Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

'Dream Ticket' Group Looks to Fund Ads

VoteBoth, a group founded by two former aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is ramping up its fundraising efforts with the expectation of sponsoring television ads in key swing states urging presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to pick Clinton as his running-mate.

"We have heard from many Democrats that they want Clinton on the ticket with Obama, and we're grateful that they are supporting VoteBoth.com," said Adam Parkhomenko, one of the founders of the group. "We are going to continue to push the idea and keep the conversation going."

The group has been actively meeting with fundraisers over the last weeks and days as it seeks to draft a plan that would fund commercials in states like Michigan and Ohio among others.

Among the financial bigwigs on board with the effort are Iowa lawyer Jerry Crawford and New York investment banker Hassan Nemazee. Allida Black, the editor of former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt's papers at George Washington University and a regular Democratic giver, is also helping the group collect cash.

Another participant is Philadelphia lawyer Mark Aronchick. "I am a deep believer that we need to bring the yin and the yang of our party together," he told The Fix today.

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic reported last night on his blog that Parkhomenko had spoken with Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams in the aftermath of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6. In that conversation, according to Ambinder, Williams expressed her personal support for the idea and encouraged Parkhomenko and co-founder Sam Arora to continue pushing the idea.

The effort would seem to face two major hurdles:

The first is that, to date, the only donors who have agreed to help raise money to fund ads pushing an Obama-Clinton ticket are those friendly to Clinton. In order for the effort to truly take off, the group needs to find a handful of Obama donors who believe putting Clinton on the ticket is such a good idea that they are willing join the cause.

Still, there appears to be very little interest in the Obama world to take part in such an effort. "It's as asinine as having a bunch of donors threatening [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi," said one Obama major donor granted anonymity to speak candidly. "I don't think anyone who has any political savvy who is connected with Senator Clinton would think this is a good idea."

The second hurdle is that VoteBoth is NOT a 527 committee. According to Parkhomenko, the group can only accept $5,000 from any individual contributor -- meaning that the involvement of extremely wealthy people does not ensure the financial success of the effort.

It's possible, of course, that many of Clinton's donors -- large and small -- can be galvanized to give to this group in large enough numbers that it can fund a meaningful ad buy in key swing states.

UPDATE, 4:00 p.m. ET: Attorney Mark Aronchick said he spent time with Clinton last night in New York City and insisted to her that the party would only be "complete" if she was the vice presidential pick. "You each represent half of what we are," Aronchick said he told Clinton.

Aronhick acknowledged that Clinton largely keeps "close counsel" and she did not let on her interest (or lack thereof) in the job. "If it's the right partnership, I think she would do it," Aronchick said.

If the two did wind up on a ticket together, Aronchick predicted a massive landslide in the fall. "I don't know what state McCain wins," he said.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 4, 2008; 3:31 PM ET
Categories:  Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Campaign Will Use Six Consulting 'Teams'
Next: The Last Primaries: Winners and Losers

Comments

rtyrtyerwerqwet
eryhryuretgwer
sryjrtwertgrteye

Posted by: Hactdindthice | June 22, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

ghyfipc ijglwz nmboej bjux xtmfj vqacdwx ceivlbr [URL]http://www.olqsfue.cobh.com[/URL] hkrogei ypcrew

Posted by: ngxitd xmunkgy | June 20, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

ghyfipc ijglwz nmboej bjux xtmfj vqacdwx ceivlbr [URL]http://www.olqsfue.cobh.com[/URL] hkrogei ypcrew

Posted by: ngxitd xmunkgy | June 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

hzsjkniyo vofhibrce bjvamoqcn pmohc dqjlru tboclap cykil [URL=http://www.yjkxzso.ayzwoh.com]bfexir cgze[/URL]

Posted by: qbemfl zykbjd | June 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

oskyg edzsmkwq nfomweuy pzmysrfxl azhygf zqresthnj plgh fqbszmyk cnfvm

Posted by: ktbwvzmq geimry | June 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

hmfpyzxbr wulbxqte vdpkaelj klrqvs vycrqs mwqrgvte gwvpsn

Posted by: mvfpxlb vyzma | June 20, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

nyilxvpar flaywb cpfdrkogu udmaybqc gtcesrko gzfcmwhoa seqm http://www.pzxga.rioqscuh.com

Posted by: jrkxdupz eacmun | June 20, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

amcpte tabvchl gihjwxr nhomfj wqnxebrh qhmblers bgncuh

Posted by: pycx kniptxmy | June 20, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

rtyrtyerwerqwet
eryhryuretgwer
sryjrtwertgrteye

Posted by: Hactdindthice | June 17, 2008 5:54 AM | Report abuse

In a lot of ways Hillary is like Joan Crawford in the movie "Mommie Dearest" when meeting the Pepsi-Cola Board of Directors after her husband's death. Like her or not, she still pulled in 17 million voters in Democratic primaries. And whether or not those voters go to Obama is entirely up to Hillary. Without them he loses the General Election. And that's the "reality check" that many Obama supporters need to understand.

Posted by: sibwalker | June 4, 2008 4:23 PM
-------------------------
You're wrong about that. Hillary doesn't control 17 million voters like so many chips. She has some die-hard supporters, no doubt, but that doesn't imply that the great majority of those 17 million won't vote for Obama in November.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

This is the same set of millionaire jackasses that tried to muscle Nancy Pelosi. And we all remember how successful that was. Doesn't Hillary have any control over her surrogates?

Posted by: Steve | June 5, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

This is just like when Hillary was "offering" Obama a position as VP when he was ahead of her in the delegate count. She still thinks she's calling the shots in this race.

Posted by: Ron | June 5, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

How much more offensive does it get? Her former aides actively lobbying for her to be put on the ticket? And we're supposed to believe that she isn't behind this effort?

Posted by: S. | June 5, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

NOW WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S TAKING CLINTON SO LONG TO CONCEDE. YOU MUST SEE THIS uTube VIDEO OF HILLARY'S DOWN FALL!

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

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

I am a proud Hillary supporter. Me and my wife are going to have a picture of her framed and put on the wall.

If you are an Obama supporter and want both of us to vote for him and not sit out this election, then please stop disrespecting someone we deeply respect. Yes, you may call us dumb. Yes, you may call us blue collar, gun-weilding, bitter maniacs. And of course, racist. But trust me, if you want to win this election, you MUST have us join you.

Remember, if you continue to say what you are saying and McCain continues to embrace her, then you know better since you are educated, egalitarian and of course, politically savvy.

Posted by: JoshSac | June 5, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

Continuing to insult the person who had 18 million people vote for her- roughly the same amount as Obama- just not in the right locations (she should have spent more time winning the 9200 people who voted in WY than teh 1.7 million that voted in FL or the 2.4 million that voted in TX)anyhow, insulting this person when it is unnecessay is bad sportsmanship and is pushing what is acceptable to those 18 million people

Quit it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

I think the media obsession with whether Hillary will be the vice-presidential nominee will dissipate once Barack makes it clear he is going to not be rushed or pressured by anyone to make a decision before he is ready and has carefully weighed his choices. He needs, above all, to choose a candidate who is qualified to be president, who he is comfortable with and can trust to be loyal to him.

