Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kennedy Says

From the diaries, jerome

Senator Ted Kennedy one of Senator Obama's prominent supporter told Bloomberg TV that Barack Obama isn't likely to pick rival Hillary Clinton as a running mate. He attributed this to the "tenor of the campaign".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200805 09/pl_bloomberg/adga8qsyojl0

``I don't think it's possible,'' Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt,'' airing this weekend. That is because of the ``tenor of the campaign'' in recent weeks, Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley said later.

Earlier Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House also dismissed the Dream ticket option.


It is clear that Obama surrogates are saying what he wouldn't say publicly.

Personally I think that is sad and potentially damaging for November General Election and for the party as I was hoping for Obama/Clinton ticket. But then that is my humble opinion and what do I know. Senator Kennedy and some of the party bosses are taking HRC supporters for granted which is a potential fault line for lot of women supporting HRC.

The prolonged battle between Obama and Clinton probably won't hurt the Democratic Party, Kennedy said. ``It's basically the divisions in terms of race and gender, and these involve people's emotions deeply,'' he said. ``Ultimately, the party is going to come together because they are so thirsty for victory.''

Tags: clinton, Dream Ticket, obama, Ted Kennedy (all tags)



So what do you think? Is Kennedy right?

by louisprandtl 2008-05-09 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: So what do you think? Is Kennedy right?

He may be right, but Obama will be making a huge mistake not to pick her (as she would be not to pick him).  Clinton supporters are not going to simply 'come around' and support him.

by slynch 2008-05-09 03:35PM | 0 recs
Kennedy is no stranger to acting against the

public interest in many areas.

He's probably still angry with Hillary for promoting a universal healthcare plan before he did in 1994.

(Kennedy is one of the politicians who ganged up together to help Jim Cooper derail it.)

by architek 2008-05-09 04:33PM | 0 recs
You are so right

and that isn't all he said:

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful," Kennedy said.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/9/1 7419/80068


What a slap in the face. I'd like to slap his.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-09 05:08PM | 0 recs
What a hypocrite

No kidding, after he contested a sitting Democratic President all the way to the convention, though he was 900 delegates behind, then after he lost pointedly refused to shake Carter's hand?  And Kennedy wants to complain about tenor?


by adrienne4dean 2008-05-09 06:06PM | 0 recs
why would any of her supporters

want her to be VP?

She could be a powerhouse in the Senate and could serve for 20 years or more.

As VP she would be cutting ribbons for Obama for a maximum of eight years, then what?

I don't even understand why HRC supporters would want her to leave the Senate under these circumstances.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-09 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of her supporters

 Exactly. Why would she go from potential SML, to second-banana to a guy who dosen't trust her any farther than he could throw her? Plus, Obama knows that Clinton as a part of his administration makes it into the Hill & Bill Show. He won't have her as Veep, he's going to need her too badly in the Senate, and her supporters need to FINALLY see the forest, as opposed to obsessing about every stunted tree...

by Kordo 2008-05-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of her supporters

No, we'll need her in the Senate just to keep President McCain in check, as the only way Obama gets into the WH is as a visitor.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-05-09 06:17PM | 0 recs
LOL...If Obama loses and she is deemed the reason.

after running her negative campaign and causing our party to become so divided, she will not have a job in Government period.  I admit you guys can cause Obama to lose at a time no Dem runner should...if you do you this...you also guarantee your girls future is history also.  

by netgui68 2008-05-09 07:14PM | 0 recs
She will be 'deemed' the reason no matter what

It's an easy out.  Win or lose - a good presidency or in the weeds - the fault will be hers as it was her husbands before her.  Let's all blame the Clintons!  It's what Republicans have been doing these last 8 years.  I can hardly believe Democrats and progressives are now ginning up to join them.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-09 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL...If Obama loses and she is deemed the rea

This is not going to have the kind results you desire.  People don't generally vote with you if you berate them.  Your stance isn't helpful.  

Sorry to inform you, even if they share your positions on something, nobody is obligated to vote for Obama just to keep you from losing.  That's an illogical, and frankly, undemocratic stance.

And, for the record, Obama ran a pretty negative campaign, too, and when he didn't, he simply had his surrogates do it for him.  If you're rational, I don't think you can hold onto this stance for too long.

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of her supporters

Well, you also guaranteed that the only way Obama would get on the ticket is as the VP, so color me unimpressed.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/18/1 73057/505/92#92

by Brannon 2008-05-09 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of her supporters

I do not think that she should stay in the Senate.  The best she could hope for would be majority leader and her "colleagues" will make sure that she never gets it.  I'm sure she'll serve out her term, but I'd like to see her run for NY Governor when the current term is up.

Then, when Obama implodes, which he will because he won't have Mommy to do his homework for him, she should run for President again.

Either that, or she should, dare I say it, leave the Democratic Party to the loonies and the intellectual cowards and finally form a VIABLE center left party with her supporters.

(I know, it's radical, but it's an idea so please don't flame me, I'm new!  :)  )

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 02:25AM | 0 recs
no, I don't

I think there is something else going on here... perhaps Kennedy and McGovern seen a little bit of themselves in Obama...you know, starting a movement, alienating the core democratic voters, and then dividing the party and losing the election.  So maybe they want OBama to vindicate them?   And if that is remotely a possibility, then it is truly selfish.

Kennedy is about Kennedy, thus I will take his "advice" under consideration.  I think we are really seeing the end of the democratic coalition that has sustained us for so long.

This voter will not "flock" to Obama, because my principles will not allow me to vote for him.  Just like my principles will not allow me to vote for McCain.  I'm staying home.  But who cares?  Ted Kennedy doesn't, neither does Brazile.

by 4justice 2008-05-09 03:56PM | 0 recs
I'm frankly baffled by Kennedy..his coming out

and supporting Senator Obama was fine with me. It was a critical moment that gave a huge boost to his campaign. But this one is baffling..but then Kennedy's opposition to Cape Wind is also baffling..

by louisprandtl 2008-05-09 04:04PM | 0 recs
me too

and then to go along with the line that the supers must not over turn the will of the people (MA went HRC).

I also thought it was interesting that none of Obama's supporters--especially Ted--came to his aid in recent weeks...

by 4justice 2008-05-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
I hate to say it but I agree with Rush

McGovern wants a dem to lose worse than he did so he can sleep well for eternity.

Kennedy is just a pompass ass.

by NewHampster 2008-05-09 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

It's the old democratic structure trying to keep control of the party-McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy Daschle. The ones that have brought electoral loser upon electoral loser to bear on the party.

I'm tired of voting for these losers. Let them crash and the new coalition of the working class, hispanics and women take over.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

couldn't be more articulate. I think some in the party find some virtue in losing. They feel like martyrs, because they've served mostly under Republican presidents, they're used to being on political defense. It's easy, because they still get the pork they want, and get re-elected

by DiamondJay 2008-05-09 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

And what principles are those? A Supreme Court that will ban abortion? Endless war in Iraq? Continued shift of wealth to the top 1%? How can anyone who supported either Clinton or Obama end up staying home?

by lsapadin 2008-05-09 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

I'm going out on another limb now and saying that it's time Democrats stopped hiding their heads about Roe v. Wade.  It's going out.  There's little we can do to stop that.  

And when you look at it coldly and rationally, it really should.  It was decided on completely the wrong precedent -- viability rather than right to privacy.  The rub is that, currently, we have a court that's fashioned with Bush appointees who see no "right to privacy" in the 4th Amendment.  That's not going to change, unless one Scalia gets hit by a cross town bus or something.  The mood of the court is currently leaning toward strict constructionist, those judicial fundies who don't believe that there's anything at all valuable in the concept that law is dynamic.  It's not long before they undo everything Warren-Berger ever did.  So, Roe v. Wade's gone.  It's not going to stay.

And Kennedy's just a dick.  He'll vote with who he perceives the "cool kids" are.  (Both Kennedy's are, when you come to think about it -- the Justice AND the Senator!)  

Choice is a hot button issue for me.  It's personal.  So, I think it's time that women and men who believe strongly in this issue stopped depending upon the Court to do our work for us and  decided that it's time to give those Bush appointees no wiggle room or doubt about what our "intent" is -- let's grow a pair and push for a Constitutional Amendment either guaranteeing the right of people to choose their own reproductive destinies.  Hell, let's go one better than that and push for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy, broad as that sounds (and it is.)  A President Obama should be willing to sign that, as I'm sure a President Clinton would.  

Ratification would be another climb, but, it was also a big climb when women got the right to vote in the first place.  I just think that, if we want to eventually prevail, we should work to take the Court out of the equation.

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

Let me get this. YOU would choose to NOT vote for a Democrat if your candidate doesn't get in?  Way to go to helping us change the bad course this country has been on.  You don't have to campaign for Obama, or send him a donation, or even vote for him-- just vote the Dem ticket.  It's thinking like yours that is hurting this party.

FYI, I was an early voter for Hillary in CA.  I now see the writing on the wall.  She won't be prez or vp.  But, I'm not gonna hurt the party because my choice didn't get in (geez, it's like taking your toys and going home!).  Get over it!

by citizensane 2008-05-09 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

I will not vote for Obama.  I am a Reagan democrat.  I actually am a registered democrat but I agree with republicans on some issues.  The ones that Obama called bitter people.  I believe in the 2nd amendment.  I believe in god and do not like what Obama and his pastor believes in. I do not agree in Obama's health plan, it would leave out to many people.  I just do not agree with Obama.  You do not talk to your enemys.  On to many things between Obama and McCain, I agree with McCain this year.

by kmr1964 2008-05-09 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: no, I don't

I don't think this kind of crap is very helpful.  It's generally not a good idea to beat up people who you perceive you need to help you reach a goal.  Leave that to the Republicans.  On any front, we should be listening to what people have to say, and if they choose to vote in a way we don't agree with, we need to respect their choice even if we don't agree with them.

Maybe a person who would vote for Hillary but won't vote for Obama doesn't agree with Obama on issues that Hillary presented to them in another light.  I personally can't stand Obama because I think he's lying about his stance on the war.  When the war came, I knew was lying.  I was angry at the Democrats who voted for it for doing so, but with hindsight, I really can't say that I would have voted any differently if I'd been in the position they were in at the time -- a position in which the interals told that that they could lose Congress permanently to the Republicans who would have painted their decision as irresponsible at best or traitorous at worst.   And I believe whole-heartedly that Obama would have voted to authorize the Iraq invasion if he had been in the Senate at the time, no matter what he says, because his current voting record supports that logic.  So, in this instance, I agree with Hillary, and I think Obama's lying.  That's an area where Hillary says something I agree with and Obama doesn't.

Therefore, I don't agree with this "traitor to the Party" stance at all.  Tribal mentality is much of what's wrong with political parties in the first place.  I mean, the Republicans got some place with it, but then they sold all their moderates out to the fundies and the Grover Norquists of the world and ended up having to consistently pander to those groups.  Now they're screwed.  Not a good place to be currently, wouldn't you say because eventually those people want you to deliver something and they'll hold you responsible if you don't.  So, I'm a little more pragmatic about the whole issue than that.  

Liberals, of which I'm generally one, talk a lot about voting their consciences but, lately, when push has come to shove, have recently been acting very much like Republicans and seem to be taking the "you're either with us or against us" tack and it will bite us in our collective asses eventually, just like it bit them.  

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 03:07AM | 0 recs
why would you ever put

someone with 45 to 50 % negatives on your ticket unless you had to?

She drives the republican base to the polls and scares off independents.

by responsible 2008-05-09 04:28PM | 0 recs
Ted Kennedy knows not of victory n/t

by activatedbybush 2008-05-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
Here is what else he had to say
"If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful..." Kennedy's opinion on all matter politics means about this much ( . ) to me. He can kiss my Clinton supporting ass.
by linc 2008-05-09 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Here is what else he had to say

You found the real money quote.  The good old boys club is at it again.  

Real Leadership = penis.

by mtnspirit 2008-05-09 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Here is what else he had to say

You're way out of bounds here.  Kennedy's comments have nothing to do with Hillary's gender.  They have EVERYTHING to do with the negative tactics employed by her campaign.

Can you imagine the media asking the VP candidate "Well, you said McCain had passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, so do you think Obama has now, since you're his VP?"

SHE has made HERSELF unacceptable in a supporting role for Obama.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 03:51PM | 0 recs
Oh, get over it
that wouldn't be question and you know it. Like Obama's 'more of the same' bullshit wasn't just as bad.
by linc 2008-05-09 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, get over it

My point is, she has publicly and ferociously been undermining him for months...if you think it wouldn't be a big media distraction, you're deluding yourself.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 04:01PM | 0 recs
The hell she has

She said that one frickin' time.  It's the Obamasphere that's magnified it * one google gazillion, which was kind of a curious thing to do if it was supposed to be so allfired damaging and stuff.  She rode him pretty hard about his "bitter" comments for about three days, and other than she's been quite gentle.

You're going to see ferocious soon, and when you do you'll realize that Hillary wasn't it.

by Trickster 2008-05-09 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The hell she has

I fully expect McCain to trash Obama and run a tough campaign...but he's also probably not suited to be Obama's VP.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 04:42PM | 0 recs
It's called running for election

When you run for election you make the case for yourself and against the other guy.  

Obama has done the same.  Why is it that it's okay for Obama to differentiate himself from Clinton but when Clinton does it she's evil?

by lisadawn82 2008-05-09 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: It's called running for election

It's perfectly OK to draw distinctions and attack an opponent, it's another thing if you then want to be that person's running mate.

They even touched on this on the "West Wing".

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 09:00PM | 0 recs
Oh yes, the west wing
THATs where we should all be getting our political knowledge, from a popular fiction television series completely based on... fiction.
by linc 2008-05-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is what else he had to say

So, she didn't bow down and kiss his ass, right?  Yeah, she did what every male politician has done for time in memoriam and she went negative.  Here's a clue -- so would have Obama had he not had a media largely gave him a bye.  

Did you call the Obamites for going negative on her?  Have you step out to call out the media for their OBVIOUSLY biased coverage?

That's just a tad naive.

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Ed Rendel!  Ed Rendel!

by Drummond 2008-05-09 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Stop with the snark already.

Haha, everyone knows the joke already:

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-09 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

he should pick whoever he wants, and Hillary supporters should respect that decision.

with that said, STFU Ted

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-09 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

I agree.  I don't want her to run with him.  I don't think that he deserves to lean on her experience. When he snarkily told her that he'd consult her, much to the delight of his limp-brained supporters, she should have shot back, "Yeah, and you'll pretty much HAVE to consult me, Barry, you're wholly unqualified to do it on your own."  

I think he should lean back on the laurels and talents of people like Kennedy and Kerry and all the other "LIMO" -- aka "Liberal In Name Only" or limousine liberal, take your pick -- jerks who supported him when he can't do his Presidental homework by himself.

She's too talented and smart to be relegated to funerals and ribbon cutting ceremonies.  So, let Obama be Obama and PROVE to us that he can govern.  

I'd like to see her run for NY Governor and then run again in the future.

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 03:53AM | 0 recs
F**K Kennedy

Kennedy really really irks me. Hillary doesn't have "real leadership"? I'm tired of the "boys club" opioning on what "real leadership" is. The only thing I know is that Kennedy doesn't have it, and never will. RETIRE, Teddy boy!

by zcflint05 2008-05-09 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: F**K Kennedy

It has nothing to do with the boys club, it's her negative campaigning against Obama.  It would undermine the ticket to have your candidate's greatest doubter in the VP slot.

That being said I defy you to find me ANY senator with a better record of leadership than Ted Kennedy.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: F**K Kennedy

There is no Senator with a better or lengthier legislative record than Ted Kennedy.  He is called the Liberal Lion for a reason... He is a true champion for Liberal causes.

It's a shame he had to endorse anyone though... I hate watching him get trashed on progressive blogs worse than Conservative ones...  

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:01PM | 0 recs
Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy has been one of the most progressive voices in Congress for a very long time.

Then there is this:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches /ekennedytributetorfk.html

One of the great speeches.  One of the worst moments, future changing, and creating a cloud of despair that has hung over the political lives  of many of my generation for a very long time.

"F**k you Kennedy" offends me from Republicans but I might expect it.  

This is probably stupid and sappy, but it is 40 years next month and it is still raw.

by mady 2008-05-09 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy

If I could mojo you to the moon and back I would...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy

Thanks.  First campaign I ever took part in, and my college graduation was on the night he was dying.  He was something else.

by mady 2008-05-09 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy

Most definitely...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:15PM | 0 recs

No...Obama needs to be able to exercise his judgment and pick the VP that he thinks will be best for success in November.

Hillary Clinton is simply not that candidate.

by wengler 2008-05-09 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No

You're right.  She should be president.  But in lieu of that, there are 49.5% of the democratic electorate out there that probably don't agree with you...me being one.

by mtnspirit 2008-05-09 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No

So you are saying that the only way to placate Hillary supporters and bring them back into the fold is to make her VP?

by wengler 2008-05-09 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Yeah, I'd say that. Obama will not win if Hillary is not on the ticket.  His campaign has significantly alienated a large number of Hillary supporters, and not just in the blogosphere.

by slynch 2008-05-09 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I think he should do everything he needs to do to get her supporters back into the fold short of making her VP then.

by wengler 2008-05-09 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No

His campaign has alienated a significant portion of her supporters? Uhm, no, SHE has gone so negative on him that her supporters have followed suit and gone negative on him.

Notice that Obama supporters would support a Clinton campaign FAR more than Clinton supporters? Why is that? Because Obama hasn't hit her below the belt like she's hit him.

When you have the head of the campaign saying he cannot win, he is unelectable, and he isn't ready to be president, even less so than the republican, do you honestly believe that won't filter down to the supporters?

by Yalin 2008-05-09 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I don't think you've been paying attention at all this entire primary season.  He has been just as negative as she has.  "same old story."  "a liar." "will do anything to win."  etc. etc.

I could just as easily say the reason Obama supporters would support her at a greater rate than her supporters will support him is exactly because HIS campaign has been more negative.  That's why her supporters are bitter enough not to vote for him.

by slynch 2008-05-09 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: No

See, you've used this same canard before. In a prior back and forth you questioned how old I was as if to say I'm just some young whippersnapper who doesn't know any better. And I responded that I would never question how old you are and if you're wearing depends and eating prunes because you support Hillary Clinton.

It's really stupid, and you need to stop.

I've been paying attention to politics in general very hard for years, and I've followed this race on a day-in, day-out way.

As for the "same old story", "will do anything to win", "a liar" (when did Obama say that hmm?), it is the truth. She has proven that with her shifting reasons for being more electable, her shifting reasons why she's actually ahead in the math. Her shifting idea of which states actually count, etc etc etc.

She has proven that she WILL do anything to win. And the Clinton's and their drama and scandals ARE the same old story of politics. I don't want to deal with their psychodrama and pathologies again for 8 years. Good god no.

Lastly, the reason why Obama's supporters would support her more than her supporters would support him is because he has not been as negative against her as she has been toward him. He has never EVER said that McCain is qualified to be President, but she isn't. He has never EVER said that she cannot win.

And he has never EVER said that black people will not vote for her should she be the nominee, as she has said white people will not vote for her.

And so forth and so on.

by Yalin 2008-05-09 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I didn't say you were young here--I said you weren't paying attention.  Try reading before you reply to comments.  And, get the chip off your shoulder.

I'm not wasting any more of my time with you, because you clearly believe what you want to and twist "facts" to suit yourself, or you just have a very selective memory.  All of this is bunk.   For example, Clinton did not say whites wouldn't vote for him.  She said she was ahead with the white vote.  That's a different argument, but you strive to twist anything you can against Clinton while ignoring Obama's nastiness.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) You did say so in an earlier comment. Start here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/1/12 496/92357/101#101

You said that Obama supporters are just young and inexperienced, blah blah blah.

2) Clinton's words:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.


In other words, the pattern is that white americans don't vote for Obama. That her base is wider because they will vote for her, but not him.

And quite frankly, it's intellectually dishonest because it ignores the states where he has beaten her in the white vote, which is practically all of the ones he has won.

by Yalin 2008-05-10 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No

Ah, Yalin, I'm beginning to like you for your spunk, even if I disagree with you.

1) I did say that earlier to you, but not here.

2) I think her choice of words was unfortunate (because they can be twisted), but it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.  In fact, you quote her, and then you say "in other words..."  Don't put words in her mouth.  It's true that whites with less than a college education support her in greater numbers.  It's also true that the vast majority of blacks support him.  Unfortunately for him, a smaller portion of white, blue collar votes translates into a larger proportion of the electorate than a larger proportion of black voters, because of the difference in the size of the base populations to which the proportions apply.  Pointing this out isn't racist, even if it isn't necessarily true in every state (to be honest, I haven't sat and calculated).  It's yet again an example of the media and others (i.e., Obama supporters) trying to paint Hillary as a racist, and it's what makes HRC supporters dislike Obama.

by slynch 2008-05-10 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) Saying it in this thread or saying it in another thread was never the point of contention. It was the fact that you said it.

2) Obama is pulling the same percentage of white less educated voters that Bill Clinton got in the 90s and John Kerry and Gore got in the 00's.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that all of a sudden it's a problem now because it's Obama.

And again, the Clinton campaign has been doing this kind of racially charged campaigning all along, whether it's Bill Clinton calling Obama just another Jesse Jackson in South Carolina or this.

And quite frankly, if Obama said that Hillary cannot get the hard working americans, black americans, there'd be a firestorm coming from the Clinton campaign AND her supporters.

Why? Because it's wrong. You don't say crap like that.

It has NO redeeming value whatsoever.

by Yalin 2008-05-11 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1.  Go back and read your OP here--you claim I'm making a comment about your age here.  I wasn't.  If you are now claiming that you were simply referencing an earlier post by me in refuting this one, that's a bizarre way to carry on a discussion, isn't it?  Criticizing something I said before doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying now!

2.  Again, you've put words in HRC's mouth, and you refuse to address that.  She pointed-out that she is winning the white vote, a simple fact.  So all of this line of response is irrelevant.  You've built a strawman.

Obama and his supporters have been as guilty of race-baiting as HRC.  You just won't admit it.  So, your self-righteous attitude about it is unjustified.  And, using an argument about what you speculate the response would be if the tables were turned...not a logically valid argument.  Again, it's also a strawman.  

But, I do agree with you about the fact that saying what you're trying to claim she said (he can't get the white vote because he's black) would be wrong to say.

by slynch 2008-05-11 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) You've never heard of an allusion?

2) I'm not the one who's built the strawman. Hillary Clinton is the one who did that by arguing that Obama's white support is weakening again (it isn't) and by deductive reasoning that he CANNOT win that white vote and that is why she is more electable. She has the broader base and therefore should get the democratic nomination.

There is implicit and explicit argumentation that she should be the nominee because he cannot do what she is doing, i.e. win over white voters. There is no other argument she can make other than this when it comes to her electability vs his.

This is deductive reasoning 101.

by Yalin 2008-05-11 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Btw, read this and look in particular at the #s of white support: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment /columnists/andrew_sullivan/article39072 39.ece

by Yalin 2008-05-11 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) I know very well what allusion is, but I have no idea what you're talking about.  My claim was that you haven't been paying attention.  Your response was that I've used the argument that you're young before (true) and I should stop it.  
But, I wasn't making that argument--age (at least past childhood) has nothing to do with attention-paying.

2)  The fact remains that she did not say anything racist.  To point out that she is winning the white vote is not a racist statement--it is a statement of fact.

Now, is it, in fact, a fact?  That's really immaterial, but from the numbers I've seen, and from which she was using, she is winning the white vote.  Doesn't matter whether he's doing as well as BC did. That's not the issue.

As for Andrew Sullivan, please.  Talk about someone who's intellectually dishonest.  He hates the Clintons with a passion and write bs about them routinely.

by slynch 2008-05-11 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) The argument you've made before is that obama supporters are young and have not been paying attention to the process before this. That we're only whining because we're not getting everything we want now and as quick as possible.

Your words.

2) Winning more of the support of white voters in a primary contest between two DEMOCRATS is not an argument about fall electability. It means that people prefer one over the other between two DEMOCRATS. It makes no bearing as to whether or not that translates to the fall.

And yet that is the argument she's been making for her own electability. Look at me everyone! I can win whites in a democratic primary and he can't do it as well as I can! Therefore I should be the nominee because this performance will translate in the fall!

It is totally playing the race card and it is totally intellectually dishonest when one considers Bill Clinton's own support levels with white blue collar voters.

And at the end, it IS wrong to make white vote support your electability argument. I haven't seen Obama saying that blacks won't vote for Clinton should she be the nominee and that you need 85-95% of black support with high turnout to even have a prayer of electing a democratic president.

That's the flip side of Clinton's argument, and it's just as wrong to use as an argument in this as Clinton's is.

by Yalin 2008-05-11 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) not my words before, but also not in this thread, so again, you're barking up the wrong tree here.  why don't you just admit it?  I didn't say anything about age in this thread.  And, in the very first thread that I said something akin to what you're claiming but not quite. (can't remember exactly though, might be going senile).

2) Yalin, not every argument you disagree with is "intellectually dishonest."  I've seen you use that expression about half a dozen times today in various threads, and it's really just ad hominem.

It is debatable, when half of her supporters say they will not vote for him, whether her white support will translate into white support for him.  I maintain this is not a racist statement to point this out.  Also, it is irrelevant whether Obama has made the argument.  Of course, it isn't quite as good of an argument, because your numbers are way, way off.  Black turnout tends to be low in elections, and Democrats do not need 85-90% of that demographic to win.

by slynch 2008-05-11 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) "It's simply frustrating some of the younger Obama supporters because they are impatient and aren't getting their way, IMO."

Just as I've said. :)

2) Much of the argument for Clinton winning the democratic nomination is in fact intellectually dishonest. Whether it's shifting the goalposts of what it means to be the nominee or changing the metrics or using arguments that fall flat on their face with just a touch of logic applied to them, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Calling it as it is isn't an ad hominem.

Also, do you know what the #s were from Dean supporters who said they wouldn't vote for Kerry if he were the nominee, but voted for Kerry anyway?

Additionally, it was half of her supporters in a couple of states, not nationally. Nationally it's about 30% of her supporters and about 20% of Obama's supporters.

Much of that has to do with the negative campaigning of this primary and will melt away once Obama is the nominee and Clinton is working her arse off for him.

Lastly, no democratic president has won since the 60s without 85-95% of black support.

Why? Because of the dwindling white vote. Carter was the last democrat to garner near 50% of the white vote. Bill Clinton got about 40%, which is what Gore got and only a little more than Kerry got.

The only thing that gave Clinton his wins was Perot taking 18% in 1992 and 12% in 1996. Clinton didn't garner a majority vote in either election.

Blacks have been the most loyal and largest block vote for the democratic party for decades. If blacks do not turn out in enormous numbers in key states for democrats, the democrats do not win. That much is proven by statistical history.

Black voters made up 11% of the voting electorate in 2004, and that has significantly increased this cycle.

by Yalin 2008-05-11 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) like I said, not my words, but something like it.  Again, though, there was nothing about this in this thread to prompt your initial response.

2) what you fail to see here is that this is simply a matter of your opinion.  I do not see it as intellectually dishonest.  Instead, I see the repeated use of strawmen by Obama supporters as intellectually dishonest.  And it is so very very prevalent that there are common phrases/names for them.  Like "moving the goal posts."  There has been no "goal-post moving."  It has always been about getting the most delegates, but given that neither will get enough pledged delegates, it is a valid argument to use the popular vote to sway superdelegates to align with Clinton.  I mean, geez, is it not a common meme among BO folks to talk about the "will of the people?"  The best metric of that is the popular vote.  

Another common strawman is the "she'll do anything to win" bit.  She's never said that.  No one in her campaign has said that.  And, her campaign hasn't done it. It's simply made up and then ruthlessly attacked by you guys and used as the basis to justify hateful language and poor behavior on your part.  That's true intellectual dishonesty.

As for the rest of it, I'm too tired to keep this up, but it's clear that we're comparing apples and oranges here.  Black registration is lower than white registration.  Election turnout of registered voters is comparable between blacks and whites--it actually goes back and forth.  Consider this--blacks constitute about 13% of the US population, and yet they constitute less than 10% of all those who vote in most elections (not sure where you got 11%, but my source covering multiple years shows less; doesn't matter though).  The point is, yes, they are an important block, but they are a relatively small block compared to whites.  You can win without black support, but you cannot win without white support (your post 1960 comparison is somewhat bogus--there have only been two democrats elected since then).  Part of the reason is that you cannot look at this at a national level.  Instead, you have to look at swing states.  There are only a couple of swing states that have enough blacks to tip an election--Ohio being one.  Anyway, this is to say that it is not intellectually dishonest to argue that whomever can draw the white vote is a better candidate.  You can argue with the validity, but it is absolutely not intellectually dishonest.  I mean, hell, my colleagues and I discuss these issues (I'm an academic).  Are you calling all of us intellectually dishonest because we make these same sort of arguments?  You really should try attacking the substance of arguments rather than dismissing them as intellectually dishonest--that is exactly what ad hominem is.

by slynch 2008-05-11 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) LOL. So unless your words are 100% exactly as I've stated, you're off the hook eh? Hilarious.

No wonder you're a Clinton supporter. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...."


2) You sir are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Trying to make it so is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

by Yalin 2008-05-12 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No

1) I'm actually agreeing with you about what I said--as I said, my words were something like what you were saying, but not exactly (and I couldn't remember exactly how it was phrased).  I stand by what I said, but it isn't an issue here.

What you continue to ignore is my repeated statement that what I said in a previous thread is irrelevant to the current thread.  

Oh, and I am not a Clinton supporter.  If you look at my comment history, you'll find that I spend the bulk of my time here defending her against ridiculous attacks.  But, personally, I think the party has made a drastic mistake letting both of these candidates get this far.  Both are, I think, decent Democrats (although neither are really progressive), but neither are politically viable.  The GOP will eat them alive.  I think HRC would have a slightly better chance of winning than BO, but I'd give them both less than 45%, as have/would the vast majority of my political science, economics, and sociology colleagues.

2) Actually, I would argue that people aren't entitled to their own 'public' opinion, not when it affects other people.  But, again, you haven't addressed the issue here.  The fact is that it is numerically possible to win without the black vote, but it is numerically impossible to win without the white vote.  There is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing that out.  And, historically, white working class voters have been relatively fickle, moreso than black voters.  Consider the whole "what's the matter with Kansas" thesis (which, by the way, is completely wrong in many, but not all ways).  All this is to say, again, that Clinton's statement was factually correct and logically arguable.  It wasn't intellectually dishonest.  People can disagree without one person being an underhanded, conniving opponent.

by slynch 2008-05-12 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I'm pretty certain Black persons vote a higher turnout rate than any other demographic group in terms of persons able to vote.  Of course there is a high non-registered number too.

in 2004 Kerry lost Ohio in large part because Bush won 18% of the Black vote...while against Bush he only won 10%.  Bush did this via his ballot initiatives on Gay Marriage.  That 8% shift was enough to turn Ohio to Bush.

by cardboard 1 2008-05-11 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No

demographic group was the wrong term there... was going for racial group

by cardboard 1 2008-05-11 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No

black turnout for registered voters is about the same as for other groups (it changes election to election), but registration numbers are lower than for other groups.

by slynch 2008-05-11 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No

One thing that he has not said is that McCain is more qualified to be president than she is.

by Brannon 2008-05-09 09:41PM | 0 recs
What are you

going to do when Hillary glowingly endorses Obama (as she undoubtedly will)?

Call "bullshit" on your candidate or realize your candidate is more mature than you are?

by responsible 2008-05-09 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What are you

I'm hide rating your post because you have no business discussing my maturity.  You don't know me, so take your comment and shove it.

I'm not talking about what I'm doing.  I'm talking about Hillary supporters in general.  Half won't vote for him.  I don't think it will matter whether she comes out and endorses him.  Her supporters aren't sheep.

by slynch 2008-05-09 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: What are you

dabbled a bit in immaturity with the shove it comment....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What are you

no, I think that's an appropriate response.  

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:22PM | 0 recs
Supreme Court

Tell you what: Don't vote for Obama in the GE, because he "alienated" (whatever that means) Hillary supporters. When president McCain's Supreme Court justices are busy tearing up Roe vs. Wade before moving on to the Bill of Rights, "immature" will probably be the nicest thing people will be calling  you.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

That argument is a canard. The Dems will have more than enough members to block anything McCain wants to do, and if they don't, then the Democratic Party is no longer worth supporting.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-05-09 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

Congratulations, you get an HR. The site is MyDD. We're here to get democrats elected. If you're not here to get democrats elected, then kindly get lost. If you feel your bruised feelings are worth gambling the supreme court, kindly get lost. We're not here to make you feel better about backing a losing candidate, we're here to get democrats elected.

Read the name of the site, and get lost, troll.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

congratulations, you get an HR for abusing the rating system.  You TR'd my comment above, which had absolutely no reason for being TR'd at all, and you TR'd this comment, which again, you did simply because you didn't agree with it.  

Now, I suggest you either follow the rules or YOU get lost.

by slynch 2008-05-10 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

if you don't know the word "alienated," look it up.  Or, better yet, take a look at your own comment here as well as those of other Obama supporters denigrating Clinton supporters.  Then you might understand it.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

I know what "alienated" means. I don't know on what basis the OP claims to be "alienated," nor do I much care. I also don't see where I denigrated Clinton supporters - but I did denigrate anyone stupid and immature enough to consider voting for McCain.

When your grandchildren ask you why you let the supreme court reverse Roe v. Wade, you tell them "Obama's campaign significantly alienated a large number of Hillary supporters!" I'm sure they'll understand. Or perhaps, you could find some maturity and vote for the Democrat in the GE. It's your choice.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court

The fact that half of Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama in the GE, and some 15% or so will vote for McCain, is proof enough that they're alienated from Obama.  Now, the reasons vary, but I'm sure you're familiar with them.  For example, how about Obama's DIRECT statements that she will say and do anything to get elected.  How about his DIRECT statements that she's part of the problem in Washington (as if he's not part of the same system).  How about his DIRECT praise of Reagan and denigration of Bill Clinton, the most popular president in modern history--and I might add, the obvious misogyny involved in that statement; as if she's simply an extension of her husband.

You don't help matters--in fact, you're asking to be HR'd and even banned--for calling 15% of the Democrats in the electorate "immature."  That may be your opinion, but that's not addressing the concerns of Clinton supporters, and it certainly isn't helping "Democrats to get elected," which, as you point out, is the purpose of the site.  So, it's ironic that you expect to be able to TR individuals for pointing this out but think you're somehow not engaging in the same behavior.

by slynch 2008-05-10 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What are you

If you are going off of Indiana exit polls, then be aware that 12% of her "supporters" wouldn't vote for her either. 12% of people who voted for her in Indiana said in exit polls that they would vote for McCain over her in the GE.

Both Clinton and Obama get 70% of the Indiana Dem primary voters in the GE, and 6% of the primary voters wouldn't vote for either of them in the GE. If we drop the not actually Dem 6%, we are left with roughly 75% of Dem primary voters saying they will vote for the Dem in the GE. For a hard fought primary, those aren't bad numbers, and they will improve substantially by the GE (they would for Clinton too, if she were to become the nominee).

by letterc 2008-05-09 09:37PM | 0 recs
well, we know it will be just words

you know, what a politician has to do.

She'll support him, I have no doubt.  Just might not be as vocal as you want her to be about it.

by 4justice 2008-05-09 04:41PM | 0 recs
Do you care that HRC has alienated

African-Americans? We are the base of the party you know.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you care that HRC has alienated

A/A, women, Latinos and working class voters. But if you want to represent the A/A as strictly the base, let's see if that 13% of the population gets Obama over the finish line all by themselves.

Didn't you remember there's no "I" in "team"?

by SoCalHillMan 2008-05-09 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you care that HRC has alienated

AA's aren't actually the base of the party.  More than 50% of registered voters are Democrat.  Less than 13% of the entire US population is AA.  Even if AA's were all Democrat (which they aren't), they would be a minority of Democrats.  

It is a mistake for either candidate to think they can win the election without the support of the other's support base.  The continued nastiness of Obama supporters will cost him this election.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Actually, just in the blogosphere.  Real world polls keep saying the contrary.  The country's bigger than a thread on Taylormarsh.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No

um, no they don't.  The exit polls in NC showed 50% of HRC supporters won't support Obama in the election.  Those aren't just blog folks.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I believe that the sooner the inevitable is a done deal (Obama the nominee) the sooner we can start healing as a party.  Don't underestimate yourself or others in the Dem party.  We want victory too much to turn our back on our nominee.  We'll have about 5 months to lick our wounds and get over it.  Hopefully, some of us will have a turn of opinion and actually offer our service as well as our vote to the Dem nominee.  (FYI, I was an early voter in CA for Hillary).  But winning the WH back is far too important for me to have a hissy fit and stay home.
I hope others will have a "come to the Party" moment and do the same.

These blogs could help start the healing.  Rather than reading mopey diaries, I'd like to see Jerome and Taylor set the example and start leading our party to unity.  Then, maybe the main stream media will follow.  God knows, they can't take the initiative themselves.

by citizensane 2008-05-09 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Sorry the party is not healing this year.  I am one of those that have voted republican before and I will be voting McCain this fall.

by kmr1964 2008-05-09 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No
The dead and mutilated in iraq will thank you for your noble stand.
by mikeinsf 2008-05-19 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: No

and the problem is that the other part of the electorate - the over 60% that is not registered Democrat - overwhelmingly can't stand Hillary.

Get over it.

She lost.  Clinton is the past.  Obama is the future.  He needs to choose someone who is a break from the past and can help create a new future.  Hillary is just not that person.

by passionateprogressive 2008-05-09 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I don't have anything to get over.  I'm not a Hillary supporter, nor am I an Obama supporter.  So, enough with the "get over it." You certainly are among those who aren't helping matters.

The last poll showed that Obama and HRC were separated by 1 point in their negative ratings.  So, you're just making shit up here.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I'm sorry, kiss my what?

by mtnspirit 2008-05-14 11:10AM | 0 recs
Ah, Obama's unity.

That will help unite the party.

Anyoo, time for Obama to do another unity speech.

That is his leadership.

by gotalife 2008-05-09 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

people stated that JFK wouldn't pick LBJ.

but he did.  LBJ was given the flag for civil rights, and he ran with it; twisting his own party's arms to get that bill passed.  LBJ did that - against his own party's self-interest, but for the people of America

no matter what happened in Vietnam, you cannot take that away from LBJ.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-09 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Direct historical comparisons are always silly. Far too many factors at play.

by grass 2008-05-09 04:23PM | 0 recs
I have officially decided
I will only vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket. Period.  You can call me any name you like. I have my reasons, and as an American it is my choice.  I will not vote for McCain.  I will abstain.
This whole process has really turned me off to the "Ted Kennedy" wing of the Democratic Party.  It is truly truly sad for me, but that's how I feel, and I pray that something will bring my heart back to the party.  I don't know what it is.  I have lost so many things that I used to love due to their hatred of the Clintons, and I find it to be so ELITIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I hate to use the buzz word-but that's how I feel.  Crazy coming from someone in "The Business" in Hollywood huh?  Don't ask me how this happened, but it happened.
Too much information huh?  Sorry, venting.
by easyE 2008-05-09 03:40PM | 0 recs
I hate to say it, but

you sound like McCain is the one for you.

Go for it!

by Kobi 2008-05-09 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say it, but

try reading the post before you comment.

by slynch 2008-05-09 03:58PM | 0 recs
your threats

are meaningless.  90% of Hillary's supporters will be on board.  Keep threatening people and you will keep losing relevance.

Those threats to the superdelegates really worked huh?

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-05-09 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: your threats

well, sadly- not a threat.  who would I be threatening that matters?  You?  I was venting, in a place that I like to vent about this stuff.  As I said in my comment, attack me if you like. I'm just being honest.  

by easyE 2008-05-09 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: your threats

I am sorry this country is not as important to you as your emotions.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: your threats

exactly what makes you think that?  All the polls show that not to be the case, so it sounds like you're just engaged in magical thinking.

by slynch 2008-05-09 03:59PM | 0 recs
no the polls don't; they show how people feel now

this is a common phenomenon.  once hillary comes out and glowingly endorses Obama, most of her supporters will come back to the fold, probably even you.

by responsible 2008-05-09 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

I'm not a Hillary supporter.  I'm an Edwards supporter, and I don't care much for Obama.

It is not a "common phenomenon;"  this is nothing more than speculation.  But, I challenge you to show me evidence justifying your view.

by slynch 2008-05-09 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

One piece of evidence supporting this view is another Edwards supporter who now supports Obama, namely Edwards himself...

by zadura 2008-05-09 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

unless I missed something, Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama.  He simply said he was the likely nominee.  I can say that also, but it doesn't make me a supporter.

Again, you haven't shown me any evidence that people are somehow lying about their intention not to support Obama in November.  Just speculation and an anecdotal case that isn't even true.

by slynch 2008-05-09 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

Uh, well, he admitted on Morning Joe (Scarborough) that he voted for Obama in the NC primary.  But, hey, just because he did doesn't mean you have to.

by zadura 2008-05-09 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

he has refused to say for whom he voted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN ews/idUSN0947762520080509

also, I don't need your approval to vote for whomever I choose.  Try taking a less condescending tone in your posts.

by slynch 2008-05-09 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

You fight the facts - I fight back.

by zadura 2008-05-10 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: no the polls don't;

that's nice, but still, where's his endorsement?

by slynch 2008-05-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Did you watch the interview?

He said that he did vote in the N.C. primary, IF he endorsed it would be for the one that he voted for, but refused to say which one he voted for even after being asked several times. He jokingly refused to answer whether he and Elizabeth voted for the same person. He praised HRC effusively, and then included BO in the praise as an afterthought. How can you state as fact that he voted for Barack Obama?

by georgiapeach 2008-05-10 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: your threats
Actually the majority of Hillary voters aren't going to be on board. This is the problem:
Obama and his supporters assume that they can continue to attack her supporters and call them names and then expect them to vote for Obama. Besides, Obama has huge electoral problems that he seems unable to correct.
by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: your threats

I totally agree with you 100%

by kmr1964 2008-05-09 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

I'll vote for the democrat, but I won't lift one finger more unless I see Hillary on the ballot.

by mtnspirit 2008-05-09 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

That's ok. You could use a break. There are plenty of others to take up the slack.

by Kobi 2008-05-09 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

So glad to know the Obama fan club is giving Hillary's supporters the big brush off.  Now I know better than to even waste my vote.

by mtnspirit 2008-05-09 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

Not giving you the brush off, but if you choose to sit on your butt rather than fight for Democratic principles, you will be left behind.

by zadura 2008-05-09 05:22PM | 0 recs
why do you want her to be VP?

Don't you see that she could accomplish much more by remaining in the Senate?

We are going to need strong leadership in the Senate. If Obama gets by McCain, what makes you think he would give his VP significant power anyway?

You would want Hillary to give up a Senate seat to cut ribbons? I do not get that at all.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

"I will only vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket. "

What would you have done in a Obama-vs-McCain matchup, if the Clintons had never existed or if Hillary Clinton had never become interested in politics?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided
And there are people responding to this post who are calling Teddy Kennedy selfish?
by spirowasright 2008-05-09 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided
And there are people responding to this post who are calling Teddy Kennedy selfish?
by spirowasright 2008-05-09 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

The guy from a single parent household goes to school on grants and scholarships, works in the streets of Chicago for peanuts, makes good on a bid for the state legislature, makes good again on a bid for federal legislature, and then takes on a political machine that succeeded in making one president already, has all of the name recognition, and all of the fundraising expertise, and which has lined up over a hundred super delegates before Iowa even votes.  He ends up with the upper hand against a contender so entitled and so ahead of the game with so many advantages as to embrace inevitability as their original campaign strategy and somehow HE is the elitist?!


by lockewasright 2008-05-09 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

Amazing.  Only one person among 300,000,000 Americans is good enough for you.  So starstruck.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-09 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I have officially decided

Okay...  I do not know what I find more puzzling... the fact that you put Ted Kennedy in quotes when talking about he Democratic party... the guy is one of the most stalwart Democrats in the history of the party... or the fact that you not only used the word elitist, spelled in all caps and followed by multiple exclamation points....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

With friends like Kennedy I do not think Obama needs enemies. Ted kennedy who sabotaged 1980 election of carter can kiss my brown ass goodbye.

by indydem99 2008-05-09 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

With Hillary's new friends Murdock, Scaife, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, the Democratic Party doesn't need enemies.

by Kobi 2008-05-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

I think most Americans kissed their own asses goodbye by voting for Reagan twice and ceding the initiative to the Republicans for the next 28 years.

by wengler 2008-05-09 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

Sabotaged how?

Oh thats right but not dropping out when it was clear he couldn't win because he claimed the other candidate was doomed to failure and perhaps because he felt entitled in part due to his familial connections.

Then again he only had been Senator for 18 years at that point, was only down 14 states, and was so angry that he has continued to serve for 28 additional years as one of the most powerful and senior party leaders.  Thats not really comparable to HRC's 8 years as Senator, 8 as First Lady, 16 state deficit and the fidelity her supporters are showing here.

by PantsB 2008-05-09 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Obama should pick the VP he feels offers him the best chance of winning.

by Skaje 2008-05-09 03:43PM | 0 recs
no way


The only way for Obama to lose is to make Hillary VP

He will crush MCCain with the help of 90% of her uspporters.

If he puts her on the ticket he loses millions of new voters and independents.

It's his choice though.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-05-09 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

as I said above, why don't you cite something rather than making up numbers.  Polls have repeatedly shown that half of her supporters will not support him in the fall.  Current polling also shows that he will not beat McCain in the general (see the home page, for instance).  So, quite living in fantasyland.

by slynch 2008-05-09 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

Nationally it's about 30%. Most of those people will come around as long as Hillary goes out campaigning hard for Obama.

And let me tell you, she had better do so if she wants a future in the democratic party. If he loses and she's perceived to have caused it, she's done in the party, and she knows it.

Especially with the black vote that will turn on her in NY.

by Yalin 2008-05-09 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

The problem is Obama. It's not an attachment to Hillary it's an attachment to issues. Her voters don't like him or trust him. Hillary can campaign for him all she wants but it won't solve Obama's problems.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:41PM | 0 recs
As they're almost identical

policy-wise that makes no sense.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

Same thing was said in Bush v. McCain in 2000

by reggie23 2008-05-09 04:18PM | 0 recs
half in indiana

20% of which were republicans who weren't going to support HER in the fall either.

he consistent polling numbers have been 25 to 30%. and about 15 to 20% of Obama supporters.

These polls are next to meaningless right now.  Look at those same polls right after she endorses him.   Then you can make your claims.

by responsible 2008-05-09 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

I cannot keep myself from wondering why, oh why, we go through the bother and expense of actually having elections in November when, apparently, there is polling data that so many people treat as Gospel in May....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-09 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: no way

Well, you could start with the fact that she usually starts out about 40-50% negative in national polls.    That certainly isn't a help to Obama.  You might also mention that she brings out the Right-wing checkbooks for instant funding of 527s.  That doesn't help Obama.  You might mention her negative campaign and continuous negative campaigning this cycle.  That certainly doesn't help the campaign.  In short, she's going to make a great senator from New York.

by zadura 2008-05-09 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: no way
as I said above, why don't you cite something rather than making up numbers.  Polls have repeatedly shown that half of her supporters will not support him in the fall.

Pot calling kettle.  No polls have shown 50% nationally.  In 2000 however, 51% of McCain supporters were supposedly going to vote for Gore.  Didn't happen.
by PantsB 2008-05-09 05:57PM | 0 recs
I've posted this comment before, but...

"Barack Obama's own pick for VP says he 'isn't ready on day one'. She says he doesn't offer real solutions, that he only really has 'change you can xerox', and that he hasn't cross the 'leadership threshhold'. If Barack Obama's own Vice Presidential pick can't trust him, how can we?"

Clinton made her VP candidacy an impossibility when she threw the kitchen sink.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-09 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I've posted this comment before, but...

That would be the tailor made republican commercial. And they wouldn't even have to use a narrator. They wouldn't only have to splice Clinton's own words.

Sad but true.

by Yalin 2008-05-09 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I've posted this comment before, but...

Heck, Obama himself said he wasn't qualified to be President. They don't need anything Hillary has said.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I've posted this comment before, but...

Quote please.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I've posted this comment before, but...

Quote please.

by Yalin 2008-05-09 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I've posted this comment before, but...


by Brannon 2008-05-09 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket

Obama should realize that the liberal establishment of the party is pushing hard to get rid of the Clintons, and that isn't in his best interests or those of the party.  These liberals may be saying publicly what Obama doesn't want to say, but I believe that Obama himself is agnostic on the subject, and it's people like Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry who are desiring to get rid of the Cliintons at the expense of party unity.  IF Obama is a real lader, he will tell his base to shut up.

by khyber900 2008-05-09 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket

Since he hasn't chastised Brazile for her idiotic comments then I don't think you'll see it happen.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:43PM | 0 recs
Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Yes, I think he is right, though not for those reasons. (Though given the rancor between them recently, the "kiss and make up" would be ridculed on YouTube.)

Obama should (imo)put someone on the ticket from a swing state.  Probably a white male.  A double minority ticket would be weak.

In electoral terms, putting someone from New York would be like putting someone from California. It just doesn't make sense.  To me anyway.

Plus, I hate to put it this way, but in a historic sense we've already run a woman in the second slot.

by mijita 2008-05-09 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Swing state like California?

Obama will lose California mark my words

by DTaylor 2008-05-09 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

OK, I'll go ahead and mark them...in my book of things that are obviously WRONG.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Really?  Even though the latest SUSA poll shows that were the primary held today, more Californians would vote for Obama than Clinton?

http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.ob ama.2.720136.html

Hot off the press:

While voters in the California Democratic Presidential Primary backed Clinton by a 10-point margin, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%.

What can I say?  Just one more reason to hate California.  

by mijita 2008-05-09 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Maybe in SF/San Jose and Oakland. Clinton won LA,SD and most of the other counties. McCain will be VERY competitive against Obama. California is not as liberal as everyone thinks.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-05-09 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

I live in LA -- have most of my life except for an undergrad stint in college.  I'm also a fourth gen California chicana.    

It's true that Los Angeles went for Clinton.  But how you take that to mean it's going to go for McCain, I can't imagine. Los Angeles is so Democratic, even our "Republicans" (former Mayor Reardon) look and sound like Democrats.  

Heck, even Orange country is turning blue.  

by mijita 2008-05-09 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Sorry, but you don't know much about politics or California if you think the state would be in play with either Clinton or Obama.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-09 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

McCain seems to think it is. He plans to contest CA if Obama is the nominee. The reason apparently is his weakness among hispanics and aisan americans.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

McCain is a moron. Who cares what he thinks? He still thinks it's the 80's.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Funny.  Poll just came out today that if Feb. 5 primary was in May, Obama would eat Hillary.  CA stays blue this year, with Obama at the top of the ticket.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-09 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

I will make you an offer if you are so confident about California.

I will put $1,000 in a Paypal account and ask that you put $1,000 in the same account.  If McCain wins California, you get my $1,000.  If Obama wins California, I get yours.  Put up or shut up.

by zadura 2008-05-09 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

I'm a grad student so don't have that kind of money -- but I'd happily do a $100 bet on California being blue in November.  In fact, I'd feel like I was stealing from you.  

Though as I don't know you, I'm not sure how the PayPal thing would work.  Would either of us be able to just walk away with all the cash at any time?

by mijita 2008-05-09 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Sorry, I was responding to DTaylor who said that California would go for McCain.  

by zadura 2008-05-09 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Probably my mistake -- I sometimes get the threading messed up here.  

In retrospect it seems unlikely that anyone would be insane enough to put $1000 on McCain winning California.

by mijita 2008-05-09 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Probably my mistake -- I sometimes get the threading messed up here.  

In retrospect it seems unlikely that anyone would be insane enough to put $1000 on McCain winning California.

by mijita 2008-05-09 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

I wish people would just say that. Too many in the media are too scared to say the truth

by DiamondJay 2008-05-09 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

And we can never have enough white men in the second slot.  Cheney was the epitome of "white men" and look how good he was.  Yeah straying from white men too far would be everyones downfall, and could even kill the party.

by Scotch 2008-05-09 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

This isn't my personal choice -- personally I'd love to see one of the Sanchez sisters a heartbeat away from the Presidency.  

But since we're so worried about the fragile masculinity of hard working white males, maybe they'll have fewer issues with the ticket if there's someone they identify with on it.

by mijita 2008-05-09 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Right conclusion, wrong reasons

Well, if they're that egotistical, they're not going to vote Democratic anyway.

by Blue Jean 2008-05-09 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Funny how Obama preaches to everyone else about how we have to get past our differences and unify, but heaven forfend that he himself should be required to overlook his own differences with a fellow Democrat.

Let's call it the way it is: if Obama refuses to put his own grudges behind him, and unite with his former competitor, who clearly has been favored and chosen by essentially half of the Democratic Party, in the interests of a larger good, then he is a phony and a hypocrite.

Which, for many of us, will not come as a surprise.

by frankly0 2008-05-09 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Shamelessly reposting what someone else wrote above:

"Barack Obama's own pick for VP says he 'isn't ready on day one'. She says he doesn't offer real solutions, that he only really has 'change you can xerox', and that he hasn't cross the 'leadership threshhold'. If Barack Obama's own Vice Presidential pick can't trust him, how can we?"

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/9/19 304/76292/20#20

by Yalin 2008-05-09 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

I waaaaaaaaaaaaant my Unity Pony! You promised! I wan it!

Keep on wanting it as fat, tired, very rich, ass-clowns like 'Ted' let the Magic One split the part for his election and many others....

ReThugs are weeping with joy.

Jeb 12!

by Pericles 2008-05-09 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

Why the hell are Clinton supporters so eager to see her take a demotion? She is a fucking United States Senator. That is not a consolation prize. That is not, or at least does not have to be, a meaningless, powerless office. She has a chance now to effect real change in this country. Does she want to do that, or does she want to prove that she could force Obama's hand?

The best argument Clinton had against Obama was her health care plan. She can do something about that from the Senate. She can't from the Vice President's office.

This is perhaps the silliest discussion of this whole silly season.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

I don't know any Clinton supporters who want her to be VP.  President, yes; VP, no.

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

We don't necessarily want he to take it, but it would be nice if ancients like Kennedy would stop bashing her attempting to interfere in the process.  It is actually between the two candidates, whatever is decided.

by Scotch 2008-05-09 04:25PM | 0 recs
All the more reason

for Women, especially, to rise up - leave the party - storm the convention and support McCain!

by nikkid 2008-05-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

YEAH! To hell with reproductive rights!

by Kobi 2008-05-09 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Yeah, Vote McCain, because the rich white guy who used to frequent strip clubs, and left his disabled first wife for a wealthy beauty queen REALLY understands women's struggles.

by ArkansasLib 2008-05-09 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

When we have a candidate who refuses to make a stand on that issue this isn't a valid argument.

Get back to me when Obama says he'll appoint pro choice judges.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Stupid 100% from NARAL and Planned Parenthood!

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Unbelievable. If you truly mean to suggest that, despite NARAL and Planned Parenthood's scorecards, Obama will actually appoint anti-choice judges, come out and say it. Don't dance around the topic with inanities, tell us straight - do you truly believe that?

Thanks for putting your truly tenuous grasp of reality on display. Go ahead and vote for Bush III, you'll have plenty of time to grow up while President McCain is stacking the court with conservative ideologues.

by SupremeCourt 2008-05-09 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Who the heck knows with Obama? He has made conflicting statements about this.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-10 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Get back to us when you have a quote of him saying he won't.

Until then I'll assume Obama won't commit political suicide by appointing anti-choice judges.

by Kobi 2008-05-09 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

That'd be awesome! Go for it! Come back and tell me how much they love ya for being baby killers and lesbians(if you are a feminist you MUST be a lesbian or so I've heard from prominent McCain supporters).

by wengler 2008-05-09 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Not likely.  Any women who supported Clinton are not likely to support a republican candidate that would bring the demise of many of the things we have fought for and set the feminist movement and abortion rights back 80 years.  Rather than touch the screen against Obama by touching it for McCain, I would rather keep my hands off the screen altogether. It most likely not make a difference anyway.

by Scotch 2008-05-09 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason


Because John McCain has such a strong record of supporting and respecting women...

by mistersite 2008-05-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

Yeah, I don't want to vote for Obama, who has been tough but cordial with Hillary.  I would rather have the guy who called Hillary a b*tch...

You guys are a riot!!!

by zadura 2008-05-09 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: All the more reason

LOL McCain.

by Skaje 2008-05-09 06:12PM | 0 recs
Making Obama look better

It may be that these surrogates are talking down the prospect of a Hillary VP so that Obama can look like an even more gracious candidate when he does offer the slot to her.  That is what I suspect/hope.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
Let's discuss the pros and cons objectively

Rather than turning this into a fighting thread, of which there are already dozens.  These are what I can come up with.  The relative importance of each is the crucial factor in determining whether the unity ticket is a good idea.


1) Helps attract Clinton supporters/unify the party.

2) Helps against inexperience charge.


1) Undermines change/new politics theme.

2) Brings Clinton baggage/energizes GOP.

3) Lots of clips of one criticizing the other.

4) Potential of VP getting more attention than candidate.

by JJE 2008-05-09 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's discuss the pros and cons objectively

The pros bring about 6% of the electorate.

Do the cons weigh down that much?

by DTaylor 2008-05-09 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's discuss the pros and cons objectively

Significantly more - if you want the truth.

Clinton will help with Democratic primary voters who are ardent Clinton supporters.
Clinton will cost with Democratic non-primary voters, Independents and moderate Republicans.

If we all agree with Clinton's statement that Obama's weakness is with less-educated whites, then there are better VP choices (Webb, Rendell, Strickland).

If we think it is someone with "experience", there are better choices (Richardson, Dodd, Biden).

The only clear advantage Clinton brings is the Clinton brand - and that is a double edge sword.

For me, there is one bottom-line reason that Hillary should not be the VP choice: Can anyone imagine Clinton (either of them) being able, let alone willing, to be a background operator?  To deliberately stay out of the spotlight?

by SKI 2008-05-10 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's discuss the pros and cons objectively

I haven't ever thought highly of Senator Clinton's total of four extra years in the Senate as being conclusive of "experience", but what she does have is organizational experience in staffing executive positions in the White House.

This is a bad thing for Obama and I'll explain why.

She will be able to get a bunch of her people in positions within the White House and in the Executive Branch that she can effectively play off against Obama if she wants to. The media LOVES to report the "Democrats divided" story and nothing would cause more division than Obama not effectively even controlling his own White House.

You have a VP for two reasons: 1)tiebreak in the Senate and 2)continue your agenda if you die. This isn't the position Clinton wants to be in and isn't the position Obama wants to have Clinton in.

by wengler 2008-05-09 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's discuss the pros and cons objectively

If you don't think that the GOP will eventually come around and vote for McCain, I think you're naive.  This meme of "we can't energize the GOP" just goes to prove that liberals don't really believe what they shovel and they don't believe that they can win with their ideas.

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Mark Halperin of Time suggests that a deal between them would not involve the VP slot but instead be:

"Clinton agrees to leave the race in return for help paying off her campaign debt, a key role at the convention, and a guarantee that she becomes the lead Senate sponsor of the health care reform bill under a President Obama."

To give her a sense of closure on the Health Insurance reform issue is something I could certainly live with, and in fact despite my current animosity toward her would actually like to see happen.  Everything Obama has said about the process off how he sees Health Insurance reform playing out would allow her the space to strongly advocate for an individual mandate within the negotiations and he is not opposed to them if he felt the premium price was low enough.  

The question going forward for so many on this site is if Senator Clinton can move on and is happy with the resolution, can you?

by Piuma 2008-05-09 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Hillary can't be bought off and she would never insult her supporters by accepting such a paltry deal.

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:14PM | 0 recs

It's not that paltry.  Before Cheney the VP spot was pretty meaningless.  Clinton would probably have more genuine power in the Senate.  She would be better-positioned to hold Obama's feet to the fire on her key issues there than in the administration where she'd have to present a united front.

by JJE 2008-05-09 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Paltry?

Of course it's paltry.  He's offering to pay off her debts if she DROPS OUT.


by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Paltry?

Oh, and that part about her getting a key role at the convention?

If he's the nominee, he will desperately need her to play a key role at that convention.  Imagine the signal it would send if she didn't show up!  

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:36PM | 0 recs

I'm not talking about the paying off the debt part, which at this point is just media speculation since there's been no reporting of anyone from the campaign floating this (pls. correct me if I'm wrong).

I was saying that the ability to lead the healthcare charge from a position of political strength is not really paltry when compared to the VP position.

by JJE 2008-05-10 06:31AM | 0 recs
HRC supporters can raise enough cash

to retire her campaign debt. No need to take Senator Obama's help. Mark Halperin unfortunately missed this one.

by louisprandtl 2008-05-09 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC supporters can raise enough cash

With all due respect, if HRC supporters did that there would be no debt in the first place.  Obama has a 1,500,000 donor list.

by Piuma 2008-05-09 04:23PM | 0 recs
Of course Senator Obama and his campaign

did a wonderful job in creating a vast individual donor base. But to suggest that HRC supporters wouldn't be able to raise few millions after donating over $200 million for her campaign is bit of a stretch. Frankly Mark Halperin's floater was an insult to HRC and her supporters.

by louisprandtl 2008-05-09 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Senator Obama and his campaign

Is their a campaign right now by HRC supporters to retire the debt?

by Piuma 2008-05-09 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC supporters can raise enough cash

Mark Halperin is sometimes no better than a supermarket tabloid when it comes to his reporting. He's been pushing that she's getting out for days. It ain't happening. These boys are fooling themselves.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-05-09 05:43PM | 0 recs
VEEP-me ??

Do Clinton supporters have any interest in seeing her as the running mate?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-09 04:15PM | 0 recs
Kennedy desperate for attention

I never realized the size of Kennedy's ego, and his  cluelessness about how he is viewed by a huge number of people in this country until this campaign.  I have always kept my mouth shut regarding my view of him as a privileged gasbag, but I certainly feel free to state it now spurred on by Kennedy's apparent feeling that he should be allowed to present his pompousness for the world to see with no reaction from the public .  When it was explained when he first endorsed Obama that he was angry at Clinton because she didn't give the appropriate glory to his family name when speaking about MLK, that was the last straw.  This is all ironic considering the spectacle he made of himself when he ran for president and took it "all the way to the convention".  It is pitiful that a man his age is still in the shadow of the other members of his family to the extent that he continues to think that he should blab his mouth about an election that is supposed to be decided by the voters just to have 15 more minutes of  inferior fame.

by Scotch 2008-05-09 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy desperate for attention

He's my Senator.  Trust me, he's a privileged gasbag.  Has been for years.

by bellarose 2008-05-09 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy desperate for attention

he basically just wanted to stop another family from getting two presidents, something the Kennedy's could never do, thanks to Ted killing Mary Jo. Its so he doesn't feel so bad about Chappaquiddick. He'll also have more stature than the President Obama, whereas with Hillary, she'll run the show. Congress just wants Obama because they think can control him, as all he will do is play footsie and sign every pork bill sent to his desk, and yield to every lobbyist on the hill

by DiamondJay 2008-05-09 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy desperate for attention

He obviously thinks that now that he has graced Obama with his support, that he is free to manage and direct the rest of the campaign.  Obama owes him one, or maybe a thousand, now, and  his endorsing chickens have already come home to roost.

by Scotch 2008-05-09 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy desperate for attention

I can see the Harvey Gantt/Jesse Helms commercial run in reverse with Obama's face plastered on Gantt's, as the ad features the pictures of Ted kennedy and Gantt next to each other. Last time I checked, that ad didn't help Gantt, and the GOP is ruthless, and they will not hesitate to use race against Obama. This is why I fear this contest

by DiamondJay 2008-05-09 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket

Obama should give Clinton serious consideration for VP so long as she's willing to do two things: commit to being a loyal soldier for the administration; renounce any plans (if he wins) to campaign for the presidency in 2012.

If she can't do both, she has no business being VP.  The novelty of an incumbent VP taking on an incumbent president is something the Dems don't need (igniting, as it would, a race even more polarizing than this one).

If Clinton could commit to both things, though, she could be an excellent VP.  Obama supporters should acknowledge that at this point she is entitled to something big.

My sense, btw, is that the job she's suited for is Senate Majority Leader (that's the role her supporters really want her to play, pushing legislation, exercising quality control, and acting as a leader in an independent legislative branch).

If she wants to be Lyndon Johnson, let her (he was an excellent legislator and a mediocre VP and even president).  


by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-09 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket

Your "mediocre" President DID sign civil rights legislation into law and put forward many of the "Great Society" programs that we liberals seem to love so much.  He may have escalated Viet Nam, but he certainly didn't get us INTO Viet Nam, no, it took a Kennedy to do that.  Kennedy was the one who sent 16,000 military "advisors."  Johnson attacked the ARVN after we were hit in the Gulf of Tonkin.  History should be much kinder to Johnson than it is.

I don't think she should be Senate Majority Leader, I don't think she should act as a rubber stamp for Obama's legislation and, if she doesn't, she'll just be accused by the LIMO's of "not supporting the President."  (Ask them if they supported her husband  in the first two years of his Presidency  and, if they have any shame at all, which they don't, you'll likely hear a lot of noncommital throat noises.)

by MadeUBlink 2008-05-10 04:07AM | 0 recs

Yo Ted!

Oh yes, we won't be forgetting the "tenor" anytime soon.  You can bet your thirty silver shekels on that one, senator.

by Caldonia 2008-05-09 04:23PM | 0 recs

Wait, which candidate's supporters think s/he is the Messiah?

by letterc 2008-05-09 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

I have no problem with HRC as vp. I welcome it. Whatever it takes to win. Believe me that is one ticket that will win. I'm 100% convinced of that.

I'm dissapoint in what TK said.

by MissVA 2008-05-09 04:31PM | 0 recs
it would be a bad ticket

because I think a woman AND a black on one ticket is too much change to try to put upon America. He will need a white male. But I'd have preferred that Ted have just said that, instead of dishonouring the Clintons.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-09 04:32PM | 0 recs
The day

the Kennedy-Kerry- LOSER - wing of the party gets Senator Obama's ear is the day that his candidacy is doomed.  

Obama may choose not to ask Clinton to be his VP, but doing so on the advice of the marginalized Teddy K would be unwise

by activatedbybush 2008-05-09 04:45PM | 0 recs
Funny. HRC supporters don't seem to mind her takin

us African-American voters for granted.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny. HRC

Did you just bring up race again.  I thougth you rarely bring up race because you seem to do it every day???


by giusd 2008-05-09 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny. HRC


by RLMcCauley 2008-05-09 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny. HRC

Sorry mis-post to someone else.  Record corrected.


by giusd 2008-05-09 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

If you heard the news today Obama highly praised Senator Clinton and said she would be on anybody's short list for VP.

My sense he will offer, and she will probably turn down. She could actually have more power and be more effective in other roles or in the senate.

I also think he'd want to work with her on health care reform. Obama may be many thing, stupid is not one of them. He know Hillary knows more about health care than almost anybody. And in order to get reform somebody has going to focus on it in an almost monomaniacal way.

by jsfox 2008-05-09 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Obama won't offer the VP slot to Hillary, not after what she said yesterday.  No way.

by Spanky 2008-05-09 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option,

The VP slot is political purgatory.  As a result I doubt she'd be inclined to accept even if it were offered to her.  I would think that a prominent leadership position in the Senate would be far more appealing.

by rfahey22 2008-05-09 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Maybe... as long as Mark Penn doesn't come with the deal... he is plain awful!  Did you notice that Hillary's campaign did it's best when he was finally demoted?

by LordMike 2008-05-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Why would Obama open himself up to the crap that will come with Hillary Clinton?  He'd have to deal with every scandal that he was too kind to talk about in the primary.  

She's as much a liability as an asset.

Her followers will come around for the most part.  

by Lawyerish 2008-05-09 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

This sounds great to me.  I don't want Hillary to be Obama's VP.

by Spanky 2008-05-09 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely

It makes no sense that HRC would run with Obama.

She's claimed more than once that she and McCain are the only electable candidates.

There are only 2 questions now. Will HRC admit to not voting for Obama.

And will HRC rund as VP with the Republican party?

by BentLiberal 2008-05-09 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Says

I keep hearing that BO has a plan to heal the party and i also hear it does not include having HRC on the ticket.  So what plan are we talking about to smooth over the hard feelings that HRC supporters have.  Because it looks like "yo dudes or dudettes you have not choice but to vote for me".


by giusd 2008-05-09 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Says

Maybe it is something along the lines of "Holy fuck, have you seen just how horrible McCain is! Would you rather see me in the White House working with Clinton in the Senate to achieve our essentially identical agendas, or would you rather see us both back in the senate struggling to fight another 4 years of stalling action against the right wing agenda?"

by letterc 2008-05-09 09:45PM | 0 recs

The original quote from Kennedy in Kristin Jensen's article is far more insulting to Clinton:
"someone who is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations fo the American people.  If we had real leadership-as we do with Barack Obama-in the number 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."
Clinton does not appeal to noble aspirations of Americans.
Clinton does not offer real leadership.
Com'on tell us what you really think, Ted!

Your quote including "the tenor of the campaign" is taken from a later statement from Kennedy's spokesperson (update #1 for the article), presumably thought out by Kennedy as what he wish he had said.

That "tenor of the campaign" phrase, of course, blames Clinton herself as well as her campaign for the lack of desire for Kennedy/Obama to have her on the ticket.

What will the next update add?  Can coded or not-so-coded charges of racism against Clinton herself be far away?

Is there now any doubt that it is Obama/Kennedy is running for president?

by CLK 2008-05-09 05:41PM | 0 recs
Why would HRC want to run with a loser?

She's indicated more than once that she and McCain are the stronger candidates.

Why would HRC want to run with someone she doesn't deem electable?

It makes no sense.

It makes much more sense for HRC to run with McCain.

by BentLiberal 2008-05-09 06:23PM | 0 recs
AP reports: Hillary Dems could be up for grabs

Posted with no comments.

 With the racially tinged Democratic race drawing to an awkward close, Barack Obama and John McCain face the challenge of winning over "Hillary Democrats" -- the white, working-class voters who favored the former first lady over Obama's historic candidacy.

Obama and McCain clearly have set their sights on each other, a recognition of the long odds Clinton faces in trying to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. The McCain campaign figures some of her supporters might be up for grabs and won't necessarily vote Democratic in the general election in November.

Read Nedra Pickler full article below.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9-NU iQsaZZIfN_LztxqwztjK0IAD90IE2RG0

by louisprandtl 2008-05-09 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: AP reports: Hillary Dems could be up for grabs

Good ol' Pickler. She of the "Is Obama Patriotic?" article.

I think she runs point for GOP memes.

by wengler 2008-05-09 08:25PM | 0 recs
Your point is very interesting. Do you have

links to her articles? To say the least this is manipulative. I wonder why AP would run this.

by louisprandtl 2008-05-10 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

Why would Hillary want to pull a McCain and toady up to the person who's surrogates have attacked her with vile smears and republican talking points?

by usedmeat 2008-05-09 06:43PM | 0 recs
It's also a crappy job

Whoever Obama chooses is going to spend half their time beating back Republican attacks against Barack.  They'll be talking nonstop about Jeremiah Wright and God knows what else.  Hillary doesn't need that.

by Upstate Dem 2008-05-09 07:06PM | 0 recs
I think you're being rather presumtuous...

...in thinking HRC would even ACCEPT an offer for VP.

Do you really see her accepting a position that would subordinate her to Obama? The same Obama she's spent months trashing?

Regardless of what Obama may think about it, it's disingenous to say that he is the sole obstacle to this "dream ticket" fantasy.

HRC would never accept it anyway.

by DawnG 2008-05-09 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

As an independent who REALLY likes Clinton, and would vote McCain, especially now that it's been made known he did not vote for Bush, I urge Clinton and all her followers to go dump the Dems and go with Cynthia McKinney to build the Green Party.

The Obama supporting Dems are a bunch of corrupt, manipulative, deluded elites.

by Swing Vote 2008-05-09 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-Clinton Ticket Is Unlikely Option, Kenne

I like your thinking.  I could vote for that.  And I agree with you.

by kmr1964 2008-05-09 09:32PM | 0 recs
Kennedy is an IDIOT

STFU Kennedy.

by puma 2008-05-09 09:23PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads