home

Another Reason Why Obama Should Choose Hillary For VP

The Russia-Georgia conflict gives John McCain another chance to play "experienced hand" versus Obama's novice. Obama has already chosen his VP and most of us assume it will be Kaine, Bayh or Biden.

If he has chosen Kaine, he will be having second thoughts. These developments should favor Joe Biden, but the school of thought that does not want the "change" meme diluted will be up in arms about it - additionally arguing that it hurts Obama to acknowledge his inexperience.

It will never happen, but Hillary Clinton is an obvious choice here. Why? Because while she projects experience, unity will be seen as the reason for picking her. Obama will not be projecting concern or weakness regarding his inexperience. But Obama simply does not want Clinton on his ticket, no matter how much sense it makes.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Iraq And The Georgia Republic | "Russia Attacks Neighbor" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I will continue to hope for Hillary... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    ...until Obama's text message that it is somebody else. Not that I'll be getting his text, but I'm sure I'll hear about it as soon as it happens.

    Maria my husb is in love with you (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    He thought you were awesome in beach volleyball against the Brazilians -- and you were no slouch as an athlete, either. :-D

    Parent
    Ha ha, didn't know I had it in me! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    Is that text message being received (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    at the moment? My cell phone won't let me make a call because "Network Busy". Haven't had that happen before!

    Imagine how popular he is going to be with the young folk if he jams the cell towers!!

    Parent

    Obama has dragged this out for so long now (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    that it doesn't make much sense to pick anyone other than Clinton.

    Recall back in May when team Obama kept saying the primaries need to end NOW.  We don't have much time to campaign.  This is going on too long.  Obama needs to start campaigning against the repugs NOW.

    How long will it take to introduce Kaine, Bayh or Sebelius to a National audience?  And, how quickly will the repugs be able to define them any way they want to?

    I suppose you could still argue that Biden is well known.  But, Clinton needs no introduction at all.  She does nothing but ADD votes in states where Obama needs them.  Anyone who hates Clinton enough to not vote for the ticket, isn't likely to vote for Obama anyway.

    Let's text message Obama: (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    u should pick Clinton!!!

    heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    "lol sebelius" (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    Ha! Love it (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    Inexperience (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    It's the first time I've seen this word here (not necessarily that it has not been used).  It's about time that someone admitted that Obama's inexperience is a burden that he cannot fix.  It's a biggie for many, including I.  His inexperience is the reason he was my last choice, and his character the deal breaker.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that Obama (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    is like the kid who's been in the pool for hours, and is turning blue with cold, and even as his teeth are chattering, and he's shivering, refuses to admit it...

    You just have to know that they thought they would be up on McCain by double digits at this point, that he could safely not pick Clinton because it would be clear that he didn't need her to win.  But, that's not happening.  The Tour de Barack didn't send his numbers into the stratosphere - nothing has moved this race from the doldrums in which it is languishing (which, to me, says that people are just feeling totally blah about having to choose between these two mediocre candidates, but I digress), and you can almost see the marks Obama's heels are making in the ground as he starts to be dragged closer to the truth that everyone else knows, and he cannot admit: Clinton is the difference-maker.

    His refusal to see this, and for so long, may be working against him in ways that have nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with people not being particularly happy about another president whose stubborness and ego get in the way of doing what's best for the country.  This may mean that by the time he gives in and names her, it will be too late.

    [Since we elect a president in the same year in which we have the Summer Olympics, I would like to suggest a new sport: eye-rolling - you can't see me, but I am practicing it like crazy]

    "nothing has moved this race" (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    wait until after the convention, when its to late for us to pick a more viable candidate, and the 527s get started.
    then you will see those numbers change.

    Parent
    if one believes (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    that Clinton, and other AUMF voters are responsible for the war,....  LOL if I believed that I wouldn't be advocating for her to be VP because of her security cred.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    Frankly, I do not think  Hillary has security cred. I think she PROJECTS security cred.

    Sometimes your obtuseness does not seem deliberate.

    Parent

    What Hillary Brings by way of Security (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    To me, real national security is about a lot of things the Bush admin has ignored, can't or won't handle, including:

    •  Real cooperation, understanding with our traditional allies;

    •  Building lines of communication with our "enemies"

    -- Real seaport & airport security

    -- national energy security and supply

    -- Infrastructure repair and upgrading

    -- Far less hackable government IT systems than we appear to have now;

    --  Stronger armed forces created by not overextending servicemen on duty and fighting pointless wars, etc.

    Much of these requires research, plannning, & roll up your sleeves & getting the work done, absorbing massive amounts of material from different departments and specialists, delegating to competent people and having the team communicate with each other continuously.  I believe Hillary has proven that she has these abilities which she will apply tirelessly for the public benefit.    

    Parent

    then you are advocating (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    for her because of what you think she projects not for who you think she is.

    Maybe my obtuseness forces me to advocate for people based on who I think they are, not on what they project.

    Incidentally, who would you be advocating for based on who they are?

    You see, call it whatever you want.  Some might be happy to see the advocacy, I would like to see the advocacy for the right reasons.

    Just in my view, if it's just a projection marketing thing, then I'd say let it go, obama's gonna win anyway.  But if it's a situation where Clinton has something to offer besides what she projects then let's not be shy about discussing that.

    Parent

    You want to be (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    pedantic, be my guest.

    Parent
    And I guess you can be (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    superficial.

    There's just gotta be a better reason that's all and frankly it's only because of the other fine commentary that I see that I try not to take offense that one finds themselves incapable of talking about what Clinton brings to the table other than a unity moment that forces much of the Obama movement into yet another hypocritical tizzy.

    But again call it what you want but there is a good case to be made for Clinton not just making Obama a better candidate but also a better president.

    But that seems to be too difficult to consider just for some reason.  My feeling is it's a sort of inferiority complex that emanates from Obama centric rhetoric.  Or it really is the Iraq war and one thinks she is a bad legislator/politician and should only be considered in spite of that because she projected something (something false,btw) that Obama needs.

    What I can say is I don't feel insecure about saying, if it was clinton, I would hope that she would pick someone who challenges her where she is not the strongest.  Someone who would make her a better president.

    Parent

    Another "steadfast" Leader (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    The troubling aspect of Obama reluctance to pick Hilary is that it shows the same stubborn quality that we've dealt with from Bush for the last 8 yrs. Polls continue to show that McCain is holding his own. Now the race is even tightening further. With Hilary on the ticket not only would November be a sure thing for the Dem's but it would definitely help the down ticket. (Something that Obama hasn't shown any strength in helping).

    Hillary on the ticket (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    may have helped a month or so back.  I do not believe it helps now.  Views have hardened.  There was talk a few days back of that cold hard resolve settling in for many Clinton supporters.  That's what I sense going on in my little neck of the woods.

    Parent
    I still think (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    It's a slam dunk landslide victory with  Clinton on the ticket. Regardless of the netroots or the media, Bill Clinton is a beloved former President, Hillary made major inroads with demographics that Barack Obama needs in order to win big. They are both establishment and rank and file Democrats, with enormous reserves of donors.

    My guess is that Hillary simply doesn't want the job because you'd have to be an idiot not to recognize what she brings to the ticket. Obama's supporters will support him regardless of who he puts on the ticket, that's not the problem here. Maybe they (Clinton's) simply don't want to be vetted, for whatever reason, maybe they expect that he will lose, who knows? I do know that if the roles were reversed, she would have announced him as her VP within days of securing the nomination for the simple reason that its a no-brainer

    Parent

    it would (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    but it would not be HIS victory.  he would have to share it.
    thats why it wont  happen.

    Parent
    I consistently try (none / 0) (#90)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    NOT to believe that the man is that self-centered. I really do. It's primarily the reason that I believe Hillary doesn't want the job, because lets face it, he won't be sharing the win at all. He'll be the President. It'll be HIS mandate, not hers. I just find it incomprehensible that as good a politician as he is, he would be willing to risk the whole thing. It shows incredible weakness.

    Parent
    I think he never expected (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    his candidacy to get this far.

    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    I dont think he is such a great politician.  good speeches.  fine.  but  he has done some pretty stupid things.  if not for the MSMs ceaseless water carrying and hyping he would not be where he is IMO.
    if he was smart he would pick her and win.
    he will not.  he is not smart.  

    Parent
    I don't even think he's a good politician, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    let alone a good one.  Motivational speaker, sure.

    Parent
    If Hillary were the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    Obama would have been on the ticket immediately.
    You are absolutely right on that point.  

    I think Hillary initially wanted the VP slot since so many of her inner circle were pushing that early on.  Now, maybe not so much.


    Parent

    me (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    Hillary on the ticket would get me back. I am a 20 yr Dem and I totally trust Hillary to look out for the issues I care about, Obama not so much. I think there are quite a few of we disenchanted Dems who would come back with Hillary.

    Parent
    I think you are right. (none / 0) (#143)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    I'm a 40 year Democrat (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    And the first thing that would get me to the Obama bandwagon would be an apology to the Clinton family.  He will not pick Hillary for VP because his fragile ego (and Michelle) will not let him.  If he did, she should politely turn it down.  

    Parent
    Oops! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    I meant to say the "only" thing to get me over to Obama would be an apology to the Clinton family.  


    Parent
    I am trying to understand the positions on (none / 0) (#173)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    this site, but why on earth does the man who won the Primaries owe an apology to the Clintons? That one I absolutely do not understand. Is he supposed to apologize for the effrontery of running against her and maybe show his sincerity by abdicating in her favor? Somebody expand this one. I simply don't get it.

    Parent
    it all depends (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    on what states the PUMAs are located in.  I wish someone would do some analysis on this.

    If the PUMAs are located in RED states, it doesn't matter.  If they are located in Deep Blue states, it doesn't matter.

    Why don't they do some polling about the PUMAs in the swing states where it might have an effect?

    the think about them (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    is that IMO they are one of those tip of the iceberg things. in other words there are the "pumas" meaning the ones that are officially involved and call themselves that, and then there are all the other people all over the country who have similar feelings but are not politically savvy enough to call themselves that.
    they are going to be the problem.

    Parent
    You are soooo right (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    In my closest circle of 23 voters, 2 will vote Obama, 1 is a registered puma, and 20 will not vote this time. All are over the age of 55. The ones who are refusing to vote the top of the ticket are 75 and older.

    Parent
    and, if called for a poll (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    would your circle of friends answer honestly?

    I find it very difficult to believe that ANY campaign could (or wouldn't) be polling to get this info.

    Just because they aren't telling us the results, doesn't mean they don't have the data.  I would guess they have been polling this all along and are just waiting to see if the numbers are changing over time.

    Parent

    Yep, (none / 0) (#163)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    no vote from me. And I will be 76 by election day.  Of course, I am in a solid red state (no downticket, either).

    Parent
    I'm a PUMA (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    in a swing state, MI.  The campaigns are ramping up here.

    Parent
    I'm a PUMA in a swing state of Montana (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by athyrio on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    if that helps for your analysis..

    Parent
    They would have to acknowledge (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    that we might exist in large enough numbers to show up in a poll.

    Parent
    Arkansas is one that would go (none / 0) (#146)
    by splashy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    For Dems if Clinton is on the ticket. If not, most likely it will go for McCain.

    Not many electoral votes, but every one helps.

    Parent

    they would pick up (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    Arkansas and WV.  they would also likely cement the victories in OH and PA and put FL back in the mix and maybe TN.  And, I don't see her hurting him in NV (she won), NM (she won) or CO either.

    So, what's the downside?  Can anyone name a state that Clinton would cause Obama to lose?

    Parent

    Well, those sites you mention (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    don't want Hillary on the ticket. They are furious with the DNC and the way this has played out.

    One thing to note, of course, is that if Obama were to "pick" Hillary, her convention delegates and the need to do a roll call would almost disappear.

    The DNC really painted themselves into a corner.

    Yes, that's true but there are a lot of folks (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    who have similar feelings but not committed to not voting for Obama.  PUMAs are (as someone said above) the tip of the iceberg, the visible part.  The longer this plays out, though, the more uncertainty may harden into opposition (among the not-decided).

    I'm astonished that the DNC doesn't get that.  Truly, have any of these people been in politics?  Seen an election?

    Corners -- I think they're still painting!

    Parent

    What is anyone's read on (none / 0) (#181)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    why we will have 2 nights in a row of Clintons at the convention?

    Parent
    My take is that Bill is going to introduce (none / 0) (#185)
    by laurie on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    his wife as VP.
    That's why Hill is looking sad lately.
    I think Bill has persuaded her because it seems that Chelsea might want to enter politics. Just my take...

    Parent
    2 NATO associated wars (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    and an extremely stupid war in Iraq. Problems with Russia underscore the loss of status the US is suffering.

    The obvious choice is General Clark....that is if we are serious about being able to govern. Putting the political considerations ahead of the interests of the country is often the standard line when chosing the vp. I disagree. The primary role of the position should always come first: one heartbeat away.

    No - Obama has to stick to the theme (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    that he has enough foreign policy experience himself.

    (I know, I know....)

    No Clark, unless he can sell him some other way, as BTD points out that he can sell Hillary as a Unity Choice rather than an Experience Choice.

    Parent

    And yet...foreign policy creds (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    are always the first things mentioned, thus, O-Team's case for Hagel and Reed. Saying that foreign policy isn't important is one thing, acting upon that notion is entirely another.

    Even when the buzz turns to Kaine or that gawdawful Bayh, the chosen meme is foreign policy or covering up the lack of it.

    Domestic policy tilts toward congress; however, all presidents find themselves with a much freer hand and more on their plate when it comes to setting the foreign policy of the country. Besides, in a way, foreign policy is domestic policy today.

    A serious choice that put the country first would reflect the fact that the person chosen would made a good president. It is my first consideration...speaking only for myself.

    Parent

    Hint on Huff Post: (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    VP will speak on military-themed night.  

    Parent
    Ain't Gonna Happen (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    I've accepted that given Team Obama's discarding of all things Clark. However, I stick by my choice because I would like to know that someone who gets it right the first time, understands the world, and would be able to fulfill the job description without exception, would actually get the job. Oh, and Clark speaks Russian.

    I get the impression that the pick will be based on "who's sucking up to whom" rather than logic or qualifications.

    Parent

    one ever turning down the VP offer.

    Parent
    he has certainly shown (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    his willingness to be the attack dog.


    Parent
    Troubling times for Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    I"m completely torn by a Clinton VP selection. On the one hand, we can't use another McCain presidency, but if Hillary doesn't pull Obama across the finish line, then we risk losing her viability for 2012 (have there been any losing VP candidates who went on to win the pres later on? I'm not sure). If she DOES, then she risks being an empty suit to a disappointing presidency.

    That's the worst case scenario, of course. She could go on to be a thrilling part of an exciting new era, but the only thing in the way is Obama's ego being unable to allow Hillary any say in important manners like the economy or healthcare, etc.

    Let's see who Obama picks... maybe that will clear up a lot of questions.

    He's a joke if he picks HRC... (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    I'm trying to understand the upside of picking someone to be his VP who publicly and repeatedly characterized him unqualified to lead.  

    Honestly, who looks good in that scenario?  She'd look like an all-time opportunist, and he'd look weak.  Frankly, anyone who doesn't think that the Republicans wouldn't trumpet those themes to the end of the earth is dreaming.  And, those themes would get traction.  

    He should pick his choice.  He won.  

    And, really, the PUMA's are a laugh.  They are perfectly willing to consign themselves and the country to 4-8 years of John McCain solely because their candidate didn't win.  That says a ton about their party affiliation, their ideological convictions.  They're nothing but bitter, self-disenfranchised hero worshippers.  

    Time and time again, I ask the same questions.  Are the really militant supporters of HRC so blindly loyal that they'd give up the possibility of a Democratic administration?  That they'd prefer to see McCain putting his stamp on healthcare policy? On the rights of women?

    I'm not going to deny Obama's weaknesses.  He's got them.  But the race is his to run and his to lose.  He's earned it.  There's no point in re-litigating the issue.  The self-righteousness with which people continue to insist that ongoing debate (over HRC) doesn't weaken the party  boggles.  OF COURSE it weakens the party, because it weakens the party's candidate.  And it's short-sighted.  And it's stupid.  

    It's juvenile in the extreme to essentially keep screaming, "But we came in second!"  She did come in second, in the primary.  That means that a win, for the party, is still possible in the general.  Respect should be shown for both the opportunity that we have, right now, to get a Democratic White House, and for the right of the presumptive nominee to designate his VP.  

    She should run again, no doubt, but not now, and not for VP.          

    Parent

    PUMAs are not willing to consign (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    themselves to 4-8 years of a McCain presidency because our candidate didn't win. We're willing to let the Democratic Party lose because we object to the party that it has become. There may be differences in what the two party platforms look like, but there is no difference in the low levels to which both parties are willing to stoop to win. We're not willing to condone what our party (or former party) has done by giving it our votes. The "sore loser" line is a crock. Perpetuating it might make you feel superior, but it just makes you look like someone who refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Obama and the DNC have created this situation - they can clean it up themselves. If Obama loses, it is not the fault of the PUMAs as much as we will be blamed for it.

    Parent
    So, if I read you correctly, (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    HRC, despite all eveidence to the contrary, didn't employ people who were willing, actually, advocated, strategies trumpeting Obama's race and background, and hence, his "otherness"?  That's all on the record.  So, you'd embrace the party if she had won utilizing such tactics?

    If that's the case, then what has the party become?  Did Democrats en masse become misogynists?  I don't think so, because HRC garnered 18 million votes.  Was there a rules dispute?  Yep.  Did she come out on the downside?  Yep.  Were the rules sexist?  Don't think so...they certainly weren't written with her in mind.  

    She's a talented politician who, unfortunately, has given rise to a discomfiting cult of personality.  I'll grant you that Obama has his own, as well.  But you still haven't answered the fundamental question...are you willing to allow a man who doesn't want equal pay for women, equivalent access to healthcare, wants to redefine birth control, etc, to become president?  Where's the logic?  Is that what Hillary wants, do you think?  

    I'm so tired of this amorphous theme of "betrayal".  She lost.  The woman ran a race on equal footing and she lost.  It ran until the end.  Sexism, misogyny, etc didn't become a recurring theme until it was apparent she was going to lose.  Her decision to ignore the caucus states...that wasn't the reason for her loss, it was sexism!  Her presumptuousness, her utter flatfootedness at his early success?  Nope.  The media!  Pantsuitism!

    If you believe that, you demean the woman.  She ran hard and tough and she cared and she lost.  She wouldn't, and won't, accept what you appear to wish for, a McCain presidency, a Republican presidency.

    I'm sorry if it offends you, but the PUMAs do appear petulant.  Because they'd scrifice the principles of their standard bearer to display their pique.  It's sad. I'm sure your daughters will thank you.    

    Parent

    My daughters are PUMAs, too, (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    and yes, they thank their mom for all of the work that she has done in the past to protect and promote their rights as women. Sexism and misogyny were a recurring theme throughout the entire campaign, but women have learned that complaining about it brings accusations of "whining'. We know better than that. The DNC could have taken a stand, but didn't. They preferred to let members of their own party use sexism and misogyny against a sitting senator and former First Lady.  Then they manipulated the party's rules to crown their choice of candidate. Now they are changing the procedures of their nominating convention to nominate their candidate by shunning half the party. I am not a part of a "cult of personality". If I were, then I would let Hillary decide for whom I should vote. She has been a formidable opponent for Senator Obama, but she is no longer a choice for me to vote for and does not have the right to promise my vote to someone else. If my refusal to vote for anyone at the top of the ticket gives the White House to John McCain, I can live with it. He is no better or worse than Obama.  Both  choices are bad.
    "are you willing to allow a man who doesn't want equal pay for women, equivalent access to healthcare, wants to redefine birth control, etc, to become president?"
    That describes both men. And I have to ask if you would use the word "petulant" to describe the many men who are also PUMAs or have you chosen that derisive word because you think we're a bunch of childish women? Your sexism is showing.

    Parent
    I notice that you seem to draw no differences (1.00 / 2) (#161)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    between McCain and Obama.  That's absurd.  Obama does support equal pay, choice, access to healthcare, etc.  Not only, that, but those items are part of the party platform.

    So, I can only assume that you haven't read, or don't read things that should be of interest to you.  I also simply can't for a minute fathom this "Hillary or anyone but Obama" mindset.  The idea that he stole the election is a delusion.  People voted for him, just as people voted for Hillary.  Hillary just didn't win.  She didn't run a good campaign.  Her organization was fractured.  Has she had better organization, she probably could have won, going away.  

    And, no, I don't assume all PUMA's are women.  I do assume that they're all horribly misguided, and incurious.  There's a difference.

    Certainly, I'm not sexist.  Your assumption that, because my opinions differ from yours, that I view the issue in another way, that I must be, well, I think that might be a bit sexist.  I'm merely an assessor of opportunity cost.  No one likes to see the ramifications of their choices pointed out.  You certainly don't.

    I admire Clinton.  I'd admire her more if she worked on you guys a bit.  Because you don't even have the facts right, and because you have a personal issue against someone who could provide you with good government.    

    Parent

    this is a rather silly line of reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    Hello!?!?!  Voodoo economics on line 1.  

    Parent
    I take exception (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    With many parts of your post.  You say, "he should pick his choice - he won".  Did he?  All by himself or was it because the media and the DNC jumped in bed with him, was it because David Axelrod knew they had to race-bait to take the black vote away from Hillary and turn both she and Bill into racist with the help of the nastiest bunch of supporters to ever disgrace our party.  

    I've been a Democrat since my first vote in 1968 and I'm pretty ticked off at the way my Democratic Party caved to the cult personality of the Obama supporters and to our ridiculous media.  You talk about PUMA's and say they are laughable but you don't discuss why and who brought the disunity to our party.  Just a hint - It was not Hillary supporters.  

    Hero worshippers?  Are you kidding?  If we have 4 years of McCain it will not be the fault of anyone but Barack Obama and the DNC.  He is a weak, inexperienced candidate and I believe he may lose because people are having buyer's remorse and know the weakest candidate was picked for us by the media and the Pelosi's and Brazille's of the Party.  We real Democrats have a lot of work to do to restore our Party because, right now, I and many others are not very happy with it.

    Parent

    This post is in response to Old City. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    you seem to assume (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    that HRC has no cult of personality.  You seem to assume that because Obama even ran, that he disenfranchised your chosen candidate.  You seem to assume that the rules that all of the candidates agreed to were invalidated when those rules didn't advantage your candidate.

    Face it, you're not happy because your candidate lost.  You can blame everyone under the sun, but in the end, she just lost.  People lose close races.  

    I wonder, if Hillary had won, would you take complaints from Obama's supporters about racism, or rules rigging seriously?  Or would you claim that they were sour grapes?  I'm betting the latter.

    Feel free to start a third party.  See how it goes.

    In the end, I keep hoping for the better nature of people to prevail.  I keep getting disappointed.

    Parent

    Oh my Gosh Old City! (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    First let me explain to you that I was not a Hillary supporter in the beginning.  Sad now to say that I liked John Edwards message but thought if we really wanted to fix our country then the smartest person on the stage was Chris Dodd.

    You can deny the realities of the primary season or just try to pick fights on the blogs but it is what it is.  And you know, or should know that just about everyone in America took insults from the Obama people if you weren't a supporter and refused to drink the kool-aid.  Apparently, all the "new" Democrats don't want their candidate to have to answer any questions.  That's not how it works.  

    This is probably enough said on this subject.  We are all entitled to our opinions without being insulted.  

    Parent

    Hillary (none / 0) (#166)
    by CHDmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    For many PUMA's and other Hillary supporters wwho are not PUMAs, at this point the fact we will not vote for Obama has NOTHING to do with Hillary and lies at Obama's feet. For the same reasons I did NOT vote for Obama in the Primary (Rezko, experience), I can not vote for him in the GE. It has to do with Obama, his associates, bitter, Wright, Fisa,ect. At this point, the best the Dem party could hope for from many people I know (life long Dems)is they stay home in Novemeber and don't vote for Mccain. Donna told us to stay home we weren't needed. But as time goes on and the more people watch Obama and listen to him, the more people are deciding to for for Mccain then stay home.
     Many many Hillary supporters did not have our favorite candidate win primaries before, but we always voted for the Democratic nom, but after watching Obama and the DNC ect, we believe that yes, Mccain would be better than Obama.

    Parent
    Wow, OldCity, (none / 0) (#184)
    by sallywally on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:07 PM EST
    Are you full of it!

    You seem to assume that because Obama even ran, that he disenfranchised your chosen candidate.

    tsk, tsk on the grammar there....aside from the silliness.

    and

    Or would you claim that they were sour grapes?  I'm betting the latter.

    and

    In the end, I keep hoping for the better nature of people to prevail.  I keep getting disappointed.

    Off the wall hyperbole and self-righteous insults.

    So tiresome.

    Facts and intelligent analysis are much more invigorating.

    Take a good look at the conversation on this site. You need to learn from these folks.

    Just do some lurking like I do. It's very instructive. I love to read these threads.

    Parent

    It's been 3A.M. all week (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    ... even in Hawaii.

    Obama's Theory of Change rests on a conviction that governance is reducible to a pattern of resolution without confrontation.

    How is this to work? Nobody seems much interested in that.

    They're above it all. (none / 0) (#136)
    by catfish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    Nobody who's above it all is interested in that. We down here have to wonder on our own.

    Parent
    Colin Powell? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    Oh, god. Shoot me.

    Put me out of my misery.  Puh-leeese.

    I'll try this question one more time (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    If you were Obama would you rather have Hillary in your administration where she has to go along with the team decisiion after she has had her input behind closed doors (like she did for Bill on NAFTA)?

    OR

    Would you like to have her as one ohf the most powerful senators pushing your agenda further to the left than you want it to go?

    Isn't there an old Chinese proverb (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?

    Parent
    Obama's Priorities (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:05:08 PM EST
     1) Ego
     2) Create a new power base in dem party by eliminating Clinton power base.
     3) Winning the GE.

    Priorities (1) and (2) are why Obama will never pick Clinton as VP.

    Strong agreement (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    with you on #1 & #2. Winning the GE might actually be a few more spots down on the list, though. His vacation timing speaks volumes. It's like he's saying, "you talked me into this, so you make sure I win, I'm tired."


    Parent
    I just think it is inappropriate to make the (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    comment about a "taboo" subject.  I know it's what some people have said, but that doesn't mean it needs to be repeated, and especially in that vein.  I'm not an Obama supporter, but talking about something happening to him disgusts me.  We need to keep it civil and I don't think that comment was civil.  Just my opinion.  

    it wasn't the thought (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    that something would happen to him as much as the accusations that Clinton would make it happen.

    Parent
    "...and espcially in that vein." (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST
    I think I covered the Clinton angle with those words.  Thanks.

    Parent
    I would like to see (4.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    Hillary go back to the Senate and knock Harry Reid off that very weak pedestal he perches on and lead our party and our country in the right and best direction.  She would be a very strong Senate Leader and if Obama does pull off a win she can guide him and help him without damaging his fragile ego. She is an adult and loves our country and our party and has the class and the graciousness not to embarrass him.  That would probably be the best scenario for everyone.  

    Hey (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    This is exactly like one of the arguments I made for Obama/Hagel '08!  Er, not that I actually want Hagel as VP, of course, but the same argument would apply.

    Most of the candidates with gravitas and experience - Clark, Biden, etc - would be seen precisely as "gravitas and experience" picks.  Now, I'm not sure that anything is really wrong with that, but some people get freaked out thinking that the minute we acknowledge that Obama is relatively inexperienced, suddenly the whole world sees the emperor has no clothes.  I personally don't think it works like that.

    Of course the difference is (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    Hagel is an anti-choice Republican, etc.

    But other than that, hey - Obama/Hagel!

    You are making a joke here right?

    Parent

    Kaine is an anti choice democrat (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    not much difference IMO.


    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    Of course I don't want Hagel for VP!

    The similarity is simply that if Obama makes an unconventional experience pick, then the chatter is all about the unconventional aspect of it, not about the fact that Obama apparently felt the need for experience on the ticket.

    That said, I do think my larger case for Hagel as VP was pretty persuasive, even though I don't actually believe it myself.  Sometimes as lawyers we make such arguments.

    Parent

    I find it impossible to believe that Hagel (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    can be the subject of a persuasive argument here given the fact that Obama is underperforming with Dems.

    Talk about giving the green light to vote for a Republican  - hell, if Obama can do it, why not Dem voters? Hagel would be disastrous.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    Which Dems is Obama having trouble with, though?  Is his problem with the Dems on the more conservative side of the party, or with Dems who think he's not enough of a partisan Democrat?  While I'm sympathetic to the latter critique I expect numbers-wise the problem is more with the former group.  I mean, by and large those are the type of people we lose every election.

    Again, to be clear, I'm making this case only in an academic sense.  We obviously cannot take the risk that Hagel might become President.

    Parent

    good point (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:55:11 AM EST
    I would also say that I dont see how you can make a case that someone like Nunn or Kaine would be all that much better.
    just because the have a D after their name.


    Parent
    I would add (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    that it seems to me that Obama thinks his path to victory is to be found in the center right.
    he will continue running to the right.  including with his VP pick.
    at this point the least bad one with a chance is Bayh.


    Parent
    Actually, last I checked, O (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    was having problems primarily with about 25% of HRC backers, probably overwhelmingly women, who have remained unhappy with what they perceive as O's lack of warmth and respect shown his former primary rival.

    The other groups he seems to be doing well with as these things are compared with previous nominees from past cycles.

    Naming CH to the ticket, while it could help earning a few mod male Rs and men folk indies, would not only not bring back HRC backers, it would add to the number of Dem women dissatisfied with O, primarily on the choice issue, but also as Hégel has voted reliably reactionary Repub on DP issues over the yrs.  Former HRC backers and socially lib O backers, of the female persuasion, all would be quite upset with such a stupid pick.

    Not gonna happen though.  O is not stupid.

    Parent

    why would (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    anything you just said be any less true about Kaine or Nunn?


    Parent
    It seems to me (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM EST
    that your persistent advocacy for Sebelius suggests that you're pretty much happy to throw those former HRC backers by the wayside.

    Parent
    Re KS, all along here I've (none / 0) (#72)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    said O needed to prep the ground for such a pick, lest the HRC supporters be offended by her non-selection.

    Such groundwork has not been adequately laid, imo, much to my disappointment.  

    So, I must conclude today, probably in the final week before the VP is announced, that it won't be a woman other than Hillary, and probably not her either given Bill's still-bitter primary hangover attitude (understandable) and O's uneasy relationship with Hillary.

    Had O fallen behind in the overall polls in the past month, then he would have gone Hillary.

    Parent

    We're already under the bus. (none / 0) (#92)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    Brodie can advocate for whomever he or she wishes, and it won't make a modicum of difference. Unfortunately for Obama, we've become quite comfortable under here. We never expected "warmth" from Obama toward us or toward Hillary. I think if someone stuck a thermometer in his mouth, the mercury would stay in the bulb. Respect is all we've ever asked for. Now Senator Clinton needs to show us that respect for her matters as much to her as it does to her supporters. If her delegates get the 300 signatures they need and she refuses to sign the petition, her supporters are going to want to know what she traded the respect for - a weak-a$$ Democratic platform and a Wednesday afternoon speaking engagement for Bill? If it's for the VP slot, I might understand although I wouldn't vote for the ticket.

    Parent
    Thankfully we Dems don't have (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    to worry much about O picking Hégel.  That sort of wild Hail Chuck pass is not gonna happen in this particular space-time political reality.  

    Wrt your comparison on grounds of experience/gravitas, of course such an unlikely pick wouldn't be discussed in terms of shoring up experience.  That would be missing the point.

    Rather it would be a multi-day media firestorm about how O took "unconventional" to an extreme and how his attempt at bipartisan unity could end up creating partisan disunity within his own party over core Dem matters like choice and in terms of how such a pick would seriously undermine the OTeam's strategy of attacking 8 yrs of disastrous McCain-Bush policies.

    Hégel's name was likely thrown out there to underline O's bipartisan appeal as it plays out with indies and unhappy mod Rs.  I'm surprised anyone took the Veep talk seriously.

    Had we been in a non-change cycle with our nominee seriously behind in the polls, however, with FP front and center as the leading concern of voters ...

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    As usual, you know it all.  I agree with you that the pick is unlikely to be a German philosopher who has been dead for 175 years.

    Parent
    pttf (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    if he is going to pick a dead german philosopher you would think he would at least pick a good one.

    Parent
    Wish I did know it all, Steve, but, (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    sadly, that is far from the case.    

    Chuckie H. won't be the pick, that I do assert confidently, however.

    I must also sadly confess that my preferred pick, Sebelius, and my arguments here and there early and often on the internets for her candidacy apparently failed to impress Axelrod & Co, though KS is far less unlikely a choice than Charlie from NE or, say, Sam Nunn.  But the indications, given the lack of groundwork by the campaign to shore up O-HRC relations and clearly take her out of VP consideration by mutual agreement, are that Sebelius probably is a longshot.

    Right now it looks like Bayh is well out ahead in the Veepstakes.  

    Not too inspirational, granted, but a definite improvement over Lieberman, and he'll probably perform better than the lackluster sunny-faced no-show Edwards.
     

    Parent

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    I don't think anyone is under the impression that you actually know it all.  Your posts just always convey the smug tone of someone who thinks they do, that's all.

    Parent
    I'll try to remember, whenever (none / 0) (#79)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    daring to challenge any of your peculiar arguments here, to include  more nuanced qualifiers and uncertainty in the posts, lest the thinner-skinned types among us not be so personally upset over one poster's mere confident assertions.

    Parent
    "Peculiar"? (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    The text message thing (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    makes me think that it will be someone with wide name recognition. You don't introduce America to an unknown pick by text message, right?

    Funny, I think just the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    Announcement by text means not being swarmed with loud, pesky reporters asking 'Why Not Hillary'?

    As a separate reason, the BO campaign always telegraphs what lines they are thinking along before they make a move.  Often it is several different lines, to not give their hand away too early.  (all campaigns do this, I'm not singling them out on this point).  But there's really been no signaling at all about Hillary as VP.  

    Parent

    Hopefully they pull this texting thing off (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    It may prove fodder for McCain's sneering advertisements either way, but it will be nice if it doesn't become a huge joke.

    On another note, how fun will it be to read the blogs the day Hillary Clinton is chosen as VP?

    Parent

    Text message might be.... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:27:39 AM EST
    ...the best way to announce a Clinton pick to his most virulent CDS-afflicted supporters. It would be a primal scream heard round the world.

    Parent
    Buy stock in Motorola, Nokia, etc. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    His supporters will be throwing their cell phones if he picks Hillary.

    For him to pick her would mean he acknowledges and accepts that he needs her. He's not going to put that out there.

    It would certainly be his smartest choice, but it would not be the smart thing for Hillary to accept.

    Parent

    And a great boost to the economy! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by akaEloise on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    Since they'd all have to buy new Blackberries and iPhones after they jumped up and down on the old ones.

    Parent
    Ah, JavaCity -- you beat me to it! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by akaEloise on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    Great minds think alike (and fools seldom differ).

    Parent
    After AT&T gets their money (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    for sending all those text messages to all the phones.

    Parent
    yes! (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    that is exactly what I thought! He will perhaps be far away from his angry supporters that may suffer from CDS....and since he SO did not want her on the ticket, he can kind of back handedly announce her and make no big deal of it, just let HER do the talking....

    Parent
    BONUS! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    Hillary would be a great VP choice, but the collective meltdown amongst the netroots would be friggin' amazing. I'd buy tickets to it, but it'd be free!

    I'm not popping my popcorn though.

    Parent

    that's the best reason (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    to hope for a Clinton VP selection.  All the fun of watching the netroots implode while they still have to support Obama because of the supreme court.   LOL

    Parent
    Tim - We don't have (none / 0) (#168)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
    To worry too much about the Supreme Court if we are committed to holding the Democratic majority's feet to the fire.  This country has operated in the past without nine justices and it can do it again.  Democrats will, I think, make big gains in the Congress but they have been so weak for so long that we will have to make sure they know we will not stand for more weakness or we will send them home permanently.  

    Parent
    I would sure love that (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    but find it very unlikely.

    Parent
    Why is it unlikely? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    I keep hearing he won't pick her bur wonder how people are so sure.

    Parent
    the Bill problem (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    I "cling" to the hope he will still come around but I think its very unlikely.


    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    I saw in a post here someone said Bill was speaking Wed night.  I saw on teevee news this morning he is speaking Wed DURING THE DAY.
    sort of insulting for the only living two term Dem president if you ask me.

    Parent
    I heard this morning that Bill will not speak in (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    the evening, that his slot on the agenda is in the afternoon. I'll be very disgruntled if that is true since MO has primo speaking spot on Monday night. The entitlement and elitist claims get more and more difficult for them to dispell.


    Parent
    Well, that would free me up (none / 0) (#120)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    for the Yanks/Sox!

    I think that would be a huge mistake on Obama's part. I remember watching Bill last go around. He does wonders for the party when he's up there speaking, imo.

    Parent

    that since it's unlikely the networks will carry the entire proceedings, in the asbence of bombs or riots.

    Parent
    That would be a mistake (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    I assume that is not the case.

    Parent
    that is what they said on FOX (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    this morning.  but it was, you know, FOX.


    Parent
    FOX was the only media that had the (none / 0) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    courage to report on the JE scandal, and even they said they were reluctant because it came from NE, but that credible sources outside the Enquirer had supported the story.

    Parent
    Let's all hope so, but (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    it would fall right in line with picking Chuck Hagel for VP.  Except for Iraq, he's further right than McCain.


    Parent
    We'll just all have to post (none / 0) (#182)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:56:32 PM EST
    the speech at youtube, etc.

    Parent
    I have a dumb question (none / 0) (#28)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    for anyone who might know: Could Bill be the VP pick? I KNOW THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. I just want to know if it were procedurally possible. And if Hillary was on the ticket, the "Bill problem" would be a lot more manageable, I think.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    the pick has to be able to serve as president.
    Bill cant.


    Parent
    I agree that Bill cannot serve (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    as president, again, however, and I still don't have this answer I've been asking for months now, but if you look at amendment 12 which is how we get a veep, we do not follow this process. Why should we, then, follow the consitutional provision that says Bill cannot be president again? And, since Obama voted, imo, against the constitution with FISA, why not just bypass the rules altogether?!

    Parent
    Afsik, neither is being vetted (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    unless something has changed, I thought that neither had been asked for anything in the way of being vetted. Also, it seems if she was really on the short list, Bill would be having a much easier time being enthusiastic about Obama.

    Parent
    Condi Rice ... come onnnnnnnnn down! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    What's txt msg-ese for Prominent Woman and African American in the Admin, Russian Expert and If McCain Merely Floats Her Name For VP for a Week Obama's Numbers Languish Like A Beached Carcass in the MOE Zone?

    I'm not an elephant so I tend to forget.

    Since we've heard that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    has been consulting (meeting) with Condi, why not pick her as veep. She certainly brings gravitus to the ticket, albeit negative gravitus, but hey, it's the season of "change!"

    Parent
    My number one deal-breaker (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by stxabuela on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    Would be a non-Democrat as VP on the Dem ticket.  I would go from leaning toward skipping the race to a sure third-party vote.  

    Parent
    Condi? Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    Condi who ignored the warnings about Al Quaeda before 9/11.

    Condi who can't manage Putin for all of her being  a Russian expert.

    Condi who couldn't even prevent candidate passport files from being rifled?

    Condi, who sat in on the torture committee?

    THAT Condi?

    Parent

    Yup, that Condi (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    We are talking about Teh One Tru Candidate, no? He could choose the reanimated corpse of Stalin and few would complain, IMO.

    Parent
    wait (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:42 AM EST
    I thought Condi was the reanimated corpse of Stalin.

    Parent
    I deeply oppose sebdubg Unity Pony to these scum (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    But that's Team Obama's schtick, not mine, and why I don't support any enabler.

    They want it both ways: whine about their critics while running headlong into the arms of the worst and most criminal admin ever.

    If McCain trots Rice before the cameras, the MSM will eat it up and the most brilliant campaign ever will just hang harder on its latest petarded display of super genius.

    Parent

    Isn't Condi's (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:58:08 PM EST
     Russia expertise confined to Cold War Russia?

    Parent
    Not after the stupendous job as a Russan (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:26:05 PM EST
    expert that she did not just do re Georgian mess. There is no way she should have let her president walk into that one the way he did.

    Parent
    Question.. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Scan on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    BTD, how do you know that Obama simply does not want her on his ticket? There's a lot of noise on the VP front. If he wants to win, then he wants Hillary on his ticket. It's an easy decision.

    I have to think.... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    ... that if he was going to pick Hillary he'd have done it a long time ago, the better to patch up the schism in the party, and the sooner to tap the Clinton fundraising network. It's not like Obama needed to learn more about her to make up his mind.

    Parent
    Doesn't he need to leave that network alone (2.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:28:45 PM EST
    for awhile so they can pay off the existing HRC campaign debt, which is still in the twenty million zone, if you count all of it? That is a horrible burden to any future political hopes she may have, even if half of it is her own money.  I posted a long time ago about people who liked her or who wanted unity to pay this off, but it hasn't happened and it is an albatross around her neck.

    Parent
    Just think.... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    if he had picked Clinton shortly after she suspended her campaign...all of the positive press, positive feelings, positive fundraising time - together - and effective campaigning.

    Mr. Obama lost an incredible opportunity by waiting...IF he ultimately decides to pick HRC...IMHO.

    I would think selecting her now might raise some questions about "why not two months ago"?

    Parent

    Seems to me that, if Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    wanted Clinton as VP he would have announced it by now.  Obvious choice.

    Parent
    As August drags on (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nemo52 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    this whole thing just makes me so sad.

    Parent
    Not to mention stale. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    I'm pretty bored with Obama. I did like his line about Republicans taking pride in being ignorant and hope he intends to step it up. I keep waiting for his campaign to catch on fire. But this VP thing has bogged it down and I agree with a lot of you, it has gone on long enough.

    Parent
    Never vetted (none / 0) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    I don't believe she was ever asked to submit any documentation nor has she met with any of the vetting team.

    Parent
    In his own words (none / 0) (#57)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    anyone would have her on his short-list.

    Parent
    The whole Edwards fiasco (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jim J on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    has reinforced to me that fact that until you have all facts on the table--ALL facts--you cannot make a realistic assessment of a situation.

    For all we know Hillary has some deal-breaking skeleton in her closet--maybe more affairs on the part of her husband, perhaps--that would kill the campaign dead in the water if she were picked as VP.

    We just aren't privy to enough information here.

    (Yes, I know that's just speculation on my part and therefore not allowed here, but if Jeralyn can concoct an Edwards blackmail extortion ring with ties to the JonBenet Ramsey case out of thin air, I'll take my chances, thank you very much.)

    lol. What???? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    Yes. You'll find out about the 4 affairs Bill didn't have that the media managed to keep quiet all this time. I'm sure they weren't looking.  LOL!

    Parent
    Unlike some of you (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    Most of the world does not give a sh*t about John Edwards and his private life.

    Parent
    I would be one who doesnt (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    but there is an interesting post at NQ talking about  Edwards attacks on Hillary and how he helped put Hillary away.
    it is pretty amazing to see all the attacks he made on her all lined up.
    and lets face it. if he had done what he should  have and dropped out Hillary would most likely be the nominee now.

    Parent
    Hey, Wolfson agrees w/you. (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    But, talk about speculation.

    Parent
    Wolfson's poor judgment in even (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    weighing in on this Edwards matter may have undermined Clinton's chances as VP - if she still had any.  

    It brings Bill Clinton under the same scrutiny all over again and reinforces all the baggage issues that people claimed the Clintons had as an argument against having her as the nominee.  Not to mention the fact that there are still numerous people who are fearful that Bill Clinton is still having affairs or might get caught again.

    Wolfson was a fool to say anything at all about this affair.

    Parent

    Utter BS (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    Nobody gives a sh*t about Bill Clinton's sex life either, unless they have none of their own.

    Parent
    You know what? (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Sadly, too many people do and that was a key component in the argument against Senator Clinton as the nominee - one which took hold widely - and one which I greatly resented.  Wolfson is compounding Senator Clinton's "baggage" problem imo.

    Parent
    There must be plenty of them, then (none / 0) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    It was a really big topic in the comment sections of the pro-Obama sites throughout the primary.


    Parent
    That's their personal problem then (none / 0) (#167)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    and they should get a life.  People may talk about it, but it never hurt Bill's approval ratings a d*mn bit.  I would take that to mean the average person does not care.

    Parent
    He couldn't not say anything (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    He gets paid to opine these days.

    Parent
    He could have been much smarter (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    and said that it is a shame that talented politicians are not being measured on their ideas and policies rather than their private lives - which is how I always felt about the Clinton bs - instead of reinforcing the notion that their private lives are so important as to totally end their careers and eclipse their contributions.

    I guess I see it differently than a lot of other people, but I look back on Clinton's legacy and I'm angry at the people who made his affair an issue - not at him for having one.

    Parent

    I agree Capt. (2.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM EST
    But if Edwards had done what he should have done he would never have been in the race in the first place and Hillary would be the hands-down winner.  Of course, that's assuming the Obama camp, the media and the DNC actually acted with honor.  I guess that would be a big assumption.

    Parent
    WHY should he have dropped out? It was (none / 0) (#178)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:31:48 PM EST
    not fatal for Bill if I read this site correctly. They wanted him to be President, really. And so did a lot of others who still sing about how they supported Edwards first. It could have happened.

    Parent
    Too true! How high did Bill's (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    approval ratings have to be to convince people of this fact!?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    that would be legit but Obama's behavior has said it differently. I doubt that she has any skeletons larger than the ones Obama himself has.

    Parent
    skeletons (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    "For all we know Hillary has some deal-breaking skeleton in her closet--maybe more affairs on the part of her husband, perhaps--"

    Now that is not just a bridge too far, but a continent too far!  Bill's behavioral skeletons belong in his closet, not hers.

    Parent

    tben, is that you? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    your habit of chafing at the rules here seems just so familiar...

    Parent
    If rules are transparently unfair and self-serving (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jim J on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    then I chafe at them, yes. Why don't you?

    Parent
    If a diarist wants to argue for HrC as VP, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    It is necessary to come up with a good reason, and the Georgia mess is not that reason. What would come out of that is a rehash of HRC's public comment that Mr. Putin has no soul, for a man who, regardless of his religious bona fides, goes to (Russian Orthodox) church.  What is she supposed to say to him after that to get him to do something he probably does not want to do?He does have a record of remembering personal insults, especially when he's got the upper hand.

    How on earth does that demonstrate a sophisticated grasp of international politics and diplomacy which would help the ticket? It's almost as bad as Cheney's war-waving yesterday, as if we were supposed to pull troops out of Iraq right now and send them to Tbilisi to back up Shaakashvili's government, under an undisclosed mutual security undertaking we may yet find out Bush or Cheney gave, and backed up with the defense exercises a few months ago and all those trainers we are now trying to pull out.

    If one is going to make the case for Clinton for VP, please, try to make it a sensible case.

    Please make a sensible comment (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    that addresses the post before you.

    As I understand your reply, you argue Hillary should not be VP because Putin does not like her.

    That is sensible to you apparently. It is not to me. Moreover, it is a nonsequitor. Putin does not even get to vote in the US. You might think about that for a moment.

    Parent

    When I posted the comment it should have (none / 0) (#179)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    fallen right after the one that argued HRC's experience would help Obama in view of the sudden current Georgia situation specifically, and I thought this would be following that one, not where it seems to have ended up.

    Parent
    Interesting clue (none / 0) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    though the Obama camp says it isn't.

    Kansas Gov. Sebelius lays out the Democratic Convention's nightly themes on morning media call, says Wednesday night -- which Obama's No. 2 keynotes -- will focus on "Securing America's Future."

    Campaign aide says the theme isn't a hint that Obama's veep pick will have a strong military background.

    Via The Page


    Colin Powell? (none / 0) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    Might bring conservative Dems and some Republicans along - and it would be a surprise.

    I know all the things Powell lied about re: the Iraq War, but he was lied to and it can be spun that way - he's still popular, and it would give military and foreign policy cred to Obama.

    What could he possibly bring to the ticket? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    He's Republican, he has proven that he is easy to fool despite his first-hand experience in the military, and that he disappears when things get uncomfortable.

    I sure wouldn't vote for any ticket with Powell on it, not D or R or I.


    Parent

    Powell might have come on before (none / 0) (#186)
    by laurie on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    but not now that Obama's ratings are so down.

    Parent
    First do no harm (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    in Virginia.

    hmmm.

    Interesting: McCain leads among (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    voters older than McCain.

    Parent
    Shocking, right? (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:56:11 PM EST
    But if you work the numbers, Obama is actually probably ahead overall. (McCain isn't winning 14% of the black vote).

    Parent
    "work the numbers" (none / 0) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    "actually probably"


    Parent
    So go read them yourself (none / 0) (#133)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    Actually, probably.

    Parent
    Not at TalkLeft (none / 0) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:34:47 PM EST
    if they appeared, they were deleted.

    didn't mean here (none / 0) (#141)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    just meant in general and not just on blogs, it was on TV as well

    Parent
    Siteviolater femmeone (none / 0) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    for obvious reasons.

    Clinton Switcheroo? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    Hoping against hope...perhaps Hill being in the Tuesday slot and Bill in the Wednesday is a ruse, and they'll actually swap that when it's announced she's VP?

    I agree with you BTD that he needs her.  She is her 18 million voters, more than half of whom chose her when he was already the front-runner.  She's irreplaceable.

    What are you sayin? (none / 0) (#171)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    What a cruel thing to say. Does this mean you think  Hillary supporters will have good health and Obama supporters want. I have read other below the belt remarks on here. Joking about the man being arrested for threatening Obama's life, is one that comes to mindm follwed by the same , am just sayin . This is why security is so tight around him. Other threats have been made, but not made public ( MSM)  
    I doubt if Hillary would approve of her supporters being so cruel. She has asked her supporters to come on board, but can't seem to get them to do this.  
    Michelle has also talked to Hillary concerning the good job they did raising Chelsea in the White House and asking for advice. They are no where near as mad as some would like to believe.

    When are some of you going to listen to Hillary?  

    You don't know what Tim was referring to because (none / 0) (#172)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    BTD deleted the parent comment.  It was a very ugly remark.  So don't get your pants in a wad.

    Parent