Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama-Clinton: Nightmare or Dream?

With Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly planning to officially accept defeat on Saturday, many readers have serious questions about whether Sen. Barack Obama -- the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee -- would be making a big mistake if he invites Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to join him on the ticket.

Throughout the Democratic campaign, anti-Clinton postings have been part of the comment mix, but the tone today is a little different. There are many calls for unity among presumed Democrats (again, Readers Who Comment are not required to provide party affiliations or much of anything else in the way of identification) -- but unity is rarely defined in today's comments as Obama-Clinton.

There are also those who say they can't vote for Obama. There are clearly disappointed Clinton supporters. There are the sometimes not very subtle remarks about Obama's race, and the usual string of attacks on the media for not doing whatever the commenter thought should have been done in the coverage of the campaign. Interesting morning as we wait for whatever Clinton is going to say on Saturday.

We'll start with FirstMouse, who said that "Hillary Clinton's intention to suspend rather than end her campaign and by other acts to keep her options open do not suggest she meets a cardinal criterion of a desirable VP candidate, that of loyalty to the Commander in Chief..."

armchair_genius said, "Apparently the Obama campaign learned of Clinton's decision to drop out from news reports. What is wrong with her?!"

And jjambillbob joined the chorus in writing, "No! No! No! No! No! You cant put someone behind you, that badly wants to be in front of you. It will not work! Wrong move."

TheFrog1 said, "Enough about Hillary. Just let her go away. I for one am sick of her and her husband."

And yihe94703 wrote, "Imagine if Clinton were VP, and she and Obama enter the White House. Imagine Bill Clinton following and saying, Hey, that's my old office! It won't do. Obama needs a fresh start. Please, Senator Clinton and supporters, be gracious and decline the Vice-Presidency so that Obama will not have to offer it..."

But OMG1 wrote, "Well, yet again, the smart, compassionate, experienced, and best-qualified candidate for President won't be elected. America, you deserve everything you've received the last 8 years for electing for that incredibly egotistical moron president TWICE. Now you'll have either a Duh-bya clone (God help us all!!) or an inexperienced man...Misogynists 1; Americans 0"

skylark1 asked, "What will all you sadistic little Obama disciples do for fun when Hillary is no longer around for you to beat up on? I won't vote for your candidate, because no good could come from an administration supported by a bunch of nasty, mean spirited people like you. You are worse than the Repubs. i think of the lyrics from a song ; Meet your new boss, same as the old boss."

Martinedwinandersen was among many who pleaded for unity in writing, "The whole world is watching, so let's not blow it folks; help Barack Obama restore America's rightful place as the city on the hill."

nodebris said, "Kudos to Ms Clinton for a phenomenal campaign. Now that we're all warmed up with some intramural practice rounds: on to the real fight, together."

MaryCarmela wrote, "You must work extremely hard to explain to your supporters that you lost fair and square, while you lost some votes due to sexism, Obama obviously lost some to racism... it is critically important that all who care about this country turn to focus on the future, to support, contribute to and vote for Sen. Obama..."

Deadline said, "It's not like anybody would have covered her campaign if she had decided to continue it. Saturday better be good for sake of democratic party and for the political future of Hilary."

DrCha said, "At least this will stop further damage to her senate seat and the party. However, her subsequent behavior will have impact on general election. Hopefully her better angels will prevail."

LL314 clearly supports an Obama-Clinton ticket in writing, "Sen Obama won. If Obama supporters want to win in Nov then they need to drop the Hillary hate. It won't help their case one bit. I don't understand how a Christian nation like ours can develop so much hate for the candidate that they don't happen to support... The smart thing to do is to let Hillary be VP. That would insure my vote for Obama..."

But fishingriver said, "I don't think he can chose her after this. I think that unless she makes a congratulatory speech pledging full support to Obama by tomorrow, he should pick a different VP before Saturday."

BasicInstinct wrote, "...I don't know what Hillary can do to heal this wound her campaign has caused, but she needs to do it now! When McCain is using Hillary's talking points to hurt Obama, you've got a problem. Hillary; your tactics made you lose, but your pride is making you a loser"

And we'll close with a couple of the antimedia comments:
allenridge said, "Obama is where he is today due to the "axis of intolerant liberal mis-information" and went on to cite "elite liberal Hollywood (Oprah); eltite liberal MSM wolfpack press (NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN are the "alpha" members of the "pack")"... and "elite liberal college professors (and their contamintated students, our kids)..."

And rini920 asked, "Does anybody report the news any more, or is it all predictions and speculation? I cannot read all of this article because this kind of speculation is way beyond decent reporting."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  June 5, 2008; 9:25 AM ET
Categories:  Clinton , Obama , Presidential Politics  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Win: Small States, Big Media
Next: Mourning for Clinton

Comments

Didn't this used to be a democracy? How come we always end up with just two (BAD!) choices?

I just visited the Post's election information site. Unsurprisingly, the Post's "exhaustive" coverage of the candidates includes only the Democratic Party nominee and the Republican Party nominee.

What about those of us who wouldn't vote for EITHER of these bought-and-paid-for major party candidates? Are we supposed to just go home and join the 50% of voters who see no point in voting if all we have to choose from are the two candidates who have been "vetted" by the corporate powers-that-be....and their "expert" media mouthpieces (who are paid to make authoritative pronouncements on who can--or cannot--be elected)?

I've got a BETTER idea....how about if we "free" voters were allowed--or even encouraged--to learn if there is ANY candidate out there who might come closer to sharing our own opinions on ISSUES? Is that too radical a suggestion? Who gets to decide which policy positions are TOO radical...and on what criteria do they base their decision?

I was told, growing up, that the United States of America is a "FREE" country. Over my 60+ years since then, I have come to question that claim. Is there anywhere I can go to ask the questions I have...Is there any kind of campaign 'coverage' that might give me honest answers, or are all the information outlets and Talking Heads designed just to spin 'facts' and confuse the citizenry with mini-dramas about who said what 20 years ago, or who wears a flag pin, or some other evidence about which of the TWO candidates 'loves America more'?

Can anybody tell me what's up with this election thing? If it's all just a big joke, please tell me....I sure could use a laugh these days; but if this election is supposed to be serious, I'm willing to risk the 'slings and arrows' of the Democratic Party hacks and cast my vote (honestly) for Ralph Nader or some other genuinely progressive candidate.

I invite everyone of like mind to do the same, otherwise we will continue in the tradition of being given choices between TWO absurdly similar (corporate-approved)"choices".
----------------------------------------

"It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people."
~~~ Gore Vidal ~~~

Posted by: JosephHill | June 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

One independent in my office enthusiastically supported Obama but will never vote for a ticket with Hillary Clinton on it - he cites the fact that she raised loads of money from special interests and big donors, the Bosnia "lie", the (silly and unproven) insider trading charges, the (disproved) Whitewater charges, and Bill Clinton's pardons as he left office. Another is undecided between Obama and McCain but will never vote for a ticket containing Clinton. Obama should check with voters carefully before adding a running mate who gets so many independents so irrationally mad. Neither of my 2 office independents would mind a running mate like Diane Feinstein.
Please recognize that rejection of Hillary's experience isn't misogyny; experience has been a political "bad" for decades and Bill Clinton got elected as an outsider. Public speaking skills helped Bill, too, and are not shameful. Obama has more international experience than Bill Clinton did entering office.
Florida and Michigan could be fully counted, and Obama would win if it were not for the risk of superdelegates not going his way. Superdelegate existence is a travesty; half-counting FL and MI is a side-effect.
To make popular vote a fair metric, we would have had to warn states at the outset that if they chose the caucus method they'll only be counted 10-20% as much as other states.

Posted by: adrienne | June 10, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe a bunch of red necks re elected Bush, what a mess. You could see it coming a mile away. McKain needs to go sell french fries. Obama and Clinton needs to put your country back on your feet. Who cares if you like them or not. Its obvious that they are the best people for the job. Just look at what they accomplished individually and who cares who they are married to. Get busy, much work needs to be done. If you ppl don't get it right this time. I would say you are in trouble. Good Luck and god speed.

Posted by: Canadian | June 10, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Please, no more! The continuing psychodrama of the Clintons: semen-stained dresses, b***j**s in the Oval office, Jennifer Flowers, dodging bullets in Bosnia, 3:00 a.m. phone calls, hardworking white people, RFK assignation, uncle! uncle!
Enough already! I have had enough of the Clintons and their involving everyone in their psychodramas. Do they get off on it? I know I am done. Aren't you?

Posted by: lorax2 | June 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I am sometimes shocked by the ignorance of the American Public about American History and how brutal the voting process has been since this country was founded. Did anyone watch the miniseries John Adams? It gave a window into the development of our government from the very beginning. It seems John Adams was slandered while running for his second Presidency. Thomas Jefferson made many compromises to win a tied election. I fully support Obama for President as a Democrat though I voted for Hilary. As the true question becomes, who is a better President Obama or McCain. Any feelings you have about Hilary losing is now in the past? Get over it. If Obama chooses Hilary Clinton to run as a VP, I would find this a wise choice. You may see the controversy about Bill's personal life, but as they say, only throw the first stone if you have such a clean life. The good things that Bill Clinton did do in office are a three billion dollar surplus and a strong economy. If you don't think that three billion dollar surplus is related to the strong economy, back to business class you go. They also tried to pass the National Insurance for all Americans. It didn't go through but they tried. Al Gore was Vice President and has since won a Nobel Prize. Hilary was Bill's confidant and had a lot of influence in a lot of his decision making. Obama may be inexperienced so choosing a person with experience should be his main priority as he has a lot of promises of change and everyone in DC knows that change can only happen if you know how to get around all the red tape. He needs the person who can get around the red tape. Look at the democratic party and knowing the all the levels of paperwork, lobbying and red tape...who is the most qualified to support Obama as VP? Hilary looks good. This is no longer about who voted for Hilary or Obama. It is about unification. Right now your glass if half full...in order for Obama to win this race it's got be completely full.

Posted by: U.S.CitizenCalifornia | June 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

no,no, and more no.

No to her on the ticket.

I could never vote for Hillary n Bill. Not in 2008,2012,2016, or ever.

Posted by: John C. | June 7, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who continue to claim (hope) that posts claiming to be from Clinton supporters are really Republicans supporting Senator McCain, I ask you: why, at this late date, would Republicans bother? No, we really ARE Clinton supporters who will now vote for McCain in the general election (or will not vote at all). It isn't because of anger (although we certainly are angry) or out of spite, or because we will just vote for any female who comes down the pike (I, for one, would not vote for Nancy Pelosi and never would have voted for Elizabeth Dole), it is simply because we do not believe that Senator Obama is qualified to be president, nor do we trust him. He is an unknown, and what is known is unacceptable. Senator McCain is not an unknown and he is acceptable; we know where he REALLY stands.

I have never voted for a Republican, but I would rather vote for the devil I know (though I do not consider McCain the typical Republican devil; he certainly is not King George personified, in spite of Obama's claims), than the who-knows-what Obama. One thing we do know is that he has accomplished nothing and promises only Hope and Unity, neither of which has been, so far, forthcoming. More than any candidate in history, he has succeeded in dividing the Democratic party. Congratulations, Obama! There's a First for you. King George promised untiy, too, but at least he didn't divide the Democratic party. He has succeeded in dividing his own, but at least it was after the fact, not before he was even elected!

By the way: manhy of us do not want Senator Clinton as Obama's VP. He would be a disaster as president and if she were the VP, she would be blamed or at leasst tarnished. I would rather see him fall on his face all on his own. Senator Clinton has a continuing bright future ahead of her; she doesn't need Obama's baggage.

Posted by: Judy Kilgore | June 7, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

This Vice President campaign started with the Clinton News Network (CNN) Wolfe Blitzer trying to get Barak Obama to settle for Vice President in the first campaign debate on CNN. Now it is an all out pledge by CNN to get Hillary instated as Obama's VP with all of their newsanchors and reporters in it. CNN believes if FOX News Network can make the determination a President, then CNN can make the fix on the Vice President.

Posted by: Linda | June 6, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

What kind of speech can we expect from the woman who stayed way, way past the bitter end? Test drive the 23/6 "Speech-o-Tron" and see: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/06/hillary_clinton_drops_out_spee_7002.php

Posted by: eliana | June 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

A nightmare is a dream.

Posted by: Josh G | June 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, don't use my vote which was given in good faith to you to put pressure on the DNC or blackmail Obama.
I am voluntary going to transfer it to him, as you were not the candidate I thought you were.
You have set the feminist cause decades back by cementing the stereotype of women that can not play by the rules.
I hope to be more professional than that (54 yr white female)

Posted by: deborah | June 6, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad that Sen. Obama is eager to accept the help, and advice of Bill Clinton. We love Bill Clinton. He was one of the GREATEST! Presidents in American history. And he is a very smart, and enormously talented and experienced leader.

As far as I am concerned. Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton don't owe America anything more. They served the American people and the World very well for 8 years under enormous adversity.

But if they still want to help out, it would be foolish not to accept them with open arms. Bill Clinton was an excellent model of modern Presidential leadership excellence, and effectiveness. :-) Plus, we just love Bill.

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | June 6, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

"We need universal health,..."

Ted Kennedy doesn't want universal health care. He wants the best health care.

So do I.

Posted by: rj | June 6, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

It is really interesting that so many posts here are by Republicans pretending to be Hilary supporters!! OOOOH...WE ARE SO SCARED BY YOUR SILLY THREATS! Go ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot! The TRUE Democrats WILL UNITE behind Obama, and he WILL be, the next President of our wonderful nation!

OBAMA 08!

Posted by: Ann | June 5, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

This messege is to justicepsych: To give you the benefit of the doubt, he does talk about oppression of the black people. That is true and I would feel disgruntled if it happened to my grandparents. However, he states that al-kida's fight against the americans is the same as their religious fight against americans. It is true, cocain for example has less charges than the poor black mans version of cocain crack. This nation could be unfair. But we have come a long way. What about jewish people, or japanese people who were in death camps. Should they speak out with such hatred at a place of worship. I have personally grew up in a BLACK neighborhood where I was treated like an outcast by black people for no reason. Should I denounce black people. Should I stereotype all black people for what some black people did. Look many white people are voting for Obama not because thier racist but because they support his values and beliefs for this country. If you cannot see that times and attitudes have changed for many than your living in the past. Just like reverine wright.

Posted by: Joe | June 5, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's supporters should unite NOW and and PROMISE to vote for McCain.

Remember, if McCain is the President, Hillary will be in a powerful cabinet position. She will implemrent what she stands for. McCain will support her.

We will never miss her leadership then.

PLEASE, Hillary Democrats, VOTE FOR MCCAIN, if you want Hillary in power.

Posted by: TK | June 5, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Hi, this is Hillary Clinton. I want to thank my supporters for voicing their dismay at Obama stealing the election from me. Keep speaking up, my friends. If we can make Obama lose this election, then we can say "I told you so" and run again in 2012!

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | June 5, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Just remember, folks, Hillary has won the uneducated vote. That's why you hear so much illogical ranting from her supporters here.

Posted by: James Wilcox | June 5, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

For the person who said "Hillary has MORE votes than Obama", I refer you to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Obama leads Hillary by +41,622

Posted by: Joe Dillon | June 5, 2008 8:05 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 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments posted by Clinton supporters; they sound like pouty children. Their sense of entitlement mimics their candidate's. She and her husband are proven liars. She is power-hungry. She does not have some stellar political record--what has she actually accomplished? Clinton is a legend in her own mind, as a previous poster perfectly said.

Obama would make a big mistake to take her on as a VP because she is part of the old guard. Is America not sick enough of the old politics? Do we need another dynasty? I say good-bye and good riddance to the Bush family and the Clinton family.

As to those who say they would vote for McCain--you wish to extend a war that is needlessly sacrificing American soldiers' lives? You wish to extend a war that is ruining our economy (unless you are a member of the Industrial Military Complex, raking in the cash while the rest of America is losing its homes and jobs)?

America DID NOT owe Clinton anything--especially not for "being a woman". In the same way, America does not owe Obama anything just because he happens to be black. The man's platform is very good.

Look at the candidates' platforms and what they are promising--not whether or not they have a vagina, or whether or not they are black, or whether or not they have been around Washington's block for thirty years.

Finally, for those whining that Clinton was treated unfairly in the media--she started out the media darling! The consummate insider, she started out with the support of the DNC political machine. The media only began to take Obama seriously when it became clear that he had begun winning contests and drawing support WITHOUT their backing. This support was grassroots. This support was word-of-mouth. This support grew and grew.

Obama is not an elitist snob. Those who try to paint him as such are the real snobs. They created that accusation because they think that the working classes are stupid enough to fear people with "book-lernin". They think ordinary Americans are stupid enough to fall for the "I'm one of you" lines fed to them by certain millionaire candidates.

Let me tell you something: the working classes are what built this country. We don't have an inferiority complex and we aren't stupid. As an educated (post-graduate), twenty-something daughter of hard-working, blue collar parents (whose factories have closed down and moved to countries with slave wage labor)--I SUPPORT OBAMA.

Obama: Do NOT break our trust in your messages by choosing Clinton as your VP. She represents the type of politics America is sick of. Your message is change. Bring it.

Posted by: Huh? | June 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

If Obama chooses Hillary as VP he will gain a huge amount of support from those who backed her campaign. If he doesn't choose her, it's also important to remember that he will NOT automatically lose the backing of all those supporters.

To many, the name "Clinton" conjures up images of scandal and near impeachment. Even if it also reminds us of better economic times, I don't think those better times are closely linked to the name "Clinton" as much as the scandal.

Obama needs a fresh start. He needs to distance himself from that era.

Hh

Posted by: Oinker | June 5, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Jeanie...well done.

Posted by: twotraps | June 5, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

to Andrea Perez, my goodness!!

That was a long, well thought out post, there is no changing your mind....but consider a few things if you will.

From even before the beginning of the race, it was no contest. Hillary had all the name recognition, contacts, experience and savvy to run away with the race, and everyone knew it. It was no contest.

It started out harmlessly enough, with a few Obama wins, followed quickly by Hillary's campaign finding itself broke in Januray, changed top staff, asked others for paycuts, there seemed to be some confusion in her camp. Then a top advisor was ousted for supporting Columbian trade, while Bill went down to collect $800k to support the same issue which she opposed!
For me, the lack of delegate support early on was crucial for her.

Two other crucial blows came just in the last week, first the DNC meeting, second...the group of lawmakers that phoned her to strongly suggest ending it. Clintons used to be the big insiders at the DNC and were allowed to roam freely within reason.....that was no longer the case. Then group of people that called her was another reminder that she is indeed part of a larger movement that is the Democratic Party.

We have nothing but time to theorize on why it went wrong. It appears not that the automatic support of the delegates was not there. At any time, they could have come out of the woodwork and ended the campaign.

I am not a Hillary supporter and feel the Clintons brought more dishonor to the Presidency and White House with the lies and scandal than any in our history. They were rewarded with a Senate seat and $107M over an 8 yr period with book / business deals. I felt they were mocking the DNC and entire campaign process by demanding votes be counted in a clearly faulty primary. Without the guidance of senior people around her, I felt strongly she would have gone all the way to the convention and sued the party till she was satisfied. She will host some party this weekend but I doubt we have heard the last from her, she feels entitled to something for being Hillary and will manipulate/carve out something for herself.

Judge Munoz in LA County gave her a pass and allowed her to testify after the campaign in the civil trial for campaign fraud during her senatorial run. Shocking it never made it to the media. With her out of the race, lets see how Clintons do in court.

Posted by: twotraps | June 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

The only corrupt part of the process is Hillary Clinton and the way the Clinton power structure tried to steal an election in front of millions of Americans. The election took place, and the best candidate won for so many reasons. The supporters of Hillary Clinton who are livid at this point are a reflection of a candidate which allowed them to feel they were jilted. That they were cheated. Hillary Clinton has not shown the leadership or the grace to congratulate Barack Obama, and to step down. She falls short of being a leader. It was a primary. Someone wins, someone loses. The voices I listen to who call in with anger over this are classic misdirected followers. They have displaced anger and they are not right. They will see this down the road. There is emotion and that is what is guiding them now. Listen to the leaders of the party who supported Hillary all the way. They are shocked that she did not do the right thing and concede. In a great moment for America and for this party, we had nominated the first Black man for President. Spending just a moment to study this nation's history of slavery, the pain and the human suffrage that was endured for hundreds of years in this country by so many at the hands of Americans. People have fought for freedoms across the world. My grandmother fought for women's suffrage for the right for women to vote. It is important to appreciate that in America, blacks were treated less than human, they were property. No key issue will heal us as a nation more than to unite us all as a people. This event to elect Barack Obama is enormous. I cried tears of joy to know the significance of such history and goodness in my lifetime. This is a turning point in our history. Democrats need to stand up now and embrace what is ours. We are leaders in this moment. We do not stand for old politics which involve lobbying tactics, strong arm back room tactics, petty notions.

This is a time to congratulate Barack Obama for his win, for his strength, and his decency. There is no other message greater than that.

I think we have a democratic candidate who is better than us and we are not quite use to that yet. This is our shining moment and it is time to drop the torches, the old emotions, and get into the moment. It is one hell of a moment and it is ours for the taking.

Posted by: Jeanie | June 5, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Picking BILLARY Clinton as VP (with BUBBA Clinton in tow) is the logical equivalent to choosing a SPITTING COBRA as a room mate -- you are NEVER so sure when the spitting or the biting will happen and kill you.

But you know the "D" for "deadly" day is coming, and when it does, you get poison in your blood stream -- whether by being spat on or bitten!

Barack Obama should heed this WARNING!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 5, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

We will not win because Rude Obama supporters because:
1. You are elitist. If Obama needs white working class men to vote for him, calling them uneducated and inbreed isn't going to get their vote. In case some of you born with silver spoons in your mouth have forgotten, some of us have had to take jobs that are not up to our talents or intelligence level because we have had families to feed, medical bills to pay and relatives to support. Unlike us women who have learned to eat a lot of crow, men seem to find this kind of talk unforgiveable. You are threatening their "manhood"
2. Hillary Clinton never insulted anyone because of circumstances beyond their control. She said often and with compassion that there is one America where everyone should have health care and a decent paying standard of living.
3. If Obama picks a bunch of bossy antagonistic men to run with him at this point, and doesn't consider just who Hillary was able to gain support from then he is not the unifier he says he is. Arrogance will not serve him here. He lost the support of women, white working class men, Latinos, Asians, and anyone who has to struggle to earn a living. If this country was trully 75% or higher in a tax bracket that affords a working wage, he could call it a win.
4. Again, be careful with your language some of you. Telling people that they don't know things because they do not have your education level is not going to get them to vote for your candidate. No one likes to be told they are idiots because they have a different opinion then you have.
5. Half the voters in this country did not support Obama. That is a big problem. He is unknown. All that we know about him is that he has a habit of standing on the same stage as Louis Farakahan, stays seated in church when his pastor is rude to three quarters of this country and makes up speeches that say what you want to hear. He also has campaign fundraisers who are under inditement or have just been convicted! Don't you do your research before you put someone in front of this nation? There wouldn't have been a thing they could have held against a Joe Biden or a John Edwards...At least we knew all the "stuff" Hillary brought to the table.
6. And by the way...Hillary sent an e-mail to all her supporters asking them to support Obama. Say what you like...It is only Thursday people...Why are you in such a rush. Remember 2000? We couldn't wait and look what we got....I'm not convinced that we are doing any better now. Obama has a lot to prove to me. Too bad so many of you are telling me that my Lady has to humiliate herself to get me to do so. Too bad that he is such an unknown that his talking points aren't going to get him out of a really big scandal. We are just looking at the tip of the iceborg.

Posted by: Andrea Perez | June 5, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The small crowd that opposes Hillary as VP is the same crowd that Obama denounces over and over again... Racist and Angry at the hand that feeds them. It amazes me these people have voting rights even from prison. Common sense and the new democratic generation say YES.

Posted by: JON | June 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

RE:
BTW.. Why do people think that a two-party system is the American Way?

Because nobody has experienced anything else. Personally, I think the two party system has resulted in a growing divide between sides. Each party has to pander to its far left or right "base" and by the time the GE rolls around, there is nobody left standing in the middle.

How about run off elections? You vote for your #1 candidate in the first election, the top two winners run-off. Everyone can vote their favorite, then vote their conscience...and we can finally leave the "a vote for X is a vote for Y" fear rhetoric behind.

Too bad it will never happen. The leaders of the current parties like it this way.

Posted by: BothSidesAreBad | June 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Maria,

The answer to your confusion lies in the concept of complexity. Obama's point was not that his grandmother is an evil racist, merely that despite the fact that he sees her as a good person and someone that he loves, that she has held beliefs that he finds distasteful.

I have experienced racism, but the confusing fact is that the fact that someone holds racist beliefs does not mean that they are an inherently bad person, or that you can discount everything else about them.

Many of our revered "Founding Fathers" were racists... owned slaves.. were guilty of many sins, but still they are remembered for other acts---they are held up as heroes for good things that they did, and rightly so.

Obama's point was not that his grandmother was a person to be reviled, but rather that people are complex creatures, and that pretending that they're two-dimensional caricatures of real people does everyone a disservice. His point was that you can care for someone, or revere a person's accomplishments without agreeing with or condoning other parts of their character.

Posted by: JusticePsych | June 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY AS VP - BIG MISTAKE!

The only logic for Obama selecting Hillary would be the old adage, keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

Hillary only has one interest in mind, Hillary!

Obama should realize that Hillary would second guess him every step of the way while pushing her own agendas and Bubba would be fighting to be in the lime-light in-between chasing interns around the Whitehouse grounds!

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | June 5, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Re: JusticePsych

Do you believe Obama's words or his deeds?

1. He attended black liberation church for 20 years
2. His wife said that "For the first time I am proud of America" in reference to her husbands success. Obviously she is not proud of anything that not-black Americans had achieved.
3. He blamed his own grandmother for racism because she was afraid to meet black guys at night on a dark street. By the way, I live in LA and I am afraid to meet black guys at night on a dark street.
4. He used is grandma as an excuse for Rev. Wright racist remarks.
5. He dedicated his victory to his grandma. I don't understand it. If she was such a bad person, what does he mean by this dedication? Does he mean that "Hi grandma...you were a racist but look what I had achieved:)" He is a very troubled person is after all this years he hates his grandma that much.

Posted by: Maria | June 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Back at you BothSides... and posts like yours draw attention to the fact that it's the process itself that breeds political stupidity. The soundbite creates idiotic dialogue and destroys reasoned debate.

BTW.. Why do people think that a two-party system is the American Way?

Posted by: JusticePsych | June 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

JusticePsych - People like you give me hope for this country. Your posts have been refreshingly full of logic and reasonability. Thanks.

Posted by: BothSidesAreBad | June 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

RE: Racism

Hello, American white middle class. You are all racists. Congratulations. A label is what we deserve for all the hard work that we did for America.

Dear Obama supporter, go ahead. Can you please let me know whether Latinos are racists? Asian? Indians? There are too many colors and too many people that do not like Obama.

I am a long-time Democrat and I used to support MoveOn for many years. This year I will vote McCain. At least he doesn't call me racist.

Posted by: Maria | June 5, 2008 3:36 PM

For every Obama supporter that cries racist, there are 10 Hillary supporters crying misogynist. Both sides have slung equal amounts of mud. Get over it.

As for voting for McCain? If he was truly fiscally conservative, I would be with you on that. As far as these candidates go, I think the Democrats might actually get the budget balanced and the economy back on track.

Its a bummer that the republican party got hijacked by a bunch of religious wackos and McCain is pandering to them.

Posted by: BothSidesAreBad | June 5, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama would never ever choose Clinton for VP.

1) He doesn't care about party unity. It's my way or the highway.
2). He had promised this position long time ago. Probably he had promised it to Kennedy for his support in the critical moment. Probably it will go to another essential super-delegate.
3). He could have ended the primaries long time ago by offering the VP slot to Hilary. He hadn't done it. I suspect that the win in primaries is far more important for Obama than in the general elections.

Posted by: Maria | June 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Really?

Consumed with hatred? For real? Did you listen to Obama's speech on race? Have you listened to the things he's said or paid attention to the man at all? Consumed with hatred?

This isn't a black and white world. Pun intended. There are many shades, in people and in ideas... the reflexive polarization of every idea, thought and opinion is what is counterintuitive.

Being hurt by the actions of a white-controlled power structure is not the same as hating white people. Captain Justice is right, from the perspective of a white person in my generation who holds no racist ideals, it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable and unfairly picked on for the sins of people past. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama said.

It's not hatred, it's frustration and pain. And Obama does not strike me as a man consumed by any of the above, despite the fact that those in his company MAY. I don't remember anyone in his circle advocating for the lynching of whites, or violence. So.. consumed with hatred is a little... um.. melodramatic.

Posted by: JusticePsych | June 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Another sexist comment posted on this site:
From Bill, Obama supporter (naturally):

"Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA: please choose Hillary as VP! nearly 1/2 of all the demoncrats wanted her, it is so obvious that that would provide the UNITY the party needs to win, you can't win by choosing a nobody (or a govenor from a state you can't win: talk about pandering) you claim to bring people together then make the choice that's been in front you since the beginning. OBAMA-CLINTON ticket would be a landslide.

Posted by: j blackstone | June 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse


RE: Racism

Obama' supporter writes: "However, it is tiring to hear the overused euphemism "middle-class, white voters" when what is really meant is "racists".

Hello, American white middle class. You are all racists. Congratulations. A label is what we deserve for all the hard work that we did for America.

Dear Obama supporter, go ahead. Can you please let me know whether Latinos are racists? Asian? Indians? There are too many colors and too many people that do not like Obama.

I am a long-time Democrat and I used to support MoveOn for many years. This year I will vote McCain. At least he doesn't call me racist.

Posted by: Maria | June 5, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Lots of mean spirited people in this country, starting with the Media and the Obama supporters. Clintons have their personal flaws. But their entire life efforts have been dedicated to better life of every American. No president in recent decades including Kennedy has done better in bringing economic persperity, competitive strength, and hope to America than Bill. I think Obama is OK. But I really don't like the media and his supporters. I hope Hillary doesn't run join Obama as VP but run independent. This country really needs a third party now both parties make me sick. My backup choice will be voting for McCain. I think he's a decent guy, far from the extreme right of the GOP.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I read all the comments. 4 times I found an identical comment "To the "Men" who voted for Hillary...how was sex in the city????" In other way it says "If you vote for Hilary you are not a real man.

A similar comment about race would be deleted by a moderator. But a sexist joke is allowed, 4 times on the same page.

For the record: I voted Hillary. My husband asked me whether it is because Hillary is a woman. No. I would vote McCain even if Obama will promise all-female cabinet. It is not about gender, it is about fairness. Once again an older experienced female is pushed aside by a young guy with "a potential". We see it in the corporate world every day. Young MBA graduates with little experience and big vision screw up and the hard working middle class has to carry economic consequences.

8 years ago we were told that Mr. Bush has a vision to change the country. Now Mr. Obama has his vision. God save America from another 8 years of vision-oriented policies.

Posted by: Maria | June 5, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

FRED17...awesome!!!

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

obama can not pick clinton with out also appointing a trusted food taster

Posted by: fred17 | June 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Saying Obama is racist because of his church is like saying Cheyney is gay because of his daughter!

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

to vtx1800r..i will bet you $1000 McCain looses...do you have a PayPal account to send me the money?

Posted by: vtx1800r | June 5, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

To Justicpsych, so how long until i don't have to listen to how white America is racist, yet most comedians out there will tell jokes about white people that are offensive? when is it ok to speak without the fear that it might upset someone...however, the rest of the world will do it without blinking an eye? let me come out with a movie that says "black men can't jump" or better yet, can't play hockey or whatever stereotype i can come up with...it wouldn't happen! This is the time that we all work together and try to avoid conflict or hate not perpetuate it. Go Obama!

Posted by: to Captain Justice psycho | June 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Andy,

Again. I'm not defending statements made in anger, nor am I saying that they are the most productive way of dealing with them. However, I am stating that taking one view and characterizing an entire group and ministry's beliefs based on that one view is short-sighted.

The Catholic church is notoriously intolerant of many people and behaviors. However, can you say that none of the good that they have done for millions of people counts? I'm saying complex issues and complex perspectives shouldn't be boiled down to oversimplified talking points.

And to the "justicepsych" who talked about his parents... yes, it's easier to get over if the abuse has completely ended, but if it continued in different forms, I'd expect it to be difficult to get over, and I wouldn't fault you if you didn't.

Posted by: JusticePsych | June 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Justicpsych

I'd prefer to NOT have someone consumed with such hatred as my President. We already have the psycho Cheney (the de facto President)- and look what he's brought us.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Suck it up people..time to put on your big person britches and deal with it. You can rant and rave about what you think "really happened", but the fact of the matter is that your next President will be Obama...even if you decide to do something - only a high school girl would do - and vote for McCain because you are just oh-so-mad. :( boo-hoo

Posted by: Capt Obvious Called | June 5, 2008 2:59 PM


The funny thing is, McCain will win.

Posted by: vtx1800r | June 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Suck it up people..time to put on your big person britches and deal with it. You can rant and rave about what you think "really happened", but the fact of the matter is that your next President will be Obama...even if you decide to do something - only a high school girl would do - and vote for McCain because you are just oh-so-mad. :( boo-hoo

Posted by: Capt Obvious Called | June 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Hehe. That's precisely the attitude that I'm talking about. Imagine that a person killed or hurt someone in your family. How long till you felt comfortable sitting down to eat Thanksgiving dinner with that person and their family? Imagine that person telling you "I killed your sister like 5 years ago already. Get over it!" Forgiveness is admirable, easy for some, difficult for others, especially when the problem hasn't actually disappeared.

Posted by: JusticePsych | June 5, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

To the "Men" who voted for Hillary...how was sex in the city????

Posted by: I loved this one | June 5, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

yes...justicepsych..move on. I was beaten as a kid, should i hold meeting with my brothers and sisters to speak evil garbage about my parents...no, I MOVED ON.

Posted by: justicepsych | | June 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Justicpsych,

Your willingness to accept behavior from Obama's black church that you no doubt wouldn't accept from a "white" church is astounding. Do you belong to a church? Would you stay for 20 years and be an enthusiastic member of the congregation if your church members and pastor regularly made anti-black statements? If your answer is no, but you're willing to give a pass to Obama and his church, you're advocating a double standard. It's blatant, my friend.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

justicepsych---move on

Posted by: justicepsych | | June 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Nightmare!

Posted by: Larry Oregon | June 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I've got to say that I love the whole Obama's church debacle. Obama spent 20 years in a black church. America at large discovered this church and one sermon of many that expressed anger and dismay at the sins of this country and determined that it was a church of hate.

Can we talk for a second about the amazing phenomenon wherein everyone forgets that people of Rev. Wright's generation faced an abject racism that those of subsequent generations only hear tell of?

Why do blacks have to pretend that their anger and hurt is unwarranted? Why is it unamerican to criticize the acts of a country whose cherished constitution declares that people like Obama and Reverend Wright are worth 3/5ths of a person? There are people still alive and kicking who remember being told that they were subhuman--who were beaten and jailed for daring to claim an equal level of humanity.

We are naive when we expect that in many black churches, which have historically been the centerpieces of many black communities and the only real social forum available, that the grievances and the pain of those communities are somehow taboo.

Yes. We have come a long way since the civil rights era, but anyone who thinks that racism is dead or that oppressed minorities should have no right to rail against that oppression in their own families and forums is naive at best.

The double standard regarding Rev. Wright is incredible. Is he a showboating minister? Yes. Was he tactless after being thrust into the spotlight? Yes. However, can you fault a person for "damning" a government that has long been complicit in keeping a segment of it's population down? That incarcerates a full 25% of that population? That only allowed those people the right to eat at the same tables a mere historical eyeblink ago? Especially when the person damning it is one who fought for it and still had to suffer its indignities? Especially when it is a benefit to white politicians when their "religious right" supporters state that New Orleans deserved Katrina, that preach hatred and intolerance toward gays, and that feels that the only true Americans are white Christians from rural areas?

We love to brush things under the carpet and then chastise those who remind us that we didn't really clean and the dirt is still there.

Posted by: justicepsych | June 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so John McCain seems like the safer choice. He has experience in the senate. His focus is national security, and he's portrayed as a "good ol' boy". However, where is his merits on issues concerning our economy. Do we need someone who's gonna stay commited to a war that is bringing our economy to ruins? John McCain wants to hold town hall meetings, appearing to be the type of guy that puts the american people's opinion first. In one of his speeche's, he said he is going to continue this war regardless. So is really concerned about the american people. He seems like he is not open to the opinions of the american people. Much like George Bush. In a related matter, how is his temperment? He seems quick to the trigger. Do we really need a military politician who is gung ho? Don't get me wrong, I respect the military, but just don't think McCain is three dementional.

Now, I clearly favor democrats, and I see some potential with McCain, but it seems to me like he's going to focus on many of the same issues as bush, not putting national security first, but making this war a priority. There hasn't been any concrete proof that this war has been in our best interest. It's time for change.

What is Barak Obama's credentials? What are his beliefs? Can we trust him? He's helped fight for those less fortunate in Illinois. He's focused on the right issues i.e like our economy (instead of focusing on a foreign affairs that give U.S citizens a back seat) We are not very clear on his beliefs. However, we also don't have any concrete proof that his beliefs (religious in particular) have or will interfer with his political decision making.

By the way, we want a democratic leader, right? Some right wing supporters agree, just not Barak Obama. With the democrats now controlling the house, senate, I'm sure no presidential decisions will be made without their input.

Just to be objective, I believe Obama needs to come accross as being more compassionate toward individual americans and not just americans in general. It makes him appear full of himself, with his head held high in the sky. Be more humble barak but stand unwavering toward John McCain.

Posted by: Joe | June 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Popular vote, he did get.
More delegates, he got that too.

It's funny how people complain about the democratic process when there candidate does not win. Delegates and superdelegates were not a problem when Hillary were snapping them up like twigs, now that she did clench enough -- we need to reform. It would have been very democratic if she got the nomination but because she did not, everything is rigged and corrupt. These type of situation are never done to benefit the minority. I'm assuming the corruption and rigness that was put in place by the Clinton machine, failed her and now her supporters are crying foul. The Clintons are a brand, her campaign was not railroaded by the media - negative ads can have a bad effect on a candidate not just the opponent. She did not have enought supporters to vote for her, what little dignity she has now will be lost because of her sheer stubborness to be graceful about the situation. There are many wolves in sheep skin commenting -- you should run along to the McCain train and get on it before succomb to old age. We need to move past the fight for the nomination because that is done. The real war has just begun, it's a battle for the WHITE HOUSE!

Posted by: Pat in REALITY | June 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

To the "Men" who voted for Hillary...how was sex in the city????

Posted by: Tim | June 5, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It's always some laze excuse...corruption, sexism, racism, bigotry, media, men. on and on and on...get a life people.

Posted by: Obama wil not choose Billary | June 5, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no HILLARY!!!

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama open about his church? Are you serious? All we've heard from him is one lie after another. Why did he stay for 20 years? Does he believe in the church's black liberation philosophy? Tell me what Obama's answers are, please, if he's been so "open" about his church.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Something that has yet to be brought up (that I know of):
At the beginning of this contest, Obama stated that he had no intention of resorting to "petty" politics or "mudslinging" throughout his campaign. For the most part he kept his promise; he at no point played the race card, he made no personal attacks towards Hillary and when personal attacks were directed towards him he always accepted Hillarys apology/explanation and said that we should move on and stick to the real issues.
Could it be that super-delegates who are backing him understand that the Republicans wouldn't be so nice had she been elected? Obama's only really had 2 "scandals" during this contest: Rezco and his church. He has been open about both of them and admitted to having made mistakes. Obama had the class not to bring up any of Hillary's scandals. The general public knows nothing of Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewatergate not to mention the infamous "Clinton body count". Does anyone really think that the republicans would leave these skeletons in the closet in november? This surely is a factor when considering "electability".

Posted by: Gary | June 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The press obsess! Hillary, Obama. Obama, Hillary. Male, female. Female, male. Is that all you're looking for in a president?
The Democrat party and its handler, main-stream-press, are racists, bigots, and conservaphobes.
Some voters would like to focus on the candidate most likely fairly represent America.
Memo to libs: It ain't the Hussein,Hillary ticket.

Posted by: Larry | June 5, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why it is that everyone is pretending that this is the 2000 election. Everyone has treated the gap between Hillary and Obama as if it is a gaping chasm when really it's the slimmest of slits.

This much is clear. A lot of people like Obama. A lot of people like HIllary. Unlike the 2000 and 2004 elections, the votes that were split were not those of ideologically opposed masses. They're just not that different, folks.

Do people who supported either Clinton or Obama really think that they are honoring their choice by voting for the person that their candidate would have run against if they'd won the nomination?

Just as Obama should have had he lost the nomination, Clinton should state plainly that it is ridiculous and petty for people who support her platform to vote not for the other guy who supports it, but for the guy who's completely opposed. It's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

Here's the other thing. Americans have notoriously short attention spans. We are a nation with ADD. This is evidenced by the fact that politicians, news media and pundits can do 180's on things that they've said and nobody holds them to account if the original statement was more than a year ago. As in Orwell's 1984, people will readily forget that they hated one group and begin to love it soon enough.

Quit the sandbox bickering. Let's not be a nation of pre-adolescents "If you don't pick me (or my candidate), I'm taking my toys and going home. So there. Pthhhbt."

Posted by: Justicepsych | June 5, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama favored media? Sounds like republican talking points...does liberal media ring a bell? If you falsely name something enough times it becomes truth in this country. Hillary ran a Karl Rove esque campaign and it backfired. Proof, there is so much I can't even remember it all but here it goes,

1) Aides starting rumors of Obama having extremist Muslim ties dating back to his elementary education, then being let go (sounds like a swift boat campaign)

2) Releasing pictures of Obama in traditional African dress the resembles Muslim clothing. Sending out members of her campaign to emphasize his middle name when talking.

3) Digging up a kindergarten paper of Obama saying he wants to be president to try to attack his character.

4) Laying the blame on Obama for Michigan and Florida's votes not counting when it was her who signed for them not to count to start with. Once convenient she comes back and says how this is unfair and a disgrace. When Obama has said let them count the whole time.

5) Being hypocritical every step of the way, a do as I say not a I do attitude, very republican you'll see in the new race with McCain.

6) Trying to link scandal to Obama for buying a house when one of the largest cover ups in history came while her and Mr. Clinton were in the Whitehouse. The only thing is they aren't around to talk about b/c they slowly died off.

It was her own fault and her republican campaign tactics that she lost the nomination. She played dirty (like Bush) and lost b/c America is smarter now and sick of it...period. The Clinton family on their own fell from grace right before our eyes, it's a shame b/c they were a legacy that I hoped would stand the test of time.

Posted by: wes | June 5, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Hey, all -

Let's please end this acrimony. This is not about getting our favorite elected but about making sure the next President gets all the necessary policies passed in the next Administration. We had two amazing -- really amazing -- candidates. Let's not squander the talent we have to work with.

Let's please stop demonizing each other, as you only add fuel to the fire of Democratic in-fighting, and this squabbling is unbecoming. We need universal health care, sound economic policies, care for the environment, an end to the Iraq War, and repairing of our international relations. Let's please join together to beat the Republicans in the fall.

I am a woman who is a post-feminist who never encounters sexism in my job. In a sense, Hillary Clinton is a member of the old generation of fighting feminists, like Reverend Wright is a member of the old generation of civil rights activists, still used to the fiery approach, the indignant attitude, the zealous confrontation (and a few conspiracy theories). A woman will be President some day, but it will be a younger woman who is her own person in a post-feminist society, as there is already the large younger segment of society that is post-racist and who is comfortable with Obama. We will get there. For Clinton supporters, please recognize that Clinton's own people set up flawed rules, suffered over-confidence, and did not plan ahead, so she lost fair and square, and it's time to be gracious losers. Her timing now is just unlucky, too, because a lot of people want a fresh change. I'm sorry. The campaigns were fought fairly, and Obama had plenty of bad press, too.

We need to move on to fixing bigger problems in this country, so keep your eye on the ball.

Posted by: nkirv | June 5, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I tend to agree with comments that suggest it'll be extremely difficult for him to beat McCain. However, it is tiring to hear the overused euphemism "middle-class, white voters" when what is really meant is "racists". Suggesting that Clinton be installed on the ticket is an example of a fundamental math error, since two negatives when added together do not make a positive.

Posted by: Vade | June 5, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I can't vote for Obama. His beliefs with his church turned me off of him. You can't tell me that he wasn't present in all those years one time to hear his pastor. The one person I could vote for was Hillary. McCain is a bush wannabe. Obama is out in my mind. I guess I am hoping for a 3rd canidate to run so he/she can get my vote. I did vote for Hillary in the primary. Obama is gonna loose this election. Us democrats are stuck for 4 more years with republican control due to our own doing. It is ashame, but we will be stuck. I only hope we do well in the house for elections as McCain is gonna win with no REAL challenge.

Posted by: vtx1800r | June 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

People behave as though sexism was some newly invented phenomenon. HRC should have prepared for that in the same way that Obama was prepared for racism. He gave a speech. She whined and cried victim. If there was sexism, what happened to Edwards, Biden, Dodd and the rest? If sexism was the reason she lost, her campaign would never have gotten off the ground and the male pundits wouldn't have accepted her "inevitable" label.

If Obama is goofy enough to put HRC on the ticket, the American public will rightly ask whether whatever she says in support of him is the truth, or was it the truth when she said McCain was more qualified, or that he is an elitist, or out of touch, or inexperienced? For change to work, there needs to be credibility and whatever else HRC may be known for, the American public has never deemed her highly credible. And that was before Bosnian sniper fire.

Posted by: NO HRC | June 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary could be a good VP. As soon as she unloads some of her baggage--namely, Bill. Until she drop-kicks him out of her life, she has no future, and no business being anything more than a dog catcher.

She has so much to offer, it's a shame that she can't see the damage done by that hillbilly she calls a husband. He is the biggest threat to her future as a serious politician.

Posted by: agnostic | June 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

a

Posted by: BOO-HOO | June 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

What the Democratic party needs now is to "come together"; we do, after all, stand for inclusion. All of this blood-letting could well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory come November.
I respect the Clintons for what they have done, in particular, Senator Clinton, who has run a very spirited, tough, and good campaign. However, her machinations are beginning to make her look like the school yard bully who didn't get her way. I think she would do the nation a better service in a cabinet post or as a future supreme!
Please, for the sake of the party and the nation, let's go forward and stand unified behind Senator Obama.

Posted by: oldschoollib | June 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Without expressing support or contempt for Obama, I'd like to say that I think it is very naive that some people still are basing their votes based on sex and race.

Frankly, I do not see how either has any major effect on how capable a candidate is. People always seem to be bent on turning everything into a duotone picture. If people aren't voting based on the fact that a candidate is Democrat or Republican, then they are voting on whether or not the candidate is white or black, or female or male.

Partitioning democracy into two separate choices just isn't effective, because it ends up drowning out the voices that want to be heard. So if you want to do a favor for America, next time you "watch" a debate cover your eyes. Ignore the fact that one candidate is white and one candidate is black. Ignore the fact that is one is a conservative and the other is a liberal. Instead focus on the issues, because that is what really matters.

Posted by: Save | June 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

~~~~~~~~~

Mike, Tom, Lisa, whoever you are (are you a transvestite, per chance?)...

Please stop posting this. We get the point. We're not sure it matters, but we get the point. Thank you. Really.

Posted by: Bill | June 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

so many comments guided from the heart then from the head. it is the reae individula who considers themselves number one to serve as number two. And thats in any event/situation/life.

Posted by: Waka | June 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

People who are ideologically opposed to Obama won't vote for him based on his VP selection. His VP selection may hurt his chances if the person is a dope (like Dan Quayle) or hurt his Presidency if the person is a crook (like Spiro Agnew) or a psychotic (like Dick Cheney). The VP selection can help only if it helps party unity, as the selection of Bush helped Reagan. If Ford had picked Reagan in 1976, Ford would have won the election going away. Obama ought to think about this when considering the possibility of selecting Hillary.

But even if Obama picks Hillary, I'm still not voting for him unless he answers my questions about his church - see my previous post.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Mike | June 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

How much does it matter who becomes VP unless something happens to the Pres? If you think about it, is this a "powerful" position? No. You get to cast a deciding ballot if the Senate is tied and go on goodwill tours. What is Cheney going to be known for? Shooting his friend. Al Gore is an important figure now that he is no longer in office. If power, prestige, and ability to put words to action were your goal, VP would not be where you want to be. Clinton wants to have clout? Be a Senator from NY and serve on high ranking committees in leadership roles. That would be a much better use of time than waiting around, twiddling thumbs as the VP.

Posted by: wny1 | June 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR WAY IN THIS WORLD, IT'S NOT RACISM OR SEXISM...IT'S YOU!!!!

Posted by: Erika | June 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Obama did not get the Democratic nomination fair and square. It was a rigged nomination for Obama. Sen. Clinton never stood a chance of winning the nomination. This was indicated by the sabotaging early calls for her to drop out and ended with almost all of the sabotaging, uncommitted superdelegates, showing no integrity, endorsing Obama. OBAMA GOT THE NOMINATION BECAUSE OF A RIGGED, CORRUPT DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Hillary Clinton supporters should work for Obama's resounding defeat and vote for McCain. I will volunteer and vote for McCain in a swing state.

The pro-Obama biased media simply reflected the rigged innards of the Democratic Party against Sen. Clinton.

A crushing defeat is needed to repudiate the rigged, corrupt Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is in need of radical reform with the elimination of the superdelegates, the caucuses, and the proportional allocation system."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I've seen this exact posting, word for word, on other sites and blogs throughout the day, it's clearly just being posted around to perhaps catch the weak-minded in a moment of, uh, weakness. Silly. And embarrassing.

Posted by: Bill | June 5, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden for VP

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Lisa... | June 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey, all -

Let's please end this acrimony. This is not about getting our favorite elected but about making sure the next President gets all the necessary policies passed in the next Administration. We had two amazing -- really amazing -- candidates. Let's not squander the talent we have to work with.

Let's please stop demonizing each other, as you only add fuel to the fire of Democratic in-fighting, and this squabbling is unbecoming. We need universal health care, sound economic policies, care for the environment, an end to the Iraq War, and repairing of our international relations. Let's please join together to beat the Republicans in the fall.

Posted by: nkirv | June 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Emotional Basketcases | June 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

If I were the only person between Hillary and the Office of the President, I would not go to sleep without posting an armed guard (maybe a relative) at the door!

Posted by: Jim | June 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

crat3, I am a republican (not a Bush supporter, but a republican nonetheless).

I don't understand your comment about the DNC being corrupt. The caucuses are local, grassroots, democracy in action. I wish we had them in the GOP primaries.

As for proportional allocation, I can't imagine a more democratic way to choose a winner. Everyone's vote counts with proportional allocation.

Now the superdelegates do seem elitist and undemocratic. Maybe you should work to get this changed in your party.

Posted by: bob | June 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There is an old saying "get them inside your circle P...ing out, rather than outside your circle P...ing in." Obama doesn't need to make her a VP to do that,there is his Cabinet
wherein there are causes she says she deeply cares about. All her behavior thus far, especially since Obama "won" says she will work for her own goals (President) if he puts up in front with him. And who needs Bill up there with her to second guess his every move. She's sounding a lot like Gore (sob)..

Posted by: pvod | June 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of some women saying they voted for Hillary and now that she is not the front runner, they will not vote for Obama or are not voting at all...isn't this a bit hypocritical? suggesting the reason men didn't vote for Hillary was because they're sexist...ok, are these women sexist or are they racist? Hello "Ladies" use your logic and not your emotions for once!!

Posted by: Emotional basketcases | June 5, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Why people blaming Bush for 8 years? First 4 years we were comming out of the ressesion. I guess short memory for people.
Anyway i have no problem with Obama ( except rasing texas for middle class, guess people here makes too much money)but if he picks Clinton as VP i am voting for Cain. I am republican but like Obama but no way Obama -Clinton. We already have war in congress and senate - repub vs dems. We don't need another war in WHite house - President vs VP.

Posted by: PicassoInActions | June 5, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey, all -

Let's please end this acrimony. This is not about getting our favorite elected but about making sure the next President gets all the necessary policies passed in the next Administration.

Let's please stop demonizing each other, as you only add fuel to the fire of Democratic in-fighting, and this squabbling is unbecoming. We need universal health, sound economic policies, care for the environment, and end to the Iraq War, and repairing of our international relations. Let's please join together to beat the Republicans in the fall.

Posted by: nkirv | June 5, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb for VP!

Helps Obama with "Regan democrats" & on defense issues.

Guarantees him VA, which will be in play.

Has none of the negative baggage of Clinton.

Clearly the best choice.........................................

Posted by: adam | June 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It is a nightmare end of discussion !

Posted by: joseph | June 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Experience matters. The election of Republican President once again looks inevitable if you want to learn from the past mistakes of being a Big Brother.

Posted by: Americannottoforget | June 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The only people who believe Hillary won the popular vote are her uneducated followers. Maybe they should take a math class...

Posted by: Jomama | June 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

@Walter

Your comments make it clear that either you are a Republican troll or that you are a racist. Obama won the Democratic primary fair and square, under the party rules. Obama's positions are not that far away from Hillary's. Anyone who thinks that voting for McCain instead of Obama is better for the country is really a Republican or is being a spiteful petulant individual who can't grow up and look at the big picture and do what's best for the county.

@ Republican trolls: Man up, grow a pair, and declare to whom your loyalties really are.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Too bad we cannot build on the hope and energy that was evident in the firt Obama Clinton debates when a "dream ticket" seemed possible. The Democratic party will once agian shoot themselves in the foot and ignore their traditional base.
Obama - unite this party - make Hilary your VP - prove you are a true agent of change - or are you mot strong enough to put your words into action ????

Posted by: MM | June 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should take it all the way. Without Hillary, Obama has not chance
of winning.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Gawd! Will someone pluh-eze drive a stake thru the heart of her and let the US get on with getting this country going ? Clinton lost, go away! We don't want you....

Posted by: US VOTER | June 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is chosen, there will be some lunatic disgruntled woman out there trying to assassinate Obama...or maybe Billary will do it herself!!!

Posted by: NO HILLARY! | June 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is a liability to Obama's campaign. There is a definite role for her in his campaign but it is NOT VP! I personally shudder at the thought...
choo choo! Train wreck!
The "dream ticket" is now the answer; Obama should keep doing what hes doing and let McCain (McOld) hang him self with an inevitable blow up that will make him look like a senile old man.

Posted by: TomTom | June 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Aledas--- you are straight trippin!!! what is it that you know about Obama???

"Given what we know about Obama now. I bet there are alot of people who would take their vote back. Unfortunately, most people voted with what little they know of Obama history. As with Clinton, we all pretty much know her history and it's a love or hate one. Again, the Democratic party will probably go another 4 yrr without a president."

Posted by: Aledas??? | June 5, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Not a chance in HELL Obama wil chosse Billary...I agree with others, Nancy Pelosi would be good...or Al Gore ;)

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Given what we know about Obama now. I bet there are alot of people who would take their vote back. Unfortunately, most people voted with what little they know of Obama history. As with Clinton, we all pretty much know her history and it's a love or hate one. Again, the Democratic party will probably go another 4 yrr without a president.

Posted by: Aeldas | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should be VP for party's unity but if Obama and his rude followers don't see that, then Hillary better stay away from these mean people and run as independent.

Posted by: Aie | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

To choose Clinton as a running mate would be tellingly unwise for Obama. His VP should be his #2, not his #1 rival with her eye on his job.

Posted by: John C. | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't knock the caucus states. Senator Obama won in caucus states because they require good organization. Caucuses give voters a chance to weigh in on the issues. In the Washington State caucuses there was a good mix of voters of all ages, as well as a broad diverse group of races represented. We also have more enlightened voters in Washington who are well informed prior to attending the caucus.

Posted by: nleath | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama will make a decision about his VP choice in good time, after the completion of a vetting process. That's the way it should be done. At this stage in the process continued talk about Hillary as a choice is not very helpful. Any attempt to pressure the Obama campaign on behalf of a Clinton on the ticket will most likely be self-defeating for Hillary and for her supporters.

Posted by: CharacterCounts1 | June 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

To all you Dummycrats,

How can more taxes, more government help us? How can you also vote for a man that will not place his hand over his heart during our Pledge of Allegiance and not where an American pin? How can you vote for someone that believes in Black Liberation Theology (Black Hitler).
How can you vote for someone that is a 1st term senator and hasn't voted on a majority of the issues he was paid to do for his people of Illinois.

A any smart person should relize McCain has the experience and knowledge to do the job.

Elephant

Posted by: elephant | June 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

crat3 is a republican plant.

crat2' sole reason for posting these comments is to divide the democratic party and prevent them from winning in Nov.

Posted by: Observer | June 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

given the trail of unfortunate "accidents" that follow the clintons around, obama should not choose her as the vp

Posted by: i see dead people | June 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How can you have your second in command despise you for 6 months, defame your persona and carry on that kind of mudslinging? It's not in Obama's character to do that. I say Kathleen Sebilius for VP. She has successfully ruled as a democrat in a traditionally all Repub state. It would help bridge the midwestern rep gap as well as appease the Clinton supporters.

Posted by: Liberal Eagle | June 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

If government-run healthcare is anything like government-run Social Security, my vote is "no thanks." How can either Democratic candidate ensure that socialized medicine wouldn't turn out just like the nonsense attached to your SS#? I'm going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul even if I have to write it in.

I met Dr. Paul in 1976 when I worked in his Houston campaign office during my senior year in high school. He alone of all the candidate has been consistently on the side of the citizens and stood in opposition to tax increases for all these years. Because of tough times, my company is finding ways to save money. The federal government should do the same. Only Ron Paul has campaigned for this concept.

Posted by: gracias por nada | June 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Can someone from Obama's campaign explain to me what "Change" and "Hope" mean with regards to what Obama plans to do as President? For once I would like someone to say something intelligent about what the Democrats are going to do to fix things. The same people that are okay with ILLEGAL immigration want to create UNIVERSAL healthcare. Who is going to pay for the ILLEGAL immigrants healthcare? WE WILL if you let UNIVERSAL healthcare controlled by the government exist. I encourage you all to really educate yourselves. Not about what George Bush has done the last 8 years but about what your party wants to do to fix things. Stop clinging to empty promises of "Change" and "Hope" and find out for yourselves why you should vote for Hillary or Obama. If you still find tangible reasons then by all means vote for them. Thanks and may God help all of you.

Posted by: Ryan | June 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Please go far away Hillary and don't let the door hit you on the way out. I am so sick of her and her husband. If she were Veep she'd probably have the Pres "hit" so she could finally get what she wanted. I don't trust her at all!

Posted by: retiredteacher | June 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama should NOT tap Hillary as his running mate.. Hillary doesn't deserve back to back losses.

Posted by: Dave | June 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama won caucuses through intimidation. They intimidated old voters and women.

Posted by: Aie | June 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Picking Hillary as his VP is the only thing that makes sense. There's one thing about Clinton supporters that everyone knows and cannot deny: they are either angry or disappointed. Oh, and they won't take it out on Hillary. No. they will go straight to Obama.(The exit polls were true, folks.) So now he's got half a party. Can't win with half a party, can you? Well the other half is still with Hill. She's actually got more than him in popular vote terms. So Obama: put your thinking cap on for ten seconds, tell Oprah she can't have her VP spot, and make Hillary the VP.

Posted by: John | June 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Hello!

Hillary knows that no one wants her to be President in 8 more years. A 68 year old woman does not look too good, since that is the age for her to retire.

She feels that she is waiting for something bad to happen to Obama. We already know she has more than 1 time talked about him to get assassinated. If she was the VP, then she could become President.

I think her inability to become a TEAM PLAYER shows her political stupidity. She would not have been there, if her husband had not lined up the Democratic leaders that were friends of President Clinton. Gov. Rendell of PA is an example that supported her and not Obama. Getting on board with Hillary & Bill meant the Democratic leaders supported her when she got to their states.

Posted by: GregYohn | June 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It's a wonderful country when even those with a tin hat on their heads, like crat3 are allowed their "opinions."

Posted by: ericmiami | June 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama chooses anyone but Hillary for the VP spot. Her campaign has reflected the characteristics of an individual who is egotistical and let's not forget Bill Clinton. Hell, it would be like Reality TV at the White House but at the expense of the American citizen.

Posted by: Democracy Dilapidated | June 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won the popular vote, Obama lost. Obama is only the nominee because insider DNC officials want him to be. So, since Hillary has been robbed of the nomination - I will change parties or vote for McCain - the lesser of 2 evils between McCain and Obama

Posted by: Walter | June 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

crat3.....

You are a moron

Posted by: agabo2008 | June 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

What I find ironic is that Obama and his supporters demonize Clinton for everything that she does, including holding her responsible for her husband's mistakes. Yet, they now hold her responsible for uniting the party and get her 18M supporters to vote for him? Isn't that his job? If he is a real winner as the party says by nominating him then he is the one who should be held responsible to bring these voters, not Hillary! Perhaps, Obama will make the same excuse again "I don't know..." just like his similar excuse regarding the anti-American Wright, the terrorist Ayers, the anti-white priest..."after 20 years, I still don't know them well..."

Posted by: vote4thebest | June 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

crat3:

Five paragraphs
Four uses of the word "rigged"
Two uses of the term "sabotage"
Two uses of the term "corrupt"

That's more than one accusation of corruption and sabotage per paragraph. Using such strong language, one would think you'd include some references.

Posted by: Richard Hartnell | June 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I truly do not understand people who think that Hillary never stood a chance in this election, that "it was rigged". I have had to hear feminists saying how this was "all so sexist", and unfair.

Quit crying and congratulate this man for doing the impossible--taking down one of the most powerful families in politics, and becoming the first black man to nominated for the presidential race.

Posted by: kate22 | June 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I supported Hillary and still think she would make a far better President than Obama. But Obama won, fair and square.

As to whether I will support Obama, that depends on his willingness to come clean on why he spent 20 years as the enthusiastic member of a church characterized by anti-white racism and anti-Americanism in both its Pastor and its congregation. A church that Oprah Winfrey couldn't stomach. Does the church reflect his own beliefs? Was he a member for political reasons only? Does he have any other reason why he became a member and stayed for 20 years until media attention made him decide to quit (temporarily anyway)? He's never satisfactorily answered these questions and, until he does, he won't get my vote.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

There was no rigged competition. Obama campaigned under the rules as they were given. Rules that Clinton supported (Michigan, Florida) until they were no longer to her advantage. Obama won the most delegates and the most popular vote in any fair measuring of such.

If you don't like the DNC system, work to change it. You're shooting yourself in the foot to vote for McCain - a man who's policies are the stellar opposite of Clinton's. In fact, Obama and Clinton were not really that different in policy at all.

I'm not saying he's perfect. No one is. I'm just saying that it's really amazingly stupid to intentionally choose the greater of two evils just to show everyone how spiteful you are.

As far as a Clinton VP ticket? No way. She burned that bridge when she invoked RFK. I would like to see a woman on the ticket, if only to shut up the "if she weren't a woman , she'd be the nominee" nonsense. Go tell it to Edwards.

Posted by: M | June 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

There is no recent precedent for a Pres. being pressed to take the runner-up as VP. The only loyalty Sen. Obama owes is to those who worked, contributed and supported him. He does not billary who lied on him, insulted him, and intentionally distorted his positions anything. Not only would I not pick her for VP, I would not deem her worthy to wash my dirty drawers. If her fanatics want to vote for McBush let them do so but tell them and her to go kick rocks if they think they can force her on the ticket.

Posted by: chrisc | June 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not win this brokered nomination handily. Many of Obama's voters regret they voted for him. Clinton won more in popular votes and for Doug who used so many rude comments from Obama fans without any positive ones is just one example of media bias.

Posted by: Aie | June 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

She lost because she didn't have enough votes according to the rules she agreed to from the beginning.
She was coronated by the "corrupt" media at the start of this as being the most likely Democratic nominee.
It was her nomination lose, and she lost it in a fair contest. She failed to plan for a long campaign, she failed to pay attention to caucus states, she failed to respond to the message of change the people were yearing to hear, and she failed to convice her super delegate peers that she was in fact the best candidate despite what the delegate vote said.
Hillary Clinton had all the advantages and she squandered them. It was by her own hand that she lost, now she should do what any good leader should do. Own up to her mistakes and admit defeat and move on.
Otherwise we can just add this to the list of her other failures from this nomination process.
Thankfully we did not nominate this woman for president.

Posted by: Jeremy | June 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Which would would be better? What would the world be like with Obama?

Posted by: lemure | June 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

As a libertarian, I am elated that the democrats choose Obama over Clinton. While Clinton would have had a chance against McCain, Obama's going to get destroyed. The democrats once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory!

Posted by: Adam | June 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

For some reason, I think Obama is like a Nader or a Perot type candidate in terms of my built perception by the pressketeers. I was actually imagining a world with McCain versus Hillary.

Posted by: Lemur | June 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

crat3: Do you listen to yourself when you talk? Or is that a little too much to ask? Granted, the caucus system is outdated, but I'm not sure how that indicates a "rigged, corrupt" party. When you see conspiracy in every idea and movement you personally oppose it might be time to ask yourself if your grasp on reality could be slipping a little bit...

Posted by: shaidar007 | June 5, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I take it you like what happened the last eight years. Obviously, you must be doing much, much better than me!! I was middle of the road and totally uncommitted until the mud slinging started and I supported Obama. First and always, I am a Democrat!! If the shoe would have been reversed, I would be standing in line to support Hillary!! I REALLY HATE what has happened to this country in the last 8 years and I want it turned around. If having Hillary on the ticket achieves that goal, so be it!! But I would never vote for 4 more years of this garbage!! And to those who claim they are going to stay home on election day, you might as well go out and pull the lever, blacken a circle for 4 more years of this garbage because that is just as good as voting for that dinosaur!!

Posted by: Kelly | June 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Democrats -- remember, many of the people commenting on the blogs are republicans posing as Hillary or Obama supporters and doing what they can to sow discord among our ranks. While I fully accept that true Hillary supporters are disappointed that their candidate didn't get the nomination (as I would have been had Obama not gotten the nod) I also fully expect that time will help us all come together and elect a democratic President and increase our majorities in Congress. Imagine, just imagine what progress we can make on health care, education, and the environment (not to mention the supreme court) with a Democrat in the White House (and Hillary as the possibly the next majority leader in the Senate).

Time for us to beaware of republican tricksters and to pull our party together for a better U.S. and a better world.

Posted by: John H | June 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

If we wanted Clinton, we would have chose her

Posted by: istash | June 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

What Should be done here it is a split decision that Clinton should be the VP,
But Who Else could there be.

Obama Has not exactly been close with Hillary and Yet The party is divided so what shoud happen?

You cant have party that is divided in november and expect to win So why Not give Clinton the spot.

There ca Only Be one VP so I say that Hilary Should Be the VP and unite The Party ao that they have a very Strong and United Party.

-Christian DeMaine

Posted by: Christian DeMaine | June 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama should pick Nancy Pelosi as veep. He needs a lieutenant not a marriage of convenience.

Posted by: Devin | June 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not get the Democratic nomination fair and square. It was a rigged nomination for Obama. Sen. Clinton never stood a chance of winning the nomination. This was indicated by the sabotaging early calls for her to drop out and ended with almost all of the sabotaging, uncommitted superdelegates, showing no integrity, endorsing Obama. OBAMA GOT THE NOMINATION BECAUSE OF A RIGGED, CORRUPT DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Hillary Clinton supporters should work for Obama's resounding defeat and vote for McCain. I will volunteer and vote for McCain in a swing state.

The pro-Obama biased media simply reflected the rigged innards of the Democratic Party against Sen. Clinton.

A crushing defeat is needed to repudiate the rigged, corrupt Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is in need of radical reform with the elimination of the superdelegates, the caucuses, and the proportional allocation system.

Posted by: crat3 | June 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company