Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary and Blacks: This can't be true
How can it be - an ABC survey says that 59% of Blacks would like to see Hillary as the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket? How can that be? Conventional wisdom here has it that Hillary is so racist and has offended so many Blacks that her career should be over, and here we see her hitting the magic number of 3/5th? (sorry, couldn't resist - a bit of black humor).
Also, 64% of voters think she should stay in the race, including 42% of Obama supporters. Oh my, could it be that punditland is wrong? That Americans really don't mind democracy and voting and all that, and that they're not irretrievably fragmented? Curiouser and curiouser.
Advertisement
Comments (132)
I guess conventional wisdom here is not wisdom.
May 14, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, which is precisely the reason we should not take ourselves seriously at all in this forum. Let's agree to disagree and enjoy the silly season.
May 14, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Conventional Wisdom" is a straw man. By definition, almost. It's used to set up an argument that runs counter to what's being termed conventional wisdom. I don't know if Galbraith invented it, but he's most often credited with its wider use.
May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is an interesting data point. The % who want to see Hillary as VP is higher among African-Americans than among any other subset of Democrats.
I don't have a lot of explanations. Personally, I would rather have my fingernails pulled out than see Hillary as VP. Not because I dislike her -- though I do -- but because I think her profile is too high. She'll disrupt the message.
Is it party loyalty? Christian charity? The Clintons' good name in the black community not absolutely gone yet? You got me.
May 14, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same reason that AAs didn't jump on the Obama bandwagon from the start, they didn't think that he had a chance with white voters. Now that they see that he has a chance, they want to make his ticket the strongest it can be because again they probably fear that enough whites will not vote for a black man.
They want their candidate to win and they think Clinton as his VP will be the best way.
May 14, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree.
May 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only candidate with a serious problem with voters of color is McCain:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-95-white-party-and-the-dec.php
(and every other member of the GOP). Dems should hammer away that the GOP is not representative of the melting pot that is America. We need to sell the idea of a big tent party and presumptive nominee Barack Obama is just the person for that job, I think.
May 14, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess: Black voters are nothing if not pragmatic, that's one of the things that have kept us with the Democratic party for so long. Even though there are a lot of social conservatives, particularly among the more politically active of us, we mostly vote with our economic and civil liberties interests in mind. It's obvious that Hillary would be an excellent way to attract hard working white voters (read: the Cleetus vote).
May 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think in reality they do not think she is a racist nor do I and I hope many other people. Has she, Bill or some surrogate said some racially insensitive remarks? Yes. However saying something stupid or having something come out the wrong way does not make them a racists. I think a lot of the AA community sees this and yes would probably like to see her on the ticket.
However, if she gets to the top of the ticket in a convention fight, my sense is all bets are off.
There is a unfortunate side effect to this historic race. We have two groups which deeply believe this is their moment. In order for the Dems to win in the Fall, someone is going to have to put that dream on hold. My hope is that both can take pride in knowing this country is ready for a woman or a black president.
May 14, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Getting the VP slot is not exactly putting the dream on hold for either category. It's one obvious next step that makes the last step easier.
May 14, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. This may be a first - I agree with you :)
May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for black people, but I do have a theory.
I believe blacks see having Hillary on the ticket would be a guaranteed win for Obama. There has never been an opportunity like this. Blacks have gotten the short end of the stick so often, they want insurance on this one.
I don't believe Hillary Clinton is a racist anymore than I am. But she has appealed to racial divisions, which I think is worse. It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to propagate racism when you know how wrong it is.
I can only hope I will never have to hear or see another Clinton after June 3rd.
Carville: "Obama has 1.2 million donors. That's not a donor base.. that's a POLITICAL PARTY."
May 14, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good theory.
May 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carville said that? I missed that one.
May 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ACAOYv3DKk
About a minute and a half into the video.
Something even more stunning, though I don't have the link.
Carville said he has an undated check payable to Obama for when he is declared the nominee. No shit!
May 14, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carville is so much better when he's not working within the confines of CNN.
May 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
May 14, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't read Hillary and Bill's mind. I leave that to you-know-who.
I still think that there are problems with the Obama/Hillary ticket, assuming it's a possibility. I prefer it at this point as a bold move by both of them that would be a lock for the election.
Issues:
Call me stupid, but a downside is Bill. He ain't helping no one anymore. Put him out to pasture. Hate me, kill me, whatever, but had Hillary took the child and walked on the bastard ten years back, she'd be the most admired woman in the world, and Obama would be some interesting unknown, talked about as a candidate down the line. He wouldn't have gotten out of the gate this time. She wins.
