions and withdraw from the race for the good of the Democratic party?
May 11, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent logic. Wasted on supporters of Senator You-Know-Her, of course, but appreciated by the rational.
Of course You-Know-Her would drop out of the "race" in an instant if she thought that by ceasing to hurt Senator Obama she would make him a much stronger candidate against John McBomb. She only stays in to "toughen" him up by wounding him, she says. And by the handy way he has dispatched her, I'd say that she has succeeded in at least that strategy.
How does a household name with every conceivable advantage lose to an unknown candidate like Senator Obama and then insult the intelligence of sentient, carbon-based life forms by claiming to know whom else he cannot defeat? Like, how would You-Know-Her know anything of value related to this subject of "winning"?
I lost a lot of personal credibility defending Bill Clinton from fanatical fascists like Kenneth Starr and Newt Gingrich. I'll never forget the day I came home from work only to turn on the TV and see Bogus Bill Clinton, cornered in the White House basement, stammering something about how he really had -- despite a year of denials and grand jury testimony forced upon his abused subbordinates -- really done ... well ... "something or other" with "that woman" whose name I need not mention here. So I learned long ago not ever to trust the sworn word of Bill Clinton. And since his wife's entire claim to "experience" of any sort rests entirely upon the process of co-habitating spousal osmosis, I don't trust her sworn word, either. Not that she hasn't earned incredulous disbelief all on her own.
May 12, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is counterfactual mumbo jumbo.
conorflynn is saying that SHE DOES NOT think he could win.
To surmise what she would do if she thought he could win is pure fantasy. And you imply that she would still not drop out. Probably because you are psychic or something. That's obvious. So you show typical contept for Hillary and the rules of reasoning.
It's like saying "well maybe she did not kill Vince Foster, but if she had had a chance she would have". It is nonesense
May 12, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly what I believe
Far from being the evil witch that killed Vice Foster and would do anything to win (maybe kill Axelrod?), she is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. I will vote for Obama, but I have spoken to many Democrats who feel that the lack of civility shown to Hillary during the campaig by the MSM and its internet allies is so egregious that they cannot see themselves voting for Obama. The stats have them at about 24% which is a huge number.
Maybe that will change when the stark contrast between the Democratic Platform and the Republican Platform are made public but I would not count on it.
The viciousness shown towards Hillary even now by what I call Obamanoids is astounding and irrational.
It has to stop.
It is hurting the party
May 12, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us anti-Clinton folks understand that this is a fight over the future of the party. Do we allow the neocon DLC pro-war, pro-corporate party to prevail or will we have a truly progressive party which offers the American people a genuine alternative to Republican foreign and economic policy?
May 12, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. You slammed Obama supporters for their "insane childishness", then went on to call them "Obamanoids" and "crazy and goofy".
I'm sure you have a very good reason why what you wrote is, of course, not childish.
May 11, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just go and read the Obama supporters posts on this site and compare them to what Hillary people have written (exclude me). It is outrageous.
The level of discussion HAS deteriorated to vicious childishness.
May 12, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Teddy realizes the upcoming debacle in front of his eyes. Superdels taking the nomination to Obama, pissed off Clinton Supporters either bolting or staying home in November.
That train has already left the station with the constant attacks and innuendo by the Obama camp and especially David Axelrove.
May 11, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, shape shifting and playing with demographic groups is what I thought of when I read this article today.
Perhaps you should think about making continual long laundry list rants of all the evils you can possibly think of to apply to one particular politician, in a sort of jihad, because eventually you will start coming up with things that apply to the politician you are trying to "help" as well.
A tip: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was fictional.
Another tip: The media has only just begun to research Mr. Obama, for the most part relying to date on his own autobiographical books (an understantdable situation, as the public had to become acquainted with what was in those) and therefore skewed to the picture he wanted painted. That's going to end, people are going to start being interviewed, and it's not Hillary that reporters want "poop" on.
May 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaargh, the above was meant as a reply to
Michael Murry @ May 10, 2008 11:23 PM Permalink, not to Reed Hundt.
May 12, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate the round up of your thoughts on this.
One thing that puzzles me, on this kind of thing,
why are people so very totally negative about that idea in general? I thought that one of the main purposes of redesigning the primary system was to make it a real primary again that ended at an exciting convention with horse trading going on, not to have one nominee crowned early on before a lot of states got to vote, and everyone else forced to drop out. Clinton has been allowed by the new system to amass a larger number of delegates than a second place candidate has for a long time, and Obama as yet does not have the prescribed number to be crowned. I thought this was sort of the outcome the powers that be were looking for, that the winner might have to consider moderating or altering his platform, or his choices, in order to make the largest number of voters from the Democratic primaries happy with him/her. Previously, the candidate was selected by a few states and donors, and everyone else was left with no input, take him/her or leave him/her. That often left us with no interest in the party's convention, lackluster "get out the vote" in November, and hurt often hurt related races for Congress.
May 12, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops, my comment above was referring to this quote from your post, I think I screwed up the code and it got cut:
it was meant to follow where I say
"One thing that puzzles me, on this kind of thing,"
May 12, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
On repaying her debts -- wouldn't a loyal Democrat think that $15 million might be better spent defeating McCain?
May 12, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at how hard Hillary and company have taken on Obama in the primary. Now she's going after the VP spot, no politely, but with power points and a viscous letter writing campaign by her people on the street as well as her big $$ people. Everyone's threatening to vote McCain or cut off $$ to the party if she doesn't get her way.
Do you think that will suddenly stop once she's the VP nominee? I doubt it. If Obama takes her on she'll be on his case the entire time he's campaigning and in office. He will constantly be doing battle with his #2. That's no way to run any business. A #2 needs to know their place and she and her husband haven't shown any ability or willingness to take on that role. That makes her unqualified for the position.
May 12, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone please remove this unsightly article? It's been sitting here for two days like an angry eyesore. Wait. Never mind. Hillary's victories tomorrow will demonstrate how short-sighted this article is. Leave it up.
May 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a tribute to Senator Obama's typical gentlemanly generosity, I'll stipulate to Senator You-Know-Her's overwhelming 100% victory in West Virginia. That will net her all of that state's 28 delegates. Senator Obama still wins the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He has the most delegates, Pledged and Super -- each and combined.
Furthermore, I'll even stipulate to Senator You-Know-Her's unprecedented 60%-40% (i.e., 20%) margin of victory in every remaining primary -- except for Oregon where Senator Obama will win regardless of anything Senator You-Know-Her does or says. Even so, I'll only give him a 55%-45% (10% margin). And I won't even consider two of the remaining primaries where Senator Obama will do very well or win outright. I'll just give them away to You-Know-Her, gratis. No matter. Senator Obama still wins the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He has the most delegates, Pledged and Super -- each and combined.
This Democratic Primary story has ended. Senator Obama has won (he actually won two months ago). Senator You-Know-Her has no probable way to do anything about this factual situation -- except go further into irretrievable debt while stirring (like one of Macbeth's bearded witches) the boiling pot of bitterness and racism that still lingers in a few backwaters of Deputy Dubya Bush's crypto-fascist America.
Thus, the idle speculation about whether You-Know-Her might or might not want or receive selection by Senator Obama as his vice presidential running mate. Having nothing more of factual interest remaining in this "contest," we now indulge ourselves in irrelevant reverie. It helps to pass the time until Senator Obama can begin methodically taking apart John McBomb in the general election -- the same way he did You-Know-Her. John McBomb won't know what beat him any more, or any sooner, than she did. Hope does spring eternal within the human beast (not a missspelling).
May 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton as veep would be a disaster for so many reasons that I hardly know where to start.
But it's a legit point that Obama needs to reach out to the large chunks of potential Dem voters who have not voted for him. Picking a Clintonista-who-is-not-Clinton would make a lot more sense.
Evan Bayh comes to mind. Or Ed Rendell. But if neither of them work out, there is surely no shortage of ambitious Clintonistas. (There's no other kind, is there?)
Oregon Activist is right to be troubled that Obama can't beat Clinton in some places even tho he has more money. But this glitch may be causing people to overlook the fact that the guy has raised -- I think -- more $$ than any presidential candidate in history.
The fact that Obama out-raised Clinton is astounding. Why isn't there more noise about this? The media is usually obsessed with the money race -- not just because money helps you win but also because it's a placeholder for power, potency and effectiveness.
Not bad qualities for people to think about you if you are running for president. Obama's legions should start talking this up -- especially since McCain is still having money problems and is desperately trying to figure a way back onto the Federal teat.
May 13, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check this out
May 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink