MyDD :: A Little Detail From the Obama

A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeting

by Josh Orton, Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST

Last night's meeting was originally thought to take place at Senator Clinton's residence in DC. But that apparently wasn't the case:

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California got the call from Hillary Rodham Clinton Thursday afternoon: Could she, would she let Mrs. Clinton use her home in Northwest Washington for a little sit-down with a certain senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States?

Mrs. Feinstein had made the offer before and it was still good. And so a few hours later, at just about 9 p.m., Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama arrived for a face to face chat. No staff. No spouses. Just the two of them in Mrs. Feinstein's living room.

The California senator had set up two chairs facing each other. She served them water. Nothing else. Two aides were sent to Mrs. Feinstein's study. And Secret Service agents stayed outside.

The meeting reportedly lasted about an hour, and was productive.

Chuck Schumer, one of Clinton's closest political allies, says the two did not discuss the VP job.

I'm excited about how the last two days have gone, and for tomorrow's speech from Clinton. After a little uncertainty, it looks like we're heading in the right direction.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Election 08 (all tags)

Permalink :: 70 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (2.00 / 2)

Love the head-fakes on the media. Love it.

by Lawyerish on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (none / 0)

They got really pissed... ROFL

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic s/2008/06/06/sot.obama.press.angry.cnn

by nwodtuhs on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (none / 0)

Haha i LOVE that.

* sad trombone *

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the uncertainty (2.00 / 5)

was self induced.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:42:37 PM EST

I think you're spot-on with that. (2.00 / 3)

Disappointing and disillusioning that so many had so little faith in someone who is so unquestionably dedicated to the Democratic cause.

by aggieric on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you're spot-on with that. (2.00 / 1)

From the same people who would believe that she was waiting for him to be killed.

by DaveOinSF on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in all fairness... (none / 0)

there were some on the Clinton "side" who believed differently as well... and in fact there are still some of both kinds.

by Casuist on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you're spot-on with that. (none / 0)

Yeah... the primary has been so long and the sides have gotten so entrenched that people just started to see each other as enemies.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Having the press taking off on his plane... (2.00 / 3)

While he stayed in Washington is the best moment of this entire campaign season!

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST

That was the funniest move I've heard about (2.00 / 3)

in politics in years.

If they could only have kept the plane up indefinitely. Mid-air refueling and lowering baskets of food on a string...

Seriously, like the Leibermann ass-chewing, this is the kind of thing we want to see from a President. "I'm the f'ing president of the USA. You don't think I will do what needs to be done, you gotta 'nother think coming."

-chris

Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics

by chrisblask on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Working with other headstrong people (2.00 / 1)

is all about setting boundaries early on. Looks like we have a master player here, folks.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely (none / 0)

Of course doing the job also requires being able to listen to others while strongly defining boundaries.

Bush is good at defining his boundaries. Problem is he makes them into walls with no windows or doors in them...

Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics

by chrisblask on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having the press taking off on his plane... (none / 0)

Yes, kudos to Barack for that. And I don't offer that lightly.

by DaveOinSF on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Little Detail (2.00 / 2)

It all sounds like a David Mamet play.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail (none / 0)

only if there was lots of cussing in that meeting!

by Metrobot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well I meant the back-and-forth (2.00 / 3)

The complex dialogue. The one-on-one of the way this clandestine Obama-Clinton meeting is being described (with the two facing chairs and the glasses of water). I'm more talking about Mamet's early theater works, not the more complex screenplays and films.

It is both completely and utterly extraordinary and absolutely banal, all at once. A seemingly average interaction which is making history. Kind of fascinating as theater.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I meant the back-and-forth (none / 0)

And so romantic...

by french imp on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I meant the back-and-forth (none / 0)

Ah yes, I only know a little about Mamet, and I already revealed what that was! Might be a little No Exit in there somewhere too, when you mention the facing chairs and glasses of water....

But in general, that's why politics is my football. (can't stand spectator sports, really) The best drama anywhere has been this primary. These are the moments that make it seem like art:

It is both completely and utterly extraordinary and absolutely banal, all at once. A seemingly average interaction which is making history. Kind of fascinating as theater.

by Metrobot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well I meant the back-and-forth (none / 0)

Seriously. I'd go see this at NY Fringe next fall.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Little Detail From the (2.00 / 2)

And the emphasis here is on LITTLE. All this stuff was in all the national media at 7.00am this morning. Schumer with due respect has no more idea of what they talked about than all the media drones. They are both professional democratic politicians and what they both want is something that delivers a stunning victory for the Democrats in November. I suspect they are relatively immune from all the overheated stuff we see on blogs and the last people they'll be taking any notice of will be journalists.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST

So true (2.00 / 5)

I was on a conference call with Hillary Clinton on Wednesday afternoon... she was thanking her staffers and supporters for a hard-fought campaign etc.

She said something to the effect of (paraphrasing), "Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a job in the press... you can say anything you want to without knowing anything at all." The room she was in erupted with laughter and cheers.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess is that Obama reassured her (none / 0)

that he would have her back and support her in the senate, and let his supporters know that he won't tolerate them shutting her out. Without offering her the VP, that will be the one thing he can offer her to gain her support.

by 79blondini on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST

I want to be excited (2.00 / 2)

I would like to be excited, I want to be excited. I want to put the nastiness behind us. I want to see Obama and Clinton sharing the stage together this weekend. I want to see Clinton help leading the charge in the Senate and Obama leading the charge a few blocks down Pennsylvania avenue next year.

But, I have become more pessimistic now. I think the nastiness on the blogs has ratcheted up. I know that there will be flaming comments to your post. so, my excitment has yet to build

by monkeyga on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:52:52 PM EST

Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 6)

"After a little uncertainty, it looks like we're heading in the right direction."

Just stop.

There was no uncertainty, unless you were a clueless fool who lost all perspective.

There was never any doubt that Hillary would get behind Obama and do the right thing.

And the suggestion otherwise says more about the person making it and their own biases than it does about current political reality.

by dcg2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

I can't believe how thin skinned some are here. Give it a rest with the "Attack the Obama Guy" bullshit, would you?

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 2)

It's not personal. It's that if he seriously thought there was uncertainty (and even now chooses to perpetuate that myth/caricature of Hillary) then it means he isn't a particularly astute political observer. Certainly not someone who's powers of political observation I respect. That's all.

by dcg2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 1)

Given her quixotic speech on Tuesday, (which I actually liked for some reason) I don't think there were any guarantees about what she was going to do next. In fact, somewhere I read, it was Charlie Rangel who convinced her on Wednesday, that she needed to end it this week, not next like she wanted.

Sounds like Josh's characterization is a bit more astute than yours!

by Metrobot on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 1)

The Clinton campaign knew the math wasn't going to change. Obama had won. They still chose to introduce her as the "next President". The following day, she had to be talked to by dozens of her closest advisors who convinced her it was over. There was "uncertainty".

Face it, if the post above was made by Jerome, you'd have felt fine with the word used.

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

Um, Jerome wouldn't have written this. He actually understood what was going on and isn't looking to take cheap shots at Hillary.

by dcg2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

I think there was a little uncertainty, perhaps not with Clinton, but there was some hypervenilating among some supporters of both sides, why else chants of "Denver, Denver Denver..." and other such stuff? A few election cycles ago there would have been some buffer between the end and the concession, but we really live in a NOW environment so that buffer gets winnowed away somewhat.

Yeah, most people truly expected it to play out they way it has, but not all, and it isn't all based on fantasy, so I have to disagree with the assertion that that there was no uncertainty.

by notedgeways on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 3)

I feel like "uncertainty" is probably the least pejorative word I could use. Between Clinton herself saying she wasn't making any decisions yet, to her supporters behind her chanting "Denver," I think "uncertainty" is appropriate. There was a period where we didn't know what was going to happen. Uncertainty.

by Josh Orton on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 2)

Sure. Just like there was uncertainty about whether Bush would invade Iraq when he said he hadn't made up his mind.

Certainly someone can credibly claim they didn't know, but only if they gave up their own claim to having a clue about the way the world and our political leaders work.

by dcg2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

huh.

by Josh Orton on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

Bush made it seem like the outcome was uncertain, but everyone with even a minute but of political sense knew that the outcome was not uncertain. He was going to war.

Hillary put on a good show for her supporters and wasn't going to allow herself to be forced out on humiliating terms or on someone else's time line (hell it would have probably caused more raw feelings from her supporters for her to given the concession speech Tuesday that Obama fans hoped for than for her to play it out until the last primary and then give a couple of days for the crazies to come to terms with it).

But everyone with even a minute bit of political sense knew that the outcome was not uncertain.

Like Bush it was just some political theater when it was obvious to anyone in the reality-based community that she would be getting behind Obama in short order.

by dcg2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

oh right. yeah. sure.

if you have followed politics, you'd know there was no "uncertainty" about the Clintons. They have been loyal democrats for decades.

you bought into the MSM meme and the right wing smear tactics of the 1990's about them

sad.

by colebiancardi on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

Well, I didn't have any doubts. Until Terry McAuliffe introduced her as "the next President of the United States," and the people behind her chanted "Denver, Denver, Denver."

Then, I started to have a little doubt.

by erzeszut on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

Exactly! You don't go out there and give your typical stump speech about how you've won all the important states and how she's won the popular vote and how her 18 million voters are being disrespected without causing a tad bit uncertainty.

People can rewrite history after the fact all they want but it sure looked to MOST observers at the time as if they were still hunting for a way to keep this going. It wasn't until her closest advisors told her to knock off the bullshit that they chnaged their tone.

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (2.00 / 1)

You don't understand: some people start with the premise that the Clintons eat kittens, live and raw, for breakfast, and if this isn't proved to be demonstrably false in the context of any given issue or questions, then all potentialities are weighted against them.

Yours for edification...I.M.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, Josh, why the dig? (none / 0)

There was clearly uncertainty, because Clinton said she'd make no decision Tuesday night, because close advisors were talking about her getting the VP slot, because her campaign chair introduced her as "the next president of the United States" after her opponent had locked the nomination up, because one of her other top advisors reserved her right to challenge the rules committee determination of the Michigan delegation in a process that would not finally resolve until they got to Denver, and because her supporters were chanting "Denver, Denver" both on Saturday and on Tuesday night.

At this point she has clearly recognized that Obama has won the nomination, and she will undoubtedly do what is needed Saturday to heal the party. She will be a great Senator and a great surrogate for Obama -- and she deserves respect and help with her campaign debt from Obama's backers, and to play a strong positive role in the Obama administration if that is her choice, or in the Senate.

But realize that very little changed Tuesday -- Obama locked the nomination up for all practical purposes months ago. I understand that many Clinton supporters felt that the calls for her to quit the campaign were premature and disrespectful, but her continuing the campaign long after the eventual result was beyond doubt ran up her debt and Obama's negatives, and did little positive for the party.

But though I disagreed with what she did, she had a right to do it, and I'm willing to help her out if that's what Obama wants supporters to do. It sounds like we're on a road to unity and McCain's poll numbers are deceptively high. We are going to have an historic election, and Clinton will play an important role in delivering national healthcare in 2009.

by Headlight on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn, Dianne! (none / 0)

Damn! That was Feinstein's mansion they showed on TV last night?? I thought it was the Clintons'. I knew my Senator had a something on the side to suppliment her salary from Congress, but G Damn!!! And this is her DC home! I have to see what her Cali mansion looks like. I guess hubby's busniess is booming giventhe war and all. Now I definitely will not vote for her again.

by ETHIOLIB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST

Re: Damn, Dianne! (none / 0)

No, they were at the Clintons place last night. They were told it was going on there so they went there. Meanwhile, the real meeting was elsewhere.

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn, Dianne! (none / 0)

Gatcha! Thanks

My bad

by ETHIOLIB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The press was double punked (2.00 / 2)

It was actually known they weren't at the Clintons at some point last night, but not till this morning did they know where they where... which says good things about their ability to do stuff like this.

Double fake... isn't that a Basketball term or something?

by notedgeways on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The press was double punked (none / 0)

I was laughing the other night that the Clinton event was in a bunker 2 levels below ground with no TV or cell phones. I'm not a Clinton guy but damn if I don't give them credit when it's due. Just KNOWING that such a place was available, to fit the need of quarantining a couple thousand people, keeping them away from news and outside influences, until such time as you can make your speech and then get out of there... Masterful politics at play.

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Detail From the Obama - Clinton date (2.00 / 2)

It's good to see them take the time to talk. I think this kind of meeting has more impact for it's quietness than anything else. It lets the healing begin without a single word of spin for the media to blow up and distort.

by eddieb on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (2.00 / 5)

You should have acknowledged you made an error in judgment in writing that crap about about Hillary Rodham Clinton on the JFK thing.

It was the most offensive piece I had seen on the front page in over year .

That said it seems you have taken over from Singer , I hope you become as credible as he his despite differences.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST

Feinstein gives details of the meeting in a video (none / 0)

Sen. Feinstein gave several details of the "secret" meeting in a video interview.
You can see it at:
http://inewstube.com/politics/diane_fein stein_details_the_secret_obama_clinton_m eeting.html

by dazedreamer52 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:04:40 PM EST

Re: Feinstein gives details of the meeting (none / 0)

What I've hate most about Team Clinton is that so many of its major insiders and supporters went to the press and sold out everything all the time.

by killjoy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhg (2.00 / 7)

Again, Josh- you are annoying me. "I think we're heading in the right direction". As if Hillary were going to say, "Screw this- I'm so power hungry- I'll ruin Obama if I have to." Clinton hatred seems to be your problem, my friend, not 18 million voters. GET OVER IT, please- otherwise people will NEVER NEVER NEVER come together- and that will ruin Dems in November. Where will that leave us then?

by easyE on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (2.00 / 6)

there was no uncertainty, Josh

only in those minds that believe the absolute worse of the Clintons. And that is fed by the right wing smear machine in the 1990's

I would have thought better of you. Oh well.

by colebiancardi on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:21:43 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (2.00 / 2)

But there was, for a moment, still HOPE.

by SophieL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Little Detail From the Obama - Clinton Meeti (none / 0)

Ickes: Clinton reserves right to appeal to credentials committee.

Yeah, no uncertainty there, or in the chorus of "Take it to Denver" diaries that littered the Rec list until recently.

Speaking of which: any word from the likes of Alegre, TexasDarlin', or Linfar recently? Or have the gone to the mattresses?

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Move on nothing to see here (2.00 / 2)

What's the point of rehashing last week or the last few months. Who cares, as long as we all wind up on the same page I don't give a crap how we get there.

Just say thank you Senator Clinton for your support and focus on winning in November leave the manufactured soap opera about who did what when to the media.

by hankg on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Move on nothing to see here (none / 0)

True, and fair enough. I'm just coming to the defense of the Front Pager who's being derided for hinting that there was some "uncertainty", when cleary the grounds for such a notion were relatively well founded.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Move on nothing to see here (2.00 / 1)

What's to be gained by arguing whether there was uncertainty, whether Obama should have declared victory on day x or Hillary should have conceded on day y or who won the popular vote or who ran the more negative campaign.

Those sorts of conversations always devolve into the same pissing contest. So if you hear something that you think is totally wrong? So what? Let it go. It's not going to change anything. Everyone is going to have there own personal narrative of how we got here and what happened during the primaries.

Winning should be enough it's a bit greedy to insist that everyone agree with your version of the primary narrative as well. They thought Hillary was better qualified. They still think that even though they are supporting the party's nominee. Nothing wrong with that.

by hankg on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Move on nothing to see here (none / 0)

One more point. It's easy to support the party's nominee when it's your candidate. Imagine if you were having to support Hillary had she been the nominee. Obviously Hillary supporters are carrying a much bigger cross here then any Obama supporter and deserve a lot of deference.

by hankg on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Move on nothing to see here (none / 0)

What's to be gained from arguing wether or not there was uncertainty? Not much, but perhaps that question is best directed to those who posed the argument to begin with. I merely rebutted with the obvious, which (if you'll note) seems to have succeeded in quieting the idea.

There's no doubt that Clinton supporters have a harder burden to bear presently. Some degree of deference is certainly due, but unchecked aggression based on falsehoods ought not be left to fester.

Again, your point is well taken, but our discussion ABOUT the discussion has outlived the original topic, and risks investment of more than it merits.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get this, people: Hillary doesn't WANT (2.00 / 2)

to be VP. How many times do Hillary and her campaign have to say it? Besides, it's just logical: Why play second banana to a second banana?

My advice to Hillary: Get with Bill and apply your considerable intelligence and talents to a difficult world problem (genocide or the Middle East) and leave the children at home to play in the sandbox of dirty U.S. politics for four years.

by miker2008 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST

Re: A Little Detail (2.00 / 1)

I was so happy to hear about this meeting! I thought uncertainty was the exactly appropriate word to use. Supporters of both Obama and Clinton have been uncertain what the two candidates want from each other, and so we've been out there fighting for what we THINK they might want.

Soon, I hope, it will be very clear.

The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.

by mtnspirit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST

What's clear to me (2.00 / 2)

Sen. Clinton always intended Tuesday night for reflection on the results in South Dakota and to celebrate her campaign. I don't think she expected superdelegates to hand the nomination to Obama prior to the end of the Montana primary. The uncertainty you felt was caused by the inability of supers to wait until the actual end of the primary season.

by DaveOinSF on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST

Re: What's clear to me (none / 0)

Well, I agree, to a certain extent. But everyone in the Clinton campaign knew with certainty the trend was there and the math wasn't going to change. They still chose to introduce her as the "next President". Then, the following day, she had to be talked to by dozens of her closest advisors who convinced her it was over. So, with all due respect to the folks here who want to rip on Josh for everything he says, there was absolutely uncertainty and to deny means you just weren't listening to Clinton and/or following the news of the events of the last two days.

I was with Obama from the start.

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's clear to me (none / 0)

Again, it was always Clinton's intention for the Tuesday event to be a celebration of her campaign, and not include a concession, because she did not expect the supers to have handed it to Obama by that point. The outcome of "discussions with her advisors" was a foregone conclusion. She wanted to leave on her terms and she's doing it.

by DaveOinSF on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In your own head (2.00 / 2)

The "uncertainty" was of your own choosing.

On the train thanks to HRC...

by BRockNYC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST

Re: In your own head (none / 0)

Clinton '12? Are you hoping Obama loses this year?

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In your own head (2.00 / 2)

I call it planning ahead.

On the train thanks to HRC...

by BRockNYC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In your own head (none / 0)

Clinton '12

Yeah no uncertainty at all...or irony.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There was no uncertainty (2.00 / 3)

Anyone who takes an objective look at Hillary's career could come to no other conclusion than that she would enthusiatically get behind the nominee...it is only the left's irrational paranoia about all things Clinton that informs such "uncertaintly"...

by SaveElmer on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM EST

Clinton will do what she said she would do all (none / 0)

along. She will endorse Obama and work for him.

I'm sure she believes he will lose as I do. Not because she's Kreskin, but because she's been around a while.

She will be blamed for his defeat unlike Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart or Jesse Jackson. All men who were hundreds of delegates behind the eventual nominee and still stayed in the race until the convention.

Rep. Clyburg of SC accused the Clinton's of deliberately trying to lose the election for Obama. Nice man.

People will be furious if Obama loses. They should be furious at the Dem party leadership for prematurely betting on an asset like Obama. He could have been in the whitehouse for 16 years. Now it might be zero....unless Clinton puts him on the ticket in 2012. Stranger things have happened.

by mmorang on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:23:04 PM EST

Re: Clinton will do what she said she would do all (none / 0)

Okay Gov Brown.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My fears fully justified (none / 0)

Well, I am glad to see that the conversation has gone nowhere and people keep talking over one another. I stated how I was pessimistic and it is still so.

by monkeyga on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.