On a tangent, Hillary's "team" of inbred morons should be drawn and quarters. To be outplayed by an amateur in politics is shit, and they are the crappers. They had the Wright story way back, as all Clinton low level operatives have been saying, and pulling their fucking hair out for months because the the top people hadn't found a way to get it out from outside the campaign. They didn't have the video. The story was on FOX and right-wing radio. They couldn't make it happen. They were scared off by his race.
Not sure VP is the right fit for her. But can't read her mind. Should he lose, whatever one's position on the emotional level, she will get the blame. She will have no chance to ever run again. As VP, she might have a chance in eight years. Though as I write that, I know it's not possible. So...I wish she would take VP and negotiate some position of real strength in the cabinet--health care surely -- and Obama would tell her that part of the deal is to keep Bill's face off the front page. Or not. It's her embarrassment not his.
Hillary will regain her standing overnight in the black community. Bill cannot. Never.
Will Obama be smart enough to pick her. I've always been worried by Obama's cloud-like view of politics. Had he taken the advice of the pros on his team and put out street money in Philadelphia --the lack of which depressed the black turnout --
that story would be very different.
He still seems like a complete neophyte to me on foreign policy, and he better start getting some pros in there, and not some two-bit general or some "policy expert" from academia. Jesus, another Condi, but without the piano.
He offers. If he doesn't he's a fool. Whether she accepts or not, I have no clue.
As I said after Pa. His second choice should be Rendell who''s sounding mighty friendly at this point.
May 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last thing. I like McCain. Always have. If I like him, that's a problem for the dems. especially if Bush makes some "action" in Iran right before the election. Seems certain to me.
From the Israeli point of view, they have no choice but deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions. They need either the US to do it, or to help in some way in their attack. That's a long haul for the IAF with no carriers and Iranian defense ability looks tough.
Obama gonna talk with them? Come on. Talk sure, but he better be approving plans to take them out.
May 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher -- Nice comment. Clear, cogent, accessible. Interesting, well-defended points. I vastly prefer it to the cryptic stuff you often post. (Though maybe that's just 'cause I don't get your jokes, and others seem to, so take that with a pinch of salt.)
May 15, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The electrodes are producing for you, Mr. Glad... I mean Cypher. Valid points all, though I wonder why Bill's rep would be harder to salvage than Hillarys?
May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fidel.
Let me put this bluntly.
Bill was the first president who made it personal with the black community. HIs approach to the black community was personal and not intellectual. He's not an intellectual, though Hillary is. She's the brains, he's the shmoozer.
As much as the black community needed honest emotion from a president, Bill's most basic needs, even beyond politics is to be loved back. That was a two-way street.
Speaking at an abstract level, Fanon's ideas would help out-- most basically that an oppressed people cannot regain their "manhood" by accepting the love of their oppressors but only by killing them. I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, only that there may be some validity in the idea, without taking it to the "Kill Whitey" stage.
Having accepted Bill's emotional outreach (pure crap to me) they are feel betrayed at a very deep emotional level due to recent events. They will not ever forgive him in the way he wants.
She skates. She's hard-nosed. No one has ever sensed really that her emotional caring for blacks was real. It may be, but she doesn't communicate it. So the dynamic is betrayal. You're more likely to forgive a friend, not a sleazy "lover."
Bill "love" of the black community seems might false when you realize that he was of an age to participate in the civil rights movements. Think of JFK on the night of MLK's assassination.
That was greatness. Playing sax on TV is something else.
May 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill didn't make diddly-squat "personal" with the black community. It was always friggin' political. Bill realized he wouldn't get elected without the black vote. And when it looked like he was a little too chummy with the darker complected peoples, he gave his "Sistah Souljah" wink-wink, nod-nod to white voters.
Personally, the Clintons can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Reality bites. The truth is Bill did far little FOR black America and lots more TO black America.
May 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you completely as far as my opinion is valid. Personally, the thought of an Obama/Clinton ticket is deeply offensive to me. However I want to see Obama win and I think that works. I take my cues on the "forgiveness" issues directly from black democrats who will have to win their own elections, or turn out the vote in their community, and who are deeply committed to the Obama cause.
I, myself, will never write a check for anyone named Clinton. I've calculated my donation for Obama in this way: half for the primary, and half for the general. I wanted to be careful to not to exceed the limit to avoid any interest from the IRS.
May 14, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fidel,
Go to Billy Glad's blog. Google "Billy Glad" and blog. Read his stuff--not only the political pieces but the others. Compare the
material. If you still want to perpetuate this nonsense, I will no longer compare you to the great William Kunstler. I made no secret that I came to the post under another name and picture. I admitted
it on the post. I morphed myself into Cypher over a few days.
You know who Kunstler was. Right?
May 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher, I wasn't being serious about Cypher=Billy Glad. I see no resemblance whatsoever. The suggestion is ludicrous. Now, can I go back to being compared to Bill Kunstler?
May 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fidel,
I had the honor to know the guy a bit, he as the lawyer, me as the Blue Guy. A real mensch as we used to say in Brooklyn. But Fidel, I'm talking the Brooklyn that is longtime gone. Jackie's time. Who knew he would become a Republican. Civilization lost something when the boys let Jackie go, and took to the palm trees. Also my revolutionary brother or sister, I'm taking a rest from TPM. The party is over for now. I'll be reading the stuff everyday while I work though, in that little window on the top of my screen. Just to see if Billy can work himself up again, and Desi can morph his id one more time, and to see if you get that revolution going. Good stuff being a public defender.
May 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm bored, too. I sentenced myself to stick it out until one side or the other conceded, so it looks like I'm stuck for a while. But there are no issues to discuss, and I've met all the interesting people. When you think about it, it really is sad there have been so few.
In the past I've thought there was no way Clinton would take the VP slot. But I've been thinking about Kennedy/Johnson for a couple of days, and I think she might take it.
Will make TPM threads interesting again if she does.
May 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too boring for me Billy. It's wait and see now. It's in motion-- plays out one way or the other. Not enough action here at this point. Not enough wit. I discovered a wonderful group of history-minded people the other day, but only by an accidental convergence of that primary with a wonderfully written piece. Just not enough of that kind of thing here. Too many insider set-ups each day by the same crowd in crap-speak.
Too bad they don't have a place where history/genealogy people can post and leave that open to everyone. They should ban submitting posts everyday by the same people. That timed appearance of the chat-room special... well I can only say LOL.
I'm around the corner dude, coffee anytime. I like your site. Especially the arts pieces. You realize that these turkeys go to your site, check out your movie favorites and leave?
Twenty five years ago, thirty year- old authors were edited by sixty year -old editors. Today the ages are reversed. And in the newsrooms most places they're putting out the old journos on the ice for bears eskimo style. Brave new world, eh?
I'll have the window open as I work (as you do) and take in the show when I see you on the prowl. But, Billy. You can't get energy from a noodle, and the noodles ain't giving enough back to keep Billy's soup hot. dagnabbit.
May 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people are changing. Have you noticed? The comment threads are dividing into cliques.
It may be why you're bored.
Clintonistas could take over TPM right now if we wanted to. It's vulnerable to a takeover. But it's a lot of work.
May 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
circle jerks are boring after the first round.
May 14, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
jerks are boring too.
May 15, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the Circle Jerks ever time I saw them.
May 15, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Two pound blocks of cheese
Bags of grocer-ies...
Like Shakespeare, man, fucking poetic.
Even their lounge period was groovy.
May 15, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
you win! ;-)
May 15, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think people are finally bored. Or tired. Most of the primaries, though possibly of each other, too. There's a lot to say, but not much left to say about primary season. And other topics are less time-sensitive, so they demand more careful thought and plotting... so the pace slows down. But the interesting people are still here, just not as often.
May 15, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
mostly. grrr.
May 15, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only people who are not tired are the Clinton supporters and the Clinton-basher trolls.
There's no contest anymore, no underdog, no spirit. The party is going to try to end it before Puerto Rico votes so that Obama doesn't suffer another humiliating and worrisome defeat, this time at the hands of Latinos and potentially pushing Hillary ahead in the popular vote. If Obama can't close the deal before May 31, the Rules Committee will. Puerto Rico votes on June 1.
True. People are generally better at reacting than thinking.
But that down time allows the trolls to overrun the place. Just like weeds. Before long it'll be 100% Clintons-are-racists posts. It's about 75% already.
That's why I said Clintonistas should take over while the Obamanauts rest. To keep the weeds under control. :-)
May 15, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree, the party does seem to be coalescing behind Obama now. PR won't necessarily be a blow-out, though -- according to pollster, there was one poll, over a month ago, that showed a 50-37 Clinton lead (with 13% undecided). Which is big, but not giganto. And who knows what might have changed for PR voters in the last month.
I guess my point is that this community is robust and will spring back from the current lull... But if the Clintonistas want to run an Anti-Troll brigade, go for it!
May 15, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also on record saying (repeatedly) that there is no way she would accept the VP slot. I've said that she'll give up, go back to the senate and run against whoever McCain's VP is in 2016.
However, it appears I may be wrong. She may feel that this is the only way she can patch things up with AAs and the ultra left wing of the party.
I'm not sure it makes sense for either Obama or her to team up. Obama needs electoral map help from people like Richardson, Gephardt, McCaskill or Webb. For her, running as the VP on a losing ticket doesn't help her at all. McCain is going to look like Einstein after Bush. 2012 is hopeless. She wants to wait till 2016.
