« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Climb aboard: choose Hillary now
Perhaps it wasn't the association others came up with, but for me it was:
You get a line, I'll get a pole, honey, honey
You get a line, I'll get a pole, babe...
Yes, it seems Barack is subliminally calling for Little Annie Oakley to come help him - who knows how to handle a gun better, who's handled sniper fire?
All joking aside, this is shaping up to be a disaster. Don't have the young change-and-hope organizer start talking about guns against a POW vet - he's only going to trot out a cat to lick the milk off his ears.
But the real reason I'm writing is that the VP selection is a mess. We're going to have weeks of candidates dropping out, no interest, other obligations, etc. And then he'll choose Hillary (at best) or someone no one cares about (at worst). With a lukewarm feeling among everyone - oh, the least divisive or the least of all evils? What made Obama a superstar amongst Democrats leaves him limping now heading towards the general election, a wagon missing a wheel. There's no large enthusiasm, and it will get worse as people start thinking about details.
Right now, Obama could take charge, get a bounce, and get focused - "After the progress of our VP selection committee in vetting candidates, I've returned to the conclusion that I held originally, that Hillary will bring the most enthusiasm, the most experience, the most political skill to this ticket, and provide perspectives from our must underrepresented majority - women. I know some may hold some reservations from a hard fought primary, but the most important quality in putting forth change is perseverance and tenacity, and Hillary has shown that by fighting to a near draw. Having been a Chicago field worker getting out the vote, I know the hardest task is to get people involved, and Hillary's right - she has 18 million involved, 18 million invested in her ideas, and while we may disagree some on details, we're so close and the Republicans are so far away, that the only thing I can say is, "Welcome - climb on board, let's roll up our sleeves and work together".
Here's a historical perspective: On April 27, 1972 Novak reported in a column that an unnamed Democratic senator had talked to him about McGovern. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," the Senator said. "Once middle America - Catholic middle America, in particular - finds this out, he’s dead."
A lot of people are ignoring the elections, but once they start paying attention, there's a real chance that McCain will get the benefit of the doubt over Obama.
In December, McCain's campaign was dead, he was broke, furiously behind in the polls, it was just a matter of time before he dropped out. And then he kicked everyone's ass. Either the party leaders and the pundits and the polls were wrong or the people held their nose and voted for John.
Funny, when Obama announced for President early 2007, he was polling just marginally ahead of McCain. Now after a year and a half of exposure and heavy campaigning, he's running just marginally ahead of McCain. That is extremely worrisome, especially since we now know how much the pollsters underestimated McCain.
There are less than 5 months to go before the election. The party can't even fund the convention at this point. But worse - the Republican nominee is staying in role, while the Democratic nominee is shifting his brand for the generals - once the "hope and change" candidate, now he's the tough-on-war, support Israel, anti-Revolutionary Guard and you-bring-a-knife-I'll-bring-a-gun candidate. You remember when Coke tried rolling out "New Coke" - how badly it bombed? Brand shifts are always dangerous. Hillary's been building her serious-on-security, serious-on-women's-issues brand for quite a long time. She got battered for the former in the primaries but she was always too focused on the generals. Right now we could use some serious brand management and a focused marketing campaign with a lot of fanfare and a lot of money and driving up the margins for an inevitable autumn tightening. Any doubts about Obama are balanced by Hillary, almost all constituents of the Democratic party are represented on the ticket, and we consolidate the message early rather than later. Democrats - we know how to unite and move forward. Climb aboard.
Comments (271)
Relax, things are definitely not even close to as bad as you make them out to be.
In fact, they're not bad at all. McCain didn't "kick a$$" in his primary, as you suggest. He won by default. And his campaign is still "dead" and "broke" (financially and intellectually).
The candidates are sizing each other up, and waiting for the first real opening to engage (ie - the town hall debate skirmish...). Right now, they're laying some groundwork and reintroducing themselves for the national rollout.
We Democrats need to get a grip and stop thinking that everything is falling apart. The minute we stop being afraid of our own shadow, is the minute we start being respected again as a party worthy of the Presidency (the Red Sox got over this hump in 2004, and haven't looked back). They said: "Why Not Us?"
I'm proud to be a staunch Democrat and I'm psyched to kick flabby Republican butt for the next 5 months.
June 16, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why Not Us"? That's our new motto?
June 16, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, this is a vast improvement over another Obama Supporter suggested slogan: Obama 2008: Get Used To It.
June 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
I do admit using that on Republican Bush/Cheney diehards.
June 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Dijamo, you're the one who decided it was a slogan. I just told you it was time to get used to Obama being the nominee and quit bitching about Hillary being a victim of sexism. But I see you're still bitching here and in your recent "Okay Can We Talk About It, NOW?"
The Pew/Harvard study (see link below) disproved your pet rationalization through an exhaustive study of actual media reports, as opposed to your persistent grumbling unsupported by the facts. Get over it, Dijamo. Just get over it. "Assaciousness" is passe. Ruffled feathers only fly so far. Hillary's candidacy is extinct, Your Dodoness.
http://journalism.org/node/11439
Quit Bitching and Pitch In! Obama '08
June 17, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect Assacious One, the Pew Research study only counted positive / negative "messages". Like did the media cover Hillary's "Ready From Day One message positively or not? Was their message getting out there in the media? It did not touch upon the issue of sexism or racism in the media. That is a far more interesting study that I will be waiting for and I suspect the media will be thoroughly embarrassed when it does emerge and so should the democratic party and those who were silent or participated in this crap.
As I've said, I am all for moving forward and electing Obama. But when people pull crap like we must protect Michelle Obama from sexist coverage in the media - the same effing hypocrites who denied sexism when they did even worse hatchet jobs on Hillary or even worse were silent and participated - hell yes I will take them to task on their hypocrisy. Yes to Obama - No to excusing the hypocrites among his supporters and the democratic party at large for ignoring the rampant sexism that Hillary faced in the media.
And FYI I don't bitch - I am make an argument on an issue based on logic and facts and reasoning. And it's easier to pitch in if the party and the campaign respects your opinion - by telling Hilalry supporters to STFU about the valid issue of sexism in the media and primary campaign is not going to get us anywhere.
As you know I've already made my call and I will support Obama and encourage other Hilalry supporters to do the same, but please don't take that to mean that the anger seething under the surface automatically goes away. The democratic party, Obama campaign and his supporters ignore the genuine anger of Hillary supporters at their own peril. I compared TPM to relationship counselling for Hillary and Obama supporters and I think that has much merit. You don't get anywhere in counselling by sweeping the issues that divide you under the rug. Open and honest discussion is necessary and healthy to move forward. Coming to terms with your own failures and acknowledging that the hurt feelings from the other party are valid instead of pooh-poohing them is necessary to move forward. I'm trying to make this marriage work before we head to divorce court. And your assaciousness and belittling of the issue is not helpful.
June 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your lamentations for Hillary's loss at the hands of the unfair (FILL IN THE BLANK DEPENDING ON YOUR ARGUMENT) are tiresome, as is your pet insult for me, as is your conflating of others' words with the meaning you assign them. It's called spin, and I prefer to operate outside of your O'Reillyesque "No-Spin Zone" — in a REAL no-spin zone.
Media bias is a manifestation of the media. And the media is a manifestation of business. You want to eliminate sexism from the commentary of pundits and the reporting of journalists? A worthy cause, to be sure.
Only problem: You seek to effect that change through political means, when addressing it through media business channels would make more sense and be more effective. It would also be less offensive to those of us who have been labeled Obamanauts, Kool-Aid drinkers, deluded, worshipers, Obamaniacs and assacious by you and others.
Since we have also been labeled sexist, your hyping of my simple statement into what you call a proposed Obama motto is disingenuous at best, and sore-loserism at worst. Call it what you will.
But it certainly isn't hypocritical that Obama supporters didn't feel compelled to rescue Hillary from the sexism of talking heads at a time when your candidate was herself whipping up support from "white Americans" against the black candidate and emasculating Obama through surrogates with statements about "testicular fortitude" and cajone math. After all, it was Hillary who said words are "just words" and resurrected Truman's warning about the kitchen just in time to throw most of it at Obama.
But now we're playing on the same team — or should be, if your original candidate should be believed — and yet your response to attacks on Michelle Obama is not to defend her but to note that people you once called Obamanauts and worse were hypocritically silent while the two candidates played for opposing teams. But of course you understand the difference.
A lot of us are no more fans of sexism than we are of racism. We'd like to give you more credit for not being bitchy — but only after you genuinely accept the memo that you're still taking little swipes at people who have every reason to be your best allies and worthy of a respect that amounts to more than your insult-laced lip service.
June 18, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desi - I'm invoking "Why Not Us" against "Sky is Falling" Democrats scared to admit that things are going well, and we can trust in the party's leadership. Your post was a laundrey list of worry.
I'm not worried. For once we have excellent leadership. Get on board. Contribute. Tell your friends. Democrats are back.
June 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BINGO
June 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys don't get it.
June 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What ever it is I hope it is not contagious. You have my sympathy but better you than me.
June 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the snark. I had actually wanted to have a conversation with you.
In your defensiveness, you repeatedly misunderstand what former Clinton supporters are saying. I was getting close to figuring out how to reframe the issues, but you blew it with snark. You really don't get it.
June 16, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket: There's a case for Hillary as VP. I'm not totally against it, but the case shouldn't be made at the expense of being optimistic and encouraged by the very, very solid position Democrats are in right now. We're doing well, and we're going to do even better as time goes on. We are strong, the GOP is weak, and we will keep the pressure on.
The Red Sox traded Nomar in August 2004. This was unthinkable in 2003 or even in July 2004. Dave Roberts stole second base (a player acquired for Nomar), and the rest is history.
Picking Gen. James Jones as VEEP may just be the Nomar trade. A master stroke of genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones
June 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be hilarious if the Kool-Aid Commander-in-Chief picked a running mate named Jim Jones.
June 16, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if "You guys don't get it." is deserving of anything other than a snarky reply. It is not an atempt at conversation. It is just a dissmissal. When you engage I engage. When you resort to oneliners I respond in kind.
June 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't consider it snark, although it certainly is a one-liner.
I find it unnerving that Obamanauts can't engage in rebutting negatives. You guys think that looking at both positives and negatives means defeat, means "The Sky Is Falling." It doesn't. It's reality-based. Obama has positives and he has negatives.
When I ask you guys to provide any backup whatsoever for your overly positive claims, you can't even do that! So, you provide no data to support your own claims or to refute mine. Someone like articleman below thinks Obama is going to win Alaska, Colorado, Montana, and Virginia. There is no factual basis to support this fantasy. There are fluctuating polls and media spin. The facts on the ground say that Republicans outnumber Democrats in quite a few of those states, if not all of them. By sheer numbers the Dems will lose those states.
I'm simply not a member of the I'll Just Shut My Eyes Whenever I See Negatives Party.
Then you say this downthread, Larry:
Only an insecure person could possibly think this way. A secure person would consider it a sign of strength to pick one's opponent as a running mate.
So either you have a supportable argument or you don't. Don't pretend you have one when all you really have is a strong opinion. Strong opinions are fine, but you haven't shown me anything to honestly persuade me to side with anything you've said.
June 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOur claims are disengenous at best. You claim that no evidence is offered but when I presented a link to the excelent trend charts at Pollster you said that you do not like to look at 'prety dots'. It is those who are claimg to be Clinton supporters here who have refused to consider negatives.
Sen Obama has negatives but he is already the nominee. The question now is wether Sen Clinton brings more to the ticket than she takes from it. The evidence that I have seen from the polling that has been linked to by commenters here shows that her negatives out weigh her positives by a no trivial margin.
June 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is where you fail, Geater. You don't seem to understand (or believe?) that I want the Dems to win in Nov. as much as you do. There is nothing disingenuous about anything I've said, and I'm not sure how you're using the word, because I've said nothing that warrants such an accusation.
I was in a rush. The Pollster trend chart does not adequately display what I was referring to, which was Obama's slippage in the polls since he clinched the nomination. Therefore, I linked two of the most current polls by the biggest name pollsters (which are listed underneath your chart with the pretty dots, btw). The polling websites themselves confirmed what I had originally claimed, that Obama's bump is diminishing. I dismissed the trend chart because it doesn't show which dot falls on which date (take a closer look; at least it doesn't show up on my computer screen), therefore it's unusable for this discussion.
I'm not disputing that Obama's the presumptive nominee. Obama has negatives for picking up enough electoral college votes. That's the issue. So ideally his VP choice needs to help in that capacity.
Using favorability polling to determine anything is fairly useless, not hard evidence. Here's an article on Pollster about this very topic. In it, the author says:
Hillary Clinton is the most polled-about person on the planet, believe it or not. She has always had high negatives, yet she managed to rack up 18 million actual votes. The high negatives argument is bunk. I'm trying to locate a trend chart of Clinton's favorability ratings plotted from 1992 to present. From it, I remember reading that there were only two times in Clinton's national public life when her negatives were low: one was during the Lewinsky hubbub, the other was when she left the WH. When/If I can find the chart, I'll post it.
Believe me, you can't like Hillary Clinton without coming to terms with her "negatives." There is no buyer's remorse with Clinton: anyone supporting her has already walked through that fire. Those who couldn't take it dropped by the wayside long ago.
So far no one has demonstrated, let alone offered, a compelling, competitive alternative VP choice to Clinton. In fact, many have done one of two things: 1) displayed a frightening lack of knowledge and 2) inadvertently provided arguments that Clinton should be the VP choice. The scariest part is I don't think people even realize that they've done that!
One more nugget from the article I linked to:
This is the information I'm looking for. Anyone have it?
June 16, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
gasket - "the VP selection is a mess"
I'll discuss his negatives, but the above line in the original post, among others, is not reality-based. It's fearmongering to stoke fraidy cat Dems. No thanks. And I'm glad you picked up that I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to move on from infighting, and get to business beating McCain. I am a proud Democrat. Not a worry-wort.
BTW - Ever read articlemans posts? They are up to your eyeballs in facts. If he says Alaska's in play, it's in play.
June 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I noticed there's some knee-jerk disconnect between Obamanauts and Clintonistas. We speak two different forms of the same language. I've been trying to put my finger on it for months. It's like a dysfunctional family or sibling rivalry. Obamanauts never want to hear what Clintonistas have to say because you think we'll drown you guys out with our older-sibling know-it-all-ness. I'm a middle child, so I understand the teeth-gnashing frustration of being bossed as well as the unparalleled joys of bossing someone. ;-)
"The VP selection is a mess" was probably based on Mark Warner's recent bowing out, Jim Johnson's resignation, and Obama's mixed messages. Besides, I like Warner; maybe Ghost did too.
Otherwise, I don't get spooked by what you call "fear-mongering," although some Obama folks obviously do. This is an idea that's worth more rumination. Thanks.
I'm not impressed with a state that has no history of electing Democrats and only 3 electoral votes. But that's me.
June 16, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
gasket - I like your analogy about why we Obama v. Clinton supporters still talk past each other. "Dysfunctional family" is right. We'll get past it. My guess is about 15 seconds into McCain's first response at the first debate. It's been 8 long years... We will unite.
Re: VP candidates dropping out: There's a ton of reasons for that. Not passing the vetting process is my usual guess. If they know they have Skeletons in their closets, they don't let themselves get too far (I always think that these billionaires like Bloomberg or others love the ego boost, but always demure at the end because they know they've lived like Playboys..). Or there's simple family concerns; it's too tough for most people.
June 16, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys don't get it.
Posted by readytoblowagasket
June 16, 2008 3:34 PM
This is your way of saying you want to have a conversation; fascinating approach. What do say when you don't want to have a conversation; something along the lines of; hello there I have something I want to discuss with you?
June 16, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, I'd already been discussing this in about 30 comments before you arrived.
June 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your superiority is daunting I tell you.
Daunting.
June 16, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, little brother! Where've you been?
June 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting choice of words. Well keeping with the trend though.
June 17, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you're so fucking grumpy! You came to the thread late, and now you're whining because you aren't picking up the sequence in the order it evolved. The dark cloud hangs over you, my friend, not over the conversation. Lighten up, you're misreading left and right.
I actually made some headway because of interacting with Wade Hussein Blazingame34 and Larry "Graph" Geater.
June 17, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Success (for both sides)! The Unity Pony Rides Again! :)
June 17, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow your condescension is justified because I joined a thread late?
10-4
As for you having a real conversation - yes it does improve down-thread. Does your condescension still seem acceptable? Perhaps only to you and your superior ego.
I am for a good argument. I am negative on this "I know more than everyone" posture you and Desi like to take. So if that offends you, by all means ride off on the high horse of yours.
June 17, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to ignore your crankiness, Elliottness. My original conversation started downthread. I didn't get exasperated until I went back upthread to continue with Larry Geater. But that's the part you read first: my exasperation.
In the process, I figured something out: I figured out that you Obamanauts get all offended because the Clintonistas sound like older siblings to you guys. I expressed this revelation before you got here. Then I teased you with it, but you were too surly. In fact, you articulated my point.
I understand that you react negatively to something about how Desi and I frame our responses. It's not that we know more than everyone, it's that a) we've been burned more often than you have by sheer virtue of our advanced age; and b) we thrive on detail and intricacy. Think about the difference between Clinton and Obama: Obama is soaring idealism, Clinton is detailed policy wonk. There's nothing inherently right or wrong with either one, but they are two different personality types. I've often thought a certain type of person is naturally attracted to Obama and another very different type is attracted to Clinton. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that; each side just need to find a language we can both speak so we stop setting each other off. It works both ways. Get it?
June 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the LVRJ Putting her on the ticket seems to take Nevada out of play.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/19954494.html
Are you sure Hillary is the best choice?
June 16, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me a better one - say in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida or Michigan or California. Screw Nevada.
June 16, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody with lower negatives. People do not vote for a VP but they might vote against one. Do not look for a candidate who brings something to the ticket. Look for some one who takes nothing away.
June 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right! And Hillary has HIGH negatives - especially in the fall-out following her exit:
http://www.slate.com/id/2193684/
http://www.slate.com/id/2192829/
At this point, the rabid folks who desperately want Hillary on the ticket will not be happy even if she's VP. Nothing, short of a riot at the convention will satisfy them. So, Obama should just rip off the band-aid and pick someone who will actually be a good candidate, not the poll-driven choice of the moment. If anyone can elevate a VP out of obscurity, it's him.
BTW, Ghost, thanks so much for this outstanding example of a Bandwagon Fallacy.
June 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now show us some numbers of other VP options. Thanks.
June 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gladly!
Survey USA has polled a bewildering variety of VP prospects across a range of states.
www.surveyusa.com
I should add that I actually think this data a fun toy to play with but not actually informative - at this point all it can be is a test of name recognition. Still, it's not like the data isn't there.
By the way, they also asked the following question of different regional areas:
“Is Hillary Clinton more interested in what’s best for America? Or more interested in what’s best for Hillary Clinton?”
Greater NYC (WABC-TV):
What’s best for America: 50%
What’s best for Hillary Clinton: 46%
Greater Philadelphia (WCAU-TV):
What’s best for America: 44%
What’s best for Hillary Clinton: 48%
Washington State (KING-TV):
What’s best for America: 39%
What’s best for Hillary Clinton: 56%
Note that in both Washington state and Pennsylvania polling, Hillary was presumed to be more interested in herself than in the country. Now, personally, I don't think that's true but the perception sure can't be helpful in a swing state like PA. And that's one she won.
June 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously don't know you just posted a bunch of meaningless garbage that has no bearing whatsoever on who should be the Democratic vice presidential candidate.
June 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only those who agree need apply.
June 16, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Misread due to grumpiness.
June 17, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The odds are very much in favor of Obama winning this election, and the Republicans know it. Obama certainly shouldn't be stampeded into taking Clinton, and he won't be. He has let it be known that he wants a VP with whom he can work comfortably.
While there are issues with Webb, he also brings stuff to the ticket that Hillary can't. And if Webb doesn't work out, there is a mystery candidate who will surely put Obama over the top. (See story below.)
"It's going to be Webb, Probably"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
June 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, yeah, extremely well-said.
June 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To go back to your first example, what does Hillary have that compares to McCain's POW status? I think she kind of blew it in the bravery department when she made up the story about getting shot at.
Also, being a POW sucks, but it doesn't mean anything except a huge hunk of bad luck followed by mediocre luck (not dying), and then some great luck (getting out).
If we need to stand up to McCain, which really should be easy enough to do, we can always throw Wes Clark at him. He actually got good grades and West Point, and led men into battle, was wounded, etc.
Hillary brings nothing to the table on that front.
June 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But she made up for it in the chutzpah department!
June 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say the same thing about the CEOs who have driven their companies (end their employee's retirement packages) into the ground?
June 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lost me, Elliottness.
June 17, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, are you sure you understand anything about courage or rebuilding one's life after horrible circumstances? Is tossing a general at an ex-POW really such a strategy?
June 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are looking for someone who can lead. McCain has NO EXPERIENCE in this. Neither does Hillary. McCain recovered from his injuries and made a success out of himself. That doesn't make him more qualified than someone else on those merits alone. Even if it did, how do you tie that to Hillary being a good counterweight? She certainly had nor greater hardships than many women, and far fewer than most.
June 16, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have found that when you are arguing with people like desidero and readytoblow - the only thing that really works is:
You are right and I am a lowly spit wad drying on the blackboard.
Otherwise it is non-stop dismissal. Because clearly you are not old ehough/smart enough/experienced enough/quick enough/... to hold a candle to these seasoned pros.
Re-read the post that started it: Concern trolls by a bunch of people who were just arguing that the nomination is not normally wrapped up until June.
Now we have a total break down in the time continuum and the only person who can solve it is Hillary.
Needless to say - it is still June.
June 16, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could try adding logic and wit and a little bit of accepting other opinions to your toolkit and we might be able to hold a conversation. There are lots of people even on TPM who I disagree with but we have real dialog, and I've certainly admitted mistakes. So climb down off the high horse and have a cup of joe.
June 17, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kettle, meet pot.
June 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said "wit", not cold rehashed trite expressions. For all I know you're a Turing machine.
June 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner. Solid campaigner. Pulls VA from red to blue. Philosophically compatible with Obama. Young enough to follow in Obama's footsteps in 8 years. Has "Appalachia Appeal". No baggage and no Bill.
June 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner withdrew himself already.
June 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the clouds or the stars falling?
What is the average time frame for picking a VP?
What is the average number of candidates considered?
How many stay in to the end?
Besides average numbers- how big of a variation is there in the aforementioned data sets? I would hazard to guess that the VP selection process is a relative event tied to the candidate and his(her) team.
As I understand it - when the process is done, there is only one VP choice and many who drop out or do not make the cut. Sounds similar to the nomination process. The argument is often made that the "best" candidate rarely makes it through either process.
Meanwhile - I say we let the concern trolls pick the VP. Clearly they are the most concerned about it. That should be worth something.
June 16, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're up way past your bedtime.
June 17, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not want to see Hillary on the ticket. She lost that option when she stated attacking Obama and giving the GOP talking points.
Her actions were either ignorant or stupid: either of which disqualifies her.
June 16, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I'm not recommending your post because it has the same 'entitlement' crap we have seen for months and are tired of hearing.
'But she did so well!' you say? Aye, that is why she didn't get any funding from her supporters: Republicans will vote for her in an effort to throw the primaries, but they'll not send her money.
Sorry if I have come across as harsh, but I really am tired of hearing this. She lost as people lose every election cycle.
June 16, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't come across harsh, you come across as delusional. Hillary raised upwards of $240 million. And nowhere did I say "entitlement" - I gave solid reasons both why Obama needs to do something quickly and why picking Hillary can help him short- and long-term. Short of that, Obama may lose as people lose every election cycle. And unlike primaries, there are no upsides to coming close in a general election except a very slim possibility of running again and winning in 4/8 years or getting to do your favorite hobby like Gore. I would take Mark Warner's decision very seriously. Historically there's about a 25% chance of becoming President from the VP position, much much better than being any old candidate from the pack. When top contenders turn it down, you should start asking whats up.
June 16, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner did the right thing. If he dropped out we would be stuck with the loathesome Gilmore as our next senator! I appreciate his loyalty to our state, and who knows? Maybe he knew he was at the bottom of a short list and was afraid that his senatorial campaign would be negatively afftected by speculation that he was going to be the VP choice.
I don't think it signals anything negative about Obama; if anything it signals a really strong Democratic Congress starting in 2009!
June 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to ignore the polls showing a joint ticket would kick McCains butt.
I think the problem is that people don't realize that Obama just barely won the nomination. That McCain is widely perceived as a moderate, and that our candidate is actually a politician.
I think it's a mistake for Obama to move to the right, he was already to the right of Clinton and he'll eventually start to alienate his supporters. It doesn't surprise me to see this, I expected it. I'd think with Hillary on the ticket, that wouldn't be a worry, he could remain vague and let her hash out policy. She's better at that.
I'd like to join the crowd here and believe this election is in the bag, but all the indicators are that it isn't. After 8 years of Bush, I find that hard to believe, but oh well.
June 16, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was to the "right" of Clinton on one issue - health care mandates. Clinton ran to the right of Obama on a host of foreign policy issues, although she eventually committed to a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. There was a reason that the primary battle stopped being about issues and became so much about personalities. It was because they were very close to one another on the issues.
What I get from your post is you are a bit overly wary of Obama while you would trust Clinton on policy even if she started pulling more to the right than you're comfortable with. Which is interesting because half the party has the exact opposite viewpoint. Try to remember that. It's also clear that you'd view Clinton on the ticket as her governing by proxy. It's for that exact reason that Clinton would be a disastrous choice for Obama. When he governs, he can't have a sizable contingent within his own party believing that someone else was pulling the strings.
But honestly, did you really think that either one of them wouldn't be forced to come to the center in the general? Regardless of who won, they were going to have the problem of attracting independent voters while consolidating their party's base. I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it. McCain is the alternative, and he's got a similar problem. The difference is, his base is insane and truly scary. That alone will help rally the party.
June 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's seen as wealthy and not ashamed of it, liberal but not vindictive towards business, and strong on defense. She came to the center long ago. Obama is veering in now.
The issue is how a Democrat wins in November. The waters are getting rougher as we speak.
June 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just say that your "concern" is touching.
June 16, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of the primary season stuff will fall away. Harsh words, scars, etc. For me, the RFK reference really really got under my skin (right or wrong.) But things fade, funny enough.
But beyond all polling, state-winning, etc., the key fact for me is that this is a time of multiple, rolling crises for America. And 5 months is a LONG time. How Obama reacts/responds is gonna be key - to war news, Wall St, homes lost, floods, gas prices, etc. These are gonna eat "who said what to whom first."
HRC doesn't help or hinder Obama on most of those issues. What WOULD be seen, if she was chosen - and this would swamp the various hard words - is that, by CHOOSING her, this guy had enormous breadth. Was capable of taking the wider and longer view. Because EVERYONE now knows these two battled like hell. And then to basically take the opposing general IN? That would be enormously unifying, and statesmanlike.
This is NOT said out of HRC-love. But what Jason/Jennifer Public WOULD see is a real-world sign of someone who could, at least from time-to-time, operate beyond ego. Beyond hurt feelings. and that is one hell of a recommendation, when you're looking for a CIC, someone who can rally a nation to make changes or sacrifices, who puts people's problems above their own interest.
June 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the way Sen Clinton's supporters have acted the only thing choosing her would make Obama look like is weak. He would look like he buckled under the presure. Looking like a wimp is very bad for some one seeking the presidency.
June 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly do not take that view that at all. I think it's a rather silly one. I said she's better at hashing out (explaining) policy, and she is. That's why she won every debate they had.
I'm not crazy about either of them, so I'm not emotionally vested in the outcome. Clinton was to the left of Obama on several issues, not just healthcare.
June 16, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won the debates because she, along with her husband, have spent their lives learning to use words as weapons and as a political tool. They're both masterful at it, and that's a credit to the both of them. Hillary Clinton also has a masterful command of policy which along with her linguistic skills makes her formidable in any debate format. It's one of her real strengths as a politician.
I was impressed that Obama was able to improve his performances so much over the course of the campaign.
Health care mandates and foreign policy were the big two. Everything else was purely superficial, or trust me, they would have been explored extensively by both.
June 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a good point. I'd agree FP and HC/economy are the biggies this election season.
June 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Sen. Clinton does not in fact have "mastery" of policy as the gas tax holiday fiasco showed so clearly. She is clearly far more interested in the political expedience of policies, their symbolic value in showing that she in interested in doing "something" to address the concerns of the people, than with the likelihood that those policies would indeed make people better off. I could give several examples, but the gas tax thingy was revealing enough.
She has a mastery of details of many programs, for sure. She has a huge catalog of possible responses to problems--the micro-policy, solutions for every concern that Bill was so good at. But her intuition about what would happen to X if you changed Y is not above average. Obama clearly understands how economics works better than she does.
June 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I showed a study where in fact a tax holiday pushed down prices long term, not just temporarily. The article was entitled something like, "It worked in practice, but will it work in theory?"
All the economists from 1930 would be blown away by the current theories and framework of today. I can't imagine what must be going on in the head of an ancient Greek economist.
June 17, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, she 'appeared' to win because he refused to be seen to be attacking a woman. That will not be the case when he faces McBush.
June 17, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No she won because she did her homework and he didn't. Obviously Obama learned something because he understands debate is not his strong suit. It's smart of him to avoid them. Delivering inspiring speeches is his strong point, and that's just fine.
The nomination is over. There is no longer any need to implant your knee deeply into your forehead whenever the name Clinton comes up in a (gasp) positive manner.
June 17, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
" I'd think with Hillary on the ticket, that wouldn't be a worry, he could remain vague and let her hash out policy. She's better at that.
"
Yeah, that NAFTA sure was great, wasn't it? I'm sorry, this woman had all the money in the world and all of the press behind her to start out with, and she BLEW IT. Nothing recommends her as a good campaigner, or a good VP pick. Sorry, she's DONE.
June 16, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero -
Our opinions tend to be colored by who our candidate is/was. While you and many of her supporters see Hillary as the obvious choice, many Obama supporters do not. If Hillary is the right choice, in the long run, she will be asked. For him to come out now and choose her would be a strategic mistake, He will look weak - he was forced into it.
I am personally not a big fan of her on the ticket, but my mind can be changed. I will hold judgement to see how she campaigns for him. Whether she can stay on message. How does she handle a supporting role and not the lead. Can the - what do you do with Bill? Question be answered.
June 16, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Tell me who if not Hillary.
2) Bill has a career making tons of bucks. Forget him. He wasn't making big news in 2005, was he?
3) Obama's not looking any stronger as the weeks go by. Better to bite the bullet now and get some momemtum going.
4) Hillary has better message control than most people. What exactly would be the benefit of her to run on the ticket and undermine him? She's been handling a supporting role all of her life, including First Lady so many years and playing junior Senator the last 8. I just can't believe people don't think 2 seconds and get obvious answers.
June 16, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have thought for more than two seconds and it is obvious to me that Sen Clinton's negatives are at least as powerfull as her positives as a candidate and that choosing her would violate the first rule of picking a VP - 'First do no harm'.
June 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. But the mood of the country has changed on the Hillary question. There is plenty of time for Obama to poll and see how things shake out. Biden seems strong or another person with military credentials who might help bring in a state. Not Sam Nunn.
June 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just can't believe that people would think this is an effective way to get people to consider their opinions.
June 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason is that Desidero is not seeking consideration, he/she/it is seeking acceptance as fact.
Classic logic leap of faith.
June 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
umm what brand is hrc building? she flip flopped on her brand more times than the lord allows..are we talking about the same hrc???
i take nothing away from an obviously talented politician such as hrc, but please stop stuffing her down obama's throat...can the man choose his won vp? and when he does, for better or for worse we just have to live with it, even if it is the very "disastrous combo obama/hrc", but please let it be his choice...
June 16, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's free to lose it however he wants to.
June 16, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, he's so obviously losing right now..... beat Clinton, ahead of McSame in the polls; yeah, he's in a lousy position.
June 16, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The banality of your condescension is staggering.
June 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha.
That would make a great bumper sticker
June 16, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of who Obama ultimately decides to have as a running mate, what Obama supporters need to consider is that if you want Hillary supporters to back Obama then you may want to start pointing out why he is a good choice instead of why Hillary is bad and her supporters are "whiny", "stupid" etc. Anyone familiar with the hackneyed expression - "You catch more flies with honey"?
June 16, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of who Obama ultimately decides to have as a running mate, what Obama supporters need to consider is that if you want Hillary supporters to back Obama then you may want to start pointing out why he is a good choice instead of why Hillary is bad and her supporters are "whiny", "stupid" etc. Anyone familiar with the hackneyed expression - "You catch more flies with honey"?
June 16, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the "you lost so just shut up" argument is a bit lacking in civility, isn't it?
June 16, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but you gotta ready-made comeback - "no, YOU shut up!"
from time to time, however, you may chance upon a really good debater. this can be dangerous. so if they pull out a zinger like... ummmm.... "no YOU shut up FIRST!".... well, confronted with superior firepower like that, i tend to just shut up.
June 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are no good debaters here.
June 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh yeah? well... you shut up FIRST!
beat that, car-part.
June 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beings that your moniker implies less than level headed, and I rarely hear much besides condescension come from your keyboard... I guess you do have a lock on the role of final arbiter.
What is there to truly debate on a concern blog post?
The speed at which the sky is falling?
June 16, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone, I think maybe Chuck Todd, mentioned awhile back that he expected the general election would either be a landslide or a squeaker. One extreme or the other. I think I agree with that prediction.
I think all the other VP choices out there right now are kind of like micro-targeted choices. I've agreed with you on this for weeks now Des, so this is nothing new, but to choose Hillary is to go all in. Go big or go home, you know? They really could be an unstoppable force.
Bee, where'd you see the polling with the two of them on the ticket? I haven't seen any. I kind of stopped following the polls religiously since the primaries ended though.
June 16, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Senator Obama gets a 5% edge with Clinton on the ticket.
June 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see their negatives reacting synergisticly rather than their positives doing so.
June 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I get an Amen?
My "concern" regarding negatives is that Hillary will push away many republicans from voting for Obama. My unscientific polling has told me that every republican I know can and will vote for Obama. Hillary will kill the deal.
I do not think this is a be-all-end-all thing, but I have a feeling that those same republicans always vote and will vote against Hillary when the time comes. Why? Because many of them do not want another round of Clinton. They do not want more Bush either, but the idea of Hillary and Bill back in the WH is harder to swallow than decrepit McCain.
I get it that focus is "Democrats" but the country is bigger than either party. Hence the swing to the middle by every candidate who runs.
June 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The election will either be close or it won't - you cannot go wrong with a prediction like that!
June 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I know. It struck me as that at first as well too. But there is a difference between a Reaganesqe win and the Bush/Gore results.
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
2000 would count as a squeaker I imagine :)
June 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just stumbled across this article from today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_yes/
June 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, pretty much what I mention in one response above, but I'm also presenting the idea that speed and decisiveness in choosing increases the benefit in a number of ways. How long does it take to figure out Bill Richardson is a no go, that Wes Clark is a dud campaigner, that Edwards didn't bring a lot last time, that Jim Webb is too conservative/not a strong enough force for Democrats, etc. Obama already damaged himself with the selection committee. I suppose the wait now is to show that the choice is Obama's, fine, give it another week to prove the point and then grandstand it. Time is not our friend.
June 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Obama's campaign has proven to be the masters of political stagecraft and timing over and again, I trust them to time this well as well.
June 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean getting the GOP leaders to tell John McCain to drop out early? ;-)
June 17, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner was an extreme longshot at best - he made it known that he wanted consistancy for his young family that the Virginia Senate seat certainly offered compared to a chance as VP. Besides he is young enough to run in four or eight years time as his own man.
Hillary ripped off the Edwards campaign almost as soon as Edwards bowed out. Hillary was the experience/inevitable, Obama was Change and Edwards was the populous candidate. I think Edwards brings most of Hillary's positives without nearly her negatives. I also think Obama and Edwards could work together much easier. And while Edwards was a senator, he's basically been a national figure for the last four years and was fully vetted by the Rove machine. He's campaigned nationally and has debated Cheney (though admittedly I don't remember how that turned out). Basically his last four years was planning this years Presidential run, much like Clinton, but unlike CLinton he has no paper trail of votes that could be used against him.
His only drawback (and it's a biggie) is that he voted for the war, spoke strongly for it and reiterated his support in 2004 when he was trying to look tough enough when the decision was "Should America change horses mid-stream".
June 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't remember Edwards getting slammed for 'mentioning' that Cheney had a gay daughter? Oh my, what a to do that was. It was really something.
I haven't seen any head to heads with Obama/Edwards vs. McCain. Maybe we'll start seeing some of that. It should be interesting.
I would have preferred Edwards at the top of the ticket, but I'd be happy with him as VP. I do remember he said he wouldn't take it if offered, though. I think he'd be quite effective as the head of HHS.
June 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Survey USA did some head to heads with Edwards on the ticket. The ticket polled well but some of that may be entirely on name recognition. They also, irritatingly to me, did not poll an Obama/Clinton ticket with which to compare.
Here's the one for Virginia:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/22/vice-presidential-matchups-virginia/
In my opinion, they wasted space on polling an Obama/Hagel ticket. I like Hagel's views on the war, but other than that I see no chance in hell of him being on the ticket.
June 16, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was interesting, thanks. I think I tend to agree with Des here, as much as I like Edwards, I don't see him helping the ticket too
much, though the polls you cited surprised me. I think it will be helpful enough for him to have a cabinet post.
June 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama is going to offer VP to Biden. Hillary is out. Edwards is out. Hillary goes back to the senate. Edwards gets poveryy tzar. Just a thought on this.
June 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like Edwards put himself back in the hat the other day. Not a bad pick, IMHO.
June 16, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just not sure about Edwards. He didn't really do so great last time around, even though he was my first pick for pres in 04.
June 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has little government experience, and that's not going to balance Obama well.
June 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I might add that Hillary has a known following, Edwards didn't pull that many people anywhere.
June 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just people like me.
:(
June 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards didn't even win South Carolina, where he was born and raised. He won one county in SC.
June 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I donno dude. Hair like that..... well..... I'd consider giving my vote to a man with hair like that, just to watch it fly into disaster zones, take a 140 mph whippin', and keep on tickin'.
P.S. Liked Edwards. But LOVED them follicles.
June 16, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi - I agree Hillary is the best choice for a win, but is there a mutual fit here and can the trust be rebuilt after a hardfought campaign? The relationship between an effective President & VP requires trust on both parts. The risk in an Obama-HRC ticket is large on both sides, but the rewards are many - being in the best position to win back the White House and having the two people who have generated the most excitement in the democratic party in the white house.
I don't want Obama to pick Hillary if it is just a figurehead position with no impact on policy so he can assert himself as President and prove it's presidency and his alone. There's many other places where Hillary can have greater impact if that's what the intention is. I don't want another VPs Gone Wild aka Dick Cheney Fourth Branch of government either. The VP should be a supporting role with influence on policy, but ultimately it is Obama's administration.
On the positive side, Obama is no GWB and he knows that if elected it will be his administration regardless of who he chooses as VP candidate. I don't see him ceding his authority over to HRC as Bush did to Cheney. I see him being fully engaged on the many issues facing out country. But the obvious counterpoint is Obama is nobody's GWB - he didn't run for president because he likes campaigning but is too lazy to actually do the work of governing so he turns it over to Cheney and his neocons.
If not Hillary, I like Biden - he brings some authority on foreign policy & Iraq - his strategy should have been implemented years agao and if it had, we could have been bringing our troops home years ago. But Biden has his downsides too - including a tendency towards gaffes and being quite assacious sometimes. And if you want to talk about a guy with a lack of message control and going off messgae, Biden's your guy. But I still like him.
Hillary is very disciplined even when promoting a policy for an administration that she is not fully behind. I agree the VP choices in the Democratic party that are being bandied - particularly Jim Webb - can't attract as much excitement or put us in a better position to win than Hillary.
June 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden would be great if someone tapes his mouth shut.
June 16, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the same for Webb, as well. I think he's the worst choice out there.
June 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Webb is a disaster. If he never said another word the rest of his life, it wouldn't make any difference.
Besides, anyone who tries to take a gun into the Senate is fucking crazy.
June 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with both of you. I don't get the media man crush on Webb. He's wrong on so many levels.
June 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo really nails it.Unlike Hillary, Webb can't boast about his heroics under sniper fire,his principled stand on the Iraq Invasion,or his organizational/financial prowess.Add to that Webb's inability to hire ethical,effective advisors ala Penn,Davis,McCauliff,and It's clear Hillary's the winning choice. Oh, and Webb would only dilute Obama's core message of Change,While Hillary clearly embodies a break from D.C.'s Business As Usual.Are those Celestial Choirs I hear?.......
June 17, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Webb will have to defend saying women want to go to military schools because they are "horny" and his repeated arguments against women in the military including one titled "women can't fight". He calls affirmative action state sponsored racism. His stannce on the Civil War. He's been a democrat for a whopping two years and has only been in the Senate since 2007 - highlighting Obama's own 3 1/2 years in Washington. And keep in mind he only won VA Senate seat with 53% of the vote against George "Macaca" Allen and his sexism was made into a big issue there.
Yes Webb could help Obama in VA, but there'll be a lot of women that see this as another sign that their views are not taken seriously when you choose a VP with so much sexist baggage.
But I could be wrong. At least of Obama chooses Webb, he can borrow Jim Webb's handgun he smuggled into the Senate to shoot himself in the foot.
June 17, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. They had to outlaw canes after what happened to Charles Sumner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southern_Chivalry.jpg
June 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't happen to like Webb, but he might make a good running mate for Obama. Don't like him but see something there.
June 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no, no, no. I can't say this enough about Webb.
You will see videos like this on endless loop from now till the election if he's the choice:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JNlGEkMaCqQ
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No secret that I'd like Hillary on the ticket, though I fully understand the reasons for being against it and also think it's likely not going to happen. Still would like to see that though.
I'd be okay with Edwards. Biden, I like, but I think maybe better in a Cabinet post. Although, I did like him on one of the morning shows I watched recently. In the end, my opinion on this obviously means little.
But I honestly believe that Webb is the worst choice. I have an instantly bad reaction to him.
June 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like him. But I'm not sure that I want Obama to pick someone based on who I like or not. Aside from many other great traits, Obama is the Greenest candidate to ever get this far. He is so Green that even the Nader people will stick with him. He's young. The VP will never be president in my opinion. People to the right like Webb. He's an interesting personality who is a perfect foil to McCain. He can't be attacked on defense from the right. I think he helps Obama win many votes from the middle and leaning right. I still don't like him. But I can see it.
June 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then Obama should pick Hillary.
Checkmate. You're out.
June 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's an issue of checkmate I'm out. It's just an idea. Are you playing chess with people or discussing?
June 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because naturally whether he likes them or not is the only factor Obama needs to consider.
June 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems bad. But I'd want to know if he was swift-boated here. But the mere existence of the tape would be a problem. What was his defense? Seems like we'd want that anyway, even if he weren't a VP choice. He has to hold the senate seat.
June 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you responding to me? I can't tell with the convoluted comments here.
If so, watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UebXkJhGpyA&feature=related
This all stems from, it seems, an article he wrote, or helped write a while back. I don't have a nail on the full details at the moment, but I can look into it more. He has defended himself more recently, but I'm not sure how much that helps. You want to go into this thing with a guy who's even been accused of rampant sexism after this primary? I sure as hell don't.
Worst part of the video is when Russert asks him about the horny women part. Watch the look on his face. Not good. Not good at all.
June 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary's been building her serious-on-security, serious-on-women's-issues brand for quite a long time."
Serious on security? Does being serious on security include comments about "obliterating Iran"?
Serious on women's issues? Does that include shafting the predominantly poor female workers of WalMart while an executive there? Does that include staying with her falandering husband, only for her own political ambitions?
Give me a break. Clinton is a old school centerist and a very polarizing character. You want to insure a John McCain victory come this fall, put Clinton on the ticket. That will mobilize the Republicans and piss off enough independents and Democrats that it will shift the favor to McCain. Obama has a broad appeal and has the potential to bring many states into play that have been traditionally red. At worst he turns them purple and at best turns them blue. With Clinton on the ticket those states remain red and potentially turn purple states red. Winning Florida isn't worth the potential losses across the country. Leave Clinton on the sidelines and embrace a new political movement in America.
June 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how many times "keeping your marriage together despite rough times" is seen as a negative thing. I guess Hillary should have pulled a Demi Moore and gone and found a boy toy? I don't know what mythical universe you people live in.
"embrace a new political movement" - how does "you bring a knife, I'll bring a gun" differ from "obliterate"?
June 16, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
She hurts in Oregon and Washington, states she might not even win were she nominated. She hurts in Alaska and Montana, two states that could be reasonably close. She hurts in Colorado, which she'd lose outright had she won. Three of those are states Obama will win, totaling 30 electoral votes.
She helps in Ohio, Florida (which we'll lose anyway), and Arkansas might be within reach with her, since Obama's only down 9 there.
It's basically a push at best based on national data showing that 22% say her presence makes someone more likely to vote for Obama, 21% say less likely. That is before the use of her unwise primary attacks on Obama as unfit to command, never mind her baggage, let's assume the baggage is totally taken account of in that number. Anyone who screams that it's all one way or the other is deluded. The data don't support your post.
June 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a lot of polling information. Don't you think that this can't be handicapped so early, as these polls will change as Obama runs against McCain on his own?
June 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think Hillary would lose Oregon and Washington for the Dems if she were the VP choice, articleman? Are you smoking crack?
June 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Republicans and Independents are outregistering Democrats in Alaska.
Latest numbers show:
71,832 registered Democrats
119,031 registered Republicans
251,196 independents
Alaska has voted for a Democrat for president exactly once in its entire history: LBJ in 1964. "No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times."
Alaska is not a blue state, articleman.
June 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a Republican by any chance? 'Cause you sound like you want the Dems to lose. Not to mention, every point you make is a shopworn Republican talking point: Clinton is polarizing, her husband is a philanderer, Republicans and Indies will surge to never-before-seen numbers to rally and vote McCain, Obama can turn red states blue (except for Florida, but who needs it), Democrats will get pissed and vote against Obama, whom they previously loved and voted for.
Here are some facts:
Half of the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton, even in the final primaries when it was clear she couldn't secure the nomination with the requisite number of delegates. They voted for her anyway OVER Barack Obama.
The country as a whole is pretty evenly divided between registered Republicans and Democrats.
The number of registered Democrats has surpassed the number of registered Republicans in Florida's Latino population for the first time in decades. Their numbers have the potential to decide the state.
In some red states, Democrats are hopelessly outnumbered by Republicans. Wyoming, for example, has 136,000 registered Republicans and 59,000 registered Democrats.
A majority of Democrats polled say they want a joint ticket.
Hidebound comments like yours are a dead giveaway. There may well be a "political movement in America," but the one you're a part of in your imagination is nonexistent.
June 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Party affiliation is imbalanced heavily toward Democrats right now, not pretty evenly balanced, as you falsely state.
Saying Obama can turn a state blue (Virginia, reclaiming Iowa, Colorado) is not a Republican talking point. Writing those three off is idiotic. Hillary helps in some states, but hurts in those, given her far worse showing than Obama in trial heats against McCain in each of them.
More Democrats thought that Bill hurt Hillary's candidacy than helped (24 helped, 39 hurt), almost identically in line with answers to that same question in the general population. Being sick of Bill doesn't mean anyone's a bad Democrat.
Time for you guys to let this go. Imagine if Hillary won a narrow victory and you had to listen to Obama people yell all the time about how you were required to put him on the ticket. You'd be insufferably angry and strident. Fortunately, she's showing grace about this, which is better for the party (and better for her in the long term), as the winner, not the loser's supporters, pick the VP. I appreciate her showing grace and class on June 7 and since.
June 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that's even better for my argument, articleman! Thanks for helping me kill the notion that Republicans will come out in droves to vote against Clinton if she were on the ticket once and for all. Even if Republicans did come out in droves, it wouldn't matter because Dems outnumber Republicans anyway, right? So let's cross that myth off the list now. Thanks for your help.
Writing those states on as blue is what's idiotic for Democrats. With Obama's new map, he must win Iowa in combination with another state no matter what traditionally blue states he picks up. Here are the latest numbers of registered voters I can track down:
Iowa has 664,031 active voting Democrats and 577,914 active voting Republicans. + 86,117 Dems.
Colorado has 900,823 registered Democrats and 1,017,738 Republicans. + 116,915 Reps.
Virginia does not have party registration in its voter registration process. Voting history is Republican.
So, okay, he has Iowa and what else to add up to losing Florida? And don't be lazy: Use numbers.
"Being sick of Bill" is in fact irrelevant to how people actually vote. Exit polls repeatedly showed people voted for Hillary despite thinking a) she's untrustworthy, b) she ran a more negative campaign than Obama, c) Bill hurt her campaign, and d) she wouldn't win the nomination. Go ahead and look at exit polls if you don't believe me.
I'd hazard a guess that you haven't studied voter behavior, articleman, but I do recognize that you've internalized some MSM talking points. Usually MSM talking points are anti-Democrats, pro-Republicans. That's where I get the shorthand Republican talking points.
I just want to win in November rather than fantasize about it. It's an important distinction. It has nothing to do with emotions.
June 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there we go. Anyone disagree with Clinton and they are automatically a Repulican. I'm an independent voter who has never voted for a Republican in his life, thank you very much. You do remember us? The ones who decide the damn election time after time? Everything else I said was 100% accurate.
What you seem to forget is that Hillary Clinton lost the nomination race, so unless Obama WANTS Clinton on the ticket, she has no place being there. Frankly, Clinton brings no positives to Obama's hopes other than the number of votes she won during the primaries, the vast majority of which will support Obama regardless of their primary vote. Where is it that Clinton is going to be able to trump John McCain that Obama does not already? People like to talk about Obama being an empty suit, but WTF is Hillary Clinton but an empty pant suit? What exactly IS her supposed strength, and how does she improve the ticket, beyond the popularity contest garbage she (and her minions) continues to spin?
June 16, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does being a registered Independent mean you're permitted to be ignorant of both parties?
By the way, more Independents tend to vote Republican in the general.
June 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
With douchebags like yourself representing the Democratic party you find that statistic suprising?
I know you're really well versed on the Shillary Clinton talking points and all, but please point out where my comments about the Democratic position with Clinton are incorrect?
1) Clinton is a old school centerist and a very polarizing character.
Clintonian politics is all about triangulation. She learned it from her husband and did it endlessly during the primary. Finding the centerist position is the only politics she knows, regardless of the correctness of that position.
If she wasn't polarizing, would we be having this charming conversation?
2) Clinton will mobilize the Republicans and piss off enough independents and Democrats that it will shift the favor to McCain.
The hardcore Republicans are sitting on the sidelines right now. They are pretty well ambivalent to McCain and are not supporting him. The Republican Party WANT Hillary Clinton in the race because they know she will bring their base to the polls to defeat her. They HATE her with a passion, and that feeling is not restricted to just the hardcore Republicans.
3) Obama has a broad appeal and has the potential to bring many states into play that have been traditionally red.
Go a head and try and prove this wrong. He's drawing voters from all walks of life and is challenging in states that have been red the past few cycles. Obama is bringing McCain's home state into play.
4) With Clinton on the ticket those states remain red and potentially turn purple states red.
Speaking from a red state in play, putting Clinton's name on the ticket guarantees a loss. Heck, she would put and end to hopes of anything west of Arkansas and east of California. All the polls show that.
5) Winning Florida isn't worth the potential losses across the country.
The Obama campaign has said just that. You're better off with a 50 state strategy than putting all your eggs in a worn out basket that the Clintons are carrying around.
Fire away them talking points. Hey, maybe you can scream those same talking points at the top of your lungs in Denver! There will be a need for some good humor there, and that schtick never gets old!
June 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not screaming. I've already refuted all of your general points false with state-specific data throughout this thread. Catch up, douchebag.
June 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton seems like a scandal waiting to happen. She financed her campaign by not paying small vendors and getting "loans" from Bill. Bill's income came from speaking engagements. Who paid for these speaking engagement and what do they want in return?
Even if all the financing is legal it would distract from the issues while Obama spent his time trying to defend his VP choice.
Not to mention Clintons stand on the gas tax holiday, which should be called national waste gas season, or her comments about obliterating Iran. In addition to all the other wierd things that come out of her mouth, like the RFK assisnation comment. She would be a distraction and little more.
June 16, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, generally speaking engagements want speaking in return. It's one of the most obvious transparent ways of making money I know of. Seems like you're easily distracted. I'm absolutely sure that Hillary is the first candidate in the history of the universe that didn't pay all of her bills on time, aren't you? This is so unprecedented I'm going to go give myself an enema just so I can feel clean again.
June 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama started the primary season polling far behind Clinton and went on to beat her. He is starting out the general election season polling slightly ahead of McCain. He will beat him like a drumb. McCain is the one who is uknown to the public and once they find out where he stands on the issues he will be un-electable. Bein a midling campaigner at beat certainly will not help him over come the fact that he is on the oposite side of the issues from the mainstream of American opinion.
America has swung to the left. Quit pretending that this election is running in the political climate of the 1980's and 90's.
June 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit denying that Obama barely won. The party had to decide it.
June 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice strawman. I never denied that he won narrowly. He came from far behind to do so. In the general he is starting out ahead. That he will win decisively.
June 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, let me reject two myths right off the bat because I'm tired of them.
Obama came from far behind to win the Democratic nomination.
This is false. It was known and acknowledged very early on that Obama was Cinton's main competition. Go back to polls and editorials from fall and winter '07. The MSM were yammering nonstop about it.
In the general he is starting out ahead. That he will win decisively.
Obama got an end-of-the-primary bump. That's to be expected, and it is now slipping, despite what Greg Sargent wants you to believe. Go compare Obama's numbers with Democrats who lost the general election in years past and see what kind of shape Obama's in to repeat those stunning performances. That comparison should have you chewing your fingernails to the quick.
You're the one who's using false premises.
June 16, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even earlier - by the time Obama declared in Jan (?) 2007 he was running tied or better than McCain and a little behind Hillary.
June 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made no claim about how he was running compared to McCain at that time. He was in a race with Sen Clinton at that time and was far behind her in the polls. He came back to defeat her and he will come from ahead to defeat McCain soundly.
June 16, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beg to differ, but he was just a little behind her at the time (Jan 2007) and by February he was tied with her.
June 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a liar and not even a good one. Look at the trends.
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
For a minute there I thought you might actualy believe what you are saying but you were arround here when the widget was in the left collumn of this sight.
June 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of wasting your mind on gratuitous (and fallacious) insults, you might did a little deeper than the left column. I keep telling you folks to go through the Daily Howler archives, but it's hart to get you off this site.
Here are a couple of links that give you for example Fox's Feb 13 2007 poll with Hillary's Definitely + Maybe vote for rating at 52%, Obama's at 58%. Oh, lookie there - the Feb 22 2007 Time matchup with McCain has Obama doing better than Hillary. There are other gems - look through, you'll understand the race quite a bit better:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen3.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Call if you need help.
June 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response is downthread here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/climb-aboard-choose-hillary-no.php#comment-2907427
I forgot the checkbox. Doh!
June 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to get a grip; a win's a win. He beat her in pledged delegates, he beat her in the popular vote (as soon as you bother to count caucus states), he beat her. Get over it.
June 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
He beat her only with the help of the DNC. I watched it with my own eyes. It's part of the public record.
It was excruciatingly obvious Obama couldn't beat Clinton without their help. And even then, he still couldn't beat her until Jimmy Carter signaled the supers to give him enough votes before the South Dakota primary took place. That's because they knew he'd lose SD!
It's been a pretty fascinating spectacle start to finish.
June 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have an interesting, if counterfactual, way of interpreting his win.
June 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the counterfactual part where Obama didn't have enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the very last primaries? Is that the counterfactual part? Or is it that he lost the popular vote unless vote counts in some states were suppressed?
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The part that insinuates that he did not win the pledged delegates. If there were no super delegates he wins. So the super delegates did not give him the win they confirmed the wone he earned.
June 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you please point out where I said that? I think you may have misread me, but in any case, I'm curious.
June 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said he did not win without the help of the DNC. He wins the pledged delegates under any method of counting including seating FL and MI fully so exactly how did they help him win?
June 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't get you guys who think FL and MI were fair contests. That notion only became significant when Hillary was losing, and it became a big civil rights deal. But originally it was something that involved following the rules. It's impossible for me to understand how any sane person can expect to count votes that, as in the case of MI, were gained without the opposition on the ballot. Sure, it was flawed, and people did vote for Hillary, but it did not qualify as a fair democratic contest. It was tainted, and by that very fact, it should not have been counted. Sad, but true.
Obama and Clinton definitely had a very close race. How we view the outcome and the unfolding of it probably vary, depending on who you were supporting. If Clinton hadn't made some miscalculations early on, she probably would have won - or at least she would have made it far more competitive. But she made mistakes, and those mistakes cost her dearly.
It saddens me how acerbic people's rhetoric has become. I am not sure if Clinton is the right candidate for VP. I'm not sure she's not. But what I do think is that it's too early to claim gloom and doom. Obama got a bounce out of the primaries. That's expected. It always flattens out. The general campaign is just starting. And, yes, the stakes are very high, and we all want him to win (well, most of us, anyway).
