This I Just Don't Get

Howdy folks!

I want to start by saying that I am in no way dissing Senator Clinton in this diary.  That's not my intent, and nothing I'm going to write serves that purpose.  This is limited to the central issue I will outline.

Why do some folks insist that if it isn't Hillary it cannot be some other woman?  I get the impression that some folks, female and male, think that in the hypothetical that Obama picks another woman, his reasoning will have had to have been "Well, this ought to shut 'em up" or some other such absurdity.  So let's think this one through....

We've got two experienced and effective female governors in Red states.  I'll focus on Sebelius, out of these two (I prefer her), and I'll leave out Senator McCaskill as she's too green for this ticket.

What if Obama were to hypothetically pick Sebelius because she resonates very well with his message of post-partisanship and cooperation?  Admittedly he's got other choices (Schweitzer comes immediately to mind), but Governor Sebelius has a lot of things going for her.  She's been able to get elected and remain fairly popular in Kansas.  I do not suggest that she puts Kansas into play, mind you, but she would fit one compelling narrative.  She brings a lot to the table before you even consider the fact that she's a woman.

Exactly why would it be some kind of evil for Senator Obama to choose her?  She's strong on the abortion issue, and while not the best public speaker we've got in the party right now, that isn't exactly where Obama needs help.

Look, if Obama picked someone like McCaskill or a back-bencher in a way that obviously demonstrated tokenism, I'd be pissed.  If he picks a Red state governor who's been effective and with whom he gets along, and that governor turns out to be a woman, how in the hell can people reasonably get mad at him?

For what its worth, Sebelius isn't my first choice.  The bumper stickers alone would be hell (Obama-Sebelius '08).  That being said, I consider it incredibly insulting that someone like her being on the ticket would be seen as, somehow, bad for women.

Tags: clinton, etc, Sebelius (all tags)

Comments

189 Comments

Re: This I Just Don't Get

Because it's all about Clinton.  Remember when folks threw around the term "Obamabot", and one famous signature- "I already have a messiah"?  Well, that river apparently flows both ways.

Everyone, including Clinton, has moved on, but for some, they just can't accept it's over.  They will eventually, for the most part, and some will not and go into various forms of anti-Dem rage, whether it be voting for McCain (just threw up in my mouth a little bit), going crazy Green Party gung ho, or just generally mad.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-12 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

How about a rational person that would prefer to sit this one out? You know, not everyone believes Obama has the credentials or judgment to become a good president.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I'm behind Obama because it's in Hillary's best interests that he wins. When she helps him over to the top, she'll be seen as a powerful Senator and in a great position to lead on strong democratic legislation!

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-12 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Good for you. Everyone has a choice.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:26PM | 0 recs
Then, sit it out

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't vote.  African Americans and woman fought long and hard for the right to vote.  If you are a white male and have had the privilege of taking voting for granted, perhaps that is your reason.  There are plenty of people absolutely ecstatic to take your place at their polling stations.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-12 02:25PM | 0 recs
I really appreciate freedom

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't vote.
Who asked you to?
African Americans and woman fought long and hard for the right to vote.
OK
If you are a white male and have had the privilege of taking voting for granted, perhaps that is your reason.
Voting or not voting is a right. It's a good thing that the U.S.A doesn't force Americans to vote. This is a great country!
There are plenty of people absolutely ecstatic to take your place at their polling stations.
Great!

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:31PM | 0 recs
Wow!

I'm underwhelmed by your logic.  Well, as I said -- and will now clarify with your words -- it is your right to sit it out.  Enjoy your right to not vote -- you should be very proud that you will exercise it.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-12 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

I am proud. I don't vote for unqualified candidates.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-06-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

Great pic.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow!

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-12 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

And you think McCain is a better choice?

Obama's credentials are that he supports progressive causes like universal health care, that he believes we need to pull out of Iraq, and also have real diplomatic relations with hostile countries.

McCain's credentials:

"Bringing them home. That's not important."

"Bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

"I'm sorry, but there will be other wars."

"I will do whatever it takes to win in Iraq."

"We will never surrender."

by skohayes 2008-06-12 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Nope.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:50PM | 0 recs
Obama rewrites the book

on how to win with the 50 state strategy, a massive voter registration program and no lobbyist money while little whining bitter bloggers post their hearts out.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-12 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

So you think the country would be better served by President McCain.

Your deep commitment to the principles Hillary Clinton was advocating in her campaign is admirable.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 02:34PM | 0 recs
IMO

I don't care for either one. One gives a great first impression as a patriotic hero with plenty of experience, but lacks good judgment. The other gives a great first impression as a new kind of candidate, but is really just a typical politician with very little experience and also lacks good judgment.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:58PM | 0 recs
Okay

Here are the reasons I don't buy the "judgment" argument from Clinton supporters. Here is what I see when I look at Hillary Clinton's record and consider judgment:

93/94 health care (poor management, bad political/tactical approach)

AUMF vote (do I really need to say more?)

Her choice in personnel: Dick Morris, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Lanny Davis, Patty Solis Doyle, Howard Wolfson.

Her fiscal management: Thirty million in debt in an eight month campaign.

I genuinely do not see anything in her record that inspires confidence in her judgment. Without snark, without "so's your old man" responses, what do you see in her record to give you confidence in her judgment?

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay

"Here are the reasons I don't buy the "judgment" argument from Clinton supporters."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

"Here is what I see when I look at Hillary Clinton's record and consider judgment:"

Let me enlighten you...Clinton was NOT my first choice. That' being said, she is a hell of a lot more qualified than McCain and Obama; IMO of course. As far as baggage goes; you bet she has baggage, that's why she wasn't my first choice. At least Clinton admits it. Obama on the other had is not the "clean" candidate he claims to be. Hell, Obama was the only candidate on the ballot for state senate after he knocked out his opponents using technicalities.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/o bamas.first.campaign/

by soyousay 2008-06-12 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay

Obama wasn't my first choice either, but you keep talking about Clinton's "judgement" and stating, as if it were an incontrovertible fact, that she's "highly qualified". I see this all the time and never see any hard evidence for it. I see you don't have any either.

she is a hell of a lot more qualified than [...] Obama

It would just make my day if you could provide some rationale for this statement.

As for Alice Palmer (for Christ's sake, this again?). She dropped out of the race. Obama declared. Alice Palmer changed her mind. Obama, playing by the rules, challenged her candidacy, his challenge was held as valid.

Are you saying he should have rolled over for Alice Palmer when she tried to screw him? That the rules should have been changed for Obama's opponent?

Why does that sound familiar...?

Your arguments seem to come down to a lot of efforts to dress up "I don't like Obama".

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:55PM | 0 recs
YOU FORGOT THIS PART....

"IMO of course." <---Yes, this is my opinion, I stated this in the above comment.

In reference to Alice Palmer dropping out, that's not what the CNN article stated. Please provide a mainstream media link if you're going to make this claim. As far as the technicalities go; that was a cheesy move.<---In my opinion.

"Your arguments seem to come down to a lot of efforts to dress up "I don't like Obama".<---This is your opinion of course, you are entitled to it.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 04:05PM | 0 recs
Non-participation

Non-participation, unless it's part of a large organized protest effort, is essentially tacit approval of the status quo.

Those who choose to sit out an election are basically saying that they're fine with things the way they are. Sure, they'll argue and rationalize how it's not true, that they're acting on principle, that they enjoy the freedom to vote their conscience, etc.

But the bottom line is, they're basically saying that they're content with the current government and don't feel any motivation to change it.

They're fine with the incumbent party controlling the bureaucracy, filling the Justice Department, stacking the courts, holding all the appointed positions throughout the Cabinet as well as the government at large, and despite the incompetence demonstrated through the last eight years, are glad to leave the government in the same hands.

Silence is complicity, as they say.

They also say it's pointless to engage with internet trolls, but this is more for the benefit of the casual lurker than attention-hungry net addicts.

by BobzCat 2008-06-12 03:10PM | 0 recs
Not a tactic, just not moved

Non-participation, unless it's part of a large organized protest effort, is essentially tacit approval of the status quo
IMO, I think both candidates are equally flawed.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a tactic, just not moved

And it's my opinion that those who have reached that conclusion are deluding themselves, and have other issues.

As alluded to above, one of those issues may be a need for attention from internet forums.

by BobzCat 2008-06-12 04:11PM | 0 recs
yeah harpo...

It is your opinion, nothing more. You don't know me and I don't think you have the ability to read minds.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah harpo...

You're right, I can't read minds. Though given the written evidence, I suspect that if I could, yours would probably put me to sleep before I turned a single page.

I've read that book before, you see.

by BobzCat 2008-06-12 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah harpo...

I suspect that if I could, yours would probably put me to sleep before I turned a single page.
Seeing how your opinion is like the majority on Mydd, I'd say you have that book memorized.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Actually, I don't get this.  If party unity is so freaking important (as in, the BS has got to stop) why are almost all of the diaries on the rec list preachy, get-behind-Obama crap?  Why are you continuing to make diaries specifically designed to agitate HRC supporters (if not, necessarily, harp on Senator Clinton herself)?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

by hornplayer 2008-06-12 01:50PM | 0 recs
Uh.

This is in response to a diary from a Clinton supporter that said exactly what Reaper is arguing against.

Glass houses, meet stones.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-12 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh.

Better to reply in that diary then, rather than starting a new one.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh.

Because it's clearly marked in this entirely seperate diary that there's another one floating out there on the same subject?

by hornplayer 2008-06-12 01:57PM | 0 recs
There's arguments to be had on the subject

I think this diarist makes a good point... and since I agree with the viewpoint more, I'm less afraid to rec it.

It's not the first or last time we'll see multiple diaries on the same subject.  At the height of the primary, alegre, TexasDarlin, and at least one or two others would all spam the rec list with diaries showing the same take on the same events.

At least here we have seperate viewpoints being represented.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-12 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Jackass this diary was in no way intended to agitate anyone.  I wanted something explained because I honestly didn't understand it, and I even took the time to put in a disclaimer.

Learn
To
Read
What
I
Wrote

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I read what your wrote, thanks.  I still don't understand why, if unity is so important, you've dedicated a diary to belittling the opinions of some (not even myself in this instance) HRC supporters.

If I were to offer an explanation, though, it would be that there is no other female in the Democratic party with the gravitas of Senator Clinton, and that to choose anyone else would be quite insulting.  But that would simply be me inferring something; I'm actually quite fond of Governor Sebelius, I thought she'd make a great running mate in 04, and think she would as well in 08.

Also, you'll notice I can talk without making personal insults.  It's quite liberating, I recommend you try it.

by hornplayer 2008-06-12 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

You apparently didn't read what I wrote.

I did not write a diary that belittles anyone's opinions.  I wrote a diary that asked an honest question and laid out my reasoning.

Please quote the portions of this diary that served to belittle someone, or their opinions.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Hillary maybe our brightest star, but it's a disservice to all the other female politicians in the democratic party to belittle their records of service and ability in such a way.  We need more female politicians and they all need our support!

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-12 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

"agitate"? "harp"? "hypocrisy"?

What the hell are you talking about?

If you're choosing to find something "agitating" about this diary, maybe it's because you can't give a rational answer to the question it asks.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Maybe that's why you're not getting enough oxygen to your brain!

by venician 2008-06-12 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

What's the option on a DEMOCRATIC BLOG, at this point, OTHER than getting behind Obama?

Getting behind McCain? Not if you believe anything Hillary stood for.
Sitting it out? We saw today what the GOP majority on the Supreme Court wants, and what hinges upon the replacement for Stevens, Ginsberg and lord help us, any other of the aging liberal lions on the court.
Whining? It's a democratic blog. Go nuts. Gives us something to do other than work. But you're still a loser if you pass on the right to vote that so many still fight and die for. Take a peek at Zimbabwe. You think Obama is unqualified -- but really, what extra info do you have other than rank bitterness to base that on? Not on policies -- he's not far from Hillary on EVERYTHING.

So yeah, while Zimbabweans are murdered for daring to vote, go on and be pissy about how you are just too damaged by the fact someone you supported lost. The fact that you could suck it up and (likely) vote for other lessers-of-two-evils is pretty typical for the anti-Obaman these days. I wonder what made Kerry so palatable, and Obama so distasteful. What could it be?

P.S. Boo frakkin hoo.

by Lettuce 2008-06-12 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

So let me get this straight. If Obama picks a V.P. other than Clinton we get another powerful female Democrat in a leadership position?

Pelosi, Hillary and a possible V.P. could do alot for this country.

But it's Hillary or else for some around here.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 01:51PM | 0 recs
Pelosi?

Pelosi is a joke, and not even liked in her home state.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

That doesn't mean much coming from a deadender such as yourself.

Stay classy Chelsea.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 02:09PM | 0 recs
deadender?

Is that the best reply you can offer? Sad

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: deadender?

Not the best. Your not worth the effort.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

That joke is the first woman to lead the House of Representatives, helped shepherd us back to majority status, and has more than earned her place in history.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

Pelosi didn't help shepard us anywhere, she's been as much as a hinderance, as she has been a help for us.

I was never in favor of her getting that position. Californians don't care much for her.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

Her district seems to like her fine, as do her colleagues in the House, seeing as how both are poised to overwhelmingly return her to office.

Where does this desire to make every woman in government somehow inferior to Hillary come from?  It's disgusting, and really quite sad.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 02:21PM | 0 recs
This Californian says speak for yourself.

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-12 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

She has done more to protect the republicans and bush than to promote Democratic goals.

Why did she insist that impeachment would be off the table?

by wblynch 2008-06-12 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

because the longer those asshats in the White House are in power, the more it reminds the people of this country that everything they do is wrong.  Everything they touch turns to shit.  Had they gone after Bush and Cheney in early 2006 with impeachment, it might very well have hardened a lot of independents (that aren't interested in partisan bickering) towards the GOP -- rally around the President, etc.  By not pushing impeachment, but basically stalling almost all non-favorable legislation, they have cut the wind out of the sails.  The one thing that is aggravating is the slow end of this horrendous war, but that will be over soon enough I think.  Bush/Cheney & the GOP are the single best marketing tool the Democratic Party has when arguing to the general public that they should give us the keys to the car.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-06-12 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

That was clearly a tactical decision, rather than one based on principles. I doubt history will be especially kind to her for that, but neither do I think it'll damage her reputation all that much.

The blame for the failure of Congress to impeach this president will be spread among a variety of individuals and factors, and will probably still leave a lot of historians scratching their heads.

But Pelosi's place in history should ultimately prove to be a positive one, especially if spends the next term successfully advancing President Obama's agenda through the House.

by BobzCat 2008-06-12 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

I'm from California and she's likable enough here. She is also THE most powerful women the U.S. Remember as of now she is third in line for the presidency.

by venician 2008-06-12 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

But she's not Hillary. I refuse to support any non-Hillary female in any position, anywhere.

This is horrible news for my neices, but I'm sure Hillary will enjoy all the Roxy clothes we got 'em for their birthday.

by Lettuce 2008-06-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi?

Like Boxer and Feinstein, Pelosi is well liked by Democrats and well hated by Republicans. None of the 3, nor Hillary could speak without the 'shrill' comment being tossed in.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 04:28PM | 0 recs
Republican much?

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-12 07:38PM | 0 recs
Not Sebelius

Or, as I've seen some Republicans refer to her as, "Governor Succubus."

Why not?  Because she's the governor of Kansas.  Obama's mother, Stanley Anne Dunham, was from Kansas.  Ipso facto he would only choose her because he has an Oedipal complex.

What?  I've actually seen this argument articulated, and it makes exactly as much sense as the idiotic "no woman but Hillary Clinton" argument.

I feel dirty now just saying it, though.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-12 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Sebelius
That's just bizarre. But we're talking about Republicans, after all.
There's a very weird uncurrent of sexual deviancy in that party.
by skohayes 2008-06-12 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Is there any woman who has a more established presence and profile, millions of supporters, experience and popularity other than Clinton?
Claire McCaskill is lame, Napolitano isnt that great and as for Sebelius- everyone who watched her State of the Union rebuttal knows how pitiful she is.

What other women are there????

Nancy Pelosi?

He won't pick a woman.

by bsavage 2008-06-12 01:54PM | 0 recs
Wow!

So you can probably come up with a dozen or so white male names but not one woman's?  Amazing disrespect for Democratic woman to say there is only one credible one in the entire nation.  

by gchaucer2 2008-06-12 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get
Sebelius is serving her second term as a Democratic governor in a state that is so red, you can't spit without hitting a Republican.
She has vetoed every bit of anti-abortion crap thrown at her by her Republican controlled legislature, and has recently vetoed two bills that would allow the construction of two coal fired power plants in central Kansas.
She's much, much more than one speech.
Educate yourself.
by skohayes 2008-06-12 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

It could be another woman.  I'd like it to be Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, if you want a more centrist woman not associate with Clinton, but Sibelius doesn't know her way around Washington and adds nothing to the ticket that Obama doesn't have on his own.  

The vp has 4 jobs:

  1.  Win the VP debate-Sibelius is not a great TV personality
  2.  Chair the Senate and help Obama there.  Sibelius has never been in the Senate
  3.  Serve as president should Obama die.
  4.  Helps shore up support with some state or vital constituency.  Kansas is not likely to vote Obama, unless it's a landslide, in which case it's not needed.  Sibelius doesn't help with Clinton supporters particularly.  Why would she?  She's an Obama supporter.  She's not recognized as experienced in foreign affairs or health care or just how Washington works (for those who don't want Obama to be Carter V.2), 3 big interests/concerns for Clinton supporters.  

In fact, Sibelius does nothing for Clinton supporters.  Why pretend she does?

by LIsoundview 2008-06-12 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Having used misogyny to defeat his primary opponent, Obama knows better than most how unattractive a female running mate would be.  The  media smarta**es who said "Her voice is like nails on a blackboard" or "She sounds like everyone's ex-wife standing outside probate court" came in very handy for Obama in primary wouldn't do him much good in the GE.  No, he will pick a male and if he wants to have a prayer of winning he should pick someone with strong foreign policy credentials.

by miker2008 2008-06-12 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Having used misogyny to defeat his primary opponent

Oh, horseshit.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

This peson wrote a diary on the "whitey" video. Not even worth the time.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 02:14PM | 0 recs
Little troll say &quot;fail&quot;

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-12 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

It's because it would be received as a slap in the face to the 18 million Democrats that voted for Clinton.

What is his reason to NOT select Clinton?  Because she nearly beat him?  Is he afraid of her?

If Obama is the kind of leader he claims and people hope he is, if he can really unite and work together with others, then why the resistance to Clinton as VP?

By naming another female, it becomes like pandering.  It's pretty weak in my view.

by wblynch 2008-06-12 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

"It's because it would be received as a slap in the face to the 18 million Democrats that voted for Clinton."

I asked you why it would be a slap in the face and the reason you gave me is that it would be a slap in the face.

That's no explanation.  

"By naming another female, it becomes like pandering.  It's pretty weak in my view."

If he picks someone who is an excellent choice but turns out to be female, how is that like pandering?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Sorry, I didn't see you use those words.

Is it hard to understand that choosing ANY woman except Clinton is a weak move.  It means he believes he needs a female (for whatever reason) yet it could not be Clinton.  All the while there is no stronger woman for a running mate than Clinton.

By naming a different woman he is stating that he can not work with strong women and he needs a weaker woman to serve with him.  That is a blatantly sexist statement.

by wblynch 2008-06-12 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I laid out a set of reasoning that could explain a Sebelius choice wholly divorced from what you're saying.

Are you denying that it's possible?

Why is it that him choosing a woman (in this hypothetical) is automatically pandering?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Holy low opinion of women in government, Batman!

Look at what you just wrote: for some reason, the only woman in America capable of adequately serving as Vice President is Hillary Clinton?  There is no strong, capable woman other than Hillary?  It's impossible that there's someone who's a better fit for his ticket AND has ovaries?

Jesus, this is about as degrading as it gets!

by Jay R 2008-06-12 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

There are lots and lots and lots of people that respect and admire Clinton.  These people can help Obama.

Obama won with a very slim margin.  Why not shore it up?

There is no other female with the profile of Clinton at this time.

If Obama chooses a woman besides Clinton it's because he has a personal problem with her and that signals he can not work well with others.  It definitely signals weakness to foreign powers.

Or is it because of your hate for Clinton that you think a generic female should be just as viable a substitution?

I am not saying Obama should name Clinton as his running mate.  But, circumstances what they are, it is clearly a sign of weakness if he chooses ANY other female at this time.

by wblynch 2008-06-12 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

"There is no other female with the profile of Clinton at this time."

Al Gore and John Kerry are the only people in the party at this point (who are eligible to run) with profiles comparable to Hillary.  Therefore, nearlly any man Obama might pick would have a lower profile.

Does it occur to you that her high profile is part of the problem for naming her VP?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Well, let's start with the fact that by all accounts he and Sebelius are quite fond of each other. That counts for a lot.  It's in no one's interest to have a nominee and running mate who don't like each other, don't trust each other and differ significantly on their views of the political process.  It'll show on the campaign trail (think: Kerry-Edwards) and it'll lead to an ineffective Executive.

Moreover, picking someone with a high profile isn't necessary, or even that common.  Lieberman  didn't have that high a profile before he was picked.  Nor did Cheney.  The very fact of being a Vice Presidential candidate automatically gives one a "profile."

by jonster23 2008-06-12 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

If he doesn't pick Hillary is means he'll be unable to handle diplomacy?  Christ on a cracker, do you even read what you post?

You're frakkin' delusional.  This is simply the most severe case of ODS I've seen this side of No Quarter.

And why do you think all women other than Hillary are generic?  And how come there can't be a qualified woman other than Hillary who would be a better match for Obama, either through geography, biography, or personality?  You can't really be this obtuse, can you?

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

What is his reason to NOT select Clinton?

Because all the problems she would have brought as a presidential candidate she would bring as a VP candidate?

Because she is, by their choice, politically inseparable from her husband, who couldn't get out of the way of her campaign?

Because she repeatedly stated his opponent was more qualified for the presidency than he is?

They don't like each other and wouldn't work well together?

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Do you think that she has strengths?

She would bring those strengths with her.

She can't have had many weaknesses since she lost the delegate race by a very slim margin.

If 20% of Clinton's 18 million votes are at risk, wouldn't that be a good reason to bring them in?

How many GE votes will Sibelius or McCaskil bring?  Which states would they deliver?

Did Al Gore really like Lie-berman all that much?  Or Kennedy, Johnson?  Even that slime Ronald Reagan couldn't stand Poppa "Voodoo Economics" Bush.

There are political alliances made all the time in order to build strength.

The scorched Earth approach doesn't work all that well.

by wblynch 2008-06-12 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Do you think that she has strengths?

Absolutely. And against anyone but St McCain, Annointed One of Green Rooms and Roundtables of the Beltway, I think her strengths vastly outweigh her weaknesses. Frankly, Bill, judging only from the last three months, is now her biggest weakness as a candidate, IMHO.

How many GE votes will Sibelius or McCaskil bring?

I'm not a huge McCaskill fan (though at this point, if I had to pick the next top-tier female presidential candidate, she'd be my bet). Sibellius is from the rural midwest, her father was governor of Ohio (don't know how much that counts--don't know if he's beloved, hated or forgotten), she's proven a competent governor/executive. She punched Bush in the face over disaster relief, which would be a good talking point (to be bloodlessly political) and is a good Veep issue if she were elected (I don't think Chertoff has made great progress since the Tom Ridge/Brownie era. Call it a hunch). The Beltway seems to like her. The biggest knock I've heard on her is that she's a poor speaker. If there's one hole Obama doesn't need filled....

Myself, I'm not hugely invested in the Veep choice, though I think Webb would be a huge mistake. I just don't get, as the diarist says, the Hillary Or No Woman meme that won't seem to go away.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:26PM | 0 recs
A reason to NOT select Clinton.

Her negatives.

The Republican base is less than thrilled about McCain and lot of them will not be motivated enough to vote. But, put Hillary Clinton on the ticket and more of them will turn out, simply to vote against her.

Clinton on the ticket would be a killer to down ticket Democrats and reduce the number of House/Senate seats that the Dems can win.

by xynz 2008-06-12 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A reason to NOT select Clinton.

I have to say that I would have agreed with your statement about Repub turn-out months ago; however, I know die-hard Repubs who actually would vote for Hillary as President over McCain.

by cameoanne 2008-06-13 11:07AM | 0 recs
I seriously doubt those Republicans.....

.....are part of Mr. 28%'s right wing, fundie base. The 28%ers are the voters who truly believe that Clinton is some kind of anti-Christ. They're demoralized and de-motivated because of McCain, but running against Clinton would get them into the game.

When it comes to the Republicans who are willing to cross over and vote Democratic, the pre-Operation Chaos open primaries clearly show that these Republicans prefer Obama to Clinton.  I think we should call them: "Webb" Republicans. Because Jim Webb epitomizes the sane and centrist Republicans who've felt compelled to leave their party behind. They're definitely not Bush Republicans.

by xynz 2008-06-14 06:27AM | 0 recs
18 million supporters is why

Hillary did win the popular vote after all, and with 18 million supporters, she could unite the party as one.

Here's another key point people miss. Sebelius was bad in her SOTU response. I'd much rather have Hillary debating the Repug VP than any other person.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Hillary did not win the popular vote.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Wasn't it 19 million just yesterday?

by NewOaklandDem 2008-06-12 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Actually she did.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Are you excluding Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada in your count?

Are you counting her votes in Michigan, a tainted contest that was not officially recognized by the party?  Allocating the delegates as they did, out of sync with that contest, did not legitimize it.  Quite the opposite.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

MI got delegates, so yes, is was recognized. Can't have it both ways. No one forced BO to take his name off the ballot.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Michigan got delegates, yes, but the delegates they got were not derived from the vote that was held there.

If they'd given them all to Obama, would you think that the DNC had recognized and legitimized that vote?

Giving them delegates isn't enough.  The allocation would have to conform to the vote for the vote to have mattered.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

If you have an issue with the MI delegates, that's fine. I think it was a disgrace how the DNC did it too.

The vote itself though, was totally accurate, and decided by the people of that state.

So yes, Hillary won the popular vote.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

No, she did not.  She ran essentially unopposed.  I don't care if you think that's Obama's fault or anyone else's.  For whatever reason, it was not a fair primary.

Nice job, by the way, totally ignoring my point.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Again, no one forced him to take his name off the ballot. Hillary won the popular vote, that's just a fact.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

You are ignoring every argument I make.

Are you here in good faith?  Are you engaging in debate or are you here to say what you want to say and damn everybody else?

No one in a position to recognize that vote as valid has done so.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

What do you want me to say? Hillary got more votes than BO. MI & FL were counted, so yes, she won the popular vote.

That's just the facts.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

It's a "fact" without any significance!

Do you play football?  They decide the winner based on points, not yards.

Do you play baseball?  You don't win a World Series by scoring the most runs, but rather by winning more games.

The fact that the popular vote is immaterial to who is selected is so obviously true that four states don't even bother to report it.

The only way you can say that she won the popular vote is to count a state that even Hillary said would not count.

She said it herself.  How do you know when to believe what Hillary says and when not to?  She was for sanctioning Michigan before she was against it?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

This was an election, not a sporting event. We decide election based on votes. Hillary got more votes than BO, that's reality.

No matter how you spin it, she received more votes than BO.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

People use analogies to explain things that don't get across through more direct language.

Mistrials don't count because there was some flaw to the process.  There's another analogy.

I just don't understand why it is you completely ignore the facts that pretty well explain why the Michigan primary was too tainted to consider.  That state had one of the lowest turnouts per capita in this cycle.  There were plenty of people who did not vote because their candidate, including Hillary, said it would not count.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Still not counting caucus states. They deserve at least an estimated representation if you're going to push that metric.

Whatever the case, it means nothing now, and shouldn't be used as a barometer for the vice presidency.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that all 18 million, 19 million, or whatever number is the "official" number nowadays will sit home or vote McCain if she isn't on the ticket. I would like to believe Democratic principles are more important than candidate loyalty.

And yes, I would of whole heartedly voted for Senator Clinton if she were the nominee.

by Massadonious 2008-06-12 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

Hillary STILL wins with the caucas states. A BO/HRC ticket would energize both bases, and demolish McCain.

No other person can offer as a VP, what Hillary can this year.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-12 02:44PM | 0 recs
Perhaps..

and I have no personal opinion whether he puts her on the ticket or not. If he feels she is the best choice, then I don't have a problem with it.

But, if he doesn't, I find it ludicrous that it would be considered pandering.

And, like I said, all 18 million of her supporters will NOT sit home or vote McCain. Some might, but most wont. And those people that will are probably going to sit home or vote McCain anyway, because she's on the bottom of the ticket, instead of the top.

So, in the end, what does it matter? Let him pick his VP. If it's Hillary, then so be it. If it's not, then trust in his judgment.

by Massadonious 2008-06-12 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

On behalf of WA state voters, we invite to take your popular vote argument and go jump in Puget Sound!

Senator Obama won the popular vote, when you throw out the Pravda-Soviet Style Election in Michgan (which requires you to believe that NO ONE in MI would have voted for Obama), and was ruled invalid by the DNC-AND you include our contest and the other caucuses, which were 100% valid.

What is truly sad is, except for us poltical junkies, no one cares about this stupid argument anymore?

If it keeps you warm at night, but, don't try selling it to us that were not in NoQuarter Lala land for the last 3 months like you and your buds.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-12 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: 18 million supporters is why

I have to agree with you about Sebelius' State of the Union Rebuttal.  I was very disappointed and totally unimpressed.

by cameoanne 2008-06-13 11:10AM | 0 recs
It's the continuation of entitlement syndrome.

Before, only Hillary was fit to be at the top of the ticket. Now, only Hillary is fit to be at the bottom.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: It's the continuation of entitlement syndrome.

It seems like some of her supporters are now simply single-issue voters, and that issue is "get Hillary in the White House."  Anything Obama does that doesn't speak directly to that issue is an insult to their minds.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Another thing, although it might be slightly off topic...

Whomever he chooses, we should not be leaving a hole for a republican to fill.

Several of those mentioned would likely be replaced by a republican and we need all the Democratic strength we can get.

by wblynch 2008-06-12 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

That is absolutely a valid point.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:08PM | 0 recs
some people are hopeless

anyone who says "no woman but Clinton" is hurting women directly. anyone who hurts women under the guise of supporting Hillary Clinton is a HYPOCRITE.

anyone who supports women, and knows that REPRESENTATION IS IMPORTANT, knows it would be great for Obama to pick any one of a number of great women Democrats as veep.

(but that being said, i will admit i do agree with those who've said we should MOVE ON and ignore the insane people who want to derail our nominee.)

by catchaz 2008-06-12 02:18PM | 0 recs
IMO

IF Obama decides he needs a women on the ticket, it should be Clinton. After all, she really is extremely qualified. IF Obama chooses another women it will look like he's pandering to women. Most people will see it for what it is.

by soyousay 2008-06-12 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO

What if the reason Obama picks someone like Sebelius is not her being a woman?

There are other reasons to pick someone, dammit.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:41PM | 0 recs
Thank you!

This is what makes me so angry about the "Hillary or no one"-VP argument.

by mnl1012 2008-06-12 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO

Leaving Clinton out of it. (whom I hope never would accept the VP spot because she has much more to offer) Why the hell would Obama choose Sebelius?

by Justwords 2008-06-12 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO

She's a popular governor from a region that's traditionally overlooked by national Democrats, has a good record winning over Republicans, brings virtually no baggage, has executive experience (which would seriously help if, God forbid, she had to assume the office of President), she took on the insurance industry in Kansas as insurance commissioner (the first Dem in that office in a century), she brought the budget under control despite inheriting massive deficits, and she'd still be a historic choice.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:29PM | 0 recs
Electoral Map Considerations

With or without Clinton, Obama will win New York and most of New England.

With Sebelius, Kansas and the entire Midwest are put into play. Maybe Obama won't win there, but it will force the Republicans to waste their meager supply of money, in a region that they shouldn't even need to defend in the first place.  It will also help downticket Dems, such as Nebraska's Scott Kleeb.

It's not all about Clinton and it's not all about Obama. It IS all about Democratic Party building across all 50 states.  Like in one of those states that don't really count, such as Mississippi. That's where Howard Dean's nose pickers picked off a safe seat from the Republicans last month.

by xynz 2008-06-12 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO

After all, she really is extremely qualified.

You keep repeating your opinion as if it were an indisputable fact.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: some people are hopeless

IMHO.  None have all the qualities that Clinton does.  And to pick someone of lesser quality and expertise, and popularity, would be an irrational attempt to placate part of the electorate.  But Obama might just not get that.  That would be sad, and obvious pandering.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: some people are hopeless

Pandering requires intent.

What if his choice of a Red state governor was not at all intended as pandering?

Why do you insist on ignoring that possibility?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: some people are hopeless

Because it is about appearances, and circumstances and in these circumstances it would appear to be and feel like pandering.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 02:56PM | 0 recs
MUCH better choices than Clinton

as i said, i think having women represented at the heights of government is important, so i want a woman on the ticket. its 2008 and we've never had a woman prez or veep! that's bullshit. and it is important in a symbolic manner.

that said, IMHO, Clinton would be the worst possible choice. we need a PROGRESSIVE woman, an ANTI-WAR woman, a woman who embodies CHANGE. Hillary Clinton fails all 3 of these tests miserably.

by catchaz 2008-06-12 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Because Hillary isn't interchangeable with "some other woman".  If you think that then apparently you were viewing her campaign as more a womans campaign rather than a unique campaign by Hillary Clinton who at the same time was a woman.  18,000,000 didn't vote for some other woman, they voted for Hillary Clinton.  To think that she can be replaced by someone, anyone by the same gender is clueless.  All these years, did we elect men because they were just any man or did they have their own individual identies and issues?  Wait.  Don't answer that.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I never said that she was interchangeable.

For the fifth or so time in these comments, it is possible to pick someone like Sebelius for reasons wholly separate from the fact she is a woman.

Why do you insist on beating up a strawman argument you built yourself?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

If not interchangeable then why would he pick a woman?  If he had run against no women, it is my opinion that he wouldn't be considering a woman. The arguement would be that a black person and a woman on the same ticket would not work.  But it is Clinton who has proved that she and other women could get elected, not someone else.  She above other women deserves it because she is the one who has broken the taboo not anyone else, and it would be a slap to her and her supporters and voters to use the respect that she has fought for all women, skip over her, and appoint someone else. It is obvious that if he picks a woman, that he is trying to please women who supported Clinton, but if Clinton isn't good enough to be chosen then certainly less seasoned, less experienced, women picked instead of her, would make no sense.  

But I think that this is one of those things that if you don't understand it you won't.  Like expecting water from a stone.  Understanding can't be forced.  The feelings and support for one candidate can't be replaced by some other candidate who comes from out of the blue and trys to replace them.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

So your opinion is that there are no other women in the party fit to be Vice President?  

If there are any, then there are reasons to pick one that have nothing to do with their being women.

I understand that a lot of folks seem to find that idea insulting, but you have no way, literally no way to know if he would have picked a woman without Hillary running against him.

I want someone who'll make a good Vice President.  If that person turns out to be a woman, great.  I don't want someone picked because of their gender, religion, or ethnicity.  Obama's blackness is gravy, but it's no reason to vote for the guy.

"She above other women deserves it because she is the one who has broken the taboo not anyone else, and it would be a slap to her and her supporters and voters to use the respect that she has fought for all women, skip over her, and appoint someone else."

You insist on making it about gender.  My problem with this insistence is that it either states or implies that there is only one woman fit to be VP, and I find that very distasteful indeed.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

No.  At this time there are no other women MORE fit to be vice president.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

They don't have to be.  The VP choice is often not about who's most fit to be VP, but about who's a better fit for the nominee, or about a particular state, or about a narrative, or about who's best to get the ticket elected.

Hillary may be the woman best suited to be VP, but she may not be the one best suited to get us the presidency.  If there's somebody out there better suited to getting us a win, and that person is qualified to be VP, then it is completely absurd to disqualify that person because she's not a he.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

The VP pick is about who, other the Presidential candidate is JUST as qualified to be president on day one.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

And the decision of who exactly is that qualified singularly belongs to the president.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Now your arguement changes...the Nominee has sole descretion in who he picks to run with him... It's his choice and his alone- I agree with that.

The decision is the voters.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

My argument hasn't changed; this has always been the decision of the nominee. How was this a change?

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

No, it is not.  Several VP nominees (hell, several actual VP's) were not the most qualified person for that job.  Several of them just made better sense for getting elected, but were still sufficiently qualified to serve.

And then there was Dan Quayle....

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

And then there was Cheney.....and what if Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. would have died in office? Pres. Quayle. Pres. Cheney.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

At this time there are no other women MORE fit to be president. (even as second in command). Otherwise more women would have run.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

That's not true. I'd consider Sen. Boxer more fit to be pres. than Sen. Clinton. The fact that she was the only woman who ran didn't mean she was the only woman fit to be president any more than the fact that McCain won meant he was the only Republican fit to win the nomination.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Boxer is my Senator and I am in contact with her and her staff often. I don't agree she was fit to be president in 2008. She didn't run because she didn't want to, maybe next time.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:23PM | 0 recs
That's a difference of opinion, then.

But your opinion isn't fact. Personally, I found her far more qualified than Clinton, and in an election between the two of them, I would have voted for Boxer several times over.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a difference of opinion, then.

And visa versa. Nor is yours.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a difference of opinion, then.

I never claimed my opinion to be fact. If you didn't either, so much the better.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Oh come on, there are all sorts of reasons people don't run for president.  Of everyone eligible to do so, Al Gore was the most qualified.  He declined.  Who knows if Sebelius even wanted to?  And if she did, who knows why she decided against it?  Unenthusiastic about a sixteen month primary process (but more willing to entertain a 5 month General Election)?  Didn't think she could raise enough money?  Total speculation, of course, but you get my drift.

Even if you think Hillary is more qualified -- I'm somewhat neutral on that point -- you're ignoring the fact that Sebelius is clearly more compatible with Obama.  Sometimes the person with the best résumé doesn't get the job, because the boss just thinks (s)he would work better with someone else.  If Obama should come to that conclusion here, it's not pandering.  I'm sure he would explain his choice quite well, pointing out, for example, her opposition to the war.  It may SEEM like a pander to you at first, but if you're unwilling to even listen to his reasoning in the event that he picks Sebelius, well, I'd encourage you to be a bit more openminded.

by jonster23 2008-06-12 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Not only is that wrong on its face (as has been pointed out, Al Gore didn't run and he was the most qualified person; likewise, plenty of unqualified people run for President every cycle), but any woman who'd run this cycle would undoubtedly have been castigated for being a stalking horse and been targeted relentlessly by Clinton surrogates.  Who would want to be subjected to that?

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

>>>>>>For the fifth or so time in these comments, it is possible to pick someone like Sebelius for reasons wholly separate from the fact she is a woman.<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<

NO- not at this time.

Sebelius doesn't bring anything to the table for Obama anyway.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 02:56PM | 0 recs
Your comment illustrates....

...how intentionally blind you are.

Sebelius brings plenty to the table, you just prefer not to see it.

by xynz 2008-06-12 11:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

You're expecting a rational explanation of an irrational emotional response.  You're not going to get it.  

It's offensive to the folks who would be offended because it's not Hillary and in their eyes she deserves to be the first.  Just like she deserved the nomination.

It doesn't matter that another woman might add some element to the ticket Hillary couldn't, just like it didn't matter that Obama ran the smarter campaign.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-12 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Got the 'interchangeable' up there while I was typing it out, I guess.

I really don't understand why the question would need to be asked. What if Hillary was the presumptive nominee and Obama had 18,000 votes and she decided to pick another AA candidate? Both would be kind of saying....they are all the same, makes no difference.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

If Hillary picked a solid choice who happened to be black, I wouldn't be bothered.  If she picked someone who was obviously a pander, I'd be pissesd.

Why is this so hard to get?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I imagine you would be the exception.  Most people would wonder what was wrong with her picking Obama.  He is the one who broke ground for a presidential candidate.  He is the one who has millions of voters  behind him already.  He is the one who put an effort into it.  Why would just another person who didn't do all the work and who is black, be more appropriate than him.  You may not see the connection.  I don't know why.  But many millions of people would and would be bitter.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Most Obama supporters, like most Clinton supporters, are Democrats, and as such, would have supported the nominee regardless of who s/he chose to be second in command.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

We just don't know that and we never will.  It is one of those things that can never be proven.

by Scotch 2008-06-12 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

It's being proven right now. Most Clinton supporters are already behind Obama.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

"Second in command" is a heartbeat away from being the next president. NO, it is a very important issue that they pick the right democrat- not just any democrat.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

And the overwhelming majority of them are picking Obama.

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Duh..... the second in command (VP pick) are picking Obama right now? I don't think so.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

The majority of members of the Democratic party are supporting the nominee, ie, Barack Obama.

Is this confusing?

by Firewall 2008-06-12 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Only to you. We know Obama is the presumptive nominee- we were talking about VP picks- second in command. (his VP pick)

by Justwords 2008-06-12 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Yes, and that VP pick is Obama's, as the nominee.

Where's the confusion?

by Firewall 2008-06-12 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Who would be a more qualified as VP for Hillary than the AA Obama who got votes that complimented her votes? Any other AA pick would be pandering.
Same goes for Obama and women would be pissed.

I get your point that another woman may be qualified for other reasons...and IF Hillary had been an also ran like Edwards or Biden...picking another woman would not be a big deal. But the idea of a VP is to pick up voters that you aren't going to get...why toss the one out that nearly knocked him out by getting the voters he couldn't get? It would be pandering and would be seen as pandering.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

The really sad part about your argument?  The very first person who would applaud Obama choosing a female running mate other than Hillary Clinton would be Hillary Clinton.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Most people will see it for what it is.

Yes, picking who he feels is the most qualified to be VP. I would hope rational people would pick that up.

It's nice to see you're talking about other Democrats than just Senator Obama, too. Way to reach out!

by Massadonious 2008-06-12 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I don't think Obama will pick Hillary and if he does, I hope she does not accept. She represents 18 million voters and the ones he's having trouble with but I don't think another woman would be able to offer that and if he tried to offer a lesser woman for the job it would make it seem like women were just interchangeable and the other woman could do what Hillary did. (I assure you another womaan could not in 2008)  

IMO he needs an older white male with much more experience and who isn't offensive to women but has a wide range and handle on all the issues...not just Foreign Affairs. It can't be someone without national name recognition.  

by Justwords 2008-06-12 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Obama doesn't have problems with anybody but white Appalachian voters. These people would not vote for Obama EVER. Regardless of who is in the V.P. slot.

He is crushing McCain in the woman, latino and everything else department. The blogosphere is not the real world.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get
I used to think a Obama/Clinton ticket was the "dream ticket", but over the last couple of weeks, I've changed my mind.
Frankly, I think a VP spot would be a waste of her intelligence and talent, and even Hillary supporters can agree that Bill is a somewhat loose cannon (though I still love him).
I would prefer that Obama pick a good VP who has foreign policy experience or a military background. Man or woman, he needs to pick the best person he can.
by skohayes 2008-06-12 02:49PM | 0 recs
I'll take a stab at this

I'm someone who will vote and campaign for Obama without reservation (or much enthusiasm, sorry).  I'm also someone who would be pissed to see a woman nominated for VP without first offering it to Clinton. (not pissed enough, mind you, to vote for McCain)

Here's why --
Since the start of the primary season I've watched Clinton attacked using the same constructs used to attack her through the 90's, right down to mention of Travelgate, Vince Foster and her "failure" to secure universal healthcare (against all odds) at that time.
It was her refusal to fit the existing "first lady" mold that brought out the venom of Rethugs in the 90's.  She was pilloried for daring to stand as an equal next to her husband, for being ambitious in her own right and for having her own powerful informed opinions and voicing them. (imagine if in twenty years Michelle Obama was seeking higher office and the smears used now against her were dredged up as progressive talking points)

As this primary season ground on, legitimate critique of Clinton became balled up together with the anti-Clinton sentiments that so outraged feminists in the 90's.  
Even after conducting a weak early campaign and some stunning verbal blunders, Clinton still amassed 18 million votes in a presidential primary,  a significant cadre of passionate supporters, the support of the majority of grassroots Democrats and she proved herself a tough, effective and tireless campaigner.

There are precedents for two former political "enemies" uniting after a tough primary season on the same ticket. Certainly Clinton deserves this consideration from Obama like no other primary candidate in recent memory.

I hear these reasons most often for not inviting her to join the ticket:

  1. Bill would put the campaign at risk and "overshadow" Obama before and after the election. (so therefore only those women without power partners need apply, implying that Obama does not have the leadership strength to corral an ex-president)
  2. She would somehow "energize" the Republican base. (resurrecting the Repug garbage of the 90's and somehow more than Obama himself)
  3.  She will bring too much "excess baggage" (like 18 million voters and thousands of passionate supporters, I guess)
  4. she does not deliver any key regional support (like Kansas??)
  5. she doesn't fit the "message of change" (AS IF a female VP is plenty of change, her policies aren't nearly identical to Obama, or she hasn't herself been a Washington outsider in her own right)

The arguments floating out there that sort of makes sense are

  1. the country isn't ready for THAT much change and the ticket needs something for white men.
  2. the ticket needs CiC gravitas nd/or foreign policy chops
  3. the ticket needs someone who can deliver a big swing state

Since all of the LOGICAL arguments against Clinton also apply Sibelius and for the life of me I can't see what she would bring to the ticket but more cynical examination, I would have to see naming Sebelius as nothing but pandering to women voters.

I don't want to be pandered to.  I want to be HEARD and I want Clinton on the ticket.
 

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-12 02:50PM | 0 recs
Hillary picks Ford - Obama supporters explode

If Hillary Clinton got the nomination and put Harold Ford on the ticket all hell would break loose.

Enough said.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 02:55PM | 0 recs
Not really.

You do realize that more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the GE than Hillary supporters said about Obama?

I wouldn't of cared if she put Mickey Mouse on the ticket.

by Massadonious 2008-06-12 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Not really.

That mouse is a deal-breaker!

The number of Obama supporters who said they would defect was initially higher than for Clinton supporters. Things changed when he took the lead.

It matters not. The fact is there are many Clinton supporters who will vote for McCAin or sit this one out.

I think its unwise to ignore the 18 million votes she recieved. The election is personal for many of them. Plus, there are many who feel Obama is too inexperienced. Some are predudiced. Some are upset with a "rigged" election (in their opinion). Some are unhappy with the false charges of race-bating made against the former president and first lady.

The Repblicans and 527's will run commercial reminding people of the race-bating, showing who said what and when they said it. It will remind/inform Hillary supporters what a "uniter" Obama is. It will not be pretty for Obama.

A unity ticket is the wisest course of action. The sooner it happens the better.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary picks Ford - Obama supporters explode

Um.... Harold Lieberman Ford? Endorser of Joe Lieberman and Chris Shays? FoxNews Democrat? The man who (at the urging of James Carville and Paul Begala--who do they work for again?) tried to knock Howard Dean out of the DNC after the Democrats retook both houses of Congress in 2006? Who called for us to "stay the course" in Iraq about six weeks ago? That Harold Ford?

Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed.

Maybe you're so drunk on identity politics that you think all women and all black men are alike, but some of us actually deal with records, issues and individuals.

That post says a lot about you, and it isn't flattering.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary picks Ford - Obama supporters explode

I actually like Harold Ford a bit.  He's too conservative for my tastes, but the man has style.  He also managed to say something nice to Sean Penn on Real Time, even though they'd been going at it like wet cats the whole show.

Ford isn't a bad guy.  I do not want him in the leadership, but I'd be happy to have him in office again.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary picks Ford - Obama supporters explode

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 04:12PM | 0 recs
D'oh!!!

(Fat fingers)

I suppose he'd be better than Corker in the Senate, but he has not endeared himself to me since he lost that election.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 04:14PM | 0 recs
Both Clinton's were thrown under the bus and

the Obama campaign claimed they were race-bating. He also said that Hillary would say or do anything. That's a personal attack.

You wonder why a unity ticket might be necessary. It is. Don't wonder too much. Do what's right and do it quick and move on.

No unity ticket, no unity. That is political reality.

You want to see Republican and 527 commercials documenting the race-bating, who said what and when. It won't be pretty for Obama. His supporters will get an education and Hillary supporters will be reminded of what happened (or informed if they didn't already know).

The best thing for all concerned is a unity ticket. Or there will be hell to pay.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

You want to see Republican and 527 commercials documenting the race-bating, who said what and when. It won't be pretty for Obama.

Of course, the Clinton's are squeaky clean. You have to be naive if you don't think they'll attack Clinton as well if she's on the ticket.

Or there will be hell to pay.

Like what? People like the Hillaryis44 and NoQuater faux Democrats sit home? Don't act like you speak for 18 million people.

by Massadonious 2008-06-12 03:10PM | 0 recs
TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

I'm talking about what happens if she's NOT on the ticket. Obama will be the target. They will not want to piss off Clinton supporters and Obama won't want to piss of her supporters any more than he already has.

The ads will simply show comments that were made and document the false race-bating. They are coming, you can count on it. The ads will fall flat if Hillary is on the ticket. But if she's not it will be a homerun for McCain and he will pick off Hillary supporters like fish in a barrel. They could stir things up pretty effectively.

Commerical begins:

"America needs a strong leader who doesn't seek to divide us".

Cut to Jesse Jackson Jr.: "Hillary didn't cry for Katrina"

Cut to Hillary Clinton: "Civil rights legislation required effective leaders on the outside (MLK) and effective leaders on the inside (pres. Johnson)"

Cut to Obama's people saying her comments were racists and dissing MLK.

Cut to Bill Clinton saying: "Jesse Jackson won here in 1984 and 1988, he ran a good race, Obama's run a good race, he's run a good race EVERYWHERE, but there are still many contests to go"

Cut to Obama's campaign spokepersons saying how the statement is racists. Show all the emails that were sent out the all the reporters stating that the comment was racists.

Cut to Keith Olbermann saying how bad the Clintons are and how racist the statement is.

Cut to Obama himself refering to the comment.

Show the Obama campaign internal memo that has all the supposedly "racists" comments from the Clinton campaign and asking them to look for more.

Cut to Hillary explaing that other campaigns have gone on until June, mentioning her husbands and that Bobby Kennedy was shot in June.

Cut to Obama saying he takes Clinton at her word, then show all the emails his campaign staff is sending out to all the media saying that her statements were reprehensible.

Cut to Keith Olbermann (the gift that keeps giving) giving one of his special comments on how bad what she said is.

Show various Obama surrogates dissing Clinton. Show the news media dissing Clinton.

Have the narrator explain the step-by step methodical race-bating that went on.

Show that money was obtained for a recount. Then show Obama supporters in the state legislators in FL and MI voting not to have a recount.

It might take two commercials. But they are coming. It will stir things up and it will upset many Hillary supporters.

It will be coming to a small screen near you.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

The ads will fall flat if Hillary is on the ticket.

That does not make any sense.

I guess it's Barack's fault Hillary attacked him unfairly at times.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 03:47PM | 0 recs
Where have you been?

Every thing Clinton and her supporters don't like is Obama's fault.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

It's his fault his campaign chose race-bating as a strategy.

He was never attacked personally by the Clinton's. He was only mildly attacked for inexperience. That is not a personal attack.

A personal attack is saying that Hillay will say or do anything to get elected. Saying she is divisive is also a personal attack.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an ad if Obama does or doesn't choose Clinton? And who is going to run it? McCain or a vindictive pro-Hillary 527?

In any case, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who know what you're referring to. Hell, I'm a blog junkie and half your references are obscure. Waving Keith Olbermann's name around may rile up a couple of dozen people from No Quarter or Hillary is 44, but as a general election strategy (and I still can't figure out for or against whom), it's simply too absurd to even imagine.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

Folks, this has already been discussed. It will be McCain, the Republican party and the 527's. That is just a small taste of what is coming.

You have a guy (Obama) who claims the former president of the United States and the former first lady,now senator is race-bating.

That is no small thing. That is a very HIGH_RISK strategy. It will now be used against him.

It's easy to document and show exactly how the Clinton's were thrown under the bus for political gain. The Clinton's didn't play the race card on themselves. They didn't put out the word, Obama and company did and the Republicans will use it against him. It's the best issue they have by far.

If Hillary is on the ticket it makes that line of attack obsolete becuase the picture of Obama and Clinton together smiling will trump everything else. The world will rejoice. Obama and BOTH Clintons are very popular and reasuring. They can kick ass together. Or things could get ugly..

by mmorang 2008-06-12 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

No.  If you're right, they'll attack Hillary for "selling out."

They're going to hit us no matter what we do.  That's a given.  We're going to have to deal with it.  The only difference will be in the particular wording of the ads.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

Wrong. With Hillary on the ticket it wouldn't matter. Her supporters will see them together and she would say if asked: "I'm not going to talk about the primary, that's ancient history".

Again, her supporters wouldn't care because she was on the ticket. If she's off the ticket, McCain will score big. There are many people who are looking for a reason to vote for McCain. The ads documenting race-bating will give them that reason.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

It's not absurd.

Race-bating charges were made against the former president and first lady...on camera. Either they are true or they were made up for political gain.

It would be very easy to put together a commercial showing the treatment that Hillary received from the Obama camp.

Just show Obama, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Obama's campaign staff in their own words and emails. Show that they did in fact cynically play the race card against the Clinton's. Even many Republicans couldn't believe the treatment she received.

It will be a slamdunk for McCain.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

You vastly overestimate the influence of the alegrist world view.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

It is the world view of many of her supporters and many Republicans.

In any event, the ads will appear. The facts speak for themselves and it's not a pretty picture for Obama.

Republicans will like the ad because it will show Obama as a divider. They will do everything in their power to turn Obama into a divisive and unelectible politician.

Live by the race-card, die by the race-card. Political Science 101.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

Tell you what, the first day John McCain uses Obama's "race baiting" in an ad, I will send five hundred dollars to the Clinton Library Foundation.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-12 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

And what about the 527's? Will you be making a donation if they run it?

I didn't just pull the ad out of my back pocket. They've already signaled its coming. I just fleshed it out a bit.

Anyway, libraries are good things to contribute to.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: TV AD - COMMING TO A SMALL SCREEN NEAR YOU

The ad isn't designed to appeal to Obama supporters, its designed to piss off Hillary supporters. Many of whom are not even aware of the race-bating charges that went on.

So, it will be educational for some and a reminder for others.

The ads will only work if Obama is dumb enough not to put Hillary on the ticket.

by mmorang 2008-06-12 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

Sebelius's experience in the military and national security is almost nil. I think she could be an effective cabinet choice, but as VP, she doesn't bring that much to the ticket.

by vcalzone 2008-06-12 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I used her as an example.  I wasn't endorsing her in particular.

I just wanted to make the point that Obama could pick a woman without picking her because she's a woman.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

She actually has a pretty impressive record as governor, having been fiscally responsible and very popular with both parties.  She also has a record from her time as state insurance commissioner of taking on the insurance industry, and she has ties to both Michigan (where she grew up) and Ohio (where her father was governor).

And executive experience is not easily dismissed in my book.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

But what kind of experience does she have that would make her qualified on a national level? That's the kind of thing that a VP candidate would bring to the table. I would be quite happy with someone who had serious name recognition, too. Obama is still new in the public's mind. We don't need to worry about introducing TWO new people. McCain has that luxury. We do NOT.

I'm not saying she'd be bad, and I'm not saying that governor experience doesn't qualify you for President. It does. But Obama, in my opinion, needs someone with an established reputation and genuine military (or defense) experience. I'd love it if they could get Joe Biden. LOVE it.

by vcalzone 2008-06-12 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: This I Just Don't Get

I find that frequently the ones who've spent the least time in Washington come in with the least taint of the town (and I say that as someone sitting comfortably inside the Beltway).  I want his Chief of Staff to be someone who's spent years in DC and knows his or her away around town and/or the situation room.  The veep is someone that, honestly (and somewhat morbidly) I want to come into office clean in the event of a crisis (think Tom Hayden in "The Godfather: Part II).  I understand the longstanding practice of picking someone with deep DC ties for the post (with a healthy dose of either geographical or ideological considerations), but I'm just not sure I think it's a good way to help reform the VP's office, which I think has gotten way too powerful during the past 7 years.

But I do see your point, and largely agree with it, concerning name recognition on the ticket.  I wouldn't discount, however, the value of having a running mate with lifelong ties to Michigan (where she was born, spent much of her childhood, and keeps a home) and Ohio (where her father was governor).  She might not be known nationally, but she can help with two swing states and potentially make McCain waste some dough in Kansas.

by Jay R 2008-06-13 05:34AM | 0 recs
Here's one example of a great woman in politics

Check out McCaskill in this clip: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12 /mccain-lobbyist-scandal-c_n_106832.html

Now, I don't think picking McCaskill is wise -- two first-term Senators wouldn't look good.  I'm a huge Obama fan, and even I have to pinch myself sometimes when I think of his meteoric rise.  But my point is, there are talented women everywhere in politics.  Just hypothetically, watching this clip, you can tell that McCaskill would have strengths as a running mate.  She explains her positions fluently, and is able to hit McCain while smiling and insisting, very plausibly, that she isn't even hitting him.

Impressive.

by jonster23 2008-06-12 04:21PM | 0 recs
Two great women for the job:

Claudia Kennedy and Shirley Franklin.  I'd have loved to see either in consideration, and I hate that both would be dismissed offhand by so many on this thread as "tokens" simply because they aren't Hillary.  It's a shame how quickly people are willing to turn away from good women candidates simply because of who they aren't.

by Jay R 2008-06-12 05:57PM | 0 recs
Honest questions

Here are honest questions that I would like answers to:

1)  What percentage of that 20% who won't currently vote for Senator Obama are NOvemberists?

  1.  Can you expect Senator Obama to take Senator Clinton without a thorough vetting of President Clinton?  What if a vetting turns up a shady donation to the library?
  2.  Can Senator Obama afford to lose a week if the cable newsers' "Pres. Clinton scandal watch" hits paydirt?  If so, how?
  3.  If Senator Obama respects the wishes of the Clinton voters and in the event of his not choosing her and chooses a male, should/will he get hit with charges of sexism?

I mean these as open ended questions, if you can provide compelling answers to these you have made a case for Senator Clinton to be on the ticket.

In fact, I highly recommend that the Obama campaign move on parallel tracks, one if Senator Clinton is chosen and one if she isn't.  Answering 1 especially won't be possible until August.

by AZphilosopher 2008-06-12 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest questions

Hey, I'm not going to pretend to speak for 18 million Hillary supporters - this is just my opinion:

I think most Hillary supporters do not want Hillary to be V.P.   We think that she should be President!   Otherwise, we think her talents are best used elsewhere.

Regarding picking another female V.P. besides Hillary, I would agree that Hillary should be asked first (and I hope would decline).  Another female choice does seem a bit artificial to me; however, I do not see any reason why many of these qualified women could not be in Obama's cabinet!

by cameoanne 2008-06-13 11:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads