Obama tells everyone to calm down then has secret meeting.
By John Amato Thursday Jun 05, 2008 4:50pm
Watch Obama calmly tell everyone to "settle down" and "relax" over how he will handle the VP slot. Just give it a little time and be patient. This is a big decision and as is customary, Obama's planning to take his time. But that's not good enough for the crazed media as they staked out the wrong place and looked like amateurs next to TMZ as they tried to find the "super-secret" meeting between Obama and Hillary.
Obama just won an incredible victory on so many levels, but they can't let the piefight go. In my opinion, they are making things much worse with this behavior, but that's for another post.
Download | play 
Download | play
Obama handles this situation like a true leader.
via CNN's The Situation Room:
CROWLEY (on-camera): You know and I know that if Senator Clinton wanted to tamp down this vice presidential conversation by her surrogates that she would. She has, as she will tell you, more than 17 million voters. She has more delegates than any runner-up in history. Do you have to put her on the ticket?
OBAMA: Well, let me begin by saying - repeating what I said on Tuesday night. She has been an extraordinary candidate. She has been an extraordinary public servant for years now. She ran as tough a race as could be imagined. And I have nothing but respect for Senator Clinton and what she's going to contribute to the party. And I'm also confident we're going to be unified in November.
What I've also said is the vice presidency is the most important decision that I'll make before I'm president. And it's something that I take very seriously.
I know Bill Clinton took it very seriously when he had to go through this process. Senator Clinton, I'm sure, would take it very seriously if she were going through this process. So we've got a committee that's made up of some wonderful people. They are going to go through the procedure and vet and talk to people and get recommendations. I will meet with a range of people, and I'll ultimately make a decision. Senator Clinton would be on anybody's short list.
CROWLEY: But you don't feel -- there's an enormous amount of pressure out there for you to put her on the ticket. Do you feel that pressure?
OBAMA: You know, I'm a big believer in making decisions well, not making them fast and not responding to pressure. I think Senator Clinton right now is in the same position I'm in. Which is, we just completed 54 contests. We want to catch our breath. We need to take stock of where we are. I'm sure she has to do the same thing.
She and I will have a conversation. We won't be doing it through surrogates or the press, to talk about how we move forward, join forces to make sure we're successful in November. And so there's going to be a lot of time for that.
CROWLEY: Is it the best way to win over her supporters, though, if you put her on the ticket? You've seen I'm sure the polling that you're dropping women, sort of down-scale voters, those kinds of voters. Isn't that the best way to win them over is to put her on that ticket?
OBAMA: As I said, think everybody just needs to settle down. We just completed this arduous process. It's only been two days. And I think it's both -- not just in my interest and Senator Clinton's interest, but in the Democratic Party's interest and the country's interest to make sure that I make this decision well. And I will be deliberate and systematic about it because this will be my final counselor when I'm making decisions in the White House. And I want to make sure that I get it right.
CROWLEY: You don't feel at this moment you have to put her on the ticket, as bottom line?
OBAMA: Well, the bottom line is that we're going to go through a process and I'll make my decision sometime in the weeks to come.
Login or Register to post comments.
Last!
What a jerk that reporter was, blatantly trying to shove words in his mouth.
Luckily, Barack Obama actually has a clue how to handle such jerks. Gives me hope for the future.
he's right don't make any quick decisions after a victory....secret meeting who cares let him breath for a minute........the media needs to back off
first
burpster @ 4:
Well the fourth first anyway...
:)
Why the hell doesn't he just say, "Look, Candy, I'll arrive at my decision in plenty of tiem for the convention, so stop trying to badger me about it, you reject from the Village Idiot's Collective?"
You gotta hand it to her, though - she was persistent in trying to frame the narrative and paint him into a corner. This guy's a lawyer and a LOT smarter than you, Crowley.
Obama met with Hilary at the Bilderberg conference in Northern Virginia.
the fix is in.
they are both elite sock puppets.
true story.
"OBAMA: You know, I’m a big believer in making decisions well, not making them fast and not responding to pressure."
That's the man I want answering the phone at three in the morning.
A day after clinching the nomination why did he have to appear at the AIPAC conference? Maybe Leiberman should be his VP choice?
I've read in a few places the spot and timing they chose put them next door to a Bildeberg meeting. Personally, I would have had the little rendezvous near a stream so I could get in some fishing.
Mabye..
Fourth it is. :)
It would be wise to wait for the GOP to make their move first.
The VP may need to appeal to Hispanics, women or centrists, depending on who McCain chooses.
Obama and Clinton met at Diane Feinstein's home last night. I sure would like to hear what was said.
I'm guessing he was his usual gentlemanly self yet was firm with what he said.
Candy is the same kind of asshole as wolf.
pissed off patricia @ 13:
can Feinstein(boosh-lover) be trusted to broker a truce?
In my belief, his message is towards the progressive media. You guys have attacked Clinton so much that you forgot you still need her backers to take him all the way to the end. That's a lot of burned bridges you folks better start fixing.
