Hillary Clinton open to become Obama's VP
By John Amato Monday Jun 02, 2008 5:15pmI just saw Terry McAuliffe on The Situation Room and he didn't knock down the reports that Hillary Clinton would take the VP job if it's offered to her. After he earlier refuted the AP report that said Hillary was going to concede tonight---he said: (h/t CNN)
BLITZER: Well, what about these reports that she's now telling lawmakers here in New York that she's open to being his vice presidential running mate?
MCAULIFFE: Yes. You know, it's consistent with what she has said all along. She still plans on being the nominee. But she said, if I'm not, I will do whatever it takes to help the Democrats win this fall, not only at the presidential level, House, Senate, local elections. She's raised a quarter a billion dollars, you know, $250 million almost. She has brought in people, 18 million people, more votes. So, she's a huge asset. And whatever that role may be, she will be there to help the Democrats.
Sounds like they are putting it on the table.
Login or Register to post comments.
Wow! Hillary will lower herself to take the VP. How can this country ever express it's gratitude?
NO! DO NOT WANT.
John Amato! Re-design your website! Thanks!
Oh yeah, it's on the table. And they can't wait to strap that bib on Obama and make him eat.
How very f'ing gracious of her. Will she submit to a full vetting process?
After tonight, it would probably behoove all those involved to take a deep breath and not make any irrevocable decisions for a least a few weeks.
My take on it, anyway.
So who will be the VP choice? How about his Cabinet? Should he announce his choice for Cabinet members BEFORE the election?
Interested in hearing your thoughts at...
http://pennsylvaniaforchange.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/obamas-has-the-del...
There is no "runner-up" default to the VP position. Hillary Clinton will need to submit her resume just like all the other potentials.
Bottom line is today Senator Clinton inserted herself into a story that is not her story. Senator Obama is going to be the democratic nominee and that is the headline. Senator Clinton is volunteering to be in the limelight even after it is no longer on her. She is pushing and shoving Senator Obama to the side to get one more moment of attention. In my own opinion this is rude and does not speak well for her. Unless a deal has already been struck between she and Senator Obama, she should face reality with the same grace we would expect from any candidate at this point.
( I brought that comment from an earlier thread where I in my haste posted it)
Sorry if I protest the idea of picking up that narcissistic dishonest corrupt as a running mate.
I think Obama is smarter than that. He'll choose the person who matches his views not a demonic soul just to help hm win women votes.
17 million votes people. Are we so full of hatred that we will turn that away? With so much at stake?
This is a no brainer to me.
Terrible Mistake. Put her on the Supreme Court. Give her Ambassadorship to Nigeria. Anything but putting her a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Shit. Minister of Health would be fine. She seems to like that. Or just let her serve the people of New York as Senator.
This woman is far to self-serving to serve someone in a supporting role like Barack Obama. He needs someone who supports him, not someone out to take his position. Simple as that.
There is a solution to this problem, just get Al Gore to run as Obama's vice choice! I'm sure Al could draw all of Hillary's supporters back into the fold and put an end to her influence.
People better calm down in the thread with the name calling...
MoxieGrrrl @ 2:
I don't want it either but she's probably in a position to force it. She brings undeniable strengths to the ticket - a loyal base, access to money, experience - but the drama baggage she also brings, especially with Bill, could derail the focus that Obama has so far exhibited. Best scenario is for him to offer it to him and she refuses. That's still a possibility - that today's performance is more about having the strength to force him to offer it rather than wanting to take it.
If you making Hillary the VP, thats 4 more years of her hoping something happens to Obama.
John Amato @ 13:
agreed.
Historic night. Too bad Hillary sees none of that and can't step back and realize it. So consumed with herself.
My comment from another thread:
I believe HRC delivers as many, if not more negatives than positives. To put it another way, I bet repug operatives would love to see her on the ticket.
damn i hope not...
everybody knows, or should know, that you don't give in to whiny petulant brats...
pretty low when you have to blackmail to get your way... damn.
Robert Wexler VP!
How could Senator Obama continue to talk about change with Senator Clinton on the ticket?
after the campaign she has run, i wouldnt appoint her as dog catcher
and that goes for all her supporters who are now screaming sexism
Sorry for the B word but I don't take it that I"m sexist. I have no qualms about electing a woman to office. It's the Hillary Clinton being elected that's the problem for me.
As an African American, I hope that he does pick her as his VP. It is obvious through this election process that she has the right to lay claim to the VP if she wanted it, and I support Obama. I've said from the start that I don't care who wins the nomination, I will support the nominee. If Kennedy can choose Johnson then surely these two can come together. Those who don't want a democrat in the WH know that if these two can come together the rethuglicans will be out of the WH for the next 16yrs. Think of the big picture and stop the attacks on each other. We'll get enough of that from the Rethuglicans.
pissed off patricia @ 21:
Easily, maybe she can get him to shorten the withdrawal in Iraq by a few years. His position is "Maybe by the end of my first term"
hers is in maybe 16 months.
Deleted, Buh Bye! Site Monitor
I'd like to see a D person come out and do "the assist" as I heard earlier on MSNBC. A respected elder say, "No, that's not a good idea." first..... or as someone mentioned earlier, offer her something really wonderful that isn't #2. Good grief, after our years of Cheney being the boss, I really don't want speculation of that "different branch of government" with a Clinton.
Count me as a person who does not want HRC as VP. This is a year about change in Washington. It's not just HRC, but Bill ... and honestly, I'd like to see a different era and shift within the Democratic Party.
This guy has done a fantab job of profiling potential Veeps, as well as cabinet potentials. Check him out. Great info here!
http://www.theleftanchor.com
WRT, Clinton v. Obama...kids, we're talking politics. I doubt they hate each other in the least. We may not like what's transpired but it's politics.
I doubt he'll select her but....
Bad taste for Hillary to float this boat tonight but I'm not surprised. It has hurt her chances tremendously to be on the ticket because it speaks to how much she can be trusted to be an honest partner. Obama needs someone he can trust 100% and someone who shares the vision, and she does not yet seem to get it, at least based on what we've seen today from the campaign.
"She still plans on being the nominee"
So whats the message here? "Hey I'm going to continue to try to damage the party as long as I can, even though I've lost... but I'd take VP if offered to me."?
On the other hand having her as VP may be the only way to keep her under control during the GE. I wouldn't trust her as a free agent. She might end up McCain's VP.
This is just what Obama feared. There were reports that a "graceful exit" would include Obama extending a VP to her and her declining. But Hellery has the grace of a dancing bear, and Obama KNEW that he couldn't trust her.
She needs to cling onto another ship, for Obama represents CHANGE and she is the THING FROM WHICH WE NEED CHANGE. She represents the very worst that is in politics, and JFK got his brains blown out due to the same naivete.
Nope.
SURE!
Just in case he gets assassinated, right?
And spend his presidency looking over his shoulder?!! Hell no to Hilldo!! She's too cozy to lobbyists, and given her campaign tactics, She'd do anything to become president.
Piss on her.
Here's an idea: Hell No.
Hillary is shameless.. damn near despicable. She has tried to win no matter the cost; including telling voters in FL and MI that is was Obama's fault for their votes not getting counted. Talk about divisive! She's responsible for sewing the seeds of so much blind hatred against him. And talk about deceptive: She did NOT win the popular vote, it's just another straight-faced lie reminiscent of her husband's morality. How can she respectively count the votes in states where she shouldn't have ran, yet ran uncontested, and STILL lost 40% of the vote to "uncomitted"?
People dumb enough to believe her have said deplorable things in other forums, chain emails, and even on bathroom walls - such as saying they want Hillary take the VP slot, then hoping that something "bad" happens to Obama so she can take the reigns. They continue to threaten defection to McCain. If they are truly willing to do that, just in spite of Obama (legitimately) winning the nomination, then they never stood for the policies she represented... and quite frankly, are too stupid to be voting in the first place.
Seriously, get a clue, or GTFO.
Keep your friend close and your precieved enemies closer
Have you guys not been paying attention to these past few contests? Hillary completely trounced Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky. She brings together alot of demographics that Obama simply doesn't. This includes older women and the Latino vote. Obama needs to add the people that he appeals to in a coalition of those she appeals to in order to have a fighting chance in November.
Don't be so petulant because Obama won the nomination. The Democrats have a long history of picking nominees that end up losing the General Election.
I could see her attempting to become a kindler, gentler version of Cheney. in other words a back room "I'm actually the REAL president" type of a vice president.
John Amato @ 13:
John, I too am amazed (not overly) by the amount of hate and invective hurled toward Senator Clinton. These are the same people that cry about "party unity", yet don't want true unity, even if it requires that Senator Clinton be named the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
The question placed before Senator Clinton on that call earlier today was just that, planted. It was meant to let people know that a deal is done, to get their hate out of their system and work for getting a Democrat (even Senator Obama) into the White House.
The Anti-All Things Clinton crowed needs to calm down and realize that is now time for pragmatism. They also have to realize that the "Hate the Clintons" wing of the Democratic Party chose Senator Obama as their nominee back in 2004, when he was a nobody Illinois State Senator.
So, put the invective and hate away. You have the presidential candidate of your choice, for good or bad, now let's work about getting that Democrat into the White House.
Hillary and Bill are multi millionaire egotists!!! Don't forget that!! They have that better than you entitlement mentality just like most republicans!!!
The Democratic party needs to rid itself of creeps like the Clintons and get back to being the party of the people.
#30 Filthy Harry says: "On the other hand having her as VP may be the only way to keep her under control during the GE. I wouldn’t trust her as a free agent. She might end up McCain’s VP."
Not likely but I bet Lieberman is kicking himself in the ass for aligning himself so close to McCain so early. I suspect that if Lieberman had known the Democratic nomination would end up like it has, he would have pushed for a Clinton-Lieberman independent run at the White House in the fall.
I'm really sick of seeing this headline everywhere today. Especially given the historical nature of today, is very disrepectful to Senator Obama.
You can file this under 'Duh' and cross-referenced under 'Never Happen'.
Anyway, I find Clinton loyalist Gen.Wesley Clark's endorsement of Gov. Sebelius to be far more interesting news.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Wes_Clark_floats_ObamaSebeli...
I agree whole heartedly with you Ghostrider!
Maybe the Dems should do a little swap. McCain can have Hillary and Barack take Condi. Both Hellery and Condi are lying criminals, but at least Condi KNOWS when she is lying and has a shard of a conscience. Hellery has none.
Condi could forswear torture, come clean about 9/11, like Scottie has now been spilling the beans, and promise to actually get working on the Israel Palestine thing FOR REAL, get Ahmedinijad to stop uranium enrichment, and all would be forgiven.
Hellery on the other hand . . .
john james @ 24:
as an african american, I hope he avoids her like the plague. she and her people have done everything they possibly could from every negative angle, especially racial, except call him n****r. Obama must be careful now. Very, very careful...
pissed off patricia @ 8:
At least somebody around here was thoughtful enough to bring that up...
Rico @ 29:
Get what?
She is a disgrace. Simply put. Powder it up as you like, fact remains the same: she is a disgrace.
L.A. Confidential @ 46:
THAT IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT HER!
Phoenix Justice @ 38:
I'm not anti-Clinton. In fact, I once had alot of respect for her. But after witnessing this election process, particularly how * ahem * poorly she has ran her campaign, I'm left with nothing but contempt.
mudshark @ 10:
will they vote again against their better interests?
they are not all from west virginia and limpball's audience is not that big.
No, but only because we shouldn't toss a Democratic Senate seat out there. With the health of Kennedy, Byrd & (Tim) Johnson in question....Just no.
I kind of like Bill Richardson, but he might make a good Secretary of State. John Edwards is probably the best choice for the spot. I think he might help get some votes in the South, and I think he can sell it to the growing lower middle class in the rust belt.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 44:
Your out of your freaking mind.
If Obama picks Killary he gets Bill by default. Imagine those two imposing their will on your all day?
Hillary go back to one of your home states and stay there.
Clinton's "offer" to become Vice President seems much more like a "threat". If she's going to be a team player, she would concede the nomination, give a magnanimous speech to unite the party...and then later quietly suggest that she'd be honored to discuss the vice presidency with Obama.
But she's going to need a map to find the high road.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 44:
As an African American, what the f^&$ does this have to do with being an African American? Any special insight you want to divulge, despite the fact that I am "in" the "group"?
John Amato @ 13:
Looking at post 1-12, unless the moderator editted post with out noting it, could you please cite the name calling?
Is this not a cost/benefit type of analysis anyway? Forget ideology, since they're both the same pretty much accross the board, unfortunately. Yes, she could bring "12 million" votes (admit that a good number of them were people who will not vote for her in the general election), but how much would she COST Obama vs. another candidate? She is not well liked, and the groups that dislike her have grown since this primary began. There's no doubt that she'd be a big risk to take, and her ego is not worth the risk.
Hillary Clinton as VP sounds a little too Dick Cheneyesque to my ears.
weazl @ 48:
No, It's about Winning this election!
For fucks sake man, she carries with her 17 million votes. Do you think Obama can win this without those votes?
There was a time and a better way for Hillary to have behaved during this campaign for Obama to consider her. Now I think he'd be crazy to put her on the ticket. I think he needs a rock-solid defense type like Wes Clark or Sam Nunn. Maybe even Bill Richardson, though he struggles to have the charisma of the political equivalent of Fred Flintstone.
weazl @ 48:
THAT IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT HER!
Look. In order to have a dynamic administration of change you need to let go of your ego and bring aboard high powered, experienced talent. You need to be equal partners.
If Obama wants a bunch of lackeys to stroke his ego working under him fine. 8 years of Bush lackeys was enough for me.
john james @ 42:
I agree with everything you said too! I really don't care which of these two won the primaries as long as we nominate someone who can defeat McWar.
mudshark @ 59:
NO.. she doesn't carry 17 million votes. That's the problem with you people. Get your facts from somewhere besides Hillary's mouth.
Tom @ 63:
Oh, Is that right? Then Tell me what her vote tally has been o wise one?
Phoenix Justice @ 38:
I agree with your call for unity and pragmatism but that does not necessarily imply that HRC is the right choice for VP. Always keep the repug strategy in mind..
mudshark @ 59:
Apparently they do. Delusional people aren't in short supply in this country though.
Tom @ 63:
GOP was right. Hillary is polarizing.
Mudshark, you are implying that those 17 million voters ONLY want to vote for Hillary Clinton and will abandon ship if she's not on the ticket, rather than seeing her, at least at one point, as the best among a field of Democratic candidates, any of whom they would be willing to support in the general over McCain. (And if recent polls among Dem voters in New York and other states that voted earlier in the process are accurate, there is some "buyer's remorse" among those who voted for Hillary initially, given the destructive tone her campaign assumed after the Super Tuesday Inevitability Narrative got blown to smithereens.)
Further, it's very rare for the runner-up to be offered the VP slot, for a number of reasons, one of them being that bad blood doesn't always translate into effective campaigning in the general or governance in the executive branch. History also shows that two sitting senators don't necessarily make the best winning ticket (Kerry/Edwards, for one example). For Obama, it might make sense to choose a sitting governor with executive branch experience. (I will never consider Hillary Clinton's First Lady experience to constitute serious executive branch experience, and apparently, neither did many other voters.)
So there are lots of good reasons to NOT offer Hillary Clinton the spot, especially given the lack of vetting that is still out there on the Clinton Library donors and the shenanigans Bill got up to in Kazahkstan, trading favors for donations to his foundation. Perhaps it's unfair to use Bill's record against her in the VP deliberations, but then, since she had no qualms about citing his time in office as equivalent to her own achievements, that's the way it goes.
She remains a deeply polarizing figure, especially among more moderate Republicans and independents, which is the group that Obama really needs to win over in order to beat McCain. Will some of her supporters be disgruntled enough to cut off their noses and stay home or vote McCain? Sure (though how voting for McCain constitutes strong feminist activism mystifies me). But I'm not convinced she has as much widespread fervent support overall among the Democratic electorate as she does in the blogosphere. Not all 17 million of her voters are fanatical about her. If she did have that kind of support, why is her campaign in so much financial trouble? People didn't love her enough to open their wallets the way they did for Obama, that's for sure.
Does she deserve consideration as VP? Sure, but no more so than anyone else on the short list, and her support for the party nominee shouldn't be conditional on whether or not she gets the consolation prize. Unless she really wants to show herself as the petty and self-centered "me first or nobody" candidate some of us have come to see her as over the course of this campaign.
mudshark @ 59:
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 44:
I have no doubts that Obama will be very careful in dealing with her. I also agree her campaign did immerse itself into racial attacks, but look where that strategy got her. Hillary will have to repair her standing with the African American community, and Obama has work to do with the White community. If she had won, her first stop would be to repair her standing with Blacks, and she would need Obama to do it. She cannot do this herself, and the same goes for Obama. Look at the big picture.
I retort: After FL and MI she does.. but oh wait look at this:
Popular Vote Total: Real Clear Politics
Obama: 17,389,253 48.1%
Clinton: 17,364,667 48.0%
Your argument = Out the window
Tom @ 63:
Good luck without the Dem voters that handed Bill Clinton the highest exit approval of any President in U.S. History.
Don't come crying to me when your delusions get shattered. You people are just way out there on the border with your intolerance for others. It's NO WIN with you. It's all about ME ME ME.
Tom @ 71:
Surely your not that self absorbed to turn your back on that #
Daily Kos has a great response to Hillary's sacrifice: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/3/162140/4506/456/528394
"In related news, I am willing to play second base for the Detroit Tigers. I mean, sure, last year second baseman Placido Polanco won both the Silver Slugger and the Gold Glove, but I'm here to serve if it would help the Tigers bring their team together.
A round-up of other breaking magnanimity stories:
Documents have recently surfaced that suggest that Managing Editor SusanG has informed her Daily Kos colleagues that she would be willing to spend the night with George Clooney if--and only if--it would bring on world peace..."
I'm still waiting for John Amato to put Keith Olbermann's last Special Commentary about Hillary Clinton's RFK on C & L. It was conspicuously absent.
Or Hillary Supporter Harriet Christian (I suspect that there's a New York connection).
L.A. Confidential @ 66:
Obama can beat McCain without Hillary. If he needs Hillary then his message is a fraud. Hillary is about as bad as you get as far as clean governing goes. Her campaign is a Harvard B School Case Study in how to create a failed enterprise.
Or didn't you notice?
The people here who are talking about party unity are being disingenuous. If it is about the party and not about HER then is party unity not possible with multiple people in the VP spot? It’s obvious that what people mean by “party unity” is that they, like the candidate they back (which is very Maoist in hero worship if you ask me) are using that as codeword (because they seem to have learned a lot from the right wing this primary season) for, “pick who we want, we’re in the party, and if you don’t we’ll tear it apart”. If this is about the party there should be multiple options that should make just as many people happy. If this is about Clinton the “party unity” (which the press will probably run with) line is just a Trojan Horse. Come on Clinton supporters, just for kicks, if it isn’t Clinton, would you support anyone else?
Tom @ 71:
Oh WOW thats a real OBAMA LANDSLIDE MAN!! Thanks for Sharing!
Kerry Reid @ 68:
I figure( just my own speculation) that it might cost 10 %.
No, not all 17 mill are fanatical about her. But turning a blind eye to that kind of # is just stupid. After the last 8 years, We should do whatever it takes.
Amber @ 74:
EXCELLENT POST. But now you're getting a little too close to the truth!
Open secret.
Shills.
See you later. It's obviously hopeless trying to communicate in a mature manner with the Obamanistas.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 32:
She used the A word alright, with a newspaper's editorial board in South Dakota.
Here is KO's special comment about that.
I can't see her on the list.
mudshark @ 73:
Yes, they are. And when Obama doesn't win because they continued to crap on Clinton's supporters, they'll blame her for their mistakes.
mudshark @ 73:
Now it's about me huh? Actually the numbers that interest me are her demographics. She's winning in votes from the low income, non-college educated voters. That tells me that the thinkers are making better decisions.
mudshark @ 59:
so all 17 million are like that batshit lady from new york??? i dont think so
maybe a mil or so
#46: "Get what?"
That Americans don't want a rerun of the last twenty years of divisive, 50-49, American-style politics. Nothing ever gets done. Some people think a Hillary Clinton White House would do just that. Even if she were to win the White House, it would energize the other side so much that we'd likely lose Congress again.
Some people are talking about "turning a page" in American politics. Forget about turning the page. Hell, I think it's time to throw the damn book away and get another one.
SFnomad @ 82:
SFnomad @ 82:
L.A. Confidential @ 80:
You'll be eating crow come November.
L.A. Confidential @ 77:
He's on the payroll anyway. Hillary gets her shills to barnacle on this site.
Some of us have heard this song before . . .
mudshark @ 64:
No, Tom's right, muddy.
Of those 17 million that voted for her(that's the number we're talking about, right- voters she won during the primaries?), a significant majority would vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of the VP candidate. Then there are the voters who never planned to vote for Hillary in the general election, they just voted to fuck with the Dems. I've got to think that the number who won't vote Obama without her presence is going to be awfully small.
Then you've got people like tyree, but I won't even guess if he'd vote Obama with Hillary as the veep.
I'm sorry but I don't think Obama/Clinton ticket will work for me. Give me an Obama/Sebelius ticket. It makes me feel better about Progressive causes.
Clinton has too much Repub in her for my taste. At least she campaigns like nicer form of Repub.
L.A. Confidential @ 80:
I think that's what you said last time when you got no takers for what you're selling.
Democrats are not stupid. Not everyone who voted for Senator Clinton is going to jump ship in Nov. To insinuate they will is not being realistic or fair to all Democrats in this country.
L.A. Confidential @ 80:
When you return maybe you can explain how your name calling is a sign of maturity.
And here all this time I thought appeasement was frowned upon.
Tom @ 83:
No, It's not about you Tom. Just pointing out that you were wrong. Thats all.
"But she's going to need a map to find the high road."
LOL! How about a GPS?
weazl @ 79:
Yeah, shills. Shills for the Democratic Party. Or do you like petty infighting that could give the GOP four more years in the White House?
Andy K Jong Il @ 88:
Bullshit. I've stated that I expect (speculation,Liberal speculation) for up to 10% losses.
People always talk about “moderates” and independents being the key to the elections. That’s why no new ideas ever come forward. To be moderate you don’t like anything “radical”, ie trying to solve problems instead of make them less bad, just tinkering around the edges. People WANT universal healthcare. Moderate reform won’t do. They WANT an end to the disastrous economic policies. Again, moderate reform won’t change anything. They WANT a well funded educational system. They WANT much stronger environmental legislation. The mythical “moderate” and “independent” vote, which is a tract of thought that the corporate media creates every election cycle for obvious reasons, are the narrow group of people who’ve supported the polices that have harmed the country. The rest of us, the majority of the country, are ready to move on and to get away from the status quo. Support for these policy choices have never been higher. If there was ever a time to grow a pair and to actually introduce new ideas, for the first time in freaking decades, into presidential elections you could not pick a better setting.
If Obama doesn’t offer new ideas, what “change” will he really offer. Isn’t everyone tired of bumper sticker populist campaign slogans carrying no weight once they hit office?
He can pick a woman....I WELCOME it but not her...
Kerry @ 95:
Bill knows how to get high . . oh wait, nevermind.
Why put Obama on the "spot" so to speak? This is backhanded by definition.
Blue Lensman @ 92:
He makes very good points from time to time but this isn't one.
sundog @ 89:
I don't mind her, but I would prefer Sebelius or Carl Levin. Both could kick some serious ass.
Forget the name calling and answer the question "How do you turn red states blue?" In states like Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada, Hillary is a drag on the ticket. And if Obama can't carry Blue states on his own, it's over with or without her. I say roll the dice without her. The American people may surprise you.
This primary season has had the LARGEST turn out in US History. And your going to let your petty feelings get in the way of winning the WH. When so much is at stake. unfuckingbelievable.
mudshark @ 97:
Up to 10% losses what? At the polls in November? A loss of 10% of her primary voters? Not followin' ya, muddy. :D
Give Cankles the VP. Obama needs every fat, bitchy, former soccer mom from Ohio he can get.
They're sick of seeing their kids sign up for the military to be used as IED bait.
"No you have it backwards. I said Barack could be my number two."
Andy K Jong Il @ 106:
Overall AK. but like I said, Speculation.
Andy K Jong Il @ 96:
The "infighing" came from Hellery, whose polarizing ability is legendary, who transformed a race at which start was recognized having candidates appreciated by all Democrats, to this cat scratching mess. And her threats continue.
She will need to simply get lost. Her own supporters have said that they protect her first, party second.
So if you are a shill for the Dems, you will get off of her self righteous and destructive bandwagon, and tell her to concede and FOLLOW ORDERS as to how to get the party together in an OBAMA campaign, instead of pretending THAT SHE WON.
She did not.
It is the joke that is lost on her, and the myrmidons whose judgment is apparently suspended in Hillaryesque cognitive dissonance.
Anybody follow the Superdelegate count since Super Tuesday?
Does it MEAN anything to you?
Well, it should.
L.A. Confidential @ 80:
Nice projection exercise, LOL!
BTW, don't matter how many temper tantrums Hillary supporters throw: A primary nomination a general election is not.
No.
Clinton wants to be president ANY WAY SHE CAN GET IT. If Obama were fool enough to offer her the VP job, how long does anyone honestly think it would take for him to suffer from some unfortunate accident or assassination? There are dozens of people down through the years that blocked the path the Clinton's wanted to take or were a threat to them that suddenly started dying under curious circumstances or just plain disappeared from the face of the earth. A few and one could say coincidence but when it is in the dozens the only conclusion a sane person would make is that they were involved and covered it up.
Knowing that she would be president when she knocked him off or had it done would prevent me from voting for him. It would be no more then a vote for her because he wouldn't live through his term. Oh, the Clinton's would look innocent, they always do, but the list of dead Clinton friends continues to stockpile. You can buy anything when you are wealthy enough.
Gretchen @ 103:
Again, no sitting Senators, please!
And you and I both know Carl's value to the state, so ixnay on the Evinlay, huh?
Two words: Chuck freaking Hagel !
Mud, are you only willing to support Clinton, or are there others you and the Clinton supporters would consider? It seems that you are doing this because of Clinton and using the party as an excuse. These tactics are too Rovian. Be mature and open minded yourself, maybe you won't get exactly what CLINTON wants. Maybe there's more, candidates, to consider than just what the Clinton's want. This is the DEMOCRATIC Party, not the Clinton Party. There are many Democrats who'd be just as good and would have far lower negative ratings than Clinton. Some of them are women.
If Obama is on the ticket in any way the Republicans are GUARANTEED 4 more years in the White House. Funny how Obamatons have tried to take over nearly every blog because they don't want the truth to get out. realclear can site all the BS figures they want. If Clinton takes it to the accreditations committee the RBC ruling can not stand as it violated several of their own rules! 1) An investigation into Florida Michigan and others states moving up their primaries was never done, but it is REQUIRED by their rules. 2)There is no provision allowing the RBC to grant votes from uncommitted to Obama, uncommitted is a certified vote and must by DNC rules go to the convention as uncommitted. It's funny how Obama favoring "news sources" have spent all day making up lies about Hillary saying she'll concede to try and influence todays primaries. They know Obama is falling hard and fast but want their Obamessiah to get it no matter how immoral their actions.
L.A. Confidential @ 66:
Obama only needs 50% of those who voted for Clinton. I'm willing to play those numbers.
I wanted to link these two up. Clinton's constant triangulation and campaign sleaze were bad enough even before the RFK remark. After the 'A' word she is out.
Finito!
Amber @ 74:
Alice Hussein @ 81:
No, no, no. No more Clintons! Haven't you seen the real Bill Clinton during this primary campaign. He has turned in to a lunatic, calling people names and getting in people's faces. Obama does not need a Bill Clinton loose cannon running around the world in Air force 11 upsetting the presidential agenda. As far as Hillary, she has been a mean spirited opponent using every underhanded means to win. No more Hillary!
"As we all know, Jack Kennedy was assassinated in Texas in November!"
What a self-absorbed witch. No one has invited you, Hillary!
POdVet @ 117:
You are a troll from another planet. People from Bizarro World do not vote in US elections.
Alice Hussein @ 123:
You'd be surprised....
Dhalgren @ 115:
Three more!
No. Bleeding. WAY!
Check the voting record and you'll see that he is a pretty staunch conservative. I don't see why the Dems need to kiss the ass of the GOP by giving them a VP on their ticket.
EJG @ 113:
Yeah, usually VPs have to make better shields against anyone wanting to knock off the prez. Look at Quayle and Cheney. NOBODY wanted to get rid of either sitting president and have one of those people step in! And neither one wanted the job (of course, Cheney already HAS the job, he just wants to look like he doesn't).
:P
This also goes to the Hagel notion above. Does anyone really want the GOP sitting out there looking at Obama and licking their chops with a conservative VP sitting next in line? Too much temptation for an sick bunch of a-holes to have to resist. I'd sooner give a pyro a book of matches and a pile of wood shavings to play with and trust that nothing catch fire when I am out of the room.
Dhalgren @ 121:
Cut Hillary some slack!
All she was pointing out was that since she has a proven track record of surviving heavy sniper fire. She may be the more "reliant" candidate...
POdVet @ 117:
Weren't you the McCain supporter in the other thread? Odd how you'd predict 4 more years of the GOP, when their ideas are in direct opposition to the general public accross the board. If that happens then you have to assume that personality takes the place of policy. That people are willing to forgo having an actual functioning and not as over priced healthcare system (but far from perfect), a better working economy, sollutions to the war (which McSame is against), better funded schools, etc vs. them personally liking McCain. Basically, you'd have to assume Americans are dumb as rocks. That people simply don't care about the issues and we will pick the president like they do with American Idol.
There is no way you or any other nimrod can claim that Obama will lose and not have the same to apply to McCain, and then some. Sorry, not a single thing. Corruption. Yep, there's some in Obama's closet. Does it even come close to the Keating Five, and that's just ONE incident? War profiteering? Connections to terrorists, how about the Contras for McCain? How many innocent people did they slaughter?
weazl @ 110:
Do the words "poor winner" mean anything to you? "Burning bridges"? It's all over but the cryin'. Without some kind of turn of fate, she won't be the nominee.
But you know what? The grassroots effort amongst a small-but-vocal crowd of Obama supporters is pushing her supporters towards McCain or just away from the polls. And, geez, think of what good it might do to have a sitting Senator, supposing she doesn't get tapped for Veep, 100% on your side. Or would you rather she shunt aside moveon.org-backed legislation merely on sight. Vindictive? Sure. But that coin has two faces.
At the end of the primary season, instead of the focus being on what may be the most significant event in American political history, we're talking about the Clintons. Objective met. Hillary 1, Obama 0.
gussmith @ 120:
The cocaine from his Arkansas days has caught up with him. First was his nose, for which he was rushed for emergency treatment. Then his heart, requiring a quadruple bypass and further surgery, and now his brain has corroded. How many days has he embarrassed himself during this campaign? Any count?
Pepper @ 116:
You must not have been following my comments for the last year+.
I have stated that I will support which ever candidate gets the nod.
My concern is Winning the election. And it seems to me that if she is the VP nom, That nothing can beat us.
It's nice that she's open to becoming VP; but guess what? The Clinton days of the Democratic Party are over and we do not need her. Nor as the delegate count so clearly shows we do not want her. There is also no way the Clinton's would pass the vetting process and let us not forget her high negatives.
As for her advisors who say he can't get the latin vote without her-here's an idea Bill Richardson!! Much smarter on foreign policy then she is
Bonkers @ 125:
Two things:
1. Hagel publically said, on the Congressional record, that our invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. That's more than what Clinton could admit.
2. Hagel wouldn't be licking his chops. He all but disowned the Bushies. He has nothing more to gain. He'd be paying a penance and giving back to his country.
Not all Rethugs are evil! They can be turned to the light side.
Andy K Jong Il @ 128:
She has shown no class for months. By the way, who do you speak for? I speak for myself. What is your constituency that you base your comments on?
gussmith @ 120:
Bill Clinton has obviously spend too much time golfing with his new BFF; George Bush Sr.
One of the main reasons why I don't care for Hillary in the White House, is that I doubt Mr. Clinton will be able to contain himself from Tomcatting around the oval office.
The DLC, and esp. the Clintons are a liability. It is time to regain control of the Dem party... Clinton, Lieberman et al can create their own 3rd party for all I care.
The Dude @ 124:
Let me try that again.
People from Bizarro World SHOULD NOT vote in US elections.
Unless of course they are naturalized.
weazl @ 134:
OK, we have now crossed into the Twilight Zone.
Dhalgren @ 121:
This, and the "white people like me" comments from the HRC campaign, are the two sole reasons that I think I oppose her as VP candidate. It's tough, because I would do just about anything to have a Dem. win this year. But those are very bad, dangerous things to say.
Don't do it Obama!
You will have 2 VP's
Alice Hussein @ 136:
From my experience about 1/2 of the states in this union qualify as being part of Bizarro world.
"But you know what? The grassroots effort amongst a small-but-vocal crowd of Obama supporters is pushing her supporters towards McCain or just away from the polls. And, geez, think of what good it might do to have a sitting Senator, supposing she doesn’t get tapped for Veep, 100% on your side."
100 percent on your side? Do you know the history between LBJ and JFK?
Do you know LBJ's role in Kennedy's death?
Do you know Hillary's role in Arkansas crime dealing with Bill?
The truth has not come mainstream regarding Hillary. But what does Hillary stand for if she is just a whining little girl to try to gloss over legislation by someone in her own party.
By the way, she IS NOT very high in seniority. Unless something changes, she will not have the power you even suggest.
Let me at first say I know that this might be a possibility. And it is rather disgusting that this choice is thrown out there after all the things that Mrs. Clinton has done. But, even after such a suggestion, I still give a definitive and strongly emphatic no.
Hillary Clinton knows no shame. I think it is about time to get rid of the DLC because they have done more harm that good for the Democratic party. And the first thing to do is to denounce Hillary's style of campaigning that has driven a wedge and hurt the party for the worse.
I don't know if other folks feel this way, but I think that Obama could do much better with another candidate instead of selling out to Hillary Clinton. I know we need as many folks as we can to win this year's elections, but is Hillary the only one that can make selling points to voters this year? Aren't there other powerful movers and shakers within the Democratic Party? I would certainly hope so.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And P2b, I thank you for the clip of "Imagine" in last open thread. Of all the songs that John Lennon has done (and there are many), I love that song. It always puts me in a contemplative mood. That was a wonderful and kind gesture. :)
Joe! @ 9:
joe liberman comes to mind!
No, Hillary would be the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons. Some good choices, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano or Chris Gregoire, all governors providing "executive experience." Jim Webb or Wesley Clark, both beefing up the ticket's military chops. Chris Dodd, across the board experience.
Why not Hillary? It brings all of the baggage she would bring as the nominee to a candidacy that for method is in complete opposition. To me, that's an enormous net negative. Any of the people listed above would bring something to the table but leave the Obama vs Clinton division where it belongs, in the past. Uniting them on the same ticket keeps the animosities going.
Why not some others? Edwards, better suited to be AG. Richardson, has a job, better suited to consideration at State, or staying in his job another two years then moving into a new position (DHS?). Biden, needed in the Senate. Dodd, end of the list because again, needed in the Senate. Neither brings as much to the table as Webb would (former Secretary of the Navy, in a seat that will potentially very hard to keep, and the current governor of Virginia is a Democrat to appoint to finish the term).
ALL of these would bring as much if not more to the table. The second best candidate does not by default make the best running mate.
OF COURSE HILLARY WANTS TO BE VP!
REMEMBER: If "something" happens to Obama, she gets to finally be president!
How perfect for her.
"OK, we have now crossed into the Twilight Zone."
Save your ad hominems.
Fawn Knutsen @ 138:
Only two?
Pepper "Basically, you’d have to assume Americans are dumb as rocks. That people simply don’t care about the issues and we will pick the president like they do with American Idol."
Isn't that exactly what the Obamatons have been doing? He has no substance, nothing in his background except corruption, marxism and racism. And now here come the Obamaton soldiers marching in lockstep to defend der fuhrer Obamessiah.
weazl @ 134:
You're right. She hasn't. Obama has. But many of HIS vocal supporters, here and at many other blogs, have followed HER example. Be gracious in victory.
Carol @ 139:
Both skirt chasers.
Login or Register to post comments.