May 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree entirely, but she NEVER would have won the Senate seat for New York without Bill's political capital, resources and connections. So a lot hangs on that IF. If she had dumped him in 2000, none of that would have been forthcoming, and who knows where she'd have ended up launching her political career.
As for Obama, there's been buzz around him for a long time. Even since his days in the Illnois Senate. You don't get to deliver a keynote at the DNC convention if you're an unknown. I think a lot of people had predicted his ascendancy to this level for a while, but his sudden success in this campaign has surprised a lot of people, including him, I'm sure.
The one thing you don't hear about from Dems, is that he's largely succeeded not so much due to his own qualifications or message, but mostly due to how weak the Democratic field and how poor a manager his principal rival has been at managing her campaign. For all of HRC's talk, and trash-talk about Obama not closing the deal, this nomination was her's to lose, and she's done exactly that.
May 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. And let me change that to "had taken" --mouth before brains at ranting speed. I'm doing bad stand-up rather than thinking. Always interesting what pops out though.
I can't make that call about Clinton and the NY election. I still believe that had she left Bill she would have gained tremendous respect and sympathy. The political machine would still have been with her. She was lucky not to run against Rudi, he of the magic policeman's stick and "art critic" for the Pope.
I didn't see the Obama speech. I read about it. I found Kerry so boring that I couldn't bear to watch the convention. I haven't watched much at all since the Clintons have come upon us, reading about the process in the NYT, a cooler medium and I don't mean hipper. So "virtual unknown" is downright stupid. And good that you called me on it. Thanks.
May 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this much I am in agreement with you: If Obama picks Clinton for VP, it must be with the explicit agreement that Ickes, Wolfson, and most of all Penn are kicked to the curb.
May 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right on that account. I think that all of Clinton's nasty Washington fat cats should be kicked out of their nests. To quote a greater mind, "no soup for you."
She can't bring the system with her. He has to make good on finally knee-capping lobbyists.
I trust his intentions, I worry about his ability to deliver. But you have a very good point here, and one you might want to post about.
May 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of full disclosure and to paraphrase Ellen DeGeneres: "Yup, I'm black!"
Though I can't speak for all black folks either, I can throw out a couple things that come to mind when I read the results of any of these surveys.
How were the questions phrased? Were they canted to favor a particular outcome? With that in mind, here are two of the target questions.
17. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, who would you like him to choose as his vice presidential runningmate?
Runningmate ........5/11/08 ..... 3/2/08
Al Gore ................ 2 ..... 1
Anthony Zinni .......... 0 ..... *
Bill Richardson ........ 3 ..... 3
Chris Dodd ............. 0 ..... *
Colin Powell ........... * ..... *
Evan Bayh .............. * ..... *
Hillary Clinton ........ 39 ..... 36
Janet Napolitano ....... 0 ..... 0
Jim Webb ............... 1 ..... *
John Edwards ........... 10 .... 11
Joe Biden .............. * ..... 1
Joe Lieberman .......... * ..... *
Kathleen Sebelius ...... * ..... *
Mark Warner ............ 0 ..... 0
Mike Bloomberg ......... * ..... *
Sam Nunn ............... * ..... *
Ted Strickland ......... 0 ..... *
Tim Kaine .............. 0 ..... 0
Tom Daschle ............ * ..... *
Tom Vilsack ............ 0 ..... 0
Wesley Clark ........... 0 ..... *
Other .................. 4 ..... 8
None ................... *
Up to him (volunteered) 4 ..... 5
No opinion ............. 36 ..... 34
18. If Obama is the presidential nominee, would having Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential runningmate make you more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket in November, more likely to vote for the Republican ticket, or wouldn't it make much difference in your vote?
Choices .................... 5/11/08
Democratic ticket .......... 25
Republican ticket .......... 18
Wouldn’t make a difference . 54
Would not vote ............. 3
No opinion ................ 1
With regard to the VP choices, I would suggest that most of those names have been pushed by the punditry, and interestingly, other than Colin Powell, does not contain the names of any well-known black politicians. (In other words, they are a lot of unknown white folks to most black people. Given that reality, Hillary Clinton is the most "well-known" of the bunch, and the most "active.")
With regard to the second question, Hillary has no affect on whether black folks will come out and vote. (Which is to say, she will not get black folks off their behinds to vote for her because she's been added to the ticket.)
So I think the survey is a bit flawed because it's from a "white" perspective. I don't think you can much into how we working, hard-working Americans, white- and blue-collar hardworking BLACK Americans feel based on one survey from ABC. Our anger at the Clintons is probably a much deeper resevoir than that shows.
But that's my take... I don't speak for everyone. (apologies if trying to format the survey stuff is screwed, you know the "editing" capabilities here.)
May 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore is no unknown - yet she pulls 39 to his 2.
May 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
59% of African-Americans would suport Clinton as VP according to one poll of that included a total of 206 African-Americans. The AA respondents were weighed for percentage in the population. However, 206 may not be truly representative of the total voting population of African-Americans in the US.
The next question would be how would that percentage compare to the support for John Edwards or any other viable Democrat as VP. Would Clinton fare better than the other choices?
How many of that 59% would maintain support if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee?
May 14, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words; 41% of African Americans do not want Hillary to be the VP pick. That is a very high number, among the most loyal base of the Democratic party.
Then you point out, that the percentage of non African American Democrats opposed to picking Hillary for VP is even higher. That means that she is too divisive a figure to have on the ticket. Senator Obama has to pick a running mate who will not be a drag on the ticket within his own party.
There are plenty of good candidates out there that will easily be approved of by more that 80% of African Americans, and other Democrats.
May 14, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the point. We can get all the positives, add few new ones and none of the negatives. Hillary has to be a non-starter on the ticket, otherwise die-hard republicans turnout in droves rather than staying home.
May 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
25% say she presence makes them more likely to vote Democratic
54% say it makes no difference
How do you get 41% opposing her out of that?
May 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy, they mix a bit of internal illogic with intentional incomprehension and sugar it with blatant partisanship and voila, an Obama dort.
By their logic, 98% don't want Al Gore as VP just because they didn't select him as their favored VP candidate. Dating must have been hard for these people, so little time, so much rejection.
May 15, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And so hard to get home from school without getting beat up.
May 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
rofl!
May 15, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This shows me that not only whites think in Machiavellian terms, which has always been my opinion, as I am not racist enough to think hose differing from me are simpletons.
May 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"ABC survey says that 59% of Blacks would like to see Hillary as the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket"
There are at least a couple of reasons to doubt this.
First, they had a sample of only 206 black voters, hence the error might be sky-high.
Second, look back at various primary polls and you'll see many of them underestimating Obama's support at say 60-70%, when it was clear he was going for at least 85%. I was wondering back then why they published a poll which is so obviously wrong. Hence one has to think about how what people respond is correlated to what they actually think.
May 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should never have posted this Desidero. It goes against Obama supporters' claims that Hillary has irrevocably broken her ties to the black community. Now how can they write Be afraid. Be very afraid. with a straight face?
FYI--the black humor was the wittiest thing I've seen on TPM in a long while.
May 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, a majority of blacks wanted hillary to be nominee when the campaign started. the fact that they still want her in the #2 slot shows that they would rather win with her than watch her supporters stay home this november. but then again, blacks have experience voting for someone they don't identify with in order to support their interests, something the 'reagan democrats' haven't grasped yet.
May 14, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
". . . blacks have experience voting for someone they don't identify with in order to support their interests . . ."
Another good theory.
May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what 60% of blacks want Hillary as VP? 90% want Barack to be President, and they figure that Hillary as VP is the best way to get there. Anyone with half a brain can see Hillary's strong support among white voters in key states like OH and PA, and they figure with her on the ticket, McCain won't have a chance.
Unlike the many who will vote against their interests this Fall and pull the lever for McCain, black voters aren't that stupid. They want to win.
May 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary and Blacks: This can't be true"
Maybe it's not. Maybe it is
Since when do polls have anything to do with the truth? I swear cherry picking the answers to poll questions is to understanding as the Jerry Springer show is to political science.
May 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe that this is true. The power structure is really interested in having Hillary on the ticket. This is very dangerous. Hillary is not interested in doing the same things to the same degree that Obama wants to do things.
Hillary cannot be one heartbeat from the presidency, because then the Clinton's will begin plotting Obama's demise. Take that anyway you want to.
May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm gonna post this wherever I can.
No way. She's gotta go and Obama needs to stay as far away from her as possible.
She and Bill have been in league with the Tan family since 1995, the infamous Marianas sweatshop owners.
Sen. Clinton, Guam and Sweatshop $$$: A Stain on the Democratic Party
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/27/33526/9800/199/5042
May 14, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
dude
The Clintons have a very nasty history. Everyone who reads at length knows that.
No worse than JFK and RFK and daddy. RFK became one of the bravest and most principled people for a brief period before his death. Would have made a great president. He was going to take down LBJ, an asshole of the lowest order.
May 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
59% of Blacks would like to see Hillary as the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket? Must be Stockholm Syndrome. Either that, or the claims of the Clintons race baiting are greatly exaggerated.
May 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Veep Slot for Hillary
By Dick Morris
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/no_veep_slot_for_hillary.html
It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it's a hell of an idea!
Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life. They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama, but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama's connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama's links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn't follow her into Obama's camp just because she was on the ticket.
Obama's key need in the election is to demonstrate his experience and ability to do the job despite only minimal federal experience. Running with someone whose experience he, himself, derided will hardly solve this problem. Voters only credit Hillary with having experience when her record is compared with Obama's almost total lack of a record. Against McCain, she would do nothing to close the experience gap. Better for Obama to choose a senator with long tenure -- a Chris Dodd (Conn.) or Joseph Biden (Del.) -- just as Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bush chose Cheney, and Kennedy chose Johnson.
If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill's income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra -- the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan -- and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?
Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare. There is no way that Obama could trust her. She would be a throwback to the old days when the president did not consult the vice president on anything, a situation which led Vice President John Nance Garner, FDR's VP during his first two terms, to call the office "not worth a pitcher of warm piss."
If Obama got into trouble, he would have to look over his shoulder at Hillary and he would always have both Bill and Hillary around to show him up, hog the limelight, generate controversy with ill-considered remarks, and make life difficult. Would Bill stop giving speeches and making money? Would his ties with Arab nations and questionable American and Canadian businessmen end? Or would Obama have to explain his VP's husband's business dealings over and over again.
And, the ultimate question: Can Bill Clinton be put back into the bottle? Is this recent spate of angry, finger-wagging bursts of inappropriate outrage a permanent fixture of his public persona? Does Obama want to take the risk of having him on the team and having to account for his conduct?
Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.”
May 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
His life is payback. His income comes by bringing up the Clinton history to bring them down. What matters in his piece is that he is paid for it. That is not to say that he is always wrong.
May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Count me among those who don't think Hillary as VP would be good for anyone, but Dick Morris? Please. He makes Mark Penn look like a straight shooter.
May 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dam. I must have missed it when they polled me. I asked all my black friends, they didn't get polled either, interesting.
May 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, neither did I...
May 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed it too.
As for the purported 60%, one reason could be that they fully expect Hillary Clinton's words [I have experience, McCain has experience, Obama has a speech or you will have to ask when he passed the threshold of CiC; shame on you Barak Obama, shame on you!; He's not a Muslim, as far as I know...] to make repeated appearances on McCain's or Repuke related 527s attack ads. And that 60% want her on board to refute. She said them, she can refute them and then deal with the fallout. It is not a complement to wish her on the ticket, as far as I see it.
May 14, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one polled me either.
May 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me neither.
May 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd call it significant that 41% of a demographic that she once had a lock on don't even want to see her as vice-president. I'd call that a pretty handy rough gauge of the percentage of African Americans who'd stay home in November if she steals the nomination.
May 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit, she never had a lock on the black vote. More Obama spin. He's competing with O'Reilly these days.
May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the man, chimp.
May 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher you're wrong. She hasn't been vetted and putting her on the ticket will dredge up all the stuff Bill's been doing for the last 8 years too.
You can count on it.
In case you haven't noticed this isn't the 1960s where presidential dalliances go unwritten. It's not the 1990s where Abramoff can steer millions of dollars of illegal funding to Repubs under the table.
The Clintons got hundreds of thousands of dollars for his re-election in 1996 from the slimeballs in Guam. She's taken tens of thousands more from them and her neighbor who runs their US operations this decade.
She'll argue ignorance but it won't matter, nobody will believe it. The issue of corruption is killing the Republican party. Fixing that corruption is one of the central tenets of Obama's "change the way Washington does business" message. Hillary on the ticket kills that message, and gives Repubs the chance to say "they all do it", he's no better, he picked Hillary to be his running mate, look at her! She'll muddy our message like she's muddied her reputation and kill our turnout.
It's not ok if you're DeLay, it's not ok if you're failing Repub senate candidate Bob Schaffer who is getting killed by this in his race against Udall in Colorado and on the frontpage of TPM and it's not ok if you're a Clinton.
May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly post. 60% of blacks would vote for Hillary as the nominee, if you look at polls. Rasmussen had that. So the same proportion would take her as VP. The question is where the other 40% are in both polls.
May 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad they are trying to not let this man enjoy his victory. Take away all the politics and just look at what they have put him through, and people want take away something he should be able to decide with HIS supporters by citing ridiculous polls. I would be saying the same thing if Hillary were in his position right now. You know, when I was younger, my mom would tell me that I would always have to do things twice as good as white people, she came out of the civil rights erra, so Im sure there was allot of nuance in her opinion of that, but things like this reinforce that notion. It SHOULD be his choice. Deep down you people know thats true!
May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also *will* be his choice. The dude's going to be POTUS. Don't waste too much time feeling sorry for him.
May 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at whats going on thanks to Hillary in the Democratic Primary. I feel sorry for the Country just as much as him.
May 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
sean
I'm heading out from TPM for a significant time. Good to have met you brother. Don't fret on who's who. You have your friends here.
Lay down your thing all the time. Cypher
May 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
They'll come around begging her to take VP, blue man.
May 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace Be good Cypher!
May 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Victory? When did that happen. Sounding like the Celtics.
May 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nail in the coffin of Hillary as VP for me is her "He's not muslim....as far as I know" comment. That says it all. She was talking about a fellow Democrat and, even at the time she said it, the frontrunner for the nomination and she was trying to undermine him by spreading doubts about things that she knows to be fact but that are believed to be true by a group of uniformed and bigoted voters. This is divisive and religion-baiting at it's worst.
I have no doubt that any controversy that came up during an Obama/Clinton administration would inevitably lead to an interview with Clinton with her responding similarly.
Reporter-"VP Clinton, do you believe that Obama did whatever-the-heck-the-Republicans-dredged-up?"
Clinton-"Well, not as far as I know. I guess you need to ask him."
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
Bizarro Day at TPM was yesterday!
May 14, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then again, Hillary is having a hard time getting ahead of "No Opinion".
May 14, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gah, that was supposed to be in reply to Oregon Activist above...
As for Bizarro Day - every day is bizarro day at TPM. Didn't you get the memo?
May 14, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one.
May 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
African-Americans are watching both the Clintons and the Dem. party with a wary eye. 41% of AAs would not like to see her in the V.P. slot, and that figure would increase dramatically if the party were to override the result of the primary process and make her the nominee.
Hillary Clinton would be defeated by McCain in the GE if that scenario were to come about. So, rather than Obama being the most unelectable Dem. it is actually Clinton who is most unelectable, given the damage to the base which would result from the party handing her the nomination.
May 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Point New 10! Being the fact that so many like to play with the polls, what happens to that 41% blacks see this taken from him (hypotheticaly). Throw in the Good non-blacks who would feel betrayed,.....Man there is know way she would win in the General. Only thing is, they would turn that around and say, why didnt Obama control his supporters...You know, same thing they are NOT saying about Mrs Clinton now.
Double standard.
May 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit -has been all along.
And I agree - she cannot win.
May 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teeeenaaa...
I missed you Mah....Glad to see you back.
May 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank god you're back
May 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missed U!
May 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where you been, chica? You were missed.
May 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back, Tena! Are you in Taos now?
May 15, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero + Billy Glad = Matthew Weaver's head exploding
May 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew hasn't been posting much lately. Wonder if his head has already exploded.
May 14, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not agree with that. I find Desidero and Billy Glad to be committed supporters of Senator Clinton, but that Weaver guy is just a Trojan Horse racist creep.
I like the fact that Desidero and Billy have worked hard on behalf of the candidate of their choice. I would not have it any other way. Please do not tar them with the Weaver brush.
May 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Weaver is a true creep. Billy and Desidero are passionate supporters of Hillary Clinton. One reason I've never trolled them. They are, at the very least, authentic.
May 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weaver, what a crazy. Last time I read anything by him he was ranting about Obama's half black arm.
Sheeeets.
May 14, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that. I think Weaver left after the entire world jumped on him for the "hand" remark.
May 15, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite moments in the comment threads are when liam has written something after his yoga lesson: when he's calm, lucid, and ties all the messy loose ends together. It's remarkable how temperate he is when he's not demonizing Hillary.
May 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from a person named: "ready to blow a gasket"
You need to take a daily supplement to correct your acute Irony deficiency.
May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then I read on, and I discover that you have written the following;
The bad news is that none of these theories matter, since the president will be McCain.
Posted by readytoblowagasket
May 15, 2008 1:30 AM |
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're all the same guy.
May 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have some proof to back up your claim?
May 14, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one funny thing about this post: I could have sworn I'd seen posts by Desidero saying that black people weren't voting for Clinton because they're racist, but now he's posting that blacks are okay with white women. Is there a contradiction, or am I just thinking of all the other Clinton supporters?
May 14, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, like the accompanying avatar variations and last name, changes to whatever pro-Clinton, anti-Obama position that's available.
May 14, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but she (I thought it was she?) chooses great names. "Desidero Auroleu." Sounds vaguely Venetian, vaguely Czech.
May 14, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't sound Czech at all, sounds vaguely Romanian.
May 15, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only regret I have is that your avatar doesn't morph in my browser.
May 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have animations blocked, or coming back through time you became immune to time shifts? Was the vomit one static as well?
May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama was running AGAINST politics as usual. Wouldn't that rule Hillary out? Can anyone imagine her fading into the background? Can anyone imagine a stint with the Clintons without ugly personal dramas and bimbo eruptions? Can anyone imagine getting republicans in Congress to cooperate with an Obama/Clinton administration?
No, no, no, no! There are more good minds and good Democrats out there -- we don't have to put Hillary on the ticket with the best one for lack of other options.
May 14, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How come the assholes who are AGAINST politics as usual seem to only be able to repeat stupid Republican/right wing smear lines AS USUAL?
Let's go through the drill again. Bill Clinton got 10 blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky in the relative privacy of the Oval Office. This was a relatively well-kept secret, and the only reason it became public was because Clinton was forced via the great right wing conspiracy to testify about it 1 1/2 years later in court. The Paula Jones charges were bullshit, the Kathleen Willey charge was bullshit - she's a certified liar that barely escaped being charged. Most of the Gennifer Flowers charges were bullshit except sleeping with her once or twice a long long time ago.
So we know of Clinton having one short extramarital relationship 13 years ago AND ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING AFTER. Which compared to most people in Congress makes him a saint - didn't even use a hooker - I can only guess whose names were in the DC madam's phone book now that she's dead. Who here wants to bet that there's no sex scandal waiting for Obama? Are you going to act like assholes to him too if/when he gets caught? Perhaps you'd like to throw down a Gary Hart dare - "catch him if you can".
So at least fess up - most of you are wedded to politics as usual even if you like mouthing the hope and change platitudes. And quite a lot are simply sexual prudes that get off on the titillating foibles of others. And I'm simply disgusted that 10 years after the impeachment trials it's Democrats as much as anyone keeping this shit alive.
May 15, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that has surprised me most about TPM is just how uptight and prudish sexually many of the people who post here are. I really expected them to be hipper. Live and learn. Compared to Jack Kennedy, of course, who was called by friends "a regular roto-rooter," Bill Clinton was chaste and discreet. DC is a very sexy place.
May 15, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
It's counterproductive, to put it mildly.
May 15, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a correlation between an inclination for rigid moral judgment and fervid Obama support. On this site and on other sites.
When Iowa caucused for Obama (total shocker) and Huckabee (totally predictable), I started tracking it.
Anyway, if you don't have such an inclination for rigidity yourself, there's nothing much you can say about it to those that do have it; there's no bridge, just a tall border fence, with armed guards patrolling the perimeter.
May 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The verdict of historical inquiry will be that Hillary was destroyed by her father, made into a zealot whose only viable achievement she can envision is, as she put it, "a place in history." She'll have it, but only as an arrogant, self-absorbed, self-defeating insaniac. Her ascendancy is part terrific ability and part self-destructive aspirations, mirrored perfectly by her commentators.
May 14, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe, and this is reaching here, this is just like bittergate in that the effected people can make up their own minds whether they're offended or not?
No, no.. obviously the better move is pretending we can speak for an entire race.
May 15, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah!
Interesting thread, Desidero. Thanks for posting!
May 15, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be Obama's choice. He should not be bludgeoned into it.
May 15, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bad news is that none of these theories matter, since the president will be McCain.
May 15, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop making me laugh. I'm trying to get depressed about the thought of Hillary running on an Obama ticket. My Revolution in the hands of the Obamanauts?
May 15, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep going back and forth on that. At the moment I think she's not going to be on the ticket.
What do you make of Edwards's speech?
May 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
the better move is pretending we can speak for an entire race.
Isn't that beautiful in it's arrogance? Any annonymous innernets poster can threaten that the entire AA copmmunity will stay home if we don't give Barry what he wants.
May 15, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have absolutely no problems with her staying in, however I do feel that at this point in time, for either of them to win, it needs to stay clean.
She has been, so I have no problems if she runs until Obama hits the magic number, or she does.
May 15, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fifty-Nine Percent of THE BASE.
She could only get support of 59% of THE BASE.
She's a CLINTON.
I think it's too high, but take the poll at its word.
59%
What Democrat could win WITHOUT 90 % of the Black vote.
May 15, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read Jade7243's details on the survey question above.
The question asked was not, "do you oppose Clinton as VP?" but, "who is your first choice?" Jade7243's comments on the options for VP notwithstanding, I think those results really do show genuine support for Clinton, and it's essentially silent on whether there's significant animosity to the idea of her in VP slot -- at least from the questions we're looking at here.
May 15, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first time on was on CSPANs Washington Journal, they had a blond, female Republican pollster on, and my question was how could they report on the outcome of polls without also citing the context of the questions asked.
She looked at the camera, gave a creepy smile, and said she had a job for me, then proceeded to change the subject.
That is why it is helpful to look at the polls themselves to ascertain the bias present in the questions. They all pretty much do it.
One reason I don't watch television much at all, if ever. The bias and spin is really pretty overwhelming. Be aware of it in poll questions as well. Push polling has gotten ever more subtle.
May 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, first time "I" was on WJ. :)
Don't ask me about the time I talked to Rick Santorum. It still makes my blood boil.
May 15, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment