Clinton starts pushing idea of ticket with Obama more seriously
Given the circumstances, once is an accident. Twice is a trend.
Hillary Clinton gets asked about the possibility of a ticket with Barack Obama with some regularity, and has, for many months now, ably dodged the questions. On Wednesday, she raised eyebrows, however, by straying from the script — asked on CBS about running with Obama, Clinton said, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
It was possible that Clinton just spoke her mind without any real forethought. This strikes me as highly unlikely — Clinton is probably the most disciplined presidential candidate I’ve ever seen — but it was early in the morning and maybe she slipped.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Sen. Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.
Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week’s primary, Clinton said, “I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”
It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions.
You’ll notice, of course, that Wednesday’s comment came in response to a specific question. This morning’s comment, if the AP report is accurate, was unprompted — meaning Clinton specifically wanted to raise this point for emphasis.
Yay. Now everyone can stop their bitchin'.
She's not saying she'd be HIS vice president, of course. This is a rather arrogant position to take for somebody who's losing the race.
I certainly hope Obama gracefully and forcefully suggests that she won't be the one looking for a VP.
Because the good folks at Diebold think I should be The One.
It's kind of a trap for Obama.
If he says he doesn't want to share a ticket with her, he's the divisive one. If he says yes, he has to avoid looking like the logical #2.
But the best part of seeing him as her VP would be watching the reactions of the O-bots.
I think ANYONE would have to be an idiot to take the veep slot to Hillary. Bill will be the 800lb gorilla in the West Wing.
She is trying to create the illusion that she is the presumptive nominee. Her whole campaign is based on these false perceptions. If Obama does become the nominee, I hope he will not take her as a running mate. I know you Democrats would love this, but as an independent, let me remind you of her high negatives. She would add nothing to his campaign save maybe that the Democratic insiders who support her, would switch to him. But I don't think people like Feinstein, Reid and Pelosi are doing a very good job of selling the Democratic Party to the country themselves. Her recent support of John McCain to the detriment of Obama would come back to haunt them on the campaign trail. It will haunt Obama anyway, but with Clinton at his side, it would be doubly damaging.
I also don't trust either of the Clintons. If Obama took her as a running mate, I could see the Clintons not trying too awfully hard to help him win the election because if he lost, she could then claim to be the "standard bearer" for 2012. Or he did win, he would have both of them on his hands trying to upstage him and steal the limelight from him. As you can see, I view the Clintons being in this race for their own ambition and not for the good of the Democratic Party nor for the good of the country.
Of course now she says it. because she wants people to think that if she gets the nom they'll get them both. i don't see how barack obama goes for this, because his stance has been that hrc is the politics of the past.
Her asking him to be a VP sounds more like a Colin Powell hit job to me. Considering how she's attacking him, now, I don't see her having a problem making him take the hits for her bullshitty decisions.
Either way, it's about damn time they stopped shooting at each other and focus on running against McCain. All they are doing with this petty bickering is giving the Republicans material to use against the Democrats in the general election.
What about the people of the 12 other states Hillary. This is Karl Rove poltics and you can got to ...
She's done far too much damage. She has nearly endorsed John McCain and his foreign policy experience. Maybe she ought to be McCain's VP.
How will she reconcile her ad hominem attacks on Obama with wanting you to support him on her ticket?
Hillary Clinton is wrong for America and for this Millenium!
I really don't think he would do something that stupid. If she takes the nomination from him, there will be hell to pay in the Party. Threre is no way she would take Obama as a running mate and I don't think he would accept. Obama is such a breath of fresh air compared to the established candidates. I'm sorry for our party. I just can't help but be sad that Hillary has run such a disruptive campaign. My stomach hurts.
Actually, all he needs to say right now is that he'll continue to campaign for the presidency and announce his VP choice when it's appropriate. naschkatze, she's apparently read "Dress for Success" -- the advice is that you dress and act as though you already have the job you want. He needs to express amusement about that "presumptive nominee" molehill she's speaking from and ask about her tax returns again, maybe clear up the Canada NAFtA "misunderstanding" of the voters.
Only acceptable combo is Obama-Clinton, but I'm sure that's not what she has in mind. Kind of arrogant of her to assume the top spot when she's behind. If she gets the nomination he'd be better off in the Senate.
Getting desperate, Hillary? She knows she's through, and she knows she fucked up big time with her McCain comments. She pissed off A LOT of Dems, and not just blacks and other minorities, either. The Clintons are not trusted anymore. The days of Clinton and the DLC and the centrist Dems are OVER - we can thank the disastrous presidency of GWB for that. People want a new direction, and not Republican Lite that the Clintons and their ilk provide. The only reason people wax nostalgically about the Clinton presidency is because of the comparison to the Bush presidency, but my anus is a great prez compared to GWB. So keep making these statements against Obama, Hill, because we are not afraid of you or John McCain, who is going to implode before the GE. He is getting off the hook right now because of the focus on the Dems but when he has to travel all over the country 40 times a month and tries to dodge questions about his statemnets and associations and Senate history, he will show what a irascible old coot he really is. He tires and becomes near delusional after speaking for 30 minutes, and his Stepford Wife or Lieberman can't prop him up during the GE campaign. People are going to see how irresponsible he is. So go ahead, Hillary. Keep digging that hole that you and McSame can live in. I only hope Gore and Edwards are so pissed off at your remarks toward a fellow Dem that they come out and endorse Barack Obama. That will put the final political nail in your coffin, and hopefully a political stake in the heart of the Clinton political ambitions. Fuck you, Hillary. Yeah, FUCK YOU!
Gee, why would she want some guy whose only qualification was a speech he made in 2002 to be the second in command? Why would she want some guy who's nothing but empty rhetoric of hope to be the first in line for succession if something happens to her? Don't tell me she doesn't really believe he's all talk! Obama needs to be THE nominee.
i think this is a sure winner.
to quote Björk, "to be the generous one is the strongest stance"
“I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”
Translation: I'd love to get all of Obama's heat, all his adoring voters to get behind me, but if I'm not the nominee, I'm taking my ball and going home.
Classy.
This is certainly the kind of speculation that will allow questions about McCain's divergence from his once "maverick" path to remain largely unasked. The red-meat nature of Blue fratricide certainly provided McCain with cover this past week as he embraced the endorsement of a bigot (the Farrakhan-Hagee double standard).
Senator Clinton has made a brilliant political move. Those who support Senator Obama have been calling for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race, to move aside for their candidate, since before her wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island this past Tuesday, since they believe that Senator Obama deserves the nomination. There have also been calls for someone to make a move for "party unity". By making these very calculated statements, Senator Clinton shows that she is offering Senator Obama a means of achieving two goals: Bring this primary season to an end and unify the party.
These statements also play well to the Super Delegates. It gives them the cover to fully pledge themselves to Senator Clinton, for the good of the party. Let's face facts: Unless Senator Clinton or Senator Obama completely screws up Pennsylvania, we are going to have a brokered convention (which by the way, I am NOT scared of, because I think it would actually be good for the party), where the Super Delegates will be the deciding factor.
And before Senator Obama's supporters start complaining that "its not fair", that the Super Delegates will be the deciding factor, I will REPEAT: Even Senator Obama needs the Super Delegates to win the Democratic nomination.
The point is moot because she won't be the one doing the choosing and Obama wouldn't have her as a running mate unless he's forced to.
MargeAggedon @ 21:
I doubt very much that Clinton would agree to be Obama's VP, maybe McCain's, but not Barack's. I also think she wouldn't "allow" anybody to force her into the VP position behind Obama. I think McCain will choose Lieberman, and I really wonder if there's been a quiet agreement about the VP slot between Barack and one of the other Democratic candidates who has dropped out of the race.
What does HRC bring to the ticket? The fact that she is having a lot of difficulty eliminating Obama when she was ahead in the national polls by 20 points just 3 months ago speaks volume. HRC has been on the national stage for 16 years compared to 3+ for Obama, however, he has outperformed her. He has more delegate, more popular vote, and has raised more money. Hillary will be a drag on the ticket.l also don't think Obama wants Bill on his side which will overshadow him. He does not need the Clinton baggage. He needs a total break from that fam. I say Jim Webb!
anney @ 13:
Senator Clinton's tax returns are a red herring. Its kind of like when the Republicans get caught in a scandal, they trot out all of the old scandals of the Democrats. Its a means of trying to shift your attention.
As for the supposed Canadian NAFTA issue, I think this article pretty much clears up that lie -
After all the evil Rove-like crap she has pulled in the last few weeks? What gall.
To also quote Björk [at the airport]: *punch* *slap* *pull hair*
As much as I'd like to "unify" the party and bring the primary season to a close, either one of them is light on "experience" (though I still think judgement is what matters) and they will probably need a strong, foreign policy type VP. I think the whole idea of a VP being that important is pretty stupid anyway (does anyone vote for the opposing party just because of the VP?) so maybe just for "unity's" sake they should. Still, the math isn't on Clinton's side, if its going to be a joint ticket she's going to be on bottom again.
Hm..... yeah, I don't know.
It feels more like a "If you get straight A's through high school we might get you a convertible."
That maybe is what puts doubt in it for me.
Possible, sure. Of course, she might just vote present on that one.
For some reason the links aren't working correctly. Let me try it this way - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate03...
Obama/Sebelius is the dream ticket! No bags needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
I want an Obama-Kucinich ticket. Once elected, I wouldn't mind too much if Obama stepped down. I'd still prefer him over Clinton, though.
Clayton @ 27:
Clayton,
As I pointed out before, the math isn't on Senator Obama's side either. BOTH candidates need the Super Delegates to win unless there is a COMPLETE meltdown by either candidate in Pennsylvania. I really wish Senator Obama's supporters would quit pushing this myth that he has the numbers to secure the nomination WITHOUT the Super Delegates.
What the Hell? Make up your mind Hillary! You've been trying to destroy Obama for weeks implying he's untrustworthy and corrupt (Rezko who gave to her too), and now you want him as your VP?
Hillary has proven that she puts self above party and country. She's willing to bankrupt the DNC in order to do a redo in FL and MI (where she would be supported by millions of Republican spoilers.) I defended her for years against all of the Hillary-haters who called her Lady Macbeth, but now I realize how wrong I was. She IS a monster.
This is little more than a ploy to woo super delegates. She has no intention of adding BHO to the ticket. She really will do anything to get elected...
I smell a bait and switch on voters and a cynical, condescending ploy to take Obama fence sitters.
Bush McSame/Clinton '08.
Rodham-Clinton and McCain will be fighting over which one gets to run with Joe Lieberman.
ysbaddaden @ 359:
i think it was supposed to be a redneck hillary supporter
i was too dumb to get it
anybody seen an oriole flying north yet?
Actually Obama said he would attack "Al Qaeda" targets, not necessarily Ben Laden
And now days every brown person carrying a musket risks being called an "Al Qaeda" target.
Not to mention breaking International Law regarding National Sovreignty.
Could you imagine someone bombing a Baptist Fried Chicken fete
Claiming they were attacking a suspected KKK site?
Interesting thing is the 9-11 report said Bill Clinton destroyed the last of the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but at the time reichwingers like George Will said it was "Shaking the Dog," to distract us from Monica, or simply shooting rockets through empty tents.
Sorry Wagging the Dog.
ysbaddaden @ 359:
nice try... but... (was that a racist slur?)... "yokelonics" might be more accurate....
In the event Hillary is the nominee, there's another more practical reason why Obama should not accept the VP slot if offerred. Imagine having to walk into the Oval Office and wondering to yourself, "Which Hillary am I going to meet today?"
She's not steady. She's not centered. She's all over the place. To me she reeks of insincerity. I want desparately to like her and to vote for her if she's the nominee, but I just can figure out who she is. And you know what? I'm not so sure she knows either. That's the most worrisome part.
ysbaddaden @ 363:
good point...but i sincerely believe that obama wouldn't behave in that way, fudging targets to fit his whim, or the will of the military industrial complex, or blackwater....mccain and bush, sure....
I even believe Clinton wouldn't handle 'targets' the way bush has.....and I am often mistaken for a clinton hater on these boards
Rico @ 367:
that's not a rational reason for obama to refuse vp... that's just misogyny on your behalf...
367 Rico
Is Hillary having her period today?
#349: ohio progressive:
“(Hillary’s) basically cheating, by intentionally lying about Obama, intentionally misrepresenting his positions”
Bush cheated brazenly during the debates and millions of people saw the dead giveaway photograph of the tape recorder behind his back. He became president.
End of story. The American electorate got what they deserve. Hillary understands all this. She knows how gullible and stupid we are. We never learn.
[that sort of cheating might work intraparty in a primary, but it will never work in the general against mccain….no way no how….
glad to see you implicitly concede she is cheating…..first clintonista i’ve encountered willing to admit it….thank you on that]
-------------
How DO you get the blue line to quote someone? I've always wanted to know.
I agree with you about the general election, but Hillary will lie, cheat or borrow to get the nomination and deal with the lies later. That's her "strategy". We had all the warnings with Bush and no one cared, as long as gays couldn't marry. We have all the warnings about Hillary. Let's get this right this time. She has lied through her teeth about her foreign policy "experience" (e.g. Northern Island). If eating cookies with all the wives in 80 countries counts as experience.........
ysbaddaden @ 364:
"wagging the dog" was what the rethuglicans were doing with the lewinsky issue... it was far easier for them to heap hypocritical bile upon him for marital infidelities than it was to counter his otherwise rational (and approaching prescient) leadership initiatives (the economy in particular) which only threatened (and still threatens) their idiotologies...
ysbaddaden @ 364:
That's the kind of intelligent war Obama will wage...and he'll do so agressively and decisively....and I believe most Americans, most democrats, believe that's the right way to fight al qaeda....republicans? it's hard to figure what they want.....seems like they are after something more akin to the crusades, and converting the heathens and all that....
As much as I dislike Clinton's campaign, I believe she would be just as much an al qaeda ass kicker as would obama....and they'll make bush look like a traitor when history puts it all in persepective 30 years from now....
Sorry. Northern Ireland
I'm not feelin a whole lot of love for Senator Clinton after her endorsement of McCain over Obama. In fact, I'm pretty much over her. What she's saying is if she can't be the nominee, the hell with the Democratic Party and the hell with the country. My dream ticket would still be Gore/Obama. Wish someone could talk Gore into running. Gore and Obama would be unstoppable. I'm pretty sick of Hillary. There was a time when I didn't care whether it was Obama or Hillary, but not now. Seems to me she's shown her true colors. It's called ambition and power over all else.
368 ohio progressive
Even if Obama doesn't risk the fudging of evidence there's always that term I so hated "collateral damage."
I hoped they would retire it after Timothy McVeigh used it.
But civilian deaths are inevitable and can lead to new recruits for terrorists.
And these terrorists are cowards that hide behind the skirts of women with their children, so they'll be the first to die.
War, even in limited forms like strikes, should be the last resort not the first.
But speaking as a former Airman, war is sometimes a necessary evil, not a necessary good.
375 Spicegal Says: I’m not feelin a whole lot of love for Senator Clinton after her endorsement of McCain over Obama. In fact, I’m pretty much over her.
I'd pretty much like to be over her
Although I usually prefer to be the bottom.
#369: "that’s not a rational reason for obama to refuse vp… that’s just misogyny on your behalf…"
Absolutely not! I distrust McCain for precisely the same characteristics: He's not steady, he's not centered, he's all over the place. He also reeks of insincerity.
You can only ride that "you're all misogynists" pony only so long before you'll have to come up with some real reasons why Hillary's negatives have remained so consisently high for so long.
mystic @ 371:
mystic....hit that little "quote this comment" button in the lower right corner, and it will take a few secs and pull up the proper html (blue name, indent, etc) into the text box...then start your message a line or two below all the junk it automatically pulls into the field...
Rico @ 378:
there's a more considered reason to distrust mccain....make sure everyone you know who likes the old dishonored hero sees this article...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/28/amid_mccains_new_s...
Phoenix Justice @ 32:
Yes, true, neither can win without superdelegates, but it is almost impossible for Hillary to win with a higher popular vote or regular delegates. Even if Hillary wins everyone of the remaining contests by 55 to 45 she still would behind in the pledged delegate counts. If the democratic party's super delegates go to Hillary after getting less pledged delegates it will be terrible for the party. I'm also not the one who found the "math problem", here is what I was referencing:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1
Barack would have to get less than 40% in every contest to have less pledged delegates and a smaller popular vote. Unless Barack does something really stupid/terrible, I can't see half the party being happy with him losing after getting a higher delegate count and popular vote.
366 klunk Says: ysbaddaden @ 359:
klunk @ 348:
Was that supposed to be Ebonics?
nice try… but… (was that a racist slur?)… “yokelonics” might be more accurate….
I drink so much I always slur my speech.
I'm gonna go work out now.
Obama wins Wyoming.
But guess what......any state he doesn't win doesn't matter according to Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media.
Unbelievable.
*does
Hillary Clinton discounts caucuses because she can't win them even though she has experience with them from her husband's administration.
How is she going to run the country, if she can't run a campaign to compete in caucus states? As President, won't her duties be as complex and difficult to navigate as the caucus system. Doesn't Bush see the world as Black and White like primaries (more votes win, less votes lose) and how has he faired?
Oh, I forgot, details doesn't matter since Hillary's campaign is 50+1 politics and perception trumps reality. Both were the hallmark of the Bush administration. If McCain is going to be Bush's third term, Hillary will be 3.5.
Notice the arrogance on the part of Hillary. She thinks that because she won Ohio, she should be at the top of the ticket? Please.........she is divisive and Obama would be better off to just walk away and let her twist in the wind if the superdelegates put her over the top. What a horrible woman.
Its a good strategy on her part. Make it seem that you get two for one with her. But it's too late I think. I think she's about done.
Everything Hillary does provokes moral outrage from some people here. Its so silly. In their minds this is some great manichean struggle between good and evil. It's so bizarre.
#369: "Everything Hillary does provokes moral outrage from some people here. Its so silly. In their minds this is some great manichean struggle between good and evil. It’s so bizarre."
It is bizarre and you're about the millionth person to say that here. But it's a fact that the bad feelings she provokes in so many is both real and visceral, even among some die-hard Democrats. Add to that the negatives she has among Republicans (both men and women) and that spells nothing but trouble in the fall for Democrats. I feel bad for her in a way. Maybe she doesn't deserve it. But when you bring that kind of negative bagage with you heading into a general election, I worry.
Bubba
Here's my theory. I think a large part of the energy of the moral outrage rises out of a frustration most all of us feel about Bush's arrogant actions that nobody with the political tools needed is willing to stop -- it sits there boiling and is likely to erupt if something or someone reminds us of it. If Hillary does something mean and nasty and underhanded, it tends to remind people of Rove, and the energy of the anger at Bush and buddies is quite likely to get added to anger at Hillary. It's sort of like "here we go again, and THIS time it's a Democrat. The party we hoped would set things right." So it's "No, No, No, No, !@#$%~! Betrayed again!"
bubba @ 389:
Not everything.
Just the lies (plagiarism, Nafta), the intentionally misleading characterization of Obama's positiona, that sort of thing-- the underhanded stuff-- really bothers people.....not just here, everywhere (save w/in the clinton camp)
bubba @ 389:
Well, she's sort of a jerk sometimes.
Obama/Edwards '08.
I do not like that woman. I'm not sure I can vote for her. 'Disingenuous' is tattooed on her forehead.
Gosh, love to see more of Ralph Nader being interviewed on the major networks about this time. When the National Debates start up between the major parties, I would love to see Ralph Nader in there. He would put both to shame.
jackp @ 395:
i disagree....nader ads nothing to the debate....donald duck is a more viable and substantive third party candidate....
Obama has the numbers. A majority of voters have voted for him. That is true now, it'll be true in June, it'll be true in August. Super-delegates should support the person ahead. And then the DNC should eliminate them.
Phoenix Justice @ 32:
Phoenix Justice @ 32:
Where are the numbers at right now? Obama has the delegate lead, taking projected Superdelegates into account, yeah? The math is not on Clinton's side when you consider the Superdelegates at this moment. Superdelegates aren't winner-take-all either, or am I mistaken?
Obam/Richardson... Edwards AG
This is how I read it, she would NEVER consider him unless she couldn't win without his supporters. What she is doing is trying to persuade Obama supporters to back her, under the false tickler that she would name him as Vice President. In a Clinton presidency, Obama would be invisable and America would not be allowed to hear his populist message again.
For myself, I was unsure who to vote for until the last minute, here in California. I chose Obama because of his message, the need of a fresh voice in Washington, the need to get past the 60's. For one thing, I would like never to hear the names Bush and Clinton again.
Now, with the way Hillary has spewed garbage, and the right wing media lapping it up, I am now most decidedly ANTI Hillary. If by some twist of fate she gets the nomination, I will not vote, as I see her and Bill as Republicanesque, as it would be a co-presidency. She is no different than McCain.
Please note I am a white middle-aged, middle class woman. I always wanted a woman to lead this country. But I cannot support this woman, ever. I will stay home if she is the nominee.
Even if Hillary does run with obama, I will never vote for him. Nader here I come. And we have a connection to about 35 senior groups scattered across the country. None of those members or members of their families will vote for obama either. We had enough mess in the white house for the last eight years.
Hillary should be at the top of the ticket. Everyone who believes the saint-Obama stories should read this...
http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/print
I really hate to go too far off topic, but a story about the girl in the telephone ad Hillary used is kind of amusing.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_030708WAB_hillary_ad_KC.328ab...
"One of the actors in the Hillary Clinton ad was shocked to see herself, especially because she's a fierce supporter of Barack Obama."
It goes on to say-
" "It's really sort of ironic that my image would be used to advocate for Hillary when I myself do not," said Casey.
She may only be 17, but Casey has some very strong political opinions. She turns 18 - legal voting age - in April, in plenty of time before the general election.
"It's perfect timing because I have a candidate that I really identify with," she said.
"I've been campaigning for Barack Obama for a few months now," she said. "I was actually a precinct captain at the caucuses a few months ago. I attended his rally a few months ago and I'm a very, very avid supporter." "
My favorite though is the end-
" "I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad," she laughed.
Despite all of this, Casey Knowles admits if Clinton wins the party's nomination, she will vote for her. "
If Obama took Clinton as VP, just think of the many official tasters he'd have to hire!
Phoenix Justice @ 24:
Well, no, it isn't. There are some serious questions about how their wealth has skyrocketed since 2000, already with some pointers toward Bill and Hillary's conflict of interest in negotiating with foreign governments and profiting quite handsomely from it.
And as for the NAFTA mess, this is what was also reported:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/clintons_role_in_naftagate.html
If both candidates have dirty hands, it needs to be explained to the voters.
To Phoenix Justice's post:
To be clear, Obama has won Texas, in the meaningful sense of the word. He will receive more pledged delegates than Clinton from the Lone Star state. One of the biggest myths perpetuated in this primary season is the notion that proportional allocation of delegates equates to the "winner takes all" framing by the media. Hillary "wins" the Texas popular vote, but receives less delegates. Just like in Nevada. In NH, her big comeback with a three percentage point popular vote "win", actually netted her a zero (0) delegate advantage as both Obama and Hillary won 9 delegates. Proper reporting, based on the democrat's rules, should have declared NH a "tie". Or Nevada a "win" for Obama, as in Texas for that matter. But they won't. Because they are trapped in the "winner takes all" popular vote meme that's applicable in the general election, but not the democratic primary.
As for Senator Clinton's comments regarding her VP choice: It's simply smart politics. She's signaling to Obama leaning super's that she will bring Obama on-board the ticket IF she wins the nomination. That, in theory, will make them more willing to support her nomination bid at the convention.
Obama, if nominated, will likely NOT choose Hillary for VP. He will need someone with gravitas, and that precludes Hillary. She's as big as a lightweight as he is. Hillary NEEDS Obama though. Particularly to shore up the fractured AA vote, as well as the youth and independent vote. Obama doesn't need Hillary.
I, for one, am an Obama supporter. I would very much like to see an Obama/Webb ticket this fall. He provides the right contrast against McCain. With Hillary, as Obama has pointed out, you will see a repeat of the "I was for it until I was against it" campaign. Who wants a repeat of that?
I have to admit, that I've been surprised by how passionate some of Hillary's supporters are. It's left me puzzled, as she has the charisma of a wet noodle. Perhaps it's largely attributable to nostalgia for the 90's. I simply don't know. However, I do remember my glee that Bill was leaving office. I had Clinton fatigue. I was tired of defending Presidential blow-jobs. It wears one down. Do we really want Hillary running in the fall so we can all become reacquainted with all we despised about the 90's? I think it's time to turn the page.
Obama/Napolitano
Obama/Sebelius
Obama/Webb
Obama/Warner
Obama/Dodd
Just Obama!
After the mudslinging McClinton did in Ohio and Texas, I don't think the dream ticket is Obama Clinton. I think Obama-Dodd would be the better choice. It would beat the pants suits off of McSame-Clinton.
388 Barbara
Actually she won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.
The MSM is already announcing Obama "bouncing" back because he wins a caucus in a largely low-density population state like Wyoming.
Well, in response to the comments above Ill just say that she may provoke dislike in some but polls still have her beating McCain. She may be greatly disliked or not but her polls arent bad and she is certainly giving Obama a run for his money. "I hate her and ive heard others hate her" doesnt seem to translate into real numbers.
Frankly, after having lived through the faux outrage and dislike of clinton in the 90s I think the right-wing hillary hate meme has simply infected some people. I simply can't see enough reasons, on the merits or presented in a rational way, to justify it today any more than I could in 1995. I just don't get it.
Given her recent wins and recent polls, how disliked could she be? I dont think she'll win but...
And I quote:
"Clinton is probably the most disciplined presidential candidate I’ve ever seen"
Steve obviously hasn't been paying attention to Hillary's unhinged behavior these last few weeks....
As far as Clinton beating McCain in the Polls? She may be beat McCain in a theoretical competition but Obama beats him by wider margins almost every time they do those Polls. And Obama manages those numbers without praising McCain. :D
Dr. Topper @ 394:
so... who isn't?
Rico @ 391:
i, on the other hand, believe the visceral reactions by many (mostly misogynistic freaks) against hillary are exactly demonstrative of (impending) change... ever notice the most shrill of the hillary-haters have no substance to their shrieks?... such types are guided only by subjectivity and bias... she's the rational choice for many reasons and in this election we will see if americans actually want change or are just paying it lip-service...
ysbaddaden @ 398:
Well, no. As far as the delegates go, she lost Texas. Clinton had a total of 95 electoral votes and Obama had 98. She received more popular votes in the primary, he received more popular votes in the caucus.
That said, Texas badly needs to simplify its candidate-choosing system! She might have won more delegates under a different system (say, without a caucus), but it still wouldn't have put her above Obama's already-standing counts.
Here are the numbers for the primary:
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785
Add those to the caucus numbers:
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000
Funny to see democrats above dismiss polls showing hillary beating McCain because its only theoretical in the same sentence that they tout Obama beating McCain in the same polls. No sir, no bias there. heh.
I wouldn't really have a problem with "Vice President Clinton." VPs are often slimier than their Presidents.
you are full of racist garbage and you've been called on it. you are racist concern trolls. There seem to be more of you lately. Do you work for Howie Kurtz?
fixed!
We need sombody new, we need a good christian government. Obama is a strong christian for the past 20 years. Im a christian and I hope Obama will install his pastor and his top church people into the White House. And televise the special ceremonies and sacrifices and blessings from the Oval Office.
AND YES WE CAN . LIKE IT OR NOT.
How will she reconcile her ad hominem attacks on Obama with wanting you to support him on her ticket?
Hillary Clinton is wrong for America and for this Millenium!
I will share this news with members on ~~~~MeetWealthyBoomer.com~~~~ It is a very successful site for 30+ singles to meet love and romance. BTW, as a part-time model, I uploaded my best photos taken on beach with my lovely bikini. You may check them out first?
************************************
************************************
I still dislike Obama's use of prayers before rallies, and semi-biblical language like cleansing American of it's "sins."
403 anneyhussein
The Texas Democratic Party may be opening a voter fraud investigation soon. People were voting in the caucuses that didn't vote in the primary in violation of state rules. They think there's some indication of people from out of state being bussed in to vote in our caucuses.
We need sombody new, we need a good christian government. Obama is a strong christian for the past 20 years. Im a christian and I hope Obama will install his pastor and his top church people into the White House. And televise the special ceremonies and sacrifices and blessings from the Oval Office.
AND YES WE CAN . LIKE IT OR NOT.
Um...are you out of your fuckin mind?
Part of the reason this country is in such deep shit, is because of religion. WE NEED A SECULAR GOVT!!! I'm tired of you bloody xtians! LAST thing we need is any more "xtians" in govt! Please keep YOUR deity out of OUR govt. Thank you.
Ya want jebus? Go to church. Not the WH.
ohio progressive @ 350:
Then bask in your moral purity when McCain's in the White House, and congratulate yourself for letting "the gold medal" go to the biggest scumbag of all.
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe S said he doesn't understand why the media isn't telling the truth about TX. He said it was obvious after four days that Obama won both the popular and delagate vote. I think the MSM is waiting for the "unofficial" numbers to come out, but they are there already.
Obama has already counted them on his website.
I think the MSM is going to slap her in the head with the truth after letting her go around the country saying "We Won TX!" and will make a fool out of her. As if she needed help.
http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/
Obama won TX. Joe on MSNBC's show this morning said that it was evident after four days that Obama won both the popular and delegate vote.
He said he doesn't understand why the MSM isn't reporting it.
I think they will release it right before PA.
Perfect.
Marge @ 40:
Trying to muck it up for the rest of us after they are dead and gone? Your last sentence contradicts the sentences before it. You should probably fix that.
Marge @ 40:
Racist much? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/McSame.
Rich women have always thought that black men should serve under them.
How is this news?
One would hope that the Superdelegates are savvy and independent enough to recognize that this is a ploy to attract the Obama-leaners to the Clinton side as ChrisNBama suggests. One would hope.
I didn't know until yesterday that MI has same day party registration. A do-over there will enable millions of Republicans to weigh in on our primary. Guess who they'll vote for.
Please note the MSM has failed to announce that Obama won Texas not Hillary! He won the primacaucas. He won the most delegates in the Texas two-step. Why aren't more people here screaming about this?
Who wouldn't want Obama - after all he can fix your computer - and more! See http://obamawill.com
Ozymandias @ 52:
Yes, Just like 8 percent of the republicans in Ohio voted for Hillary. A significant percentage of "republicans for Hillary" voted in Texas as well. Surely, they know who the weaker candidate would be in the general election. The Rush Limbaugh strategy in play.
If there is a "do over", which I vehemently oppose, safe guards need to be in place to prevent Republican tomfoolery.
Ozymandias @ 52:
Everyone here, no matter which candidate they're leaning towards, knows the answer to this. Clinton supports, you KNOW Republicans would vote to make her the nominee. Wasn't something like 10% of the voting in the Democratic primary in Texas done by Republicans? Now ask yourselves... why would the Republicans want Clinton to be the nominee? If she's on the top of the ticket, let's all agree that none of you can blame Nader this time around if she loses.
surprised that so many think Clinton would not offer Obama the job, when in fact, if she wins, she has no choice.....I venture to guess he would not accept it (and I'd advise him not to)....
but if Clinton wins via superdelegate surge, she must try to get Obama on the ticket if she wants to ensure a victory in November.....without Obama, she will likely lose to McCain, because she's run such a slimeball disgusting campaign.
Actually, I think this would have been an honest, fair and appropriate campaign strategy for Clinton....and had she gone down this road initially, she might not have had to cheapen her integrity and conduct the shameful campaign she has...
from the get go, she could have said, "if I win, I will have barack as my VP"
That's much better than "he's a druggie" "he's a plagiarist" "he's too young" "he's dishonest" "he's corrupt"
and it might have gained her as many votes or more....
Marple @ 53:
I noted this as well in a post @6:17am. The simple reason is that the media is framing this in terms of a "winner take all" popular vote rather than taking the due diligence to account for the democrats proportional delegate allocation. It's misleading as hell. But whoever said the media is fair?
Hillary will not be the nominee.
That will not happen.
She will go down at some point; it is just a matter of when and how much damage she will do when she does.
And I'll take it one step further... Republicans might want her to be the nominee not ONLY because she's less of a threat to McCain come November, but also because if she DOES become the next president another Clinton administration might be a little more conducive to Republican goals than an Obama administration.
If Obama decides to name a woman as Vice President, I submit that Barbara Boxer would be a great choice! Barbara Boxer for President in 2016. To give Democrats 16 years in the White House.
If SHE ("who must be obeyed") gets a VP position, Big "O" should be very aware of bad omens trailing people like JFK, RFK, MLK, Foster, etc.
There are just too many "lone gunmen" prowling our decaying cities. And accidents DO happen.
Exactly.
Will the MSM pick up on this? With so many baffled by Hillary's surge, will the SNL sketch continue to be a plausible explanation? Or will people begin to realize that it is Republicans crossing over to spoil our ticket? I actually know conservatives who have registered as Dems for years to try and spoil the primaries. With McCain as the nominee, why else would they even vote now?
Isn't there a way the party elders can step in and stop this?
Anonymous Source @ 60:
Marple @ 53:
Texas was a tie...I'm one who the Hillary Halo crowd calls an Obama nut, so don't take offense.....but Hillary won the popular vote and Obama won the delegates.....
I would argue that that's a push.
Certainly doesn't call for the dramatic headlines that MSM gave their darling Hillary, but it's not fair to say Obama won...
Texas was a push.
Ohio was a decisive win...(Everything South of Columbus is religious (racist?) fanatics)
ohio progressive @ 57:
I'll be honest. As a loyal democrat, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will not vote in the general election. Hillary crossed the rubicon for me when she endorsed McCain over Obama three times in the past week. I thought the "3am Ad" was fair play. I even thought the hypocrisy of Nafta-gate on part of Clinton was borderline dirty, but within bounds. Her statements completely denigrating Obama's "experience" when her's is similar, and then went so far as to say that McCain and her have "crossed a threshold" that Obama has not, has crossed a threshold for me. She can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
Boxer is my senator and along with Feingold, my favorite politician. She can only rule in a place as like California I'm afraid. Republicans hate her. Napolitano would be another good choice.
Marple @ 61:
Oh I can't WAIT to see how SNL implicitly endorses Clinton tonight while explicitly saying they're not. I think the SNL influence on the media might have run its course though... if they do it every week, it'll lose its supposed impact.
Regardless of what you think of either candidate ...
Hillary/Obama makes sense. -- She picks up the heavy black turnout for Obama and he just has to bide his time till he gets another shot at the top job.
Obama/Hillary? Not so much. -- He'd still have to contend with a GOP base fired up to vote against Hillary; she can't afford to wait eight years for another run. It's now or never for Hil.
This is a clever ploy by Hillary, and one that Obama can quickly defuse by saying, "Sure, I'd consider Hillary as my VP, but I'm in this to win." That would put the ball back in her court.
The more I see HRC in operation, the less I like her.
This is one of the cheapest tricks yet to take votes from Obama.
I suspect that the Florida/Michigan delegate situation will get really ugly when she's still not winning after PA.
Way to go, democrats - piss off your own voters and turn a guaranteed November victory into another horse race!
Marple @ 61:
I disagree...Boxer is a blowhard, as corrupt and "INSIDE DC" as McCain and Clinton
Sorry. Boxer doesn't have the mental capacity to hang with the likes of Obama or Clinton.....she's at about McCains IQ....certainly better than bush, but average just won't cut it with all that's going on in the world right now
What a sad state this party has become. Obama supporters are SO nasty and hateful I can not even believe that they are in the same camp as I am. For all of you who whine and wail about Hillary's "Rovian" tactics, don't forget you are spewing the same talking points the right wing came up with in the 90's to target the clintons. I read so many falsehoods coming from your side it embarrasses and disgusts me. your contempt for working class people and older voters is contemptable, and your sexism and blatant use of right wing talking points is deplorable. Any of you who have called her " billary" or talked about her "tone" or her being a "shill" or "shrill", or painted her as a manipulative harpie, yeah, and that's most of you, are using the language that was brought into the discourse by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Shame on you. And shame on Crooks and Liars for calling out the "cool kids" clique in the mainstream media while you form your own Obama cool kids clique and defend those who malign those of us who have been voting democratic for a very long time. I am sickened and saddened that the party I have supported for more than 20 years is showing itself to be nothing more than more of the same. Same wingnuts, different ideology. One thing is sure, Obama's blatant disregard for the voters of Florida and Michigan will cost him the general election, have no doubt about that. And it is the vile viciousness of Obama supporters who will be to blame for yet another predictable loss for democrats. Get your smug heads out of your asses and wake up. Oh, and don't bother with the vitriolic responses...I won't be reading them, and I won't be back to crooks and liars either. You all deserve a fake empty promise that is Barack Obama.
Hillary will enable the Dems to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
oh, how very clever yawn. trying to trap him into looking non-unityish (because honestly, hillary and bill as VP? nah, who would agree to that?) when he refuses, trying to gank votes, trying to speak from a position of strength and offer this tidbit. but she is not really in a position of strength, just riding an SNL high. almost time to say bye bye.
I'll submit to to bottom (VP) if you, Hillreh, go just one day without wearing your collection of Xtra long ass-covering blazers.
Ozymandias @ 36:
Either candidate needs 2025 delegates (can be all pledged delegates or a combination of pledged delegates and Super Delegates) to secure the Democratic Party's nomination. You can reach that number via the primaries/caucuses or in a brokered convention. As it stands now, UNLESS there is a complete and total meltdown of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in Pennsylvania (a loss of 30 or more points), both candidates need to rely on the Super Delegates. The ONLY way that Senator Obama can secure the nomination through pledged delegates is to win Pennsylvania by 30 or more points. I just don't see that happening.
ggg @ 71:
good riddance
have fun in fantasy land
we won't miss you, here in the real world
ggg @ 71:
Okay I know this was a hit-and-run job, and who knows what the true source is... but I can't resist replying somehow. "Obama's blatant disregard for the voters of Florida and Michigan?" What about those states' blatant disregard for their voters by moving their primaries up knowing full well that the delegates would be disqualified? Why should they get a do-over? What a shrill post that was.
What I've found troubling is how Hillary completely dominates the media narrative while at the same time bashing the media. First, it was Texas and Ohio that "counted", while Obama went on to stampede through 11 contests. Now it's PA that counts and Mississippi and Wyoming can go to hell. It's amazing how Hillary is the one who set's the goal posts, and the media narrative follows suit.
Hillary will easily win PA. If she can't win there, with the Rendell political machine at her disposal, she can't win anywhere. As the Politico reported, "PA is a 'should win' for Hillary". So, Hillary moves the goal post to the sure thing, and the lap dogs in the press back her up. Then when she wins PA, she will say, "See, I'm the only reasonable candidate to nominate". You got to at least admire her political skills. She's a master, in a way that Bill never was.
If the remaining super-delegates throw in for Hillary despite Obama's lead, they will be subverting the will of a Democratic majority and possibly destroy the Democratic Party. If they back the candidate in the lead, Obama wins. If they split their votes, Obama wins.
Phoenix Justice @ 75:
ChrisNBama @ 78:
You're joking, no?
Hillary will make a great vice-president.
Joementum @ 80:
Yes, it was a joke. After all, what sort of political genius endorses McCain over her own opponent in the democratic primary. I don't do snark well, I will try harder in the future ;-)
As others have said this is pure b*llsh*t, she is just throwing out stuff right and left and see what sticks at making her look like she is the leader she thinks she is. These are just machiavellian machinations of a experienced pol who knows how to work/preserve a system to their benefit. Not a person of some good character. Four months ago I would have been warm and fuzzy to a joint ticket with both of them in either capacity. But that has been poisoned by their tactics. I am a Obama supporter, but have always preached that HRC is policy-wise really no different from Barack and therefore I would certainly vote for HRC. My thoughts about that are changing, especially after those repeated McCain endorsements by her. The US doesn't need banana republic dynasties (clinton/bush) running this country forever.
chlorocardium @ 81:
Yes, For John McCain.
chlorocardium @ 81:
but she already has her own VP.
Phoenix Justice,
Yes, Obama would also need superdelegates to get the nomination. No, it's not the same. Superdelegates pushing Obama over the top would not be overturning the results of primary voting. Superdelegates pushing McCain's new surrogate over the top WOULD be overturning the results of primary voting.
Hilary loses. Sorry. There is no way Obama chooses to motivate conservatives by putting Hilary on the ticket as veep. She's done after this. In fact, instead of elevating her to veep after she proved that her ambition trumps her loyalty to the democratic party and the progressive cause; what she should get is a primary challenge in her next senate race. And maybe an invitation to leave the party just like Leiberman.
if I get to pick, I would go for Bill Clinton-that's the guy who actually had an experience of answering the phone on 3 am.
Elusive @ 87:
The only one calling Bill at 3AM was Monica.
Elusive @ 87:
Seriously though, none of the presidential candidates have the "3AM" experience. That is the lone burden of the POTUS, and you only get it with OJT (on the job training).
I cannot believe how much spin the press runs for Hillary.
They aren't covering her positions on NAFTA or Iraq or campaign donors... they just run her charges against Obama without even investigating them.
It's a bunch of crap.
John McCain helped Europeans win contract over US Boeing and put his role in destroying Boeing in his ads.
WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-mccain-air-force-tanker...
BigTobacco @ 90:
The media is composed of many different elements. There are journalists who investigate claims, and then there are pundits who merely repeat claims, and both elements get mixed together in one amorphous goo. Ultimately, it's not about facts, but about ratings. The more sensational the claim, the more advertising revenue they can charge. Beautiful, isn't it (to joementum, that's sarcasm).
Hillary Clinton is a self-serving egotistical republican-lite hack. The first thing she'll do if she gets in office will be to:
Seal Reagan's records
Seal George H.W. Bush's records
Seal Bill Clinton's records
Seal George W. Bush's records
John McCrazy will do the same thing. An outsider, such as Obama, is what the DLC is afraid of!
Jon Lovitz Weighs in on a Hillary-Obama Team
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1580
Obviously, reason is not something that Senator Obama's supporters are very much in tune with. They love to throw around the Senator Clinton is really "Billary" or that "evil bitch". They say that it is Senator Clinton who is ruining the "tone" of the debate. Look, I have been respectful of both candidates. Hell, I even give President Bush his title (though he hasn't done much to make that title worth much), as a means of being respectful, as I was taught to be in my high school Civics Class over 25 years ago.
Maybe that's the point. I am of a class of Democrats that believes in civility, in being respectful of others. I am not of the "texting" generation or of the "celebrity is everything" generation where Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are known as "TomKat" or Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are known as "Branjelina". I have too much civility in me to degrade myself to that level.
It has become painfully clear, that Senator Obama's supporters don't like people being negative about him. That's fine, but don't call me a racist because I voice my support for Senator Clinton or voice the realities of the rules of the Democratic Party when it comes to delegates.
I was very put off last night when Bill Maher on Real Time with Bill Maher had another Senator Obama "love fest" and tried to make former President Bill Clinton the issue when speaking to Mr. McCauliffe (sp?). It tells me that Senator Obama's supporters have nothing left to run on other than trying to paint as something that it isn't: A race between Senator Obama and former President Clinton.
Look, whoever wins the nomination, I will support them. I will vote for them. I will hold my nose if it is Senator Obama, because I really do think he will bring more of the religious nuttery we have seen of President Bush, especially when it comes to gays, but I will still vote for him. The only thing is, I would rather have Senator Clinton (and no, she wasn't my first choice. That was Governor Richardson of New Mexico), as I believe she is the right person for the job and the one who will promote equal rights for gays the most aggressively.
Slam me and other Senator Clinton supporters all you want. Just understand, that like you, we have our reasons for supporting Senator Clinton in this process, but unlike you, I won't stay home come November 4th should Senator Obama win the Democratic nomination.
Tom (Not Tom) @ 5:
That is a very astute observation.
Why not? A pair of republicans running on the democratic ticket would insure my vote for a third party candidate.
Comments are closed on this entry