But the choice of VP is, unfortunately, complicated. There are arguments for and against HRC, which makes it a decision, not a slam-dunk. Same is true of every other possible running mate. I don't claim to have the political acumen to choose for Obama, but I have some faith that he will make a very informed and proper decision. I have faith in my candidate, and I stand by him in making the right choice - for him. If that's Hillary, I will support it. If it is someone else, I will support it. Period.
June 16, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Party pooper.
June 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
agree
June 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The speaking fees are a problem because the Clintons are refusing to say who paid them. Maybe it is not a scandal but it looks like one.
Not paying small vendors is kind of sleazy and it would be a distraction in the the general election. Obama would have to spend all his time defending Hillary, plus who knows what new gaffes she would make on the campaign trail, she did not show herself to be a disciplined candidate in the primary.
Another thing that is sort of weird with Hillary, as the campaign wore on it seemed like she always had a drink in her hand, the last thing the democrats need is a candidate who behaves like a boomer at Jimmy Buffet concert.
Hillary Clinton is not a good choice for VP, in fact choosing her for VP is probably one of the few ways to lose the election in the fall.
June 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, it's not that complicated. She said John McCain was qualified to be Commander in Chief and implied Obama wasn't. That was the moment she ruled herself out of contention to be Obama's VP pick.
Both because of appearances but also (mainly) because she will have lost his trust at that point.
I think she's a good candidate, but I think if you pair her with Obama then, as Jimmy Carter said, you highlight both of their weaknesses.
And although she may poll better in Ohio and Florida at the top of the ticket, there's no particular reason to believe she would bring those states as a VP pick (she's not from there, doesn't have a local organisation to tie into etc.).
And finally, although it is very unclear whether she brings any voters that Obama couldn't win anyway - already her primary supporters are overwhelmingly polling for Barack in the General - it is even more clear that her presence loses him some voters that he COULD win on his own: independents and moderate Republicans who dislike of are wary of her. He polls better than her among independants.
But, as I say, the main thing is that she can't and shouldn't be the VP of someone she publicly stated she doesn't believe is qualified fo rthe job. I happen to disagree with her forcefully on that, and so does Barack. We'll have to try to make our case that she is wrong.
http://obamalondon.blogspot.com
June 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think her organization and her pull is pretty strong in both Florida and Ohio.
Regarding Jimmy Carter, he's better at building houses than giving political advice.
June 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
She did not build her own organization anywhere. She glommed on to the existing party organization. That is going to go for Obama in any case. If she had built from the ground up like he did their might be a case for p[utting her on the ticket. But if she had done that it might have been him looking for a VP slot. No one knows what would have taken place in that alternate universe.
June 16, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you think that. I think not. Either way, it doesn't change the fact he needs to chose a VP who hasn't explicitly advocated McCain over him.
June 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a real stumbling block. Losing Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are real stumbling blocks.
June 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It aint gona happen. I dont care who he picks he is not going to loose those four states.
June 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Add to all the points you've raised that pesky vetting issue of Clinton foundation and library funding sources (with already proven tie-ins to Intergy, etc.) and Hillary as VP can't fly. Period end. Full stop.
June 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not 1972, and Obama is not McGovern.
June 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the better comparission is to FDR in 1932. Obama is going to whoop McCain.
June 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 1861 the genteel class rode their carriages with picnic baskets out from DC to Virginia to watch the battle and see the Union trounce the Confederates. Unfortunately they had to skedaddle back to the safety of Washington when the rebel forces did a tad better than expected.
June 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that settles it - I will just have to vote Republican. I clearly see the writing on the wall and don't want my friends to know I voted for a perceived looser. Who will take me to prom after that?
June 17, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not Hillary? Ten reasons why not:
First, Obama is going to be attacked by the Republicans, he is going to have his work cut out for him just to stave off all the smears and other personal attacks. If Hillary is named as his VP choice all this would do is give them a two-fer as the Republicans hate Hillary Clinton and will trot out all the mud they have accumulated over the years. Obama does not need to be saddled with having to defend himself and his VP choice. Also, this would energize some Republicans to come out and vote, just to vote against her.
Second, this country needs a refreshening. Change is essential. The Clintons are not change. It's the same old actors endorsing the same old Washington politics. They are too wrapped up with international corporations and lobbyists. Why do you think he moved a large part of the DNC from Washington to Chicago? To try to make a clean break and merge the best of the DNC with his campaign.
Third, Hillary Clinton is a hawk. She is pro war. She does not endorse Obama's foreign policy proposals. This is huge. Although Obama has stated he is not anti-war, he has stated that it should be the last choice after aggressive diplomacy. Hillary Clinton has not endorsed diplomacy because she does not know how to inform the electorate that talking is not cowardly. Obama knows the strenght the United States gains by being smart diplomatically.
Fourth, when Hillary Clinton, undiplomatically announced she would "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel, it gave Iran cause to complain to the UN and gain sympathy. This to me makes her not qualified to be President or Vice President. I feel the President and Vice President should always be mindful of consequences of things said on the world stage. It is one thing to say that "all options are on the table" and quite another to tell a country's people you are ready to nuke them out of existance. Her comments were akin to Ahmadinejad saying he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Her comment only inflames Anti-Americanism and does nothing towards working for world peace. You cannot bomb people into believing in democracy or human rights. This is the stupid shortcut Bush tried in Iraq. The result is a real disaster for human rights and a horrible increase of rape and abuse for the women in Iraq.
Fifth, her blatant lies regarding landing in Bosnia, repeated over and over again, and her lame response once she was caught in this lie reminds me of Dick Cheney when confronted with polls showing the majority of people do not support the war in Iraq. He said, "So." We have lived through almost eight years of lies from the White House. Is it smart to put another liar there? Much less one who is so callous and unrepentant when caught in a lie?
Sixth, she does not hold Democratic values regarding inclusion. She openly promoted racist whites to vote for her. So sad. I know others will say she is not a racist. That is not what I am saying. I believe Democrats must always be a party who values people regardless of skin color and should always speak out loudly against racism. Her pandering to racists in Appalachia was a real low point of her campaign. Also, Ferraro comments could have come straight from a Republican, it would be typical for them to cite affirmative action as the reason Obama succeeded to be a presidential nominee.
Seventh, Obama needs to be surrounded by those who fully support him. I can just see her now if she were the Vice President, sitting in the oval office with Obama and arguing, "Well, when my husband was President..." Obama does not need to always have his Presidency compared with Bill Clinton's Presidency. Hillary will always see things through this lens. Hillary and Bill would hobble an Obama presidency.
Eighth, she demonstrated her lack of management ability by the way her campaign was run. For one thing she valued loyalty over competence, just as George Bush did and see where that got us, see Katrina response and the Justice Department as two stark examples of a horrible policy of loyalty over competence. Wild, extravagent spending of donations is also a demonstration of poor practices that should not be carried into the White House. She made bad decisions, such as loaning money to herself, even after she knew the delegate numbers were against her, causing deficit spending. We have seen enough of this in Washington. Obama's campaign demonstrated superior management, in contrast it was lean, smart and well organized campaign.
Ninth, I believe if she were Vice President she would do all she could to hold on to the kind of power amassed by Cheney. She would not step back into the typical role played by former Vice Presidents. This would make her a loose cannon. I fear she would act in opposition to Obama if she desired and would make public statements that would undermine his policies.
Tenth, would be, for some, just the fodder for conspiracy theorists. But I want to remind people that conspiracy does exist in the halls of power. President Kennedy was assinated as a part of a conspiracy. I know I will be attacked for the following but I think it is important to state the kind of thoughts I ran through and feel that I was not the only one to run through these possibilities in their minds. Hillary Clinton, in response as to why she was remaining in the race stated because her husband did not get the nomination until June and "you know, Bobby Kennedy was assinated in June". She had said this before, and as others have stated repeatedly she is a smart politician who is careful with choosing her words. OK, then what was her intent when she referred to RFK's assination.
1. It was exactly as her campaign said, that some campaigns do continue into June. That it is not unusual to let the voting process play itself out.
Answer: KO pointed out, as others did as well, these two are very poor examples to make that point. Other campaigns that did carry into June before clinching the nomination would have been cited by her if that is exactly what she meant. RFK's assination does not prove this point. She would, in using RFK to prove this point noted his win in California rather than his death. This is not a terribly smart explaination.
2. It was just a careless and ignorant comment. Just a mistake in not realizing how the comment might be construed to mean.
Answer: A politician does not repeat comments unless they are stating a specific point they want to emphasise. When giving an interview to the press, which she was doing, politicians are careful with their words. If she was just careless then that tells me she is not qualified for the highest of offices in the United States.
Now the less cheritable...
3. She meant that anything, including assination, could happen to affect the race for the nomination. That it is smart to hang in there as unknown events could bring down an opponent.
Answer: Let's just look at it from the perspective that possibly some ugly piece of information could destroy Obama's campaign down the line. For example: suppose the Clinton campaign was told and believed the rumor that the Republicans had the Michele Obama rant tape and that they planned to unvail it in October just before voting to have it fresh in voter's minds. If her campaign actually knew something that dibilitating, with her chumming with the right wing tabloids, she would have obtained and used any dirt that could be held against Obama well before she suspended her campaign. Regarding, assination as a possibility, in my mind, she could have meant: one, freak events can happen; two, as an invitation to the freaks who might be inclined to act; or three, as an open threat. I know this last reason is one that not many people would consider as a possibility. But, I for one, believe that those who hunger for power are sociopathic, in that anything is fair game in that quest. No conscience involved, only a vision for winning at all costs. If she meant either of the last two reasons for mentioning assination and if Clinton is this type of person, she would be the last person to name as Vice President. If I were Obama I wouldn't want this type of person in the number two slot. If she meant the first, that freak events can happen, what a fatalistic long shot (no pun intended) that would be to stay in the race and a sure sign of a desperate campaign.
No, Hillary Clinton should not be named Vice President. Besides all of the above, I am sure that Obama doesn't like her much and would prefer to have someone he respects and feels a closeness to as his Vice President. Also, Obama should name someone who could follow him after his Presidency. Because of all the reasons I stated above she is not qualified to be President.
June 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a most inciteful response to my comment. How comical your only response was to my "projecting". Not terribly insightful. Now, do you have a response to my 10 reasons not to name her as Vice President? You know the main meat of my comment.
June 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answered 'em a million times - just click on my name and go through my archives.
June 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
no we do not need to keep beating that dead monkey with a stick..if the primary season didn't teach you hillary supporters what obama is all about by now, then you have been living under a rock....i do not care for hrc but i know darn well that either she or obama is the obvious choice for this year, not mccain....why? b/c the country overwhelmingly voted for what both stand for--universal health care, get out of iraq, better economic policy, energy policy etc....
this notion that obama supporters need to do obama in with bad advise to pacify hrc supporters who i suspect might bail towards mccain at the first sign of negativity (trust me the repugs will spin alot of it) is faulty logic..
a vp should help w/o taking anything away....i am not stupid..of course it would be great to hold on to all 17+ million who voted for hrc, but the truth is that some of those votes were not for hrc but against obama and in the general, those same votes will go to mccain no matter how disastrous he (mccain) proves to be...
again, let the man choose his vp...if he deems hrc to be a worthy vp, i am sure he will ask her and i will have no choice but to accept it...stop stuffing her down my throat b/c i see the negatives easily negating all the positives...yes, she has positives. i would love to see the policy wonk out policy the hell out of mccain and i would love her to take on mccain's vp in a debate setting..that is where she shines....but but but.....and but again...
June 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That has zero to do with how far behind he was. She had a large lead over him and was seen as the prohibitive favorite for almost all of 2007.
The trendlines indicate no slippage. Welcome to the reality bassed community. http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
June 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, sorry, but I like looking at numbers, not dots. Numbers are more reality-based to me than a smattering of pretty dots.
Gallup: Obama is up by 4, although he was up by 7 a few days ago. Margin of error: +/-2.
Rasmussen:
[snip]
As I said, Obama's numbers have slid slightly with both Gallup and Rasmussen, using the latest polls published by Real Clear Politics.
You first argument is mushy cereal that's been sitting in milk too long.
June 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? He refers to a pretty comprehensive compilation and you can't use it because you don't know how to read graphs? Even when the graph has a key full of numbers?
June 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers I need are not set up with corresponding dates on that chart.
June 16, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you like RCP better than Pollster look at their trend. Obama is not slipping compared to McCain. Obama's percentage has gone down but McCain's is falling faster. That means that Obama's margin is growing. You may check the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
June 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
RCP is what I referred to before I started this argument. Again, I'm not looking at the graph part because it doesn't indicate exact plot points for dates. I'm looking at the numbers that are presented in the chart at the top of the page. It shows Obama was +6 last week (NBC/WSJ), +3.8 today (RCP Av).
I don't believe that's the correct way to interpret it. In any case, according to RCP, today's average is Obama +3.8. So the margin between Obama and McCain is shrinking.
That's why I look at the numbers rather than the graph. The graph is misleading. Hope I'm being clear about what I'm looking at.
June 16, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the RCP average for today to the highest single poll. That is an invalid comparrison. That is why I look at the graph of the average. It shows the trend over time of the rolling average. That shows that the two candidates have been trending together over time and neither of them have moved far enough for us to be certain that it is more than noise. If you are allowing the fact the the average is lower than the highest point you will think that any candidate you look at is weak because the average is always less than the max.
June 16, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say tomato, I say tomahto.
I know it's an average. So use +4 instead. Down from +6.
June 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
jester, i agree with you 100% and yes everytime i hear about why hrc is the best choice for second, i feel that entitlement thing being stuffed down everyone's throat again..
at this point, obama will either sink or swim..we, meaning dems can continue to do him in by undermining him at every turn and appear a house divided or we can fall in line even if we don't want to have to tea with either him or michelle..bottom line is to get a dem in the white house..trust me the united states is not like other countries=--we do have rules here...the scary lanky dude is not going to take over and ruin everything..look at who he surrounds himself with? everyday white men who just want better for the country...hell, he will even consult our beloved bill clinton for advice..doest that sound like a man who is planning an all out takeover of this great nation to you????
no hrc for vp....
June 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are one week out from Hillary's concession and endorsement. When we measure the temperature does anyone feel us coming together? Do the polls reflect a retained surge in favor of Barack Obama?
Judging by the bslev meter, I remain as I have been for the last lifetime, i.e. I will vote for Senator Obama in the fall because he is the Democratic nominee. My vote won't change even if the evil Bill Richardson is nominated to be VP(that's kind of a joke but you have to realize how unpleasant the feelings are among Hillary supporters about ole' Bill). But I still don't feel good about losing, I still find Obama to be untrustworthy and fake, and I'm sane and rational and pragmatic, if I do say so myself.
I think right now, the atmospherics are such that Obama's best and obvious choice is Hillary Clinton. No Obama right or wronger is going to change his or her vote if Hillary is on the ticket, and I know Hillary's supporters will feel a bit better about going with the young kid from Illinois. So, who are the folks who would vote for Obama without Hillary, but would not vote for him with Hillary? I don't see that bloc of voters.
Things can change, but Senator Obama has much work to do before it can be said that one-half of the electorate will be comfortable with someone other than Hillary. That's politics folks; generally speaking, the best deal is one where nobody's happy.
June 16, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you maintain an optimistic view. It looks less rosy from my bleacher seat.
June 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too simplistic. It's not just about splitting the difference. It's about picking someone who is appropriate to the position. Is that Hillary? Some can argue that she has strengths that would make her suitable for the position. But, I think you'd agree that she brings negatives, as well. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Depends on who you're talking to. But, there are other options out there who aren't bringing all those negatives with them and carry just as many positives.
In the end, while I realize a lot of Hillary's supporters would like to see her in that Veep spot, I anticipate that it will be someone else. Hillary's political future does not lie there. Does she have a place somewhere else in his cabinet? Or on the Supreme Court? Or in some leadership position in the Senate? Maybe. But, Veep? Don't think so. Too many down sides.
June 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
VP Hillary was a stupid idea two months ago and it's just as stupid now. Give it a rest. The 1990s are over and aren't coming back.
June 16, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That argument--that Obama is this new and exciting agent of chage--is what is so yesterday. Obama doesn't resonate like that with folks anymore, except with his core, core supporters. I think you need to understand that Senator Obama has come back to earth. Back on earth, Hillary has the inside track on the VP nomination. Back on earth, folks like you who love Senator Obama will have nothing to do with the VP choice--in a political world, you're captive and you'd vote for Obama if Gumby was the nominee for VP. That's politics.
June 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary does not have any inside track on VP. I trust Obama to make the right choice. It will not be Hillary. As time goes on her numbers will fall.
June 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As time goes on people's popularity numbers usually rise. Look at Gore. Now he's beloved.
June 16, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Gumby would sure bring in that spineless vote. I'm kinda considering it. Not sure though. Better keep my options open. May have to bend on this one.
June 16, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
June 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want Pokey runnin around with nothing to do? That horse can't keep his saddle on.
June 16, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not keen on vice-VP Bill. I strongly suspect that neither is Obama. She goes directly against Obama's core message.
Which is not to say that she would necessarily be a bad VP (or Prez), just that not every Prez/VP combination is a good one.
June 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, it's all rosy, Obama's doing fine, there are no mistakes, there's no threat in November, he can choose whoever for VP and it won't make any difference, Democrats will be united no matter what, life is a carnival.
Not sure why I wasted my time, guess I thought this was the time of the healing.
June 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero:
This is no waste of time. Remember your audience; you should know this political reality post is not going to be well-received around these here parts. But you are spot-on. At this point, and things could change, I don't see any other way to unify the Party. Bottom line--show me the Obama right or wronger who will not vote for Obama if he nominates Hillary.
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concern trolling is easy to call spot on - no need for any logic when you appeal to emotion. Just a couple weeks ago, the primary finally ended.
Why the sense that the sky will fall unless Hillary is not on the ticket?
The only way that is an obvious conclusion to jump to is if you cannot imagine the presidency without Clinton there.
There are good and bad arguments for Hillary as VP. I express concern, but would be ok with it should Obama make that decision. In the meantime, there is no need to rush to the conclusion that she is the only pick.
Again - excessive concern by those emotionally invested in the outcome. The same argument has been put forth by the same people (ready and desi): it was too early to push Hillary out before the primaries were over and the flip side is that it is too early to push Hillary back in.
Never Hurry, Never Worry.
June 17, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again healing is described as tending to your neuroticisms about the impending disaster in Novemeber. You are just going to have to deal with your uncertainty in your own way.
If there was even the slightest bit of evidence of your powers of prognostication, then maybe you would get a better hearing from those who us figured it out last December. But right now all your "sky is falling" talk sounds more like lingering resentment at the outcome, not wisdom. Perhaps you have more wisdom to share, but it's not on display here.
June 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat for the learning impaired - saying why it would be a good idea to put Hillary on the ticket (or when it would be a good idea to decide) is not the same as saying she is "entitled" or forcing it down your throat. But you're a pricklish lot. The reach-across-the-aisles folks don't want anyone giving them advice. Guess you'll bootstrap yourselves or be hoisted by your own petard. I'll be the guy on the sidelines crunching the popcorn loudly in anticipation.
June 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi - keep the faith. It doesn't matter what posters think right now. If Obama chooses Hillary they'll all be jumping up and down like it's Christmas because he is infallible.
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or else preparing to blame it all on her should things go wrong. Christ, meet anti-Christ, your new running mate. You'll stay on different sides of the aisle to reach across to each other, but please no biting or scratching.
June 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is certainly better than blaming him for not choosing her if he does poorly!
Des, try to see things from both sides. Take a vacation, have some malibus, come back in 3 months and see if you're still doom and glooming us.
June 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking about a tri-state kill spree. They usually put me in a much better mood, and quite frankly I have trouble relating to people in more social settings. Being extinct, you can probably relate.
June 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can indeed, and that's why I suggested the malibu. :)
June 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good call. One day we'll have to have a chat about how *exactly* you went extinct, but for now we'll focus on mounting that gun rack properly.
June 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Munch munch..... good one Des. Pass da box now & then willya?
I figger it's still too early by a bit. Yup, I agreed that a swift & solid move on VP would generate a very solid, we-know-what-we're-doing image, much needed to go hammering McCain. But the GE campaigns still seem to me to be in "float" mode. Neither side has really landed the blow that would signal "Game On."
But kudos for sticking head above parapet early. (BTW. Ain't "parapet" a nice word? Like "petard." "Peruse." Damn fine P-words.)
Plus, a lot of newcomers in O-world. Size of previous post-primary bounces & gut-level memories from days past not registering. Give it another week, let 'em lock horns, and we'll see what the Dems need more clearly. Not sure it's HRC, cause I do give SOME weight to some of the list of 10 above, but you got yer points. Hand that over here willya? Jayzuz. You'd think it was the last corn on Earth.
June 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot "patootie" - I can say that here, right? Adult crowd? Anyway, thanks, yes, I try to be a step ahead of the group so I can look doubly foolish, wannabee Cassandra complex.
June 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sorry, there's the box, stuff's addictive, ain't it....
June 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
just saw this des. what say you?
***UPDATE*** The Obama campaign has sent out a press release highlighting a swath of new hires as they gear up for the general election campaign. One name on the list which sticks out is Patti Solis Doyle, the former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Doyle will fill the role of chief of staff to the vice presidential nominee.
Chief of Staff to the VP Nominee. What say?
June 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say that it's an extremely interesting hire. Other than that, I have no idea what it means.
June 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...kinda sounds like a doberman placed on the perimeter with a "likeable enough" name card. Is this something spiteful and vindictive as well as self-defeating or is there some kind of logic here? After all, it seems that Clinton's ground game got much much better when she got rid of Solis-Doyle and put Maggie Williams in charge. So besides seeming to sabotage any chance of Hillary being VP, it would seem to burden a VP candidate with the manager who didn't do so well. Or is Solis-Doyle some kind of Kissinger leading a hidden peace mission?
June 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, he hired Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's Communications Director, to be Michelle's Chief of Staff? Because she did such a bang-up job on keeping Kerry from getting Swift Boated?
June 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're so fucked.
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice of you to admit, you trolls are so fucked. See you in November,Wingnut.
June 17, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate people who call themselves patriots.
June 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, I ran the Solis-Doyle bit back through my brain and my conclusion is that the weakest link is the press - that Hillary hasn't talked to her in 4 months, and that they're now bitter enemies. I don't think so. I also think it would be a major insult to Hillary and her supporters for no good reason. So my guess is that the Veep slot is Hillary's and that S-D is in charge of the transition. That doesn't necessarily mean S-D will stick around, or it can be that what S-D does well is the personal stuff but managing the ground game is something that Obama's upper team will handle more directly anyway, so there's not the concern about S-D's weakness there.
You heard it here first - either I'm a genius or a sad sack, no in-between.
June 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly a shame - if you were willing to settle closer in the middle - we would all be much happier
June 17, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to break it to you, kid, but making your life happy isn't on my agenda. But enjoy the milk and cookies, sometimes that's the best you'll get.
June 17, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My money's on Sad Sack. (full of some very strong smoke,to produce this kinda delusion)
June 17, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the first thing I have seen that was even the weakest of indicators that they may be considering Sen Clinton for the VP slot.
June 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who are in the know apear to disagree with me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html
June 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a reason not to put her on the ballot: Not that many people like her. She can't deliver enough votes to make up for the ones the ticket will lose plus the votes McCain will gain.
Moderates: She's always had high negatives, and now Hillary Clinton is even less liked by the middle (those are the voters we're trying to get) than she was before primary.
Republicans: She is so vilified by the right that the only thing that would improve Republican turnout more than giving her the VP slot would be gay marriage initiatives. Republicans aren't too excited about McCain. Let's not encourage them to do something crazy like donate to his campaign. If the weather is crappy in November, I don't want Republicans (or moderates) out braving the elements because they've just got to vote against Clinton.
Democrats: Strangely, while Clinton is despised by Republicans, progressives are that crazy about her either. Bill Clinton made a lot of compromises that some my leftier friends still haven't forgiven him for. While she had bigger donors, there were a lot less of them compared to Obama. Obama has raised far more money even though his average donation was smaller. Progressives are actually excited about voting for Obama, and that excitement will diminish if she's on the ticket.
Sure she's more experienced. The experience of being handed the nomination on a silver platter to loaning her own campaign $12 million dollars because her supporters abandoned her isn't the kind of experience we're looking for. (A major contributing factor is the fact that she put far too much trust in loyal associates. That sound like anyone else?)
June 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'haters' (like you) in the republican party get out to vote anyway and it won't be a problem for the pubbies to get the haters to come out and vote against a Murcan-hatin' Mooslum that's black. It's one of the few things they do well.
You might want to focus on the votes that Obama gains picking Clinton.
June 16, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is only half of the picture. If you want to assess her you have to weigh the ones she brings him against the ones she loses him. I belive her negatives far out weigh her positives but will be happy to let the Obama campaign do their own analissis. They have proven to be verry competent so far.
June 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debunked myth #593.
18 million voter absolutely LOVE Hillary. And some of her biggest backers (Rendell, Easley, Strickland, Tubbs Jones are the ones I've read about recently) are reluctantly backing Obama. Why? Because they love Hillary too.
June 16, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket: Is this "Love Boat" you're watching or politics?
June 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des...I think Obama will eventually end up picking Clinton for VP because he does want to win and the move would increase his chances. As to the timing...ie naming her now or after a 'process'...you can make a case either way. I don't disagree with your reasoning at all but, at the same time, I can see the campaign wanting time so that Obama's Hillary-hating supporters can see her campaign for him and get them used to the idea of 'unity'.
They've clearly opted for the 'take the time' route. It shouldn't be fatal.
June 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There can be a dozen good reasons, and it's not whether it's this Tuesday or first week in July - simply the issue is maximizing positive effect in whatever direction.
June 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shooting for around 4th of July. Great significance and symbolism there.
I mean, just think about it. Between the two of them, we might even get a speech the caliber of this one.
June 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping for Bluto in Animal House - "Was it over when Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor?" "Bombed Pearl Harbor?" "Shhh, don't stop him - he's on a roll"
June 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Max the effect of the announcement to get a bump which says to me, it should be sooner than later. Taking time is one thing. Dragging it out is another. That could negate the 'bounce'.
June 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he thinks she will increase his chances of winning he will surely chose her. This is not self evident though. The consensus opinion seems to be that she hurts more than she helps. If that is what he thinks then he will certainly not choose her.
June 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help or hurt? Salon has 2 articles up today on the pro/con aspects of Clinton as VP that are worth a read if you haven't seen them.
I think it would help him a lot more than it hurts him. MHO...
June 16, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A serious question, and one I'd like others to answer as well:
Does the notion of party unity live and die with the selection of Clinton as VP?
June 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's certainly the biggest issue for well obvious reasons. Aside from the Clinton-Obama split, what other hurdles to party unity are there?
June 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhh..... don't stop him - he's on a roll.
June 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry des.
but it WOULD be amusing to slap that on ya every time you spoke.
and it IS, after all, one of the great political speeches of our time.
June 16, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only I could live up to a quarter of his greatness.
June 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're talking about 'the fullust unity there can be after a rough campaign', yes.
June 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never pick a VP candidate that would overshadow the President. An Obama/Clinton ticket is a Clinton/Clinton Ticket, and therefore a non-starter.
And now for a lighter note, on the same subject. I do love a good political cartoon.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/j/9/2/hillary-harps-to-be-vp.jpg
June 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you do love a good political cartoon, you should post one sometime. That one was pretty lame when you consider how much Obama needs Clinton's votes.
You do understand that, don't you liam?
June 16, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up Indix; You sound like a Republican Church Lady.
June 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you say, "Lighten up, Sweetie" with a little pat on the knee. People love patronizing sexist attitudes and stereotypes, join in, be one with the fray.
Hey, did you hear the one where Hillary's a nag and a bitch? No, not that one, another one...
June 17, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, every time she endorsed McCain or mocked Obama and his supporters. Shame on you Desidero! Shame on you!!!!
June 17, 2008 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have learned to love the "Hillary Dems will vote McCain" meme.
Self defeating victims. Makes me want to run out and vote McCain as well. I would almost relish in how low this country can sink. Should be some real cheap housing by about 2Q2Y of his presidency.
That and think about the money we could make doing fly-by night abortions over state lines. Black markets rock!
June 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get this line of thought. Ok, so Clinton's a superstar. Perhaps you missed it, but Obama is as well. I really don't see him being "overshadowed" by anyone and I tend to think that's a nonsense reason for being against the ticket.
June 17, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering what planet you are reporting from Hillary...I am guessing you have refused to look at the polling and the support that McCain is getting (200 people per drop in) and what Obama is getting (15,000-20,000). Yea, there is equal interest....just like you were "practically tied in delegates", if only......
NO, he is not going to pick you Hillary. You are a fireball of difficulties..you blew your last chance at redemption (after all the other awful things you have done) when you screamed "what does Hillary want" instead of "Congratulations Barack for Winning". The assassination remark was flat out horrible. You also have that teeny little husband problem. He is an embarrassment an hour. Obama, the "no drama" candidate wants you two drama queens about as much as he wants support from GWB.
No, you fool, you need to go back to New York, and get going with your screaming, hysterical core group of 286 women that are ALL VOTING FOR McCAIN. That won't work either, Hillary. We're on to you and we dont' want any more, and frankly, you have been a tired, sad act for a long time.
June 16, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am just going to say. You lost me from continuing to read your blog entry right here at the end of that sentence.
*shrug*
The process has BARELY started, and you are already stating the most blatant of assumptions, but no real gist behind it(you stated he would choose Hillary before you got to your first point).
June 16, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it a million times - Richardson (a turtle, poor campaigner & a 2 minority ticket?), Webb (a disaster even now as Dem spokesman), Edwards (failed to attract in 2004 and in this year's primaries), Warner (I had harder reasons thinking why not there, but it's a moot point now), Wes Clark (poor campaigner, poor with issues, no governing experience, was interesting as a one time walk-on last round), Hagel or Bloomberg (don't make me laugh), Biden (wake me when its over), Sebelius (seems competent but again seems lackluster, and I personally would be offended after all the dynasty criticism this year that it would go to an offspring of the Gilligan/Sebelius clans), and so on.
June 17, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may be the only one who thinks this...but I will just go ahead and say it:
I think it is too early for the public to dive in on who is good as a VP and who isnt.
I completely understand the WANTING and the Conversation about it...but we dont even know who is on the table.
Obama and his people have been good about doing, the things that people in general least expect of them. Especially anything in Mass.
So that tells me, if ANYTHING, look at a individual that hasnt even hit the radar yet, and you might have your guy/gal. Look back into January when the first Op/ed was posted about "Who would pick who as VP"(im sure there is a story out their) and you might find your guy/gal.
But at the end of the day, until August, until the Obama Camp puts their list of "possibles" out their and I can believe that these are their ONLY possibles, then I think we can scrutinize and debate about who should be the VP.
As of now though, it is kind of a mute point, imo.
June 16, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My issue on this thread was more about the timing, but it's not like anything I say will affect the choice or the timing.
June 17, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama picks Bill Clinton, actually. Bill is totally off anyone's radar. Be a big surprise.
June 17, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a dream ticket I could really get behind.
June 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a big surprise for sure, since a two term President can not become President again, so that means he can never be the VP.
Admit it; you do not have a clue about what you keep blathering on and on about.
June 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you run out of irony pills, liam? Or are Obamanauts the only ones allowed to make jokes? No one told me the rules.
June 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
shhhh.... he's on a roll
June 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
you mean troll.....
June 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking about this this morning. Here's my mindset right now: Obama is a phenomenon. You only need look as far as the 70,000 at the rally and the march in Philadelphia to see that. An indisputable fact in my opinion. He is the only person who stood a chance at beating Hillary Clinton.
Conversely, the only thing that stands a chance at beating a phenomenon is another one. Which Hillary is, in her own right. The woman is just a tiger. No one but her could have given Obama the run for the money that she did.
Two phenomenons, once opponents and then teamed up, really could equal an unstoppable force. The moment the two of them stood up on the stage and said we're going to take McCain on would be as dramatic and huge a moment as any in this long, long, primary. It fits the scale of all this. For him to get up and announce Warner or someone like that is like taking all this fire and passion and strength and excitement that's existed throughout the primary and getting up on stage to announce someone who's name is like a sputtering fizzle of all that power. I mean, Warner? How anticlimactic can you get?
June 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what we're SAYIN', Hilary!
June 17, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an article by Ed Kilgore for any stray Obamanauts passing through. (It refutes every point made in the complementary article by Thomas Schaller, btw, so no need to reflexively post that one as a response.) Kilgore's piece is not condescending, yet it calmly addresses the twofer argument against HRC, the "baggage" argument, and the "change" argument.
June 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I've pretty much liked the Clinton as VP idea as soon as it became clear that Obama was the nominee. I'm trying to think of the best angle to convince the naysayers.
I read that the other day, it's a good article and I think does address every single argument against it. Plus, it's funny as hell and right on target that the second title line is, "...also known as, got any better ideas?"
Gasket - who do you think will be McCain's VP and when do you think he'll announce? Just curious.
June 17, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have to be extremely sure of their pick, since there are so many things wrong with McCain. Right now, I'm thinking Condi would still be the biggest across-the-board vote-getter. I realize she has negatives, but I haven't thought of anyone else who has her level of sex appeal. It's going to have to be a charismatic, sexy choice. (Of course for Republicans, sexy could mean Romney or Huckabee also.)
But I don't think McCain is going to announce before July. There doesn't seem to be enough buzz about it yet.
What do you think about McCain's options?
June 18, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sexy. Hm. Hadn't thought of that. But you're probably right, something to balance out the total snore that is McCain.
You think Condi's sexy? Wow. Just don't see it. I probably can't see through my very, very thick I-hate-everything-related-to-the-Bush-administration glasses.
I honestly have no idea. Really, just none. I liked Des's thread on Carly for that reason. Awhile back I thought he might take Romney to balance out the economy thing. But then, I do kind of buy into the idea that you shouldn't necessarily put someone one the ticket to "fill in" your perceived weaknesses as it just reinforces them. Now, I'm thinking that's he's got to be looking at women if he's really making a play for some of Hillary's constituencies.
Condi. It's definitely a top possibility at this point I guess. I'd imagine what would hold him back from that is that she's so intricately tied to the Bush admin.
Really all this VP buzz is kind of like sitting around a poker game trying to get a peek at the other guy's cards. Gotta know who the other guy's picking before we decide...
June 18, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment