Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 8, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

HILLARY AS VEEP?....Big Tent Democrat is happy that Democrats are finally united behind a candidate, but warns of stormy weather ahead:

I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party — unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate — the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

....Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

BTD has been banging this particular drum for a long time, and I happen to think he's wrong about it. The party will unite just fine around any reasonable VP choice as long as Hillary supports the ticket and rallies her fans to the Obama campaign — and I think she will.

But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.

Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama's shadow. Anyone disagree?

Kevin Drum 12:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (204)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Less clout as VP? Not if HClinton assumed Cheney's role as Imperial VP.

Posted by: degustibus on June 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

BT Dem, also known as Armondo, is a huge Hillary fan. I don't pay any attention.

Obama must now sell himself to the disaffected Hillary supporters, and must ensure that the incompetent McCain campaign does not pick these people up. By August, when we have our convention, Hillary will be history. Obama will pick someone who can help HIM, not Hillary.

Posted by: POed Lib on June 8, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I think Hillary has to have her eyes on a SCOTUS appointment at this point. It would give her a second job that her husband wasn't able to attain and the family a clean sweep of the top job in every branch of government. And we all know that the next POTUS will have at least two SCOTUS appointments.

Frankly I think the SCOTUS job would be a perfect fit for HIllary.

Posted by: majun on June 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you're right on. If Obama gets elected, and the Democrats maintain their Senate majority, I could see her as an effective majority leader. And there are always cabinet appointments, which would have less of a second-fiddle feel to them. Secretary of State? Secretary of Defense? Secretary of the Interior? There are a whole slew of options for her that would allow her to serve the administration without being on the ticket. I doubt she wants to be VP under these circumstances.

Posted by: Wally on June 8, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Lloyd Bensten, anyone?

Posted by: Ed Whitson on June 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

I believe that she still wants to be President and recent Democratic Vice Presidents have all received the nomination. (Vice Presidential candidates who lose, however, don't.)

She'll be 68 in 2016 and, after 8 years of an Obama administration, she will no longer just be identified with her husband's administration.

Posted by: PE on June 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

The question is not whether she wants to be VP. Her campaign advisors continue to bring it up. The cable news channels have dwelt on nothing else. She fails to deny interest. The bigger question is whether she will deny a serious endorsement without the position. And let's not pretend that yesterday was anything other than a formality.

Posted by: Danp on June 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

The government department that needs the most help is Justice. How about Hillary for Attorney General?

Posted by: Narl on June 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Nah. Gah. Happen.

Obama took the reins so quickly and firmly that it would be a step backwards to bow to pressure from the HRC camp and put her on the ticket. He's the Big Dog now, and he's acting like it.

She has many more opportunities in other parts of the gummint, and I agree that dangling a SCOTUS appointment (for someone who has never practiced as a judge) would keep her out of the way.

That would surely frost some right wing cookies.

Or a cabinet post where she can put her health plan in place.

But Veep? Not never, not no how, nah gah happen.

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 8, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Less clout as VP? Not if HClinton assumed Cheney's role as Imperial VP.

Only way she could do that is if Obama turns out to be as dumb as Bush. Which is something only the most ignorant Hillary dead-ender could expect.

I think the SCOTUS job would be a perfect fit for HIllary.

Have you ever heard Hillary make a brilliant legal, as opposed to political, argument? I haven't. Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice would likely be a reliable liberal vote (though I don't imagine corporate America quaking in its boots), but I don't think there is any evidence that she has the particular kind of legal brilliance that it takes to actually be an intellectual leader and move the Court and the law in a more liberal direction.

President Obama needs to be looking for the next Justice Brennan every chance he gets to fill a Supreme Court seat. That's not Hillary, unless there's a whole side to her that she's not yet shown to the public.

Posted by: Tom on June 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

There's history in being the first female VP. That's the motivation.

Posted by: History Books on June 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I think SCOTUS is good. A formal announcment of "I'll appoint Hillary" would probably be impolitic, but it could be noised about informally.

1. She'd probably be a good one. I thought highly of Bill, but always suspected that Hillary out-brained him by about two to one.
2. Politically, it might be more pleasing to her feminist supporters than the VP slot because
3. Short of President it's about the most consequential job one can have, and she's young enough that she would be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.
4. Bill could go back to being a senior statesman, which up until the campaign he was pretty good at.

Posted by: thersites the peace troll on June 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

VP seems like a terrible waste of Clinton's skills and passion (unlike VP for Cheney which is a perfect match for his desire to exert secretive puppetmastery). A role as a leading, or the leading Democratic voice in the Senate seems much more compelling, both for her and for Democrats.

Posted by: DB on June 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Considering the savagery the media has piled on her from the beginning of the primary, I have a hard time understanding why she would want to go through 5 more months of that just to be second on the ticket. I also wonder why some of her supporters would want to put her through that as well. I think Hillary will be just fine.... whatever she decides.

I can understand why the Obama campaign wouldn't want the excess baggage of media hatred towards her drag down their GE campaign. One of the things I've cone around on (as a supporter of HRC) is that in the main, the Obama campaign had a lot less to do with the overt sexism and and absolute disrespect for her than the media did. Yeah, sure, there's the shrillosphere, and my amazement that so many fellow Democrats could be so savage toward one of the party leaders to consider, I'll chalk that up to high emotions in a close super-charged effort, but like Hillary, I'm willing to set that aside to win the White House.

But, that said, there's something to be said for the media's obsession with all things Clinton, it keeps McCain on the sidelines, and issues Democrats care about front and center. Ultimately though, it's Obama's choice to make, I'm happy either way.

Posted by: JB64 on June 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think the negatives of a Clinton Vice-Presidency far, far, far outweighs any announcement day disunity: she would fire up the _Republican's_ base, drama, Bill, drama, drama, in-fighting, drama, drama, and drama.

Clinton supporters have a simple choice in the fall. Vote for someone who supports their cause or vote for someone who doesn't.

If they end up voting for McCain, they are proving that their loyalty derived from a cult of personality rather than any actual principles, and they deserve the world they live in. When their daughters seek abortions in dark alleys, they will have themselves to blame.

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on June 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Big Tent Democrat is outside the Democratic Big Tent pissing in. Nothing Obama can do will ever get Big Tent Democrat to come inside the Big Tent and piss out. Fortunately, the Obama Democratic Big Tent is bigger than Big Tent Democrat can possibly imagine and is, moreover, open on all sides, completely easy to enter. He's annoying, Big Tent Democrat, but everyone sees what he's up to and it's easy to stay out of his stream.

Posted by: John Shreffler on June 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that people will unify around Obama just fine unless he acts like an ass, and he has been just about perfect so far. As has Hillary, frankly. She's *already* given a "serious endorsement."

I imagine Obama will find out what HIllary wants by asking her. Then they will negotiate.

Posted by: Emma Anne on June 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

In this case, it seems like BTD is a concern troll who got promoted to blogger.
There's lots of chatter about how Hillary's campaign failed, but in fact her organization simply got beaten by a clearly superior operation. Which gives me confidence that Obama's organization can navigate that particularly sticky wicket without BTD's guidance.

Posted by: kamajii on June 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Agree-- I can see her wanting to be offered the position as a sort of tribute (seems like second-wave feminism is big on tribute these days), but can't imagine why she'd want it. I was discussing this with my boss the other day, and we agreed that if her name was on universal healthcare that passed, it would really be more of a lasting, tangible legacy than anything Bill accomplished in office. We tend to forget this, but the big, paradigm-changing legislation immortalizes its sponsors in a way that the constant maneuvering of the presidency can't... in any case, passage of something like the Clinton-[??] Healthcare Universality Act of 2009 actually seems more her style than the usual VP duties.

Posted by: latts on June 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I can see Obama going after a Hillary supporter in a key state like Rendell or Strickland. Won't sooth the feelings of all Clinton diehards but will among many, especially the party organizational people, while also having a PA or OH tactical advantage.

Posted by: The Other Ed on June 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton wants to be president, not vice president. There is nothing to be gained in being the VP candidate that leads to the real goal. For Clinton' presidential ambitions, the best scenario is for Obama to lose in November; Clinton can then say, "I told you so," and be the nominee in 2012, either running against an even older John McCain, or against McCain's VP.

If Clinton were a younger woman, she could take the VP slot and run in 2016, but she isn't.

What I expect to happen is this: Obama will offer the slot to her with the understanding that she will not accept it. He will then pick Evan Bayh as the VP. She will campaign for the ticket, but will never fully support it, hoping it will go down to defeat in November.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it's closer to the truth to say BTD/Armando is a blogger who demoted himself to concern troll.

Posted by: Bob on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

On the "political level:" Lyndon Johnson, far more powerful in the Senate, wanted the job enough to demand it.

Posted by: Witter Brooke on June 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

I have no clue whether she wants it. But she has EARNED the offer as the choice of a full HALF of the party. I think it's clearly an insult and a slap in the face if it is not at least offered to her. I'm not really sure it will lose him hat many votes in the end...but why risk it? She EARNED the spot...the ticket can't really be representative of the party without her....and, most importantly, she's at least as well qualified to actually BE president as any of the others in the discussion.

He may wish he had the prerogative to choose his own veep without risking it...but he blew that by losing 9 of the last 14 primaries and not KO'ing the competition. Being hamstrung is a consequence of that failure.

Posted by: chaboard on June 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Cheyney as VP is not what we need again; powerful and below the radar. Time for the VPship to return to a more Spiro Agnew type caliber.

By focusing on the VP being the end-all for Obama's ticket we belittle his own accomplishment.

And, god help us, what are we to do with HRC as VP and something "happens."?

Focus on Obama as POTUS. I don't care who's Veep... but it ain't gonna be Hillary!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on June 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

BT Dem at TalkLeft is thinks that Hillary is the second coming of Jesus. Almost.

BTD is, along with people like Taylor Marsh, so wrapped up in the idea of Hillary as Pres that the only thing that matters is to place Hillary closer to the prize.

Obama should pick the candidate that works for him.

Posted by: dan robinson on June 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

HRC's advisers push her as Obama's VP because they think she can play another Dick Cheney to a weak President.

That ain't gonna happen. Obama and his people are too smart to even take the first step down that road.

Unless your name is Dick Cheney, and unless the president is as weak and stupid and easily manipulated as George W. Bush, the vice presidency will return to what John Nance Garner, FDR's first VP, said about the office: it's not worth a bucket of warm piss.

Posted by: nemo on June 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

She's too old for the Supreme Court; not really, but we need to work out of the Republican playbook and pick a dependable liberal who is about 35 years old and hence will be on the SC for 40-50 years.

Majority leader is a job that would be better suited to her strengths, Supposedly if the vote were held today, she wouldn't get the leadership post, but surely if Bush could foist Frist upon us then Obama can make it happen with someone who deserves it and would be good at it.

Posted by: kth on June 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Count me in as one who would like to see the VP demoted to taking care of polishing the unused spittoons in the White House. I doubt Hillary Clinton would want to be a VP with no responsibility or power, given she's already a Senator from New York that now has a huge national constituency.

Posted by: David W. on June 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The people who say that the Demnocrats will unite just fine around Obama are usually Obama supporters. For me, anything short of Hillary as VP (with the exception of Al Gore, of course) is a deal breaker. I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama, either. I just won't vote for president.
I think without Hillary, you're going to see a lot of people either not voting or splitting their ballots, resulting in a lopsided Democratic majority in the house and Senate but with McCain very possibly getting elected president. Which would still be considerably better than what we have now, with the chance of a president acceptable to Hillary supporters in '12. Unless Obama really thinks he can win without OH, FL, PA, etc. . .

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know what's on Hillary's mind, but a few possible explanations for wanting to be offered VP include:

A) What makes you think she likes being a senator? When she originally ran for Senate it was widely believed to be a stepping stone to a presidential campaign. Maybe that was always true and legislative politics isn't her thing and never will be.

B) Perhaps the offer is all she's really after - as proper respect - which she would then turn down. (That, incidentally, ought to meet BTD's criteria adequately.)

C) I think most likely it's the recognition that VP is a genuinely high position that would put her in the history books. It may not be what she hoped for, but it's still a great achievement for herself personally, and for the women's movement generally.

Posted by: One Bit Shy on June 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Careful what you wish for, Juliet.

Posted by: Rand Careaga on June 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Every indication from her and her supporters is that she wants the VP nomination.

I think that Witter put it in proper perspective. No Senator in history was ever as powerful in the Senate than LBJ was and he wanted to be VP.

Posted by: PE on June 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

The people who say that the Demnocrats will unite just fine around Obama are usually Obama supporters.

I'd counter that most *Democrats* believe the party will unite just fine. One of the issues I've seen with many Clinton supporters is Hillary first, party second. There are a lot of very very capable VP options in the Democratic party and Hillary is just one of them, albeit near the top of the list. But this attitude of holding the party hostage unless your VP choice is picked is immature and ultimately self-defeating both to her supporters and to the party. Hillary has a large support base, but that doesn't make her the ideal VP choice by any means.

Posted by: tom.a on June 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Unless she really wanted the job (which I seriously doubt) his best choice is to not offer it to her.

Look, Hillary can't win either way, if he offers her the slot and she turns him down she'll be blamed for putting herself above party interests, and laying low for the possibility that he might lose this year. If she accepts, she'll overshadow the entire GE campaign because the media will be relentless in picking apart everything she does, and promoting the narrative that she somehow "emasculates" Obama.

She'll never be majority leader unless she serves two or three more terms in the senate, that aint gonna happen either.

But the bottom line for her is, if I can't be No.1 why bother?

Posted by: JB64 on June 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree with Juliet. Give us HRC fans a bit of time to lick our wounds and then we will come around.

Regarding VP. Can we all just stop hyperventilating for a while? We just got through a bruising primary. Why not let things just wait a month or so and in the meantime we can go after McCain.

Posted by: optical weenie on June 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I am an Obama supporter who believes he won fair and square. Still, the number of her voters was roughly the same amount as the number of his voters. Furthermore, her voters view her candidacy with the same passion that Obama supporters view his.

Put her on the ticket. Deal with the issues. We're all grownups.

Posted by: PE on June 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Never heard Clarence Thomas make a brilliant legal argument. Never heard Antonin Scalia make a brilliant legal argument. History of the Court is full of people who didn't make brilliant legal arguments before their appointment. If all Hillary is is a "reliable liberal vote," that's enough.

SCOTUS or Health & Human Services for Hillarycare.

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on June 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Hillary wants to be VP, but she wants to be on the shortlist because (a.) on an ego level, she wants to have the power to force Obama to make a particular choice like that, and (b.) on a practical level, her supporters demand it and she knows that they will not follow her lead and support Obama unless she is offered the position on some level. If Hillary loyalists are convinced that she was offered the post and turned it down, and a centrist woman is chosen as Obama's running mate (can somebody give Sebelius some speaking lessons--she is absolutely perfect except for her lackluster speeches!), Obama's star will rise.

Posted by: Benjamin on June 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Woohoo! This must be one of those "there's no hate like liberal hate" threads, right?

Concern troll! Vince Foster!

Who would want a candidate that brings with her half the party on the ticket? I am so confident of my guy that I am willing to fight with one hand tied behind my back.

Posted by: jerry on June 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

To explain a bit further. For me, and I imagine a lot of us in the Hillary camp, yesterday was a good day for one reason: It made the notion of Hillary as VP more possible. By the way, I didn't watch the speech, just read about it, because I couldn't bear to see it. Again, I might be the only one, but I doubt it.
If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party, instead of telling us how we should be feeling, they should think about this: A lot of us are devastated. And for a year, Barack Obama has been the enemy -- not John McCain, but Obama. Is it emotional? Yes. But emotions are real things, too, and can't be easily swept under the rug. If Obama wants to win he picks Hillary. If Obama wants to roll the dice, he picks someone else. And if he wants to definitely lose, he picks Richardson or a woman other than Hillary, both of which would be insults -- not just to HC, but to everybody who voted for her.
Remember how you (we all) felt when Gore was robbed in FL? That's how a lot of us feel now. You want to tell me that we shouldn't feel that way? Go ahead and try it. But as you know, it didn't work for the Republicans.

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I think Hillary has to have her eyes on a SCOTUS appointment at this point. It would give her a second job that her husband wasn't able to attain and the family a clean sweep of the top job in every branch of government. - Majun

When was a Clinton Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader?

Posted by: Arachnae on June 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, are you really that far behind the loop even after three days back in America?

The fact that Clinton's campaign practically shoved her in Obama's face should indicate that she wants it, or at the minimum, some of her advisors think she wants it.

POed: Ahh, yes, corporate suck-up lawyer Armando of Kos days, responsible for getting a number of people (yours truly included) banned from Kos. Is it any surprise he backs Clinton?

Majun, Thersites, et al: Hillary as SCOTUS? Not a chance. First, Obama isn't pulling the trigger on that. Second, many Dems would be leery.

PE: No chance she gets the nod in 2016. The sexism, primarily from the MSM, but also, yes from some Obamiacs, against a 60-year-old woman presidential candidate wouldn't hold a candle to the sexism against a 68-year-old woman presidential candidate. Hillary knew this year was her shot. Why do you think she fought to the bitter end?

Doorknob, we got some effing stupid comments here today.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

BTD is retarded. Hillary is NOT enttled to the VP slot. Hillary lovers need to get over themselves.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party,...

The other 50.1 percent Juliet? Still in denial, aren't you? Ignore the caucus results 'cos they didn't go your way.

Posted by: rational on June 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Eight words. Heartbeat away from the presidency. Anything can happen.

That said, I think Obama is smarter than this, and no, we have enough drama in the Supreme Court without adding another justice who continues stubbornly along a track long after it becomes clear that it's time to throw a switch. It would be fun to watch her and Scalia in a Celebrity Deathmatch though. Look Ma-- the nice conservative's head just blew up!

Posted by: bluewave on June 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I would be much happier to have one of the other women on the short list chosen instead. Of course I expect that any offer that is declined would happen in private, I don't expect any public, I was offered but didn't want it speeches. Although if she really doesn't want it, I can imagine her telling that to her supporters.

A question for discussion, if the VP candidate is a woman other than HRC, how well does that play to the feminist crowd? And if the democrats don't choose a woman, but McCain chooses Condi, where does that leave the democrats identity-politics wise.

Posted by: bigTom on June 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

George Will made a good case (albeit not very original, we've heard his arguments before) about why Hillary wouldn't be a good pick for VP. But to some extent it's about deserving to be asked and not just a purely independent decision, or is that overrated? Well, how about SCOTUS Justice? But she'll have to show she's got the legal mind.

Well, how about draft Gore for VP? That will bring forth so many that want to avenge what happened in 2000, keep a whiff of the Clinton legacy going, and bring a competent and directly experienced candidate into the offering. Obama must at least ask.

Finally, if Obama picks another woman for VP will that attract some women voters or look like pathetic second best pandering?

Posted by: Neil B on June 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

By "50.1 percent of the party", Juliet, you of course mean 50.1 percent of the party excluding all non-Clinton votes in Michigan and, of course, all the caucus states.

The most venomous thing The Clinton campaign did was push that popular vote hogwash. Not because popular vote is of itself hogwash (although, again, let us please note she does. not. have. the. popular. vote. majority) but by poisoning the well with the bogus "disenfranchisement" argument, Senator Clinton's campaign turned Senator Obama into an enemy of empowerment and democracy, rather than just "the other person running for Democratic nomination." People like Juliet now feel that Senator Clinton's nomination was "stolen" (after 54 primaries and caucuses, in a system designed by her own advisors) rather than just, well, she was the designated frontrunnner who ran a poor campaign. And that drove a hell of a wedge into the party, summoned emotions that did not need to be summoned, were irresponsible to summon, and are not so easily put back in the bottle.

Posted by: jonrog1 on June 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

It is amazing how well the ReichWing's taking down of the Clintons over the years has even seeped into the minds of many on the left.Few could offer anything other than vague rantings to justify their views.I joke when I say "SHES A WITCH! BURN HER! BURN HER!" trying to shake some people's minds a little.I wanted Gore or Edwards,but I will proudly vote for Obama as I would have for Hillary.

Posted by: R.L. on June 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

STOP HILLARY FOR VP BY SIGNING THIS PETITION

DON'T LET CLINTON HIJACK THE VP SLOT
http://renymonk.com/2008/06/05/my-pettiion-dont-let-clinton-hijack-the-vp-slot.aspx

Posted by: Surreal on June 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

All this talk that HRC and BHO don't like each other is speculation. As senators thay got along fine, and since then they have been locked in combat. You never like your opponent.

With Clinton's great concession speech out of the way they can get to know each other better, and if the chemistry is right he can ask HRC to be Veep. Likewise she can decide if she wants to have the job, which she should only take if she has confidence Obama can be a good President.

All of this talk that BHO has to ask HRC is BS. He should only ask and she should only accept if they work well together.

Posted by: tomtom on June 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Obama chooses. There are good reasons to choose Clinton. Good ones not to, as well. Whether she wants it or not is irrelevant. If he asks, she's supposed to say yes, and will.

Posted by: JMG on June 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I disagree. Hillary Clinton is a powerful choice, and if there is a good argument against her it is bound to be more subtle than the ones you suggest. Running for VP is a chance for her to do a great deal of yeoman's work of attracting votes to our presidential ticket this year. Obama and Hillary together would be electric and that's of course why people call it the dream team.

Kevin wrote:

On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama.

I think that's silly. Obama is a capable guy, and people have to acknowledge that. Especially in this day and age, people play second fiddle to a younger person with more know-how all the time. It would be refusing to acknowledge Barack as being on some level an equal of hers that would be arrogant and unrealistic of Hillary. Sure she has more experience than him, but he has been able to get mostly all the same things done that she has done in her life, plus, he won the Democratic nomination, which he didn't. She has no reason to resent being a second fiddle, and people sho talk that angle up are being silly. It's not like a supreme court justice taking orders from a first-year law clerk.

Posted by: Swan on June 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

and people sho talk that angle up are being silly.

Whoops, "sho" should be "who."

Posted by: Swan on June 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

weenie: Can we all just stop hyperventilating for a while?

What, is this a rhetorical question?
What do you think of Hillary for SCOTUS?

Posted by: thersites the peace troll on June 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary wants the VP slot more than anything else at this point. We've all seen how Cheney was able to turn the position into one of power, and Clinton would do the same. What are her alternatives? She's a junior Senator, and a long way from any committee leadership role.

Posted by: Quinn on June 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

I think people may want closure after all the Hillary-Obama animosity. And they may prefer to see a man-man team instead of the more difficult social dynamic of an elder woman playing understudy to a younger man (even if people of opposite sexes can get along well, I think everyone knows that people of the same sex are a little more likely to get along well together and that an opposite-sex pair being forced to work together on something more spells a formula for static-- so that's what people may kind of unconcsciously think of when they see Hillary and Obama working together, an uneasy alliance). But those are the only demerits are really think are there. I don't know if they amount to enough to be disqualifiers, and even if his people were to conclude that dynamics like that were big problems, there is no guarantee that rejecting Hillary and fishing for someone else wouldn't steer him into a worse choice than Hillary.

Hillary is a huge celebrity with great appeal, and an experienced battler who knows the ropes and all the characters. If I were in his place, it would be hard for me to balk from an obvious choice like that in favor of something that involved more experimentation and risk.

Posted by: Swan on June 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

... she has EARNED the offer as the choice of a full HALF of the party. I think it's clearly an insult and a slap in the face if it is not at least offered to her (...) She EARNED the spot...the ticket can't really be representative of the party without her....and, most importantly, she's at least as well qualified to actually BE president as any of the others in the discussion.

Leaving aside your curious math for the moment, you seem to be confusing American-style democracy with Scouting. There is no *earning* the vice presidential spot -- not by vote count or delegate count or merit badges. While any combination of those & other issues may factor in a presidential candidate's decision, you're sorely mistaken if you think this position goes to anyone other than the individual the winner thinks will be most helpful to him or her -- and not just in terms of winning the general. Maybe Obama believes that's Clinton. I have no idea. But you're betraying a pretty poor grasp of the process if you think it's her decision to make.

Posted by: junebug on June 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

A big issue with regard to HRC as VP is the role of the VP in general.

Under Clinton, Gore had a role, but it was "reinventing government" - Gore did a great job, but the VP was still a minor player.

With Bush now we have the Imperial Vice Presidency - where Cheney doesn't want to be part of Congress nor part of the Executive - he is his own secret branch of government.

I think the VP role needs to be dialed back to what is was and eliminate any traces of this secret, behind the scenes player.

Unfortunately, if Obama selects Clinton as VP, he can't dial back the VP role without enduring a whole lot of noise from Clinton supporters - in fact, he probably has to continue the recent "tradition" of expanding the role of the VP, which I don't believe to be healthy for the country.

Speaking For Me Only ...

Posted by: pebird on June 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

there's been a terrible accident

Posted by: the widsdom of swan on June 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

"I'd counter that most *Democrats* believe the party will unite just fine."

Yes. But most Democrats ALSO want a united ticket. There was a poll last week showing that (from memory) 59% of ALL democrats - and even 47% of Obama voters - wanted Hillary on the ticket.

I'm in both camps. Yes, I think the party will most likely unite just fine...but I also think she should be on the ticket.

Posted by: chaboard on June 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'll toss in my hopes for SCOTUS also.

Posted by: tommy harper on June 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the wake-up Junebug. Whenever I find myself softening toward Obama, I like to come here and get a bracing slap of pure unadulterated Obama supporter foolishness, to make me look forward to four years of McCain.
You're all as crazy as the Republicans talking about Florida in 2000. You want to talk about caucuses? Hillary won the Texas primary and lost the Texas caucus. That tells you all you need to know about the will of the people being reflected in caucuses.
Thank you, thank you all for reminding me how ugly you all can be EVEN IN VICTORY. Victory has done nothing for your characters or demeanors. This is worthwhile information. Four years of people like you in power would be as disgusting as four more years of Bush and slightly more revolting than four years of McCain. You want to lose? Happy to oblige. Heck, I may go ahead and vote for McCain if you keep it up.
Now let's wash our hands of this nightmare and it's on to 2012.

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Whether Sen. Clinton even wants the VP slot is debatable since the calls for her to be VP come from Clinton "advisers" and "representatives"; just how much of that is the position of the person speaking and how much is Sen. Clinton's position?
If Sen. Obama thinks Sen. Clinton would help the ticket in November, certainly he should ask her. On the whole, her advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. If he definitely doesn't want her as VP, then his job getting elected, even with Sen. Clinton's all-out support, is going to be a bit harder since he will have to find some other way to attract a sizable group of Sen. Clinton's supporters. Many in that group are Democrats first who will come around to supporting the ticket in November anyway; some are HRC supporters first (both Dem's and independents) and those are the ones that may make the difference in putting us over the top in the general election.
Personally, I don't think she wants VP; with a capable president in office and larger majorities in Congress it becomes a ceremonial position of little power. If Sen. Clinton was ten years younger, she could use the VP as a stepping-stone to another run for president, but she isn't and can't.

Posted by: Doug on June 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Juliet - is either a GOP or an idiot -- to help McBush be elected because she has her panties in a twist is to abandon social security, Roe v Wade and health care reform -- for what? for vanity? for poutyness? for poor sportsmanship?

I was an early supporter of Hillary -- although her campaigning didn't increase my regard for her -- I still think that even after February if she chad come out hard against McCain and showed us her national campaign clout she might have won -- but instead she took the low road against Obama actually praising (and Bill praised) McCain's credentials and experience. I still think she would have been a good president and would be a great SCOTUS and has a future in the Senate. VP doesn't do much for her and certainly doesn't do much to win over independents for the fall.

She lost fair and square. So now her supporters should pout and sit it out, Juliet? Because Roe doesn't matter but our delicate feminine feelings are more important that success on the policy issues that affect us?

As a life long feminist who is pretty angry at the way the media treats women candidates and particularly treated Hillary Clinton -- I am still thrilled to be able to support an African American who has a chance of helping reduce the shameful position Bush has placed us in the world.

And my daughters feel the same way -- in fact they were on board with Obama when my husband and I were still supporting Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Artemesia on June 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

What exactly do you mean by "reasonable" in "The party will unite just fine around any reasonable VP choice"?

A candidate like Jim Webb, for example, would not be reasonable to great numbers of women who know full well that Webb's never apologized for some of his terrible past statements. (Though Webb might seem reasonable to those who recognize he'd give Obama some much-needed testosterone.)

A candidate like Sebelius or McGaskill would not be reasonable to those who don't think women are fungible commodities. (Though more than a few men would say getting a broad on the ticket might placate those Hillary-loving bitches.)

A candidate like Sam Nunn would not seem reasonable to any gay Americans who remember his venom when Bill Clinton proposed ending the ban on gays in the military. (Though many who want a white Southerner with national security creds on the ticket would regard Nunn as highly reasonable. And others who think Nunn's recent statement that perhaps we could revisit "DA/DT" think that's proof he's no longer an unreasonable homophone.)

So, please, recognize that the definition of who is a "reasonable" VP pick very much depends on who's doing the defining.


Posted by: K on June 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, since you continually base your "analysis" on others' sometimes earnest but mostly sophmoric punditry, rather than conduct a bona fide in-depth study on your own, your online prose serves only as a warning to readers regarding what happens to your cojones when you straddle the fence one too many times.

As long as we're prognosticating mindlessly here, I believe that it'll be a long eleven weeks between now and the convention, and a bored mainstream media will inevitably poke its nose into Barack Obama's own political background in search of far greater detail now that he's the presumptive nominee.

And I think you'd all best be concerned that no more shoes drop, a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, rather than worry yourself silly about who Obama might consider as his VP pick.

One final "blessing" offered from Trinity UCC and the 'hood, or one more inconvenient truth delivered from the continued federal dredging of that rancid sewer known as Illinois politics, and our fickle MSM -- which has always had a soft spot for John McCain -- could well render the Obama candidacy problematic by the time we convene in Denver.

Posted by: Out & About in The Castro. on June 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

I think she would want VP. I don't think she'd enjoy being second fiddle, but it seems like she'd deal with it, because that's her only realistic chance of becoming president...ever.

In 2012, Obama will be running for his second term (I'm a Clinton supporter, but will totally vote for him, of course...and my vote determines the election! :-P), so she wouldn't be able to run then. In 2016--which, let's face it, would be her last chance to run given the whole age thing--she'd have to challenge someone who will most likely be (wishful thinking here) a sitting VP from a very popular administration. That wouldn't go down well with the party. So VP's her last shot.

I feel like SCOTUS is a possibility, but the Clintons love the spotlight. Justices are NEVER (or, like, rarely) in the news. So I don't think that would work for her...unless she was chief justice. That won't happen (can presidents demote CJs?).

Majority leader is a more likely scenario, but since party leaders and superdelegates were mostly (or increasingly) in Obama's camp, the Senate's not going to be a very fun place for her to return to...not sure how easy it would be for her to get that. Plus, Hillary has to campaign for Obama to further her career anyway...lest she be blamed for his defeat, so he's certainly not going to feel like he has to twist arms to get her maj leader to get her support. He'll have other things to twist people's arms about.

No I feel like VP is her last shot at the presidency, which has been and continues to be her goal.

I also feel like Clinton is a logical choice for VP. Obama is his own person. He's won the nomination with one of the best campaigns in presidential primary history. He has tons of supporters that are dedicated solely to him...not someone like Kerry, who usually only got support because he was not Bush. He's not going to be overshadowed by Hillary. As Hillary knows, it's easy to put a VP in a box and limit his or her influence over an administration. Obama will not be dictated to, and one of the preconditions of a VP offer would probably be to banish Bill from the West Wing most of the time.

Also, Hillary would solidify the Dem coalition. She would bring back many of those voters who are now swaying to McCain (admittedly, there aren't many, but there are some). She would solidify states like Pennsylvania, which are in danger of flipping. She would also put at least Arkansas in play. She would be a great attacker. Plus, the sheer novelty of having an African American AND a woman on the same ticket would dominate even more media attention, depriving an increasingly broke McCain of that benefit.

You can make the argument that many of the other possible VP picks either haven't been successful in national primaries/elections before (Richardson, Edwards), or are much more valuable holding Senate seats or governor-ships in red-states (Sebelius (is she still governor?), Webb, Warner).

The media might still harp on her, but as Obama's number two, you can bet that the party would actually come to her defense this time, which didn't really happen during the primary. And last but not least, I know that Obama supporters are vehemently opposed to the idea, but would they really not vote for Obama if Hillary was on the ticket? Now *that* would provide the perfect opportunity to take a closer look at all the irrational Hillary hatred that's flying around...

Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party[...]

1/2 of primary voters != 1/2 of the party

Roughly 35 million people voted in the primaries. If that's all the Dems there are, we're in pretty deep shit. No doubt roughly half the Dems, just like half the Dem voters, supported Hillary. But the ones who didn't vote in the primary probably aren't taking her loss nearly as personally as the ones who did.

Posted by: kth on June 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think Hillary may disagree. In the final few months of her campaign, it seemed she would do anything to be President (cozy up to Scaife, prove her 'reg'lar guy' bona fides with whiskey shots, me-too McCain's idiotic gas tax holiday idea, etc.). Now perhaps these items and others are merely proof that she fights hard and fights to win. But if these instances indicate that she wants to be President so badly that she'll do whatever it takes to get there, then serving as Obama's VP for 8 years is her best move at this point.

While I agree with Kevin that Hillary as VP doesn't really make much sense either for Obama or, in my mind, for Hillary, there is reason to believe Hillary takes a different view.

Posted by: David Bailey on June 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

BTD has been wrong about just about everything about this election. He's wrong about this too.

Posted by: KathyF on June 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Aside from whether Hillary should be Veep, let's talk about whether Obama can make it to the Presidency in the first place if he doesn't have the full support of Hillary's backers. Sure,both sides were bloodied a little by each other (but not all that damn much.) But now it's time to get over the rancor, such as it was, of the primaries and work together. Hillary said she would support Obama and has lately been very gracious. To those who liked her, and need to hear this advice: Wouldn't it be a final insult to Hillary to keep on being bitter, vote for McSame, etc., instead of following in her new path? Please, get on board. Thanks.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Is it any surprise [Armando] backs Clinton?

FWIW, until just a few weeks ago, he was backing Obama because he thought Obama was more electable.

Posted by: Swift Loris on June 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Re: R. L.'s comment - see also Dave Neiwert on "How right-wing crap polluted Democrats' political waters".

Juliet - thanks for explaining further. I felt all three of the initial frontrunners were exciting and promising (if all imperfect) candidates, and indeed, after Edwards dropped out, went pretty much down to the (relatively late PA primary) wire trying to decide whether to go for Clinton or Obama. In the end, I voted for the latter; while I'm certainly happy he won (and will be glad to vote for him in the GE), I'm also sad & regretful that Clinton didn't. (I would love to have her as VP, though I understand many of the reasons why that's probably not a great idea). In a slightly alternate world, I'm sure there's an alt-Dan S. who's happy that Hillary won (etc.) but sad Obama didn't. (In fact, I'm sad Edwards lost, too - I kinda wish they all could have won. I also want a pony. With fangs). Plus, I steered pretty clear, both by reading habits and design, of most of the increasingly bitter & abusive internecine warfare, so this whole 'I can't vote for Obama unless (or - at all, or worse, will be voting for McCain!) is really bewildering and upsetting to me. (Didn't we already see that movie, back in '00?)

Juliet, I certainly can't tell you how to feel, and it's clear even to me that lots of people are really upset, often for good reasons. But imagine about that alternate world where Clinton got the nomination, and some Obama supporters are threatening to stay home - or vote McCain - unless Obama gets the VP slot, especially if she picks some other African American. Or indeed, in some cases, no matter what she does. One could understand esp. depending how things went down - but what would you say to them, as they talk about possibly helping keep the White House in GOP hands, with little hope of undoing many of the institutional landmines and clusterbombs BushFuckCo has scattered throughout the executive and judicial branches - at best only minimizing further damage?

"Remember how you (we all) felt when Gore was robbed in FL? "

All too well - my initial, not entirely civil society-ish instinct was that we should show 'em all what a real riot looked like - as often and in as many places as possible - and what sort of situations actually require tanks in the streets or whatever the MSM was wanking on about. But that wasn't - well, mostly - because I was upset that Gore had the Presidency stolen away from him. Rather, I was upset that the election had been stolen by a dimwitted rightwing man-child, undermining democracy itself, to say nothing of many other things I hold dear.* Although if I had known exactly how badly he was going to spray diarrhea all over us, and much of the world besides . . .