The latter two of these considerations seem to rule out Hillary for serious consideration. Barack should, in my opinion, seriously consider Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd or John Edwards, although I think the first would be a better choice from a political perspective. Edwards did not seem to help John Kerry much four years ago.

The smartest Veep choice McCain could make is Colin Powell, reinforcing his claim this should be primarily a national security issue. However, Colin is more moderate than McCain and the economy will likely be the most important issues, at least it should be, in the election.

Posted by: Independent | June 4, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I give the Obama/Clinton ticket idea, the "3-D's".


DEPRESSING, DISAPPOINTING & DISHEARTENING!

Posted by: Curt in Boston | June 4, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 4, 2008 9:58 PM
"No matter what Obama does, he should know this:

Having BILLARY Clinton as vice president would be the equivalent of having a spitting Cobra as a room mate. You CANNOT control its NATURAL HABIT of spitting and biting. Either way, you get POISON in your blood circulatory system!"

The only poison-filled, biting and spitting snakes I see are those who post seething, hate-filled messages like this against Hillary Clinton. Someone you don't even know. Just like mad dogs, teeth bared and foaming at the mouth. It's downright scary.

Posted by: H.A.L. | June 4, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

An Obama/Hillary ticket would be about as successful as the John Adams/Thomas Jefferson ticket proved to be; after four years, Jefferson succeeded in throwing Adams out. If Obama picks Clinton as his running mate and they win, her speech last night makes clear that her spin will be that he owes the job to her. No President can allow him/herself to be hobbled like that, especially by the Vice President. Obama should pretty quickly select Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius as his running mate. She is a popular two-term Democratic governor of a red state. She successfully took on Blue Cross/Blue Shield in rejecting a merger that was not in the public interest. She defied the NRA in vetoing a concealed carry law. The law was enacted over her veto, but she easily won re-election. She is a pro-choice Catholic. And, as a highly successful female politician who just turned 60, she will appeal to all but the most diehard Clinton partisans.

Posted by: Sheldon H. Laskin | June 4, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: freeDom: Much of Clinton's support comes from Dems who don't particularly like her anyway, but didn't like Obama, so they're not going to blindly follow her if she's VP.

You are so out of touch it's almost laughable. Hillary Clinton has a very large, very devoted and powerful base. And the dumbest people on earth right now are the Democrats who threw her away for a "greenhorn" who will never win the election after the Republican's get done with him.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

No matter what Obama does, he should know this:

Having BILLARY Clinton as vice president would be the equivalent of having a spitting Cobra as a room mate. You CANNOT control its NATURAL HABIT of spitting and biting. Either way, you get POISON in your blood circulatory system!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 4, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

It is being reported that Hillary needed a few days to collect herself personally before making a decision about dropping out of the race. This strikes me as her 3:00 a.m. call and she's not up to the task.

Posted by: Eve | June 4, 2008 7:45 PM

--------------

beautiful post Eve!

Hillary lost any moral right to be on the ticket. Aronchick may be the dumbest person in the world (after George W Bush of course). An Obama-Clinton ticket would push away all those good Americans disgusted by Clinton's behavior. Remember, McCain can attract independents and youth, who are some of the most likely to be turned off by Clinton.

On the other hand, women, labor unions, and the like will come around since there is too much at stake not to support the Dem nominee (McCain would get to replace enough Supreme Court Justices to make it very conservative). Much of Clinton's support comes from Dems who don't particularly like her anyway, but didn't like Obama, so they're not going to blindly follow her if she's VP.

I predict a landslide defeat for the Dems on the scale of Al Smith's 1928 loss if Clinton is on the ticket. I couldn't bring myself to vote for any ticket with a Clinton, and neither could most good-hearted, rational Americans.

Posted by: freeDom | June 4, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that the media wants this more than the public.

Nearly all the posts and public response to this idea shows very little support and much apprehension.

Back off the topic for awhile, we need a break from this lady. It's time for the nominee to take the spotlight!

Is this all you can talk about?

Posted by: Redline | June 4, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Since the topic is the VP, there is an interesting block of polling at surveyusa.com that compares the various ticket possibilities on both sides for several states (some key states).

While the full range of candidates is not sampled, it's pretty extensive...and definitive.

Obama should pick Edwards as his running mate.

An Obama-Edwards ticket out performs all other ticket options except for with Hagel (in NE) and Sebelius (in KS). It wins in MO, WI, MN, and IA by the widest margins.

Of course, Clinton isn't considered as VP here, and neither are Biden, Richardson, Webb, etc.. However, it IS interesting that the candidate that Clinton tried to turn herself into (the firebrand champion of the middle class) is the one that seems to poll the best.

Of course, Survey USA is all over the map in terms of accuracy. So grains of salt are required. Still, an interesting collection of results.

Posted by: Edwards? | June 4, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I would just ask all the Clinton supporters, how much respect would you have for Clinton if the situation was reversed and Obama forced his way on her ticket as her V.P.? My guess, if you are honest with yourself, you would say "very little".

Posted by: Michael | June 4, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

It is being reported that Hillary needed a few days to collect herself personally before making a decision about dropping out of the race. This strikes me as her 3:00 a.m. call and she's not up to the task.

Posted by: Eve | June 4, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

OK let her be the VP but don't let her anywhere near health care. Her and Magaziner??? Once was enough.

Posted by: hpclub | June 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton, for what I would think, would be obvious reasons will never be picked by Sen. Obama for VP. That is the good news. The better news is that people have long memories and Mr. & Mrs. Clinton are in effect writing their own political obituaries. Just think, fellow Americans, soon they will be permanent history. :)

Posted by: Michael Andalman | June 4, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

What bsimon said:
3:44P
4:54P
4:58P
I agree.
------------------------
Also, have you noticed that for the first time in our history the media and the candidates talk about running for C In C?
The President is the C In C of the Army and Navy, not the nation's C In C.

Talk about an imperial presidency...

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I hear Iceland needs a US Ambassador ... maybe Sen Clinton is up for that?

Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Ergo...these all look like another AxelRod manipulation of media to further discredit Hillary campaign. Obama has been a master of manipulating media all along, even though all of his manipulations got him merely 50% of the vote and now he is sacerd looking at the landscape as he knows pretty well that his bro's and liberal brethren are insufficient to take him where Michelle wants him to go...hence try a little discrediting of Clinton so that her supporters give up. So much for 'Change'!!

Posted by: sen | June 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Re what to do about Hillary Clinton.
Of course, it wouldn't work for her to VP: negates the message of change, and then in the White House she'll be like the senior person in familiar environs, and it will be hard for Obama to make a clean start. Also, talk of Robert Kennedy's assassination makes me shudder.
Instead, here are two options:
1. Offer her a cabinet post on Health Care.
2. Woo her as a vital ally in the Senate: she knows how to work the old guard, and she can offer valuable critiques and help pass policy proposals from the White House.

Posted by: nkirv | June 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. That's why she should be the VP. Either way, she's looking on to 2012, if Obama wins it's 2016 (OMG an eight year wait? BO-ring!). SO: keep her close to the bosom, keep an eye on her, in the spotlight. If she's left to skulk in the shadows, "helping" Obama behind the scenes, it may end up sinking him.

Posted by: flick harrison | June 4, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Re what to do about Hillary Clinton.
Of course, it wouldn't work for her to VP: negates the message of change, and then in the White House she'll be like the senior person in familiar environs, and it will be hard for Obama to make a clean start. Also, talk of Robert Kennedy's assassination makes me shudder (you know who's in line after the President).
Instead, here are two options:
1. Offer her a cabinet post on Health Care.
2. Woo her as a vital ally in the Senate: she knows how to work the old guard, and she can offer valuable critiques and help pass policy proposals from the White House.

Posted by: nkirv | June 4, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Myself and MILLIONS of other Obama supporters, who have only given a few hundred dollars so far, think we should just say NO!

At stake: MILLIONS of contributions of THOUSANDS of dollars for the Primary (99 percent of us are not capped out) and similar BILLIONS for the General Election.

Just.
Say.
NO!

Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 4, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Stunts like this are a perfect example of why Hillary Clinton's campaign is millions of dollars in debt.

Why are they wasting money on trying to arm-twist her into the VP slot?

It's over. She lost. She needs to go back to the Senate and do the work the people of NY elected her to do.

Posted by: Carolyn | June 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Please read this statement from a pollster who is weighing in on an Obama-Clinton "Dream Ticket." This is why women are angry. Even though Senator Clinton brought more people to vote with her than any other presidential candidate in history, what's the first advice that is given to Senator Obama for a VP: Please choose a WHITE GUY. And now you know why women are angry enough to bolt this party. Never on race. When you talk discrimination, you trust me women know that argument well.

(From the Los Angeles Times) An Obama-Clinton ticket poses other complications. Voters are already being asked to set aside any prejudice and elect the nation's first black president.

"When you're trying to break the first glass ceiling, it doesn't make sense to double-pane it," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who is not aligned in the race.

A more promising alternative, Hart said, would be for Obama to go with a white male."

Posted by: Pam Hill | June 4, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Smells too much like blackmail. Or schoolyard bullying.

Posted by: scj, anytown, usa | June 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse


I do not believe Senator Clinton wants to be Obama's vice president. I certainly do not want to watch the better person playing second fiddle to someone as ridiculously unsuitable as George W Bush. I would not vote for this ticket.

She is not responsible for the idiocy of the party or the Obamistas. Let him drop like a hot rock, he will lose anyway. Come back in 4 years.

Posted by: Chicago1 | June 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

In 1869, longtime friends Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony parted ways when the Equal Rights Association which had been established to fight for the rights of both women and African Americans decided to drop women from the umbrella of support included in the 15th Amendment. Just as Dr. King didn't live the 45 years it took to see an African American become the first to lead a major political party, Susan B. Anthony did not live to see the passage of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.

It took both of these candidates to wake the slumbering public. Both of these incredible candidates fueled the urgency of now. Please link Senators Obama and Clinton on the same ticket, and watch the American people line up to make history.

Posted by: LonghornMama | June 4, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Very few Hillary supporters would vote for McCain, so there's not much to lose by finding someone other than Hillary to be VP. Hillary is a divisive figure to the right and right-leaning, so I think Obama is better off with someone else. That way he can keep the majority of Hillary supporters, and likely pick up more undecided voters. I think Hillary played her cards all wrong, and is gonna get shut out.

Posted by: Nameless | June 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"How'd they arrange to get that much of our tax money, who set that up, do you think? Separation of church and state? Has that been repealed? Do you think anybody should ask Obama if he had anything to do with getting that "church" this money? If he didn't, who did? Shouldn't we know?"

I know you hate black people and all, but you've got to admit that there are a good number of negros with money.

And its a big church. Who ever knew darkies could be so organized?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Heard on the news a couple of days ago that, over the past 15 years, while "Rev." Wright has been spewing his hate-filled, racist, anti-American, anti-white speeches, and Obama has "not-heard" any of that, their "church", which recently gave a Lifetime Achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, has quietly been the recipient of $15,000,000 of our tax dollars! They are probably still getting it!

How'd they arrange to get that much of our tax money, who set that up, do you think? Separation of church and state? Has that been repealed? Do you think anybody should ask Obama if he had anything to do with getting that "church" this money? If he didn't, who did? Shouldn't we know?

Posted by: lightnin | June 4, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the decision of Barack Obama? Can't the guy breathe for a bit before having to make this decision? Come on guys, go report something else for a little while and drop it for a week or month..

Posted by: phorse | June 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"This may seem bizarre to fellow Fix fans and netizens, but you may recall that last night Senator Clinton appealed to people to write in to her website to suggest what she should do. Since I am very concerned that she is not stepping up and conceding, I was planning to write a polite message urging her to do this. I thought maybe the people at her site would add up the number of e-mails taking each position and this would be food for thought.

Well, believe it or not, the only way I can see to send her an e-mail via her site, is to click something that says (paraphrasing) "I support you, Hillary!" and then you can add an optional additional comment if you wish. So, if I had foolishly persevered in my plan, I would have clicked and she could have pointed to one more "supporter" urging her to stay in. "


hahahaha, that's hilarious.

Although there is a "contact us" link at the bottom of the page

Posted by: DDAWD | June 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Go Obama go, but not with the evil one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

Posted by: Melissa | June 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

You can post comments on Hillary's "blog", but there is a delete-happy moderator there.

Posted by: Dan | June 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

This may seem bizarre to fellow Fix fans and netizens, but you may recall that last night Senator Clinton appealed to people to write in to her website to suggest what she should do. Since I am very concerned that she is not stepping up and conceding, I was planning to write a polite message urging her to do this. I thought maybe the people at her site would add up the number of e-mails taking each position and this would be food for thought.

Well, believe it or not, the only way I can see to send her an e-mail via her site, is to click something that says (paraphrasing) "I support you, Hillary!" and then you can add an optional additional comment if you wish. So, if I had foolishly persevered in my plan, I would have clicked and she could have pointed to one more "supporter" urging her to stay in.

This is really disturbing on the face of it. I cannot imagine a politician so closed off from the public that their campaign will not accept normal e-mails.

But on top of that, it's setting up a fanciful claim she will surely make about the number of her "supporters" who have e-mailed her, when there is no other way to communicate with her and urge her to go away. Ick, ick, ick. I do not like this.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 4, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

This political game being played by the corrupt RNCorporate Media is not fooling anyone. It is clear that adding Clinton to the ticket would sabotage any chance of victory by dividing independents and disaffected Republicans from supporting Obama. The American people are tired of these games and we are ready for CHANGE!!!

Posted by: Midwest Common Sense | June 4, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

It is a little amusing to watch all this rushing around in the Clinton camp to force her onto Obama's ticket. I don't get it. The more noise that they make, the less likely it is that it will happen. He would torpedo his own credibility if it looked like he was forced to accept her.

Is the idea to put him in a box on this issue so that they can take one last parting shot at him? I don't think this effort has legs.

Please show some dignity, Senator Clinton, and put an end to these games.

Posted by: Chuck | June 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

ALRIGHT CC ENOUGH ABOUT CLINTON! IT'S OVER AND SHE LOST. MOVE ON! SHE IS THE PAST AND OBAMA IS THE FUTURE. STOP WRITING ABOUT HER. ENOUGH ALREADY! CLINTON SHOULD BE NO WHERE NEAR THE TICKET.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

sorry, make that "hasn't" called me.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | June 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

blert, call me cynical but I think there are at least two things that are on her mind: first, is that she wants a substantive position, but not VP. She is too smart to play second fiddle at this point. I don't know, SC justice, whatever, but not VP. Second, she is willing to sell her women's political operation for paying off her campaign debt, or a large chunk of it. What we will see is her campaigning for him making the argument that we can't afford to have a Republican appointing the next SC justice - an irrefutable argument if you call yourself a Democrat. These two points play to her ego and her practicality.

But hey what do I know. She has called me recently asking for advice.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | June 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's appoint Hillary as Ambassador to Chutzpa

Posted by: SeenItAll | June 4, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I cannot think of a better way to make sure Hillary does NOT get the VP position other than doing what her surrogates are doing.

Barack Obama cannot be strong-armed into giving her the role and if this keeps up, I cannot imagine how adding her as VP would be a positive for Obama.

Whatever he does with his VP selection, he needs to make it clear that this was something HE wanted and someone HE can work with or support HIS vision for America.

Posted by: Zee | June 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Why should Clinton want to be Obama's VP? She did nothing but talk nasty about him for the last 15 months! Did she not believe her own talk? Obviously, this is not about the party or Obama or the country, this is all about Clinton. Now, that her "kitchen sink" and "nuclear" strategies have failed, she's trying to bully herself onto Obama's ticket.

Didn't she say he had no experience, only a speech? Clinton wanting to be VP, is a desperate effort to somehow still claim White House ownership. Hell no! Clinton this is over! Pack your bags and move on! I don't believe for one second that 17 or 18 million democrats are going to defect from the party because you're not on the ticket. If they thought so much about you, they'd have paid your bills off!

Sure, we'd like your support, but if you can't give it without blackmail, we'll just have to win it without you, just as we did in the primary! And don't think you can keep making ugly and come back sometime in the future and expect the democratic party and Obama supporters to rally around you and give you a win! It wont happen! So, go on and keep digging your own grave!

Posted by: Joy | June 4, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary has 17 million plus voters or so her misgided fans believe.

It is time for a serious reality check by these folks. No one person owns or controls the voting public.

These votes and voters for the most part evaporated from Hillary when Senator Obama reached 2118 delegate votes. That's the nature of politics.

Some will go to Obama because he is the Democratic Party candidate; others will be up for grabs between McCain and Obama; others may stay home or vote for a third party candidate; while others will eventually come home to the Party.

Hillary does not control these voters and she never has. All Hillary controls is her own vote.

Posted by: Bye Bye | June 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Going with Hillary as VP is a suicide bomb
to any president!

Posted by: sandy | June 4, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

What is it that some people in the Democratic Party can't seem to understand. We voted to reject the policies and persons known as Clinton. We do not want to see anyone named Clinton on the ballot in November.

Tell these rich fat cats who see their access to the White House gone without Hillary and Bill to take a hike. This nation got along just fine before the Clintons and we look forward to getting along in the future without them.

Senator Obama hopefully understands that a good part of his support and enthusiasm for him came from voters who appreciated the fact that his last name was not spelled C-L-I-N-T-O-N.

Obama and Democrats, don't screw up a good thing!

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

Rezko was convicted today. And what a coincidence. The jury was unable to agree on a decision until the day after Obama clinches the nomination. Sure looks like another example of "Chicago-style politics".

Posted by: SMD | June 4, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"a sort of "energizer bunny" of self service."

Ok, that's disturbing on at least two levels...

Posted by: DDAWD | June 4, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

scrivener:

From the sound of it, this purported Michelle Obama tape is a load of B.S., even if it does exist. Supposedly she says (talking about Pres. Bush): "Why'd he drown New Orleans? Why'd he send people to die in Iraq?" etc. (not exact quotes, I'm paraphrasing) and this is thought to sound like she's actually saying "Whitey" instead of "why'd he". So even if such a tape exists: it will not work. People aren't stupid. Republicans are welcome to use this if they want to look like total idiots.

Posted by: Oomingmak | June 4, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The hard core supporters of Clinton are like members of a cult. She seems to be seeking to be the leader of this cult, an American Mao Zedong. As Mao caused great destruction in China with his Cultural Revolution, Madame Clinton seeks to politically destroy any chances of the Democrats winning the presidential election unless she is the vice-presidential nominee with assurances of being virtual co-president, with Bill, assistant president. As a CNN pundit said yesterday, the Clintons have "delusional narcissism."

I feel sorry for her followers in this cult who have been duped into thinking she cares more than about them than her political ambitions. Clinton and Bush have been masters at duping millions of people.

Posted by: Independent | June 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Why not consider John Edwards as VP?

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

This idea that just because I voted for Hillary, I am hers to do with as she likes is simply not rational. Yes, there is a hard core who only think a government is legit if she is leading it, but the vast majority of voters in the Democrat primaries are Democrats. They will vote for the Democrat nominee. Hillary seems determine to undermine any Obama effort unless she is seen as the "kingmaker". Hubris is a nasty thing.

Posted by: fulrich | June 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse


Obama is going to lose the election no matter who he picks.
There is a video tape, held by the RNC, where Michelle Obama is supposedly standing next to Louis farrakhan's wife and other controversial anti-semitic Nation of Islam figures and makes a number of angry racist statements. Everybody in the media and the Clinton campaign is waiting for its release and that is the reason she is NOT conceeding.
Very reliable Townhall.com and Americanthinker.com have the story. It was mentioned two days ago by FOXNEWS and a number of talk radio hosts. I am mentioning this because the question was raised by the Post reporter about Clinton's speech last night and what maybe the reason she is not conceeding. That means that she is maybe waiting for a disaster in the Obama campaign (a pending disaster was also mentioned today by Bill Schneider of CNN).
I am just speculating that this could be that disaster.
Obama and his wife's connections to Trinity to terrorist Bill Ayers his endorsements by Hamas and the new black panther party will doom his campaign.
In the primaries he lost the white vote, the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote, the gay vote and since the Wright story was revealed he lost 8 of 14 contests by a total of 500,000 votes.His campaign also disenfrancised voters in Michigan and Florida and this will hurt him in the Fall.
More revelations about his personal life and associations are planned (check out savagepolitics.com, redstate.com, audacityofhypocricy.com) are planned and therefore (no matter who is VP, people vote for the head of the ticket) obama will not be our next President.

Posted by: haris bisias | June 4, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Mark Aronchick said he spent time with Clinton last night in New York City and insisted to her that the party would only be "complete" if she was the vice presidential pick. "You each represent half of what we are," Aronchick said he told Clinton.... If the two did wind up on a ticket together, Aronchick predicted a massive landslide in the fall. "I don't know what state McCain wins," he said."

This Aronchick guy is truly delusional. Someone should keep him away from Senator Clinton before she starts believing such tripe.

Posted by: bsimon | June 4, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

oscars2212:

You made several excellent points.

Posted by: Oomingmak | June 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

TODAY'S REZKO CONVICTION AND PURPORTED MICHELLE OBAMA VIDEOTAPE: THE REAL REASONS HILLARY (AND AL GORE) HAVE NOT ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA?


It's pretty obvious, except to the mainstream media. Hillary still holds out hope that the Rezko conviction and a purported video allegedly showing Michelle Obama making racially insensitive remarks will torpedo Obama's candidacy.

Problem is, conservative operatives promised to produce the tape Monday morning, and it never surfaced. The reports emanated from a right-leaning web site, leading some to theorize that reports of the tape are part of a disinformation smear campaign against Obama. If that proves to be the case, then the Hillary forces appear to have taken it seriously... and now it's all come back at her.

And that could have been the intent all along: Smear Hillary and Obama at the same time, with the same brush.

Some operatives are saying that the GOP is withholding the tape until the general election, when they will use it as a nuclear option against Obama. But as of today, no one has produced hard evidence that such a tape exists.

Of course, the media could simply ask Michelle Obama if she ever made such remarks. To my knowledge, no one has broached the question.

Posted by: scrivener | June 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The more I think about this, if anything, Clinton's overtures for the VP spot, since they have been made so publicly, are probably more about keeping her supporters riled up and fighting than anything else. Clinton supporters ought to be demoralized at the moment. Their candidate just lost, after all.

But, wait! Maybe Clinton hasn't lost! By keeping them fighting on her behalf, Clinton maintains an energized base, but then what Clinton hopes to do with an energized base at this point isn't entirely clear. A floor fight in August? A protest vote against Obama for McCain in November, paving the way for Hillary '12? Anything seems possible.

At the very least, by publicly announcing herself open to the VP slot, Clinton deflects criticism from herself should Obama lose in the fall--"Hey, I supported Obama in every way I could, and even offered to be his VP. It's not my fault that a Democrat is not in the White House. The party simply chose the wrong candidate, so let's choose the right one in 2012, O.K.?"

VP candidates who actually want the job keep their mouths shut about it. That Clinton is suddenly so vocal about wanting the job says to me that she actually wants something else...or that this campaign really has pushed her off the deep end.

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

"Like her or not, she still pulled in 17 million voters in Democratic primaries. And whether or not those voters go to Obama is entirely up to Hillary."

How utterly delusional. There is no doubt that Sen Clinton will have some influence over some number of her supporters. But to claim that she controls 17 million votes is ludicrous. Surely you don't really believe this?

ddawd - yes, your numbers are clearly sourced from your backside. But your point stands.

Posted by: bsimon | June 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The Hillaristas are just setting up a whole other round of victimhood--more crocodile tears, more claims of mistreatment.

Posted by: DavidinGA | June 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

BAD, BAD, BAD IDEA.

The Obama campaign will be besieged by questions about Hillary's "shame on you, Barack Obama", her implications that he is not ready to be Commander in Chief, and all her other negative comments.

She knew what she was doing, and took herself out of the running for the slot with those comments. It would be suicidal for the Obama campaign to choose her. He needs to find a way to put a salve on the wounded Hillary supporters and to pick up her constituencies, but choosing her is NOT it.

Another reason this is a TERRIBLE idea is, well, read Maureen Dowd's column yesterday. She has every incentive to sabotage Obama so she can run again in 2012. As it stands now, her chances are weak since if Obama loses, it will be seen at least partly as 'her fault' for being so divisive.

DON'T DO IT.

Posted by: Oomingmak | June 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

any overt push to force Clinton on the Dem ticket is going to backfire in the worst possible way. First and foremost, it will be exploited by the GOP as an example of Obama's inability to be a true Commander in Chief. I can see the argument now..."Hey, he didn't even have the balls to pick his own VP, he caved to Hillary Clinton instead."

As usual Clinton goes over the top, and thinks of herself before her party. She is forcing Obama's hand, pretending to still be a viable candidate, and in the process prolonging this stupidity. Enough already - you lost Hillary. Be a gracious loser and let Obama get on with the task of beating McCain. Not only that, but you sure as hell better back him 110% if you want to save your own political future...

Posted by: oscars2212 | June 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27
Caroline Kennedy? Are you kidding- yeah, now SHE has a lot of elected experience. How about Tinker Bell- she brings her own energy source? People, we have to start thinking about who can run the government like a real business- not a pretend one-as it is being run now. It's YOUR tax dollars- do you get that? Hillary couldn't run her own campaign budget- she has no place in the Senate making budget decisions, let alone anywhere else in government-so instead of Hillary, you offer Caroline Kennedy? Are you out of your mind?

Posted by: Millie Bea | June 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Like her or not, she still pulled in 17 million voters in Democratic primaries. And whether or not those voters go to Obama is entirely up to Hillary. Without them he loses the General Election. And that's the "reality check" that many Obama supporters need to understand. "

Yes, but she needs to remember that this political power vanishes in November. She can't overplay her hand. If she blinks in this game of chicken and fails to get whatever she wants, she's in trouble. Obama loses and she is blamed for tanking his chances. Obama wins and she loses her influence. Both can have political ramifications for making life difficult for her party.

There seem to be two factions in the world. 1) Clinton and her campaign staff 2) the rest of the country.

Group 2 isn't too happy with Group 1 right now, but Group 1 has the power of 17 million voters behind her.
But once the election is over, those 17 million won't matter
And Group2 is a hell of a lot larger than Group 1.

Does anyone want to dispute that her power is 17 million strong? I'd argue that 75% would vote for Obama without any need for Clinton's involvement. They might not feel that way today, but would by election time.

15% are going to McCain no matter what.

So that leaves 10%. More like 2 million. A good number of people she has sway over, but not the 17 million.

And yes, I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but I doubt her influence is close to 100% of that 17 million

Posted by: DDAWD | June 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Personally, as a Clinton supporter, I am against the idea. But what if this group is not a 527 organization?

How mcuh money has to be spent on such an ad hoc effort, mostly urging people to write letters?

Just an academic question. The thought of Sen. Clinton as a Veep to the political neophyte bothers me. You may say, but he won the noination.

Winning the nomination and governing are quite different. The primary election process is so messed up that if a person wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, they can coast the rest of it to victory. Which is incredibly stupid. The caucus system is als quite unrepresentative of whatthe DNC people referred to as "Fair Reflection".

In a primary state, 5000 to 10000 people roughly represent a delegate to the convention. In a caucus state you could get a delegate with 30-40 people showing up, as in Iowa. Or with less in Alaska.

Obviously no one knows who the front runners would be in 2012 or 2016. Thus any of these remarks are not necessarily directed at Obama or Clinton. The process is in shambles, and a smart person can take advantage of it. But for the general election, where you don't have caucuses, and where you do have the incredibly stupid Electoral College system, you don't want a candidate who can game the system and achieve the necessary number of delegates. You aim for a Fair Reflection.

Posted by: Krishna | June 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I have been an Obama supporter ($ and volunteering) since he began his campaign. For now I have stopped answering campaign email and I have put down my pen and checkbook. I am waiting to see if he is the candidate I believed him to be: consistent message/belief (we must change the way Washington "operates"), strength of character and conviction, self-assured enough to look conventional "wisdom" in the eye and say "no". For me, refusing to be pressured into a VP choice will answer my questions. Choosing to win HIS presidency HIS way (the way that first brought me and millions of others to his campaign)-- will prevail. He oversaw a campaign that prevailed, even though the CW was that no one could win but Clinton. Now all the same "talkers" are saying he can't win without Clinton. Don't listen; it's more of the same and we've heard it all before. He can win -- we will make that happen, just like we made the sure, steady, energized primary campaign turn from hopeless to victory. Yes, we can.

Posted by: AnitaPrez | June 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama does not need Hillary Clinton to be his Dick Cheney. And if I were Senator Obama, I would think long and hard about selecting somebody as my vice president who had recently ruminated aloud about staying in the race because of the possibility of assassination.

Posted by: Helena Montana | June 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

What IS she thinking? Clinton seems to be manic right now, a sort of "energizer bunny" of self service. No, no, no! There are *much* better candidates for VP. Caroline Kennedy would be one great choice. But the Toxic Hag would be an absolute nightmare. You don't only get stuck with Bill, you get Hillary and Ferraro's nags and the constant worry that one of those cretins would "elect" Cltinon by playing Squeeky Frome. Forget that!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 4, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

People are celebrating all over the world. Volcalizing their excitement for the choice of Obama as nominee. They are not showing any sorrow for Hillarys loss. America will held up in high esteem once more, and the world is speaking. John McCain is not even a footnote.

Posted by: sally | June 4, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

In a lot of ways Hillary is like Joan Crawford in the movie "Mommie Dearest" when meeting the Pepsi-Cola Board of Directors after her husband's death. Like her or not, she still pulled in 17 million voters in Democratic primaries. And whether or not those voters go to Obama is entirely up to Hillary. Without them he loses the General Election. And that's the "reality check" that many Obama supporters need to understand.

Posted by: sibwalker | June 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

She can say and do as she pleases (and continue to ensure that she'll never have a legitimate crack at the presidency again) but this is all about Obama.

From what I've seen of him, he won't be bullied into this. If it makes sense for him personally or as LBJ made for Kennedy, then fine. But, if not, I assume he'll say no and go from there.

But let's not forget, after a few weeks, who cares about the VP? I'm sure he can deliver whatever message would need to be delivered to her, if any. As for Bill, I think you only need to recall how he has behaved around our current President to see that he does pay respect to the office. If he can do that for this Bush, he can certainly do it for Obama.

For those of you who would vote for McCain if Obama does not pick Hillary, think of what that could mean for our country vis a vis Obama. Between Hil and Obama, it's hard to find big differences. That ain't the case in the alternative.

All emotions at the moment .. check in with us in September. The real fight will be joined and all this forgotten in my opinion.

Hil's earned a lot. I just don't see why she wants to keep detracting from the great reserve of respect she has built for her efforts. I understand tough negotiations but there's still that old pigs v hogs argument.

Posted by: tslats | June 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It strikes me that the Clinton camp really thinks we hate women, and they never understood that its the dinasaur political instincts and lobbiest ties combined with the opaque and ever shifting manner of the candidate Clinton herself that we so despise.

We love women. Especially powerful, intelligent, transparent, and honest, forthright women.

We hate Hillary the politician.

So as you now can see the idea of a joint ticket has a snowball's chance in - you guessed it!

Posted by: JBE | June 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

From listening to Hillary's recent speaches, it seems clear to me that she can't accept, deep down, that she lost. She is a very poor loser.

This is NOT someone you want as vice-president.

Posted by: Groundhogday | June 4, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Just like them to rile up the electorate. This is exactly why Hillary should not be on the ticket. They would try and run the train off the tracks. With this bunch and Bill running his mouth and wagging his finger Obama would have to be answering questions about Hillary, Bill and her cult followers. Hillary and Bill are a distraction. It Is Time For Them To Leave!

Posted by: Scott | June 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The only person who gets a vote on this issue is Barak Obama. All the rest is just superfluous noise.

Posted by: Just sayin' | June 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

As much as I despise it, I believe this is a smart strategy by Hillary. Obama doesn't want her as a VP. Other candidates can appeal to "white working class" voters too, while not undermining his message of change. Hillary knows this, and is forcing him to choose between picking her as VP and allowing her to run around criticizing Obama, inciting her base, and stealing the spotlight from Obama v. McCain. If she harms Obama so much by acting as a thorn in his side all summer that he LOSES, she wins because she can run in 2012. If he picks her as VP she wins.

In short, her strategy is good for Hillary and bad for the party.

Posted by: Tetris | June 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time believing that Hillary actually wants to be on the ticket. Two reasons:
a) She can hardly want her husband wandering the corridors of the White House creating mayhem (and she knows fine well he cannot be contained).
b) VP is a thankless office that is endured by people who hope to use it as a platform for the top job. However, if she is VP and Obama goes down, she goes down with him.

So where is the motivation for her to go on the ticket?

When Obama and Clinton do get to meet one-on-one, here´s a possible scenario.

Barack: You don´t really want to be VP, do you?
Hillary: Hell, No way. Whatever gave you that idea?
Barack: Yeah, strange. Musta been something someone said. So, ok. What do you want?
Hillary: Cheez, Barry, that´s a tricky one. (thinks). Tell you one thing you could do for me.
Barack: Ask away Hillary.
Hillary: It´s something I´ve wanted for years and years.
Barack: I´m all ears.
Hillary: Ship that sh*t-for-brains husband of mind off somewhere reallly cold. He hates the cold. Makes his nose go even redder. How about Ambassador to Iceland...?


Posted by: RobBentley | June 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Well now they can hear from us voters who are outside of their psychophantic bubble:

NO WAY IN HELL!

WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!

HELL IF I'LL EVER CAST A VOTE FOR CLINTON!

WHAT A HELLISH IDEA!

WHAT IN THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK WE WOULD VOTE FOR A LOBBIEST OWNED, LYING, PANDERING, OPAQUE, MATH TWISTING, SELECTIVE MEMORY, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, DINASAUR-CLASS, OLD-STYLE, POLITICAL PANDERER LIKE CLINTON?

And finally:

GO TO... !!!!

Thank you for listening to the majority of primary voters.

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

With the General Election now started, I'm sure that the candidates are viewing all of their options for their running mate. If you want to see what America thinks who should be the VP for either dems or reps, you should go to

http://www.votenic.com

They started a VP poll last week, and the results from that poll have just been posted. This poll is honest and represents all of America. Help your favorite candidate choose his/her running mate.

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

Okay, three times for the "excuse me?" post is sufficient, thanks. :)

I'm afraid if Hillary wants to be given the VP nod, she went about it the wrong way last night. While I understand the tactic to try and strong-arm Barack into choosing her, well, I just don't see it happening. Couldn't see it before, but after last night too? The implied threat to figure out how to "use" her voters, as though they are zombies to be commanded?

I guess she figures if he loses she can say she "tried" to unite the party or, if he wins, is free hope "stuff happens" and ascend the final step to the presidency.

I hope Bill, at least, is smart enough to reach out to accept the very surprising, kind and gracious olive branch extended to him last night. He needs to redeem himself and he knows it.

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

Shouldn't these fundraisers keep their eye on the prize? Having a coalition of Democrats in the House and Senate this year should be the second priority.

The DNC and other funding sources for individual candidates have not been able to raise money because of this extended primary. When we are in a recession and money is tightened because of the cost of basic staples, doesn't it make sense to just MOVE ON.

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

Wow, this is really surprising to me. I have been a strong supporter of Senator Clinton, but the race is over and Senator Obama won. It is his call. Period. For these guys to try to force her onto the ticket is in really poor taste and will only serve to alienate a lot of people.

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

I don't think Obama needs Clinton's negatives or polarization. She has more baggage than Samsonite. For her to try to muscle her way to VP is so Clintonian. Ego over party, everytime with the Clintons.

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

This is a bad, bad, bad idea for the Democrats generally, and for Obama in particular.

If Obama puts Clinton on the ticket now, he wins over many of her supporters, but alienates many of his own who see Obama as an agent of change against the old-school Washington, for which Clinton is an iconic figure.

If Obama puts anyone else on the ticket right now, many of Clinton's supporters are alienated.

What Obama needs is about a month of relative peace and quiet while he can build his campaign organization and fight against McCain alone while tempers in both the Obama and Clinton camps settle down. If Clinton's supporters spend this entire time urging for and demanding that she be given a spot on the ticket, then nothing is going to settle down. Obama's supporters are still going to be annoyed that Clinton is campaigning, and Clinton's supporters are still going to be hyped up in campaign mode, so that one side or the other will end up enraged at the VP choice.

Maybe Clinton genuinely does want the VP job, and maybe she genuinely does want to give Obama the best support possible for the fall. The reality is, however, that the best thing she and her supporters can do for Obama at this point, and that her supporters can do for Clinton if they really want her on the ticket, is to back off and let the dust settle for a few weeks. If tensions remain high, this does nothing for Obama, and it makes Clinton's chances less likely.

Especially since many Obama supporters at this point are suspicious that Clinton is trying to muscle her way into the VP spot a) in hopes that something bad happens to Obama or b) in hopes of setting herself up for 2012 should Obama's bid fail, Clinton cannot be put on the ticket at this moment. If Clinton does have aspirations for the next presidential election, she knows that she will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for Obama's loss in the fall...unless she is right there on the ticket supporting him, so from the perspective of Obama supporters, this urging for the VP spot may well be a redemption ploy meant to help Clinton more than it helps Obama.

Personally, I think Obama is crazy to put Clinton on the ticket. A good VP is loyal to and compatible with the candidate, and, ideally, people should want the candidate as president and not the VP. Many people would look at an Obama-Clinton ticket in the fall and wish for the Clinton side of the ticket more than the Obama side, which could prove disastrous.

Almost nobody actually wants Dick Cheney as president, even though they know he has the skills to do the job (since he is already doing a lot of the work already), and this has actually helped Bush get elected--Bush looks more exciting because his VP doesn't dazzle. Had Bush chosen McCain in 2000, he would have lost, and Kerry lost in 2004 with Edwards.

Clinton is a flashy rival who, even in yesterday's speech, still wants the White House. This does not make her the best VP choice for Democrats in the fall; quite the contrary, it makes her an extremely poor one.

Posted by: blert | June 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Come on do you really think Clinton wants to be VP? She's already been one.

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

Hillary does not want to be on the ticket or she would have made these overtures more discreetly. She just wants it to appear that she is trying to unite the party.

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

Hillary on any ticket will drive Republicans to the polls to vote for McCain enmasse.

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

Excuse me? Who do these people think they are? Hilary's not even gracious enough to concede the nomination, has fought for months with her dirty kitchen sink strategy, and now has the gall to say that she's "willing to accept" the VP slot? Like somehow she's doing the Democrats a favor? Like it's hers to offer, rather than the NOMINEE's DECISION? Each time I think the Clintons can't shock me more with their brazen behavior, their egos take them to new lows.

Hillary won't add to the ticket, she'll be a drag on it. Obama can win any of the blue states she won in the primary, and wouldn't win the red Kentucky-like states anyway, with or without her. If anything, Hillary would weaken the ticket by rallying the Republicans around John McCain.

Obama should meet with her this week, thank her for her interest, let her know he'll add her to his list of VP candidates, then move on with his decision making process. He should not be bullied into this decision by the Clintons or anyone else. And no, he shouldn't pick one of the Clinton supporters (Rendell, Clark, etc.) as a "concession". The Vice Presidency is not some token of patronage to be played with in an effort to placate the Clintons.

Instead, Senator Obama should take his time, focusing his selection process on more dignified candidates who can actually help him change the tone of Democratic politics, not continue to sully it. If cooler heads prevail, he'll stick with someone like Richardson (great outreach with Western states and Latinos, and strong on foreign policy)or maybe even create a unity ticket with Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: Karen S | June 4, 2008 3:51 PM

************************
Karen, I cut and paste your post as it is perfect and expresses my sentiments. Bravo!!!

************************

Yes. I agree with you both. I particularly like the idea of Gov. Richardson on the ticket.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | June 4, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton and her supporters need to bring closure that this race is over. We do not want a co-presidency as Clinton seems to be angling for. Chapter closed. We will show our respect for Senator Clinton only because so many Americans felt she best represented their interests and ideals. Once this polite transition is made Senator Clinton should go back to work in the Senate representing her state. Time to move on.

Posted by: Ron J P | June 4, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me? Who do these people think they are? Hilary's not even gracious enough to concede the nomination, has fought for months with her dirty kitchen sink strategy, and now has the gall to say that she's "willing to accept" the VP slot? Like somehow she's doing the Democrats a favor? Like it's hers to offer, rather than the NOMINEE's DECISION? Each time I think the Clintons can't shock me more with their brazen behavior, their egos take them to new lows.

Hillary won't add to the ticket, she'll be a drag on it. Obama can win any of the blue states she won in the primary, and wouldn't win the red Kentucky-like states anyway, with or without her. If anything, Hillary would weaken the ticket by rallying the Republicans around John McCain.

Obama should meet with her this week, thank her for her interest, let her know he'll add her to his list of VP candidates, then move on with his decision making process. He should not be bullied into this decision by the Clintons or anyone else. And no, he shouldn't pick one of the Clinton supporters (Rendell, Clark, etc.) as a "concession". The Vice Presidency is not some token of patronage to be played with in an effort to placate the Clintons.

Instead, Senator Obama should take his time, focusing his selection process on more dignified candidates who can actually help him change the tone of Democratic politics, not continue to sully it. If cooler heads prevail, he'll stick with someone like Richardson (great outreach with Western states and Latinos, and strong on foreign policy)or maybe even create a unity ticket with Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: Karen S | June 4, 2008 3:51 PM

************************
Karen, I cut and paste your post as it is perfect and expresses my sentiments. Bravo!!!

Posted by: LABC giving Karen a standing ovation | June 4, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

No.

No. No. No. No. No. NO.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | June 4, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Steve B. nailed it. This is nothing more than an attempt to make Obama look effete and weak, unable to support his own weight.

And it's money wasted, because Obama's campaign is going to implode and it could happen in a matter of days.

And when it does, the Dems will not go with Hillary. No way. Her shameless performance last night completes a prolonged political suicide. She could have come out of this race looking tenacious. Instead she looks mean-spirited and politically incompetent.

Al Gore, get ready for your close-up.

Posted by: scrivener | June 4, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The polling Obama should be doing right now is to find out how he stacks up in the critical swing states with:
1. Clinton on the ticket
2. Any other Democrat on the ticket.
3. Also, what would be fun... a moderate REPUBLICAN LIKE CHUCK H!

Posted by: Jersey John | June 4, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I guess these Hillary-supporters already maxed out their campaign contributions to Hillary! Trying to get millionaires to fund an attempt for Hillary to muscle her way onto the Obama ticket is simply elitist and divisive!

All these rich "Hillary-for-VP" fools need to be fundraising for Hillary's senate race so she can pay off her presidential campaign debt, which has to be somewhere between $21 to $26 million!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 4, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The only thing more shocking than Hillary Clinton's immense self-obsession is that anyone at this point fails to see its destructive effect. It's unimaginable that a person who truly cares about her party or her country could do so much damage to both in the service of her own blind ambition. What's worse, though, is the sort of vicious division she's inspired among her supporters. Feminists voting for John McCain, who promises to continue sending women's rights back to the '50s? Unbelievable. Let's hope we can all come to our senses, and soon.


Since when does the person in 2nd place dictate to the winner what they should and should not do? I don't believe the Party leaders are going to force him to accept her on the ticket after last night. I think they just want her to either get onboard or go away.... And one other thing, somebody needs to tell Clinton and her supporters that the President picks the VP, not the other way around. But then again, maybe they got that concept backwards too, just like their arithmetic and their understanding on 1st and 2nd place...

Posted by: Greg285 | June 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me? Who do these people think they are? Hilary's not even gracious enough to concede the nomination, has fought for months with her dirty kitchen sink strategy, and now has the gall to say that she's "willing to accept" the VP slot? Like somehow she's doing the Democrats a favor? Like it's hers to offer, rather than the NOMINEE's DECISION? Each time I think the Clintons can't shock me more with their brazen behavior, their egos take them to new lows.

Hillary won't add to the ticket, she'll be a drag on it. Obama can win any of the blue states she won in the primary, and wouldn't win the red Kentucky-like states anyway, with or without her. If anything, Hillary would weaken the ticket by rallying the Republicans around John McCain.

Obama should meet with her this week, thank her for her interest, let her know he'll add her to his list of VP candidates, then move on with his decision making process. He should not be bullied into this decision by the Clintons or anyone else. And no, he shouldn't pick one of the Clinton supporters (Rendell, Clark, etc.) as a "concession". The Vice Presidency is not some token of patronage to be played with in an effort to placate the Clintons.

Instead, Senator Obama should take his time, focusing his selection process on more dignified candidates who can actually help him change the tone of Democratic politics, not continue to sully it. If cooler heads prevail, he'll stick with someone like Richardson (great outreach with Western states and Latinos, and strong on foreign policy)or maybe even create a unity ticket with Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: Karen S | June 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Along the same line of thought, her quote from last night was "I am prepared to unite the Democratic Party". One could infer that her attempt to force Obama into naming her the VP, causing him to NOT offer it, would result in her supporters saying: "She is prepared to unite the party, but HE is not!".

Posted by: steve boyington | June 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

No good can come of this. Part of HRC's intraparty rehab MUST be her immediate directive to this group: Cut it out!

Posted by: FlownOver | June 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This just smells of Clinton's rumored "I told you so" strategy. Be jerks about the VP slot, pushing Obama to NOT offer it. This riles up her base so he loses.

She is either shameless or clueless on how things should be done.

Posted by: steve boyington | June 4, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

It seems a bit ridiculous that a group of donors thinks they're helping the cause by trying to force their nominee's hand. They are potentially backing him into a corner where capitulating to their demands will make him look weak to swing voters and rejecting their demands will alienate Clinton supporters.

Posted by: bsimon | June 4, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of money. And divisive. Is that their goal? Those who voted for Obama did so because they wanted change, not Hillary. Obama choosing HRC as VP would be a step backwards and he knows it.

Posted by: Harpla | June 4, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Somebody needs to tell Clinton and her supporters that the President picks the VP, not the other way around.

Posted by: egc52556 | June 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

This is sleazy attempt by Hillary to muscle her way onto the ticket via literal extortion. The Clintons are truly shameless and power hungry, they will demand a co-Presidency, which would be a disaster. This is Obama's first real leadership test, he has to say "no" gracefully but firmly.

Posted by: RealChoices | June 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company