In other words, I call the shots now so just go back to your Paris Hilton coverage until I have a chance to talk to everybody necessary, O.K. , Candi ? By the way, is that your real name ?
pissed off patricia @ 8:
I'd settle for him taking perpetual shots at Dubya like he did in the statement, and constantly reminding everyone why they need to vote for him and not McCain.
Cripes, it sure looks like the press is trying to ram Hillary for VP down Obama's throat. It sure looks to me like media arrogance; they are so in love with their obsession to put her on the ticket. As an Obama supporter, I'm not.
Crowley must have asked the same question different ways at least 10 times. What part of NO doesn't she understand?
CoIntelPro against Repug DoucheBaggery @ 15:
She said she welcomed them both in, saw they were comfortable and then went upstairs and worked until Obama called to her that they were leaving.
But Bill Clinton says the media is biased against Hillary. So why are they so eager to see her as VP?
is barack being forced to move to the right alittle...check it out
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/41154-has-
First step in his policy of meeting with the heads of rouge states.
Apologize and fix what bridge? The one you burned by having xenophobic, racist preconceptions about Obama?
PREDICTION: Hillary will not be magnanimous tomorrow. She will continue to play her little spiteful disrespectful game, all the while reserving the right to rejoin the race.
If Hillary releases her delegates tomorrow I will believe she is behind Obama 100%, but if she doesn't, I'll have my doubts.
Many here feel Obama will carry out their goals.
Call it invited projection.
Good luck to the U.S.
Why isn't the media demanding McSame choose his VP? Why must Obama choose his right away?
Attila the Appeaser @ 21:
Who said that? Where have you seen Clinton trying to push Hillary as a VP? Where did you pull that from? Again, that's the kind of BS you [Deleted-Sitemonitor] keep lying about.
Sniping at Hillary has become sport. It's old, and often very unfair. I don't give a shit what is said about her, but my 7 year old LOVES the fact that a woman is running and did well. Good going Hillary!
gjr @ 28:
exactly..........just media trying to ride the wave that much longer they had a good run with hillary vs. barack but it's not enough........trust me the gop wants to know who it will be so bad....so they can counter move
I give serious style points for the fake-out. Awesome.
Candy Crowley?
That c&^ makes me want to vomit.
As a white, middle-aged female voter, I still preferred Obama over Hillary - I don't vote with my genitals. And I'm rather fascinated with the way Obama is so-far successfully smoothing over hard feelings - not with Hillary per se, but with her supporters, no 'nyah-nyah, we won, suck on that, losers' gloating, but mature, and from what I can see thus far genuine attempts to not only heal rifts but invite inclusion. So it's going to be interesting to see how he handles the VP slot.
Now wouldn't that be interesting if he DOES nominate a woman for VP - just not Hillary. What would that say to all those female voters who wanted a woman in the White House? Would they turn up their noses because it wasn't... Hillary?
Hmmm. :)
I vote with my genitals; they have an especial political proclivity and supported Obama.
OT:
[Yes. It is. Deleted-Sitemonitor]
I've concerns over Obama's recent behaviour since clinching the nomination with him quickly giving lip service to the israeli lobby, seems pretty status quo frankly. Dennis Kucinich for VP ;D I can dream ...
Over the past decade, probably longer, the MSM has become utterly meaningless. EVERY network is a tabloid chasing down their Britney Spears story . . . and once they find it, they then speculate to the point of idiocy. Every once in a great while I'll check in on the MSM but they only get worse with each passing year.
CROWLEY: Don't you feel the pressure? I mean any human would feel the pressure of 17 thousand women breathing down their necks. Feel it ... a little ... sweat ... grimace! Give me something, damn you! I need to see the cracks! Come on!! My journalistic standards are on the line!!! And my ratings!!!! The repugs will call me a liberal!!! Sweat!!! Pearl up... one drop... somebody get some more sun lamps in here!!!!! Oh my god, why won't you respond like a regular politician!!!!!
Drip...
drip...
drip...
COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nonny mouse @ 34:
I have wondered that exact same question. I'm a woman and the fact that Hillary was a woman never gave her a plus or a minus in my decision making. I was more concerned with the future of our country and the candidate that made me feel things could change in a positive way was Senator Obama.
Obama projects statesmanship and level-headed sense.
I can't wait until he's in the White House!!!
mccain the free ride is over.........sure the polls are close within margin of error......i don't buy...too soon after hillary battle....hopefully barack can spread mccain thin on the electoral map that is....
this is the reason why people should stop watching cable news. they are fucking morons. my respect meter went up on obama the last several days.
i wasn't sure but seeing him he is our next prez.
Scy @ 38:
ever since dumb and dumber came out.....the bush adm. did a good job of showing some people that.."it doesn't seem to matter attitude"
It is refreshing to hear someone running for president and he says that picking his vice president is the most important thing he can do in the process of running for president.
Contrast that to bush who could not take the time to look for a vice so he let dick chenny do it for him.
Does that not tell you what a worthless idiot bush is?
Does that not make you ashamed that you voted for someone so stupid and callous?
Or do you not have any shame?
David @ 46:
Really. It hasn't gone over EVERYONE'S heads here...
The first couple of questions proved to me that the "media" wants HRC on the ticket. It is like some kind of reality show that has made up drama to fit a crafted story line the "media" has. It made me ill....
i'm glad and proud i didn't vote for bush....he wasn't qualified.......his gov. job was a joke in texas most of their policy(s) are done by state legislators.........not all state govenor jobs created equal....they showed ...the gop that is they will take the presidency at all cost we did to be ready...or else
When did Candy Crowley become the presidential nominee? This isn't about what she thinks.
cg @ 50:
just be glad your able to filter out the bullshit some people aren't capable
That interview sounds like a big "NO" from Obama, he will not put Hilary as VP, he has said that before even. But he can't say "NO" now until Clinton supporters calm down and its sunk in that Clinton didn't win, and are ready to embrace Obama. It seems to me, it wil be easy to grab the Clinton supporters, they are already democrats. Obama has to get a VP to bring in Independents and Republicans. That seems to be the strategy of Obama, anyway.
Actually, choosing a VP at this particular point in time is a lot more important than it might have been, oh say, 8 years ago. Before Cheney transformed the office into one that rivals - if not overrules - the presidential office. The amount of power and influence that the VP office now holds means that it is vital Obama chooses someone very wisely indeed. I, for one, would not want to see someone like Hillary who has so far been proven to be obstreperous and downright nasty in her campaign against Obama. I don't imagine she'd be all that likely to voluntarily relinquish the power Cheney has accrued during his tenure, just because that usurption was unjustifiable.
No - I prefer someone who will work WITH Obama to turn this country around and back to sanity, rather than someone who is more likely to concentrate a private power base with an eye on the elections in 1212.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Oh Jesus Christ.. Is that Crowley a broken record or what??!!!
I say take the time you need to make an informed intelligent choice Senator Obama... For the sake of the nation, the process itself and your future as president...Don't be railroaded by anyone on this. The punditry be damned... Let em fume and sputter about till their freaking little talking heads pop right off...JD
Obama is a very intelligent individual. He is acting like an intelligent careful and powerful statesman. You can see him now as he
senses his own growth. That guy will do a great job for us!
if he took clinton as his vp, his anti-war and anti-lobbyist cred would vanish in a puff of smoke and with it much of his campaign against mccain.
David @ 46:
.. that is because they met in Feinstein's house in DC, I know DC is near Virginia. So maybe your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight.
BTW, here is a list of people who have attended Bilderberg meetings in previous occasions:
Bill Clinton (1991)
Hillary Clinton (1997)
Gerald R. Ford (1964, 1966)
Dan Quayle (1990, 1991)
Walter F. Mondale (1974)
Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977-2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
Donald Rumsfeld (1975, 2002)
Colin L. Powell (1997)
John Edwards (2004)
Bill Richardson (1999, 2000)
Christopher Dodd (1999, 2000, 2001)
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000, 2001)
Dianne Feinstein (1991)
Shirley Temple (1982)
Kathleen Sebelius (2007)
Stunning. I want this man in the White House.
He was a responsible adult throughout. No grinning, no self-conscious laughs, no stumbling over his own words as he sought an answer he didn't have, to a question he didn't understand.
He said "This is none of your business until I say it is" -- in the nicest way possible.
*
Gallup is showing Obama either NOT beating John McCain or coming well within the margin of error of him.
But they show Obama beating McCain by 5-6 points if Hillary is Obama's VP running mate.
pollingreport.com
Scy @ 38:
This is exactly why more and more people are deciding that they have to become the media themselves. Look at the popularity of blogs and groups such as We Are Change dot org. People can't sit around and wait for the corporate media to do their job or bend to our pressures. We have to do the investigative journalism that is not occurring. I completely agree with you.
Obama dodged the questions like any politician would, this is no example of Obamas Intelligence.
nonny mouse @ 52:
i disagree...i think the office of vp changed with gore
cheney perverted what the office of vp is
and i pray that obama does not choose clinton
if he picks clinton, the dems will lose the south
Barrett D @ 61:
what wouldve proved his intelligence? if he had shown crowley the back of his pimp hand?
It really surprises me that the Progressive Community sometimes just can't see the obvious. It doesn't take a street musician to figure it out.
Keep Him Safe
As Head of State
Make Howard Dean
His Running Mate!
Burma Shave
Obama/Dean 08
"Fast, Long Lasting Relief for the Fierce Urgency of Now!"
Hello?
Barrett D @ 51:
Correct, don't give McCain a good shot at the independents and disenfranchised repub centrists.
It's Me @ 59:
polls this early...and i mean early as in before the conventions and before the debates....dont mean shit
the clinton political machine is dead...they just dont know it yet
they are pining for the fjords
"Obama tells everyone to calm down then has secret meeting."
Then the article states (buried in finer print): "Obama handles this situation like a true leader."
Are you dissing him for asking everyone to calm down, having the meeting, both, either? [deleted. Not too smart to "diss" the site on which you are posting. Feel free to find another more to your liking if you wish, with our blessing. - site monitor]
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller at Bilderberg Meeting... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
David Rockefeller is by the way attending this years Bilderberg Meeting as well :}
Subway Serenade @ 64:
ya...dean has no baggage whatsoever
if i were obama, i would have the shortest vp list in history
two people
jim webb
katherine sebillius
thats it
What good is Hillary Clinton going add to the Obama campaign? Does he really need her? From how many Republicans did Clinton get her votes in the primaries? How much damage has she done to the party and to the Obama campaign so far? It doesn't look good. Read this:
http://counterpunch.org/lindorff06042008.html
thematrix @ 33:
She's hard to stomach.
These people aren't reporters - they're full-fledged saboteurs.
*
"The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." ~ John F. Kennedy
Man, talk about trying to force an agenda. It's the same question 5 times with different words.
nyguy @ 16:
For one, she has been RIGHTFULLY attacked for her actions, which were dishonest and the worse kind of gutter politics. None of you have bothered to defend her actions, for obvious reasons, you can’t, so you pull this crap. Secondly, have you ever heard of a bunch of supporters of a person in a party trying to hold the party hostage in order to get their chosen king or queen whatever she wants? What the hell is this nonsense? She is one of many candidates, not the only candidate. People should have been energized about the issues and use her, Obama or anyone else as a means to an end, the end being policy stances that are "progressive" and will move the country in the right direction. You don't seem to get that and have it ass backwards.
I wasn’t alive during the Cultural Revolution, but this is beyond Mao like. If you believe in the issues, and not an illogical devotion to this one person, you'll be happy with more than just Clinton. If you care about healthcare, economic justice, a change in foreign policy, amongst other things, you put that above any one person, including Obama. People like yourself, on the other hand, care more about Clinton and are more interested in hero worship and having your ring kissed than the issues facing the country.
She has gotten as far as a woman has in this country's history and deserves credit for getting women involved in politics, even if their interests were narrow and personal. However, that is the case with many candidates in the past who’ve lost. Life moves on and issues need solving. If you're waiting to have your ring kissed, and not more interested than moving policy positions that will help the country, move on yourself. You might support Clinton, and indirectly her policy positions, now, but since it seems more about personal devotion than a passion for policy stances, you could just as easily turn around and back a reactionary candidate in the future for the same reasons.
Personally, as someone who has been disgusted with her actions as of late, I am far more turned off by Clinton’s supporters and their sense of entitlement than anything she’s done. Not all of them, but the ones with the mentality of people like you are parasitic elements on the left.
uncle joe hussein mccarthy @ 62:
I want the office diminished. Cheney abused his power - power that he illicitly acquired for himself in expectations of running the country from his own office. This needs to be turned on its head.
*
Trittydi @ 71:
The American Media has been taken over by Corporate interests. We have only to do the investigate journalism ourselves. It's up to us to see the situation we are in and act accordingly. Peace.
I've been a Dean supporter since July of 2003. The man has no baggage other than those dreamt of in DLC fantasies.
If Dean had any baggage, he would have been fired by Obama on the spot. Instead, he fired the DLC.
Any questions?
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 70:
Your authoritative source doesn't even know Scalia's first name. nice.
Orangutan. @ 72:
A good guy and mellifluous rhetoric, but it has no basis in fact. This country was founded by Masons.
BlueKnuckle @ 78:
Nice right wing tactic, pick one thing out of the article and ignore the overal points. Care to respond to the main points of the article?
Fuc&^k David Rockefeller.. In fact fu^%k all the Rockefellers...
He and those like him are exactly the 'behind the curtin' types who bare as much or more responsibility for the shitty state of this planet as any cowtowing or collusive politician.. My answer to his long ago stated preferences in one world government is NO! No motherf*&ker, a supranational sovereignty of 'self proclaimed' intellectual elites and world bankers is NOT preferable. This idea that replaces the nation state and the individual sovereignty of those nation states sucks!! You and your kinds decades long manipulations to bring this about sucks too... All this scheming towards a one government NWO, is a perversion on mankind and a perversion of democratic principles. If this was 1790s France assholes like you would find your heads in a bucket for the actions you and your family are responsible for........JD
it ain't a secret meeting if everyone knows about it. someone needs to toss the "reporters" a dictionary or a thesaurus so they can look up the word "private," because that is in fact what it was -- a PRIVATE meeting.
i am so glad i had my cable cut off four years ago, and i look forward to my house going "black" in february 2008 as a result of the HD changeover.
BlueKnuckle @ 78:
It's called a diminutive. Anway, back to the subject: Clinton is bad news for the Obama campaign, and the article in question makes a very good case. Obama doesn't need the right-wing and racist votes.
Rebel Patriot @ 7:
bump.
G String @ 80:
Oh, caring about consistency is right wing . . . well, that explains a LOT. I am a Republican . . . who votes almost exclusively for Democrats. And now that Obama is the nominee, it is my strong intention to become an Obamacrat in the coming weeks.
To your point . . . it seems your article is making the right wing's case. Could/should HRC have been more discreet. Absolutely. Obama has a lot of time, excellent campaign skills, enormous organization, and a LOT less name recognition than Clinton and McCain, even now.
I'm not a bit worried that Obama will be victorious. While the polls seem perplexingly tied, McCain doesn't have even a handful of reasons for Americans to support him (veteran, anti-global warming). meanwhile lobbyists, the wars, the economy, his age . . . all scream for his defeat.
Will that do?
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 83:
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 83:
I'd like to hear the explanation of how disrespecting someone's ethno-specific name is diminutive? That sounds rather prejudiced actually. There are many reasons and ways to oppose Mr. Scalia. Name-calling, if that is what it was, is petty at best.
Tim @ 84:
I heard it was Hawaii,
or was it calif.
OK I got it, It was Padang Padang!
Obama acts and sounds like a true leader.
Good heavens, these comment streams have been so larded with a strange high strung hysteria from partisan elements on both sides of the Obama vs Clinton run as if people are in the grip of some Bush induced post traumatic stress from an 8 year wreckage run.
And yet when I look to both Ms Clinton and Mr Obama over the past few days, I see magnanimity on his part including an offer to help her with her campaign debt. And I see her moving to make peace with the outcome while all sorts of emotions must surely crowd her soul. Both of these people are showing signs of transcending their personal issues to unite for the betterment of the nation while McOld collapses into a drool puddle.
The Veepstake pressure seems to be a media fabrication as Ms Clinton is clearly of two minds about the merits of Veephood and appears to be moving away from any ardor for the job.
This too is perfectly understandable. Both of these humans have just come out of a state of ultra focused compression induced by an unusually long primary cycle. Ms Clinton clearly needs a few days to digest the experience and Mr Obama needs the quiet to make his decisions without the importuning of imbecile MSM shrillery.
I for one am proud of both and cut each ample slack for being creatures of their experience as I am confident they will adapt to the scary post empire landscape we face and rise to the most challenging occasion since the great depression.
wijg @ 89:
In every way. I am not the first to suggest that this is the proudest I have felt of my country in my lifetime.
BlueKnuckle @ 87:
Why do you keep changing the subject? My point is that HRC is toxic to the campaign. Obama should consider carefully before choosing her as a running-mate. I don't think it would even have been close without all the Republican support she had in the primaries.
BlueKnuckle @ 85:
I didn't say you were right wing, I said you used a right wing tactic, which you did. I agree, kind of, with the people here saying that Obama and Clinton are part of a ruling class that is cut off from the public and won't bring about many of the needed changes to the country. I, however, disagree that that is a result of them being assets of the "NWO", I hate that phrasing, so cliché and simplistic. There is no social movement here, people are not active in creating policy in either political party, there is no participatory nature to our democracy. We vote for both candidates and they from that point on might as well be nobles or kings. They create laws, tell us how they're to be interpreted, hide many of the decisions of government behind closed doors, don't tell us where our money is going (with a good portion of it going to various "black budgets") and don't do anything about the structural problems and the anti-democratic nature of the economic system. The problem is a democracy deficit and a lack of participation and direct power by the general public. The government is no longer of the people, and I don't think Obama himself will change that. He will however be an improvement over Bush and will be a step in the right direction. If people work to organize and educate, the expansion of social rights can give them a needed consciousness for deeper changes to economics and social relations. I’m cautiously optimistic, more than anything because of the opening that may result from his nomination. More of the same could fill that opening however if people don’t get more involved and educated on the issues, so we’ll see how this plays out.
If McCain wins however, this country is screwed and deserves it. I don’t care how early this is, the polls should not be this close. What the hell is wrong with people in this country?
An awful lot of "off topic" posts here, aren't there?
Funny thing is, as long as the post trashes Hillary Clinton and says nothing else, the site monitor apparently doesn't think there is anything "off topic" about it.
[You have no idea what's been removed. I've removed a lot of Senator Clinton trashing from many threads over the last few months. Update: I just read through this thread, and took out two off topic posts, neither bashing the Senator. And the comments criticizing her come no where near the threshold of smearing or bashing. Teh internets is a rough place. You may need to toughen up a bit-Sitemonitor]
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 92:
If my perspective on the entire matter differs from yours, that does not qualify as "changing the subject." I'm no fan of Mrs. Clinton, though my daughter is. I too fear her involvement in the campaign. However, drawing undo attention to her HELPS the right . . . and that is my point. I believe that your cited article is equally counterproductive.
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 92:
I think 17 million+ people would disagree with you.
I love this Guy! I have voted Republican many times but... I love this Guy. I do not expect too much from him but I know he will be much better than what we have had for years! ...WoW!
Biden , Edwards , Richardson , Clark , Hagel , Dean , Kennedy , oh and someone who is ( IMHO ) a very viably second Jim Hightower , all and any of these bring more to the table than HRC ever could .
While Obama is my second ( my first could never win ) choice , as had been said let McOldie make his choice first , and I know that Obama would not fall prey to McOldie's wanting to debate him , he is scared shitless .
Great tactic Obama , back off the throttle make them wonder what your doing , I would not let them know for 2 months , bring the 50 states into play .
Last I loved the pound and the tap .
I have several problems with this. Insisting on fair and level-headed journalism is not a right wing technique. Yes, I am immediately suspicious of sources that get basic facts wrong or resort to name-calling.
Secondly, the country would deserve its own ruin if it voted for McCain? How does that help? That's how the left gets a rap for being elitist.
Thirdly, much of your post seems to assume that America as usual has been represented these past 7 years. Many of our leaders (Presidential, Congressional and otherwise) - the good ones - have been deeply concerned with the sentiment of the people on important issues.
I don't see how this cynicism helps. Do we all have reason to be down-hearted, fearful, and YES bitter? Absolutely. But if we don't find a better footing from which to attack the opposition, McCain WILL sweep in. And then your dismissiveness of America becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
itsamessi @ 96:
Was that aimed at me? If so, check your "quote."
mudshark @ 96:
... and how many of those will be voting for McCain in November? Of the Democrats, I be willing to wager, next to none. So, I think it is naive to argue that they will take their votes and walk. Of the (many) Republicans who crossed over, I doubt any of them will vote for Obama. Besides, as I have been asking, what good will HRC being to the Obama campaign? Can you name some things?
After watching that all I can say is "patience of a saint"
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 100:
I don't know. Do you?
Barrett D @ 61:
Well, I would say he dodged it intelligently, but I have to admit that my own politician bullshit detector was also pinging. It isn't something specific to Obama, more a general rule of media literacy, viz. someone is asked a yes or no question, the longer the answer the greater the obfuscation.
Widespread @ 103:
Would not answers by Obama at this very early hour about VP choices fuel media and right wing attacks? Premature inauguration?
rufus xavier sarsaparilla @ 100:
Hi, thanks for responding.
My name is mudshark.
I don't think that, that many repugs could cross the line to make a difference.
Hi, My name is mudshark.
As for her being a part of this campaign. 17 million people think it's a good idea.
Hi,,
mudshark @ 105:
Let's not forget Mr. McKinnon. He is not alone. Granted that Republican support cannot be a hope-worthy crutch here. An energized Democratic base, consolidation of all likely Dem voters, and strong appeal to Independents is the key.
I have great faith in Mr. Obama and I intend to support and help him any way that I can.
BlueKnuckle @ 102:
when they find out two or three u.s. supreme court judges are soon to retire putting roe vs wade in jeopardy i think many will vote with their party just a thought....but of course we don't know 100%
That's a very important point.
J0e @ 67:
In fairness to Joe I was a bit confused by the title of the post too.
The phrasing implies contradictory behaviour of some sort on Obama's part but watching the video I didn't see any, he stayed calm and polite throughout a tedious, repetitive interview and later had a meeting with Hillary, so what? Telling the interviewer that he was going to take his time making a decision and that they'd just have to wait a while for an answer doen't imply he's not going to meet with anyone does it?
What makes a meeting "secret" anyway? Not wishing to have the press there would make it a private meeting to me, not a "secret" meeting, has anyone involved denied that it occurred?
Does anyone else besides Joe and myself think the title of the post was misleading?
Also site monitor I don't know if you cut something more offensive out of Joe's post but it would have been better to explain what you meant by the title of the post than just sniping back at him, no?
glennser
MY PICK FOR VP
ann richards of texas who ran against the BUSH
Isn't she late for a buffet somewhere? I loathe her.
karl @ 107:
now you're talkin!
BushEconomy @ 110:
You do know shes deceased, right?
glennser @ 109:
"true leader" thing is alittle over the top.....tabloid stuff but.....asking people to calm....good for him...media trying so hard to heighten this to the max..soon will on the issues i hope
Attila the Appeaser @ 21:
pssst... he's lying... psst.
It was one mistake, maybe he has a bad or no editor. There have been amazing, classic works, with misspelled words and a name wrong here and there. Besides, the overall points that he was making were clear and straight forward. If you had that same standard for everything written you’d have to throw away countless articles and books that have important things to say. I can misspell some words while making really good points. It comes down to valuing good ideas or points vs. grammar, and the two don’t have a one to one connection.
Regarding your second point: If after the last few decades of economic, healthcare and foreign policies people pick someone calling for more of the same, at what point can you lay some of the blame on the people making these decisions? McCain has said, as directly as you can, that he will continue the status quo. He give speeches in support of “free trade” in front of factories that have closed because of “free trade”. He’s for a market based solution to healthcare when the market is why there are so many inefficiencies. It shouldn’t come to the economy completely collapsing and going into a massive recession, like in Argentina in the earlier part of the decade, for people to wake the #uck up. The reasons for this country’s economic downturn, and the economic philosophy that has destroyed poorer countries elsewhere, is obvious and doesn’t take too much educational background to figure out. People are backing, and have backed, people like McCain because of platitudes that have little to nothing to do with the reality of their lives. It’s willful ignorance, nothing to do with education or intelligence.
Regarding your final two points: The problems that we are seeing are NOT unique to this country, or even the developed world. Look around the countries that have participatory democracies. They would never have a situation like we have with, say, healthcare, where people have been in favor of universal healthcare for years and it isn’t even on the ticket in either political party. This is beyond “liberal” vs. “conservative”, it’s a problem of the structure of typical liberal democracies. There are ideas, like national referendums on laws passed by governments (for instance in Venezuela if 10% of the people there disagree with a law Chavez passes they can put the law up for a national vote) or participatory budgeting like we have seen in Porto Alegre Brazil. I realize that that is a far off dream from where we are. However, as long as this type of direct power is lacking, the best we can do is vote for someone and pray, and that hasn’t worked here or in any other country for years. Globalization hallows out democracy and allows investor elites to eliminate many of the policies that people like your or I might choose democratically. Capital, for instance, is completely liberalized, so if even if Obama were to institute some form of universal healthcare, what would happen? Capital would flee the country, the economy would be hard hit and Obama would have to reverse course. After WWII this happened to Europe and the US helped to slow down the capital flight (which actually nullified most of the Marshall Plan aid at the time). There’s no one to save us from that now in this globalized world.
So I have a good reason to not expect too much, although I am happy about Obama’s nomination, and I have good reason to not trust Americans when it comes to voting. They, according to polls, are for the right policy positions but vote against them, and are institutionally confronted even when they don’t.
site monitor: me leave? Don't mind if I do... I refresh this site less and less as time goes on. You giving Clinton a pass to be racist and sexist, cutting out Olbermann's special comments was the last straw. And my comments weren't nasty. You should heed the warnings given by your readers at that time; you're going to find yourself monitoring an "also-ran" just like the candidate you supported who was a crook AND a liar.
G String,
We agree. A lot. I just didn't like your article.
Truce?
Frank Dufek @ 115:
some media outlets maybe......clintons provide plenty of material for the "bread and circus".....ratings baby...all mighty dollar...it's a reality soap opera show
Works for me.
If you can still pick up Olbermann's repeat Countdown tonight, don't miss his "Puppet Theater" of the Obama-Clinton meetup. A hoot! Maybe C&L could post it?
wow, CNN has hit the bottom, 4 questions that are the same question worded differently. LOL CNN
seriously! when i saw the live feed "breaking news" of the front of the clinton dc residence, i said to mrs. skippy, "what, is hillary now lindsay lohan?"
burpster @ 9:
I guess he wants the Jewish vote and there's nothing wrong with that. WHY AIPAC scheduled a speech for him is telling in a threatening way, because many viewed him as anti-Israel. He benefited by being given the opportunity to reassure them. Many have been reassured. Those who weren't, i.e. those who want to bomb Iran tomorrow morning, will vote to continue our dictatorship under McCain.
What's with the way that the CNN camera frames Obama in this clip? Why leave so much space above his head while a flashing chyron cuts off his chin? The shot is so poorly constructed that it smacks of intention.
uncle joe hussein mccarthy @ 61:
The nasties are here.
So what's the big deal. He hasn't decided yet, and said so. Why must we know immdiately? Our instant gratification generation needs to learn the value of patience. Good things take time: good decisions require much reflection.
As for Dems that threaten to vote McSame, I think it's rather like children thinking "they'll just kill themselves" to spite their parents. They rarely do.
[ UGHHH! check back on your other comment. Site Monitor]
Total and absolute bullshite. I think that Obama should have said: I don't even know if she wants to be on the ticket.
Change of topic alert...
I am personally watching Sebelius and McCaskill. Both have great potential women for President. Sebelius this go around would be a bold move... Another REALLY bold move would be Powell. (I know... but...) Course, I would like Richardson on the ticket. (He only HAS to do one debate!)
Likely choice might be Wesley Clark (white, military, male from Arkansas). He also presided over a successful military action. It's just he is a minor war criminal in my book (as is Bill Clinton).
Carry on...
Yeah, Obama has impressed me immensely ... he is bringin' it! THANK GOD!
thoughts... @ 131:
Please explain to me how you can call them war criminals?
Seems to me CNM (Corporate News Meia - formerly known as the MSM) is trying to pick Obama's running mate for him and us. I would hope he tells them (especially Candy Crowley) to go have another bowl of bonbons and leave the thinking and decision up to him.
If Obama takes Clinton on as VP he better have a food and drink taster / tester .
On Moyers tonight, three prestigious reporters discussed how the MSM have not admitted their roles in getting it wrong about Iraq. What I thought was VERY significant is that one reporter said that the very same people who were lying about Iraq and pushing the invasion are the very same people calling for us to bomb Iran: He went on to ask why these same people have been given a forum to articulate their lies about Iran given their history about Iraq. Speaking for myself, I notice that, in their reaction to McClellan's book, the New York Times, the infamous newspaper which sold Iraq via Judith Miller, only speaks of thre Bush administration "exaggerating" intelligence instead of using the word LYING, which McClellan uses. The NYT is garbage; It has no credibility anymore, and as we speak, is allowing the mostly Zionist drumbeat to bomb Iran.
BushEconomy @ 111:
I'm sorry to report that Ms. Richards has passed.
RIP Dorothy Ann Willis Richards (September 1, 1933 – September 13, 2006)
I think private would be a more appropriate than secret. He just didn't want media coverage, so what?
why can't these reporters dog for an answer when it's actually of value?
Tyler Durden @ 57:
So it all OK then, right?
Of course the Republican corporate news media wants Hillary as VP. That way, they can focus on manufactured personality conflicts between the 2 Democrats instead of covering the issues and John McSame in the 2008 GE. Does any Democrat really think these people care about the best team of Democrats to win? Or informing the voting public? The economy is in meltdown mode, this administration has committed war crimes.....and the most important issue to discuss is who Obama's choice for VP - RIGHT NOW! - is? They'd love to cram Hillary down Obama's throat...that way they can begin to question who's in charge and start the process of boosting his negatives to help the home team get back in the game.
Very very effective. He's making it easy for everyone to imagine him as the president.
I notice he didn't credit Al Gore for taking the VP selection process seriously enough.
mudshark @ 132:
Oh sorry, that's fair... I say minor, because the use of cluster bombing is now essentially banned by nearly every NATO country ... The Bosnian War is characterized by the use of cluster bombing... I want to remain fair. The choice to use cluster bombing was and remains wrong (maybe not criminal then.. but criminal now).
But... never fear... CLEARLY the current administration should be lined up and hung until their heads pop off.
Someone in that W administration committed treason (outing Plame) and should be shot via firing squad.
Someone in that W. administration committed war crimes against humanity and should be punished to death at the Hague.
I'm just saying, though relatively less impacting than the current crime-ridden scum of an administration, one stain on the Clinton administration for me was the decision to employ cluster bombs on a civilian population...
Hey... I'd still be happy if Obama selected Clark. And I say it again - I am REALLY impressed with Obama!
That all make sense?
This is only partially a press-driven story. The other side is, they've feeding the divide. The press loves a fight, and they love to provoke them so they get endless stories. The thing is, Obama's going about this about the right way: talking to Clinton backers, talking to Hillary, WITH NO PRESS. This is about relationships, after all. I think we'll end up with a vice president from the Clinton camp, but not necessarily Hillary. Wes Clark, maybe. Or some other person who stuck with Hillary, who is from a big state that we need to win.
And Hillary will end up being a big asset to the campaign, whether or not she's veep. She may not want it, secretly, anyway. Who wants to come in second? But she will do her best to get Obama elected. This will be big news for the demonizers, but then, you never were right about that. Hillary ran a winning campaign -- for 1998.
Did Candy Crowley really think, on her 5th try, that Obama would crack and say something like, "Yes, I have to put her on the ticket", a quote that would be front-page news the next day, and that she'd win a Pulitzer?
I just don't get why these cable news reporters hammer away at politicans who ALL know how to stick to their messages, in the 0.0001% hope that someone will somehow wilt under the pressure and make a "candid" comment. It never happens, and this endless dance is one of the most retarded, ass-backwards things about the modern media age.
mudshark @ 114:
Well, if that doesn't matter, then I want Paul Wellstone ;-)
nyguy @ 29:
Wtf?...read the comment again. He didn't say Clinton was trying to push Hillary as VP. Clinton says the media is biased against Hillary. The media is trying to push Hill as VP. Sheesh.
Obama met with Hillary at the BBG meeting (not at diane feinsteins another bbg member btw), a secret invite only event for rich elites and powerful international political players. A clear violation of the Logan Act.
Obama - Bloomberg
I think we all know where Obama REALLY went for his "secret meeting".
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bilderberg_meeting_attracts_prominent_poli...
BlueKnuckle @ 105:
Yep, which is why I said he dodged it intelligently.
He could have been more honest, by simply answering truthfully, "No, I don't have to put her on the ticket." But it wouldn't have been politically smart.
A salient point here is that all obfuscations are NOT created equal.
There's a HUGE difference, for example, between refusing to disclose one's exact thought process about a future decision, and refusing to answer factual questions regarding one's past behavior, as Karl Rove is doing with the Siegelman case.
Login or Register to post comments.