Now, if you feel this is an equivalent situation - well, could you explain to me why?

* Ie, not that I would have been ok with Gore stealing the election from Bush, but that would have 'only' involved undermining democracy . . .

I really do hope that you'll stand alongside us this fall and help put a Democrat in the White House, as the most likely presidential-election-involving way to support those values we all share.

Posted by: Dan S. on June 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.
Russ Feingold for SCOTUS.

Posted by: Stuart Eugene Thiel on June 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

After reading through most of the comment thread, I'd like to make one other comment.

We can all discuss who we would or wouldn't like to see as VP. But in the end, Hillary will be Obama's running mate only if both of the following conditions hold:

1) Obama invites her to be on the ticket.
2) Hillary accepts.

Whether or not these things happen is to be decided by exactly two people. It is the job of the rest of us to support the ticket and make sure there is a Democrat in the White House in January, regardless whether our preferred VP choice is on the ticket.

Posted by: David Bailey on June 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Also, Juliet: Stealing votes, really stealing them, by keeping African-Americans off the roles, stopping a recount with a riot, etc. is not at all comparable to a Party having rules about what happens if States hold early primaries. Obama was just trying to play by those rules, Hillary originally accepted them, and the penalty was supposed to be not counting the votes formally. That perhaps isn't fair to the voters in those States, but it isn't the fault of either candidate either the way the Bush 2000 fiasco was clearly organized by the Republican Party as such. Finally, the Democratic establishment relented and let FL and MI count for half anyway? IOW, they actually gave them more than the rules originally said, to mollify those voters. Can you really complain honestly and maturely about that?

PS: Kevin, WTF with those ads from "McCain for President" asking if OK to "unconditionally meet with anti-American foreign leaders" etc. Maybe you want to look cosmopolitan and open minded or whatever, but this is supposed to be a liberal blog. It should reflect those interests, period.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

BTD has been particularly nasty and condescending to the Obama camp throughout the primary, so he is hardly in any position to suggest that Hillary be forced on the nominee.

He fails top mention that depending on the nature of the counting Barack got 18 million votes as well and a majority of the delgates which is how the race is judged.

The "Big Tent" that BTD represents want to throw out the caucus states and all of their votes. I would say his tent has only room for 18 Millon of the 36 Million cast.

Steve is right. Hillary would do well to stay away from the VP slot and Barack would do well to look somewhere else. She has gained much more prestige and can push through universal health care in the Senate and bring Barack's plan closer to hers, which I prefer anyway.

Posted by: Tim O. on June 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

The "person" who gets the VP nod is less important than the "people" who come along with the choice.

Johnson was Kennedy's choice -- and without some of the south Kennedy would not have won the election.

But even dismissing the effect such a choice might make in an individual state, the selection still has significance.

Bill Clinton was lucky. As a white guy from a southern state he could afford to reinforce his positioning by picking Al Gore from a neighboring state - and someone who was a conservative Democratic like himself. He knew he would win the election as long as he didn't screw up or "frighten" the voting public. His touchy-feely approach was perfect for the times.

But Obama can not make such a choice. He needs to unify the party and tell white women and union men that he is with them through his actions, including his VP choice.

With Edwards out of the picture, that narrows the choices. IMO, Clinton makes a good choice from this prospective.

I've been as mad at Clinton as anyone -- but this is politics, and if you let your emotions get in the way you lose. Because of this, it would be wise to either pick Clinton, or someone who says "Clinton" to her supporters -- that doesn't even mean it has to be a woman (for instance, a staunch Clinton supporter like Ed Rendell would work).

The V.P. spot is one of the least important positions in government as long as the President is alive. Cheney may be an exception, but he is an exception, nonetheless. I'm not worried about a Veep who seems the opposite of Obama -- once in office, Obama and his staff will dictate policy, not the veep's office.

Posted by: Dicksknee on June 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Cheney seems to have changed the office of the VP and is nearly as powerful as that of the President. It has been Cheney that has hunkered down in the White House while Bush has doing the photo-ops and traveling around, not to mention taking a record amount of vacation time. Hillary would still be the first woman VP. Something for the history books.

Posted by: Jet on June 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Chaboard: and that same poll said 75% of Dems thought that if Obama didn't want Hillary, he shouldn't choose her. That is to say, the vast majority of Dems don't think he should be forced to take her. There were some undecideds in there, too.

So we're talking about, at best, 1 in 5 Dems who think Obama should be forced to take on Hillary. And that's right now. What will those numbers look like in a month? In 2 months, at the convention? What will those numbers look like after he chooses a VP, and those 1 in 5 get a chance to see them campaign together, against McCain and his VP?

This is a total non-issue. Party unity should not be a worry. Obama is already hitting new highs w/ the Dem base in Rasmussen polls, a little over 80%. That number is gonna rise, too, probably closer to 90, as the general gets in full gear.

Posted by: Michael on June 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for setting me straight, Juliet. I'd forgotten about the famous Clinton-Brown ticket in '92. And the Gore-Bradley ticket in 2000. It's all coming back to me now. The vice presidency *does* go to the runner-up.

Anyway, while I'm delighted to be the source of your aggravation, you might catch your breath and, you know, point out the prObama sentence I had written back there. If it's a little too early for you to be around folks who are openly acknowledging the fact that it's the presidential candidate's decision as to who'll be his or her vice-president, then you probably shouldn't be reading -- oh, just to throw out an example -- political blogs where vice-presidential selection is the topic under discussion.

(And caucuses? WTF??? Check the dosage on your prescriptions.)

Posted by: junebug on June 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Bargaining stage of grief...nothing more or nothing less...

we understand...

Posted by: justmy2 on June 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters. Thank you for making this easy for me.

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Dicksknee: Why do you say, "With Edwards out of the picture,..."? Did he already refuse? If not, why write him out - did I miss something? I hope there isn't, since I think he'd make a good pick.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think the most critical practical obstacle to Obama choosing Hillary is the reported refusal of Bill Clinton to submit to the same vetting process as other candidates as regards personal financial information. If this refusal is in fact real and not something invented, then the Obama campaign has no alternative but to look elsewhere.

Personally, I think Clinton would be far more valuable as Majority Leader; it'd be nice to have someone in that position who isn't pathetically flaccid and impotent.

Ultimately, if Obama decides that Clinton is who he wants, that's fine by me. If he chooses somebody else, that's his decision. My wife and daughter agree, and we're all voting for Obama regardless. And we all would have happily voted for Clinton had she won the nomination.

Frankly, the notion that Obama will somehow be worse than McCain for women (aside from the rest of the country) is every bit as asinine and intentionally disingenuous as was the idea that there wasn't a substantial difference between Bush and Gore in 2000.

Posted by: bluestatedon on June 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get why people are always suggesting favorite senators (and, frequently, presidential also-rans) for SCOTUS as if legislative experience automatically translates into judicial qualifications.

Technically, one does not have to have had a moment on the bench, made a single ruling or written a single opinion (or even have a law degree) to serve on the Supreme Court. But when was the last time a non-judge who hasn't practiced law for 10 or 20 or 30 years was even seriously considered?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

As a comics guy, I keep thinking of the movie Crimson Tide, where the sailors on the submarine are getting into a fight over whether the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby Silver Surfer is better than the Stan Lee/Möbius Silver Surfer.

Time to decompress.
Time to remember who the enemy is.
Time to remember that America might very well survive 4 more years of Republican depredation.

And time to get with Denzel Washington.

Posted by: pbg on June 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

BTD's nasty tone has kept me off Talkleft for some time now. That being said, I think he's truly clueless and evidently he's never heard of ,a href="http://www.usatrivia.com/vpbigarn.html">John Nance Garner.

Posted by: Randy Paul on June 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I have many points to make, not necessarily related or leading to a cogent message, so I'll just kind of spray 'em out:

(1) Hillary wants to be President, not something else. Weigh everything else under this.

(2) That rules out SCOTUS. No way she is interested in that.

(3) I know age and health are a concern, with Republicans showing they're all too willing to nominate law students so long as their Federalist Society credentials are in order, but I'd love to see BILL Clinton on the Court. If you want to put in one liberal who can make a change on a radical conservative Court, he is the man. He could conceivably dominate the Court with the force of his personality. Plus his analytical ability to handle the job can't be questioned.

(4) Veep is not John Nance Garner's bucket of warm piss any more. Every recent veep, even Quayle, got a significant and visible portfolio. The position is more visible than the position of an individual Senator.

(5) 8 years in the Senate is probably long enough. She got her national security bona fides from 8 years on the Armed Services Committee, and now she wants to avoid getting stuck with too much of a record, which is the reason few Senators actually win the Presidency.

(6) Surely there must be some dynamic Democratic possibilities out there, but the names I hear floated the most, e.g., Bayh, Webb, Sebelius, etc., are profoundly uninspiring. Bill Richardson, in particular, would be a horrible choice. And Edwards has said he's not interested, for understandable reasons. Don't wanta get typecast, after all.

(7) It's the best choice to unite the Party. That can't be questioned.

(8) A lot of people focus on the negatives of having Bill Clinton around tanning in the spotlight, but to tell the truth with Obama's obvious biggest weakness--and not just a political weakness, but a governance weakness--being inexperience, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have the most successful President since at least JFK around to bounce questions off of. This is a no-brainer which nevertheless seems to be roundly ignored, probably because Bill sucked up such an undeserved beating during the campaign.

He made more campaign appearances than Hillary and Barack put together, and it's not even close. Of course he stumbled a time or two.

(10) Of course, Hillary would have a lot of campaign criticisms to explain away, but that stuff is going to have to be explained away anyway, so why not put the biggest spotlight on her when she does it? Handled deftly, it could even be an opportunity to score points.

Posted by: Trickster on June 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Juliet, you're more stupid than any McCain supporter if you're willing to vote for someone who's the polar opposite just because you're such a bitter loser. You clearly don't give a damn about this country and you never did. We don't want you and we'll win anyway.

Good riddance.

Posted by: haha on June 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters. Thank you for making this easy for me.

Hmmmm. One suspects that if we made it really, really hard for you, you still wouldn't vote for the Democrat this fall. You're just that committed.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Why would anyone bother linking to a post by Big Tent Democrat.

He is worse then Fox News for lying and slander.

Every word he says is BS.

That said, she will not be VP. So please talk about something someone cares about.

Posted by: Ken on June 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: Clarence Thomas.

Out in Castro: Kevin doesn't have cojones. His cats took care of that long ago.

Thersites, et al: Geez, how dumb can you be with the SCOTUS talk?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for giving me a blog post on a slow Sunday, all the people with weird ideas for Clintons future. (Not to mention the continued stupidity of the Jim Webb as VP idea.)

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

BTD's nasty tone has kept me off Talkleft for some time now. That being said, I think he's truly clueless

Good to see that I'm not the only one. BTD posts long winded pieces that are warmed over and shallow analysis of events and trends.

Posted by: dan robinson on June 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

"I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters."

Ok. I'm in Philly - feel free to stop by and yell insults at me/slug me/etc. Just please, please don't help the GOP continue its utter crapification of our country and our world.*

* So, for example, if you live in a completely unquestionable solid state, and feel you need to stay home because Chris Matthews is a misogynist fuck and/or some folks on the intertubes are arrogant assholes - well, that's your choice (although I've always felt that making the nation's choice obvious via popular vote - even if the antiquated electoral college nonsense dumps some less popular person onto our laps - is important in some sense). If you live in a swing state, though - well, I still don't understand the rationale for such a decision. You're not voting for us, and the inevitable and abundant punishment that will come with 4 (or worse!) more years of GOP maladministration will not only come down on our heads, but on everyone's.

Posted by: Dan S. on June 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

BTD is bitter, and wants to extract the VP slot for his candidate as payback.

I don't think Obama's pick of some of the other strong candidates -- Kaine, Warner, Sebelius, Clark, Strickland -- would "divide the party," but rest assured that BTD would do his best so produce that result. His tent is small, just big enough for Hillary.

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Juliet: By the way, I didn't watch the speech...

It was a very eloquent speech, undoubtedly one of the hardest she has made, and the consideration, care and effort she put into it showed.

You owe it to her, and yourself, the 30 minutes it takes to watch it--especially before throwing your support behind McCain, or sitting out the general election.

Posted by: has407 on June 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Which of the following statements is really dumb?

a. "What makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it."

b. "On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama."

c. "On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president."

d. "On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much."

e. all of the above

Answer: e

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I don't want Hillary to take the VP slot in the upcoming Obama administration. Barak will will win the election, but due to his inexperience he will make many, many mistakes. I don't want Hillary tainted with any of it.

Posted by: jeaps on June 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Dicksknee: Why do you say, "With Edwards out of the picture,..."? Did he already refuse?"

Yes. He gave an interview in Madrid in which he said: "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again."

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2008 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: Clarence Thomas.

...was a federal appellate judge before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Not for very long, mind you--maybe a year or two. And he'd been practicing law, probably as poorly as he now interprets it, up until a decade or so before that.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I don't think Juliet is a real Democrat. Every Hillary supporter that I know is more than ready to back Obama, especially after Hillary's speech the other day.

But to answer your question, I think Obama should be allowed to pick whoever he wants. The idea that you have to pick the second-place guy is disproved by history. Dukakis didn't pick Jackson, Clinton didn't pick Jerry Brown, Gore didn't pick Bill Bradley. And I don't recall any of their backers demanding VP before they'd OK voting for their own party.

I think BTD is being a bit of a concern troll here. I just don't see the anger that he claims is everywhere. And I don't know ANY Democrats who have Hillary for VP as a prerequisite to voting Bushism out of office.

Posted by: Harkov311 on June 8, 2008 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

socratic gadfly: Thanks for giving me a blog post on a slow Sunday, all the people with weird ideas for Clinton�s future. (Not to mention the continued stupidity of the Jim Webb as VP idea.)

Oh, no, thank you for giving us all yet another opportunity to not visit your blog.

Posted by: Someone needs a basic marketing course on June 8, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

I would have thought it was a reasonable argument - Hillary on the ticket might help win in Nov.

where all the venom comes from for just putting forward a position is a worrry.

start acting like liberals. a lot of you are sounding like the opposition.

Posted by: getoverit on June 8, 2008 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I attended the Clinton speech in DC yesterday, and my impression was that the overwhelming majority of the folks there -- and these were strong HRC devotees -- fully supported her in her call to unite behind and support Obama. Of course the scattering of boos got more coverage, but I think after a months of Obama v. McCain displaying the large gulf between the parties on virtually every major issue, the number of former HRC (or JRE, etc) supporters who stay home or vote for McCain will be negligible.

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

What is the difference between a Bush supporter and an Obama supporter??

Nothing - they are equally evil.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Jim,
Ron Paul has a major internet presence, if you're interested . . .

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

"the number of former HRC (or JRE, etc) supporters who stay home or vote for McCain will be negligible."

that's most likely correct but I imagine Obama wants the 18 million HRC supporters to vote for him with some enthusiasm rather than holding their nose - that would fit with his message.

I doubt he will take the - well what are ya gonna do, vote McCain, just go fuch off - attitude that some are taking towards HRC and her supporters.

He's most likely going to acknowelde her and her base with something substantial - whether that turns out to be the VP spot, who knows.

Posted by: getoverit on June 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

You know, not to speak to anything the candidate has done, but many of Obama's online supporters - most of them old enough to know better - have been unspeakably bratty during this process. If he actually wants to bring in the Hillary voters, he needs to figure out how to neutralize the gloating neener-neenerers.

Posted by: Arachnae on June 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

sean - kiss my @ss, slimeboy. Go back to the swiftboaters where you and all the Obama slime-meisters belong.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

I really haven't seen much evidence of the "vote McCain, go fuch off" attitude. If you look at places like Daily Kos and the Obama website -- and of course the statements of Obama and surrogates -- there's been a really active effort to show Hillary and her supporters respect and to ask for their support going forward. It will take a few days for the intense rivalrous feelings of the last few months to simmer down, but I can assure you that the Obama campaign and the vast majority of his supporters will not take HRC voters for granted, and will work to earn their support. Blog comments are not a very good metric, in that they are filled with people who like, anonymously, to say biting things.

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

As an Obama supporter, I think we need to realize a couple of things. First, there is a certain percentage of Clinton supporters who will just not vote for Obama, regardless of whether she is on the ticket. Indeed, nominating her would simply confirm their suspicions that he is a naif and a lightweight, willing to cave to their demands. Second, we have all too often forgotten how many people in this country absolutely hate the Clintons and would, in no way, be willing to vote for one, even if they are otherwise inclined to support Obama. They are looking for someone to take the Dems in a new direction, and that is what this campaign has been all about. Old school versus new school. If Obama picks Clinton or even intimates that he might, a number of these independent minded voters, at this point largely sympathetic to the Democrats but unwilling to pull the trigger and join the party, will have good reason to disbelieve his message of change and overcoming past divisiveness. I believe Obama understands that much of his appeal is based on this very sense of a rupture with the past. Hence, he shouldn't and probably won't have much to say about a Clinton V.P. spot.

Posted by: sippy on June 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm continuing the practice of checklists:

1. Neither Clinton would want the Court; it's like being entombed alive, and nothing in their history indicates that they'd accept such an invisible role. If they hadn't wanted the spotlight all their lives, they would have gone into academia.

2. Of course HRC wants to be VP; it's history-making, a heartbeat away, and if she holds on for 8 years she may be prominent enough to run even though she'll be an older lady, but only if she ages well. (women have a much harder time staying in the public eye after 60 than men)

3. The Senate was always a starter job, and now there isn't anything else obviously to move up to; she's too junior to advance to any formal position of power in the Senate itself (chair, etc.) unless she leapfrogs over someone else, and it's a very small club. They vote by secret ballot. Scratch that possibility.

4. Whoever mentioned 'cult of personality' above had a good point; I've been for Obama forever, but I don't think I'd ever vote for a McBush if he wasn't the nominee. After all, candidates lose all the time, and I've had my political heart broken more times than I can count. Start with McGovern... I was a Deaniac and bitterly disappointed in 04. But he went on to do something incredibly important at the DNC. There is life after the primary season, if you get real and move on.

5. Obama will win, regardless of what white guy he balances his ticket with. Women should look with pride at all the up and coming female governors. More all the time, and one of them will get to the WH.

Posted by: brooklyn on June 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Question: If Obama chooses Hillary as his VP, how many folks who would have voted for Obama will vote for McCain?

My guess: next to none.

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Dean went on to do something important at the DNC. It is called voter suppression on the grand scale, a million times more than the GOP. He makes Rove look like a two-bit loser in the vote suppression game.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Jim,
You are crackers; you are not civil; and you are not representative of HRC supporters, I daresay.

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

What brooklyn said at 5:31 PM -- except in 5. replace "white guy" with "white guy or gal."

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, I was being semi-snarky with Thomas. But, although he did have a bit of judicial experience, it wasn't much. He had no trial lawyer experience to think of. And, as he was gutting the efforts of the EEOC while there, he was literally trying to work himself out of a job.

So, while I was being semi-snarky, I was being semi-real, too. If the ABA rated SCOTUS candidates in subcategories, I'm sure he would have gotten no more than a D.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

"and of course the statements of Obama and surrogates'

agreed, he's smart and generous with an intelligent team.

"If you look at places like Daily Kos"

I'm sorry, Kos fanned a Clinton hatred not seen since the VRWC. The condensention tyhere now towards HRC and her supporters is maybe even more stomach churning.

Posted by: getovberit on June 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

sean - Don't get your panties in a knot. I will vote for Obama in November. But will spit on you and his slime bots every chance I get. You guys are worse than Scaife.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'll venture that Clinton supporters like Juliet want to be "stroked." And no, not by Obama himself, but by you Obama supporters who don't seem inclined to do that yet.

That's exactly what Arachnae is saying.

I don't many will vote for McCain, but, will a fair amount stay home? Yes.

If Vegas gave me odds on a certain percentage, I'd even make a small online bet.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Getovverit,
Certainly if one goes back one can find nasty divisive, disrepectful stuff on both sides, certainly there was plenty of nastiness against Obama on Taylor Marsh, MyDD -- and still is on the often outright racist Hillaryis44 and NoQuarter. But, I thought Hillary's message yesterday was the operative one -- time to move foreward together. And if you look at both MyDD and Kos NOW, that is happening to a remarkable degree just days after the primaries ended. No doubt it will continue as folks start to focus on McCain v. Obama.

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason I can think of for Hillary to want the VP spot, is the possibility of her becoming the first female U. S. Vice President in history. That would be a worthy accomplishment, but, second fiddle, after running a tough campaign for the top spot, seems too much like a consolation prize to me.

I hope Obama offers Hillary the VP spot, that she declines, and puts him in touch with Warren Buffet.

Posted by: alibubba on June 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm. One suspects that if we made it really, really hard for you, you still wouldn't vote for the Democrat this fall. You're just that committed.

***
I'll be voting for all Democrats but one in November. And I'll vote for Obama, too, if Hillary is on the ticket. I'd actually vote for him enthusiastically, but without Hillary, I'll probably skip it or cross over to vote for McCain and wait for '12. All bets are off, though, if he actually offers Hillary the Vice Presidency and she says no. But I don't see that scenario playing out. She'd really HAVE to say yes in that case.
I took a half hour out and watched the speech. Good speech, but, of course, it's what she had to do, just to stay polically viable. Most of her supporters, on the other hand, won't be running for office any time soon and don't have to make such public concessions.
Anyway, I am retiring from commenting here and will return in November to laugh at you Obamatons when Barack wins no more than 12 states in the general election. I do reserve the right though to return as early as late October, when Obama is seen campaigning in New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Because that will be very funny, too. In the meantime, enjoy you're gloating, enjoy your hate fest that you tell yourself is a love fest. Enjoy it all. But if you really want to win, instead of rub it in, write to the campaign and tell him to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket.
See you in October.

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

"I think the most critical practical obstacle to Obama choosing Hillary is the reported refusal of Bill Clinton to submit to the same vetting process as other candidates as regards personal financial information. If this refusal is in fact real and not something invented, then the Obama campaign has no alternative but to look elsewhere."

Sorry, but that is the single most pitifully insane excuse I've ever heard.

The least scrutinized and vetted major party nominee in (literally) decades is going to refuse a ticket spot because the most thoroughly scrutinized and investigated politician in the history of the human race....hasn't been vetted?

The mind boggles at how anyone could swallow THAT kool aid.

Posted by: chaboard on June 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Juliet, how old are you? Judging from your faulty logic and emotional bent I hope you are a teenager or very early 20s. If not, wow.

For me, anything short of Hillary as VP (with the exception of Al Gore, of course) is a deal breaker. I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama, either. I just won't vote for president.

So you have no policy priorities? You do not care about the environment nor improving children's health care. Worker's rights mean nothing to you? In fact, you care not one thing about all the issues Hillary fought so hard for at all?

"Damn the kids. Damn the sick. Damn the poor. Hillary didn't win so I kust don't care!"

Nice, really nice.

Posted by: keith G on June 8, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Good bye, Juliet. Mind taking a few more with you?

Posted by: keith G on June 8, 2008 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'd go with "Bingo Bob" Russell.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on June 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

", but without Hillary, I'll probably skip it or cross over to vote for McCain and wait for '12."

Why?!

This makes absolutely no sense at all given the way I understand politics. Please explain.

Posted by: Dan S. on June 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Good bye, Juliet. Mind taking a few more with you?"

you just made Juliet's case for her. why Obama got such support from foul-mouthed bullies is a mystery. he certainly did nothing to deserve it.

Posted by: getoverit on June 8, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

without Hillary, I'll probably skip it or cross over to vote for McCain

McCain 1998: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Doesn't that create a little bit of cognitive dissonance with your threats to vote for McCain?

Posted by: on June 8, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

If she didn't want it, we would have heard about it. She would have ended the talk about it just as John Edwards did yesterday. She wants to be the President. The surest way then is as VP, and he dies.

She's not looking for it to happen in 4 years (when she'd be 65) or 8 years (69). She'd actually have to produce in the Senate all that time. She didn't have all that many to begin with in the Senate, and after this horribly divisive campaign that she is completely responsible for, it's not likely to have made her any new buddies.

So much of what we know about everything in our government and in Washington comes from disinformation campaigns. It's really not that difficult to get the collective consciousness in agreement, spreading a meme that bears little resemblance to the truth. If you doubt it, just remember the lead-up to the Iraq war and how difficult it was to get truth into that meme.

I don't see Hillary Clinton remaining in the Senate. I always thought that putting her in the Senate was solely as a springboard to a run for the Presidency. She has not used her short time in the Senate well, and has no legislation to her name. Hers is a wholly mediocre Senate history.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, she isn't popular with her fellow classmates. Republican senators like her better than Democratic ones, very few of whom endorsed her. And why wouldn't Republicans like her better? She's seen as crossing over to assist them in passing their legislation.

The Clintons had been preparing to keep their lock on power by fully making over the Democratic Party into a haven for "centrism", particular ideologists from both parties (moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats). With moderate Republicans displaced from the Republican Party by the evangelicals, the Clintons were working on 86ing the activist liberal base out of the Democratic Party, and then putting out the welcome mat to the moderates in the Republican Party. That's why they had Hillary support Bush's war in Iraq and the coming one in Iran.

Talk of her 2008 Presidential campaign being over is premature. She's not out of it until the delegates do the actual voting at the August convention, and only then if she doesn't get the #2 spot on the ticket. She wants on that ticket like nobody's business, for as Terry McAuliffe has said, "You never know what's going to happen and you can't play the game if you're not on the field."

Posted by: Margerie on June 8, 2008 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin?

" she'd be more effective in the Senate.... would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government ...

Ok, you said *a* second branch. It still negates the reality of the Constitution, which this country has done enough of minimizing. The importance of Congress was a huge issue for the founding fathers. It is considered the first branch due to their consideration and it's position in the Constitution. I highly recommend "The Broken Branch" to understand what Obama is about.

The idea that the Clintons have been vetted so much they are immune to it flies in the face of reality. Hillary got 17.5 million solid, active Democrats to vote for her in the primary. There are a whole lot more Dems, + independents and disgruntled GOP that vote in the GE. I happen to respect Carter on many areas and in this one he is right. Her negatives are too high for the GE. And yes, Bill's finances will get scrutiny - as those of us who watched Ferraro's husband get exposed remember well.

Obama's focus is on thinking differently. Hillary has been exceptional in her ability to master facts, process, procedure and her team has come up with some solid legislation. She does not have the creative, visionary, team empowering skills Obama is going to need in just about every position. She definitely does not have the legal mind or experience for AG or SCOTUS. You don't want a neurologist doing cardiology.

There is one which I think would get her a very important place in history, plenty of visiblility and would be better for her skill sets: Secretary of Defense.

Speaking of defense. Or offense as it has become. I can't help but wonder about the folks who seem to think Obama needs balls or more testosterone. He seems to be doing quite well with what he has. As far as I'm concerned, he seems to excell at doing what too many people in this country don't value: controlling the testosterone. That doesn't mean he doesn't have it, just that he has evolved past flaunting it.

When a fairly small percentage of Hillary voters get control of their raging hormones/emotions, it would do a lot for party unity, not to mention the country. No, I'm not sexist. I attribute poor hormonal control and anger management to both sexes.

I have virtually no doubt Obama can and will win in November. The key is to get as big a mandate as possible, partly by electing as many down ticket candidates as possible. The VP choice takes this into account in regards to demographics. Let Obama's team do their work, and the mood settle down before pressuring him to make this decision.

Posted by: Ginny in CO on June 8, 2008 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thersites, et al: Geez, how dumb can you be...

On behalf of myself, pretty fuckin' dumb. Thanks for asking, though.

Can't vouch for al.

Posted by: thersites the dumbpeace troll on June 8, 2008 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

you just made Juliet's case for her.

Oh, calm down, Mary.

Not to make too obvious a point, but anyone who votes for a candidate based on their like or dislike of some of the candidate's supporters - anonymous people on the internet, no less - is a juvenile and probably not emotionally mature enough to make a reasonable decision anyway.

Howard Dean didn't win the nomination in 2004, and I don't recall any of his supporters either a) threatening to cross over and vote for the worst president ever or b) actually crossing over and voting for the worst president ever. This in despite of the never-ending parade of jackasses online deriding them as "Deaniacs". If your only investment in determining who will lead our country is wrapped up in a single persona, you would have loved Mao's China. We don't do dear leaders here, and thank god for that. So any of you who remain embittered that a candidate other than your preferred candidate won the nomination, playing by the rules, fair and square, who want to cut your noses off to spite your faces, be my guest. I'm not your momma and it's not my job to salve your wounded hopes. Life is hard - get a fucking helmet.

That having been said, probably the best reason why Hillary should NOT be the VP candidate are things she said herself which cannot be taken back and which would prove a never-ending distraction in the campaign. I personally don't relish hearing her asked 1,000 times why she would agree to run as the second gun with a candidate whom she implied lacked what it takes to be commander in chief. And I can't imagine a reasonable answer that would make that question go away. The second reason, to me more important in the long run, is that this nomination contest represents the end of the DLC's stranglehold on the Democratic Party, and everything bad that it entailed. No need to let the DLC keep their foot in the door with a VP candidate. We've seen some of the fallout from this shake-up already with the DNC's announcement that it will no longer accept lobbyist contributions. That's a good thing, and something that would not have ever happened so long as the DLC continued running the show.

Posted by: Jennifer on June 8, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Does anybody think that taking Al Gore as VP:

1. Is possible, i.e., that Gore might accept?

2. Would serve as a unifying more?

3. Would be tactically savvy?

Posted by: Sean on June 8, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Juliet,

If you think that you and your fellow Hillary supporters would do better with John McCain as President, go right ahead.

As a white woman who is just slightly younger than Hillary, I can tell you that none of my contemporaries feel as you do or can believe Hillary's supporters are for real. Not real Democrats (according to polls, they vote Republican in general elections), not real sane, and not real smart. And most certainly, not real insightful when it comes to politics, the issues that we're facing, or about Hillary Clinton herself.

Before this election is over, somebody is going to have to take on the subject of women who are identifying with the woman who referred to them just a few years ago as "trailer park trash".

Ignorant voters have held us all over a barrel these last election cycles, by putting people into office for reasons like, "Someone with whom I'd like to have a beer."

Enough of this nonsense. Obama doesn't need to crawl to Hillary's supporters. Hillary's supporters need to clear their heads, go to an Obama event and learn what he's about and why he's the choice for the most educated, the most successful, and the most liberal (although he's not a liberal) of the Democrats. The activist liberal base of the party already has made the compromises, and now it's time for the Hillary supporters to do the same. Or not.

Just remember that we on the left foresaw the misery that's happening. We told you so, what would happen from years of Republicans and centrist Democrats. If you want to keep losing economic ground, educational competitiveness, your health, go right ahead, keep demanding Hillary on the ticket and vote McCain.

Posted by: Margerie on June 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Sean

#1 How many times does Gore have to say he is not interested before you believe him?

Posted by: Ginny in CO on June 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

I don't thing she wants to be VP. She wants to be Oprah. The new queen of American feminism.

Posted by: aline on June 8, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

If someone with more of a clue and less of an ax to grind than Armando/BTD, I might pay attention. But I didn't have much use for him even before this primary season, and I've got none now.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on June 8, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

"McCain 1998: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.""

And of course, there's this.

Posted by: Dan S. on June 8, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Hillary got 17.5 million solid, active Democrats to vote for her in the primary."


No, she didn't.

#1: Once McCain sewed up the nomination on Super Tuesday, that left conservatives of all denominations (Republicans and Independents) at loose ends for months to dick around in Democratic primaries.

#1: How many people who voted for Hillary would do it again if they had the chance? Californians Would Switch Clinton Vote For Obama: http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obama.2.720136.html

Posted by: Margerie on June 8, 2008 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

RE: "Hillary got 17.5 million solid, active Democrats to vote for her in the primary."


Of those 'hard-working, white, blue-collar Democrats' who voted for her in states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, typically they vote for Republicans in the general election.

According to latest polls (which mean nothing at this point, but I include them just to rock your world a bit): Whereas Hillary's supporters would like to see her as VP, 66% said that they would vote the Democratic ticket even if she wasn't on it, and 33% said they wouldn't.

Obama is running a 50 state strategy, with active registration drives in all of them. He will probably win states where she can't possibly win, and where it's possible she would suppress the turnout. Georgia, for example, where 600,000 unregistered African-Americans have been identified.

Nobody is talking about the effect that Hillary's being on the ticket would do to tamp down the votes of Democrats (I say it's significant after the disgusting campaign she ran) and how it would rev up the Republicans to come to the polls.

Hillary doesn't come with baggage; she comes with steamer trunks.

Posted by: Margerie on June 8, 2008 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

No way Obama offers the VP slot to HRC. Having HRC as VP means having Bill around bird-dogging Michelle.

Posted by: CJColucci on June 8, 2008 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

CJColucci: Michelle's too pretty for Bill. He wouldn't be interested.

Anonymous conspiracy-theorist: Wrong thread for such ravings. Not to mention that you failed to mention how stem-cell research is a precursor to sperm warfare.

On subject: Senator Clinton as VP would be a waste of ability. If Senator Obama has proven anything, it's an understanding of putting the right people in the right places. I can see her as Sec of State or some other position where she could help drive policy.

I'll vote for Obama whether she's on the ticket or not. It's what they stand for that matters.

Posted by: DonkeyOdie on June 8, 2008 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

CJColucci: I don't see Michelle and Bill. But I can clearly see you and Margerie and a few others here pawing at the zipper on his fly.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think without Hillary, you're going to see a lot of people either not voting or splitting their ballots, resulting in a lopsided Democratic majority in the house and Senate but with McCain very possibly getting elected president. Which would still be considerably better than what we have now, with the chance of a president acceptable to Hillary supporters in '12.

Posted by: Juliet on June 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM

How about the chance of a vice-president acceptable to Hillary supporters in '08 (which is normally how politics works), other than Hillary herself? Or does that exclusion make it impossible?

If so, you're not emphasizing what she stands for; you're merely involved in a cult of personality. Go wave your little red book filled with the quotations of Chairwoman Hillary!

Posted by: Vincent on June 8, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

To anonymous conspiracy theorist:

You left out Nostradamus. I don't believe anything not predicted by Nostradamus. Or confirmed by Fox News.

Posted by: alibubba on June 8, 2008 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly: Thersites, et al: Geez, how dumb can you be...

Here's a longer answer to your question: shortstop also questioned my (and others')judgment, but without calling me dumb. Her method was (and I'm paraphrasing) "I don't know why people think this. Here are some reasons why you're wrong" and she then made some reasonable points. You, on the other hand, asked us how dumb we can be.

I'm just a simple Bronze Age guy without the benefit of an Athenian education, so you'll have to explain to me. Does this famous Socratic Method consist merely of calling people dumb? To be honest, I had hoped for better from the upcoming Classical Age.

Posted by: thersites the bronze age dumbass on June 8, 2008 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Vincent - "...cult of personality..." Lot of hi-octane snark in that comment from the obamaniacs.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Someone needs a basic marketing course :
Oh, no, thank you for giving us all yet another opportunity to not visit your blog.

Oh come on, be a sport. Go on over, read the post, and then you can tell him he needs a basic editing course, too.

Unless somehow WM is a "threat"

Posted by: asthmatic housefly on June 8, 2008 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jim,

I've heard a lot of fellow Obama supporters make the comment that they'd abstain or vote for McBush if the superdelegates voted Senator Clinton into the nomination, too. So the "cult of personality" label can go to both sides.

Relax, we all want the same thing. Once we get Prince Humperdinck and Count Rugen out of there, we can go about rebuilding our nation.

Posted by: DonkeyOdie on June 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

We all do want the same thing. Unfortunately we won't get it as we just nominated Humperdinck the Second. Axelrod is his Count Rugen??

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Jim,
Why don't you just run along? There are plenty of places where you can go to indulge your need to spew abuse.

Posted by: Orca on June 8, 2008 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

There is no way that Obama can sell himself to Hillary Clinton supporters. The only one who can do that is Hillary, and as far as I'm concerned, it's going to be very hard, if not impossible. He's sailed through this campaign with a big smile on his face, a simple slogan that will not be easy to fulfill, and the most significant thing, the complete support of the media. The media won this nomination for him.

Posted by: cathyw on June 8, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

There is no way that Obama can sell himself to Hillary Clinton supporters. The only one who can do that is Hillary, and as far as I'm concerned, it's going to be very hard, if not impossible. He's sailed through this campaign with a big smile on his face, a simple slogan that will not be easy to fulfill, and the most significant thing, the complete support of the media. The media won this nomination for him.

Posted by: cathyw on June 8, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

kinda sad to see a once semi rational person go off the deep end over a case of hillary worship

tell armando to shut his fucking pie hole

let hillary find her own job

Posted by: freepatriot on June 8, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Orca - Consider this light abuse payback for all the Hillary Hate. Which, I note from half the commenters above, has gotten worse.

Hillary should tell you fags to shove the VP job where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: jim on June 8, 2008 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

The media won this nomination for him.

*sigh*

I could go down the list of reasons why he won, from better organization to a winning 50 state strategy, but that would be pointless....nope, the media must have won it for him....please.

Posted by: Joe on June 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

She wants on that ticket like nobody's business, for as Terry McAuliffe has said, "You never know what's going to happen and you can't play the game if you're not on the field."
----
what GAME are you talking about besides death of the President? And you suggest Hillary wasn't expressing a little wish in her early RFK comment? People don't make revealing statements like that if that hasn't been discussed privately in the campaign.

Can anyone imagine a worse American outcome than HC becoming president at the death of Obama? Horrible in any circumstance, with her as VP it would ignite paranoia that makes the Vince Foster nonsense look positively rational.

I voted for her -- but would take it back after the last month of the campaign. (and yes if she had won I would be voting for her again in November)

Posted by: Artemesia on June 8, 2008 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

Geeze. The hate and spite I see here makes me wonder exactly how much difference there is between the parties.

Posted by: Steve on June 8, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

The least scrutinized and vetted major party nominee in (literally) decades is going to refuse a ticket spot because the most thoroughly scrutinized and investigated politician in the history of the human race....hasn't been vetted?

The issue is not what Mr. Clinton may or may not have done as President -- that has been, as you suggest, thoroughly investigated -- investigated to death.

But Mr. Clinton has, out of at least the center of the spotlight, been wheeling and dealing for the last eight years. His last serious vetting was eight years ago.

Me, I don't necessarily see why it matters, from a VP perspective what he's been doing with his time, but then I never saw what Sen. Obama's pastor's views had to do with Obama's fitness for office, either.

And that became a big deal, with no small assist from the Clinton campaign.

Live by the innuendo, die by the innuendo.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 8, 2008 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Obama can offer the VP slot and make it an offer Hillary can refuse--require Bill to disclose the donors to his foundation and library; no chance he will do that. Not only does Hillary have the aforementioned problems, Bill is a walking conflict of interest. For me, the best choice is Joe Biden--nobody else has the gravitas he does, with legislative/national security/foreign affairs experience that rivals any other Democrat. His selection will neutralize the national security issue vis a vis McCain. My dream choice (as it would only occur in a dream) would be a Obama-Kennedy ticket . . . as in Caroline Kennedy. It would be bring back disaffected women, soldify the Democratic coalition, and really good create excitement.

Posted by: deepthought on June 8, 2008 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Biden (D-MBNA) brought us Bankruptcy Reform, the worst legislation in a generation. I think we need to find somebody who is willing to look out for regular Americans instead of the special interests.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 8, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

After watching that brilliant TPM compilation clip of reactions to McCain's speech for the umpteenth time, I started wondering about the advisability of the Republicans going ahead with their planned convention in Minneapolis this August. Can any good come of it? Consider the headaches and problems it presents:

- Do you invite George W Bush, or not? If you do, you stamp the McCain-Bush succession theme indelibly on America's collective retina. If you don't, you effectively admit that the last eight years were kind of a screwup. I don't see any middle ground on this. Problem numero uno.

- McCain won the nomination, not because he swept the field, but because he was the last-non-lunatic-standing after a series of spectacular flameouts by Thompson and Giuliani; with a little more money, message discipline and effort, Huckabee might have drawn out the primary fight a la Democrat Party. The convention won't be a celebration of his victory, but an acknowledgment of his non-failure. How worth celebrating is that?

- Obama has already marked the convention center in Minneapolis as his territory with victory party there Tuesday night. Anyone want to guess whether the press mentions that fact a thousand times, or only a few hundred?

Now for the "OMG what-are-we-gonna-do-about-that" speed round:

- McCain's acceptance speech

- Ron Paul

Discretion is the better part of valor, as an old soldier ought to know well. So maybe instead of holding the convention, McCain can just invite all the media over to his ranch in Arizona for a big rib cook-out.

Cindy will bring the beer.

Posted by: lampwick on June 8, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

cathyw,

I have four words for you to ponder. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. Add a 5th and a 6th to that list if McCain is elected. Now consider the impact on a woman's right to choose and just about every other rights women have won over the last 100 years if we find ourselves with six justices similar to the four named.

You think there might be a downside for progressive women not supporting Obama? Maybe you should reconsider your position regarding Obama.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

"I do reserve the right though to return as early as late October, when Obama is seen campaigning in New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan." -Juliet

Apparently, SOMEONE actually WAS fooled into believing that primary victories are the equivalent of fall election victories. I take it, Julie, that you haven't bothered to check any polls taken after Obama wrapped it up.

And frankly, if you love gloating so much over a Dmeocratic loss, I have to question, again, whether you're really a Democrat.

Posted by: Harkov311 on June 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

Ginny:

You misread Carter.

He didn't talk only about Clinton's negatives. He said being on a ticket with Obama would bring out the worst in both their negatives.

Ron Byers: A Democratic-majority Senate, if it gets some guts, would be under no requirement to approve a McCain SCOTUS nominee. Of course, you might want a Senate Majority Leader with more conejos than Harry Reid, but that's another story.

Deepthought: Brilliant idea -- on the "refusable" offer to Clinton; HORRIBLE idea about Sen. MBNA.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on June 9, 2008 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

If Clinton is the VP, and Obama has a failed administration a la Jimmy Carter, then she would be identified with the failed Obama admin, and she wouldn't have a chance in 2012. If she wasn't the VP in the same scenario, she can run. In any case, being the VP is a lose-lose scenario for Clinton. Her outside chance of still running and winning the HOITL (highest office in the lang) is only possible if she doesn't become the VP.

Posted by: Andy on June 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

To help with the healing process, Kos is now doing an extended series on why Hillary lost. Check it out.

Posted by: B on June 9, 2008 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

The reason Hillary Clinton will never be Vice President is not a lack of popularity. It is that she is too popular.

Posted by: Burr Deming on June 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry - didn't have the time to read all comments - so this might have been noted -

Sounds a lot like Kennedy/Johnson - older, more experienced, wily politician giving up power in Senate for a second-fiddle role with a crowd he didn't exactly hang out with off-hours.

And - Hillary may not have provided us with a lot of brilliant legal gems, but that doesn't seem to be the primary criteria for SCOTUS membership - at worst, she'd be our side's Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: gkoutnik on June 9, 2008 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

To say that the Senate is as powerful as the VP is rubbish.

That said, I doubt HRC wants the VP, as BHO will lose in 2008.

I have no doubt she will work her butt off for the DNC. I also have no doubt that a few hundred thousand of her supporters will mess with his chances in a few swing states and work against his candidacy. I will be working against his candidacy in NH.

Next time around (2012) I think the DNC will treat her supporters with a bit more r-e-s-p-e-c-t.

According to my math, he can take the popular vote without her, but he can't win the electoral college.

How ironic is THAT gonna be!

Posted by: Jan on June 9, 2008 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

The ingredients for Hillary’s cocktail, stirred but not shaken:

....Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

That is to say, liberally blend in threatening blackmail, extortion, or blatantly exposed vindictiveness – add in just enough lefty bloggers making subliminal lime wedges and just enough shaved ice to chill the thought.

Suggesting that Hillary doesn’t REALLY want to be VP will be a very bitter drink indeed for poor Hillary, but it’s a draft that Hillary herself distilled and she can do not but drink it down.

Posted by: Me-again on June 9, 2008 at 7:14 AM | PERMALINK

She should pressure him in to offering her the slot with a promise she will turn it down, and when he formally asks her she should take it. She can then find some operatives in the CIA to help her with a promotion.

Posted by: LBJ on June 9, 2008 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

Gadfly,

Do you really want to put the fate of western Civilization in the hands of the United States Senate? I don't. Remember the current administration and this Senate voted to repeal habeas corpus.

Assume for a couple of years the Senate is 55-45 Democrats. There are elections in 2010 and 2012. It could easily flip again.

No, if Hillary supporters sit on their hands refusing to vote for Obama, civil rights, womens rights, hell all individual human rights are in jeopardy. The rights of the corporations will continue to reign supreme.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 9, 2008 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK

I will be working against his candidacy in NH. - Jan

Ah yes, and you will be joining the legions of supporters before you -- the people who actively and passionately supported Dean, Edwards, Bradley, et al and, when they didn’t win the nomination, these supporters then went on to work actively against the eventual nominee.

Oh wait.

My guess is that there will actually be very few Democrats who will work actively against Obama. One can be hopeful that we're all going to put the darker moments of the primary campaign behind us and vote based on the values we share.

And if I am wrong, that will be an interesting foot note in the history books. And one I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton would not want to be tied to her legacy.

Posted by: JAC on June 9, 2008 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

As a 62 yr old female, I would be very disappointed in Obama and his staff if the VP was offered to Hillary. And to those supporters who are all for Hillary, I understand your anger. I was that angry at the Clinton's for getting rid of howard Dean in the 2004 election. But I voted for Kerry.

If you really don't care about women's rights, and only about what happens to Hillary, then go ahead and don't vote. It is your rights that will be ovethrown.

I personally care about my rights. I am still angry about what heppened to Dean, and many Hillary supporters told me to get over it.

Would Hillary want you to vote for McCain? I doubt it. Put America before Hillary.

Posted by: GrandmaJ on June 9, 2008 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

From a die-hard Obama supporter, 5 metareasons why Obama should pick HRC as his running mate:

1. It would be truly historic -- every bit as historic as his winning the nomination.

2. Change is fine, but everyone -- dems of all races and genders -- must be brought along or the transition simply won't succeed.

3. The ticket would guarantee a win in November -- maybe even a landslide.

4. She would help greatly in ripping Double-talk McBush a new asshole.

5. Politics aside, it's the right thing to do: she and her supporters deserve it.

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 9, 2008 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

I have four words for you to ponder. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. Add a 5th and a 6th to that list if McCain is elected. Now consider the impact on a woman's right to choose and just about every other rights women have won over the last 100 years if we find ourselves with six justices similar to the four named. - Ron Beyers

Not only is there that issue. There is also the general belief by the strict constitutionalists that regulation by federal agencies is unconstitutional and--if we carry that to its logical extreme— say good-bye to the Environmental Protection Agency, say good-bye to the Securities and Exchange Commission, say good-bye to Food and Drug Administration, say good-bye to the… well, you get the idea.

Plus, the numerous rulings that we have seen in the past where the conservative judges side with corporate interest -- so a world where corporate interest is served at the expense of the public interest.

Posted by: JAC on June 9, 2008 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the vice-presidential nominee for the same two reasons she shouldn't have been the presidential nominee:

1. She would rally a Republican base who might otherwise be willing to stay home on Election Day (not to mention independents who might otherwise be willing to vote for Obama);

2. A replay of the psychodramas of the 1990s.

On the first point, despite the rally she made at the end of the Democratic contests Clinton still has very high negatives. High enough to deny her an electoral college win. When half the country says they'll vote against you no matter what, you have a pretty big electoral problem.

On the second point - there stories out there, bubbling under the surface, of pretty shady business dealings and presidential library donations on the part of Bill Clinton. The right-wing fascists who took a tabloid story and ran with it all the way to impeachment during the 90s would surely take (at the very least) the new Vanity Fair story on Bill's post-presidency to try and derail an Obama administration that included Hillary as VP.

Posted by: Wayne on June 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

Wayne,

While I agree with your basic argument, the repugs are going to do most of that anyway. They are going to smear Obama in every way they can. But they will be preaching to a choir who never would have voted for him anyway.

As I see it, smears will not determine the outcome; turnout is the key to victory. We can't leave behind any block of dems who might not turn out. I agree that the majority of HRC supporters may wind up voting for Obama. But we need all of them -- every last one.

We need a ticket whose loss in the election would translate into a catastrophic, hope-dashing loss for whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, native Americans, male, female, gay and straight, educated and uneducated Americans at all income levels. Did I leave out anyone?

IMHO, going forward crossing our fingers and hoping that voters in our own party, who now say they will not vote for Obama, eventually will is taking a risk we simply do not need to take.

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 9, 2008 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

We can't leave behind any block of dems who might not turn out. I agree that the majority of HRC supporters may wind up voting for Obama. But we need all of them -- every last one.

I agree. But there are other voters who may have voted for Obama but will not if Hillary is on the ticket.

Anecdotally, I know of at least three. Two are moderate Republicans (Rhode Island variety) and the other is an Independent -- all of whom are being strongly swayed by Obama. Now I have no empirical data to suggest that one voter block is larger than the other – but there are many so pieces to the puzzle here and to focus on one without at least recognizing that there are others...

Posted by: JAC on June 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, my last comment on this, promise.

For a party that lost the White House twice by far, far less than a half million votes to risk leaving behind over 4 million sure votes (25% of those voting for HRC) -- voters who, btw, would be largely unaffected, perhaps even energized, by any repug smears -- is just, well, plain stupid.

Slogans aren't going to put Obama in the White House. Turnout is.

Posted by: Econobuzz on June 9, 2008 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

Jim, did your therapist take an early summer vacation this year?

Posted by: CJColucci on June 9, 2008 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Obama is running on policy, what economic policy makes sense.

Placating Hillary supporters is not policy. If he can get Hillary supporters to stay home then he has a chance of getting Freepers to stay home also.

This election hopefully reduces all the populists vote.

Posted by: Matt on June 9, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Here this afternoon watching the history channel about how scientists are studying an alien space craft that crashed some time ago. Ah, is this the planet earth? I am loosing my mind, did this really happen, or are we getting a huge dose of more propaganda, or is this National Security Secrets that have been sheltered from America? Besides Fermi is currently building anti-matter particles that would likely solve the energy problem along with creating the best weapon of mass destruction ever. This is a Doctor Doolittle theme �You never saw anything like it� or, if we use it we will never see anything again. LOL. With a very heavy laugh and huge giggles one might look at this primary scene as a comedy rather then a tragedy. However all it would take is a few Islamic crazy radicals that need to get to heaven quick just secure a little anti-matter and connect it to matter and wa la we have enough energy to equal a billion, billion gallons of gas. Enough to spread Islam along with American freedom to another universe. LOL.

Watched O�reilly the other day with a young lady on for political commentary went like, Obama is simply a punk. Yeow, O�reilly made sure that this comment was hers and not his or the stations. Yikes, what a slam. A few comments here on this blog do reflect some of what many see as sneering from the Obama camp. Especially have you all notice this cycle has a considerably lot more apologies handed out. Some requesting resignations with arrogance, or audacity from the Obama camp, but were they for good reasons? Certainly Obama would not resign his friendship with his reverend friend. Makes one wonder, who is now going to be privy to America�s National Security Secrets? Yikes. Cousin Cheney will aim a lot harder this time.

This primary coupled with this Internet Blog has been a wonderful experience for me. All the comments negative and good positive type have propelled an understanding with an effort given to me more ambition to know about our election process.

Being a rookie at this has lifted some of my insights to the political skullduggery that is in our face 24x&7 by mainstream media. Those people are real liars.

Perhaps even the History channel too. Especially the realization of how the Primary Caucuses can influence the election. Here, the out comes of the Democratic side are questionable but totally in denial by Mainstream Media. You know how the Republicans can vote for their candidate then march into the Democratic side raise their hand declare themselves independent.

If any thing for me that was a huge eye opener. With that said, hoping Hillary will make some adjustment for the Democratic Primary rules. Some of those delegates are far too young and inexperienced even to be a delegate to vote for the president. Yikes a President who is far too young and inexperience even to be the nominee. LOL. So far all one can see Obama with his organizing skills in the south side of Chicago. Here, with big money deals for years as a community helper. Sure helping Rezko Jordanian born rich elite now convicted in sixteen counts of fraud. Sheesh. That old saying what goes around comes around all though this happens to be our tax money that likely disappeared in Iraq which took a magic carpet ride to fly in to the south side of Chicago. Undetected by Rockefeller.

It�s absolutely amazing for a commentary on one hand to say if Hillary Clinton did not have to endure the caucuses she would likely be the candidate wining the primary. Then a host of first line Journalist openly admits Obama won 16 of the twenty caucuses claiming there was no Republican influence yet doubly confirms these are red states that would likely not vote for a Democrat in the general election. Here, Obama walks around like the energizer bunny yes we can.

Can what? This Can be the start of something big? We can do ? Or Obama says to Hillary, I can do anything better than you can do. Here laughing about all this however to many it is very serious and project a huge media change towards Obama for there is no more Hillary to beat up. That�s all folks !

Posted by: Megalomania on June 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK
Joe Biden (D-MBNA) brought us Bankruptcy Reform, the worst legislation in a generation.
I dunno Ron, I think the USA PATRIOT Act is [REDACTED].

Anyway, your mileage may vary.

cheers!

Posted by: kenga on June 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Megalomania,
Give up, you'll never reach Norman Rogers status.

Posted by: optical weenie on June 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

To say that the Senate is as powerful as the VP is rubbish.

Jan, I wish I could be more dignified, but damn that was the most stupid thing I've read.

Tell me, just how much American policy has Dan Quayle influenced?

Now, repeat the above question, but incert the name Teddy Kennedy. Hell, incert the name Orin Hatch.

Your logic is non existent. Go home.

Posted by: keith g on June 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

::If she didn't want it, we would have heard about it. She would have ended the talk about it just as John Edwards did yesterday. She wants to be the President. The surest way then is as VP, and he dies.::

If this person is suggesting what they think they are suggesting, that is sick beyond words.

Posted by: tam1MI on June 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Don’t worry, folks, once the country gets to know Barack, he will win in a huge landslide. This long primary season, which I opposed at the beginning, is working to the dems advantage. There may not be a Republican party when this is all over. Conservatives think the world doesn’t change. They will have to make a huge adjustment in their ideas about life and governance if they want to win elections again and they won’t be able to do it.

My fantasy has a Democratic Party that splits into left and right wings, with the old GOP being laid to rest in SMG (Sleazebag Memorial Gardens.) The base line beliefs for both Dem sides will encompass all the rights we hold dear, global warming, health care, environment, etc., but have different ways of achieving those goals. Under Barack’s inspiration, a giant leap for mankind!

Posted by: James of DC on June 9, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Uhhh...thanks to Cheney (and the hapless Democraps in Congress who let EVERYTHING slide) the Veep slot is very very powerful, and beholden to no one. It is not really part of the Executive, being "head of the Senate" and it isn't part of the Legislative, being an Executive slot - and the Dems are OK with it, just as they are OK with all the signing statements, Exec power claims, illegal spying, illegal detentions, kangaroo courts, etc of the Bush Admin because they let is ALL slide with barely a peep. Thus, Hillary is looking at a VERY powerful position that the Dems in Congress have given their blessing to by virtue of their inaction (and let's not forget by virtue of impeachment "being off the table").

Who WOULDN'T want to be Veep now days? It is truly the most powerful position in the world.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on June 9, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Read George Wills latest piece. Hillary is 1992!
Barack is 2008. The country as a whole does not not want another 8 years of the Clintons.

Posted by: P.C.Chapman on June 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Seems incredibly unlikely that obama would choose clinton as a running mate. They are too different to make unified presidential partners and one big thing they have in common- their big egos- will make it difficult for them to work together.
Check out this article-http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/obama-s-electoral-challenge
It discusses the demographics that Obama will have to pick up in order to be successful... He'll need Clinton's help on this stuff- SOme of her supporters are so tied to her, not the party, that they'd rather vote McCain than Obama.

Posted by: jmr on June 9, 2008 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I won't be voting for Obama or McCain in the fall. After Hillary conceded I was still on the fence but the onslaught against Hillary Clinton has continued unabated, proving many of my worst fears.

Continue to pat yourself on the back Obama supporters for only now being gracious and consolatory now that it costs you absolutely nothing. Continue to stand and be weak of character.

While Hillary as VP would guarantee a Dem win, it would be a horrible governing partnership.

It comes down, I don't reward bad behavior. Bad is an understatement. Alos, plan and simple, I don't think Obama has what it takes to be a good president much less a great one. Saying he's better thn Bush is, I think we can all agree, a pretty low threshold.

The surface of my reasons.

Also Obama supporters made me actively and overwhelmingly a Hillary supporter, where I was an Edwards supporter before. It's true for many. I don't reward bad, disgusting behavior that lies about other people being racists. That's a serious charge and one made all too lightly by lightweights.

I put country before party and the Democratic Party does not know how to serve its country. I repeat I would never vote John McCain or anyone to the right of him but i don't owe anything to the party and they don't own me.

Posted by: Temple Stark on June 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

I have supported Sen. Clinton because I believe she was/is the best Democratic candidate for president and I really wish these ego-tripping, adolescents would cease using the words "Clinton supporters" in their obviously Clearasil-induced tantrums since it apparent that the only "supporter" they are thinking about is themselves.
No one who claims to be liberal, progressive, or a Democrat would even think of voting for McCain. And since the policy positions of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton often differ only in emphasis, you can't claim liberal or progressive status for one and not the other.
If you think that electing Sen. Obama would be worse than electing Sen. McCain (the only possible reason not to vote for Sen. Obama), I'd really like to know the reasons that have led you to that decision. Really.
Just a warning - "Because Sen. Clinton isn't the candidate" isn't a valid reason.
I still don't think Sen. Clinton is interested in VP, although if a "mandate" such as Gore received were part of it, perhaps...

Posted by: Doug on June 9, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

". I repeat I would never vote John McCain or anyone to the right of him "

But given that, let me ask, would you at least vote against him - lesser of two evils, if that's what you see - if it seemed that your state might have any chance of being a swing state, of not going for one or the other in such an obvious landslide that you might as well cast a write-in vote for Harry Potter? If no - well, inaction is also action, and then by not acting you might be helping McCain get elected, with everything that entails.

Certainly the Democratic Party doesn't own you, nor do you owe them anything. But I would suggest that you owe yourself something, and perhaps, you feel you owe the country - all of us, together - something. In that case, unless you feel that McCain would be as good (or better) a President than Obama - and, vitally, unless you feel that continuing GOP dominance of (at least) the executive (and hence judicial) branch, (with no way to root out the Goodlings happily growing there, and no way to prevent their continued enthusiastic profusion (and for the Supreme Court, no way to avoid decades of a rightwing Court, with at best only strong rather than utter wingnut conservatives tipping them over into a generational majority) would be better than a Democratic President in the White House setting the agenda and making the appointments - then I really hope you'll come vote with us this fall.

Posted by: Dan S. on June 9, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Who WOULDN'T want to be Veep now days? It is truly the most powerful position in the world.

No, no, no. What ever power the VP has (ouside of what the Const. says, is purely a function of what the Pres wants it to have.

Jeeze P.A., the Pres doesn't even have to let the VP come to the cabinet meeting, have an office in the Whitehouse, or even have a separate budget.

Not very powerful.

Posted by: on June 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

I would have preferred Hillary, but I am just as happy to vote for Obama. However, Michelle Obama as First Lady is way more than I can stomach. The more I read or see about her, the less I like. I am going to wait till November to see what else comes up about her.

She seems to have a real attitude problem and she has made some very divisive statements. It wasn’t Obama’s church, it was hers. It was her “I can finally be proud of America” statement. I wonder what other radical things are hidden in her closet? She looks like more of a liability than even “Slick Willie.”

Posted by: GatorAide on June 10, 2008 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

So, I keep hearing Hillary for SCOTUS and I don't get it. Without 60 Dem Senators, which we can't count on, how in the hell do people think we're going to get her confirmed?

Posted by: on June 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly