Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Plans to Keep Lid on Veep Talk

By Shailagh Murray
DULLES, Va. -- Sen. Barack Obama said he "appreciated very much" a statement from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton distancing herself from efforts to add her to the Democratic ticket. In the statement, she called the vice presidential decision "Senator Obama's and his alone."

Indeed, the Illinois senator instructed reporters to dismiss all speculation about running mates. He said he won't discuss the selection process, or parade prospects in public, as Sen. John McCain seemed to do last month when Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former opponent Mitt Romney visited his Arizona ranch. The McCain camp said the get-together was strictly social, but it sparked wild speculation that the presumptive GOP nominee was considering all three as possible ticket mates.

"The next time you hear from me about the vice presidential selection process will be when I have selected a vice president," Obama said in a press conference aboard his campaign plane. "If you hear second-hand accounts, rumors, gossip about the selection process, you can take it from me that it is wrong, because we're not going to be talking about it in the press."

He continued, "There's no decision that I'm going to make that's going to be more important before the November election. I intend to do it right, and I'm not going to do it in the press."

A reporter jumped in with a follow-up question: Any chance Obama would pick Clinton for his No. 2? Obama stared back incredulously. "As I've said before, Sen. Clinton would be on any short list...but I am not going to discuss who is being considered."

The full statement from Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, issued this afternoon, read as follows: "While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her. The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

By Post Editor  |  June 5, 2008; 5:32 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , B_Blog , Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Visits Southwest Virginia
Next: McCain Wants a Man on Mars

Comments

Everybody knows Clinton already whereas the other candidates accomplishment's are not as salient. For all those who are concerned about Bill being in the White House, Obama was once asked about the possibility and he allegedly stated that he would have him in the loop "in a heartbeat." Regardless of his personal travails and gaffes in this campaign, he and his wife were the only two political luminaries who tried to do something about the health care crisis. To say it is a travesty of social, biological and moral justice to be the only first world nation with no universal health care is a profound understatement. With all due respect to former President Carter, proponents of a joint ticket such as Jesse Jackson, Diane Feinstein and elder statesman Mario Cuomo are right that there would be more practical advantages than disadvantages. If you all think McCain is not seriously considering picking a woman, you are mistaken. Maybe the GOP wants to get into the "history making" wagon as well. The Democrats had Ferraro in 1984 and now McCain may pick somebody that is indeed outside of the box. I do not think Rice would be the obvious choice but there are private sector CEO's like Whitman and Fiorina whose names are being floated in the context of hyperbole. But then again, what if they pull a curve ball. Picking any other woman but Hillary will take major justification and Obama may be forced to deal hands unbeknownst to him and the nation for that matter.

Posted by: Yves | June 11, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

whats wrong with edwards for vp

Posted by: autralian | June 7, 2008 3:42 AM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton has raised the bar for women. But for now, it belongs to Obama and his supporters.

To show that he is still half-white, and cares for all Americans, the best VP should be a non-black lady, who is'nt Clinton or Pelosi.

Posted by: VP choice | June 7, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Go Obama!!
I was a Clinton supporter and I stop supporting her becasue of many reasons not her policies but because of the kind f person she has shown to be.
Obama has ran a great campaign for nomination even though many people who supported his efforts didn't vote for him because they didn't believe he'd win.
I believe that Obama will make the best decision as for who will be his VP. He has ran a GREAT campaign and he knows what he is doing!!
May God bless him and guide him!! After all he will be our leader. (If the Lord says the same, of course!)

Posted by: Change We Can Believe In | June 6, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy.

Posted by: Unity | June 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary were chosen as vice-president, it would be a dysfunctional administration from the beginning to the end. Moreover, I think she and Bill would try to maneuver the party so that Barack and Michelle would be blamed for the failed administration.

Barack, please, for our sake give us your philosophy and style. I think you owe that to your donors (including me) as well as the many voters you had.

My money donated to you - and I think many other donors - do NOT want our money to be used to pay off Hillary's loans to herself.

Had we wanted to support her, the money would have gone to her.

She made the decision to continue running so it is her responsibility to do as she pleases with HER money - that is NOT the responsibility of YOUR donors.

Posted by: wiles336 | June 6, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

If Obama can't take Hillary as V.P. then I can't take him for Pres. - I will follow his lead in "unity".

Posted by: unity | June 6, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I am glad Barack is taking charge, stating the decision who will be his vice-presidential nominee will be his decision, that he will not be rushed into choosing anyone, especially in what will be his most important decision before the election.

Please, Barack do not choose Hillary as the vice-presidential nominee, for reasons which have been given by many people. Appoint her, if you wish, to an important cabinet post, but not the vice-presidency.
You do not want to be in a situation where three persons think they are or should be president, yourself, Hillary and Bill. This will be nearly inevitable, if you choose her to be vice-president and win the election.

Posted by: Independent | June 6, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

It is understandable that Hillary Clinton has had a hard time conceding. (The pressure starting weeks ago for her to quit was unseemly. The process wasn't over. The decision on what about Florida's and Michigan's delegates had not been made. [While the way the issues involved in those elections were addressed by may seen as fair by most, it was debatable. {Many of us think, it is clear there is still work to be done to reform the Democratic Party's nominating process.}] Hillary's campaign came very close to winning, The longer her campaign continues, the more money her people can collect to pay off debts. After 54 contests, could Hillary be expected to shift her emotional gears easily?)
It is even more understandable that those who struggle for gender equality, have had a hard time accepting the end of Hillary's campaign. Many, some of whom were born before women had the vote, fear they will not live to see a woman as president during their lifetimes.
As Obama has advised, "Let's let the dust settle".
I think Democrats should have patience with each other.
Obama's supporters should realize: We are more likely to have the support of Hillary's partisans if we let them vent.
Hillary supporters should realize: Obama's choice of running mate should not be rushed.
I think if Democrats have a little patience with each other over the next week or so we can come together more easily to win in November.

Posted by: ESW | June 5, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

It is understandable that Hillary Clinton has had a hard time conceding. (The pressure starting weeks ago for her to quit was unseemly. The process wasn't over. The decision on what about Florida's and Michigan's delegates had not been made. [While the way the issues involved in those elections were addressed by may seen as fair by most, it was debatable. {Many of us think, it is clear there is still work to be done to reform the Democratic Party's nominating process.}] Hillary's campaign came very close to winning, The longer her campaign continues, the more money her people can collect to pay off debts. After 54 contests, could Hillary be expected to shift her emotional gears easily?)
It is even more understandable that those who struggle for gender equality, have had a hard time accepting the end of Hillary's campaign. Many, some of whom were born before women had the vote, fear they will not live to see a woman as president during their lifetimes.
As Obama has advised, "Let's let the dust settle".
I think Democrats should have patience with each other.
Obama's supporters should realize: We are more likely to have the support of Hillary's partisans if we let them vent.
Hillary supporters should realize: Obama's choice of running mate should not be rushed.
I think if Democrats have a little patience with each other over the next week or so we can come together more easily to win in November.

Posted by: ESW | June 5, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

"Obama should make it clear now that he has no intention whatsoever of picking Clinton as his running mate."

If any reinforcement is needed, let's all keep saying it'd make him look weak. Which it would.

Posted by: Chuckamok | June 5, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

New York Post

Hillary Rodham Clinton is ending her quest for the presidency precisely as she began it: with a false sense of entitlement, complete self-absorption and delusional lies.

Now everyone agrees that she has lost the nomination. Barack Obama will be the nominee.

Yet she refuses to acknowledge this simple, clear truth so that the vital process of converting her supporters into supporters of the actual nominee can begin.

In her fantasy world where she is still in control, everything is upside down.

It's as if Obama should be waiting by the phone in hopes she might offer him a spot on the ticket.

When Obama called Clinton Tuesday night to (magnanimously) congratulate her on winning the South Dakota primary, her campaign twice let the calls go to voice mail.

It is true that Clinton eventually commanded a considerable force in this primary.

But she still lost. And she lost profoundly, by every metric imaginable.

This is one of those defining moments.

For Barack Obama, for the Democratic Party and, possibly, for the country.

Obama has run a campaign against the moral shortcuts and twisted truths that have been so viciously perfected by the Clintons and left American politics in ruin.

Obama should make it clear now that he has no intention whatsoever of picking Clinton as his running mate.

Picking her, especially in light of her current antics, would make a lie of Obama's campaign. And failing to rule her out now keeps the lights going on her corrosive carnival stage.

In 1992, Bill Clinton's campaign had a sign on the wall reminding them that the campaign was all about the economy.

The Obama campaign should put up a sign of their own: "It's the Clintons, stupid!"

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

LMFAO! Angrydoggie!

2 Thumbs, and a pair of "Barry" Fingers;

Way Up! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | June 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Want change?

I want to see a McCain -Hillary ticket.

Now.... that would be change.

Posted by: plaza04433 | June 5, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ky1_pyn6Q

best vid of the primary... Hillery's Downfall

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | June 5, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

HEY Chuckamok... do you recall early in the campaign something about push-up bras? I mean how could I have missed this?

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | June 5, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

[][][]----[][][][][]----------[][][]----------[][]-------[][][][][]
[]-------------[][][][]----------[][][][]-------[][][]
-------OBAMA - LEAHY '08--[][]--------[][][]-------[][][][]
--[][]-------------------------[][][]--------[][]
[]-------[][][][][][]----[][]----[][]-------[]--[]-----[][][][]--[]

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | June 5, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

" ... Jerry Zeifman, who supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee investigating Nixon's Watergate, fired her from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation - one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career. Why? "Because she was a liar," Zeifman said. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality ..."

America has dodged a bullet here. No more Clinton slime in the White House. Ever.

Posted by: Chuckamok | June 5, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is either on that ticket ..."

HRC headed the assassins' squad that slimed Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick - ANY woman who dared to expose BubbaZipper's sexual predations.

Sisterhood tossed aside in pursuit of venal political ambition.

Why would you support somebody like that?

Posted by: Chuckamok | June 5, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Now that all the drama is over, all should chill for a month or so.

And Hillary needs to check into a pants suit detox center.

Posted by: Chuckamok | June 5, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

This whole "election" is a JOKE. Hillary has MORE votes than Obama, the DNC is in tatters and they are sitting there going, well who should we pick? I am SO done with the Democrats, registering as an Independent. Hillary is either on that ticket or I will absolutely leave the party and vote Nader and Independent from now on.

Posted by: Hillary All the Way | June 5, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Purely out of curiosity. Don't get alarmed, but can anyone tell me if there are any rules against Obama choosing McCain as VP? Or McCain choosing Obama as VP?

Posted by: Jake | June 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Now that Rezko has been convicted, both Obama and Blagojevich will VERY SOON be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the section under which Rezko was found guilty.

FOR YOUR READERS:

Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:

Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33

THEN, your readers should study this EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:

http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services." Specifically, this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of public officials.
I.
Background
18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored "honest services" within the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to deprive the public of "honest services" by a public official could be punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).
II.
Judicial Interpretations of the "Honest Services" Fraud
A.
General Parameters of the Statute
Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the "honest services" fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges. However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official's exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.
Courts have recognized that the term "honest services," as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a "common sense" usage of the phrase "honest services." In rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute's wording, one court opined that "[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in terms of common understanding and practice." U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff'd. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court demonstrated little patience for the defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge in the context of a kickback scheme, holding that "[i]t should be plain to ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for a city councilman's vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of § 1346." U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a "catch-all" that subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that "not every breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud"); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir. 2003) ("the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the course of dealing"). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase "honest services," courts have attempted to establish general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an "honest services" fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the official's personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the proper or impartial performance of the public servant's official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit's prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has held that "[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime." U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that "in almost all of the intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange for official action[,]" but also noted that "[s]ecret conversion of information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the owner of that information." Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an honest services fraud as follows: "[a]n employee deprives his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the information he obtained in it) for personal gain" (emphasis added). Id. at 656-57.

Posted by: John Ryskamp | June 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Keep the lid on Hillary

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

Sooooooo, Barry Won the Nomination?! :-o

Now, as far as all those great Promises and Proposals....

Well, he DID Honestly proclaim Himself a HUGE Fan of "Change"! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | June 5, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company