NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Not High on Obama's VP List

Coming on the heels of the information that Gov. Kaine is being seriously considered by Obama for VP, another information is being reported. NYTimes is reporting that Clinton is not being seriously considered for that position by Obama campaign. Given the links of Clinton to 1990s and his position of bringing change to Washington, the campaign do not feel that Clinton is a plus.

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton abandoned her bid for the presidency and endorsed Senator Barack Obama in June, she made clear that she was interested in becoming his running mate, and Mr. Obama and his associates signaled respectfully that she would get full consideration. Election GuideMore Politics NewsBut there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama's interest in Mrs. Clinton for the post has faded considerably, if, in fact, she ever really was a strong contender to be on the ticket with him. In conversations, Mr. Obama's advisers discuss Mrs. Clinton's role at the Democratic convention next month in a way that suggests they are not thinking of her arriving in Denver as Mr. Obama's running mate.

.....
The arguments for picking Mrs. Clinton have always been highly pragmatic, based more on electoral politics than anything else, as Mr. McAuliffe suggested in pointing to the vote-getting power she had exhibited. (For what it is worth, some of Mr. McCain's advisers said they viewed Mrs. Clinton as the single strongest candidate Mr. Obama could pick for those same reasons.)

Those arguments have not held much sway with Mr. Obama or his inner circle. They have indicated that any political benefits gained by putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket would be outweighed by the costs. Mr. Obama's advisers say that a central message of his campaign -- that he would represent a break from the way politics are conducted in Washington -- would be tarnished by the simple act of linking himself to the family that has dominated Democratic politics since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

While it is Obama's solely choice for his pick, the unity of the party is also his campaign's responsibility. I'm surprised about folks from his campaign talking to the Press in the following terms about Hillary Clinton's supporters. Given the tight professional campaign that he runs, this seems contrary to common wisdom. It seems they can do a better job here.


Mr. Obama's aides are confident that the passions of the primary season have given way to a more pragmatic view among Mrs. Clinton's supporters and that Mr. Obama would not risk a major backlash from women or other constituencies associated with her if the vice presidential slot goes to someone else.

But the Obama camp has done little in public to prepare Clinton supporters for the increasing likelihood that she will not be on the ticket. There is no shortage of speculation among Mrs. Clinton's supporters that she is very much in the running as Mr. Obama begins closing in on a decision.

Meanwhile Hillary is fully committed to a Obama Presidency.

But Mrs. Clinton has made clear that she will do whatever Mr. Obama wants and has arranged a crowded schedule of appearances over the next two months on Mr. Obama's behalf -- some with him, but most on her own, an aide said

Read more here.

Adam Nagourney's NYTimes article



Display:


I personally expected this..so no surprise (2.00 / 2)

there. But the campaign can do a better job in uniting the party supporters behind Obama. I haven't seen a coordinated campaign yet.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:16:47 PM EST

I haven't seen any polls (none / 0)

in the last month showing the party isn't already as united as it has ever been. He's winning 80%-90% of Democrats, which is what the last three candidates won.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't seen any polls (2.00 / 2)

But how many of those "united" are expecting Hillary to be VP?

Not picking Hillary would be just plain stupid.

Key states are Ohio and PA.  Win both and he wins.

Hillary is as strong there as anyone.

Florida too.

Also Hillary is the only VP with a sizable built in expectations with existing obama supporters.

IE some women who think they will vote for Obama will change their minds if Hillary isn't the VP.

Also the Clinton name anchors experience in a way no other VP does.

If he doesn't pick her 2010, 2012 will be very interesting...


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't seen any polls (none / 0)

haven't seen an polls showing they would defect if she isn't chosen or that people "expect" her to be chosen.

And enough with the Ohio argument. There is no guarantee she can win Ohio for Obama or that he can win it himself.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0)

Why would Sen. Clinton want to be Vice President?

Sure, Cheney's shown how the office can be useful for a puppet-master, but no VP is going to be pulling Obama's strings. The next one is going to have a much lower-profile role, I suspect, and will definitely not be allowed to upstage the president in any way.

By accepting a place on the ticket, Clinton would be giving up years of effectiveness in the U.S. Senate for two months in the general election spotlight. As much as some of her supporters want to see it shine on her, that's ultimately not a good trade, and I think she knows it.


"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change." -- Nov. 4, 2008
by BobzCat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

Agreed.  Well said.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

Also, as someone pointed out in another thread, despite the "next in line" label attached to VP's, it's actually quite rare for them to become President unless something happens to the sitting President.  

Bush Sr. is the only one in the last 100 years to be elected after the President he served under completed a full term.


by sneakers563 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ugh, forgot Nixon (none / 0)

Although he had to wait.


by sneakers563 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why because it leads to president... (none / 0)

Lets be fair and count

And coolidge
And Truman
And Lyndon Johnson
And Ford
And Nixon
And Bush
And Gore

Out of 17 presidents since 1908

Basically Being VP gives you roughly a 41% chance of being president.

Funny how facts work isn't it?


by dtaylor2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why because it leads to president... (none / 0)

So you think she's guided solely by ambition? That she wants the presidency so badly she's willing to cool her heels and waste her talents to get there?

I don't think so. I don't think she's willing to trade eight years of effective work in the U.S. Senate, helping craft and pass important legislation in concert with a Democratic administration, for eight years in the shadows with the hope of maybe making it to the top in 2016.

Maybe I just have more respect for her than you do. Funny, isn't it?


"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change." -- Nov. 4, 2008
by BobzCat on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't seen any polls (2.00 / 2)

I don't think so, you're wrong.

From a 7/4 story from CNN:

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party's presidential ticket.

Obama won 59 percent of support from registered Democrats polled in June; now he garners 54 percent.

"These things always take time to heal," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "I think Clinton's supporters are waiting to seeif Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/c linton.poll/index.html


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't seen any polls (2.00 / 2)

left this off...

"I think Clinton's supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them."

If you think the PUMA stuff is bad now, wait until he doesn't pick her.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't seen any polls (none / 0)

I've asked this before, and never get a good answer:

Why would her supporters want her to be VP? It's not a high-profile role -- VPs are not allowed to upstage or otherwise draw attention away from the president. She'd basically be trading a pretty high-profile position as senator from NY for that of second-fiddle, consigned to ceremonial duties and behind-the-scenes activity.

For a woman as talented, gifted, strong, and inspirational as her supporters believe her to be, why would they wish this essentially thankless job on her?

I can only guess it's a kind of political naivete that views the VP as the "consolation prize" that should go to the second-place finisher in the competition, and sees it purely in terms of simplistic primary electoral math, rather than a more complex decision.

But the PUMA stuff isn't bad now, and won't be. The blogs have a tendency to magnify minor voices like Larry's, SoCalDarlin's, and Alegre's and give them an unwarrented sense of importance. The party is moving on, the country is moving on. The PUMAs will be left in the rear-view mirror, gnashing their teeth and howling at the moon. They're really not a factor.


"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change." -- Nov. 4, 2008
by BobzCat on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed... (2.00 / 1)

They should have chosen a running-mate early, to put the inevitable outcry from the Alegre-Noquarter looneytunes behind them.  If they delay this until just before the convention, they are guaranteeing that the hard feelings that do occur (and I don't think it will be nearly as great as many of you expect, but it will be there) will get airplay extending into the convention itself.  

If they intend to pop this balloon, they should do it quickly.  

I was opposed to Obama choosing anybody from the Clinton-DLC wing of the party as his running-mate, but have relented of late.  It might be the most conciliatory gesture he could make, yet a choice like that would still serve to push the Clintons further out of the spotlight because the remaining DLC/Clintonista types would have a successor other than Hillary to rally around.  After that, scorched earth tactics would face greater opposition.  

Evan Bayh perhaps.  I hate that son of a bitch, but he is part of the DLC inner circle, a former DLC president, like Hillary, and he is ambitious enough to not want to take a backseat to Hillary in 2012 once he has had the media exposure of a vice-presidential campaign.  It would solidify the more recalcitrant parts of the party insider base.

I might have said Bill Richardson, but the Clintons have made it plain that Richardson is unacceptable because they are holding a grudge against him for endorsing Obama in April.  "A Judas," he was called by Carville.  So I guess he is out.  And no women either, as I understand, because other news reports say that the Clintons would take that as a personal affront and as an effort to demean Hillary's importance.


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That pretty much shortens the list (none / 0)

to Kaine, Biden or Bayh.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden isn't a Clinton insider. (none / 0)

And he voted FOR the war.  And he would be difficult to keep on message.  On the plus side, he might be a good attack dog.  He just doesn't fit the "conciliator" profile.


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden isn't a Clinton insider. (none / 0)

Biden is a swift boat.

Team plagiarism for the fail.

Don't get me wrong I like Biden but this sinks the boat.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed... (none / 0)

Interesting to see you're still holding a grudge.  Why not just spit on us while you're at it?


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I don't do requests. (none / 0)

It's a contractual thing.


by Dumbo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 1)

It's his call.  If they've got internal polling that shows she doesn't fit, or if Senator Obama just doesn't think she fits his message, well, it's his call.

She's strong.  She'll handle it with the appropriate grace.  She'll probably even see the sense of it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST

What you say is absolutely correct. It's his (2.00 / 1)

choice, and his pick only. No arguments from me there. I'm more concerned that the message about party unity doesn't seem to be well coordinated yet.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before I left for Europe (2.00 / 1)

I was out there talking to Democrats and I found there were three groups of Democrats;

1.) Enthusiastic Obama supporters, whether Obama primary supporters or Clinton supporters who happily came around
2.) Democrats voting for Obama unenthusiastically or reluctantly because McCain is worse.
3.) Racists


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I even know racists that are going to vote for him (none / 0)

"Maybe he'll be assassinated and we'll get an ordinary white Democrat."  No BS.  I'd be ashamed to tell you who said it.


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I got a better one (none / 0)

"If a n*gg*r wins, I'm leaving the country"
"I don't want no President named Obama"
"If he wins, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan will be taking away our jobs"

all said by Democrats...related to me.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I got a better one (none / 0)

Some university did a study that if you're a democrat opposed to Barack Obama, you're highly likely to also believe things like "civil rights have gone to far" or "immigration policy should protect american values".

They were actually over twice as likely to believe statements like that than REPUBLICANS who oppose Obama.  So there's some scientific basis to that.

But really it isn't hard to figure out the motivation of someone who's like "I've been straight ticket voter for THIRTY YEARS but not this time."  Really?  You voted for Dukakis?  Mondale?  Kerry?  But Obama's no good, huh.  What's different about this time?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I got a better one (2.00 / 1)

The nicest thing I can say about this "it isn't hard to figure out the motivation" business is that it displays a total lack of imagination or understanding.

What's most stunning to me is that anyone can make this kind of post, that basically says any long-time Democrat who doesn't support Obama is a racist, and invariably not a soul will call them out for it.  Apparently this sort of thing represents the view of most Obama supporters.

My grandfather, who has voted for every Dem since FDR, would surely be thrilled to find out a bunch of anonymous people on the Internet consider him a racist because he doesn't like Obama.  Actually, he wouldn't be thrilled, it would probably solidify a decision that I hope to talk him out of.  Which is why I wish people would cut this kind of talk out, it's not only bogus but it's completely unproductive.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:27:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I got a better one (none / 0)

So, how is Obama different (worse) than Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore or Kerry?  

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely interested in your grandfather's perspective.  I think it's odd that someone could vote for all of those people but feel that Obama is unacceptable.

Your point about the ability to change someone's mind after calling them a racist is noted, though.


by sneakers563 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I got a better one (none / 0)

Well, I can't speak for the man, but I think it's mostly a youth/inexperience thing.

You also have to keep in mind that a lot of older Dems don't necessarily believe the party is still the party of FDR, but they stick with it out of Dem loyalty.  So when someone comes along who doesn't seem to like the Dem brand, who talks about the excesses of liberalism in the 60s, who claims that a successful presidency from the 90s actually wasn't all that successful, that's kind of offputting.

What I see a lot of folks doing is that they find a way to disagree with the premise ("but Obama isn't inexperienced! he has as many years in elected office as Hillary does!") and then the logic goes like, well since there's no valid reason (in my opinion) to dislike Obama, the only possibility left is racism.  I wish people understood how unfair it is to presume Obama's critics are racists and to put them in the position of having to prove their innocence.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:00:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My grandfather (none / 0)

voted for every Democrat since FDR. He's not voting Obama because he's black.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My grandfather (none / 0)

Okay.  I'd rather my grandfather not be called a racist because of your grandfather.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That wasn't my point (none / 0)

my point is voting Democrat for 60 years doesn't automatically mean one isn't a racist. Maybe not your grandfather, but mine is and many others are.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That wasn't my point (none / 0)

I am not sure where anyone argued that voting Democratic for 60 years automatically means one is not a racist.

I have a big problem with the sweeping presumption that commentor was making.  That doesn't mean I am trying to say there are no racists in the world or something.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:03:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry can't say somebody like Kristin (2.00 / 1)

Breitweiser to be racists. Obama still has some time to close the deal with these folks.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will never "close the deal" (none / 0)

with those folks. It's just blind Clinton loyalty. I give up on them and suspect even she will vote for Obama in the end, even if she doesn't like it.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and I was under the impression (none / 0)

that Breitweiser was (at least formally) a Republican who supported and praised Congressman Chris Smith on Larry King Live.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She was a former Republican before throwing (2.00 / 2)

her support for Kerry candidacy. But then there are few wellknown bloggers who were former Republicans..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and yet (none / 0)

she continued to support anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-war Chris Smith.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 3)

I don't get it.

I truly don't get it.

Is this what netroots activism has come to?  "It's his call"?

When Obama wins, everything will be his call.  Do we plan to push him in a progressive direction for the next four to eight years, or will we just assemble to tell each other "it's his call" and "I'm sure he will make a good decision"?

This is exactly the point desmoinesdem was making in her front-page post about the VP process.  We are not seeing one single progressive name leaked from the Obama camp, and the reason is that progressives are simply not clamoring for a progressive VP pick.  (And of course, it goes without saying that he could pick people a lot more progressive than Hillary Clinton!)

Instead, the message we're sending is that we're fine with whatever he does.  If he gives us Claire McCaskill, who votes against us almost as often as Ben Nelson, hey that's great!  Of course it's his call, and not our call, but does that mean we shouldn't be trying to apply even the slightest bit of pressure to get a selection we would like?  Often, a leak is a trial balloon to find out how supporters would react.  Let's not just wave at those balloons as they go by.

I am not trying to pick on you with this comment, at all.  I wouldn't have written it at all except that your comment embodies my perception of exactly where the netroots is right now.  We have all these progressives organized in the same virtual place, and it seems like such a waste not to organize around an ideology, a principle, something more concrete than "it's his call."


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

What do you mean "is this what its come to"?  When has the progressive community EVER based their support of someone around their choice for VP?  We put up with fucking Lloyd Bentsen, for pete's sake - there's was grumbling, but that's about it.

Why?  Because Vice-Presidents have absolutely no constitutional power.  It's entirely a matter of electability and chemistry and those things are entirely his call.

As a progressive I'd much rather keep my powder dry for things that actually matter.  Wouldn't you?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 3)

No, I'm not a believer in the theory that we have only a limited amount of political capital and must save it up for one or two fights.  I don't think politics works that way at all.  In fact, it's kind of a running joke in the netroots that whenever the Democrats sell us out on something, their rationale is "keeping their powder dry" for a more important fight, a fight that never comes.  We need to give into Bush on this so we can keep our powder dry for ending the war... oh, wait, we haven't ended the war either, we're keeping our powder dry on that too!

I am not saying we should "base our support" on who Obama picks, as though we would all threaten to boycott unless it's Russ Feingold or something.  But you know, let's say someone like Feingold were a realistic option... would we truly not want that?  Would we not want the President's closest advisor, the person down the hall that he meets with every day, the person in line to take over just in case, to be a progressive?  Shouldn't progressives want as many progressives in the President's inner circle as possible?  I don't mean to go all unitary executive on you, but actually no one in the Executive Branch has any constitutional power except the President himself if you want to go that route.

Finally, if it were my impression that the netroots were putting political pressure on Obama regarding all sorts of issues aside from the VP pick, I certainly wouldn't have bothered to write that comment.  But that's not at all where I see the netroots.  Instead, the powder is being kept dry for some imaginary moment sometime after the election, when we will assuredly be far less relevant than we are today.  Today, when we're the activists who donate to the campaign and walk the streets for the candidate, they care whether we're happy.  Tomorrow, not so much.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 1)

It does matter.  Dick Cheney.  Al Gore. Walter Mondale.  All VP's, and all quite powerful.  They all had the presidents ear (Or in Cheney's case, was more the president than the president) and they all had enormous influence over policy. It matters a great deal.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

Yeah, but that's because the President a) trusted their opinions and b) gave them the role of advisor.  Your issue is with the President, not the VP.  

If Obama wants a conservative VP, he's going to be open to conservative positions no matter whom he picks.


by sneakers563 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it is actually not a bad thing for Progressives to (2.00 / 1)

be closely allied with a particular candidacy. Normally progressives or liberals are ahead of the rest of the society in social and economic justice. A particular candidate is likely to make compromises on those principles in order to get elected..hence being beholden to a particular candidate might end up compromising the movement and progressive agenda.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry I meant to say (2.00 / 1)

it is not actually a bad thing for Progressives not to be closely allied with a particular candidacy..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry I meant to say (2.00 / 1)

I agree, I just don't think his running-mate is something that progressives should be wasting their time worrying about.

Notice, every single observation here has to do with electability.  No one is saying that that so-and-so is good or bad because of their effect on policy, because there will be none.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

He has lived overseas.

How can you possibly have anything to add to his perspective??


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

Two things:

1) It is his call.  He has to be comfortable with his Vice President.  He'd be a stark raving idiot to ignore the views of the party, of course, but he's got to have a good working relationship with him/her.  He's got to know that this person is on the same page, and the American people have to know that this person is on the same page.  Incoherence hurts.  Yes, JFK got elected, but shit was it close (and not necessarily an honest win...).

2)  I'm not an orthodox Netroots type.  I don't want to kick in Republican teeth.  I want to win, but I don't want to exclude those with whom I disagree.  I don't want to do to them what they did to us.  Call me naive if you like.  I'm sick of hyper-partisanship.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 2)

I'm not suggesting that we play some sort of hardball with the nominee to the point where he's forced to accept a running mate that he can't even stand.  But I think it's okay for us to at least have a position and advocate for it!

I assume there are issues that you care about strongly as a progressive, whether or not you're a hyper-partisan.  Wouldn't you have more of a chance of getting your way on those issues if people who agreed with you were in the President's inner circle?  It's not a hyper-partisan attitude to want people who agree with you to have more influence, and people who disagree with you to have less.  It's not like we're in danger of getting 100% of what we want and having all dissenting views silenced.  That ain't gonna happen regardless.

I just think it's really weird of us, as political activists, to place such a high value on the personal comfort of Barack Obama that we don't even dare to express an opinion about who he should choose as Vice-President.  And my critique isn't limited to the VP slot, at all.  This is exactly how I see the netroots behaving on the issues as well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

You are absolutely free to have an opinion and you are absolutely free to express it.  Senator Obama would be a fool, as I said above, to ignore the sentiments of the party.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 1)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking anyone for permission to have an opinion.

My point is that we, the progressive netroots, need to collectively advocate for progressive results or we will not get any.

That will never happen if the collective opinion of the netroots, as it seems to be, is "it's his call."  You know, of all the candidates where we would just sit back and agree to accept whatever they give us, you'd think the guy who explicitly claimed to be organizing a movement is the last one we would do it for.  He wants us to be activists.  Shouldn't we be?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

I wasn't giving you permission, pal.

"But I think it's okay for us to at least have a position and advocate for it!"

I was responding to that.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (none / 0)

Yes, I was referring to us, collectively, the progressive netroots.

My opinion as an individual isn't worth much.  Collective action is where it's at.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

as always. (2.00 / 1)

i fully agree with you steve.  and not because i want her to be VP - i actually am really on the fence with this one.  but because its really comical what some 'activists' become when discussing obama.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: (2.00 / 3)

She'll be just fine.  Obama's Presidential aspirations I'm not so sure about.

If it makes him comfortable to chose someone else, he must do so.  However, he will do so knowing that he has now put a race that is within the margin, now much closer than would be necessary, and even Dukakis who was 20+ pts up 100 days out, lost so nothing is a lock.

I don't see him winning w/out her.  I do see her getting re-elected.  The only real losers, are the down-ticket races and America.

I personally don't want her to be VP, there is no upside for her, and only risk and downside to being his VP.  However, I can't see someone else carrying the ticket and having enough gravitas and "pit-bull"-ness to go toe to toe w/ the GOP and their machine and handle the shop alone, while Obama goes out and does the speaking.

Dream maker/Enforcer '08

;)

But again it's his shot, so it's his risk.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i think (none / 0)

There are just as many Obama supporters that may be turned off if Hillary is VP, as there are Hillary supporters that will not vote Obama if she isn't on the ticket. If Obama has strong evidence that she would help him win then I don't think there is anything that would stop her from being picked.


by highgrade on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST

Re: i think (2.00 / 4)

I think anyone who claims they're an Obama supporter but wouldn't vote for him if he picked Hillary as VP, wasn't really much of a supporter in the first place.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well there are a lot of those (2.00 / 2)

he won a lot of voters because he wasn't Hillary.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well there are a lot of those (2.00 / 2)

Where? People keep saying that, but where's the evidence? Seriously. People who say that they'll vote for Obama, but not if Clinton is on the ticket are Republicans who have been brainwashed by the right-wing noise machine. They absolutely cannot be trusted to turn out and vote for our candidate no matter what they say. On the other hand, there are plenty of Clinton supporters who you can pretty much guarantee will turn out and vote for Obama in November if they're motivated.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Republicans (none / 0)

Suicide Liberals...the same people who voted for Nader in 2000 and stayed home in 2004.

As for the Clinton supporters...maybe...but I'll give you five Clinton supporters who won't...my mother, father, aunt, uncle and grandfather...why?...Obama is black, the end.

I think the number of Hillary supporters who will only vote for him if she's on the ticket is very small. I believe that since the percentage of Democrats already voting for Obama is in the 80's. He can't unite the party much more than that. She's not a necessity, she doesn't win over the racists, like my family, who voted for her and she enrages the Suicide Liberals, who I think are the biggest threat to the party.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Republicans (2.00 / 1)

You can't do anything to please "suicide liberals" (never heard that term before), so there's no reason to bother trying. But they're not the biggest threat to the party by any means. Not running a strong and disciplined campaign is the only threat to the party.

As for your family: Sorry you have to bear that albatross. But of course, a Tim Kaine or Joe Biden on the ticket won't get their votes either.

As for the rest of the Clinton supporters, I don't think it's as much about votes, it's about unleashing all of their potential campaign contributions and getting them motivated to volunteer, etc. There's a lot of little blue-haired ladies with a lot of time and money on their hands.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say they would (none / 0)

but if we're putting Clinton on the ticket just because she can possibly win those votes, then its the wrong reason.

There are better choices.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't say they would (2.00 / 1)

Obviously she wouldn't be on the ticket in order to gain the racist votes.

But she can gain votes and financial support for him among other groups. To pretend otherwise one would have to have been in a coma during the primary season.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's left (none / 0)

he's getting 80%-90% of the Democratic vote and raising $50 million a month. What does she have that he needs?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Republicans (2.00 / 1)

Obama with Bubba and Hillary doing his PR in redneck country is how racism ends.

Having Bill and Hillary who have valid reasons for not loving him showing real genuine love for him would pull borderline racists into the fold.  And I bet most racists even in ohio, WV, PA etc are borderline.

Thats how racism ends.

Its not by reversing the color of the bigots.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary and Bill (none / 0)

won't help a lick with the racists I'm related to.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she'll help with my mother and grandmother (none / 0)

who are liberal Democrats, who do believe in civil rights, against segregation, but when they think of a black man named Barack Hussein Obama being President, while they don't automatically go to McCain, they are very cold to the idea. They don't trust Obama in part because of race, and they feel he used the race card on her. They liked Hillary because they knew her and trusted her, because of her lifetime of being around government, and knowledge on the issues. They would be extremely enthusiastic if she were on the ticket and would no doubt vote for her. Trust is the case with many Reagan Democrats, and they simply subconciously or consciously trust blacks less. But with the Clintons, they trust them, and would vote Obama because him having people they trust on the ticket would bring enough trust to vote for him. Its about trust, and Hillary on the ticket helps with Reagan Dems and working class voters.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

it's a stupid idea that she will somehow have control over him. She won't. If you don't trust him, then don't vote for him, that simple. Nobody else will have control over him. As a matter of fact, the roles will probably be reverse. He will be HER boss technically.

You mean to tell me the only person in the whole party they trust is Hillary? He's guaranteed to choose a white Christian, so there ya go.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never said she'd control him (none / 0)

but it would give an aura of experience and familiarity on the ticket. The familiarity on the ticket would make some think "well he has Hillary, whom we know and trust, I guess I can vote for this." She is perceived my many to have experience, and does in the realm of politics, being involved for 30 years, and whether its "elected" is not relevant to most.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:53:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Nrafter meant during the primaries. (none / 0)

A lot of us were voting against Hillary, not for Obama.  (Including me).  It was all about the 2002 AUMF for a lot of us.  Whether that was fair or not is moot now.

I don't think Hillary would hurt Obama that much as a running-mate, but she wouldn't help.  More importantly, it would hurt because it would make him seem less presidential to have the ex-president and ex-first-lady spouting off at every opportunity and stealing the limelight, which he has, to this point, carefully nurtured to climactic effect.  Plus, there would be neverending gossip by the pundits about how well Obama and Hillary really get along, no matter whether they really do or not.  It would become the dominant narrative of the campaign, derailing more important campaign overtures.

Bad, bad, idea.  I would have been VERY surprised if he had picked her.


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Nrafter meant during the primaries. (2.00 / 4)

A lot of us were voting against Hillary, not for Obama.  (Including me).  

Well at least you chose the right username.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Nrafter meant during the primaries. (2.00 / 3)

Your monikers a good choice if this a sample of your reasoning which essentially seems to be based on Clinton hate. We'll see if Clinton hate is a sensible basis for decision making in the Democratic party.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton hate? (none / 0)

I would think the 2002 AUMF vote might be described as an "issue," rather than hatred.  Most of the people that I met and talked to about it that actually turned out to protest the war were also angry at the Hillary for the AUMF.  (And Daschle and Gephardt).

And it hurts my feelings terribly when you make fun of my moniker.  


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haven't talked to you for a while.. (2.00 / 1)

How's your dearest (Our?) progressive Hero doing these days?


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This one? (none / 0)

From Rolling Stone, last year:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto ry/13559914/the_most_honest_man_in_news

The Most Honest Man in News
Keith Olbermann is mad as hell -- and unlike Rush Limbaugh, he's not faking it

MARK BINELLIPosted Mar 08, 2007 9:39 AM

[...]All of this has turned Olbermann, previously best known as the wisecracking host of an ESPN sports-highlights show, into an unlikely hero of the left. While O'Reilly's puffed-up sense of outrage quite often plays like a performance -- you could easily imagine him leaving his persona at the office and spending his evenings as a happy rich guy -- Olbermann comes off as someone speaking out of genuine anger. His ability to tap into a very dark place has inspired a number of comparisons to the 1976 film Network, in which a television news anchor goes insane on the air and, to the shock of management, becomes extremely popular, largely because he is seen as telling the truth.

The sixth entry that came up when I googled his name.  Oh, but wait.  He was mean to Hillary, so we don't like him anymore.  The world still revolves around her failed campaign.


by Dumbo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is the third diary. (2.00 / 4)

in which i have seen you - DUMBO - trying to relive the primary wars yet claiming others are doing it.  how about stopping it?

there are plenty of reasons the people do not like KO - yes - even people who did not support clinton in the primary.  but better yet - let's not.  its over - how's about discussing things other than the primary or bashing clinton or her supporters?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The post that you replied to, (none / 0)

But I can see how you reach the conclusion you do, because we have all these fake surrogate issues that are being used on MyDD to keep the fight going.  Like, whether Keith Olbermann is a villain, for instance.  


by Dumbo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now, now you're not crediting your progressive (2.00 / 1)

hero with proper accredition. He just wanted to take her to room where he only came out..he was not being mean to her.

yeah and I'll have to defer to likes of Mark Binelli to define what is left and who is there hero..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Nrafter meant during the primaries. (2.00 / 3)

A lot of us were voting against Hillary, not for Obama.  (Including me).

Yes, we've gathered that from the tone of your comments.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i think (none / 0)

I agree.

Some people have strong feelings about Hillary (on either side of the map) and some have highly distorted feelings about her (again, on either side of the map.)  Either way, the veep pick should not be the deciding factor for any genuine Democrat.

I'm fairly complacent about the eventual pick - it will be someone who fits with his campaign, and with whom he feels he can work.  I'll be much more excited about hearing his reasoning behind the pick, and the excitement this brings.  

In the meantime, we keep hearing "credible" leaks that are all over the map.  We've heard that Hillary is definitely not being vetted (Wolfson), then we heard she probably is, now we hear it's just not serious.  Mash that up with out-of-left-field GOP names & other bizarro gossip and the picture keeps getting more hazy.  

As for the backlash to a non-Hillary pick - if that turns out to be the case, I figure they'll have some plans in place, and Hillary herself will be front & center to reassure all comers that this is the best, right choice.  

And just as I don't see any Obama supporting Democrat walking away from an Obama/Clinton ticket, I don't see HRC supporting Democrats walking away from any other formulation of the ticket.


A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.
by January 20 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: Hillary Clinton is not being consider (2.00 / 1)

Not surprising. They both can't stand each other and I would like Hillary to run in 2012 and not be part of a potential losing ticket.


by American1989 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST

Clinton Doesn't Seem to Be High on Obama's List (2.00 / 1)

Truly amazing how you managed to translate "Doesn't Seem to Be High on Obama's List" into "Is Not Being Considered".  

I suspect if his poll numbers start falling we'll hear a different story.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:23:21 PM EST

Good point..I'll change my interpretation to (2.00 / 1)

reflect it better


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point..I'll change my interpretation to (2.00 / 1)

Wow, thanks. I guess refraining from snarky insults in my post was the right decision.


by LakersFan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the little faith...I'm always open to (none / 0)

correction. Personally I would be happy if HRC is chosen, but Obama earned the right to make his choice..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the little faith...I'm always open (2.00 / 1)

Unity a la Obama.

You see things my way.  I see things my way.  We are united in seeing things my way.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the little faith...I'm always open (none / 0)

Unity a la clinton:

I want an Oompa Loompa and I want it now!


by venician on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what happens (none / 0)

when you win. You get the call the shots.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People from both sides (2.00 / 3)

have to stop talking to the press.  What benefit are these anoymous folks doing for the party?


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST

Absolutely..the folks talking to the Press seems (2.00 / 2)

to be more interested in their past bickerings and pursuing their little agenda. And not necessarily putting the unity of the Party before their little grudges.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This article doesn't present (2.00 / 2)

Obama in a very good light.  It suggests that what he has been saying about her being "on anybody's short list" was bs.  I don't know why his people would seemingly want to confirm that he never "seriously" considered her, especially in light of her expressed "interest" in the job.


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No it doesn't. I would think that the campaign (2.00 / 1)

should not forget that "Appearance Matters". In this case, given the nature of the divisive primary and lingering feelings, I would expect more care to be taken before talking to Press..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair (2.00 / 2)

Her people talked to the press as well.  I'm still nervous about what happens if he doesn't name Clinton as his VP, especially if he doesn't name a hardcore Clinton supporter such as Clark.  

Rfahey said it sometime ago, McCain's camp probably feels they've got trapped Obama on the VP issue if he picked her (e.g. he's weak and was pressured into picking her) and if he didn't pick her (e.g. he's an asshole for stringing her and supporters along when he didn't seriously consider her).


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Catch-22 you mean... (none / 0)


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely..the folks talking (2.00 / 1)

louis: that's life buddy. People are like that and there are going to be a lot of ill feelings about this mark my words.


by ottovbvs on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah..the other day I was reading kristin (2.00 / 1)

brietweiser's article..there's going to be lingering bitterness..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The toughest part of this article (2.00 / 3)

for many HRC supporters may be the first sentence about how she made her "interest" clear.  There had been varying reports as to her level of interest in the job.


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:29:14 PM EST

Re: NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Not High on Obama's V (none / 0)

 OK. We Understand. Any One But Hillary As VP Will Prove That Obama Is Arrogant And Disrespectful. We Got It. We Could Never Forget It. It Is Seared Into The Very Fabric Of The Neuronal Matrix.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:34:46 PM EST

Re: NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Not High on Obama's V (none / 0)

Another piece of arrogance. I'm a Clintonista, but I've happily accepted Obama's the nominee and a good one. And then along comes another arrogant little twit like you suffering from the usual self righteousness overload. Believe me if you don't think that there are a lot of sore Clinton supporters out there nursing a bit of a grievance, you're a total dope. I believe it's showing in his relatively weak numbers but that wouldn't occur to you of course because she's a negative. But if he doesn't choose her I guess we'll have to see what happens.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Not High on Obama's V (2.00 / 1)

I Get It. I'm A Twit Because I Am Tired Of The Repetitive Repetitious Repeating Of The Demanding Demanders ..... Over And Over And Over Ad Infinitum.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comments went tangential for this low (none / 0)

information person..Who demandeth what again?


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comments went tangential for this low (none / 0)

"While it is Obama's solely choice for his pick, the unity of the party is also his campaign's responsibility. I'm surprised about folks from his campaign talking to the Press in the following terms about Hillary Clinton's supporters. Given the tight professional campaign that he runs, this seems contrary to common wisdom. It seems they can do a better job here."

The 'better job' you allude to is what?

The Question Is Rhetorical. We Understand. We Get It. We Know What You Mean.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So wishing that his campaign did (2.00 / 1)

a better job here while talking to the Press means I'm somehow questioning his candidacy? Boy, I myself didn't know all the hidden meanings that my own convoluted mind might be projecting ..thanks for pointing that out.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So wishing that his campaign did (none / 0)

 There were no hidden meanings in your diary. The simple and plain meaning of the diary is obvious to the most casual observer. If you really believed that the Veep is solely Obama's choice (and that his choice should be respected) then you wouldn't have written this diary in the first place. Your intent, it would seem to me, is to undermine any choice but  one and to give the pot another completely unnecessary stir.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

haha..alright..you seem to know more (2.00 / 1)

about me than I do..what can I say...move along..


by louisprandtl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: haha (none / 0)

I'll move along, as you ask. But since I won this debate I should get the last word.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think this was a debate.. if you seriously (none / 0)

want to debate, please join the Oxford debate.