Even if we treat Cheney's role in the current Administration as an outlier, the reality is that Presidents have increasingly entrusted their veeps with increasingly large roles in their administrations, starting with Carter and Mondale back in the late 1970s. Nowadays, you'd really like the veep to play the sort of role that Gore did in the Clinton Administration.
As a result, I think the comfort level between the President and Veep isn't a trivial concern. I don't see the strife between Obama and Clinton being papered over easily.
If this were 40 years ago, that wouldn't matter: he'd choose her as his running mate, then bury her as President of the Senate. But it's not, so it matters.
And I say this as someone who was old enough to vote in 1972. The notion that the MSM arbitrarily changed its standards between 1984 and now is just plain stupid.
People change over time, institutions change over time, reality changes over time. If you changed your mind about something important for no apparent reason between yesterday and today, it suggests there ain't much 'there' there inside you. But if you changed your mind about something important, sometime over a 24-year period when nobody was paying attention, the fact that you never spelled out your reasons doesn't mean you didn't have good ones.
And even if they weren't, the 'you' in this case is a rather large collection of people. So they're in a different place now than they were in 1984. BFD.
These things you call 'facts' get in the way of creating new realities.
Facts like "Obama's had a bigger net gain in superdelegates in the past 5 days than Clinton's likely to get from WV" or "even Rahm Emmanuel seems to have thrown in the towel" are for reality-based losers.
What was Obama's 'typical white person' gaffe, for those of us with short memories?
I sure don't remember anything on the level of eliding 'working Americans, hard-working Americans' with 'white Americans.'
Given the number of times this year that the Clintons and their surrogates have said things that have, at a minimum, been at the border of playing the race card, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Fooled once, shame on you; fooled a dozen times, shame on me.
Lazy: "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"
Where does that leave blacks? Pretty obvious, huh?
Not real: pretty much the whole tenor of that larger quote. White votes are the votes that count - a candidate that overcomes losing the white vote by doing well among blacks is somehow not winning through 'real' votes.
And this is a woman who wants to represent the Democratic Party as its Presidential candidate.
If this was vaudeville, a hook would've pulled her off the stage by now. Time to get her out of there.
once the Rules Committee comes up with a compromise that uses as its basis the January primaries, thus essentially ratifying those results to some degree, Hillary Clinton is then on more solid footing in counting Michigan and Florida in the popular vote, which, whether people like it or not, should be a factor...
Look, Todd, there's at least an argument for counting the FL popular vote in any scorecard of how the running popular vote totals are adding up. We can disagree on how good an argument it is (my header says what I think), but no question that an argument can be made.
When it comes to Michigan, there just ain't none. At least if you're expecting the supers to consider the popular vote as evidence of the relative support that Clinton and Obama have. And what other sense would they make of it? Why else would they look at the popular vote to begin with, rather than just consider the pledged delegate totals?
Exactly. Now take your meaningless Michigan popular vote and shove it. Thanks.