Why Clinton-Obama Won't Work

[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

Dear Stumped,

Before the arrival of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright onto the scene, my prediction was that Barack Obama would win the nomination but take the VP slot on a Clinton-Obama ticket as part of a four-year deal -- because each knows that neither can win the election without the other. Hillary Clinton needs the votes of blacks and the Starbucks crowd, while Obama needs the support of Dunkin' Donuts customers and women over 50.

Now, after Wright's vindictive and effective tirades, some distrust has tarnished Obamamania. Which is all the more reason for him to take a close backseat to Clinton. America needs a few years to see that good things can happen even with Obama playing second fiddle.

I try to keep my personal likes and dislike out of my decision process. I like Obama, but for me he lacks piss and vinegar. Clinton, on the other hand, has too much piss and vinegar for her own good. She seems to be driven by a pathological determination to keep from losing to someone who simply does not deserve what she sees as rightfully hers.

But narcissists can be effective leaders. If I were Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, I would go back to the dream-team ticket. Give the lady what she so desperately wants, keep the uniting and gracious junior senator in the public eye for four years, and then pass the baton. Everyone would win -- especially us and the world.

-- Ken Heilbrunn

Dear Ken,

I used to think that if Hillary Clinton prevailed in the end, she'd have no choice but to choose Barack Obama as her running mate -- if for no other reason than to make peace with his African-American constituency. I never really bought into the idea that Obama, for his part, needed to pick Clinton as his running mate if he became the nominee. That seemed more complicated, given her baggage (including her husband, and the pre-existing White House timeshare agreement between the Clinton and Bush families) and the fact that she'd know where the White House restrooms are before Obama did.

Politics and personalities aside, as a constitutional matter, the alternating "package deal" you propose -- to average out their "piss and vinegar" quotients, as you put it -- is intriguing. In March, when the Clintons were floating the "dream ticket" scenario, Yale law professor Akhil Amar cleverly explained in Slate how the two candidates could rely on the 25th amendment transfer-of-power clause to run on the explicit understanding that they would take turns.

There is an imperfect precedent from across the Atlantic.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown essentially ran for the leadership of the Labor Party (and Britain) as a package deal in the 1990s.They had an understanding that at some point Blair would step back and allow his partner, deemed more substantive if less telegenic, to move from 11 to 10 Downing Street. (The chancellor of the exchequer, which was Brown's job while he waited -- and waited -- lives at No. 11, next door to the prime minister.)

The Blair-Brown alliance offers a cautionary tale for Clinton and Obama. Their relationship, which was initially quite close, became somewhat strained as the years went by without the handoff taking place. Presumably Blair and Brown had different understandings of what "after a while" meant. Perhaps the concrete nature of our electoral calendar, in contrast to the parliamentary system, could help force clarity on the issue.

Still, I don't think the "dream ticket" is in the offing anymore, with or without an agreement to take turns. I no longer think Clinton would be stuck with Obama if she wins the nomination. For one thing, the two candidates, after so much mutual battering, aren't looking so formidable. Even if she squeaked by him with the help of superdelegates, would Clinton really want to take on as her running mate someone she has told us is too green to take those 3 a.m. phone calls? The mere fact that she'd prevail thanks to superdelegate support would mean that the party's powers that be would have deemed Obama a troublesome nominee -- so why tap him for the vice presidency?

For Obama, there are many reasons not to pick Clinton, including the fact that he probably detests the thought of even being in the same room with her. You would, too, if she'd been running the type of campaign against you that she has been running against him for months. And if she'd look ridiculous picking as her running mate someone she has told us is unprepared to lead, he'd look equally ridiculous choosing someone he's basically called dishonest.

Besides, as each candidate's negatives rise, the pressure on to put the other on the ticket is lifting. What once seemed like a "1+1=3" equation is starting to look like a "1+1=1.5." (I know, you were told there'd be no math.)

So I disagree with you that either of them feels the need of the other to win the election. But you are right that they do need to close the Starbucks-Dunkin' Donuts divide. If the party doesn't have the institutional piss and vinegar (now you're going to have me saying that) to declare this a tie and move onto some consensus candidate on the second round (Al Gore, anyone?), the challenge for either eventual nominee, be it Clinton or Obama, will be to pick a running mate that can attract the other candidate's constituency without all the other's negatives.

What do you think? Who's your pick for the ideal Clintonite running mate for Obama and the ideal Obamaite running mate for Clinton? Send in your nominations!

Dear Stumped,

When Barack Obama spoke of bitterness, he was specifically referring to people who had lost jobs two-and-a-half decades ago and had yet to find new ones due to the economy in their region.Yet you and the rest of the news media are happy to ignore that and suggest that he was calling everyone in small-town America bitter.

If you had been out of work for 25 years due to the local economy, wouldn't you be bitter? If this quote had been properly described, it would have been seen as applying to very few people, not as the overarching insult it has been turned into by Obama's opponents and columnists seeking to be the first to bring down Obama.

-- Paul Friedman

Dear Paul,

I am trying not to be bitter about the fact that you are turning this into an attack against the media. We may be elitist, but we have also seen lots of jobs disappear. And I haven't heard any presidential candidates pander to us by promising to bring back the golden age of newspapers.

That said, Obama's quote itself, which you kindly provide in the link, refutes your own point. The issue isn't the numbers of people involved, or even whether some of these Midwestern workers have reason to be "bitter." The reason these comments, delivered at a San Francisco fundraiser of all places, were so damaging to Obama is that that they seem to attribute these workers' fondness for God, guns and protectionism to their bitterness. It doesn't take a subtle mind to understand that what he was telling these well-heeled folks in San Francisco is that, unfathomable as it may be to them, there are people out there who, if desperate enough financially, will cling to things like God and guns (and maybe even newspapers!) to make sense of their lives.

By Andres Martinez |  May 6, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: I'm for Obama -- in 2012 | Next: Drop Out Already, Hillary

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



obama and cliton joint ticket is the perfect solution to this present democratic situation

Posted by: nelson onabanjo | May 28, 2008 12:45 PM

Clinton would be poison to an Obama administration ,,,,,

Posted by: Nancianne | May 16, 2008 4:33 PM

Easy. Hillary as Obama's VP = get a food taster for Obama. It's just that simple.

Posted by: Mari B. | May 16, 2008 5:38 AM

Zaney why do you think the presidency is the most powerful job in the world? Guess what? Motherhood is (but I digress). There was a time when foreigners loved to see us coming to their countries, now they just want to kill us. There was a time when they welcomed American dollars. Now our dollar is worth 15 cents. Andrew Young once pointed out, when asked if he thought there would ever be a Black president (I paraphrase), "I noticed what condition the cities were in before black mayors were elected, and I shudder to think of the condition the country would be in when a black president is elected". Well, it was a prophetic statement. Look at the condition we are in. It is irony to think that the same people who made the mess is going to now clean it up. Get real. When did the fox who ate the chick ever go to the coop to comfort the mother hen? And this business of Barack not having any experience. Wasn't it "experienced" people who got us into this state!!!??? Have a little faith. Patrick, you are funny!

Posted by: dc | May 14, 2008 11:18 PM

Bye A

Posted by: dc | May 14, 2008 11:04 PM

obama/clinton would not work because of the "TRUST FACTOR," senator obama would accept defeat in november rather than put hillary on the ticket.

Posted by: ron | May 13, 2008 7:15 PM

Hillary Clinton is running for the President of the United States, NOT Vice President. What part of this don't you understand? There is No Dream Ticket, Obama can keep dreaming! The reality is that Hillary is our next Madame President. College students are uniting together to spread the word, no more manipulation by Obama, the false prophet will not sway the college students anymore! He needs to talk to his pastor in how to get out of this campaign.

Posted by: Obama Please Quit Now! | May 13, 2008 1:14 PM

Obama/Clinton won't work. Obama won't work.
Please revisit this issue. We are doomed.

Posted by: ItsAWonderfulWorld | May 13, 2008 12:05 PM

What kinda crazy stuff are you talking about? Maybe I'm not politically savy enough, but I can't remember when the nominee gave their spot to the the runner up? Hello, are you on drugs? Crazy? Racist? Or just dang dumb? If Obama wins the nomination, he is the nominee. He will pick the VP, not be the VP, which I desperately hope is not Clinton.

Posted by: Joy | May 13, 2008 8:36 AM

What amazes me is that everyone thinks that you vote party! Not me. If it's Senator Obama, I vote Republican for president for the first time ever! It is not a given that voters for Senator Clinton will vote dem and everyone is acting as if it is a given. I will not vote for Senator Obama. I do not want him to be our president.

Posted by: kt | May 11, 2008 4:03 PM

The Hillary supporters are the know nothing backers of the democrats in congress that have no spine when it comes to challenging the most unpopular president in the history of our country!
The Military Industrial Complex owns the Clintons!
The Clintons are opportunists that are only interested in feathering their nest and making connections that will give them power money and influence, and they hope to do this on the backs of the poor and middle class!
The Clinton's and Bushes are friends and belong to the same exclusive millionaire clubs!
Obama is an unknown quantity. Perhaps he represents change from the bought off, sell out, democrat establishment!

Posted by: Richard Walters | May 10, 2008 1:41 AM

So?? Why won't an Obama-Clinton ticket not work?? I didn't come here to read some of the most ignorant thoughts ever written.

Posted by: crakers4u | May 9, 2008 2:50 PM

The Democrat primary SO FAR LEFT is
"The Emperor''s New Clothes"

Let us wait and laugh at end.

Posted by: jy2008 | May 8, 2008 4:44 PM

Obama is way too smart to want Clinton as his VP. He, and the rest of the world remembers Kennedy-Johnson.....and how it became Johnson-Dead Kennedy.

Posted by: Kennedy-Johnson | May 7, 2008 10:04 PM

Clinton of course.
The country will hang on for 4 years, won't sink.
You, guys, can choose whoever you want in 2012- you all can go to hell - I'll be out this country by than.

Posted by: A. | May 7, 2008 11:58 AM

Nobody is making sense i this Blog, people pleas learn a little more.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM

Boy, some of you here are dense beyond belief.
I know you're scared by words but America can use quite a bit of socialist medicine, lest the proud and defiant red-white-and-blue goes down in a heap of its own ideological and economic dung - just like the USSR did 15 years ago

A country whose core value is the viscious, cold-hearted capitalist rat race, where human needs are dissed as unaffordable "weaknesses" and "irresponsible behavior", where occasional band-aid applications
of decency are considerd necessary evils for the physical protection of the ruling class, where "nuke 'em" is part of an everyday lexicon - this kind of country probably doesn't deserve to exist

Posted by: SR | May 7, 2008 8:03 AM

Obama has survived the worst. He is a young appealing candidate who inspires admiration and support. McCain can't even remember who we're fighting. The majority of the American electorate is weary of Iraq's price tag in blood and treasure. This time the Swiftboats and Willie Horton's will not distract. Republicans can play the Wright race card but it will backfire. There is still plenty of time before November to remind people why they are so sick and tired of this administration.

Posted by: Kristianjl | May 7, 2008 8:00 AM

Post-North Carolina Haiku:

-------Obama declared-------
--Democrat contest victor?--
-------On May 6 he won-------

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 7, 2008 5:14 AM

Piss and Vinegar and the end of middle class America the lower class African American is vindictive as is the lower class Whites and Hispanic American How do I know this?

I'm one let those super delegates destroy the party if they want to try it!

Eight more years of republicans ought to do it.

We are tired of the boys on the hill and we have learned how to kill by voting republican.

We'll have no more of that crap.

Did you hear what I said!!!?

You can't print and televise the outcome before the elections and the people will be naive enough to follow your leads.

Posted by: Sconiers (Gary Indiana) | May 7, 2008 1:36 AM

Placing Obama in the most powerful job in the world with scanty preparation is the desire of those who have a hidden agenda. Obama is a budding socialist and so politically inexperienced he could be easily manipulated by monied interests. Just as his sharp-tongued wife now guides him, others would also and our nation would suffer. It grieves me to know there are Democrats who gladly sacrifice national interests to gain power. In the past the vast majority of Americans have prevented this at the ballot box. Let us hope this continues in 2008. I'll be voting Republican for the first time in my life.

Posted by: Zaney8 | May 6, 2008 9:55 PM


John said:

"how can people hate you anymore than to refer to you as the great satin and want to kill anyone who is not a muslim?"

Wright was Obama's friend and Farrahkan is
Wright's friend. Enough said.

Posted by: Billw | May 6, 2008 5:40 PM

Hello:
I was present at the event in Marin County, Calif. It was not rich people present, we were supporters giving mostly $100.00 EACH.

The statement was an answer to a question about the particulars of the voters in Penn the next primary. Obama answered, off the cuff, this was not a prepared statement or anything. He was first talking about the job situation and how not only Bush, but Clinton in particular with NAFTA had sold their jobs out. He had discussed the issue at length with a worker in Penn. He was telling how the jobs had devastated some of the towns, and people had gotten turned off of government solving anything because they had been promissed. Obama cared about these people and their plight.

He said, when people get disillusioned by government promisses, they get bitter. He went on to say that wedge issues become the focus and are played up in campaigns. They couldn't bring their jobs back that NAFTA had tragically squandered, so issues like people's guns, religious debates like abortion, gay rights become the voting issues not what made them bitter to begin with. The words were not well equipped, the word cling I think sounded on a soundbite like he was mocking them. The entire context of the statement was lost when the media played it and the Clinton and McCain campaigns got a hold of it.

Posted by: Howard | May 6, 2008 5:34 PM

Does anyone realize that HRC was born into an elitist multi-million dollar household, and BO into a single parent household who had to live on food stamps? And HRC's campaign is supported by the Oil Company's $$ whereas BO is supported mostly public donations? So when she says she's blue collar, please laugh. She's never had to do manual labor a day in her life.

Posted by: independent superintendent | May 6, 2008 5:05 PM

HEY cat you dont think the world hates us now? how can people hate you anymore than refer to you as the great satin and want to kill anyone who is not a muslim? wake up you cann kiss everyones ass and then you are just a weakling ready for slaughter. do you think that if just about every region in the middle east had a nuke and we didnt that they would not use it? they already hate us you cant be hated much more.

Posted by: john | May 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Obama doesn't stand a chance.

McCain would defeat him in a landslide.

If Obama was smart, he would have jumped at the VP slot, because it would give him 16 years in the Whitehouse, 8 as VP and 8 as President, Hillary would be the one who would to do the heavy lifting of cleaning up Bush's mess and Obama would be a shoe-in for President after her because the whole country would be comfortable with him and there'd be no question about him having sufficient experience to do the job.

Instead, Obama ran too early, and will either lose the nomination or be defeated in November, after destroying the Democratic Party.

Its a shame. A Clinton/Obama ticket would have been a sure winner because all Americans would jump at the chance to have the brains behind the good economy of the 90's back in the whitehouse, and to vote for the both a Woman and an African American.

Obama's blown it, big time.

Lets hope he's defeated by a landslide today.

Then Hillary can offer him the VP slot and the whole country can get behind them.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 4:34 PM


"also I like Obama's deportment"

Perhaps he will be deported shortly.

Posted by: Billw | May 6, 2008 4:31 PM

When hell freezes over I will support the candidacy of one of CD's worst dinasaur insider lawyers for vice president. THe universe will cease to exist before I vote for her presidency.

I will NEVER vote for hillary for ANY job EVER, if you need clarification.

I hate lobbiests, and she loves them and takes their money.

I hate Dinasaur political ways, and she has adopted them wholesale.

I hate spin, and she is the queen of spin.

I hate hypocrisy, andsheis the embodiment of it.

I hate political panderers and the intellectually dishonest - and she has become both.

She embodies everything terrible and wrong, criminal and dishonest about our government.

I will NEVER vote for hillary.

NEVER.

I'm voting for Obamafor EXACTLY thesame reasons I'm voting against hillary.

Obama is a STATESMAN who rejects the dinasaur political ways of washington DC.

Vote Obama for President!

Posted by: JBE | May 6, 2008 4:18 PM

I personally want them to split the states I love this it just gets better and better! I am excited what Obama thinks of the rest of the lower class whites in this nation! We have Bitter and we have NO Dignity so far well that's the ones we know of.
IF this is a split deal I would advise Obama to get a blue collar worker to travel with him teach him the ways of we the people he needs some one to help him out. Any one out there want to advise him? Remember you have to keep a straight face during all this hoopla and nation that sure would be hard to do at this point!
Obama needs to tell the students of all these colleges HOW he worked his way through school what jobs he held and how you take a low paying job after graduation and still be able to live and pay back school loans! I would even like to hear that one! I want to know where I went wrong I had to work two jobs after graduation one to live on and one to pay back school loans and I went to a state college not Harvard! So show us the way oh great one show the young voters of this nation how it is done!

Posted by: inform us? | May 6, 2008 4:18 PM

you whine baby i dont want the world to hate us more wahhhhhwahhh give me a break!!! who cares they already hate us its called being jealous!!idoit go move to france will ya..

Posted by: john | May 6, 2008 4:09 PM

I think I will commit suicide if HRC is given the nomination. Can't stand the thought of the world hating us even more.

Posted by: cat | May 6, 2008 3:52 PM

YOU INFIDELS!!! VOTE FOR OSAMA i mean obama...

Posted by: akmed | May 6, 2008 3:40 PM

Astute commenters question why the media clings to Obama's faux pas and have elevated Rev. Wright to the status of his surrogate, while ignoring similar and worse from the campaigns of McCain and Hillary. Folks, this is not about words or Reverends. Have you noticed how the SNL skit is passed on as a newsreel? Of course, it's fiction. It frames Hillary as underappreciated, a victim of media neglect whereas the the people's choice of Obama is framed as inexplicable, unwarranted, even sick.

You've been told voters wanted a president they'd like to have a beer with - as if! But of course, it's journalists, who are destined to spend time with him or her, sleeping on Air Force One, hanging out at the WH, angling for attention. Smarty-pants Gore annoyed journalists who found him pedantic, nerdy, a bit of an intellectual show-off, because, of course, he wanted to impress them - being a candidate. Who would imagine refusing to talk issues and joking around was the way to win over the press? Bush is ignorant by choice and smarter than he lets on. Unfortunately, McCain's unpopular policy positions are no barrier to the presidency.

Posted by: jhbyer | May 6, 2008 3:27 PM

" 2. A candidate with " Stable Character and Integrity" . "

Sure, one who is friends with shady characters like Ayers, Auchi, Rezko, and the hate-filled racist Wright. People are known by the company they keep.

Posted by: Billw | May 6, 2008 2:32 PM

Is this true??? I found this posted on another blog:

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Hillary facing fraud charges
Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Posted by: Sean | May 6, 2008 2:04 PM

I'm a New Yorker and I voted for Hillary in our state's primary. I now regret that I did not vote instead for Obama.

Hillary is a GREAT Senator for us New Yorkers. And I voted for her knowing she CAN handle the job of being President well.

But after seeing how Obama has campaigned and hearing what he thinks America needs to do, I now feel that he can better handle the problems facing America in a way that will truly result in things getting better.

This country has a lot of smart people who are better able to define solutions than those proposed by most politicians. Only Obama (not Hillary and McCain) has had the guts to reach for solutions that our most knowledgeable citizens support as "workable".

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times says that America has great citizens who want to be "enlisted" to fix the problems that we now face. And only Obama is making the case that America citizens MUST take action to heal itself. It is easy to see that many Americans agree with Obama and are excited about working hard to improve America.

That kind of inspiration is not simply "idealism", it is a major component of true "leadership". Something our nation needs to stop us from doing stupid things like buying lots of oil at inflated prices from countries that are the main financial base for those who want to destroy our country and our way of life.

I am disappointed that Hillary is just giving politically correct answers that DON'T solve REAL problems.

Only Obama is seeking realistic and workable answers for our nation's most difficult problems.

Posted by: Better America Seeker | May 6, 2008 1:26 PM

Each candidate has thrown out lies, exaggerations, and stories about the other one. John Edwards also went on the attack with Clinton in an interview. What makes him a great choice for VP, his ability to tell a story? I think people need to take an unbiased look at the candidates and realize that neither Obama nor Hillary have been the most upstanding. You can see it from both sides. They lost me in the last debate in PA when they started playing the "My pastor is better than your pastor game" Ultimately their messages are basically the same! They both want healthcare, so they have personality clashes, shouldn't a great leader always have people with differing views and perspectives. Their Messages are so so similar they can run on the same ticket, In regards to dismissing democracy, asking either candidate to stop now is defeating the purpose of democracy, States that rarely get a say in a primary for the first time in a long time are getting a say! It is Democracy at its finest. I say power through, let the people talk. Also, unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan should have never been stripped for the sake of democracy. Put your candidate aside and look at both candidates and the fact that this helps us to know that democracy is alive and well, oh but than there is those dang super delegates.

Posted by: ALS LA | May 6, 2008 1:25 PM

Someone asked: "why can't Obama put it away?"

He got a free pass in the first 11 primarys until March 13, when his relationships with with shady characters and Wright hit the news. Had that been known at the outset, he would likely have have beel "put away" by now himself.

Posted by: Billw | May 6, 2008 1:15 PM

On the subject of VP candidates...

Obama is much better positioned than Clinton. All Obama has to do is nominate a southern white male...(cough)...John Edwards...to win over the Clinton crowd. Sure that doesn't secure the 50+ woman vote, but this is hardly McCain's base.

Clinton on the other hand would have to select someone who would both inspire young people to vote and extend an olive branch to the African-American community. These are two constituencies that the Dems need to turnout this November to insure victory. It is unfortunate for her that these groups historically are less likely to turnout because of feelings of disenfranchisement. If Obama is denied the nomination, these groups will once again have reason to feel disenfranchised. Picking a running mate to minimize this will be tough.

Posted by: Lee | May 6, 2008 12:30 PM

Obama/Bob Graham. He was also right on Iran, he's experienced, and he puts FLA back in play.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 6, 2008 12:26 PM

I'm absolutely amazed how so-called patriotic Americans are willing to ignore the democratic system, and discuss ways to deny the person who has earned this nomination, with his insurmountable delegate lead, the nomination! Basically, if someone you decide isn't your choice of candidate, for whatever reason, let's just ignore the normal democratic process, (delegates), and pick someone else whom we deem viable. You hypocrites! That's not democracy and you should all search your inner souls for what is really going on inside of you. Reverend Wright isn't the only person who needs a character adjustment!

Posted by: Wanakee | May 6, 2008 12:21 PM

I am proud to be a Washington State Delegate for Obama-He is the kind of American we can be proud to support.
When 6 out of 10 Americans believe Hillary is not honest, how could we possibly consider her to be Vice President-There is no way in Hillary!
What about John Edwards? I think they would work really well together.
So what kind of American are you? I know what kind of an American I am. One that honors our rights and does good to others.
Obama is our man! Yolanda

Posted by: Yolanda Wilson | May 6, 2008 12:17 PM

When are 'We the People' going to get what we want and need? We have had almost 40 years (maybe more) of pandering politicians speaking only to the Sheeple of this country who eat the garbage up like it is a holiday dinner and then run to the voting booth for more.

I can only say we will get what we deserve...more of the same pandering garbage.

Now for pairings...I would think Hillary/John McCain, John McCain/Hillary, Hillary/Tipper Gore, or Obama/Jim Webb.

But my vote will go for e:none of the above. I am sick of this business as usual notion. Maybe Jesse Ventura needs to come out of political retirement. The US could use some of his fiscal responsibility and cut out the crap mentality. Of course Jesse's election would sound the death bell for being policially correct. I am not sure the Sheeple are ready for it.

Posted by: Sierra | May 6, 2008 12:16 PM

So, in 2008, even if the voters choose Obama, he should get to the back of the bus! Well, that's just fabulous! Thanks for setting Black people back a hundred years. I guess by the time John McCain's war ends in Iraq, we can maybe drive the bus again?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 12:08 PM

Mr. Martinez, I agree with your response to the question. In my opinion, coupling these two candidates would not lead to an effective administration (assuming they could somehow be elected).

It's obvious that many Democrats and Republicans will not be satisfied with the eventual nominee of their party. Perhaps in a future article you could discuss why a viable middle ground third party has not emerged.

Posted by: R.C. | May 6, 2008 12:05 PM

it seems to me that people are trying to tie mr wright to mr obama. I have yet to see the major new media tie the relationship that the bush family and the bin laden family has. American people wake up. There is a double standard in this country. oh yes the information is out there for you to research don,t take my word on the bush and bin laden ties do your homework american people!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: keith | May 6, 2008 12:05 PM

Look, there will be a Democrat in the White House in 2008 no matter who runs. I happen to like both candidates myself but it really does not matter. I do not understand all this media discussion when the outcome of the race is so obvious and has been so since Katrina.

Still, I love these columns that compare the two candidates, Clinton and Obama, without bringing in the third. No matter how much vinegar either candidate lacks, no matter if one accused the midwest of being bitter (totally true, by the way), either one of them is immensely preferable to McCain. I wish you media types would note that fact in EVERY column you write.

Posted by: Mark | May 6, 2008 11:42 AM

Hillary will win and Obama will be a loser forever.

Go McCain

Posted by: Sally | May 6, 2008 11:40 AM

If HRC wins the nomination and the BHO supporters refuse to vote they have taken on the same "victim" shroud Wright has convinced them as is historically and rightfully theirs. More whiners and blamers. They shoot themselves in the foot by choosing not to participate in the American process.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | May 6, 2008 11:33 AM

eduacated like this group? please.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 11:32 AM

Where is all the Fair and Balanced News Coverage on this, so we Voters have a clear view of Both Democratic candidates at the same time when we watch the News Coverage ?????????????
Judge Munoz Saves Hillary's Presidential Bid In LA Court Action


www.peterfpaul.com/2008/04/27/judge-munoz-saves-hillarys-presidential-bid-in-la-court-action/

In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!

Rush Limbaugh And The New VRWC To Elect Hillary Clinton?
www.peterfpaul.com/category/barack/

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have shown Friday that he is joining former Clinton arch-enemies Richard Mellon Scaife, Matt Drudge, News Max publisher Chris Ruddy, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in either flat out supporting Hillary publicly, or providing a strategic media coverage of her and her campaign intended to help her more than hurt her chances to win against Obama and possibly regain the White House.

The Clintons' Terror Pardons
www.online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=Letters


What about this relationship ????
www.truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-pastor-has-represented-us-well.html

CLICK The Video Link below ; The pandering Clintons first were pushing the Iraq Regime Change in the 1990s , and now they pander for the Voters that are against the war .

www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Posted by: tony | May 6, 2008 11:31 AM

Why would Hillary want to take an ex-cokehead Muslim for her VP?

Posted by: TG | May 6, 2008 11:31 AM

Not only does Hillary want to move the goal post SHE WANTS TO COUNT THE SCORE AT HALFTIME WHEN THEY WERE THEY WERE PLAYING AGAINST THE BAND!

Posted by: wlbill | May 6, 2008 11:24 AM

But she would pander to him.

Why can't we have a pandering VP with Populous Ideas.

Just In Clinton Promise to pay for GAS HOLIDAY by Taxing GOP

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 11:16 AM

Brian, Hillary may in fact be a very smart woman, but she treats the American people as if we're stupid. It's insulting and unacceptable. Besides the sniper story, she has just included this gas tax holiday farce. The gas companies will pay the tax?! That's what they do now! It's included in the price. So she's subtracting x and then she adds x. What does that leave us? The original equation- DUH! This is absolutely insulting. But she will get the nomination. I hope she does so she can be crushed in November when the American people can show her just how much we detest what she stands for.

Posted by: dcp | May 6, 2008 11:13 AM

Hillary Clinton may be the first presidential candidate to have been ordered to testify in a trial for campaing fraud. Judge Munoz in a CA court said she must testify after the election.

Once again, the Clintons are making a mockery of the people that support them, and the Presidency of the United States of America.

Posted by: Very Concerned | May 6, 2008 11:07 AM

To demonstrate my own "piss and vinegar," let me say that Ken Heilbrunn's suggestion and analysis is ludicrous. But for the sake of argument, I'll indulge for a few comments.

What candidate would win the nomination but refuse it to take the VP slot? Precedent? Why would someone abandon the opportunity to be president under such an agreement?

Even if it happened--and Hillary won--that doesn't guarantee that Obama would get the nomination 4 years later

As far as a 4-yrear deal--precedent (US)? How could such an agreement be enforceable? Given Hillary's modus operands displayed in the election so far, I wouldn't trust her at all re: this--nor any candidate for that matter.

What if Hillary lost, and Obama--and others felt like her could have won?

What if Hillary were wildly popular--should she step down from the P spot. The UK example is very different b/c the PM isn't elected by the public but by the party with the most votes in Parliament. That's where an internal party agreement could be enforceable by the party itself.

"Give the woman what she so desperately wants". Great, what a standard to apply in elections. McCain probably wants it as much Hillary--gonna vote for him based on that?

Dear Stumped, why did you waste time on this ridiculous question , and by the way, I've heard that the Earth is round--true?

Posted by: jackstpaul | May 6, 2008 11:03 AM

All the stars point to Obama, all the heavenly stars and the Hollywood stars. All the money points to Obama,untarnishaed monies, all the mumbers point to Obama, all innovation points to Obama. Obama will lead the world. The rust and decay in the American economy will come to an end. Listen and you will here his voice. Yes he can. Wright and Hillary are one of a kind.

Posted by: Ratu Tibble | May 6, 2008 11:01 AM

"... there are people out there who, if desperate enough financially, will cling to things like God and guns (and maybe even newspapers!) to make sense of their lives."

But they do.

Posted by: glt79 | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM

A thought to ponder:

Why is it when blacks vote for the black candidate they're racist?
When whites vote for the white candidate they're not.
What were blacks called in the past decades when they voted for white candidates (including B. Clinton)?
STUPID?
Maybe the real choice for blacks is not between Senator Obama or Senator Clinton but being stupid or being racist.

Posted by: Nandi | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM

To those who say Obama faced no downside when he opposed the Iraq War while running for the Senate -- how about the downside of not getting elected in a period when GW had an 84% approval rating? Hillary Clinton on the other hand was all over it in her never-ending effort to "obliterate" any perception of herself as female or human.

Posted by: tashekor | May 6, 2008 10:51 AM

I find it amazing that the Obamaites slather over their candidate like he was the second coming. Telling us he has some much character; yet ignoring the Wright spin.
Here is a person who was either his spirual advisor or "wouldn't know if I passed him on the street" to a pariah depending upon effect the relationship had on the campaign. Obama believes in what Wright preaches but knows he cannot say it during the campaign; but of course he is going to lead to the land of milk and honey.
"Wake up before the Trojan Horse is within the gates."

Posted by: Robert | May 6, 2008 10:51 AM

To those who say Obama faced no downside when he opposed the Iraq War while running for the Senate -- how about the downside of not getting elected in a period when GW had an 84% approval rating? Hillary Clinton on the other hand was all over it in her never-ending effort to "obliterate" any perception of herself as female or human.

Posted by: tashekor | May 6, 2008 10:49 AM

Hillary wants to be back in the White House - there are those who want her because she is a woman, and only that. there are those who want her because she is white not black. There are those who believe she will do what she says and really gets them.

I want a canidate who will do what Congress and special intrests fear - motivate the nation to speak up as one and demand change. Getting re-elected would be Hillary's main objective - as getting elected is her only objective now. Helping her party out - not on her agenda, McCain has not had to fight for the presidency all this time, getting to sit back and watch.

You might ask yourself - how can a woman who came from a rich family and lived a rich life relate to any blue collar situation? Obama at least has been part of a blue collar family - even if detached from it now.

Preacher's comments are words - belief is internal, and not based on anothers words.
The media is doing what they do, going for ratings, and that had nothing to do with what is good for America.

Maybe McCain is the best man - since the Democrats can't stand up and make their minds known.

Posted by: Chris | May 6, 2008 10:32 AM

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is and will face very critical and substantial "Challenges" in coming,
months, years, and decades to come.
It is very essential that we pick out our next President on following criteria in mind.


1. A candidate with "Vision and Mission".

2. A candidate with " Stable Character and Integrity" .

3. A candidate with "Presidential Temperament" and
"stable Judgment".

4. A candidate with "little "Washington" exposure" and
"real connectedness with New Voters".

5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
"Tears us down".

6. A candidate not based on sexism, racism, and ageism.

In my professional and personal opinion, the only candidate who has the above qualities and characteristics and is also cool, calm, and collected is Senator Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1980. I voted
for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
and second Bush in 2000 and In the process last interest in Washington politics as usual and I stopped voting.Not a good idea under any circumstance particularly at present.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
let Washington stay the same.We can not afford our Greatgreat Nation to become less than what we are and can be.

We need to send clear and candid message to the world
and some 24 hour partisan hateful media. These media
outlets are trying to deprive, dupe, and derail us
from getting it right this time.

They are trying there best to deny us better rather
than bitter future. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
are persistently and constantly subjected to Psychological terrorism" without their knowledge thru these hateful partisan media outlets.

We Americans are should not and would not to allow them
psychologically terrorized, traumatized and silence us this time.

I am sure that we will get it right this
time and elect Senator Obama our next President. let
us not get dragged down into racism, sexism and ageism.

Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
family, friends,fellowships, faith, funds,foundation, fun, and future with fairness and freedom and without fear or favor.

We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
centuries to come and regain our world economic, and power status back.

God Bless our Great grand Nation and its diverse people.

Our Greatgrand nation needs present and future stability, security, safety,sustained progress and restoration of our due status in this perilous Global World at the all levels.

Yours sincerely,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall
Forensic Psychiatrist.
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.

Posted by: COL.[retd]A.M.Khajawall | May 6, 2008 10:22 AM

Who will walk in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt Americas greatest presidents ----- It just has to be Barack Obama the body language and downright charisma / values say it all

Posted by: warren williams | May 6, 2008 10:21 AM

"I used to think that if Hillary Clinton prevailed in the end, she'd have no choice but to choose Barack Obama as her running mate..."

One of many indications that you are simply not sophisticated enough to write this column.

Posted by: mobedda | May 6, 2008 10:20 AM

IM VOTING FOR HILLARY.SHE A GREAT WOMAN.IM DOING MY REPORT ON HER.

Posted by: EDDIE | May 6, 2008 10:15 AM

What makes Hillary qualified to be Commander & Chief? She can not even tell when see is taken sniper fire or not.

Posted by: Mike | May 6, 2008 10:02 AM

CLM said:
"Fact is if it weren't for the blacks voting purely on race, Obama wouldn't have gotten this far."
----------------------------------

Give me a break. I can think of 10 women off the top of my head (friends and relatives) whom I've asked why they voted for Clinton. The number 1 answer: "well, she's a woman, and..."

Out of the 3 of them, Obama seems the most honest, the most decent, and the most "normal person". Clinton has hardly lived a normal life. McCain is married to a billionaire who inherited her lifestyle from her parents. Obama and his wife only paid off their student loans in the last 5 years.

It's unfortunate that most people don't see through character attacks because it's the primary reason that we end up with idiots in charge of this country. And, also, why good, decent people like McCain and Clinton sell their souls and start using the exact same divisive, manipulative tactics that were used against them previously.

Posted by: Charles Johns | May 6, 2008 10:01 AM

If Obama isnt there ... I wont vote for anybody ... its better to destroy my vote

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 10:00 AM

"Some Hillary supporters are just plain funny. Why would anyone intelligent vote for Obama? Hello! It is now a public knowlede that Clinton attracts thickos and Obama attracts educated."
--------------------------------
This is exactly the elitist, arrogant, snobby a** attitude that has hobbled the Obama campaign and kept him from clinching the nomination. Thank you for demonstrating it so adeptly.

Posted by: Juraco | May 6, 2008 9:59 AM

Dear Stupid:

You were among the many pundits who wrote Hillary's obituaries after the Iowa caucus.

You were wrong, very, very wrong. Voters have proved you wrong time and again.

How come are you still writing on something you understand nothing about?

Posted by: Berry | May 6, 2008 9:50 AM

Do you realize that Obama has never set foot in any of the EU European countries (France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Germany, etc.? He's too green.

Posted by: Julie41 | May 6, 2008 9:49 AM

Obama is a right candidate for presidency ... Clinton has lost clear motive, she is just there to distort ... Who says NO when am telling you that Rev. Wright is a puppet of Hillary?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 9:46 AM

Here we go again! If Obama accepts a VP spot he will become a Bill Clinton waterboy. How stupid can one get !!!!!!

Posted by: DenisR | May 6, 2008 9:43 AM

Lemmy Caution asks: "Name me one thing the Obama has done that qualifies him for the presidency?"

OD responds: "Vocally oppose the invasion of Iraq when practically everyone else in politics and the media, plus 79% of the US population, were supporting it. Speak out against it while in the middle of his US senate election campaign. Accurately describe the pitfalls and hazards that lay in Iraq, which, while obvious enough to the rest of the world, were apparently hidden from the vast majority of his fellow Americans."


......................
OD, when are you and the other Obama-ites going to realize that no one cares how Obama voted in regard to the war? He was just guessing, and taking a disturbing pacifist stance. He did not have any more information than the rest of us, and he voted against the war. When presented information supporting military action (although incorrect), he chose to take no action at all, which is disturbing.

That does not make Obama a leader, or someone with magic insight into the war and the reasons for it (or lack thereof). It just makes him an opportunist. He voted against the war because there was no downside. His vote was not going to make a difference. Later, he could ignore it if WMDs were found in truckloads and, if not, he knew that he could make a big deal that he was against the war, which is exactly what he has done.

Wake up and realize that you are being fooled.

Posted by: Obama is a manipulator | May 6, 2008 9:08 AM

To the Washington Post,

If the situation was reversed and if Clinton was in the lead with delegates, would the media be touting an Obama-Clinton ticket idea?

All this talk about why can't Obama win the white working class vote, why can't he close the deal, he's out of touch, he's an elitist -- aren't you just spouting Clinton-McCain campaign attack lines without doing any real journalistic work that would tell you that every one of those claims are false?

Go do your work! You can do better than this! Show us that you can actually investigate and report on something that hasn't been handed to you by Fox "News"

You've caused my to start having to read the "Huffington Post" to get some real news!!! C'mon, you can do better than this!

Posted by: tvincent | May 6, 2008 8:57 AM

Why anyone would vote for Clinton is alarming to me. She lies more than the current administration all by herself(snipers, uninsured pregger woman, shooting guns etc..). "screw 'em" was how she described the voters she now covets! If you don't like the lies the current administration drove down your throat, there is no logical reason to vote for an even bigger fibber.

In addition to all the lies, she really does not have that much more experience that Obama. She counts watching her husband handle the state of Arkansas and the White House as experience. If that counts as experience, Dan Snyder should hire Diana Favre as his new QB.

Posted by: splitbill | May 6, 2008 8:25 AM

I cannot believe that Clinton is still in the race. She should have quit after she had lost 12 primaries in a row. This will end in a major disaster for the democratic party if it comes down to superdelegates overriding the will of the people. Even if Obama wins by a single pledged delegate, one more state and one more popular vote, the superdelegates should have no right to take that away from him. It is not Clinton's supporters' fault for cheering her to go on. It is her fault for not seeing what's coming despite her "experience" and for not quitting.

Posted by: iko | May 6, 2008 8:22 AM

How can a person win the nomination give the nomination to the loser and accept the losers spot on the ticket. Would Hillary give up the nomination and accept the second spot. Hell no. So why should Obama.

Posted by: Art | May 6, 2008 7:15 AM

As much as I love the area I live, if I was out of work for 25 years I wouldn't be bitter, I'd be living somewhere else that I could find a job.


The odd thing those folks cling to is Democrats. Pennsylvania has been run as a state by them for most of those 25 years, and evidently tons of folk are still out of work.

That party controlled all of congress 25 years ago, and one portion or the other for the majority of the last 25 years. Yet, the folks they are always going to help are still out of work? Maybe those bitter folks need to look in a new direction for leadership.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | May 6, 2008 6:25 AM


Obama has some serious emotional healing to tackle before he tries to command anything! He just severed an abusive tie [if, in fact, that relationship has been broken]. I have my doubts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 5:32 AM

Clinton not only voted to authorize "Frat Boy and the Penguin" to invade an unarmed nation, she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment which will be used to justify the invasion of Iran. Obama was the first African American elected President of the Harvard Law Review. Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. Obama worked as a civil rights attorney. Obama was a state legislator. Obama is a US Senator. Obama voiced his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Obama voted against the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment. Unfortunately for some, the color of his skin nullifies any accomplishment he has or ever will make to his country. Sure, these citizens hide behind the lapel pin, Rev Wright's comments and even his middle name. For once, I wish these poeple would be honest. Obama is an African American and that disqualifies him. It is a sad commentary on our nation but true. Americans want someone who will pander to them and with whom they want to share a beer. The current President was a "C" student, was turned down for admission into Univesity of Texas, used elitist legacy to gain admission into Yale, failed at every business venture, was investigated for insider trading with Harken Energy, accepted a bail out from Salem bin Laden, laughed as he signed the death warrant of woman, refused to stop the execution of Gary Graham when the "eye witnesses" recanted their testimony, and was a drunk until he was 40 by his own account. He "won" re-election after failing to take steps to prevent 9/11 though he was warned on August 6, 2001 by the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing, diverted resources from Afghanistan to attack an unarmed nation that did not attack the US, lied the country into war, violated federal law to spy on Americans, and destroyed relationships with allies just for starters. Americans got what they deserved due to their apathy and it will be no different in 2008.

Posted by: fastcats3 | May 6, 2008 5:22 AM

Bill Clinton made similar comments,
in 1992, but the media chose not to inform the public.

Bill Clinton on Southern Whites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYaJHAnmjtk&feature=related

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em" - The Huffington Post.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html - 240k -


Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 6, 2008 5:21 AM

Tony Blair effectively scuppered Gordon Brown's PM-ship by handing him the war in Iraq. Brown, as a cabinet minister, had to support the invasion in 2003, so couldn't wriggle out later.

I suspect Hillary would do the same to a VP Obama, saddling him with a desperately unsuccessful Iran war, and forcing him to back it or resign.

Fortunately it's hypothetical since Obama will be the nominee.

Posted by: OD | May 6, 2008 5:13 AM

As a youngish white man with a graduate degree, I voted for
Hillary and will not vote for Obama. I don't believe he has
the necessary experience or common sense to lead our country. He has repeatedly shown his naivete and inability to do much besides toss off an inspirational speech, and even the speechmaking seems to be losing its luster. Hillary has shown that she has the talent, intelligence, grace, drive, and grit to be amazing. She's the only acceptable choice.


Posted by: Brian | May 6, 2008 5:12 AM

As a youngish white man with a graduate degree, I voted for
Hillary and will not vote for Obama. I don't believe he has
the necessary experience or common sense to lead our country. He has repeatedly shown his naivete and inability to do much besides toss off an inspirational speech, and even the speechmaking seems to be losing its luster. Hillary has shown that she has the talent, intelligence, grace, drive, and grit to be amazing. She's the only acceptable choice.


Posted by: Brian | May 6, 2008 5:12 AM

Lemmy Caution asks:
"Name me one thing the Obama has done that qualifies him for the presidency?"

Vocally oppose the invasion of Iraq when practically everyone else in politics and the media, plus 79% of the US population, were supporting it.
Speak out against it while in the middle of his US senate election campaign.
Accurately describe the pitfalls and hazards that lay in Iraq, which, while obvious enough to the rest of the world, were apparently hidden from the vast majority of his fellow Americans.

Posted by: OD | May 6, 2008 5:07 AM

Life isn't arithmetic; it's more complicated than tensor calculus. Anyway, why would Obama and Clinton add up and not subtract? As a loyal Dem, my sense is that, in order to compete with McCain, the Dem nominee will need to choose a generic white guy veep. Otherwise, McCain gets the atavistic fear vote from those emotionally discomforted by an all new ticket. For a Western democracy, we're very conservative. To elect a barrier-breaking POTUS, we can best reassure traditionalists that the Democratic party still values white guys by displaying one on the ticket.

Posted by: jhbyer | May 6, 2008 4:57 AM

Name me one thing the Obama has done that qualifies him for the presidency?

Posted by: Lemmy Caution | May 6, 2008 4:20 AM

This suggestion from the same people who didn't ask the right questions before the War in Iraq?
Didn't ask questions about Torture?
Didn't ask questions about the Firing of US Attorneys?
I don't think there is any wisdom in the opinion offered, nor a track record suggesting a reason for listening.
Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama is just fine, if either or both are willing to put their country's best interest first.

Posted by: Brian Keith O'Hara | May 6, 2008 4:12 AM

And as for Clinton being Obama's VP, the Friday night PBS pundits a week ago said that if she were VP to Obama, the president would need an official food taster.

Coz that's how she is seen in her ambition.

Zogby has said if she loses NC and IND, it will take the "Jaws of Life" to dislodge her. And her run after Florida and Michigan and the convention suggests Zogby's perception is sound.

Posted by: O Yes | May 6, 2008 4:10 AM

@ CLM

To say Obama's success is based solely on black suppourt is inaccurate, considering that his campaign would probably be over if he had not won Iowa, which the last time I checked didn't have a large black population

Posted by: ThAaNoNyMoUs | May 6, 2008 4:09 AM

Speaking strictly for me, a white woman well over 50, Obama would have to betray everything he stands for to share a ticket with Clinton. Despite my own feminist wishes, I agree with Michael Moore that this is not the woman. Kathleen Sibelius yes. Obama now. If somehow the Clintons steal the nomination I will write his name on the ballot in November. And encourage Ron Paul's people to do the same on their side. Which hopefully can protect me from electing John McCain by engaging in a write in for Obama.

Your comments that Obama "should" take VP as a "deal" suggest to me that you don't know him. But if you are right, or is it Wright, I don't know him.

Posted by: Gaias Child | May 6, 2008 4:06 AM

Can Clinton clinch North Carolina? She IS supposed to be catching up, you know...

Clinton who? I guess it's true: catching up is haaaard to doooo.

North Carolina will want to throw the bumbs out given the economy and the wars, no more clintons, no more bush, no more dynasties' dirty looks.

Back a winner!

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 6, 2008 3:07 AM

Amazing to me that anyone could consider a 'dream ticket' that includes Clinton. Although I suppose it could be true since nightmares are also technically dreams.

You mention the Clinton-Obama possibility in the headline, let me mention why the Obama-Clinton ticket wouldn't work.
1. Obama would have to watch his back (or have the secret service do it) strenuously 24/7 for the rest of his life (even after his presidency ended, her grudges would continue).
2. Although Clinton has done Obama a favor by 'vetting' him. She is the only one that would consider that a favor, the rest of the world considers it a character attack.
3. If you are trying to change the way politics work in Washington, this is not the Veep you are looking for.

On another subject here, Obama's piss and vinegar. He said early on that he was reserving that style of campaigning for when he was going against the republican. Unlike some he doesn't believe in dragging the Democratic party as a whole through the mud (and the pig sty, and the manure field, and... you get my drift).

Tom...

Posted by: Tom | May 6, 2008 2:27 AM

The most important attribute for a manager of anything is intellectual honesty supported by critical thinking.The next most important requirement is expertise in calibrating the people they depend on for help and advise. Neither of these candidates, like the present incumbent, score a passing grade. Not a happy conclusion.

Posted by: Tom Sharples | May 6, 2008 2:16 AM

I believe that the will of the people should choose our nominee. What has happened to democracy? Maybe we should choose the next president by disregarding the electoral college? That is what you are implying if you want Hillary to get the job. Lets just go with our emotions.

Posted by: Roger | May 6, 2008 2:15 AM

Some Hillary supporters are just plain funny. Why would anyone intelligent vote for Obama? Hello! It is now a public knowlede that Clinton attracts thickos and Obama attracts educated.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 2:01 AM

CLM: "Why would anyone with an education or intelligence on any level vote Obama?"

Because his support is made up of the more educated voters, while HRC has more of the support of the UNeducated. She is a negative, divisive, obvious liar (sorry, it's true).

Obama, on the other had, only snipes at her when she won't let up on him. Why would anyone with an education or intelligence on any level vote for a sneering, demeaning, attack dog... when they can have a positive leader and an obviously effective administrator, given the efficiency of his campaign machine. Hillary's even using Obama's spreadsheet.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:49 AM

Clinton would -not- just hand over the job after four years... she'd want the whole eight. And the vice presidency has not been an assured stepping stone to the top... oftentimes it's the prelude to obscurity (not even getting back into a Senate job). Neither candidate wants that after investing so much effort... they will -not- run together. I would like Edwards for VP (or Pres.), but he's said no.

Posted by: RR | May 6, 2008 1:42 AM

Hillary supported NAFTA, the war in Iraq, and now she wants to cut gas tax for a few months even after economist say it won't help most Americans.

"Expert Support For Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/expert-support-for-gas-ta_n_99474.html

Hillary might talk a good game but she makes the wrong decisions....I want a really, really smart person in the White House......so Obama is who I support.

Barack Obama hasn't requested any federal earmarks for 2009. John McCain, in fact, hopes to banish all earmarks forever.
Hillary Rodham Clinton? She's asked for nearly $2.3 billion in funding for pet projects in 2009, most of that going to her home state of New York, The Hill reports. That's about three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year, the $837 million secured by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

Clinton's office justified the requests, saying the money is needed after a "staggering" reduction in the Bush administration's budget proposal that left states and localities "ill prepared to prevent another major terrorist attack."
The Hill also says Mrs. Clinton's big request "have some speculating that the former first lady is preparing for a soft landing should she lose the Democratic primary to Obama and refocus her energy on winning a third Senate term."

Senator Clinton needs over 77% of the remaining votes and super delegates to win.

Game over, the fat lady has sung, it's time to unite behind the winner and fight together against the Republican nominee.

My hopes and dreams of a united country are with Barack Obama.

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | May 6, 2008 1:38 AM

well, bush and fellow gops have nearly destroyed the U.S. If we DO NOT get a capable administrator in the White House now the U.S. and many of its citizens will indeed be second class.
we cannot afford to indulge a nobel experiment at this time. we need a brass tacks person at the helm. Hilllary qualifies for that, and Obama looks more and more like a secret agent for the gop == frantically trying to divide the dems in this year when a huge majority wants dems in the White House.

Posted by: lars for hillary | May 6, 2008 1:31 AM

Why would anyone with an education or intelligence on any level vote Obama? It simply makes no sense. Obama can't compete with Clinton no matter what is said about her. All this Obama hype is just that. Fact is if it weren't for the blacks voting purely on race, Obama wouldn't have gotten this far.

Posted by: CLM | May 6, 2008 1:22 AM

yep, journalists still believe that religion is just the opiate of the masses

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:20 AM

We don't need another bald-faced liar in the White House.

Obama's right for America.

Jim Webb for Veep!

Posted by: Will Jones - Atlanta | May 6, 2008 1:15 AM

Hillary isn't a serious candidate about being president. She is like a pit bull and at this point just wants to humiliate Obama and win the nomination. Once she does that she will refuse it and just wander off with that silly grin on her face.

Posted by: Patrick | May 6, 2008 1:12 AM

No dream ticket.....the Clintons are tools....Clinton is consistently demeaning, belittling, snide, distorting and even lying. Her campaign is built upon appealing to the lowest common denominator.

I hope Obama wins in Indy and in NC, then we can put this mess to rest and get on with what matters like the war in Iraq and our energy problems.....also I like Obama's deportment...and I think that it is important for bringing people together....which is what America needs right now....

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | May 6, 2008 1:09 AM

Why doesn't the media stick to reporting the fact that the race is all but officially over? Is it all about ratings? Doesn't the math say it all? Why should the Democratic party have to put up with a contested race that isn't so close as we are asked to believe?

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 6, 2008 12:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company