Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Case for Hillary Clinton

There is no person on either side of the veepstakes more speculated about than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, with Clinton and Barack Obama set to appear together twice in the next two days -- tomorrow at a D.C. fundraiser, Friday in Unity, New Hampshire -- now seems as good a time as any to debate the merits (and demerits) of putting Clinton on the ticket.

VP Watch

Today we make the case for Clinton; on Friday we'll argue against her.

Up to the Job

Throughout the primary race between Clinton and Obama, one thing was abundantly clear when it came to the New York Senator: Democratic voters believed she was ready to be president.

Time and again, primary voters said Clinton had the right experience and the requisite knowledge to be president of the United States. Everyone seemed to grant Clinton the advantage on the experience issue, except her own campaign, which continued to push the "tested and ready" message rather than working to humanize her.

While that strategic blunder contributed to Clinton's loss to Obama, the fact that voters already see Clinton as hyper-capable is an argument strongly in her favor when it comes to the veepstakes.

What other candidate being considered for vice president can speak as deftly and knowledgeably about issues both foreign and domestic? What other candidate would you want in a vice presidential debate representing Democrats? (The importance of the vice presidential debate is often overlooked but has considerable potential to influence the race; witness Dick Cheney versus John Edwards in 2004 or Lloyd Bentsen versus Dan Quayle in 1988.)

Clinton is -- to borrow a phrase -- "Tested. Ready. Now." (That slogan didn't work out that well for Rudy Giuliani, but it aptly describes the way voters see Clinton.)

In an election that most Democrats see as theirs to lose (although the Charlie Brown-Lucy-football metaphor is always in the back of their minds), the appeal of a safe pick who has been vetted more thoroughly than any national figure in recent memory is significant.

Obama doesn't need to throw a hail Mary pass to win this election; he needs to block and tackle his way to 270 electoral votes. Clinton is the ultimate block and tackle vice presidential candidate.

Campaigner-in-Chief

Clinton began the presidential race as a somewhat stiff presence on the trail; she seemed to be aware that every eye was on her and, as a result, didn't speak as freely (or well) as she could.

As the campaign wore on, however, and as it became clear that she was no longer the frontrunner but rather the underdog, Clinton seemed to perk up and brighten up on the stump. She transformed herself into a populist over the final three months of the campaign -- focusing almost exclusively on kitchen table issues of import to the middle class.

And, by and large, it worked. Clinton won in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and South Dakota by riding that populist message and displaying a much more carefree persona on the campaign trail.

Clinton's final speech of the primary was among her best; she was frank about the challenges facing a woman running for the highest office in the country while maintaining the populist brio that had marked her candidacy since March.

Clinton at her best on the stump is darn good. She has always been able to stay on message --an extremely important quality in a vice president. Add to that some humanity -- a willingness to show a sense of humor, speak about her own personal story etc. -- and you have a reliable and dynamic messenger for Obama.

Yin and Yang

If a vice president is meant to strengthen the presidential nominee where he is weak, Clinton is the obvious choice. The two fit together like pieces of a puzzle -- bringing different geographic and resume strengths that would make a potent combination if joined together.

From a geographic perspective, there is a convincing argument to make that Clinton could help Obama in far more states than any other potential pick.

Off the top of the Fix head, Clinton would seem to help Obama's cause in the following swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire and Michigan. A back of the envelope calculation reveals that those states combined award 89 electoral votes -- around 33 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Putting Clinton on the ticket by no means ensures Obama will win any of the states mentioned above, but adding her as vice president would almost certainly give him some boost -- how large or small is impossible to know -- in each place.

Looking at the resumes of the two candidates, they are also largely complementary. Obama beat Clinton in the primary due to the public -- or at least Democratic primary voters' -- desire for change. But as he moves into the general election convential wisdom says Obama's best bet for a running mate is someone who voters trust and see as a steady hand on the tiller.

Enter Clinton who is widely acknowledged, even by her detractors, as one of the most informed politicians in the country. Polling seems to suggest that Clinton is seen as someone with considerable knowledge about health care, the economy, and foreign affairs. Such a vice president might be able to reassure voters concerned about Obama's relatively thin resume in elected office.

The two, as many people pushing the so-called "Dream Ticket" argue daily, are a perfect fit -- representing the best of the Democratic Party and the strongest potential ticket that the party could offer to voters in the fall.

The Bigness Factor

Obama has cast himself as someone seeking to change the way politics is conducted, to bring together the best supporting cast available -- regardless of partisanship and past rivalries -- to do what's right for the country.

Since picking his vice president is the closest thing to an executive decision Obama will make between now and November, why not use it to walk the walk?

Putting your main rival for the nomination into the VP slot has historical precedent (Sen. John Kerry picking Sen. John Edwards in 2004, Ronald Reagan naming George H.W. Bush in 1980) but it would also show that Obama is not afraid of being eclipsed or outshone by someone with a national platform and following of her own.

Obama could argue that despite the differences between he and Clinton had during the primary, he recognizes that she is the best choice to help him fulfill the promises he is making to the American people.

Given the history -- real or imagined -- between the two candidates, many voters would see the choice of Clinton as a sign of Obama's "bigness," i.e. his commitment to reaching outside of his comfort zone to pick the best candidate. The symbolism of such a pick would cement the "Obama as un-politician" -- a position that meant victory in the primary season.

As always, this piece is meant to spark conversation, so feel free to agree, disagree, condemn or compliment in the comments section below. (Looking for past "case for/case against" pieces? You can find them in our "Veepstakes" category.)

Friday: The case against Clinton.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 25, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats Try to Close 'God' Gap
Next: Clinton: Retire My Debt!

Comments

This is truly a NO brainer, Obama should pick Clinton as VP...She's like the article stated the most vetted & knowledgeable possibility there is and the one that could help him deliver PA, Ohio & ever important FL...I think if he's smart enough, he will let go of his ego and pick her as the best VP to win the presidency.

Posted by: LES | June 30, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

This is truly a NO brainer, Obama should pick Clinton as VP...She's like the article stated the most vetted & knowledgeable possibility there is and the one that could help him deliver PA, Ohio & ever important FL...I think if he's smart enough, he will let go of his ego and pick her as the best VP to win the presidency.

Posted by: LES | June 30, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

In reality Obama did not win the nomination because most people wanted him, but he won by having the best delegate winning strategy. If he wants to have a successful Obama presidency, he should be smart enough to have Hillary as his VP. But if he wants to have a successful democratic presidency he should do otherwise. When the cameras and microphones are gone, the success and failure of your presidency would depend on not the American people but the 100 senators and 250+ members of the house who have their individual agenders.

Posted by: Kristoff | June 28, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I was 18 when I voted for Jimmy Carter. I loved him. He was young, a fresh face and seemed so honest and forthright compared to what we had been through with Nixon. He talked about change in Washington. Although I admired a great deal of what he tried to do during his Presidency, I was frustrated when he didn't do enough early on with the Iran hostage crisis and the fuel shortage crisis. Unfortunately, it hurt his chances for re-election. We then went through 12 years of Republican rule that was grueling to say the least. Finally, Bill gets in and I had the best time during his Presidency. My photography business took off, the phone was ringing and I felt optimistic again. Those were great years. When Bush got in, the phone stopped ringing almost immediately and it went back to grueling these past 8 years. Now I feel that we will win this year, thank god, but my concern is that we will have a Jimmy Carter scenario and hurt our chances for future elections when we have someone so green as Obama is. I feel Hillary as VP would be a great counterweight to that and help him make some good choices that will help Democrats and our cause in years to come. We need to start winning more elections so that we can turn this country around for the better!

Posted by: Victoria | June 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Nothing scares Republicans more than having to run against Obama and Clinton on one ticket. This is why the pro-McCain Post is so against it. The Post writers become enraged every time Obama makes a politically smart move. Obama's rejection of public financing was not a betrayal of principle, as the Post claimed. It was a political no-brainer. Forget about the kitchen sink strategy, everybody knows that the Republicans (and their friends) are going to throw the toilet at Obama. They want him to be a naive starry-eyed idealist. They are going to be disappointed. Obama wants to win and he is smart enough to pull it off.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

NObama, his slimy campaign, his prostitute media pals, and worst of all, his groupie gutter rat supporters have truly no shame.

After playing every dirty trick, every race card, every sex slight, and any thing else they could find against the Clintons, and now that they have successfully stolen the nomination, he is going around, blackmailing and begging Sen CLinton for money, votes, time, and any thing else she can give him.

Well, the CLintons may be too forgiving and forgetful of the past; perhaps they can be blackmailed too easily into thinking that dems blindly need to support the party's nominee, however illegal that process was; but millions of Clinton supporters don't agree, and come Nov, this lesson will be painfully clear to the NObama campaign, and their groupie gutter rat fans.

Posted by: intcamd1 | June 27, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

NObama, his slimy campaign, his prostitute media pals, and worst of all, his groupie gutter rat supporters have truly no shame.

After playing every dirty trick, every race card, every sex slight, and any thing else they could find against the Clintons, and now that they have successfully stolen the nomination, he is going around, blackmailing and begging Sen CLinton for money, votes, time, and any thing else she can give him.

Well, the CLintons may be too forgiving and forgetful of the past; perhaps they can be blackmailed too easily into thinking that dems blindly need to support the party's nominee, however illegal that process was; but millions of Clinton supporters don't agree, and come Nov, this lesson will be painfully clear to the NObama campaign, and their groupie gutter rat fans.

Posted by: intcamd1 | June 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I am an ardent Hillary supporter - and remain so.

Now that she is not the presidential candidate, I am voting for McCain.

I do not want her to run on the ticket with the likes of Obama. I believe that diminishes her. And that's not negotiable.

I am voting for the person...not whoever the Democrat is.

Posted by: Lesley | June 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Latin America: the hidden war ON DEMOCRACY


John Pilger argues that an unreported war is being waged by the United States, and Britain, to restore power to the privileged classes at the expense of the majority.

Beyond the sound and fury of its conquest of Iraq and campaign against Iran, the world's dominant power is waging a largely unreported war on another continent - Latin America. Using proxies, Washington aims to restore and reinforce the political control of a privileged group calling itself middle-class, to shift the responsibility for massacres and drug trafficking away from the psychotic regime in Colombia and its mafiosi, and to extinguish hopes raised among Latin America's impoverished majority by the reform governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

In Colombia, the main battleground, the class nature of the war is distorted by the guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the Farc, whose own resort to kidnapping and the drugs trade has provided an instrument with which to smear those who have distinguished Latin America's epic history of rebellion by opposing the proto-fascism of George W Bush's regime. "You don't fight terror with terror," said President Hugo Chávez as US warplanes bombed to death thousands of civilians in Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 attacks. Thereafter, he was a marked man. Yet, as every poll has shown, he spoke for the great majority of human beings who have grasped that the "war on terror" is a crusade of domination. Almost alone among national leaders standing up to Bush, Chávez was declared an enemy and his plans for a functioning social democracy independent of the United States a threat to Washington's grip on Latin America. "Even worse," wrote the Latin America specialist James Petras, "Chávez's nationalist policies represented an alternative in Latin America at a time (2000-2003) when mass insurrections, popular uprisings and the collapse of pro-US client rulers (Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia) were constant front-page news."

It is impossible to underestimate the threat of this alternative as perceived by the "middle classes" in countries which have such an abundance of privilege and poverty. In Venezuela, their "grotesque fantasies of being ruled by a 'brutal communist dictator'", to quote Petras, are reminiscent of the paranoia of the white population that backed South Africa's apartheid regime. Like in South Africa, racism in Venezuela is rampant, with the poor ignored, despised or patronised, and a Caracas shock jock allowed casually to dismiss Chávez, who is of mixed race, as a "monkey". This fatuous venom has come not only from the super-rich behind their walls in suburbs called Country Club, but from the pretenders to their ranks in middle-level management, journalism, public relations, the arts, education and the other professions, who identify vicariously with all things American. Journalists in broadcasting and the press have played a crucial role - acknowledged by one of the generals and bankers who tried unsuccessfully to overthrow Chávez in 2002. "We couldn't have done it without them," he said. "The media were our secret weapon."

Many of these people regard themselves as liberals, and have the ear of foreign journalists who like to describe themselves as being "on the left". This is not surprising. When Chávez was first elected in 1998, Venezuela was not an archetypical Latin American tyranny, but a liberal democracy with certain freedoms, run by and for its elite, which had plundered the oil revenue and let crumbs fall to the invisible millions in the barrios. A pact between the two main parties, known as puntofijismo, resembled the convergence of new Labour and the Tories in Britain and Republicans and Democrats in the US. For them, the idea of popular sovereignty was anathema, and still is.

Take higher education. At the taxpayer-funded elite "public" Venezuelan Central University, more than 90 per cent of the students come from the upper and "middle" classes. These and other elite students have been infiltrated by CIA-linked groups and, in defending their privilege, have been lauded by foreign liberals.

With Colombia as its front line, the war on democracy in Latin America has Chávez as its main target. It is not difficult to understand why. One of Chávez's first acts was to revitalise the oil producers' organisation Opec and force the oil price to record levels. At the same time he reduced the price of oil for the poorest countries in the Caribbean region and central America, and used Venezuela's new wealth to pay off debt, notably Argentina's, and, in effect, expelled the International Monetary Fund from a continent over which it once ruled. He has cut poverty by half - while GDP has risen dramatically. Above all, he gave poor people the confidence to believe that their lives would improve.

The irony is that, unlike Fidel Castro in Cuba, he presented no real threat to the well-off, who have grown richer under his presidency. What he has demonstrated is that a social democracy can prosper and reach out to its poor with genuine welfare, and without the extremes of "neoliberalism" - a decidedly unradical notion once embraced by the British Labour Party. Those ordinary Venezuelans who abstained during last year's constitutional referendum were protesting that a "moderate" social democracy was not enough while the bureaucrats remained corrupt and the sewers overflowed. This critique of Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" from the barrios was drowned in the Venezuelan and foreign media's unrelenting propaganda that he was planning a dictatorship.

Across the border in Colombia, the US has made Venezuela's neighbour the Israel of Latin America. Under "Plan Colombia", more than $6bn in arms, planes, special forces, mercenaries and logistics have been showered on some of the most murderous people on earth: the inheritors of Pinochet's Chile and the other juntas that terrorised Latin America for a generation, their various gestapos trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia. "We not only taught them how to torture," a former American trainer told me, "we taught them how to kill, murder, eliminate." That remains true of Colombia, where government-inspired mass terror has been documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many others. In a study of 31,656 extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances between 1996 and 2006, the Colombian Commission of Jurists found that 46 per cent had been murdered by right-wing death squads and 14 per cent by Farc guerrillas. The paramilitaries were responsible for most of the three million victims of internal displacement. This misery is a product of Plan Colombia's pseudo "war on drugs", whose real purpose has been to eliminate the Farc. To that goal has now been added a war of attrition on the new popular democracies, especially Venezuela.

US special forces "advise" the Colombian military to cross the border into Venezuela and murder and kidnap its citizens and infiltrate paramilitaries, and so test the loyalty of the Venezuelan armed forces. The model is the CIA-run Contra campaign in Honduras in the 1980s that brought down the reformist government in Nicaragua. The defeat of the Farc is now seen as a prelude to an all-out attack on Venezuela if the Venezuelan elite - reinvigorated by its narrow referendum victory last year - broadens its base in state and local government elections in November.

America's man and Colombia's Pinochet is President Álvaro Uribe. In 1991, a declassified report by the US Defence Intelligence Agency revealed the then Senator Uribe as having "worked for the Medellín Cartel" as a "close personal friend" of the cartel's drugs baron, Pablo Escobar. To date, 62 of his political allies have been investigated for close collaboration with paramilitaries and their death squads. A feature of his rule has been the fate of journalists who have illuminated his shadows. Last year, four leading journalists received death threats after criticising Uribe. Since 2002, at least 31 journalists have been assassinated in Colombia. Uribe's other habit is smearing trade unions and human rights workers as "collaborators with the Farc". This marks them. Colombia's death squads, wrote Jenny Pearce, author of the acclaimed Under the Eagle: US Intervention in Central America and the Caribbean (1982), "are increasingly active, confident that the president has been so successful in rallying the country against the Farc that little attention will shift to their atrocities".

Uribe was personally championed by Tony Blair, reflecting Britain's long-standing, mostly secret role in Latin America. "Counter-insurgency assistance" to the Colombian military, up to its neck in death-squad alliances, includes training by the SAS of units such as the High Mountain Battalions, condemned repeatedly for atrocities. On 8 March, Colombian officers were invited by the Foreign Office to a "counter-insurgency seminar" at the Wilton Park conference centre in southern England. Rarely has the Foreign Office so brazenly paraded the killers it mentors.

The western media's role follows earlier models, such as the campaigns that cleared the way for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the credibility given to lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The softening-up for an attack on Venezuela is well under way, with the repetition of similar lies and smears.

On 3 February, the London Observer devoted two pages to claims that Chávez was colluding in the Colombian drugs trade. Similarly to the paper's notorious bogus scares linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, the Observer's headline read, "Revealed: Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe". Allegations were unsubstantiated; hearsay uncorroborated. No source was identified. Indeed, the reporter, clearly trying to cover himself, wrote: "No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct role in Colombia's giant drug trafficking business."

In fact, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has reported that Venezuela is fully participating in international anti-drugs programmes and in 2005 seized the third-highest amount of cocaine in the world. Even the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has referred to "Venezuela's tremendous co-operation". The drugs smear has recently been reinforced with reports that Chávez has an "increasingly public alliance [with] the Farc" (see "Dangerous liaisons", New Statesman, 14 April). Again, there is "no evidence", says the secretary general of the Organisation of American States. At Uribe's request, and backed by the French government, Chávez played a mediating role in seeking the release of hostages held by the Farc. On 1 March, the negotiations were betrayed by Uribe who, with US logistical assistance, fired missiles at a camp in Ecuador, killing Raúl Reyes, the Farc's highest-level negotiator. An "email" recovered from Reyes's laptop is said by the Colombian military to show that the Farc has received $300m from Chávez. The allegation is fake. The actual document refers only to Chávez in relation to the hostage exchange. On 14 April, Chávez angrily criticised the Farc. "If I were a guerrilla," he said, "I wouldn't have the need to hold a woman, a man who aren't soldiers. Free the civilians!"

However, these fantasies have lethal purpose. On 10 March, the Bush administration announced that it had begun the process of placing Venezuela's popular democracy on a list of "terrorist states", along with North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Sudan and Iran, the last of which is currently awaiting attack by the world's leading terrorist state.

Posted by: doodness dwacious !!!! | June 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger reaches back into the history of the Democratic Party and describes the tradition of war-making and expansionism that Barack Obama has now left little doubt he will honour.

In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.

The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshyyte on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.

Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.

His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community - which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations - Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.

Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.

It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.

Posted by: Hello SHEEPLE !!!! two | June 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama shouldn't wait too long to ask Hillary. I despise him & Michelle more & more & have lobbied friends and family to vote McCain. If Hillary were on the ticket, I'd have to vote for the b@st@rd but maybe my lobbying for McCain has been too effective to swing them back to the fold.

Posted by: MJ | June 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey, let's put Bill on the VP ticket-or better yet, Obama should ask Mccain to be his VP. Will certainly take some of the sting out of losing the presidency for Mccain and he could declare victory and defeat on the same night. Then, he could wait for Hillary to kill Obama and he (Mccain) could choose Hillary as his VP pick when he runs for reelection (and loses then also) in 2012. Sounds perfect to me

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"but I have saved on my hard drive pages of obsene posts made here by Obama supporters since I started here in early Feb. You are in total denial if you are not aware of these comments and I have heard absolutely no effort by the campaign or their supporters here to stop it."
============
right back at you regarding certain Clinton supporters and their ugly, racist comments about Obama, AND his wife...shame on them.

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

b.hussein obama, LIKES TO USE PEOPLE TO GET AWAY WITH HIS PLANS.

He used the black community to get their vote. Then after he used them he careless for anybody including his dearest J. Wright. - leaving his church.

He used Muslims now he does not want them close to him.

Now he claims he is son of a typical white woman, to get the white vote.

He speaks Spanish to get the Spanish vote. (Si se puede, si se puede). He sounds ridicule. Spanish people are very hard to convince by FAKES LIKE obama. I know them.

I HOPE HILLARY AND BILL DO NOT ALLOW HIM TO USE THEM.

b hussein obama is MASTER in twisting words and play dirty, exactly like the DNC and his components.

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile Obama surrounds himself with the same advisors that facilitated Bill Clinton's effective Presidency says radical moderate.


like foreign policy consultant Brazinsky for instance that gave Jimmy Carter the wonderful strategy for dealing with the Iran hostage debacle?

You may express the same hatred of the Clintons as other Obama supporters, but I have saved on my hard drive pages of obsene posts made here by Obama supporters since I started here in early Feb. You are in total denial if you are not aware of these comments and I have heard absolutely no effort by the campaign or their supporters here to stop it. And for that I should give my hard earned money to Obama as the Clinton campaign has constantly implored me to do. I honestly doubt you would if the tables were turned but certainly expect you to now claim otherwise. Just read some of the trash comments made about the Clintons here just on this topic.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"by your logic its totally about how long they have been in elected office period that constitutes experience. So my State Senator who has been in our State Senator for 20 years is more qualified then either to be our nominee by your logic"
===============
You keep missing my point. Again I am not comparing the quality of experience. You are arguing that Senator Clinton has a vast well of experience; far more than Obama, and I am arguing that this oft said claim is disingenious. I understand that you wish to claim Bill Clinton's experience as Hillary's own. But I am arguing purely on ELECTED office experience. Are you tryng to imply that State Politics aren't complicated? At any rate, you, of course, have a right to your opinion and I mine, and apparently the twain shall never meet.
==============
"We are realist and know the hatred his supporters have for 48 percent of D voters"
============
For such an intelligent man, you are sure ornery leicht. I don't fit your narrative and I'm an Obama Supporter. I have no hatred of Mrs. Clinton. I believe that you and I are around the same age...not a kid, nor naive, I've voted in every Presidental Election since 1976. I voted for Jimmy Carter...once. I know a Carter redux when I see one, and Obama ain't it. BTW, I voted for Anderson in 1980.

Look, I don't care how disappointed that you are that Clinton isn't the nominee, but to threaten to vote for the reactionary John McCain if you don't get your way...can't you see what a disaster his Presidency would be? Meanwhile Obama surrounds himself with the same advisors that facilitated Bill Clinton's effective Presidency.

Jen...I disagree with a lot of your recent post, and considered going over it point by point when your last line hit me between the eyes for an "aha" moment...yes, I suspect it is irrevocably true; you just don't get Obama (which is fine, it is your OPINION.)

Posted by: radical-moderate | June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I agree completely. I am a big Clinton supporter and I believe that if the two (Obama and Clinton) work together that would be the best choice for your government, the american people, the military, and our economy.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Anybody but Hillary. This country is so tired of the Clinton's. There are 300 million people in this country. There should be atleast 1 person other than Hillary who will fit the he bill for being the v.p. Obama has to go after that person instead of wasting his energy fund raising to clear Hillary off her debt. She should have thought about her debt while campaigning, instead of wasting the hard earned money of Obama's followers after sinking her own ship. She is a loser in my records. Once a loser always a loser. Let her write a book about how she flunked th biggest exam of her career, gettig the nod for the nomination.
Bye buye Hillary. Hillary's ego is as big as her bottom.

Posted by: Griffen Cooksey | June 26, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Do you want somebody who is $22 mil in debt to be your veep If she cant control the spending during her campaign how is she going to control the spending once she is given some important work as veep. All this hype about Hillary being ready for the job is the biggest fairytale I've ever heard. Counter that Bill.

Posted by: Janet | June 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is rumored to have already declined the VP spot on the night the two met at Diane Feinstein's home, according to insiders. That was the night Obama's press corps was falsely imprisoned and sent off to Chicago sans subject matter in a humiliating and controlling ambush orchestrated by the candidate. This also explains why BHO allowed himself to be filmed heading off to the golf course during HRC's DC suspension speech and the hiring of Patti Solis Doyle as future VP Chief of Staff.

Meanwhile, McCain may turn the tables and woo HRC for his own ticket, rekindling their longstanding bipartisan relationship and netting HRC's remaining Dem supporters still with the party - and dealing a final blow to the Obama campaign.

Posted by: doctorate | June 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

If Obama's resume came across an employment panel he would be found not to meet the minimum qualifications for the job of president.

He wouldn't qualify for an interview.

Posted by: Jen | June 26, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

RE: "What an astonishing post. Strangely enough, I think that implying that Obama is NOT a pragmatist is completely backward...it is precisely BECAUSE he is a pragmatist that he has shifted his positions on some things as he carefully picks his battles; his position on the recent FISA bill is such an example. I think that plenty of us, who saw Obama as a transformative figure, now see him as he really is; a canny Politician who is in it to win it. (However, I still see him as a visionary.) As far as "making things happen" you have to be pretty blinkered not to see that an unknown first term Senator managed to prevail over the Clinton Machine and become the nominee for President...if that is not making things happen, I don't know what is."


Dear Radical-moderate:

I appreciate your response and think you make some good points. I can see where one would see Obama as a pragmatist. I do find his vision and nuance on issues (and change of policy, e.g. FISA) to be of a pragmatist perspective. I would say he has the mind of a pragmatist but for me pragmatism is measured in doing, not vision, speeches, or policy positions. I do not see where he has a record of getting things done- implemented- through the house and congress. I think record and experience are important. McCain has a record of getting things done e.g. passing legislation with democrats that was unpopular in his own party.

You make a great point that Obama's campaign is "making things happen," very good point indeed. I would like to think this could reflect his service as president, I just don't think it does. I see Obama's ability to inspire others and evoke peoples trust and respect through his words as being fundamental to his campaign. In the white house, I think his policy positions, cabinet choices, and behavior (not so much speeches) is what will make things happen. His positions are liberal and the republicans will not fall into line behind him. He has said he will appoint republicans to his administration and I think if he chooses a republican VP, this will go a long way with me in earning more of my respect. So far, he says many great things and I completely agree that he is a "visionary" I just do not see the record or behavior to back up his words. McCain has a solid record of working with democrats and Obama does not. McCain proposed and passed the McCain Feingold bill (imperfect as it may be) and Obama hasn't accomplished anything close to this. Maybe running this fantastic campaign (best in history from what I can tell) means he will be a great president; I just have no confidence at this time that this is true.

Military:
Again, good point that McCain was in the Navy and not the Army. However, when you compare him to Obama, oh my. McCain has two sons in the Military, one serves in Iraq, he is a senior member of the Armed Services committee and has traveled the world (and Iraq) many times. I mean, he was offered to leave a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam and chose not too. Militarily, he has it all over Obama. And I also think you are right that many Americans are concerned that he will be a war mongerer in Iraq. I wish Obama was a bit more moderate and practical on the issue. The position of getting the troops out ASAP doesn't always resonate with what's happening on the ground. I liked Hillary's position. She wanted them out but was far more careful with her wording - that this would be done slowly and carefully. I saw Hillary speak and she began naming the roads in Iraq that the troops would need to be deployed from. This kind of detailed knowledge speaks to me and gives me confidence. I just don't get the whole "change" and "Yes we can". I want details.

Foreign Relations:
Yes, many of our allies favor Obama and diplomacy over saber rattling. Initially during this campaign, I thought it made the most sense for Obama to be Hillary's secretary of state. He clearly has foreign relation and communication talents, just very untested and inexperienced. I watched every debate and some of his foreign policy positions are much more liberal then I am, and in my opinion, idealistic and naïve. I like the middle way. Saber rattling is really stupid and got us to where we are today. Speaking with Iran and Korea with no preconditions is also pretty off base. I know Obama has changed his position on this but I heard him say it during numerous debates myself- that he would sit down with these leaders in his first year in office with no preconditions. I think we need a balance of some saber rattling and some very soft, humble, communicative diplomacy. McCain is not Bush and honestly has been verbal about the incompetence of rumsfield, not supporting torcher, and needing better relationships. Which one would be better????? Who knows? But if Obama screws up he could be another Carter and we could have another Iran Hostages situation on our hands. McCain is an improvement over bush and for me instinctively, would be safer. Again, if Obama had some experience and some record for me to measure his actions, it would go a long way.

Immigration reform:

Yes, all three candidates pretty much agree. I think a republican president from a Southwestern State would have the best opportunity to make this happen. The democrats would support these efforts and as their leader, he could get enough Republicans in line. Under Obama, I think there is likely to be less republican support and actually stonewalling.

Do you disagree that tax cuts stimulate the economy? Obama has no, let me repeat NO economic experience whatsoever, none, zip.

No doubt in my mind that Obama is much, much better for Healthcare in every way! I do not have any concerns on this issue with Obama as president. I work in a hospital and feel this system needs some major left wing liberal overhaul. I'm less confident that the economy, military, and foreign relations need as left a tilt.

Environment:

Yea, maybe McCain is full of it on this one. Regardless I think with all his lip service he'll have to make some major efforts on this issue. I see this as similar to immigration. I republican president will be more likely to secure a majority and move this issue forward. I think Obama could run up against much more resistance in regards to getting it done.

Wow, I am not familiar with the McCain joke about Chelsea. By all I've read they are pretty good buds on the hill.

As for character, we could complete a dissertation on any side of this issue for any candidate, good or bad. McCain made this horrible joke vs. McCain chose not to leave a POW camp for his country. This issue just goes round and round. I do think we believe and trust who we resonate with in a politician and evaluate behavior through our own understanding. I get Hillary and McCain. I don't entirely get Obama.

Jen

Posted by: Jen | June 25, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

kmb08 I do not know who the heck you are but your post was brilliant and pretty much summarized every sentiment felt by HC supporters especially the ridiculous canard painting the Clintons as racists. But I feel her being VP would put her in a good position to run in 12 if he wins but she would certainly be totally blamed if he loses which you will hear if she is or is not on the ticket because that is the way their supporters behave. Thanks for your wonderful post.

Posted by: Leicht.an | June 25, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

by your logic its totally about how long they have been in elected office period that constitutes experience. So my State Senator who has been in our State Senator for 20 years is more qualified then either to be our nominee by your logic. Guess a local county sheriff or city councilman for 20 years has great experience to be POTUS. I raise this consideration because JFK was called a lightweight with his 13 years in the house and Senate. Yea some of us care if the person that will hold the highest office in the world has the breath of experience that being a street organizer and State Senator does not provide.
Many of us are truly struggling but will wait to see his VP choice first. Biden has vast international knowledge and respect. Its really too bad if that bothers you or your campaign as not being the right political move. Guess what no one cares. After 8 years of the Great Job Brownie Admin its amazing how Obama supporters belittle the concept of experience which your guy sinply does not have. I agree with the lesbian social worker who said if Hillary or Biden are given the finger one more time by your campaign you will make it very easy for us to vote McCain. Apparently no one in the Obama campaign gets it or has gotten the memo.
I stick with my prayer that hope springs eternal and he does the right thing. Every Clinton supporter I have spoken with does not expect that. We are realist and know the hatred his supporters have for 48 percent of D voters.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"For those who keep posting about Sen Obama's vast experience as a State Senator that wouldn't be prudent."
=============
I never said a word about the quality of Obama's experience, but about its length relative to Mrs. Clinton's: she has a single term as a US Senator over Obama, he has been in elected office for over a decade...why can't you just capitulate on this point? You LIKE Hillary better, her relative "experience" compared to Obama is not the issue and you know it. You are being emotional leicht...nothing wrong with that, but why be such a hard-arse about it?

RE Joe Biden...he is too entrenched in the Washington crowd, can't you see that? Obama, if he picks such an insider, will completely belie his message of change.

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 25, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

"I want a pragmatist in the oval office that will pay attention to the details and make things happen. I think McCain would do a much better job with the boots on the ground of our military machine. I think McCain is much more likely to actually implement some of the environmental efforts government needs to make. I think McCain is much more likely to make improvements happen on Immigration reform. I think McCain is a safer choice to improve our foreign relations. Obama's foreign relation gaffs could be disasterous and I'm not willing to take that risk right now.

Obama has a better liberal agenda- I just don't think he has the chops or pragmatism to get it done. His learning curve, especially in foreign relations is one we cannot currently afford. McCain is a deeply flawed candidate with a pretty damn impressive record. Our men and women in uniform deserve to be lead by one of their own.

I'm a social worker, a lesbian, a Hillary supporter and have my PhD (clearly not in spelling). Please stop telling me I'm an idiot or an angry Hillary supporter for prefering McCain. Gay marriage, womens rights, and abortion are secondary right now. We are at War and heading into a depression. I think McCain will stink at the economy- but at least tax cuts for the rich do stimiluate the economy. I'd rather have 4 more years of the Bush economy than Carters (does anyone disagree with this?).

I also think Hillary has more genuine respect and friendship with McCain. They've traveled together and are both Warrior Pragmatist types."
================
What an astonishing post. Strangely enough, I think that implying that Obama is NOT a pragmatist is completely backward...it is precisely BECAUSE he is a pragmatist that he has shifted his positions on some things as he carefully picks his battles; his position on the recent FISA bill is such an example. I think that plenty of us who saw Obama as a transformative figure, now see him as he really is; a canny Politican who is in it to win it. (But I still see him as a visionary.) As far as "making things happen" you have to be pretty blinkered not to see that an unknown first term Senator managed to prevail over the Clinton Machine and become the nominee for President...if that is not making things happen, I don't know what is.

As for McCain's doing a "better job" with the Military, that remains to be seen, but I, and millions of Americans, have a distinct unease with McCain's promise to stay in Iraq until some undefined Victory is achieved, and he recently suggested at a town meeting that a Draft may be needed in the future. Not to mention that he opposed the Webb GI Bill to help our troops get a good education when they get home. McCain also claimed that when the troops come home is "not important." Senator Obama and thousands of families disagree. And need I remind you that McCain never saw combat on the ground...he was a pilot, I would think that since this War is being fought primarily by the Army, that McCain's experience is not as applicable as it would seem on the surface.

As far as improving our reputation overseas, I would also suggest that you look at the Foreign press most of whom are very excited by the prospect of a President Obama; I think that most of our allies favor diplomacy over saber rattling, not to mention the endemic disillusion with the Republicans that most of our friends overseas have currently (of course if you are looking at certain hard-right foreign publications such as The Jerusalem Post, I would say that you are getting a biased viewpoint of Obama indeed.)

As for "immigration reform" I have looked at the issue on both McCain's and Obama's websites, and their proposals are extremely similar, so I'm not sure where you are coming from with that.

As for McCain's "damn impressive record," it is damned alright...that is if you are a progressive and a feminist: McCain means NO to Roe, NO to Family Planning, NO to the Ledbetter equal pay for equal work Bill. As for his environmental record, he gets an F for effort from environmental groups for his votes on the issue...prehaps he has changed, we know that he pays lip service to believing in Global Warming, but when it comes to action...Not so much.

Then there is the matter of Universal Health Insurance beloved by Mrs.Clinton and to which Obama has pledged to work hard on in his first term...McCain's policy? More deregulation and dependence on the free-market (which, so far, has not provided much.)

As for tax cuts "stimulating" the economy...so what has happened in the last 2 years? As the Country as a whole heads into a reccession, the rich have had a 9% jump in their income, the rest of us have incomes that have flatlined...Senator Obama would give us regular income folks a tax CUT...now that would stimulate ME.

As for Clinton's "friendship" with McCain, how admirable that Mrs Clinton forgave McCain for that cruel, homophobic "joke" he told a few years back that involved Chelsea as a child (Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father) What does it say about the character of a man that tells such a joke about a child?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 25, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Clark is a bore and likely would not even carry Ark.

Only Biden or Hillary have the gravitas to be VP. Personally I feel Obama wants neither fearful either would upstage him like Lloyd Benten when voters felt they had the wrong person at the top. It would show a real sense of seriousness and maturity to select either which is why I seriously doubt will happen.
But hope springs eternal.For many of us it will be the determining factor as to our biting the bullet and voting for the unqualified candidate.
For those who keep posting about Sen Obama's vast experience as a State Senator that wouldn't be prudent.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

This has been a long and mostly interesting post to read. I see Obama as in way over his head. He's a brilliant politician- better then Bill Clinton. He declines public financing after saying he would accept it...... then the brilliance is that he then convincingly blames his decision on McCain.

I see this as dangerous and unethical behavior in a president. Not changing his mind or opting out of financing- but brazenly, humbly, convincingly, taking no responsibility and blaming it on someone else. At least when Bill Clinton spoke I was pretty clear he was lying. Obama lies with genuine humbleness, as if he is convinced of his own truth- this is a highly unethical narcisistic guy in my opinion.

It seems to me that Obama doesn't do his homework and is not very knowledgeable of history, goverment systems, foreign countries, economics, or the military.

His big selling point is talking. Thats it, talking. I respect his eloquence, sophistication, vision, subtlety and open mind. I respect that people are very inspired by him and he often sounds very truthful and ethical. Maybe he really is truthful and ethical.

I see the presidency as a Job. I care and watch what people have done and will DO. McCain is not a bad choice for president, he's really not.

I want a pragmatist in the oval office that will pay attention to the details and make things happen. I think McCain would do a much better job with the boots on the ground of our military machine. I think McCain is much more likely to actually implement some of the environmental efforts government needs to make. I think McCain is much more likely to make improvements happen on Immigration reform. I think McCain is a safer choice to improve our foreign relations. Obama's foreign relation gaffs could be disasterous and I'm not willing to take that risk right now.

Obama has a better liberal agenda- I just don't think he has the chops or pragmatism to get it done. His learning curve, especially in foreign relations is one we cannot currently afford. McCain is a deeply flawed candidate with a pretty damn impressive record. Our men and women in uniform deserve to be lead by one of their own.

I'm a social worker, a lesbian, a Hillary supporter and have my PhD (clearly not in spelling). Please stop telling me I'm an idiot or an angry Hillary supporter for prefering McCain. Gay marriage, womens rights, and abortion are secondary right now. We are at War and heading into a depression. I think McCain will stink at the economy- but at least tax cuts for the rich do stimiluate the economy. I'd rather have 4 more years of the Bush economy than Carters (does anyone disagree with this?).

I also think Hillary has more genuine respect and friendship with McCain. They've traveled together and are both Warrior Pragmatist types.

If Obama choses Hillary for VP I would vote for him because I know there would be a detail oriented pragmatist making sure these "idea's and plans" are implemented effectively. I would feel safer because I think she could prevent the damage of his gaffs and help his learning curve tremendously. If he would accept her guidance.

NO OBAMA WITHOUT HILLARY
MCCAIN 2008

Posted by: Jen | June 25, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

The Stingy Obamas don't want to spring for Clintons debt! He wants others to bail her out. The Clintons deserve better and should not promote the "ill prepared", misguided Rookie, with ties to enemies of America! Obamas image is so scary he has to spend nearly half a billion to bribe and "buy" his way into the White House!
Just think what good that money could do for the suffering! By the way, Obama why didn't you contribute more donations then
your paltry 1 to 3 percent to help the needy?! Thats right, you want us to share our wealth, to do what you say but not what you do! What kind of leadership is that! Disillusioned Democrat

Posted by: RAY AVARE | June 25, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"as for Michelle's calling the shots as to Hillary and possibility of her as VP this was reported in the Huffington Post:
The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility."
=============
Quoting the Huff-Po's "unnamed" sources vis a vis Michelle Obama's purported attitude toward Mrs.Clinton hardly makes your case Mr Lawyerman. Although Considering some of the dirt thrown around during the primaries however, I wouldn't blame Mrs. Obama for feeling a wee bit hostile toward the Clinton Campaign.
==============
"incidentally if Hillary is 68th in seniority that would make her 31 Senators ahead of Senator Obama. Being the 99th Senator in experience radical moderate is not exactly something you should be bragging about."
==============
Except that I wasn't "bragging" about Obama's lack of senority, I was responding to your comment regarding Senator Clinton:

"....when reminded that a far less qualified male employee just got their promotion"

The facts are this: Mrs. Clinton has run for Public Office once, and she carpet-bagged her way into that office with the help of the influential Congressman Charlie Rangel, and her marquee name. Don't get me wrong, Mrs. Clinton has been a fine legislator, I just find the claims of her superior experience to be a bit disingenious.

Put down Obama's experience as a State Legislator all you want leicht, but the FACTS are that Obama has more experience as an elected Representative than Mrs. Clinton.

BTW, don't like Jim Webb? How about Wesley Clark?

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 25, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA DOESN'T WANT THE CLINTONS TO STEAL HIS THUNDER BUT BEING THE ILL PREPARED
ROOKIE, HE NEEDS ALL THE HELP HE CAN GET!
IF OBAMA TRULY BELIEVES IN HIS PRETEN-TIOUS, MISGUIDED WORDS AND BLINDLY PROMOTES THEM INTO POLICY, THERE WILL BE ALOT OF BUYERS REMORSE; BEWARE, WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE CAN DO ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! TIME WILL TELL. SAVE US CLINTONS, THE DELUSIVE ILLUSIONIST STRAWMAN IS SCARY AND AN UNKNOWN THREAT TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY
DEMOCRAT NO MORE!

Posted by: Vivienne Avare Florida | June 25, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

We should not be wasting our time considering something that is clearly NOT going to happen. The chances of Clinton being named as running-mate are extremely slim. Chris, you should focus on those who truly are being seriously considered.

Posted by: OHIO CITIZEN | June 25, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

incidentally if Hillary is 68th in seniority that would make her 31 Senators ahead of Senator Obama. Being the 99th Senator in experience radical moderate is not exactly something you should be bragging about.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

you are absolutely correct. Serving as an Illinois State Senator is the absolute greatest test of Presidential experience. In fact there is a State Senator(Mario Gallegas) down here in Texas who has been in our state senate for almost 20 years that I am sure you would agree would be far more qualified than either to be POTUS.

As for Webb it would allow Obama to claim he has more Senate experience by comparison, and he did win Va by about 1800 votes. He is a great guy but to claim he is more ready then Hillary to step in as POTUS, which is incidentally the primary qualification of a VP, makes zero sense, plus very likely losing a US Senate seat in a conservative state. The only sense it makes is to placade the Clinton haters in the Obama campaign.

as for Michelle's calling the shots as to Hillary and possibility of her as VP this was reported in the Huffington Post:

"Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama. "

The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility."

it is likely she will have great influence on that decision.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"He is expecting her contributors to raise $50 million for Obama from her supporters. Is it asking too much for a small % of that to be returned by Obama supporters to pay off her debt?"

Well, goal #1 is to get Obama elected. Hillary's debts are secondary. (I'm sure even she would agree with that)

So it makes sense to ask Hillary's supporters to support Obama. I'm talking about people who contribute small amounts.

But it doesn't work the other way around. If an Obama supporter can only afford to spend $100 on campaign contributions, every dollar out of that which goes to Hillary is a dollar out of Obama's pocket. The same goes for Hillary supporters. Each dollar they spend on her is one less dollar they spend on Obama or the DNCC. If they feel retiring her debt is more important than getting Obama or Democratic senators elected, that's their choice, but with small donors, there is a tradeoff. It's different with big donors. If someone can afford well over $2300, that person can help Hillary out without hurting Obama since that person likely would have maxed out for Obama in the first place. That's why Obama is mainly asking his big donors to help Clinton. You don't have that tradeoff.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Just read his vitriol which is representative of the vast majority of Obama supporters towards Hillary and her supporters. Then listen to Michelle Obama's comments about Hillary and Obama's comments to a Ca Congresswoman and Clinton delegate's complaints about the Senator's campaign's so called outreach to her 18 million voters. She was told "Get Over it". A dismissive and sexist attitude towards women in the work place when reminded that a far less qualified male employee just got their promotion; get over it and just be a team player."
============
Oh please. I think that I represent an important, and despite what you claim, large faction of Obama supporters who have not been disrespectful to Mrs. Clinton on these, or any forums. In fact, I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I would have voted for Hillary if she had won the Nomination. I have no idea what comments about Mrs Clinton that Michelle Obama supposedly made that you reference...so I can't comment, but I believe that Senator Obama has been respectful of Hillary Clinton even during her most dubious attacks on him during the campaign.

As far as Obama and "sexism" may I remind you that Obama voted yes on the Ledbetter Bill, and has several women, Susan Rice for one, as key advisors in his campaign.

BTW, I am a 52 year old white female. My choice for Obama was predicated on his positions on the issues I care about, and because he is a fresh talent, and yes, I will vote for him as a break from the Washington insiders that have dominated recent Politics.

As for Clinton's "experience" she is rated the 68th most Experienced Senator out of 100, which hardly suggests the qualifications you suggest, and, in fact, counting his time in the IL legislature, Obama has a longer record as an elected offical.
=================
"Incidentally billy Webb has said repeatedly he is not interested and would not accept being selected VP"
=================
Yes, you are wrong, Webb has said that he would consider being on the ticket. (I am all for this paring as Webb brings a lot to the ticket: military experience, anti-war, pro vet, etc.)

Posted by: radical_moderate | June 25, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

my response was to dale's post

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

actually dan it is the Obama campaign that has implored Hillary to turn over the names, phone numbers, addresses and email addresses to get US tob contribute to his campaign, so stop whining. My wife and I have received numerous calls, emails and letters from Hillary and Obama to contribute to his campaign, and you can believe me or not when I tell you we are not big fans. He is expecting her contributors to raise $50 million for Obama from her supporters. Is it asking too much for a small % of that to be returned by Obama supporters to pay off her debt? You are right. Magnanimity and humility does not apply to your campaign,nor your candidate's strong suit, you are the entitlement campaign. You are now even entitled to money from Clinton supporters who can't stand your guy. When h*** freezes over.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is the ultimate block and tackle vice presidential candidate" Yeh right. Good old team player Hillary. Run up campaign finance debt then expect the opponent you bad mouthed to help pay the debt that smeared him. A block and tackle used to hoist might fit, but then that might smack of racism.

Posted by: Dale Netherton | June 25, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

no it was actually another Obama supporters calling themselves Independent Woman labeling 48% of the Democratic Party that voted for Hillary as Fringe Dems.
Keep it up Obama supporters. Perhaps you can permanently fracture the party you claim to love and understand so well.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Try Real Clear Politics. They use multiple polls when handicapping.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Thanks BadgerOne for some sanity in the polling reports. Today Rasmussen has Obama up four and Gallup has them tied. If the partisans want to believe Obama is up by 16 that'll probably keep a lot of Dems away from the voting booths, too. Good move.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx

16 points from Newsweek and 12 from the LA Times. No slanted polls, there.

Posted by: Tarheel | June 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I do think highly of my opinion...its mine. I came up with all by myself.

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

actually Chris is right on the money when he calls it the Bigness Factor to choose to select Hillary.

And that is precisely why it will never ever happen, because Senator Obama and his supporters would prefer showing exactly how small and petty they and their campaign have become. Bigness, Magnanimity, Humility, are not his string suit. Many us will be waiting to see if that will ever change, but will not be holding our collective breaths in anticipation.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow...you keep associating quotes to me like "fringe" that only seem to come from your posts.

Obama campaign paying people to post on this blog...it must be that vast left-wing conspiracy.

Oh, no we've been outed!

Watch out we bugged your office too. Is it under the lamp shade or in the phone Maxwell Smart?

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

actually honest many of us cheap Hillary supporters maxed out for her. Since the Clinton campaign has our phone numbers, email and home addresses and we cannot give further to retire her debt, we are now getting daily calls, letters and emails from Hillary's office to contribute to your guy. Curious why she should be doing that for such ingrates. By the comments here can you just maybe understand what the phrase when hell freezes over means? Can you honestly say you maxed out and did the same for your messiah?

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

billy seems to have a pretty high opinion of himself and his posts. As a political strategist that he claims to be it is totally brilliant to describe 18 million voters that you will need in November as "Fringe", "Windbag", Nasty, sounds like some pretty sophisticated critical thinking billy."it shows one's ability to be a critical thinker."

god help the Obama campaign if they are paying bloggers to come here and paying them to create party unity. If they are they sure are wasting a lot of money. Actually the hatred and vitriol against the Clintons seems to have gotten a lot worse here since she has been gracious enough to campaign for him and become a major fundraising machine for Senator Obama.

The only critical thinking would be to suggest that the McCain campaign come here and read and spread some of the Obama supporters' vitriolic statements about Hillary and her supporters.

just curious if some of you Obama supporters are secretly working for John McCain? It sure seems like you are.


Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Sure...my random thoughts and opinions represent Obama and all his kind!

So you are voting for McCain because we are all so smug?

McCain is as stubborn as a mule. I'll take smug...since by its very definition you've accomplished something!

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill were so nasty to Obama, I hope and pray that Hillary is not V-P.

I would select someone, woman or man, white or black, Mormon or Catholic, just so long as they are the best one running.

Posted by: steve | June 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

With all these Hillary die hards, she should be out of debt in no time. Oh! I forgot it was these cheap people that put her there in the first place. All talk and no support.

Posted by: Honesty | June 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Criticizing a candidate based on their actions during the campaign is not garbage...it shows one's ability to be a critical thinker.

The Hillary for President dream is dead for now. She can try again next time.

That old hard working white american is done...now its Minnie-me's turn! So sorry.

(Okay, that was a little smug.)

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Would Hillary be a good choice? It is a close call.

Hillary has several key positives (some of which The Fix mentioned):
(1) Recognition
(2) Experience
(3) Readiness
(4) Easing bitterness and uniting the base a bit earlier than it might unite otherwise.
(5) Bringing the Clinton "machine" into full swing for Obama.
(6) Inspiring women (and progressive men).

1,2 and 3 are the most important, with 6 also being a significant plus.

But Hillary's drawbacks are significant:
(1) Is the nation ready for two "firsts" on one ticket?
(2) Clinton baggage (Bill, ethical questions from the Clinton administration like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc.)
(3) The base will unite anyway (McCain is not a pro-feminist, pro-female, or pro-choice candidate).
(4) Her selection might energize the Republican's base (admittedly, they seem pretty riled up over Obama).
(5) Her pro-war stance dilutes Obama's consistent opposition.
(6) Her establishment credentials blunt the "change" message.
(7) The opportunity cost of not choosing a another candidate.

2, 5 and 6 are probably the biggest detractors.

Factor 7 is a wildcard, but also a reminder that in making the case for and against, we should remember the real question is not whether she would be a good choice, but whether she would be the BEST choice.

Posted by: Alan | June 25, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

the "Windbag that was Hillary"

another sign of Party Unity imploring 18 Million of her Fringe D supporters to turn around and contribute to Senator Messiah.

Good Luck with those idiotic comments in November.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's poll numbers show solid movement over McCain. The old guy is in trouble. Now all we have to do is sit back and watch him self-destruct.

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

First its Gen X then Y...how about Gen Now! That's who voted Obama in as the nominee.

I don't smear...I just state my opinion based on the facts as I see them.

Smug...elite...all those canned lables...let's forget about the windbag that was Hillary...any convincing reason why I should vote for McCain over Obama?


Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I truly hope that that a large number of the 18 million Clinton supporters, patrick in New York, come here and read some of the garbage coming out of the mouths of ken, billy, annonymous etc about the Clinton supporters.

This is one of the most idiotic comments I have read here since January and believe me there have been some that are way out there. And this Obama supporter's comment on behalf of Party Unity:

"The fringe Dem's who supported HRC"

Apparently 49% of the Democratic Party are now being labeled by the Obama Whackos as Fringe Dems.

Good Luck with those kinds of idiotic comments in November.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that people from this country are loosing touch. To choose
Party nominee. Voting for someone that we do not even sure where his is coming from.

The only thing we know is that he is son of a typical white woman and a black Muslim man.

Talking about Christianity it is obvious he miss spoke of the Bible; he confused himself with the Koran.

His experience is the one he got in the streets of Chicago, working with homeless and drug-addicted people.

Is he ready on day one to lead this Country??? NO WAY!!!!!!!!

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Barry "Fast Eddie" Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS NOT ELECTED

HE WAS SELECTED - it happened to be black man.

Other wise he did not get to were he is now.

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight:

David the Liar Plouffe is attempting to hold MCCAIN to his Campaign Finance Pledge within a week of Obama saying that he will not abide by his multiple commitments to take part in the public finance system.


Is that David the Liar Plouffe's position?


Obama's commitments and pledges MEAN NOTHING and THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO SUE McCain to hold him to his word ???


Is anyone following this??


What a bunch of DECEPTIVE LIARS.


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


Plouffe: McCain spending 'unlawfully'

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They're out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.


By Ben Smith 02:56 PM

Posted by: Words Of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight:

David the Liar Plouffe is attempting to hold MCCAIN to his Campaign Finance Pledge within a week of Obama saying that he will not abide by his multiple commitments to take part in the public finance system.


Is that David the Liar Plouffe's position?


Obama's commitments and pledges MEAN NOTHING and THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO SUE McCain to hold him to his word ???


Is anyone following this??


What a bunch of DECEPTIVE LIARS.


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


Plouffe: McCain spending 'unlawfully'

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They're out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.


By Ben Smith 02:56 PM

Posted by: Words Of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

hey billy what are you 2 years old? You apitomize why Obama will lose in Nov, a smug genY supporter who feels entitled to smear anyone who disagrees.

and this comment was absolutely hilarious "To pick Hillary at this point, especially given the way she has treated him, would appear weak."

right she has been so mean to Senator Messiah, by traveling to support him and imploring her top fund raisers to cough up millions for his campaign. And that is precisely why I have received daily emails from her campaign to send him money while he barely lifts a finger to help pay off her debt. And that is the gratitude she gets..
Good Luck with that atitude in November.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

More people hate or at least dislike Hillary than do those who love or like her.

So if Obama wants to reduce his chances, he should choose her as VP.

That will also ensure that he will have ongoing troubles besides those he creates himself.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Dear Obama:

Would you please ask your donors to assist with my debt too? I only need about 10 Thousand because I don't waste millions of dollars on tv commercials.

Obama you are the man.

I can see that you have decided to help people with their bills - I'm sure from your days as a community activist you have done that for many people.


I think you should help the poor too.


Why do you want your people to give more money to a multi-millionaire white woman who lives in one the richest places in the country - when all she has to do is quit the job she is not doing and go on a speaking tour which will pay off all her debts?


.

Posted by: Words Of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Dear Obama:

Would you please ask your donors to assist with my debt too? I only need about 10 Thousand because I don't waste millions of dollars on tv commercials.

Obama you are the man.

I can see that you have decided to help people with their bills - I'm sure from your days as a community activist you have done that for many people.


I think you should help the poor too.


Why do you want your people to give more money to a multi-millionaire white woman who lives in one the richest places in the country - when all she has to do is quit the job she is not doing and go on a speaking tour which will pay off all her debts?


.

Posted by: Words Of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Why would Obama pick someone that lied every day on the campaign trail, has a husband that is a dimwit, And will be more interested in seeing Obama lose.

Posted by: Ken | June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that people from this country are loosing touch. To choose
Party nominee. Voting for someone that we do not even sure where his is coming from.

The only thing we know is that he is son of a typical white woman and a black Muslim man.

Talking about Christianity it is obvious he miss spoke of the Bible; he confused himself with the Koran.

His experience is the one he got in the streets of Chicago, working with homeless and drug-addicted people.

Is he ready on day one to lead this Country??? NO WAY!!!!!!!!

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that people from this country are loosing touch. To choose
Party nominee. Voting for someone that we do not even sure where his is coming from.

The only thing we know is that he is son of a typical white woman and a black Muslim man.

Talking about Christianity it is obvious he miss spoke of the Bible; he confused himself with the Koran.

His experience is the one he got in the streets of Chicago, working with homeless and drug-addicted people.

Is he ready on day one to lead this Country??? NO WAY!!!!!!!!

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight:

David the Liar Plouffe is attempting to hold MCCAIN to his Campaign Finance Pledge within a week of Obama saying that he will not abide by his multiple commitments to take part in the public finance system.


Is that David the Liar Plouffe's position?


Obama's commitments and pledges MEAN NOTHING and THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO SUE McCain to hold him to his word ???


Is anyone following this??


What a bunch of DECEPTIVE LIARS.

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

Plouffe: McCain spending 'unlawfully'

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They're out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.


By Ben Smith 02:56 PM

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The Plus/Minus on HRC is decidedly Minus. Of course she would have Pluses but they would be far out weighed by her Minuses (some not of her own making).

+ Bring a some unity to the party.

+ Bill's charisma

+ ...er I ran out of Pluses


- Bill Clinton.

- A black guy and a women on the ticket, too much change.

- did I mention Bill Clinton. Bill wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

===

Best bet... Barak Obama/Wesley Clark!

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

ABC--Anybody But Clinton.

Obama & McCain are splitting the Independent vote right now. If Obama were to choose HRC, that vote would be SUBSTANTIALLY diminished, leading McCain to victory.

The fringe Dem's who supported HRC who are now saying they will not support BHO can vote for McCain if they'd like. It will not matter, and will not be a large enough percentage to be a game changer. Whereas, the Independent vote IS the game changer.

Posted by: Independent Woman | June 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It is pointless to discuss HRC as Obama's veep. She settled that probability at 0% when she decided to go over the top, party-disloyal during the primaries. If she were on the ticket we would see non-stop ads from here to November featuring her cutting statements about Obama:

Announcer's voice intones: "Does Barack Obama have the experience needed to be this nation's Commander-in-Chief? Perhaps his own running mate said it best..."

Hillary's voice: "John McCain and I have decades of experience that qualify us for the job. Barack has a speech he gave in 2002."

Voice again: "Don't take our word for it, take hers."

Caption: "Paid for by McCain for president. With special thanks to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Stay tuned for the next ad IN HER OWN WORDS."

Posted by: Rolling my eyes | June 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not you like Hillary Clinton or think she would be a good Vice President, she would be a terrible choice for Obama.

In order to win, Obama has to show strength. He has to exude confidence. To pick Hillary at this point, especially given the way she has treated him, would appear weak. It would give fodder to the sexist, retro columnists such as Maureen Dowd, who would trot out her "Obambi" slurs.

Obama has to leave the past behind and fashion his own new, strong and team. And, in the end, I suspect that he will get more blue-collar votes if he shows strength than if he panders to Hillary.

Posted by: saraz | June 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I prefer to be with no education. Than to vote for a liar, fake individual (hussein obama) - Where is your high education? Voting for obama, shows how last than little intelligent you are, you not even write your name on the post.

With people like you and hussein obama, this Country is going deep for the abyss.


LAFIT1 - I rarely listen to Right Wing talk shows, but just two days ago I gave it a try, and you know the commentator was right on point. He said that when people type in all caps on a blog they are usually lying and have very little education. I will be darn, you have proved his point completely. Maybe I'll listen again, thank you.

Posted by: | June 25, 2008 3:17 PM

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

kmb08, ditto your comments. You really spelled it out. I too hope Hillary does not take the VP spot. She really doesn't believe in Barack and I am not sure she can fake it. She is a leader, unfortunately, she will have to lead somewhere else. Her campaign did not do her any good i.e., Mark Penn, Patti ?, fighting with, even so, she did a magnificient job with all the flaws within her campaigne. You gotta love her. Remarkable woman....I am impressed forever.

Posted by: butterfly2 | June 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse


I was once a Hillary supporter... Ive grown to distrust her motives.... with her war hawk voting (abandoning her priciples in interest of power).. her chameleon like changes to adapt to different constituencies (demonstrating a lack of commitment to her ideals) and her glaring misspeakings (showing a willingess to do ANYTHING to accomplish what she wants.. think about it. this is NOT a good thing!)...
she has fans.. but she has baggage as well... honestly I think he can do better.. this is not really meant as a knock on her.. but... why pound a square peg into a round hole... when there are some round pegs laying around waiting to be picked?

Posted by: LeviCro | June 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I was disgusted by Hillary in the primary, but was willing to vote for her over McCain and the dark future he promotes.

Grow up kids...its about building a peaceful and sustainable future. Its about change and McCain in no way represents that idea!

Even Hillary sees that!

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey Reichtman...didn't I meet you in Dresden.

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain picking a woman as VP? Yea he has high regard for women, just ask his c#@t wife.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Webb has never decisively said he would not accept the job. Check the facts and get back to me. Smug...really...no...just ready for a new generation to have a go...and many boomers are a part of that.

Good night Clinton's!

Good night Bush!

Good night McSame!

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

All you that criticize my way of writing.

YOU ARE JUST A BRAIN WASHED LESS THEN LITTLE TINY THINGS.


Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

i'm going to laugh so hard when Obama loses to McCain. The press will be wondering why their packaged present lost. It doesn't matter who Obama picks as VP, he'll lose. Clinton is too smart to step on the Obama Titanic.

Posted by: Lefty | June 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

You missed the most important reason to nominate Clinton for VP: it blocks a political masterstroke that is otherwise available to McCain.

Obama has to pick his VP before the convention: about a week before the GOP's convention starts. McCain can wait and see who Obama picks before picking the Republican VP.

Pardon my sexism but Obama can't pick a woman other than Clinton; that would enrage her supporters. So it's either Clinton or it's a man.

So let's say it's another man. Any man'll do. How should McCain respond? Well Duh, right after the Democratic Convention he gets up on a stage and announces that his running mate is one of the several smart and well qualified FEMALE Republican governors.

"Because breaking the final glass ceiling is an idea whose time is now."

Posted by: Bill | June 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey remember..Obama won by votes from the American people...women and men...not promoted over Hillary in some smokey boardroom full of ball scratchers!

Get over it and stop acting like a bunch of little girls.

As Hillary famously said to Obama..."If you can't stand the heat?"
A new generation has emerged of young American women and men who are not scared like the Rev. Wrights of the feminist world.

Just like he sounded out of date and bitter...some of Hillary's supporters are sounding the same.

Change is a comin'!

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally billy Webb has said repeatedly he is not interested and would not accept being selected VP b/c his seat would likely go R. Once again you show your ignorance,immaturity and being uninformed about Va politics.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

yea Billy a question. What makes you such a smug jerk. Once again you prove my point. Obviously a genY's attitude towards boomers. You sir and your friends exemplify the classic arrogance of Obama supporters, we are superior. Apparently you could care less about the political attitude of 18 million voters.
Good Luck with that in November

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

So, Badger, if a poll shows the race is close, the press is doing its job. If a poll shows a lead for Obama, the press is deliberately trying to suppress turn-out. What if a poll showed a sigificant lead for McCain? My guess is you'd be cheering fair and balanced coverage. A close election is far more interesting than a blow-out. Your bias is showing.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

There is absolutely no reason that Hillary should not be at the top of the VP list other than the fact that his(Obama's)typo supporters, have such hatred of the Clintons.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Prediction: Obama/Webb 2008

Case closed! Give up on the the Clinton thing...its about the future not the past!

Webb will provide the smack down on McCain's gibber jabber on terrorists, Iraq, Iran, etc...Warner will fill the gap in the Senate.

Any questions?

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

djudge is living proof why Hillary will never be chosen as VP. Just read his vitriol which is representative of the vast majority of Obama supporters towards Hillary and her supporters. Then listen to Michelle Obama's comments about Hillary and Obama's comments to a Ca Congresswoman and Clinton delegate's complaints about the Senator's campaign's so called outreach to her 18 million voters. She was told "Get Over it". A dismissive and sexist attitude towards women in the work place when reminded that a far less qualified male employee just got their promotion; get over it and just be a team player.

Patrick we have had this conversation before. An Asian client just left my office and in the middle of discussing his legal matter he blurted out I will never vote for Obama even though I am a lifelong D. Couldn't understand why in the middle of a discussion about his case he just blurted that out. I was shocked b/c that is exactly the way I feel but choose not to discuss politics with clients. The Obama campaign refuses to acknowledge how deep seated this conflict is between the 2 campaigns. There is absolutely no reason that Hillary should not be at the top of the VP list other than the fact that her supporters have such hatred of the Clintons. Our feeling is get over it and choose her or lose. Kerry was man enough to select his primary opponent, but as my wife reminds me, there is not a chance in h*** that Senator Obama, his wife or supporters will ever let that happen. And thus Patrick why so many of my friends and even clients feel that they are reluctantly gravitating towards McCain.

Posted by: Leichtman | June 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

yes yes, quite right, her star IS burning like no other. Would it be ok with everyone if I refer to her as Little Miss $20 Million in Debt?? I could even do Lil' Miss $20M for short.


Thanks for that. Does anyone know the rules for getting personal funds back from the campaign. I heard she cannot raise money directly for herself, but she can via the camapaign, I wonder who gets paid first? How does that work?

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Dear Luis,

That he went to an Islamic school in Indonesia is true. He attended the Basuki school from 1969 to 1971. That doesn't make him a Muslim. There are many, many children who attend Catholic schools that aren't Catholic.

"You can believe whatever you want in this world, but we are electing a President. We should know what they believe and question them on their beliefs. As citizens, we have a duty to fulfill our obligations to our nation and posterity."

Well stated. I am not of the view that it would make a difference if he were Christian, Muslim, Jew or other. I do, however, agree that his faith forms an important part of his life. Where you are dead wrong is in trying to impose a set of beliefs on him that he has never held. It's a deliberate scare tactic designed to provoke religious bigotry.

"Why does he lie about it? Christians believe in the power of conversion, and yet he denies it. Why?"

He doesn't. He acknowledges his conversion to Christianity. It wasn't from Islam.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse


djudge,

>>>>> Just when we all hoped and prayed we got rid of her, you bring her back! <<<<

Have you seen "The Fix" blogs for last several days when Chris talked about someone else other than Clintons? CC's blogs melted so badly, he became really worried about his job security.

It is his business to talk about Obama and Clinton everyday so that he can keep his job and pay his bills.

If he talks about McCain and Republicans for two weeks, The Fix will go belly-up.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

boy i hope that obama knows that even with clinton as his vp, he will still lose. clinton voters are not going to be persuaded to vote for obama just because she's the silent candy standing next to the chosen one in this fixed primary. this lifelong democrat will pick McCain and i will throw a party the day obama loses to mccain. then we can feel confident that the democrats learned to never again fix the the presiential nominee.

Posted by: Sal | June 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary deserves to be Vice President. After all, she had eight years experience in that job under husband Bill. So she should be ready to do whatever it is a VP does from day one.

Posted by: McCain Man | June 25, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I really wish people had not started calling Hillary the "underdog" as it became clear during the primaries that she was going to lose. Favorite or Underdog status is assigned prior to a contest, not during or after. She was certainly the favorite, especially in her own mind, going into the primaries, but just as in sports, sometimes the underdog gets the momentum and wins. Then they call it an upset, or in Bill Clinton's case, an upset stomach.
Speaking of stomachs, if Obama gets to the White House with Hillary as second-in-command, he better hire a presidential food taster.

Posted by: Scott | June 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Someone calling themselves progressive and voting for McCain.

He will continue Bush's failed policy's, wants to focus on drilling and offer some unfunded $300 million prize to people who are already working to corner a market that would bear greater fruit than some government prize.

They don't need your tired butt to motivate them. Incentives, tax breaks, and subsidies make more sense Cracker Jack. He's a hot-headed war hawk and against Roe v. Wade. He's old and tired and seems to be suffering from the early stages of dementia.

After all the crap that came form the Hillary campaign you are insulted at Obama's approach.

Can't wait til America sees the documentaries about the primary race. Once you see it all presented in hindsight you will see who were the real snakes.

We have millions of children living in poverty and I should be worried about Hillary's debt. She's a poor manager and should pay for her own mistakes.

Keep her away from our best hope for change.

Posted by: Billy Pilgrim | June 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Most reporters and many of the common folk overly emphasize the importance of "experience" as a qualification to be president. As George Will wrote a few months ago James Buchanan had one of the best experience resumes of presidential candidates during the 19th century CE. Yet he is widely considered to have been one of the five worst presidents in our history.

Those who think experience is the key qualification should be seeking Richard Cheney to become president. Few, if any persons in the contemporary era or ever could rivial his experience resume. Yet most Americans justifiably recoil from most of his policies and positions on issues.

Senator Clinton had far less relevant experience than Senators Dodd or Biden. She was therefore not the most qualified candidate among Democrats.

The Clintons had their two terms in the White House. Let's move on and give someone who is not a Bush or a Clinton a chance to be president.

Barack has made some mistakes lately, including pandering on free trade, the Middle East and supporting Bush sponsored legislation about domestic spying. Choosing Hillary as the vice-presidential nominee would alienate many of his supporters, who have recently been disappointed with him. She frequently belittled his qualifications and occasionally mocked him in her public statements. Barack could no longer contend he was the candidate of change, if he chooses Senator Clinton.

The country does not need three persons thinking they are or should be president, Barack, Hillary and Bill. Choosing her to be the possible vice-president would be about the worst choice he could make. Republicans will unify behind McCain. The vast majority of independents will vote for McCain. Many progressives, including myself, will not vote. The result will probably be a relatively easy McCain victory.

Posted by: Independent | June 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Warning: Intelligent Comment

I like the idea of the VP as the attack dog, Clinton would not only be more than happy to be vicious but it would also be difficult for a large white male to attack her without seeming like a bully.

And who better to debate reproductive rights than a woman?? The potential soundbites make me salivate with glee.

To all those who would never ever vote for Barack with Hillary as his running mate two points:

1.) VPs only have as much power as the president vests in them.

2.) Dont let hate guide your major decisions, its not healthy. If Barack and HIllary agree on policy everything else is piddling.

Posted by: Al, SF | June 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's star is burning brighter than Obama's now. HE should be the VP nominee.

Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

When I read "the Trail" today, then read this (Chris being
listed below that one), I remarked in comment there that
instead of having a good hand on the "tiller", in looks as though Hillary has a hand in the "till" now, with Obama's
proposal to aid in repaying her debts.

Posted by: tom brasher | June 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The latest Gallup poll through 6/24 has McCain and Obama tied 45 to 45. This is a sampling of likely voters that uses three times more responses than Newsweek.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx

Can we now put that ridiculous Newsweek poll to rest. The one from 6/19 showing Obama with a 16 point lead. Nothing like a news organization losing all credibility as it tries to sway the election by discouraging McCain's supporters. I'm ashamed to have a journalism degree right now. My profession has gone in the toilet. Thanks Newsweek, NY Times, and LA Times for not even caring about the accuracy of a voter poll. Shame on you. The press is supposed to be the watchdog, not watched to prevent its own abuses.

Posted by: BadgerOne | June 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

If we're indulging in fantasies, (notwithstanding the fact that I agree Ms. Clinton is not a bad choice) can we at least fantasize about another V.P Al Gore?

Won't happen, but it's fun to imagine.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter and a true democrat there is no way I would ever vote for McCain, but the trashing of Hillary is going to turn off a lot of her supporters. Smarten up Obama people.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 25, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Just when we all hoped and prayed we got rid of her, you bring her back!

Posted by: djudge | June 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY Case for Hillary Clinton as Obama's VP: Puff, puff, pass...

Posted by: Reality Check | June 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

19% of Clinton voters said they would prefer McCain over Obama. Do three and a half million votes matter? I don't know. Are presidential votes ever close? Is Obama just another liberal who doesn't care about leading the whole Democratic party, let alone the country? We'll see.

Posted by: Lart from Above | June 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton supporter and lifelong "progressive" who has never voted Republican...
BUT (and this is no lie, you instant dismissers) I am very ashamed at how Obama secured the nomination.
I believe we should choose our leader based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
I perceive Hillary as having what it takes, while the "race card" Obama has only his good looks and black skin (sorry).
I admire McCain, and I know he is not Bush 3.
I cannot support race politics for the presidency.
I will vote McCain.
The comments here from Obamaites just reinforce my impressions, by the way...

Posted by: juan | June 25, 2008 10:01 AM
----------------------------
Well Juan, sounds like you've got your man, congrats on your first time voting Repuke...and your point is...oh yeah, I get it, you want everyone to know that you're going to waste your first vote as a Repuke because Obama is Black and good looking. Come on, why don't you just be straight with us and say it...You're voting for McCain because "you admire him" and he's an old, not so good looking White Man...there, that wasn't so bad, was it? You can do it, say it!!

Posted by: SingleWhiteFemale | June 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I am going to get violently ill. I thought she was nothing but a bad memory. Obviously, I am incorrect. Should billary rise from the ashes she will ignite such a storm against Obama that I can assure you John McCain will cruise/waltz to the White House. Typical democrat approach to stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama's wife should justifably slug him if he even considers this flawed being as his political partner. I do not know what standard you apply to reach the conclusion that she is so well versed in domestic and foreign affairs. Health Care? A bumper sticker issue that she wants to translates into a presumption of "free, quality" health care for "all." Yeah, right. Wait until some wise Republican explains the billions it will cost to start let alone sustain. I forgot, is she for or against retention of troop level in Iraq? She's been all over the place. Mated with her disbarred deranged husband (wag your finger billy), this team will sink Obama quicker than a sub full of torpedoes. Lots of luck with that dud muffin.

Posted by: djudge | June 25, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

This dead horse has been beaten so thoroughly it is horse soup! No, Hillary Clinton would not be a sound choice for Obama's VP. She ran a smug, selfish, complacent, short-sighted, and spendthrift primary campaign. She attacked Obama without conscience or party loyalty. Clinton would give extreme comfort and delight to the bewildered and beleaguered Republicans who need her on the ticket to rally their ground forces.

Obama is a remarkably savvy and strong candidate. He will make an excellent president. He does not need the dead weight of Clinton on his ticket.

Posted by: dee | June 25, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Barry

Your legs and arms must be very stiff by now. You can get up off the floor now.
No more begging. Senator Clinton will say no. Unlike you, she continues to have her values and self respect.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Barry

Your legs and arms must be very stiff by now. You can get up off the floor now.
No more begging. Senator Clinton will say no. Unlike you, she continues to have her values and self respect.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SO SAD THAT PEOPLE FROM THIS COUNTRY ARE LOOSING TOUCH.

VOTING FOR SOMEONE THAT WE DO NOT EVEN SURE WHERE HIS COMING FROM.

THE ONLY THING WE KNOW: IS THAT HE IS SON OF A TIPICAL WHITE WOMAN AND A BLACK MUSLIM MAN.

TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IT IS OBVEOUS HE MISS SPOKE OF THE BIBLE HE CONFUSED HIMSELF WITH THE CORAN.

HIS EXPERIENCE IS THE ONE HE GOT IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO, WORKING WITH HOMELESS AND DRUG ADDICTED PEOPLE IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO.

IS HE READY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY??? NO WAY

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 12:23 PM
-------------------------------------
LAFIT1 - I rarely listen to Right Wing talk shows, but just two days ago I gave it a try, and you know the commentator was right on point. He said that when people type in all caps on a blog they are usually lying and have very little education. I will be darn, you have proved his point completely. Maybe I'll listen again, thank you.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris... how did you get your job... you are a discrace to politicos everywhere because you think inside a little box. There is only one candidate that spoke out against the Bush/Cheney Torture Cabal....

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

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | June 25, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I think obama's campaign is largely funded
by Muslim Moderates. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 12:43 PM

-------------------------------------
"I think" you are an idiot. Thank God you don't get paid to think.

Posted by: A Funder of the the Obama Campaign | June 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Your kidding right. Forget the act Hillary is the one on her knees with he mouth open begging for VP. She doesn't want to go back to the senate. Obama doesn't need her at all. Mccain is just short of being the antichrist. If Obama can't beat him he should not be running for president.

---------
Barry, which part of NO don't you understand?
Have some self respect.
Get up from your hands and knees.
Hillary said NO. N O NO.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Looking forward to Friday's article.

Posted by: Aren't you tired of beating a dead horse? | June 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Jackson Landers,

>>>> He's already winning them. Many of them by double-digit margins. >>>>>

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes a substantial lead in June does not always lead to a decisive victory the following November.

"Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.

"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/poll-shows-obama-with-a-double-digit-lead/

Posted by: Marian | June 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Barry, which part of NO don't you understand?
Have some self respect.
Get up from your hands and knees.
Hillary said NO. N O NO.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Barry, which part of NO don't you understand?
Have some self respect.
Get up from your hands and knees.
Hillary said NO. N O NO.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I was not impressed with Clinton's strategy. She chose to focus her campaign on an increasingly smaller portion of the electorate. People who are older (who won't even be around as much in 4 years) and areas of the country that have negative population growth. Her numbers weren't sustainable, all it really took to show this was a good campaign by her opponent to bring out all the people who normally feel marginalized.

While there might be some voters who she attracted that won't vote for Obama, there were also many of his voters who wouldn't have voted for her. The democratic party attracts a diverse electorate. A big reason Obama was considered to be stronger was that he attracted more of the swing voters in the middle of the electoral spectrum which are the people who would be comfortable voting for McCain as they generally like both Obama and McCain.

This is not as true for Clinton's blue collar workers who generally loath republicans as much as liberals.

Posted by: Elizabeth | June 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand how Hillary can be considered the safe, solid VP choice. Sure she's been vetted more than any of the other potential VPs, but that is the case because her dealings have raised serious questions. The logic that she is transparent because of all the vetting is fallacious.

Posted by: Mark | June 25, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary for veep and Bill for Secretary of State! President Obama should give the pair the assignment of forging a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians/Syrians. They will have 8 years of the Obama presidency to accomplish the task and the husband and wife team will surely win the Noble Peace Prize positioning Hillary for the presidency in 2016.

Posted by: Bob Cips | June 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

All those states that you're saying Clinton gives Obama a boost in? He's already winning them. Many of them by double-digit margins.

This idea that Obama could not compete in these overwhelmingly white states that were so critical in 2000 and 2004 as well as Clinton was a cute idea 2 months ago. But that theory that pundits loved to trot out has been thoroughly debunked by poll after poll since the primary fight finally ended.

We've seen ample proof that Obama does not need Clinton in order to carry any state. Even the older white women whom Obama was supposed to be in trouble with have now rallied behind him. The party has unified.

Clinton's map was the old map. A phase of Presidential politics that is now over. Barack Obama can choose the running mate that he actually wants. Nobody has him by the short and curlies. Barack Obama is now more wholly in command of the Democratic Party than even Bill Clinton was when he was President.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | June 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The stances of the two are not so different. I would love a ticket with these two, or some other possible candidates. Specifically reffering to Hillary Clinton, however, there are some things that bothers me with the idea. First, is the consistency of Obama's message, and the fact that he had referred to Senator Clinton's tactics as the style to change from. Second, what is the percentage of people who would refrain from supporting the ticket with Clinton on it? We have to be careful about this, and it is important that we get this ticket right this time around. I'm not against Hillary, but I feel that if she is chosen, she's got to be supportive to the style and ideas Obama (should he become POTUS) intends to bring; she should continue to help fight on the issues, continue on with her strong voice and will, but also help minimize conflict between the two. We're trying to get things done, and we need a supportive ticket. Third, I believe that Bill Clinton's role would need to be established; there is speculation that there would be disturbing influence in the way of Obama's role as POTUS. I would be thrilled if all three (Hillary, Bill, and Obama) were working together, but the roles have got to be clearly established; that way everyone has the freedom to collectively do their part for the causes, and noone is really in the way of another.

I'd simply like any confident and competent candidate (most likely a Dem this year), and we have impressive choices to choose from. I would love to support Hillary and Obama together, being they are on the right side on the issues, compared to McCain. This isn't a popularity contest, however. We need to really take time and put together a strong, supportive ticket. If Obama manages to make the case for Hillary, so be it. If it turns out another way with another competent candidate, so be it. The decision really needs to be well thought out. Hillary would be quite an opponent for McCain's camp. I believe that. I cannot stress it enough. Whomever is chosen, the person should really be able to contribute strengths to the campaign to help win. Furthermore, it would help with less conflict. Disagreements are good, but I think we generally want a supportive, contributive, working relationship. We need a ticket that's going to work.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I bet you Jackie never threatened to have one of his girls killed if she went public. Yea, she is a real Christian all right.

--------
Senator Clinton is a fascinating woman.
What makes her so magical is a combination of various factors; qualities that make her so very mezmerising to men as well as to women.
She has the POWER to FORGIVE. She is an exceptional Christian, YES TRUE CHRISTIAN
Woman. Everything she does is in the eyes of God.
She is Strong, without being hard.
She is Charming, but Just.
Kennedy cheated on Jackie, but she forgave him. Many Christian People do not have it in them to compromise or to forgive, but then, Senator Clinton is an exceptional woman; she has greatness and she does have the ability to FORGIVE. It is the combination of all these qualities, that enables Bill to find her constantly intriguing and fascinating.
Flowers, luwinscy....? Who the he.. are these nobody Bimbos?
They're just jealous, because Hillary,is MAGIC.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:16 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I still beleive Clinton is the best candidate and I have absolutely NO faith and confidence in BHO and I will not vote for him, based on party soldidarity.

Obama supporters have their heads in the clouds if they actually believe BHO can make good on all his fairy tale promises. He's already broken promise number one of sticking to the public financing system and he's clearly lied about not taking money from lobbyists and special intrests.

As a lifelong Democrat I am disapointed, because there is NO ONE reprenting the moderate, middle of the roaders like me.

Posted by: CR | June 25, 2008 2:23 PM

++++++++++++++++++

Senator McCain is your kinda guy. It goes without sayin', you probably should officially switch parties, too. Obama is the next president.

Both Senators McCain and Clinton will continue to be fine senators.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Honestly I don't know what kind of qualifications it takes to be a political pundit, but based on this article, I think the standards must be pretty low. I think the media spends too much time writing about hype, and very little time on issues of substance.

Posted by: Bryan | June 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Yea that would be it, a nobody. What does she rank like 70th now. She is nothing. All she had before was favors owed to Bill and all that has been spent now. Even many of the ones she thought she had in her pocket turned against her during this primary season. She is just another senator now. It will be years before she has any chance to be anything else and she knows it. Right now regardless how she may pretend, she would kill to be VP before having to go back to being invisible in the senate. Especially having to work with those who she thinks stabbed he in the back. The Clinton mystic is long gone. After Nov, no one and I mean no one will care a thing about her. That public sh&t can be addictive. What is she to do now? Even the people of NY are sick of her, there is no guarantee she will even keep her seat. I see a few Betty Ford visits for her in the future. Her drinking is not exactly a secret and it only figures to get worse. Lord knows Bill doesn't care anything about her. Her future may end very sad.
---------------
"going back to being a nobody again in the senate. "

Wow. They seem themselves as the "lords of the land."

Posted by: Gary E Masters | June 25, 2008 2:00 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Off the top of the Fix head, Clinton would seem to help Obama's cause in the following swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire and Michigan. A back of the envelope calculation reveals that those states combined award 89 electoral votes -- around 33 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Putting Clinton on the ticket by no means ensures Obama will win any of the states mentioned above, but adding her as vice president would almost certainly give him some boost -- how large or small is impossible to know -- in each place."

What? The Post actually pays you for this kind of analysis.

Posted by: Upper Marlboro | June 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Ok Chris you mollified the bitter with this one.

But being as the republicans are PRAYING for Hillary to be on the ticket because she is the ONLY thing that can drive their party base to the polls...why would we want such toxic waste?

It makes no sense to give McCain such assistance with a massive turnout of his wing-nut fundamentalist NEO-CON right.

Why would you want to take the wind out of the sails of the Obama supporters who endured one indignity and slander after another from Clinton?

Why would wer want to tar ourselves with the stink of the baby-boom beltway politics that she brings wherever she goes?

Hillary is a Senator. Forever.

Posted by: JBE | June 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I still beleive Clinton is the best candidate and I have absolutely NO faith and confidence in BHO and I will not vote for him, based on party soldidarity.

Obama supporters have their heads in the clouds if they actually believe BHO can make good on all his fairy tale promises. He's already broken promise number one of sticking to the public financing system and he's clearly lied about not taking money from lobbyists and special intrests.

As a lifelong Democrat I am disapointed, because there is NO ONE reprenting the moderate, middle of the roaders like me.

Posted by: CR | June 25, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Fast Eddie" Obama is the first candidate to reject public funding since system's creation.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is a fascinating woman.
What makes her so magical is a combination of various factors; qualities that make her so very mezmerising to men as well as to women.
She has the POWER to FORGIVE. She is an exceptional Christian, YES TRUE CHRISTIAN
Woman. Everything she does is in the eyes of God.
She is Strong, without being hard.
She is Charming, but Just.
Kennedy cheated on Jackie, but she forgave him. Many Christian People do not have it in them to compromise or to forgive, but then, Senator Clinton is an exceptional woman; she has greatness and she does have the ability to FORGIVE. It is the combination of all these qualities, that enables Bill to find her constantly intriguing and fascinating.
Flowers, luwinscy....? Who the he.. are these nobody Bimbos?
They're just jealous, because Hillary,is MAGIC.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is a fascinating woman.
What makes her so magical is a combination of various factors; qualities that make her so very mezmerising to men as well as to women.
She has the POWER to FORGIVE. She is an exceptional Christian, YES TRUE CHRISTIAN
Woman. Everything she does is in the eyes of God.
She is Strong, without being hard.
She is Charming, but Just.
Kennedy cheated on Jackie, but she forgave him. Many Christian People do not have it in them to compromise or to forgive, but then, Senator Clinton is an exceptional woman; she has greatness and she does have the ability to FORGIVE. It is the combination of all these qualities, that enables Bill to find her constantly intriguing and fascinating.
Flowers, luwinscy....? Who the he.. are these nobody Bimbos?
They're just jealous, because Hillary,is MAGIC.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

DRAFT ANYONE BUT HILLARY

Posted by: Someone smarter than John | June 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

DRAFT ANYONE BUT HILLARY HILLARY

Posted by: Someone smarter than John | June 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

DRAFT HILLARY

Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear Fairlington Blade,

He went to Islamic school while growing up in Indonesia. He was named by his Muslim father. He moved back to America and said he did not come to Christianity until he met Rev. Wright! The people who mis-state the facts are people who refuse to read Sen. Obama's books. You can believe whatever you want in this world, but we are electing a President. We should know what they believe and question them on their beliefs. As citizens, we have a duty to fulfill our obligations to our nation and posterity. Why does he lie about it? Christians believe in the power of conversion, and yet he denies it. Why?

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"going back to being a nobody again in the senate. "

Wow. They seem themselves as the "lords of the land."

Posted by: Gary E Masters | June 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

We will never know if Hillary had the super deligate vote or not. Then never voted and what they said was irrelevant. Certainly she (and Obama) operated as if she did have the votes. She tried to last to the Convention and he did everything he could to avoid that.

So why not help pay the bills now? It has happened many other times.

Posted by: Gary E Masters | June 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear kmb08,

Your analysis is spot on. The rules of the Primary are such that winning in traditionally democratic strongholds almost doubles the number of pledged delegates. This fantasyland computing and the MOVEON caucuses helped Sen. Obama win the nomination. The Democratic Leadership can change their minds. The Boat has not sailed. This just like Florida 2000. Why are we in such a hurry to move on to the next election when democracy is in peril now!
Twotasks, You are incorrect. Sen. Clinton overspent for Super Tuesday February and March. She expected to knock out Obama with wins in California, New York, Mass, and New Jersey. The MSM downplayed her victories in the swing states. Look at the results. Campaigns are not a reflection of the candidate's leadership. Dukakis and McGovern had an excellent campaigns until the votes. Carter and Bush W. ran excellent campaigns but are the worst Presidents in modern times. Bill Clinton's campaigns were always putting out fires and scandals, yet his Presidency was more successful even than Pres. Reagan. Pres. Clinton had peace and prosperity and surpluses. Pres. Reagan had peace and prosperity and record deficits. Though we did win the Cold War because of him.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Clinton as VP would do more to unify the Republicans than the Democrats.

Posted by: ES | June 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Reason Why scribbled..."IIn his own books, he recounts his experiences growing up. He was raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity. It is unfathomable that the MSM refuses to recognize the complete record."

Perhaps because you deliberately distorted the record. He's NOT nor ever was a muslim! Not that there's anything wrong with that. [Ah, I miss Seinfeld.]

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is such a pathetic over ambitious woman she is ready to do a Monica if she has to on Obama before going back to being a nobody again in the senate. She stayed with a husband any woman with a drop of self respect would have divorced because of her ambition. There is a name for women like that, it begins with a "W". Hillary is an embarrassment to all women everywhere.

===========
Senator Clinton may not have gotten the Superdelegate Dinosaur Vote, but she did get the popular vote. You know,the HUMAN VOTE.
The stupid rules were created by Dinosaurs, with the intention to deprive Senator Clinton of Victory. The rules were twisted to ensure her defeat.
GREAT NEWS. HILLARY DID NOT FALL. HER ARMOUR HAS SEEN TO THAT.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 1:29 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"An article in today's Chicago Tribune includes this statement: The closest historical parallel is the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ground-breaking 1984 primary run, which also featured a heavy emphasis on voter registration and generated enormous enthusiasm among African-Americans.."
==================
This is a completely different issue than what Bill Clinton was implying when he said that Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina (implying that Obama was merely a "special interest"=read Black=Candidate like Jackson, and would lose like him, read=he won't attract enough white voters.)
==================
"Women have more abortions now than they ever had in the past.
McCain WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERTURN THE ROE v WADE decision."
==================
Keep believing that when McCain, who has vowed to overturn Roe, who has voted against family planning legislation, who only advocates abstinence as a strategy against teenage pregancy, hurls young women back into the "stone-age" of back alley abortions. The Supreme Court is currently ONE VOTE AWAY from overturning Roe; all rational pro-choice women need to know this, and vote accordingly.
==================
"Sen. Obama is no Sen. Wellstone. He says he was against the war but has voted the Party line since. He threw his pastor and grandmother under the bus. He is against NAFTA but now for NAFTA. If you liked the Carter years, then you will love Obama."
===================
That's right, Obama has voted the Progressive Party line most of the time, and I say thank god. We don't need anymore LIEbermans in the Party. BTW, He did not throw his grandmother, who he loves dearly under the bus, he pointed out that white people (of her age) have certain attitudes and misconceptions about black people, and he was RIGHT, he was NOT being perjorative. Obama has Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, Susan Rice, among others as advisors...all of them served in the Clinton Administration. No, Obama is not trying for a Carter Style Presidency, but rather, is looking at the Clinton White House for its financial prudence, and reputation for political moderation. The untold story of this campaign is Obama's lean toward Bill Clinton style moderation in Governance.
==================
"But she also won women over 40 (who vote in huge numbers!), blue collar workers (historically a mainstay of Democratic victories), Latinos and Catholics. If Obama wants to win, he needs these people. Make no mistake about it."
==================
And Obama IS winning over these demographics: more everyday. Take a look at the recent polls. Obama doesn't need Clinton, and I am of the opinion that she has far too heavy baggage to be on the ticket. I want Obama to pick Hagel or Webb, to counterbalance the "far left" charge, and to bring military expertise to the ticket, but the fact is, that there are plenty of talented Democrats out there that would make a fine VEEP.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Obama has offered to help Hillary pay down her debt. Now if that isn't blatantly buying votes, I don't know what else is. Hillary, don't be a fool.

Posted by: JaneAnne | June 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

> Clinton is -- to borrow a phrase -- "Tested. Ready. Now.

That was Nixon's slogan. And, perhaps not coincidentally, after the Gennifer Flowers scandal broke out in 1992 Time (I believe that was the magazine) said he was "the worst presidential candidate since Nixon".

In two words, both Clintons are MENDACIOUS SCUM

Posted by: Gary | June 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton may not have gotten the Superdelegate Dinosaur Vote, but she did get the popular vote. You know,the HUMAN VOTE.
The stupid rules were created by Dinosaurs, with the intention to deprive Senator Clinton of Victory. The rules were twisted to ensure her defeat.
GREAT NEWS. HILLARY DID NOT FALL. HER ARMOUR HAS SEEN TO THAT.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton may not have gotten the Superdelegate Dinosaur Vote, but she did get the popular vote. You know,the HUMAN VOTE.
The stupid rules were created by Dinosaurs, with the intention to deprive Senator Clinton of Victory. The rules were twisted to ensure her defeat.
GREAT NEWS. HILLARY DID NOT FALL. HER ARMOUR HAS SEEN TO THAT.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Magdalen wrote:

She has proved her worthability to be President, no doupt about it. Small wonder 18 Million People feel cheated and robbed.

My Comment:
Get over it. Clinton fought hard in the primary process. She amassed an amazing number of votes and has a lot of committed, smart, loyal supporters. But these supporters were not "cheated or robbed". The fact is that, by the rules of the game in effect during the primary season, Obama ended up with more of the kind of votes that count. Whether it is possible to craft one or more metrics that put Sen. Clinton in front does not change the fact that in the metric that counted, she finished second.

You can be sure that the Obama supporters would have been able to feel even more cheated and robbed if he didn't get the nomination after winning using the rules that were in place at the time.

Posted by: Get Over It | June 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Magdalen: you realize that she lost, right? Good strategist and leader yes. Best? Dunno. She would make a solid VP.

Posted by: steve boyington | June 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Luis, no argument about the seriousness of the economic and geopolitcal issues on the table.

Please be more specific. I was under the impression that her campaign was broke in January. I feel strongly that it is a reflection on her leadership ability. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING else. You keep brining up everything else Except the fact that she was not in solid financial shape very early on in the campaign. If you would like, I could look up some numbers for you. Why are you so sure that her financial situation is not her fault? This strong role model, potential leader of the free world..............evidently cannot balance her check book. Income...Outgo...keep track of yourself and therefore your campaign.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton will NOT be obama's coffee maker. She is a LEADER, and that is not because she is white or a woman.
A black man has as much right to be a President as any white Woman.
The bottom line is, Senator Clinton is not just any white woman. Her magnificent accomplishment of collecting 18 Million Votes is a reality, not a fairy tale.
Senator Clinton is the most politically competent and brilliant strategist the Democrats have right now.
She has proved her worthability to be President, no doupt about it. Small wonder 18 Million People feel cheated and robbed.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton will NOT be obama's coffee maker. She is a LEADER, and that is not because she is white or a woman.
A black man has as much right to be a President as any white Woman.
The bottom line is, Senator Clinton is not just any white woman. Her magnificent accomplishment of collecting 18 Million Votes is a reality, not a fairy tale.
Senator Clinton is the most politically competent and brilliant strategist the Democrats have right now.
She has proved her worthability to be President, no doupt about it. Small wonder 18 Million People feel cheated and robbed.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"If the Democratic superdelegates change their minds, Hillary can still be the nominee. Our country needs the best candidate - Sen. Clinton."

I sympathize Luis, but this ship has sailed. The best we can hope for is Obama/Clinton, with him giving her a serious portfolio a la Gore and (unfortunately!) Cheney. He would instantly unify the party with this one decision. And isn't this exactly what he's supposed to be about? As I said earlier, the election would be doubly historic and electrifying. Obama/Clinton would be tough to beat. But there are two big questions: will he ask her? AND will she accept if he does?

Engaging in a bit more fantasy/speculation...He could name Bill as the main point man on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Or perhaps as special ambassador to the African continent. In either case, Bill would probably be thrilled to have an opportunity to burnish his legacy.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

To the Obama supporters: It seems a bit silly to point out pardons when all Presidents give them.

It seems a bit silly to point out associations when your guy has some of the most divisive and inflammatory around.

It seems a bit silly to speak of Washington Unusual, when your guy has former Clinton era workers hired on his campaign. He has former "registered" lobbyists on his campaign. He takes advise from lobbyists each day. He's in deep with the petroleum industry lobbyists. He has the backing and endorsements from some of the most entrenched Washington dynasties, e.g., Kennedy, Byrd, Kerry.

It seems a bit silly to think your guy is above the ugly Washington tactics when he used surrogates such as Bill Burton to pass memos daily to networks trying to add fuel to the fire at any opportune time.

BO called two politicians who have spent their lives working for civil/education rights racists. This was dirty, but it worked beautifully. He solidified the black vote, and never had to work for it again.

Sure, BO was in the legislature in Illinois. This is where he earned the reputation of "gutless" from his colleagues because he tended to be "gone" when time to make the tough votes. He almost came to blows with one colleague after BO mistakenly voted to cut off funds for a child welfare office in the colleague's district. Emil Jones padded BO's resume' by placing BO's name on pieces of legislation BO didn't actually do work on, and this move angered many of his Senate colleagues. How about BO blocking candidates from having their names on the ballot so he could run uncontested. Yes, he's sure noble!!

The worst thing about BO is his hypocritical nature. He points the finger at all other candidates, but he is a master at doing whatever it takes to win. Of course, he had lots of help from Howard Dean and other party activists.

FISA...your guy caved in and wants to allow the telecom industry complete immunity. What a guy...he's really standing up for principles on this one. BY the way, Hillary is against this bill.

IRAQ..Now, he says his timetable might be a bit aggressive. He's scaling back his talk of pulling troops out.

NAFTA..Told voters one thing, but his advisor whispered something quite differently to Canadian official.

PUBLIC FINANCING..He'd rather break his promise and let his donors max out their credit cards so the taxpayers have to pay even more before it's all said and done. Anything to win...that's the main thing!

PRESIDENTIAL SEAL...Who the hell does he thing he is. Talk about arrogant and entitled!!

From the end of February on...Hillary beat BO's ass by just about every measure available. She simply put too many resources in Iowa, which was unfortunate. Before Iowa, the tv pundits were talking about how organized her campaign was. She didn't go from organized to inept. She had to refocus, and refocus she did...this is why she beat the socks off BO from Feb. onward. Sure..BO has the preacher oratory down pat...as long as he has a teleprompter. Give the same words...urgency of now, turn the page, our time has come, blah blah blah to someone else, and they never would have had a chance. He gives a great speech..nothing more, nothing less.

Hillary knows policy extensively. She has compassion/passion, she listens, and she works her heart out. I truly hope she doesn't want the VP spot. I don't plan on voting for BO. I just can't because nothing angers me more than a hypocrite, and he's the epitome of one.

Hillary sits on many committees, and she is known to be so knowledgeable on policy. If she were his VP, she'd do the work, and again, he'd get the credit. No Thanks!

Many say Hillary wouldn't be where she is today if not for BC. Well, Hillary worked on human rights issues long before she met BC. Hillary was the first woman to give the commencement address at Wellesley College. Hillary had her face on the cover of Life before she met BC. We don't know what she would have become. They both helped each other. There is no politician who reaches the top without many connections. BO couldn't have done it without the "under the table" shenanigans that were pulled in Chicago.

BO could only win due to caucuses and blocking a revote in MI/FL. What an illegitimate nominee! BO is just very fortunate an urban vote counted for more than a rural vote. Thank the stars for disproportionment!

Posted by: kmb08 | June 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Dear Twotraps,

You are incorrect. Her campaign was not in debt in January. She lost money during February and had tremendous expenditures for Super Tuesday and March primaries. Her campaign never recovered. If she was the nominee, she would have been in a surplus. The issue should not be about money which is what the MSM wants to now cover. The issue is the convention. If the Democratic superdelegates change their minds, Hillary can still be the nominee. Our country needs the best candidate - Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama is unelectable! This is about experience, sincerity, and qualifications. Remember, we are at war economically and militarily all over the world. If we do not protect the dollar, then our seniors will have nothing to live on and our next generation will have a worse standard of living then their parents. This is unacceptable.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Let's put some numbers to this discussion. From an article by Tony Romm, June 6, 2008:

"According to a May 30-June 3 CBS News poll (PDF), 59 percent of Democratic primary voters want Clinton as Obama's running mate. That sentiment was similarly echoed in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted on Thursday, in which 54 percent of registered Democrats also supported the so-called "dream ticket."

Presumably, those numbers possess increased significance in an election fraught with discussion about defection rates. According to the CBS poll, 22 percent of Clinton supporters say they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. Additionally, 7 percent claim they're undecided, and 8 percent say they won't vote at all.

CBS reports that 12 percent of all Democrats currently support McCain, an increase from the 8 percent that deserted John Kerry for George Bush in 2004."

(Link: http://www.voteboth.com/node/107)

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is Obama's best choice for VP. That said, there is no reason for Hillary to accept the offer, should Obama do so. There are a lot of upside for Obama to pick Hillary, but only downside for Hillary. Should Obama offer and Hillary accepts, Hillary would probably suffer 2 loses in a row and I just don't see any upside for her.

Posted by: CP Cook | June 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs Hillary - not the other way around. The disappointment about the nomination process is closer to disgust - it wasn't democratic; it was decreed, and Hillary supporters will not forget. Obama's campaign is showing signs of weakness and asking Hillary for help would be his best move.

Posted by: Monique from NC | June 25, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I think obama's campaign is largely funded
by Muslim Moderates. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I do like the idea of Hillary as VP.....but what about Bill? What do you do with him? Think he'll be quiet during the campaign? Can he be sent on vacation to Tuzla? Obama has run a masterful campaign that has tapped into the mood of this country. I started off as a Hillary supporter but changed once Bill's tone changed. All that finger wagging reminded me of "that woman" stuff. Hillary does have baggage, a lot of debt and an unfaithful husband. For any other candidate they wouldn't even be mentioned in this column. But Hillary has risen above her awful campaign and in spite of her husband is probably the best choice. I really don't see anyone else out there that could help so much.

Posted by: Bob Y | June 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza, you still beating the drum for veep Clinton?

Do you have no since of reality or shame?

The Clintons are first, last and always MONEY GRUBBERS.

Her current behavior is about getting money. Dolars, $ bucks, cash, moolaugh, greenbacks- Power is nice, and it bring more money--etc.


Posted by: MONEY GRUBBERS | June 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"What Republican woman could McCain name, by the way? Haley Barbour? She has closets in her skeletons. Maybe Harriet Miers?"

Every time I switch on CNN, there always seems to be a black, female Republican giving her commentary. Maybe McCain can pick one of them

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

In addition to the states you've mentioned, Hillary Clinton on the ticket probably brings along Arkansas too. And Bill Clinton, which will probably be one of your reasons against the ticket on Friday, can spend most of his time in every nook and cranny of Arkansas getting Obama-Clinton elected and not making trouble elsewhere.

Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I should be more specific, I don't support Obama. I also do not support Miss $20 Million in debt and feel the strongly the nation doged a bullet with her out of the race.

Also, you are corrrect. Obama did hire the FORMER campaign manager. I may be wrong on this but didn't Hillary fire that lady?? I could use some correcting on the facts for sure, and I seriously appreciate it, but you will have a hard time convincing people that the DNC, Obama, Moveon, or any other group or person had much to do with the management of Hillary's campaign finances.

Forget everything else, how was she broke last January? Superior management? Excellent planning and execution? Disciplined application of their strategy?

Please, support Hillary all you want but if the race was so close, how is one in so much debt?

Try again.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, I agree that sexism may have been a factor in the primary campaign. BUT, and this is a big but(no pun intended), the voters that were most likely to be sexist/patriarchal, 'downscale' voters, WERE VOTING FOR HILLARY ANYWAYS! She won the conservative democrat vote."

Hey Rick.
It's true that she won conservative dems (can anyone say "Reagan Democrat"?). But she also won women over 40 (who vote in huge numbers!), blue collar workers (historically a mainstay of Democratic victories), Latinos and Catholics. If Obama wants to win, he needs these people. Make no mistake about it.

Representing HRC's supporters as knuckle-draggers will mean a McCain victory for sure.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Dear Twotraps,

Why did Sen. Obama hire Clinton's former campaign manager?

The reason Sen. Clinton is in debt is because in February the DNC threw their support to Sen. Obama. Sen. Clinton is the best candidate to win in Nov. Sen. Obama is too inexperienced, insincere, and inadequate for the Presidency. He has a better campaign. They have marketed and packaged him better. However, he is unelectable. He signed a pledge and threw it into the garbage. I am a Hillary supporter and I used to love Sen. Wellstone. Sen. Obama is no Sen. Wellstone. He says he was against the war but has voted the Party line since. He threw his pastor and grandmother under the bus. He is against NAFTA but now for NAFTA. If you liked the Carter years, then you will love Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Please Help, I'm $20,000,000 in debt and really need your help. Any donations would be good. Thanks.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Chris. Without Hillary, Senator Obama is already ahead in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida as well as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Washington, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Connecticut and one point ahead in Indiana to name a few states.

It doesn't mean Obama will carry all those states on election day; it just shows he is doing quite well without Hillary.

Obama needs to select his own VP candidate, not a person who thinks they should be a co-president.

Chris, will your next in depth article for the WP be an item on "Is the Earth Really Round or Is It Flat?"

Posted by: Idahotreasures | June 25, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

DHarper....what an awesome post. He mentions the fact that the clintons have been on the govt dole since their 20's, protecting them from real life experiences...very interesting, well done.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Lafit1, learn to spell, get off the caps, and find your way to the ballot box, and someone might pay more attention to you.

Posted by: will s | June 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SO SAD THAT PEOPLE FROM THIS COUNTRY ARE LOOSING TOUCH.

VOTING FOR SOMEONE THAT WE DO NOT EVEN SURE WHERE HIS COMING FROM.

THE ONLY THING WE KNOW: IS THAT HE IS SON OF A TIPICAL WHITE WOMAN AND A BLACK MUSLIM MAN.

TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IT IS OBVEOUS HE MISS SPOKE OF THE BIBLE HE CONFUSED HIMSELF WITH THE CORAN.

HIS EXPERIENCE IS THE ONE HE GOT IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO, WORKING WITH HOMELESS AND DRUG ADDICTED PEOPLE IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO.

IS HE READY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY??? NO WAY

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"What Republican woman could McCain name, by the way? Haley Barbour? She has closets in her skeletons. Maybe Harriet Miers?"

Don't kid yourself. There are plenty of possibilities. Some mentioned would be too controversial (e.g. Condi Rice). Other's (e.g., Carly Fiorina) would appeal to the business/moderate wing of his own party. But still others might have very broad appeal. For example, Sarah Palin, the popular, young (44), stylish (a la Obama) governor of Alaska is often mentioned. She is described as a "pro-life feminist" who has been supportive of gay rights (though not gay marriage).

BTW - skeletons or not, Haley Barbour is a man! LOL!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Do not be fooled. The "I'm going to vote McCain" messages you see are from a few sweatshops and boiler rooms of devoted Republican volunteers."

Really?? Well put me down as someone who has voted Dem for nearly 50 years, except for the Clinton years, and I will be voting for McCain if a Clinton is anywhere near the ticket. We know them all too well down here.

Posted by: billy | June 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SO SAD THAT PEOPLE FROM THIS COUNTRY ARE LOOSING TOUCH.

VOTING FOR SOMEONE THAT WE DO NOT EVEN SURE WHERE HIS COMING FROM.

THE ONLY THING WE KNOW: IS THAT HE IS SON OF A TIPICAL WHITE WOMAN AND A BLACK MUSLIM MAN.

TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IT IS OBVEOUS HE MISS SPOKE OF THE BIBLE HE CONFUSED HIMSELF WITH THE CORAN.

HIS EXPERIENCE IS THE ONE HE GOT IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO, WORKING WITH HOMELESS AND DRUG ADDICTED PEOPLE IN THE STREETS OF CHICAGO.

IS HE READY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY??? NO WAY

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Brian RF
Barr Hack O'Bamby has about as much credibility as a Dinosaur.


Mike in Sac
What a mature name, it's a shame you spoil your maturity by sounding like something from out of the Jurassic Period.
It is very true that Republican's like Bush and McCain are anti abortion, and yet
Women have more abortions now than they ever had in the past.
McCain WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERTURN THE ROE v WADE decision.
You want to know why? It is because Women's bodies belong to them, and they always WILL.

Do you also look like a Dinosaur? Eeww....

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Cadbury:

Yes, I agree that sexism may have been a factor in the primary campaign. BUT, and this is a big but(no pun intended), the voters that were most likely to be sexist/patriarchal, 'downscale' voters, WERE VOTING FOR HILLARY ANYWAYS! She won the conservative democrat vote. She pandered to the very same people that held women down for so long! What hypocracy!

The assumption here is that racism and sexism tend to be comorbid diseases of the ignorant class of whites who voted for HRC. Therefore, it's a more/less moot question whether there was sexism: she would have got those votes if she was a damn moose.

On the other hand, Obama lost several points simply because he was black. Yes, he might have gained a few, but lets remember that white voters make up a larger proportion of the dem party and that black voters HAVE voted for white candidates before whereas the racist whites who voted against Obama haven't voted for a black candidate.

Posted by: rick020 | June 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Isn't it interesting how America is always for the underdog. Now that Hellary has lost the nomination, the media finds cause to praise her. Please stop."

I read a good explanation on this the other day. Americans of today, were raised on TV and the movies. No matter whether a person is good, bad, or indifferent, if they have seen them a lot on TV that makes them someone to be looked up to. A proven liar and cheat can be shown on TV many times and they are suddenly alright in the American eye. In other words, morals went out with the invention of TV.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Dear Luis....again, we must be talking about different things....or you are such a Hillary supporter you have taken to 'miss-speaking' and 'miss-remembering'.

She did win many, many votes. My point was that her campaign was not well run from a financial and personell standpoint. Being broke back in january was a telling sign of her handle on her own campaign. You really can separate the two...her votes and her poorly run campaign. Why is she so much in debt? If the race was so close, and many argue should have been given to Hillary since she won the poplular vote....How did she get so broke?

Along with miss-speak, miss-remember, miss-place (key files at certain key trials)...and now...miss-manage!!!!!!!

Super close, exciting race...one is solvent, one is 20 Million in the hole.

Miss-management.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

There is an organized, systematic project underway at the RNC to post 'troll' comments on boards like this purporting to be from HRC supporters who will back McCain. They're working from Richard Viguere's playbook (with Frank Luntz cheering them on) in hopes of perpetuating the 'meme' that McCain is a centrist acceptable to Dems and Indies.

Do not be fooled. The "I'm going to vote McCain" messages you see are from a few sweatshops and boiler rooms of devoted Republican volunteers.

Posted by: Not Gullible | June 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

An Obama-Petraeus ticket would sweep the board.

Posted by: Eric Yendall | June 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

First, I have to get something off my chest:

HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!*

There, that felt good.

Now, to the substance of the piece. IMO, Obama should concern himself not only with getting elected, but also governing after he does get elected. I think he can win without Hillary on the ticket, and I'm concerned that when (not if) all the "Clinton baggage" -- Bill's and Hill's -- got trotted out in a general election (the pardons, the library donors, the campaign loans, etc.), she would become a drag on the ticket. I also have -- and so should Obama -- grave concerns as to whether she and he could work together.

*Unless you include the soviet-style election in Michigan and don't include estimates from the caucus states.

Posted by: jac13 | June 25, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
You wrote "Such a vice president might be able to reassure voters concerned about Obama's relatively thin resume in elected office."
I just want to point out that, when you include his years in the state legislature and the U.S. Senate, Obama has spent more years in elective office than Hillary Clinton. Is it that tough for you guys in D.C. to acknowledge the skills someone develops in a state legislature as being significant?

Posted by: Stewie1 | June 25, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse


Quote: "Polling seems to suggest that Clinton is seen as someone with considerable knowledge about health care, the economy, and foreign affairs."

Pardon me, while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing. She had 8 years to change health care. She wouldn't even consult her own party, and her plan was laughed off the table. And her experience as First Lady gave her all knowledge about the economy and foreign affairs??

That is hilarious. What a journalist!!

Posted by: bill | June 25, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse


The only way this Democrat will vote for Barack Obama in the fall is if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.


Posted by: Vnd22 | June 25, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

An article in today's Chicago Tribune includes this statement: The closest historical parallel is the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ground-breaking 1984 primary run, which also featured a heavy emphasis on voter registration and generated enormous enthusiasm among African-Americans. Even though Jackson did not win the nomination and Walter Mondale was on the ballot instead, black voter turnout that fall was up 11 percent from four years earlier, likely reflecting the rise in black voter registration, which also rose 11 percent, according to U.S. Census statistics
--------------------------------------
When Bill Clinton compared Obama and Jessie Jackson, Obama and his supporters cried racism and used that very effectively against Hillary. Now all of a sudden, Jessie Jackson's campaign is the closest historical parallel to Obama's. Are Obama and his supporters going to attack the Chicago Tribune for their racism? Here's the web site for the article. I'll be checking it regularly, looking for your comments.
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obamas_10_percent_solution.html

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Janet8:

Are you omniscient? You may favor one poll over the other, but it is only because it is in line with what you believe. How can you claim to KNOW anything? Your zealous arrogance is rather unpleasant to witness.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is mighty darn lucky to have Senator Clinton supporting him in any way. If I were her, and he offered me the position of VP on his ticket, (which I truly doubt his male, sexist ego would allow him to actually do),I would tell him politely, 'Thanks but no thanks. I got along without you before, and I sure as hell can get along without you now!'

Posted by: mpwynn@spro.net | June 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Very interesting the Barack won the vast majority of educated whites. Hillary cobbled together a coalition of the the elderly and less-educated. Those are the plain facts, and they seem to be reflected in these postings. (Hmmm, could it be that the elderly and less-educated are more prone to racist tendencies?)

Posted by: trace1 | June 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone other that Hillary, Bill, real Democrats and intelligent independents realize that Obama won the primary? We all accept it so why don't you Republicans playing Democrats zip it up? All Democrats are voting for change in Washington. American people will be heard, and listened to when change comes to Washington. Democrats must win in '08

Posted by: Honesty | June 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Mike in Sac:

The author said at the beginning of the article that this was a piece arguing why Clinton SHOULD be the VP. The argument AGAINST is to be printed Friday. How can someone comment on an article without reading it?

Posted by: St. Louis | June 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The small percent, and small minded, who will not vote for Obama or say they will vote for McSame are most likely really GOP losers who are pissed that they are going to be killed this November.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

A day without Hellary would be a day full of sunshine.

Isn't it interesting how America is always for the underdog. Now that Hellary has lost the nomination, the media finds cause to praise her. Please stop.

We should all be thankful that she lost to Obama and we should all get behind Obama and support him. Another four years of John McBush would leave this country in ruins beyond repair.

Posted by: Vampirella | June 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Did you read that most of the few supporters in line to welcome Hillary back to the senate were interns who were ordered to line up.

That's Hillary, if you can't get a crowd together, make up one.

The DNC is missing a chance to banish the Clintons once and for all.

Posted by: bill | June 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Corrected version, also you can make any statement if you live in Chicago, and yes Mr. Obama can change Illinois and make a different, he has not!!!!


One must judge what a man will do in the future based on what he has done in the past. Obama has done nothing for the people of Illinois. I live in Chicago and we are paying the highest sales taxes in the country because of the tax happy democrats. They just didn't raise taxes on the rich. They raised taxes on the poor that barely make ends meet in the inner city. People have to drive out of the city and Crook County (controlled by the dems) to buy goods cheaper. The state wants to raise our income taxes. A lot of folks are moving to Indiana to escape from the tax happy democrats.

Mr Obama has done nothing but flap his gums. He says a lot of nothing. Have you ever gone to his Senate web site and look at his voting record? He is never voting on any bills because he is never there to vote.

I don't know where you are from, but I must say that living in the state of Illinois where Obama is a prominent politician is not a good place to be.

Look at his record! He has zero accomplishments.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Mike in Sac wrote:

"Why is there no discussion of the negatives that Hillary brings. If we are to look at the case for Hillary we must take a balanced approach...I expect better from you. This fix seems more like a biased piece instead of a thoughtful and reflective analysis."

Hey, pal, you must not be a regular here. Chris discusses the pros of a potential veep one day and then the cons the next day. He actually does quite well to provide a "thoughtful and reflective analysis" over the two day span which he's done several, several times now.

The media aren't to blame for all of society's ills. Calm down tiger.

Posted by: BrianRF | June 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

i couldn't have said it better myself. However, since you have said here that they fit perfectly together, I'm not so sure how you're going to make the argument against her. She's fully vetted too, more than any politician in modern history. The only potential issue would be Bill's donors to his presidential library. But event that is small potatoes and no body really cares. We just want equality for all americans, lower gas prices, affordable college..... we don't give a hoot who contributed money to Bill's library. Plus, its HILLARY as VP, not Bill...so who cares! I don't. Just fix the economy!

Posted by: Dem in FL | June 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Really? He puts Hillary on the ticket or a Clinton anywhere near the White House and he has lost my support, and the support of thousands in this area.

That's change?? It's politics as usual.

Posted by: willy | June 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

All you people bashing Obama must be the ones that voted for Bush and put our country in this downward spiral. You should be real proud of yourselves for your voting for McCain to extend it. You had rather see this country go further down than over come your idiotic racism. Obama, Hillary, Bill and I are Democrats and will not vote for an extended Bush term. Your excuses for not voting for Obama are pathetic, and easily seen through. Why don't you quit writing these posts that are two feet long just to prove your intelligence, because they are not impressive and are not only non-informative but boring.

Posted by: Honesty | June 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!

B.HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A BIG FIASCO. HE IS FAKE!! INCLUDING DOSE BEHIND HIM.

HE OFFENDS THAN HE APOLOGIES. WITH APOLOGIES YOU DO NOT FIX THE MISTAKES.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Why is there no discussion of the negatives that Hillary brings. If we are to look at the case for Hillary we must take a balanced approach. Weigh the pros AND CONS. She would turn out the Republican base, raise issues with Bill's business deals, represent anti-change which muddys the message of Obama, and the list goes on.

The main PRO argument should be that as VP she would help him with voters, but he is already ahead in the polls in the main areas he needs. This includes PA, MI, OH and FL. Hmm.. Then how about women? She can bring in the women, right? Wrong.

The surveys are in, Barack Obama has already won over 80% of Hillary's voters. Women are coming onboard as they examine McCain's record on issues important to them, such as Roe v. Wade. He opposes women's rights and wants to appoint Justices to overturn this decision.

It probably also doesn't help that he cheated on his first wife after she had been disfigured in an accident and married his mistress, now trophy wife.

The voting block that Obama has to reach and win over is the white male. That is the only demographic group he needs help with right now. Hillary won't do that for him.

Sam Nunn would do that and help get Georgia. Chuck Hagel would also be a good pick and promote Obama's intention of bringing in Republicans. The un-politician as you suggest.

Hillary isn't the answer. Block and tackle eh? If that is the case go for a pillar of virtue. Her background (Bill's business dealings) becomes a huge issue that could far more detract from the campaign than help.

I expect better from you. This fix seems more like a biased piece instead of a thoughtful and reflective analysis.

Posted by: Mike in Sac | June 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

GE wrote:

"One must judge what a man will do in the future based on what he has done in the past. Barak has done nothing for the people of Illinois. I live in Chicago and we are paying the highest sales taxes in the country because of the tax happy democrats. The state wants to raise our income taxes. A lot of folks are moving to Indiana to escape from the tax happy democrats."

First of all, GE, no one is moving to Indiana from Chicago. At least not on purpose. If you'd like to leave our city, you're more than welcome given your ignorant drivel.

Secondly, his name is Barack, not Barak. It cuts down on your credibility when you can't even spell the name of the person about whom you're ranting.

Lastly, Senator Obama has no control over what the state of Illinois does. He did when he was in the state legislature but he isn't any longer. Why blame someone for something over which they have no control? It's like blaming you for kittens dying. You don't control that, do you?

Posted by: BrianRF | June 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

To Nana4:

You are correct, I did fail to admonish those that would vote Republican if Hillary was on the ticket. They too are not any better than those that I addressed, however, in my own defense I chose the Hillary supporters because they seem to be the most boisterous, opinionated, and emotional.

Which brings me to your point about "Politics as a business...." and how people need to shed "emotions", etc. The truth is that I agree with you, but the sad fact is that "Politics" is driven by emotions, etc. Witness the fact G.W. Bush was elected by "Security Moms" (formerly known as "Soccer Moms" in a previous election) and religious interests that were mobilized. Lets not forget how emotional everyone becomes whenever gun-control or abortion is mentioned. Also, the image that Kerry had thrust upon him by Bush in 2004 which branded him as elitist and not-in-touch. The list goes on and on.

The conclusion, politics IS deeply associated with emotions, persona, etc., and trying to divorce yourself of emotions is virtually impossible. Clinical thinking is not something that comes easily to everyone.

So, until we as voters can truly concentrate on the issues and divorce ourselves from our emotions, the winners will still be based on how we relate to them emotionally, etc.

One final thought on rational thinking, years ago, as a very young person, I went into a bar and behind the counter, on the wall, was a big sign that read:

"Gentleman are discouraged from having conversations pertaining to or involving Women, Politics, or Religion.

Thank you,
The Management"

I asked the bar tender why and he said those are all "Emotional" topics and have always ended up in a brawl.

Posted by: JnWilderness | June 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

DO YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS FORGET THE OTHER HALF OF THE COUNTRY VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON.IF YOU WANT HIM TO WIN YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT THE OTHER HALF OF THE COUNTRY'S WISHES.IF YOU ARE OPPOSED PLEASE PUSH THE LEVER FOR MCCAIN THATS YOUR ONLY OPTION.

Posted by: MYRA | June 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

This is in addition to losing Florida and Ohio.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse


THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY A DISASTER. AFTER HUSSEIN BECOME THE NOMENEE.

BARACK HUSSEIN AND HIS BLACK SUPREMACIST CONGREGATION ARE ONLY LOOKING TO PROMOTE AND ENRICH THEIR RACE.

THEY HATE AMERICA AS CLEARLY EXPRESSED BY BARACK'S RELIGIOUS LEADER SPIRITUAL ADVISER. JW.

PEOPLE ARE BLIND, EVERYBODY WILL BE SORRY IF HE BECOME A PRESIDENT.

Posted by: LAFIT1 | June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

This is in addition to losing Florida and Ohio.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

One must judge what a man will do in the future based on what he has done in the past. Obama has done nothing for the people of Illinois. I live in Chicago and we are paying the highest sales taxes in the country because of the tax happy democrats. They just didn't raise taxes on the rich. They raised taxes on the poor that barely make ends meet in the inner city. People have to drive out of the city and Crook County (controlled by the dems) to buy goods cheaper. The state wants to raise our income taxes. A lot of folks are moving to Indiana to escape from the tax happy democrats.

Mr Obama has done nothing but flap his gums. He says a lot of nothing. Have you ever gone to his Senate web site and look at his voting record? He is never voting on any bills because he is never there to vote.

I don't know where you are from, but I must say that living in the state of Illinois where Barak is a prominent politician is not a good place to be.

Look at his record! He has zero accomplishments.

Posted by: GE | June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"Please be prepared to defend California and Mass if Sen. Obama gets the nominatiion."

I think I'm up for that challenge

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Baracle Clinton = BC = Bill Clinton

Posted by: larry | June 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Dear twotraps,

A poorly run campaign is when the campaign you lose. Hillary won more votes than anyone. The facts are plain to all. MOVEON helped Sen. Obama. The Democratic leadership disenfranchised Florida and Michigan. Please be prepared to defend California and Mass if Sen. Obama gets the nominatiion. He is unelectable because he is inadequate, inexperienced, and insincere. The Democratic Leadership must wake up and CHANGE their votes.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Ge, when you intentionally misspell someones name, you're opinion becomes nothing.

Posted by: Chad | June 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

One must judge what a man will do in the future based on what he has done in the past. Barak has done nothing for the people of Illinois. I live in Chicago and we are paying the highest sales taxes in the country because of the tax happy democrats. They just didn't raise taxes on the rich. They raised taxes on the poor that barely make ends meet in the inner city. People have to drive out of the city and Crook County (controlled by the dems) to buy goods cheaper. The state wants to raise our income taxes. A lot of folks are moving to Indiana to escape from the tax happy democrats.

Mr Obama has done nothing but flap his gums. He says a lot of nothing. Have you ever gone to his Senate web site and look at his voting record? He is never voting on any bills because he is never there to vote.

I don't know where you are from, but I must say that living in the state of Illinois where Barak is a prominent politician is not a good place to be.

Look at his record! He has zero accomplishments.

Posted by: Ge | June 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

1)The idea of the public's money being spent to pay for H.Clinton's campaign debts is another instance of the presumptuousness that characterized her whole campaign. Those funds came from people who forked over their hard-earned cash to back up their anti-Clinton convictions. This money was these people's way of voting in a very meaningful way, and much more reliable than exit polls. This is the ultimate outcome of her feelings of entitlement and greed: taking funds donated by the public who believed that she would be unsatisfactory as President, to pay off her debts due to a campaign that lasted too long, and caused enough bitterness among Democrats to split the party. It is not as if she were broke and had no financial future: both she and her husband still have many millions, and she is still a senator from New York, and he commands plenty of money with every speech he gives. Twenty one-hour speeches will make up for the losses of that money very nicely. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were already handsomely bailed out once, after he left office, and now they expect it again.
2)Due to her bitter remarks during her overlong campaign, she has used up a lot of time and energy saying things about B.Obama that show that there are irreconcilable differences between the two, at the very least in temperament. I don't see how there could not be residual distrust and negative personal feelings between the two in any of their associations. Any attempt to unite them in a running team to lead this country would certainly seem an artificial and, in the end, opportunistic and even cynical grab at votes by the Democrats. Does anybody really, truly believe that either one could forget the negative statements that were made for months and months? Don't people believe that all candidates are, after all, people, with personal feelings that they respond to?
3)Have people forgotten what H.Clinton revealed about herself during the campaign? Can they overlook that she has little use for the truth when it is not in her favor, or that she is nasty, bitter, uncompromising, ungracious, selfish, backbiting and unscruplous? If she were vice president, does anybody doubt that she (and her husband, who is a very real concern, influence-wise)would undermine the president in any way that she could?
3) As for her negative statements about B.Obama's unpreparedness and inexperience because he has just been a senator: Is that what she said when she was campaigning for B.Clinton to assume the presidency? He had the same qualifications as B.Obama has.
4) Her own qualifications are magnified as well. Until going to the White House, the job she held longer than any other was as a highly-paid corporate lawyer. In my book, defending Wal-Mart is not public service. Neither is being First Lady: that just means that she married correctly. As far as her service in the White House, that is kind of nebulous, due to her own habit of bragging and re-thinking what she says. Does she or doesn't she take credit for events in the White House during those eight years, both good and bad? It must have been a big shock for her to find out that the Clinton years were not as universally popular as she imagined, even among Democrats. One would hope that a candidate for major office would have more of an insight into the real world, or at least not be surrounded by yes-men who fed her fantasies.

Posted by: NYU | June 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed with this Obama on remarks this morning on my email site, that Obama wants supporter to foot Clintons bill. It is really a big disgrace!!!!! He is using her like a peg ball. Why doesn't he foot the bill, since she is helping him in his campaigne. He is really a disgrace... I really hope she changes her mind on helping him on this campaigne.

Posted by: Al | June 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed with this Obama on remarks this morning on my email site, that Obama wants supporter to foot Clintons bill. It is really a big disgrace!!!!! He is using her like a peg ball. Why doesn't he foot the bill, since she is helping him in his campaigne. He is really a disgrace... I really hope she changes her mind on helping him on this campaigne.

Posted by: Al | June 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"As a Hilary supporter ... must help elect John McCain, a patriot that risked his life for the country we love."
Manolete

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
Sen John McCain, GOP fund-raiser, Washington D.C., June 1998

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_McCain

Posted by: BK | June 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

obama,
You are not the Knight in Shining Armor,
Women have been waiting for over the last hundred years.
In the Outback of the Kenyan Bush,
you would not expect to see women save other other women.
Here in the US Women are done with the Dinosaurs.
Senator Clinton has become our Knight in Shining Armor.
You would have Women believe, that
John McCain will be bad for Women.
Don't be so RIDICULOUS.
Women Knights in Shining Armour may not exactly be John McCain's favorite look,
but he knows, that Women have come too far
in the last one hundred years in their fight for their many rights, to have them overturned at the blink of an eye.
obama, ever heard of Joan of Arc, Bodica,
Deborah and Elisabeth 1st of England?
They all looked mighty fine in their Shining Armor, but none of them look as glorious and resplendent as Senator Clinton does in her Heroine Attire.
Stop badgering John McCain and your scare mongering falls on deaf ears for us Women.
obama, grow up Little Boy,throw your little pee wee tantrums and............

GET OVER IT.

Posted by: magdalen | June 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Bourassa, FYI, Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, is a man.

The best clue that Obama will eventually come around and pick Clinton as running mate is Obama's decision to opt out of public financing. For most of the past year, the goal has been to get nominated; now, it's about getting elected, not about making your starry-eyed primary fans happy. Obama-Clinton can win, so look for another (horrors!) capitulation to old-style just-win-baby politics. Obama-Clinton.

Posted by: Chris | June 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is "thoroughly vetted" only as of about 1999 or 2000.

The Marc Rich pardon is only one of many issues that have not experienced the full glare of media scrutiny. Nothing in Bill Clinton's record from 2000 to the present was going to be "vetted" in a Democratic primary. The hit piece in Vanity Fair, though it reeked with anonymous sources and gossip, was a rare exception. Most coverage included Bill Clinton's gaffes or achievements on the trail, but nothing about that interim period.

Would you recommend any other potential vice president with such complex financial questions and allegations hovering over his or her spouse? The memory of Geraldine Ferraro's husband's finances, which were chickenfeed in terms of dollar figures compared to this situation, should rule out this idea.

Posted by: Sorry, it won't work | June 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"Now, I'm certainly more open to a McCain-Hillary ticket. They have obvious differences, but they are both MODERATES, which means they don't belong to the radical wings of their respective parties."
==============
Clearly you have NO idea what any of the Candidate's positions on the issues are. John McCain is anything but moderate; belief in Global Warming, and supporting campaign finance with a Democrat, does not a moderate make. McCain voted the hard-right Bush agenda 95% of the time last year; further, he has been given a solid 82% Conservative rating by groups that rate the issues. Clinton's positions are very similar to Obama's, in fact, they have voted the Same during their time together in the Senate in all but 2 Votes. Both Obama and Clinton veer toward the center. McCain is anti-choice, Obama and Clinton are pro-choice. McCain wants to do virtually nothing to fix the ailing health care system in this Country; Obama and Clinton want to provide affordable health insurance to ALL Americans. McCain continues to pander to the wealthiest Americans by promising to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, Obama and Clinton are more concerned with the middle-class, in fact, Obama proposes a tax CUT to the middle class. Finally, both Obama and Clinton want to see a considered and prudent withdrawal from Iraq while McCain is happy to occupy the Country for however long it takes (decades) to achieve "Victory" (whatever that means.) To say that McCain and Clinton have anything in common is to expose yourself as clueless to the true nature of their ideologies.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | June 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

CC, enoungh with the Hillary Clinton for VP talk. Obama does not need her to win this election. Enough with you trying to shove her down our throats. We didn't want her then and we don't wnat her now. ENOUGH!!!

Posted by: Craig | June 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

As a Hilary supporter I hate the idea of Hillary helping Barack Hussein take over the government of the United States of America!

Barack Hussein and his black supremacist congregation are only looking to promote and enrich their race. They hate America as clearly expressed by Barack's religious leader and spiritual father Jeremiah Wright in their celebration of the attack to the Unites States on 9/11.

Hillary and all Hillary supporters must not help Barack and his congregation of hate for America and instead must help elect John McCain, a patriot that risked his life for the country we love.

Posted by: Manolete | June 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Barry Hussein is what like to refer to as the Pied Piper. He wraps those big purple lips around his flute and plays his seductive tune while all the mindless gutter rats follow him around like he's the incarnation of the second coming. However, you know the conclusion of that little story is that all the little rodents drop off into the sea while dancing to his hypnotic tune.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | June 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

He doesn't need Hillary and all her baggage. Can't happen anyway because of Bills finances. He will never disclose where his money has been coming from. The two of them are so dirty all they back to Arkansas, who want them anyway. They are both a couple of pigs.

----------------
As a Hillary supporter, I hate the idea of an Obama-Hillary ticket. For the next eight years, she would have to babysit him, and run around cleaning up the crap he and his Wrights, Rezkos, Pflegers and the like leave everywhere.

Now, I'm certainly more open to a McCain-Hillary ticket. They have obvious differences, but they are both MODERATES, which means they don't belong to the radical wings of their respective parties.

In Germany, the PSD (moderate "Democrats") and the CDU (moderate "Republicans") have formed a coalition government around Prime Minister Angela Merkel, with very positive results, leaving communists and far-right extremists out of power.

This is exactly what needs to be done in the United States. A centrist government built on American common values, which leaves radicals on both sides out of power: both the Obamas, Sharptons, Wrights and the like, as well as the Cheneys, Bushes, Rumsfelds and the like.

A centrist government founded on compromise and civility. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton are distinguished Americans, who have served this country well for all their lives. Both love this country, and are not tarnished by obscure relationships with hatemongers who pray for destruction of the United States of America.


Posted by: berrymonster | June 25, 2008 10:34 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Hey Berrymonster!
Hillary and Bill made 120 million last year. No tell all books or stock market investments so where did the money come from. The middle east my friend, Saudi Arabia and the likes. There's nothing like blind hate!

Posted by: Martin | June 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter, I hate the idea of an Obama-Hillary ticket. For the next eight years, she would have to babysit him, and run around cleaning up the crap he and his Wrights, Rezkos, Pflegers and the like leave everywhere.

Now, I'm certainly more open to a McCain-Hillary ticket. They have obvious differences, but they are both MODERATES, which means they don't belong to the radical wings of their respective parties.

In Germany, the PSD (moderate "Democrats") and the CDU (moderate "Republicans") have formed a coalition government around Prime Minister Angela Merkel, with very positive results, leaving communists and far-right extremists out of power.

This is exactly what needs to be done in the United States. A centrist government built on American common values, which leaves radicals on both sides out of power: both the Obamas, Sharptons, Wrights and the like, as well as the Cheneys, Bushes, Rumsfelds and the like.

A centrist government founded on compromise and civility. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton are distinguished Americans, who have served this country well for all their lives. Both love this country, and are not tarnished by obscure relationships with hatemongers who pray for destruction of the United States of America.


Posted by: berrymonster | June 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse


His true colors are showing.
And they're not red white and blue.

He will be exposed for the PHONEY he is.

Posted by: NoBAMA Never | June 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

10:20 post

"No one paid any attention to me when I was shilling for Hillary Clinton. I hope no one notices that I have switched horses to John McCain.

It is easy for me to reconcile my hypocrisy, since neither Clinton nor McCain is African-American. Will the other 6732 people that are the diehard Clinton supporters help me?"

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | June 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse


Hey Juan!
I believe we should choose our leader based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Hmmmmm...
So let's take West Virginia for example exit polling results showed that voters said, the voters mind you said they could not vote for a Black Man. It was not by accident that Hillary began toughting the white vote before this particular primary? It's OK to be against Obama but don't throw all common sense out the window because you oppose this particular candidate. The numbers don't lie, she lost what was her's to win because she took her presumptive status for granted not because Obama is Good looking and Black. All she had to do was be engaging and honest, no need to lie about sniper fire, you know what I mean. She created the doubt in the public square not Obama. What on earth made her tell that Lie? She never could manage money ala Whitewater and Crying is just not allowed. She alienated white men with her Sexism claims, yet she loved to tought " If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" Too confusing and polarizing!

Posted by: Martin | June 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse


Let me weigh in here.
Most of us HRC supporters won't go with BHO.

You might get lucky if you chose our Hill.
I'd rather wait for her to assume #1
after the inept Barry crashes and burns.
Don't believe everything you read (polling).
She'll be back....

Posted by: Hold on Hill | June 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

But here's the thing...She's a life-long Democrat. I don't think she'd do it.
Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 10:10 AM

But cadbury, think this would prime her for her run in 2012.
1. McCain is going to be pre-historic by then, not just ancient like he is now.
2. It will totally boost her cred for working across the aisle.
3. She run in 2012 as the Women's Champion. She will work for women whether republican or democrat.
4. She would also have actual executive experience as VP; plus she would be a John McCain 74+ year old heartbeat away from the presidency.

I think their are some positives here, she shouldn't underestimate. Unfortunately, McCain/Clinton would probably lose in November by a historic margin. But it's fun to pretend.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Dear Cadbury, sorry, I am shocked she maintains her support base.

She is ambitious, like all politicians, you are correct. I like to view her as slightly more ambitious however. If she had a real problem with the way votes were counted or the delegate issue kept her up at night.........she had plenty of time to talk about it. What we saw was Hillary under extreme pressure, crying about how unfair it was, that the media are women haters that if the rules were different she would be the clear winner. At least admit that she sees herself as different, and expected to win that race because she is 'Hillary'.

THE ONLY TIME SHE WAS OBVIOUSLY WORKING WELL WITH OTHERS AND ACTED LIKE SHE WAS ON A TEAM.............................was when some small group of people called her and strongly suggested she step out of the race and endorse Obama. Otherwise, this woman does not hear NO too much in her life and my guess is that she would find it very difficult to take a back seat to Obama in the White House. Being the center of attention is her drug.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

More people have signed up to FIGHT in Iraq and RISK their lives than the number of people who have showed up for anti-war pro-cut-and-run rallies.

We all have to respect the motives of the far left who care about our soldiers.


HOWEVER, the facts are that when it comes down to it, the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY.


Obama represents weakness, and a cut-and-run policy which will only insure that we will have to go back in later and MORE people will die in the long run.


The Surge was the correct thing to do. McCain has PROVEN that he is able leader by supporting the Surge when it was not popular to do so. Senator McCain should be elected.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

More people have signed up to FIGHT in Iraq and RISK their lives than the number of people who have showed up for anti-war pro-cut-and-run rallies.

We all have to respect the motives of the far left who care about our soldiers.


HOWEVER, the facts are that when it comes down to it, the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY.


Obama represents weakness, and a cut-and-run policy which will only insure that we will have to go back in later and MORE people will die in the long run.


The Surge was the correct thing to do. McCain has PROVEN that he is able leader by supporting the Surge when it was not popular to do so. Senator McCain should be elected.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

More people have signed up to FIGHT in Iraq and RISK their lives than the number of people who have showed up for anti-war pro-cut-and-run rallies.

We all have to respect the motives of the far left who care about our soldiers.


HOWEVER, the facts are that when it comes down to it, the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY.


Obama represents weakness, and a cut-and-run policy which will only insure that we will have to go back in later and MORE people will die in the long run.


The Surge was the correct thing to do. McCain has PROVEN that he is able leader by supporting the Surge when it was not popular to do so. Senator McCain should be elected.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Nice try Chris.

Posted by: DenisR | June 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse


I also believe she is overqualified to be VP.
What taxes me is the Obamanians who insist we HRC supporters should "get over it" or that we are bluffing with our inclination to "sit this one out" or worse, vote GOP. I think you underestimate the intensity of HRCers. Rather than blast us you might consider reaching out to 18 million folks who want a reason, other than voting against the GOP, to vote for Obama.

So. No. I don't want to see her belittled and attacked as VP. She is better and more capable.

Posted by: jml926 | June 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Totherthing wrote:
The only recent President more incompetent than George Bush was Bill Clinton, and the only codependent woman more embarassing than Amy Winehouse is Bill Clinton's wife.

What country were you living in during the Clinton presidency? The economy was booming and the U.S. was actually respected abroad. There was a budget surplus for Pete Sake's!!!

The personal attacks on Hillary are ugly and misogynistic.

Posted by: Tessa | June 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Such a long admonition from JnWilderness to Hillary voters who would vote McCain for whatever reason. How about one to the Obama voters who will not vote for him if he selects Hillary as VP? Does the same apply?
All of us take this business entirely too personal. Politics is a business; the business of electing those who will govern. It has nothing to do with persona likeability, distorted stories that are part and parcel of political smears. It is up to the voter to transcend this "politics as usual" and make decisions re who/how to best govern. One way is for those so opposed to Hillary to READ. Read about the Republican Congress when Pres Clinton was in office, the Ken Starr investigations by the Republicans and how, after 8 years of "investigations" and many dollars and much time detoured by Republicans from important issues such as national security was spent trying to fulfill their Inaugural Day promise of "He is not my President". Is this what you want for your next Democratic President? Read about her public service from college to present. She has been demonized and you have fallen for it. Much care has been taken NOT to do the same with Sen Obama, either because someone has learned their lesson or because of fear of "racism". Be grateful and "move on", as MO says. She has spent her life helping men to look good; serving as VP will be no different. I guess every VP "waits" in case "something happens" to the president; that is their primary role responsibility: to be qualified and ready to step in and that should be the primary concern for voters. Second, as a candidate, is that they can help the nominee win and she can certainly do that because, as much as you are crazy about the nominee, not everyone feels the same way. So, open your minds and close your mouths and inform yourself. And do not desert your nominee for his first executive decision just because you think you disagree; it will be the first of many decisions you may not like, but, if you are so full of all that love and support you all have demonstrated, then you will have to believe in him as well as hope in him.

Posted by: nana4 | June 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"The majority of voters are against it."

Does anyone have a source for this statement? I'd be really surprised if there were any evidence of this. My recollection is that exit polls showed a majority of Dems would like to see both of these talented politicians on the ticket.

Also, despite those "signals" from Obama, it's a long way to the convention.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Stop. Write about FISA. Write about the implications of 1% global population growth. Write about Lindsey Lohan. Well, not that last one. But still: find something better to do than this bull. This is political pornography.

Posted by: ep thorn | June 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Hillary Soprano http://www.hillarysopranothemovie.com
would make the perfect VP for Obama, he will need someone who has experience in "misspeaking" and nows how to deal with the vast right wing.

VJMachiavelli
Http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
ps check out the video and is how a solders life compares to YOUR life of comfort.

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | June 25, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I still just can't imagine Obama or his campaign willing to work with the Clintons and the baggage and people they bring with them. It would make them the story ahead of Obama.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

CASE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON


Ever hear of Mary Mahoney ???

Try this....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Forgive me if this also already been mentioned:
But this edition of The Fix includes the most beautiful mixed metaphor in ages:

"Obama doesn't need to throw a hail Mary pass to win this election; he needs to block and tackle his way to 270 electoral votes. Clinton is the ultimate block and tackle vice presidential candidate."

Block and tackle has at least TWO definitions:
-- Football tactics
-- Pulleys used for lifting heavy objects.

I'm pretty sure The Fix isn't trying to compare Hillary Clinton to this:
http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/img/14043_116_1.jpg

Posted by: EgoNemo | June 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Clinton?

An interesting concept jnoel! At least as interesting as Obama/Hagel and Kerry/McCain in 2004.

But here's the thing...She's a life-long Democrat. I don't think she'd do it. And by the same token, Obama shouldn't even remotely consider picking a repub.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The only way I would vote for Obama was if Clinton was on the ticket but I hope she is not. It is ridiculous in the first place that masses of people would vote for a candidate without much of a background and a lot of sweet words. They accuse the Bush administration of being Fascists but go for a leader that has much in common with what Fascist leaders often look like, charismatic, able to charm large groups of people who will do anything for him, and easily changeable when it is politically expedient and people are willing to put up with more.

Posted by: Lynn E | June 25, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The conversation has already taken place. It took place when she dropped out. Were you under a rock then?

What you should have said is that you want to start the conversation again.

The majority of voters are against it. You know that already. The majority of bloviators are against it. You know that too. Most knowledgable analysts are certain it isn't going to happen. Obama has sent just about every subliminal message that it's not going to happen.

So you want to start a converation about it. Hmmm...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Cadbury writes that after the GOP convention, McCain will "name a woman as running mate ... then he'll moderate his views on choice and other issues. Then it's game over!"

Sure is, as the evangelical bottom drops out of GOP support.

A GOP candidate making pro-abortion noises just before the general is now a path to victory? With a keen political sense like that, are you Mark Penn?

What Republican woman could McCain name, by the way? Haley Barbour? She has closets in her skeletons. Maybe Harriet Miers?

Or how about Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Bourassa | June 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that McCain is going after HRC's disaffected voters. If he's smart--and he is!--he'll name a woman as running mate.
Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:59 AM

If he really wants to go hard after Hillary's disaffected voters and he wants to name a women to VP...why not name Hillary! It's genius. But remember, many of her supporters hate the idea of any other woman getting the nod over her, so if you really want to bring them over en masse you have to have the real deal. Let's see how the election turns out with that "dream ticket" on the ballot.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

All the whys and wherefores concerning who should have been the Dem Presidential Candidate are moot. The Democratic Party has a candidate named Obama. I am sure that Hillary would greatly enhance Obamas chances of becoming elected but I fail to see how any registered voter could possibly cast their vote for him, with or without her as his running mate. Perhaps Hillary should get back to her job and work on paying her campaign debt. Does the woman have no shame? As for Obama, when did having your supporters donate funds to help the losing candidate with her debt become a good idea? How insane is that when there are so many people in this country today facing financial hardship. These two remind me of the stereotypical used car salesman - excuse me that would be salesperson. Put the two of them together with Bill as an extra asset? McCain in '08!

Posted by: LauraLou | June 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton supporter and lifelong "progressive" who has never voted Republican...
BUT (and this is no lie, you instant dismissers) I am very ashamed at how Obama secured the nomination.
I believe we should choose our leader based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
I perceive Hillary as having what it takes, while the "race card" Obama has only his good looks and black skin (sorry).
I admire McCain, and I know he is not Bush 3.
I cannot support race politics for the presidency.
I will vote McCain.
The comments here from Obamaites just reinforce my impressions, by the way...

Posted by: juan | June 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
Sen John McCain, GOP fund-raiser, Washington D.C., June 1998

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_McCain

Posted by: BK | June 25, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

One more thought...

Everyone knows that McCain is going after HRC's disaffected voters. If he's smart--and he is!--he'll name a woman as running mate. (Remember the repubs convention is AFTER the dems, so they will have the benefit of knowing who's on the dem ticket.) Then he'll moderate his views on choice and other issues, as he did today with environmental policy. This would attract huge numbers of HRC's moderate female voters. Then guess what? Game over! I can't stress this enough. The Dems ignore "Hillary's army" at their peril!

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton better watch out for her Senate seat. Her racial and character attacks on Obama could cost her the black votes that put her over the top in New York. If she keeps her head down and her mouth shut during this next campaign maybe Obama will help her to heal those very deep self-inflicted wounds. Veep? Forget it. The only recent President more incompetent than George Bush was Bill Clinton, and the only codependent woman more embarassing than Amy Winehouse is Bill Clinton's wife.

Posted by: TotherThing | June 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Dear Luis, what does all that you said have to do with the fact that Hillary may have done a poor job managing her campaign? Are you saying that since she won so many key states that she must have been doing something right? Are you saying that it does not matter how she did it....she won the popular vote?

My point was that I feel she poorly managed her campaign, and that may be a reflection on her decision making prowess. Two things stand out....1. Firing the cheif strategist over the Columbian trade deal incident. Not to mention that Bill did the same thing and made $800k...well done...but that the campaign was not on the same page, not operating as a team. Either Hillary had no idea what the guy was up to or the guy did not respect her enough to stay away from the Colubian trade issue.

2. Her campaign was broke in January. Poor planning. I don't care how many states she won...she was out of money early on and I thought I read that some took pay cuts in order to keep the campaign going.

Managing your people and your money. If Hillary made any adjustments later in the campaign....neither had to do with people or money....she only changed her tune and started winning votes after she was under extreme pressure to do so.

So, here is a person that does not manage well and only makes changes when the ship is sinking...sometimes a bit too late.

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"Sen. Clinton won Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvannia, California, Mass, New Mexico, and Texas. She concentrated on the swing states this election season."

Yeah, I wonder how Massachusetts, Texas and California are going to swing.

Clinton's plan wasn't to concentrate on swing states. Her plan was to concentrate on big states and wrap everything up by Super Tuesday. She focused on California and New York. Obama focused on the scraps, but on taking a lot of scraps.

Neither of them had a plan to take Michigan or Florida since both agreed not to campaign there. She fussed and so the DNC decided to give her some meaningless delegates.

I guess it would have been easier to just call the poster an idiot, but I'm bored.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should stay in the Senate. As a powerful woman and legislator she can achieve much more there than being the second person on the ticket. 2012 is just around the corner.

Posted by: OCFischer | June 25, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Give me a break! Hillary wants her supporters to give her 12 million dollars back. Anyone that would give her a dime is a fool. She can live very well with the money her and Bill have.
Give your money to a charitable organization I think they need it more the Hillary.

Posted by: hgl | June 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

James woolcott at 9:25 AM says it all!!

Writing at its very best !!

Posted by: theopaine | June 25, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Nope. Just thinking about it makes my skin crawl.

Posted by: Jim Clinton | June 25, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

if hillary isn't on the ticket, my money and vote are going to mccain.

Posted by: jose | June 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Remember Al Haig "I'm in charge here" when Reagan was shot. All Hillary will be about is waiting for something to happen to Obama so that she can seize power. Why would Obama want someone with a knife to put in his back and a husband with a huge amount of baggage to boot. Hillary is a legend in her own mind and a liar and an opportunist. If she wants to be President she will have to earn it the old fashioned way - via the primaries.

Posted by: nclwtk | June 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The top reason to name Hillary Veep?

Back in the White House, maybe she can find some more of those misplaced Rose Law Firm billing records.

-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | June 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Let me recap here what I've read posted here: some of you "Democrats" are not going to vote for Senator Obama unless Senator Clinton is his VP choice or because you still believe these fabricated stories about his citizenship, etc. or that Hillary was somehow swindled out of the nomination and that you will either vote Republican or just not vote for president. Does that about say it all?

Here's the problem, most of you are fighting yesterday's battles. As Justice Scalia said to those that are still debating the 2000 election "Get over it!" Hillary lost, Obama won. It's time to move on because there are more important things that need to be addressed in this election and whining over Hillary's loss is NOT one of them.

However, if you "so called Democrats" (frankly I think these people are nothing more than Dash Limburger"s minions posing as dems. Oh they go by what name, "Hoopleheads"?) are really going to cast a "spiteful vote" then I will ask if you would do the following:

I would like you to sit down and write yourself a letter. Yes, that old-fashion pen or pencil to paper thing you used to do before you discovered word processing programs. In that letter you should state ALL the reasons why you're voting for a Republican or not casting a vote. For those of you that will not be voting because Hillary didn't win the Primaries make sure that you make that number one. For those of you that are just plain prejudice make sure that you also make that number one. The rest of you just put down the number one primary "lame" reason you chose to cast a "spiteful" vote.

Now that the number one reason has been stated, list all the other reason why you voted Republican or not vote at all. Oh, make sure you date it and sign it and make about 5 to 10 copies of it. Then place each one in an envelope and address it to yourself, don't forget those to put stamps on them. On election day, after you have cast your vote for the Republican nominee, mail the letters to yourself. Yes, the Post Office will be closed that day, but just find one of those blue US Post Office collection bins and put your letters in it. Don't worry, the Post Office does a great job and those letters will be delivered to you. When they arrive leave them "UNOPENED" and place them where they are not in the way but easily accessible.

Now, just sit back and wait for the final results of the election and for the sake of this exercise assume that the Republicans do win, as a result of you and your fellow "democrats" casting a vote in the republican box.

Ok, here's where those letters become important to you, but not immediately, you will have to wait for the new administration to be in power, republicans you voted for out of spitefulness.

After they are in power you find yourself totally aghast that Bush 2.0 is in office and that there are soldiers still dying needlessly, that the rich are still getting richer, that the economy is still in the toilet, that corporation's taxes are being lowered while you're still struggling, etc., etc., etc.

What are you to do? Well, you can reach for one of those letters that you wrote to yourself and read ALL the really Important reasons why you cast your vote for McCain. Oh, by default you lost all rights to complain, just like all those that voted for Bush in 2004.

Posted by: JnWilderness | June 25, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Dear DB,
Please read Sen. Obama's biography. He was raised by his wife, step-father, and grandparents. In his own books, he recounts his experiences growing up. He was raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity. It is unfathomable that the MSM refuses to recognize the complete record. As President, Sen. Obama will have the power declare pre-emptive strikes against whoever he wants like Pres. Bush. This means that we must know who our Presidents will be or become. If we had deliberated more thoroughly with Pres. Bush, we would not be at War against Iraq. It is obvious now that Pres. Bush was obsessed with Saddam Hussein for attacking former Pres. Bush.

Posted by: Reason Why | June 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is OVER QUALIFIED for the position of VP and I would hope that she not take the job if offered and consider it for what it is, a slap in the face! You ugly Obama supporters want to remind us all the time that she is a liar and the fact that you quote is "Bosnia gunfire" OMG has your candidate NOT "lied" about things that are if not worse (worse in my mind) at least as bad! And further you want to chastise her saying "she will do anything to win", "she doesn't care about the Democratic party", - well, NEITHER DO YOU if you cannot see that SHE could very well be the ticket Obama needs to win this fall - yet, you still trash her every moment that you can.

You are the pot calling the kettle black!

You cannot see the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Kathy5 | June 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Interesting post by James Wolcott (if overlong). I read the original Cohen article and didn't like him patting himself on the back over his "keen" eye.

Look how much giving up public financing of primaries hurt Bush and later Kerry. Both won. There's nothing magic about public financing of a general election vis-a-vis a primary. Obama made the smart, ruthless decision. He's also going to limit the joint town hall meetings.

Obama has been criticized for both decisions. Since when is being an idiot good politics? McCain wants to limit Obama where he is strong ($) and engage him in McCain's favorite forum. Obama is right to not let McCain make the rules.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

THe media has a vested interest in pushing Hillary for Veep because the one thing the media wants out of this campaign is drama, and with Hillary, you're always guaranteed plenty of that.

Posted by: Ken O | June 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Again, virtually all the candidates being mentioned for VP have issues/baggage as well. She is no different in that regard..
Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:29 AM

I have to disagree that she is the same to other possible VP candidates in regards to baggage. Her baggage is enormous, no other VP candidate baggage can compare to say the least. She may be the most polarizing figure in American politics, there are very few who can rival Mrs. Clinton in that regard. There are many more dynamic choices available to Obama who do not turn the stomachs of half (probably more) his base.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

It is hard to argue that naming Hillary Clinton as his VP would help Obama. I'll concede that she would help him retain her supporters in the Democratic Party, but she is villified in independent and Republican circles. Besides, her experience argument is ludricrous. I agree with a number of the other posts; being First Lady does not count as experience. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson would be better choices. They both have real experience, over a period of decades, and they are more centrist than Hillary. It is not that I have anything against Hillary. I just think the Democratice Party has to recognize that adding Clinton to the ticket would seriously limit Obama's chances of reaching across the aisle for Republican and independent votes.

That being said, I'd like to address the Clinton supporters. How on earth could you vote for McCain in November? Some Clinton supporters have said that, even with her on the ticket as the VP, they would never vote for Obama. That is absurd. If you look at their political ideologies, Clinton and Obama are practically bedfellows. Sure they address the American public differently and they would implement different policies, but those policies would be aimed at achieving essentially the same goals. McCain and Clinton have nothing in common ideologically. So Clinton supporters, stop moping and recognize that if you can't have Hillary as president then you should settle for Obama. He may not impress you, but his administration will approximate another Clinton administration far better than a McCain administration. Wake up! This country needs to move past a politician's image and look at the issues. George W. Bush's stunning incompetence did not lose him the election in 2004, because millions voted for him as they were losing their jobs and their cousins were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, because he seemed like the kind of guy they could have a drink with. It is time that we vote on the issues. This isn't junior high.

Posted by: DB | June 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure some understand how many moderate, on-the-fence, average middle-class voters cannot not stomach the idea of HRC as P or VP. They are now seriously considering Obama, but would surly go with McCain if HRC, her husband, and their drama are anywhere near the ticket. These are the LV's (likely voters) needed to win.

Posted by: gk | June 25, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Contrary to all of the misinformation that is smeared over print, cable and the airways Mrs. Clinton actually got more primary votes than Mr. Obama. In a nut shell she won the national popular vote in the primaries. If the Democrats had winner take all primaries like the Republicans Mrs. Clinton would have won very handily and early. Ultimately it was the super delegates that handed the nomination to Mr. Obama.

In that process we witnessed the most undemocratic arguments in this country since the 3/5 rule was applied to the slaves before the American Civil War, by law they were 3/5 of a person for representation in Congress and not allowed to vote. The Democrats argued that elected delegates and voters from Florida are just ½ a person and get a half a vote. In Michigan it didn't matter what the voters preference was their votes were not counted . The delegates were just split between the candidates with unearned delegates apportioned to Mr. Obama. Besides the voters of Florida and Michigan being disenfranchised the other states who broke the so called rules were rewarded by leapfrogged their primaries forward before magical February 5 date without penalty at all were, Iowa January 3, New Hampshire January 8, Nevada January 19, South Carolina January26.

I will be proudly voting for Mr. Obama and I hope that he wins big in November. Here is a problem for Mr. Obama, at this moment he is polling behind a generic Democrat. That means that if voters had the choice now between and unnamed Democrat vs. and unnamed Republican the anonymous Democrat is polling 20 points ahead of the anonymous Republican. Unfortunately Mr. Obama is not and that is not good. If the top of the ticket becomes a drag on electoral contest further down the ballot that is a big problem for the party. If that spread between the generic democrat and Mr. Obama continues into November then it will very likely suppress the turnout for all Democrats. If that happens the Democrats will likely miss a historic opportunity to get a filibuster proof Senate a massive majority in the House and they will be weaker and will likely suffer all the way down to the courthouse level.

There is a lot more at stake here in the nation than the narrow interest of Mr. Obama and Presidential race. To govern effectively Mr. Obama will need strong backing with huge majorities or Democrats in the House and the Senate. If Mrs. Clinton can add more strength to the ticket than any other VP candidate and helps elect more Democrats into office in the Congress all the way back to the local Courthouse. Mr. Obama would be a damn fool not to ask her.

Posted by: Redman | June 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The problem with putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket is that you've got Hillary Clinton on the Ticket. I support Barack Obama because he's NOT Hillary Clinton. If he makes the grave error of naming her as his prospective veep, my support automatically goes to McCain.

Posted by: ABH - Anybody But Hillary | June 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"...now seems as good a time as any to debate the merits (and demerits) of putting Clinton on the ticket."

Which ticket?

Posted by: Ken O | June 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I agree with JNoel002. What experience does Hillary have that Obama doesn't? She was First Lady for 8 years. First Lady is not an official position. There are no powers or duties granted to it by the Constitution. OK she knows a lot about issues, but so do a lot of others who are not even being considered. As for the millions that love her there are also the millions that hate her. They cancel each other out and what your left with is not much. It is said that many who supported Obama are sexist. That Hillary lost because she was a woman. Nothing could be further form the truth. Hillary lost because most Democrats realized she would be unelectable come November. Why put her on the ticket as VP?

Posted by: kurthg | June 25, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

This Hillary or else threat is getting very old. The real Hillary was the one before she re-branded herself. The large amounts of contributions raked in by Obama were anti Hillary sentiments in a big way. The nation cannot endure another polarizing administration. Full of sex, lies, and video tape. No other politician since civil rights including conservatives would tought the white vote. They pander to it all the time she's the first to publicly acknowledge it. Her so called fitness to lead is compromised by the campaign debt she now wants absorbed by Obamas'. Why would Obama have to pay 5 million to one of her strategist who failed her miserably? She's trying to make a buck off of her loss. NO! let's keep her as far away as possible, maybe an abassodorship to say....Bosnia

Posted by: Martin | June 25, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"Most Dems would have voted for the last Dem standing vs. Clinton, and that last Dem happened to be Obama."

More reality check!

HRC won two of the last three primaries--including SD where Obama was favored to win. Readers may recall that the superdelegates put him over the top that Tuesday afternoon--rather than wait until the polls closed. Why? Because it was embarrassing that she was still winning primaries on the very last day.

"Obama's ahead in the polls..."

Yeah, and so were Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry at this point in the campaign. The dems SHOULD win the general this year; but there ain't no guarantee. Obama has to do everything he can to unify the party. If he chooses HRC he may lose some more extreme lefties, who he's already ticked off with his position on FISA/telecom immunity. But he'll pull in LOTS more people in the middle.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

HRC should never be president of this nation and for no other reason than this - there has never been two more egocentric people on our political scene in my 76 years of living than H/B Clinton. They have 'scammed' the system, beginning with Bill as Arkansas AG, right up to the present. To state it bluntly, they have been on 'government welfare' since their late 20's and will remain on the dole until they die. Neither of them have EVER experienced life as an everyday working individual and, up until they were required to establish a residency in NY so that H could run for the Senate, have never had to pay for a place to live. And if memory serves me correctly 'donors and friends' provided a great deal of that money since they were deeply in debt due to Bill's legal expense over the Monica fiasco. Their food has been furnished by the government for the past 20 years as well as all their transportation and any and all 'shelter' expense relative to owning a home. They have been parasites and will remain such as long as they live.

This nation is long past time to elect either or woman OR a person of color. The problems we Dems have is that both of these candidates are seriously flawed and are too far to left (literally socialistic in thinking) to be accepted by main stream Americans.

In the end the next four years will be a perfect study for ineffectual government regardless of who may be elected. There remains far to much divisiveness among the voters for a common ground.

Simply review these posts for confirmation of that statement.

As has been seen in the past four years of Bush, partisanship is the name of the game and the nation be damned. It appears hatred is the ongoing theme in Washington. Regardless of what Bush proposes, regardless of what either the Dems or Reps propose there is a concerted effort for each to defeat the other.

Will this continue if Obama is elected? Will the Hillary backers (Obama haters) retain that hatred. And conversly would the Obama backers (Hillary haters) actually vote McCain out of spite? That rationale is the reason we are where we are today.

The Bush haters, including members of Congress, have carried that attitude since 2004 and what has been the result? An absolute 'do nothing' Congress and an ineffective President.

AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY ARE ADVERSARIES, ARE REVELING IN OUR MISERY.

It all makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: dharper | June 25, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

We should try to put aside our own personal feelings and preferences and consider the VP slot in terms of attracting swing voters, rather than in terms of popularity or not within the Dems, or within groups who will not vote for the Dems if Ghandi or Jesus were the candidate.

Obama needs to win over the less-educated, not so young, white, not very interested in politics voter who voted for Bush last time because he/she'd like to have a beer with him and now isn't sure. This voter is suspicious of Obama because he's black and has a funny name, but also is not happy with the US under Bush. Hilary attracts people who are happy to finally see a woman on the ticket, or who are loyal to Bill, or who respect her positions on health care especially. But most of those people will vote for Obama anyway (I said most). The VP has to make Obama a more comfortable choice to the middle ground, and unfortunately, Hillary is enormously unpopular among a lot of these groups. She's always been unpopular among them, and it probably is partly misogynism. Yes, the voters Obama is trying to convince now want a straight-up capable VP who they feel they understand and they'd like to have as a manager at work, someone they feel could talk to etc. A white guy again, not too old (you don't want Obama looking like his grandson), experienced and respected, nothing too radical. Anti-intellectual it may be, but it's not the intellectuals who might vote for McCain.

Posted by: JJ | June 25, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse


U.S. CONSTITUTION - WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES


DEMOCRAT $24 BARREL OF OIL


OIL WAS $24 A BARREL WHEN DEMOCRATS LEFT


GOP REPUBLICANS TOOK OFFICE TO CHANGE OIL TO $145 A BARREL


GOP REPUBLICAN $145 BARREL OF OIL


YOU DO THE MATH AND DECIDE IF TEXAS OIL MILLIONAIRES WARRANT INVESTIGATIONS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND STEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TREASURY.


GOP REPUBLICANS ARE MANIPULATING THE MARKET SYSTEM TO MAKE THE MANY (95 PERCENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS) SUFFER AND SERVE THE SUPERWEALTHY FEW (5 PERCENT WALL STREET SUPERCAPITALISTS).


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.


NO MORE GOP REPUBLICAN LIES, CONSPIRACIES, AND GRAND LARCENIES.


GOP REPUBLICAN $155 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $175 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $195 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $215 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $235 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $255 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS


GOP REPUBLICAN $4.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $5.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $5.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $6.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $6.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
GOP REPUBLICAN $7.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS


WHEN DOES IT STOP IF EVER?


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION DOES NOT WORK.
GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION IS HURTING AMERICA.
GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION IS HURTING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.


STOP GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY
STOP GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY
STOP GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS AMERICAN JOB OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.


NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.


CLEAN NUCLEAR ELECTRIC ENERGY IS THE ANSWER


WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.


BARACK OBAMA WILL BRING BACK OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.


STOP GOP REPUBLICAN MCCAIN FROM SELLING OUR AMERICA.


This remarkable unleashing of deep Democratic energies went hand in hand with clever GOP Republican efforts to subvert the will of the People, whether by overt corruption or covert manipulation. This corruption or manipulation resulted from the widespread market activity that was incompatible with the good of the Public. The American Citizens were well aware that the voices of the People could be offset by powerful GOP Republican market elites bending the system to serve the interests of the few. The economic power of the GOP Republicans were recognized to be the primary source of Wall Street speculators corruptions.

Democratic dialogue was motivated by opposition to the market-driven greedy GOP Republicans obsessed with obscene quantity of moneymaking with little regard for the quality of the Public's Democracy. Democratic love of wisdom was contrasted sharply against the GOP Republicans love of money.

Posted by: Republican Failures | June 25, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is yesterday.
Our Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, may peace be upon him, is tomorrow.
Yesterday + Tomorrow = Today
Today Sucks

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I think Hilary has her own following of blue collar and retired Democrats but her ability to reach beyond that base is somewhat limited.
I like her as a choice but I wouldn't view it as a slam dunk, she might alienate the educated middle class who are on the fence and also the independents who might swing to McCain because he is talking green and more like a moderate like Bush did before he pushed for war.
I will still vote against McCain because he just can't deliver the changes this country needs to be a world leader once again.

Posted by: Keith | June 25, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

James Wolcott: Your post was long, but an interesting piece.

/ take the time, or the time will take you //

Read it slowly - as it is long - but read it when you get the chance.

This post, that is: James Wolcott, around 9am today.

It's long, but kinda worth it. Get past the words, and listen to his paragraphs.

Posted by: Captain John | June 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

"What other candidate being considered for vice president can speak as deftly and knowledgeably about issues both foreign and domestic?"

Yes, Hillary speaks "deftly" if you count dishonesty and pandering a valuable qualities. Hillary's claim to have dodged sniper fire was well delivered, it was also a lie. She also made an appealing argument for cutting the gas tax, but is terrible public policy and shear pandering. Obama should avoid picking Hillary at all costs.

Obama and anybody but Hillary in '08

Posted by: RealChoices | June 25, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Martha you are an idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

It is difficult to wrap your mind around the idea that someone might vote for the anti-choice candidate that dumped his crippled wife for a rich young blonde as a means of demonstrating their opposition to perceived 'sexism' in the nomination contest.

Difficult ... not impossible, I mean one drive on the freeway teaches you how many downright crazy people there are in this world, but still ..... THAT crazy? I hope not.

Posted by: KPinSEA | June 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"I think a lot of whites are just looking for a reason to not like Obama that will be legitimate socially."

That did bear repeating. And when people talk about HRC's ambition we should likewise wonder whether the fact that she's a strong woman comes into play as well. Again, virtually all the candidates being mentioned for VP have issues/baggage as well. She is no different in that regard; neither is Obama.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The chances of Hillary getting VP are slim but it's a year of surprises. Most of us Hillary supporters will vote for Obama regardless of what the few vocal haters say. I still think most are really GOP trolls trying to stir things up.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 25, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Many, many millions of Clinton supporters are not going to vote for Obama. They're going to vote for McCain, who is the best of the Republican candidates and much better than Obama."

If that statement were true, Obama would not be up big in the polls. The fact is that, in a few months, the disaffection of Clinton supporters towards Obama will cool. They may stay home, but they won't vote for McCain. REPUBLICANS see he has obvious flaws.

You cannot minimize the anti-Clinton sentiment among much of Obama's support. The 11 straight streak he had after Super Tuesday was during a period when the primaries were a referendum on Clinton. (It turned around for Clinton when she stopped looking like the presumptive candidate and the primaries became a referendum on Obama.) Most Dems would have voted for the last Dem standing vs. Clinton, and that last Dem happened to be Obama. Mainstream liberals have no use for Clinton triangulation, and many, many of us believe she is an inveterate liar.

Clinton's a crummy campaigner. BUT like any entertainer she gets charged up when she receives positive energy from her audience. When she became the white candidate, people in places where race was all that mattered really, really wanted her to win, and they gave her positive energy.

I gave to Obama and supported Obama because I wanted to see anyone but Clinton win. I got my wish. I'd prefer Obama but I have no fight with McCain; hes a decent man and a hero who's simply wrong on many issues. If Obama added Clinton to the ticket, my support for Obama would evaporate. Over 60% of the nation doesn't trust her (they DID take a poll). I'm one of them.

It seems like leaving HRC off the ticket is one thing Clinton supporters and Obama supporters can agree on.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 25, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton were put through the normal vetting process for a V.P., without consideration of her name, would she pass? Because the history of the spouse is examined in this vetting process too ... always is ... and if that spouse is associated with political scandal, usually they don't pass.

So .... the question is whether Senator Clinton brings such important assets to the table as the V.P. nominee that she overcomes what would normally disqualify her in the vetting process.

On balance, I'm guessing the Obama campaign says "no ... not enough to overcome what we know and not enough to overcome our fears of what we don't know that somebody else will bring out during the campaign ... no more surprises, please."

Would Senator Clinton's positives add something to the campaign? Definitely. Do her negatives potentially take away more? My guess is that's what Obama will decide in the end. It's only a guess today.

Posted by: KPinSEA | June 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

If Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is content to be a preening hack, that is between him and his feather boa. That his preformulated ideas ooze across the op-ed page like synthetic foam from an aerosol nozzle makes him no different from David Broder or any of the other giants of journalism blinking in the abrupt light left behind by Tim Russert's departed shadow. But must he be a hick as well? In Cohen's latest recital, he responds to those surly detractors (i.e., me) who have accused him of cutting out heart-shaped valentines to John McCain and pasting them in his locker. Coyly he begins:

In politics, we're having a Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr kind of year. It was Karr, a French writer, who coined the phrase plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, which means, as Barack Obama has shown, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. N'est-ce pas?
Oui...

My own French is rusty, so I'm not sure what the proper French equivalent for "f*cking embarrassing" is, so forgive me, but really--The Washington Post is not only the most powerful paper in the nation's capital but enjoys an international reputation, and here's one of their premiere columnists blithering away like Mayberry's Howard Sprague with a carnation in his lapel. It's amazing he didn't stick an "ooh la la" in there somewhere. Of course, Cohen is just clearing his throat before getting to the chief topic of today's monologue, to wit:

In some recent magazine articles, I and certain of my colleagues have been accused of being soft on McCain, forgiving him his flips, his flops and his mostly conservative ideology. I do not plead guilty to this charge, because, over the years, the man's imperfections have not escaped my keen eye.

"Keen eye"--hmm, Missy here seems to have been studying up on her irony. After acknowledging a litany of McCain's flippety-flops, Cohen draws a sharp soapy line of distinction:

'But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.'

Yes, it's unfortunate that Obama hasn't been unfortunate enough to be truly, sorely "tested" in the crucible of character. From Cohen's perspective, it's a pity slavery was abolished when it was, otherwise we could learn how Obama would bear up under the overseer's lash; a pity, too, to be more au courant (that's French), that Obama was never mistaken for a Muslim terrorist post 9/11 and whisked away to a secret prison where White House-approved torture techniques would lay bare his core principles, or lack thereof. I must say there's something morbid, if not macabre, about Cohen's notion that a presidential candidate reveal the bottom-line convictions over which he would be personally willing to forfeit his life. McCain's harrowing ordeal is hardly a tranferable application for presidential consideration. I don't recall such a personal martyrdom comparison study being carried out on Bush and Gore in 2000, or Fred Thompson being queried over what he'd be willing to croak for. Given that the office of the presidency ideally involves compromise with the Congress, our allies, and constituent groups, a candidate willing to die for some core principle might be a bit rigid in his governing style, or, worse, harbor a death wish that could take a lot of us down with it. Whatever one thinks of Obama, it seems peculiar to penalize him because he doesn't have North Vietnam prison experience on his job resume. But Cohen, like so many political pundits, can't resist drafting off of McCain's fortitude to pass inspection in his own mind as a man of substance.

Really, it's a shame we even bother fussing over the looming troubles confronting this country when we could just let "character" be the seeing-eye dog that guides us. McCain's positions on abortion, Supreme Court picks, military action against Iraq, Social Security privatization?--mere trifles. "A presidential race is only incidentally about issues," Cohen informs us, thus reaffirming Bob Somerby's in Daily Howler that Beltway pundits are engaged in an epic bout of metacriticism, reviewing the novel that they themselves are writing, a cartoon travesty starring fictionalized versions of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, et al that double as voodoo dolls. There's no intellectual floor to their petty maraudings.

Posted by: James Wolcott | June 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Dear twotraps,

Sen. Clinton won Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvannia, California, Mass, New Mexico, and Texas. She concentrated on the swing states this election season. Unfortunately, the MSM lied to the American People and said that these states do not matter. However, look at the general election, they do and for the past quarter century they have mattered. Sen. Obama was supported by MOVEON which helped him carry the caucuses. Moreover, the rules committee disenfranchised Florida and Michigan. Finally, the Democratic leaders choose Sen. Obama. They are accountable for this loss if it happens.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Choosing Clinton would be a disaster. First, it isn't at all clear she would be the best addition to the ticket in terms of enhancing Obama's chances in the fall. At best she is a wash.

Second, he needs someone with real national security experience, hers is all self-proclaimed and embelished at that (Bosnian sniper fire).

Finally there is seems to be some sense among Clinton backers that she is owed the Vice-Presidency as a consolation prize, she isn't. Plenty of people have run for President come close, lost and gone back to whatever they were doing before. Hillary can do the same.

Obama and anybody of Hillary in '08

Posted by: RealChoices | June 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The "campaigner in Chief" as you called her, took 14 days off after losing the nomination (or failing to concede) depending on your perspective.

A professional politician/carpetbagger so tired she needed a vacation longer than the average American will take, in a job that recesses every few months.

NO HILLARY, NOT NOW, NOT EVER.

Posted by: No Hillary Anytime | June 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"I...remain shocked that she continues to maintain such fierce support in the face of her blind ambition to reach the highest level of politics at any cost...she has asked people to help with the bail-out!"

Reality check time!!!

What politician running for potus isn't consumed with ambition? Please! BTW didn't Obama just go back on his pledge to take public campaign funds (a cause he supposedly supports)? How's that for ambition at any cost -- in this case to his reputation as a "new kind of candidate" espousing "change".

It is not atypical to help an opponent retire campaign debt. The amount is high because BOTH candidates spent ridiculous amounts of money. And, oh yeah, he's meeting with HER fundraisers tomorrow to enlist their aid.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

THIS BEARS REPEATING:

//

I MUST say one other thing:

I think a lot of whites are just looking for a reason to not like Obama that will be legitimate socially. The root of their problem is racial/cultural. These are the people that voted for Hillary and are now saying "we'll vote for McCain if HRC is not the nominee!!"

What did Obama ever do to you? Or Hillary? After all her dirty attacks and pandering, he still kept it mostly clean and elevated. AND, they have the same policy positions! Why would you vote for McCain? Are you voting for personality, because I've heard a lot of HRC supporters say that people are just emotionally attached to Obama and they should focus on the issues. Well, why don't cha then?

Posted by: rick020 | June 25, 2008 8:50 AM

//

GOOD POINT.

Posted by: Captain John | June 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Maine 1. I could have not said it better myself.

Posted by: Susan | June 25, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Wow, we need some of these people on tv giving their comments, well done! Aspergirl.....that was a huge comment, very interesting. Also, someone mentioned Mary Mahoney....I do remember reading about that.

There are too many reasons to go into here, but one currrent issue will do for now...Hillary ran her campaign into the ground, not managing people or money very well. I am not a fan of hers and remain shocked that she continues to maintain such fierce support in the face of her blind ambition to reach the highest level of politics at Any cost. For now, I'm happy to go a few rounds with anyone concerning the poorly managed campaign. Insult to injury...she has asked people to help with the bail-out!

Posted by: twotraps | June 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

If he picks Hillary, Obama would lose any many votes as he would gain. It's nonsensical. Not to mention that the Republicans would jump at the chance to replay the clips of Hillary suggesting that she and McCain are ready to be president, but Obama isn't. Hillary's rhetoric went over the line during the primary -- probably she never imagined she would be groveling for VP.

Posted by: trace1 | June 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Please read Sen. Obama's biography. He was raised by his wife, step-father, and grandparents. In his own books, he recounts his experiences growing up. He was raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity. It is unfathomable that the MSM refuses to recognize the complete record. As President, Sen. Obama will have the power declare pre-emptive strikes against whoever he wants like Pres. Bush. This means that we must know who our Presidents will be or become. If we had deliberated more thoroughly with Pres. Bush, we would not be at War against Iraq. It is obvious now that Pres. Bush was obsessed with Saddam Hussein for attacking former Pres. Bush.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Leon makes a nice, concise summary of how Obama cobbled his delegate lead together.

I would like him to fix a couple of minor things, make some edits, and repost again--it is worth repeating. Here is version I took the liberty of correcting and editing (my apologies to Leon in advance if he takes offense):

Fair piece--one thing:

"Obama beat Clinton in the primary due to the public -- or at least Democratic primary voters' -- desire for change."

Really??

He won because he out politicked her: he played a delegate game, concentrating on racking up large victories among the small numbers of voters that do caucuses (e.g., 9,100 in WY or AL) and by large victories in states where African-Americans make up the majority of Democratic voters (GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, LA). He lost by 100,000 votes in TX yet took *more* delegates, similarly with smaller margins in NH and NV. Additionally, MI and FL were states she was heavily favored in, and his campaign blocked the revotes.

It is easy to lay blame for a campaign that didn't win, but really he out politicked her in the Democratic primary, and he lawyered the rules. He also managed the press so that he could still be seen as "above the fray" politically even as he played politics: he started the "withdraw" press on Clinton in February so she seemed to be lingering by June--even though the pledged delegate count difference was only 115 and the popular vote was almost tied. This was much smaller lead than the 600+ deficiency Edward Kennedy (one of the main "leave the race" advocates) had going into the 1980 convention.

Leon

Posted by: jp | June 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I don't usually read blogs but decided to see what kind of feelings were out there over the VP issue. Whoah! I'm hoping that blogs generally pull in the whackos and nut jobs.

Hillary haters--take an aspirin! She is only trying as hard as she can to do good for this country. Don't blame her for her husband's follies. And stop being misogynists. If she were a guy you would think her amassing of political power was a sign of strength.

Obama haters--take a cold shower. He didn't steel anything from Hillary. She failed to anticipate or overcome the incredible grass-roots support Obama generated early on despite having an overwhelming advantage with the establishment of the Democratic Party. And he gives a really good talk. And people like to be inspired.

Any Obama supporter who will not vote for Obama in the unlikely event that he choses Clinton as his running mate does not have the best interests of the country or self at heart. And any Hillary supporter who vows not to vote for Obama (by the way, I checked out this PUMA thing and you people are a detestable lot--a writer for them, hah!) no matter who is on the ticket seriously needs to consider what best serves the interests of this country. Think about the Supreme Court, think about healthcare, think about continuing this idiotic war, think about the world and real global warming policy, think about class warfare and the economic disparity, think about the future of this country for our children. There will be another female candidate. Soon. And one without the negatives that so unfairly grew on Hillary.

Let's stop the nonsense and support the future.

Posted by: Greg'Sane | June 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Leon makes a nice, concise summary of how Obama cobbled his delegate lead together.

I would like him to fix a couple of minor things, make some edits, and repost again--it is worth repeating. Here is version I took the liberty of correcting and editing (my apologies to Leon in advance if he takes offense):

Posted by: jp | June 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, why you are giving up any chance of convincing Leichtman to vote D? According to polls, BHO leads with virtually all demographics nationally, but without Leichtman how can he possibly win?

Don't confuse us with numbers. The Leichtman vote is implacable because of the insults his candidate received at the keyboards of blog posters. Read the incredibly long analysis by AsperGirl, my cowinner of the fabled tee-shirt, to understand what you may be giving up. Polling data is nothing compared with sincerely held beliefs of persons who have never met the candidates but are sure that they know them.

On a less mocking but not completely respectful note, BHO has proven an adept politician of the familiar old school. If he decides that he would not lose your vote to gain Leichtman's, and if he thinks HRC would be a useful VP after election, he may choose her over your protest.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama was born in the US state of Hawaii - he's thus as much a natural-born citizen of the United States as George Bush or George Washington, for that matter. Yes, his father was from Kenya, which probably upsets Martha more than Woodrow Wilson's Scottish mother did. And like Gerald Ford, his father left when he was a baby.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama was raised by his mother and his grandparents. He's lived in the US for 44 of his 48 years, he lived in Jakarta from the age of 6 to 10, when he returned to live with his grandparents in the US. All of this is obviously irrelevant to his choice of VP, but it's always good to get your facts right.

Posted by: julianne | June 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton played the gender, race and class cards in the final stages of her campaign. She is a politician who can reinvent herself to fit the demographic of the moment...truth, ethics and integrity be damned. She is old sleaze potitics. If Obama truly represents change, he will distance himself from her and the powers behind her. Hillary Clinton is about power for herself. She will say anything, use anyone and do anything to get that power. Her credentials are at best a thin veneer and holds no valid claim of superior portfolio for the responsibilities of chief executive. Obama won the primary. Let him build his own team with fresh faces.

Posted by: Maine1 | June 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Quick correction to my last post: that's hillbuzz.blogspot.com. Sorry!

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"The importance of the vice presidential debate is often overlooked but has considerable potential to influence the race; witness ... Lloyd Bentsen versus Dan Quayle in 1988."
Ok Bentsen cleaned Quayle's clock and the democrats still lost big...so VP debates (and VP choices) actually have little influence at all...all the more reason to avoid picking someone with a horrible record of deceit and inauthenticity who has publicly speculated about your assassination.

Posted by: fun2bfree | June 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Martha - Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961. Thus he would be a natural-born citizen even if neither of his parents were citizens. The laws you cite apply to people born outside the US.

Posted by: Russ | June 25, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

HRC is probably the only one who could unite the party, assure the women's vote, and bring in more working class voters. The "dream ticket", which commentators trash at every opportunity, would be doubly historic and electrifying.

Some of the names being offered for VP are totally absurd...Gephardt, Nunn, etc represent "change"? Not so much. Former repub Webb and equally macho current repub Hagel are gonna pull in the women's vote? I don't think so.

As The Fix points out, it is fairly typical for a primary opponent to be named as running mate--even in hotly contested elections. HRC pulled in half of all votes cast! HRC haters here and elsewhere are inclined to forget this. Yeah she has baggage, but what pol doesn't--including Obama? The reality is he MUST offer VP to her. She doesn't have to take it (and might not), but it has to be offered.

I'm a HRC supporter who will proudly pull the lever for Obama in Nov. But that's certainly not true of everyone. Witness the comments here. Some HRC supporters would rather she wait until 2012, because they are convinced Obama will lose in Nov. There are websites (e.g., Hillbuzz.com) that are totally committed to that agenda. Obama and the Dems ignore these folks at their peril.

Posted by: cadbury | June 25, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

I don't like black ppl, and there are to many ppl just like me. So, nice try, and thanks America for riding the hype that was feed you. Obama will not be elected, and we will be srewed with another LONG period of the rich feeding the rich. I saw a comment about giving money to this "white woman". Are you daft? Maybe Oprah can lend you a few $, moron.

Posted by: 1st One | June 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm hoping Obama selects a VP who abhors corporate corruption, personifies military prowess, integrity, and deeply identifies themselves with lower and middle class values, not political corruption.

Posted by: SK | June 25, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary for veep and Bill for Secretary of State! President Obama should give the pair the assignment of forging a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians/Syrians. They will have 8 years of the Obama presidency to accomplish the task and the husband and wife team will surely win the Noble Peace Prize positioning Hillary for the presidency in 2016.

Posted by: Bob Cips | June 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and McCain would make a great team!
They can drown their sorrows drinking vodka together as they lose miserably to President Obama.

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Martha:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
So don't be too surprised if this isn't a big news item "in the next several days" -- or ever.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I could not agree more with you on every point in support of Senator Clinton for VP. I am one of those weird voters who assess the qualifications of the VP as carefully and as equally as I do the Presidential nominee's qualifications. I take issue that the VP is "meant to strengthen the presidential nominee where he is weak," if he had weaknesses then he should not be the nominee. I expect the VP to have the qualifications to step in if it becomes necessary. As I go through the names being suggested. I find faults: Webb has his Confederate baggage, Hagel is a Republican (there are other ways to cross the aisle), Edwards needs to be slotted for Att. General or Sec. Labor where is he can push his "blue collar worker's" agenda, Nunn has the Gay opposition, Bloomberg a better candidate for the next NY Governor, I don't trust folks who can't decide what party to belong to, Clark has only his military strength and little else, Daschle (couldn't win in SD but Hillary did) Sebelius isn't near the woman Clinton is, Bayh what does he bring to the plate? If I can't think of it then neither can others, Richardson did not have the stuff to stay in the primaries and Clinton can bring the Latino vote as well or better, Biden panders, Obama can carry VA without Kaine, Reed adds little to the electoral vote and Hillary knows as much as he or more on foreign policy....As for the "Elephant in the Room" former Pres. Clinton is too busy bringing his foundation agenda to fruition, and has no history of interfering in her senatorial judgments. If Obama says he can stand up to hostile foreign governments I would expect he could just as easily stand up to Bill should he be intrusive which I doubt he would. Words such as Hope and Change aren't strategies unless they have credible and well defined tactics outlined which he has yet to explain, she has the authenticity to do this with and for him

Posted by: CGinKansas | June 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I think she will be in RICE C.place S STATE

Posted by: jean stevens | June 25, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't believe that Obama is qualified to be president. She said so repeatedly during the campaign. So why should he make her VP? After the nasty campaign she ran, he should want nothing to do with her.

And don't say that she has 18 million votes, as if those voters were Hillary's slaves. The majority of her supporters will vote for Obama whether or not she's on the ticket. A few will refuse to vote for Obama either way. Meanwhile, Obama would offend a large portion of his supporters, who worked hard to keep Hillary out of the White House! He stands to lose more support than he'd gain.

Posted by: Blarg | June 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

It seems like a simple matter of survival for the Obama campaign. Stop counting money, take a lesson from your own recent history (shattering all records of campaign spending didn't help much), get the other half of the democratic party behind you and get Clinton on the ticket.

Posted by: Dave | June 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I agree with your analysis: "If a vice president is meant to strengthen the presidential nominee where he is weak, Clinton is the obvious choice."

Any marriage always has to be fit-yet-dangerously-cold to survive, as we have seen for 7 years. How many of us believe in Love?

Posted by: peace4world | June 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats have already blown it. By the end of the primary season, Obama was losing contest after contest to Clinton and was just coasting on his early lead. Insead of facing reality, the Democratic rules committee, superdelegates, and "turncoat" endorsers like Richardson and Edwards all decided to back Obama, thereby ensuring that a candidate already tarnished by Rev Wright (now the guy doesn't even have a church!) will stand in Nov.

So now we have an inexperienced first-term senator vs a War Hero (not a chickenhawk) at a time where we have two wars running. He's not for universal health care, supports FISA, is both for and against NAFTA, wants to sit down with all of our enemies in the first year, and has already signaled tax increases "for the wealthy" that are going to hit small and large businesses like a kick in the teeth during the worst recession since WWII.

I have no idea why democrats are ga-ga over Obama, but trust me, the rest of the country doesn't feel that way anymore, if it ever did. By November they're going to be real tired of him continually saying that this and that are "irrelevant" and "old politics" but not putting any real plans forward of his own. And if FL and MI voters are the least bit upset about being disenfranchised in the primaries, than getting 270 electoral votes is a pipe dream. So at this point it doesn't matter who the VP is - Obama is already doomed.

Posted by: Tristan | June 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is too inexperienced, insincere, and inadequate to win the Presidency. I can only hope that the Democratic leaders change their minds at the convention. Sen. Clinton would be remiss in accepting the VP slot. I believe the voters will not be able to pull the lever on Sen. Obama. He lies. He said he was against the war but has voted the party line. He said he would accept Public Financing and threw his pledge in the garbage. He said he could not disown his pastor or his grandmother, but has done both. Finally, he was raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity, but he denies it. Unacceptable. His religion does not matter, but his sincerity does.

Posted by: Luis | June 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"Obama has cast himself as someone seeking to change the way politics is conducted..."

So why would he pick a vice president who is politics as usual? A vice president who changed her state of residency simply to run for the Senate? A vice president who is a power-hungry maniac? A vice president whose husband, the First Dude, would need a role almost as big as his spouse's?

Furthermore, why would he pick a vice president who has proven to be fiscally incompetent and irresponsible with her campaign? Twenty-plus million dollars of campaign debt does not send a good message about fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: HILLNO | June 25, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama dosn't need to have Billary to be sucessful. Yes she is capable but why in the world would Obama subject himself and his supporters to the drama that surounds Billary.

We need leadership in Washington - not a internal cat fight for national coverage and second guessing -the media wants this marrage more than the nation does.

Posted by: Rex In PA | June 25, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama is too arrogant and elitist to ask Hillary Clinton to be VP. Without Clinton, Obama loses.

Posted by: Kentucky | June 25, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I MUST say one other thing:

I think a lot of whites are just looking for a reason to not like Obama that will be legitimate socially. The root of their problem is racial/cultural. These are the people that voted for Hillary and are now saying "we'll vote for McCain if HRC is not the nominee!!"

What did Obama ever do to you? Or Hillary? After all her dirty attacks and pandering, he still kept it mostly clean and elevated. AND, they have the same policy positions! Why would you vote for McCain? Are you voting for personality, because I've heard a lot of HRC supporters say that people are just emotionally attached to Obama and they should focus on the issues. Well, why dont cha then?

Posted by: rick020 | June 25, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Martha -- Thank you for all the interesting information about the requirements for the presidency. Unfortunately, none of it applies to Senator Obama, who was born in the the STATE of Hawaii, thus making him a natural born citizen. Any considerations about his parents are moot -- when one is born in one of the states of the United States of America, one is a natural citizen.

Posted by: Em | June 25, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Martha is wrong on so many counts. First, Barack Obama's mother was born in Wichita, KS., which makes her an American citizen no matter where she lived when he was born. The fact that Senator Obama was born in the STATE OF Hawaii makes him an American citizen. That's the law Martha.

Posted by: Art | June 25, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons and Bushes have already ruled this country for 20 years. With another Clinton as VP for another 8 years and then President for 8 years, it will work out to be a long time. Does the US have only two families to govern this country. I thought we were not a banana republic or monarchy.

Posted by: AT BOSTON | June 25, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I agree.
One of Obama's favorite books is "Team of Rivals", describing how Lincoln brought into his cabinet a whole group of his political rivals, and even a lawyer (Stanton - Lincoln's sec. of war) who had publically humiliated him and called him a monkey. Lincoln's choices turned out to be just what the nation needed in that very trying time.

The main problem is controlling Bill's tendency to "get off message"; but I think if Obama is "big enough" to bring in Hillary, that will be very persuasive with Bill. In addiition,

if enough big folks in the party make it clear to Bill that he can still be a big star as long as he stays on message,

but he can become a miserable pariah in his dotage if he runs off message,

and this communicated to Bill in the context of Obama reaching out his wife to bring into the whole nation's service her huge talents and energy, well then I think Bill will be managable.

Obama AND Hillary together, along with Democratic Party big wigs, just need to make it privately clear to Bill, that if he runs off and scandalizes the nation or embarrasses the Obama Administration, Obama AND Hillary TOGETHER will publically disown him !

Posted by: Paul Woodson, Port Angeles WA, PBJWoodson@gmail.com | June 25, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Look at the other names on the list. Some like Sam Nunn are bizarre. Who else would bring a fraction of the same excitement to the campaign as Clinton. Forget all this she's going to mobilize Republicans to vote against you, if you don't think that's going to happen already you haven't been listening to some of the slime on talk radio or reading some of the rantings from right wingers on blogs like this. Clinton is the one, in fact it's probably true to say he needs her more at the moment than she needs him.

Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

CASE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON

Ever hear of Mary Mahoney ???


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

There is no way that the people of the US are going to put these two "people" in charge of our country. Mac is a RHINO and will do nearly as much damage as the Democratic Party wants to do anyway so you libs will come out ahead no matter who gets the job. It truly sickens me to see what has become of my country thanks to politcal divides over the past 52 years. This is what I see now... If its bad for the country and our population it creates the "victims" the Democratic Party needs to promise to fix everything FOR them so they can get elected / re-elected. Look at the oil situation that the Democrats have created for us by not allowing any progress in our energy program over the past 30 years. Now they blame everyone else for this happening when they are the ones that made it happen, it took them some time but they finally suceeded. So all you victims out there that want to vote for your democrat party people have fun with the mayhem that YOU will help create.

Posted by: Kevoh | June 25, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I hope Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate. Assuming he wins in November, she is the only chance he has of accomplishing anything as President. His notions of changing the way Washington does business are simplistic and naive. He needs an experienced technocrat to lead him through the dangerous waters in DC. Without her, he'll be eaten alive and the country will be at a stand still for four years.

Posted by: Scooter | June 25, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Yikes, I see a lot of things that trouble me on this discussion board.

First, Hillary did not win the popular vote count. Period. That is not debatable. We don't know who won it, and it really doesn't matter. They both got about 18 million votes. Stop trying to divide the party by arguing over who won the most popular votes.

Second, I agree with Tim T and others that Hillary's message and persona are just not compatable with Obama's. I think the argument for her on the ticket is weak. Yes, she brings in some demographics that, on paper, Obama may need and be struggling with (more like they are struggling with his race and background). However, the general election is a long way away and he will surely pick up some of these votes. Couple that with the fact that the Republicans have a fairly weak candidate in the sense that McCain just doesn't have the energy or money to beat Obama. Add the fact that the country wants change. Obama doesn't need Clinton, and many of his supporters (including most of his ardent supporters) who make up his organizing network would be confused and dissappointed in the choice if he picked her.

The two ran different messages as the campaign went on: Obama's was positive and Hillary's was negative. She tried to use fear and loyalty to win the nomination, and it didn't work! She dirtied the debate. For Obama to pick her would depress a lot of his supporters.

Posted by: rick020 | June 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Martha, I hope that you do not send that chain email to anyone else. BHO was born in HI, thus making him an American citizen by birth - even if both of his parents turned out to be undocs. And I am a UT Law Alum, Class of '67, licensed before SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit, and the TX Supremes..

The issue was raised by some about McC b/c he was born in the CZ. BHO cosponsored Claire McCaskill's bill to clarify McC's status - although I think the bill is unnecessary and that one of the unintended consequences of SCOTUS' recent Gitmo case is that no one would seriously argue that the CZ was not US soil at the time of McC's birth.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

It is my sincere hope that Senator Clinton will not align herself with this terrible nomination. When Obama loses to McCain (who will certainly get my vote, regardless of whether or not Clinton is Obama's VP), Clinton can run again in 2012 without the baggage of having been involved in Obama's loss. If, God help us, Obama wins in November, we'll have another disastrous presidency like Jimmy Carter's, and we'll need good people like Clinton to pick up the pieces.

Posted by: rgs tnr | June 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Well if she is on at least one of them would have a clue.

Posted by: jeff | June 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

The best reason Senator Clinton should NOT be the VP candidate is that it is a do little job and she would make one of the best Secretaries of State we have ever had. I think the Obama campaign was truly inspired when it looked at Sam Nunn. But Clinton, no way she should accept the job unless some numbers show she is absolutely needed (I doubt they exist).

Posted by: Frank Stein | June 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised at the negative conotation attached to the word "elitist". Being an elitist is a good thing. You want the brightest and the best to run a country like the United State.
Did not George Bush Jr. teach us anything? Look at the way he ran the country, mister "the man you are most likely to drink beer with"
I do not get the electorate of this country. This is the best country with the brightest and best brains in the world; yet we produce very dense electorates. Both Obama and H Clinton are elitist. Obama outsmarted her from day one. For those who say he has not accomplised anything........they should take a look at themselve.
Obama is full of accomplishments. He grew up poor and climbed to the heights usually reserved for people like the Clintons and Bushes.
What more ........except to advise bitter Clinton supporters to step back a little and get to know Obama.........not the Obama they read from the blogs.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is without a doubt the best choice for vice president. I am awaiting the decision by Obama to determine whether I will finacially support his campaign. I will vote for him regardless but the issue of whether I will donate to the campaign hinges on his selection of Hillary as VP

Posted by: Gail | June 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

If Obama picks HRC for VP it will be the worst mistake he would make , what experience HRC has in foreign policy, other than dodging bullets in Bosnia, she has lied constantly, she voted for the war in Iraq, she has just has much blood on her hands than Bush, she is not fit to be a senator, she is not fit to be an intern. If Obama wants to loose millions of votes, he should pick HRC as VP

Posted by: joe | June 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

No matter what Hillary on ticket as VP or not I and 18 million other Dems for Hillary will not vote for Obama. As far as we are concerned both candidates are frauds and certainly do not have the country and the people as their #1 concern.

Hillary do not do it. Stay in the Senate and give yourself another go at the Presidential spot in 4 years. Neither one of these jokers will make a second term.

Posted by: lynn parker. | June 25, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Serving as Barack Obama's vice president would be a step down for Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows Clinton is far better qualified to be president than Obama,who has lately been exposed as a typical political hack from Chicago, and she would be wise to use her leadership ability, knowledge, wisdom, compassion and practical know how as the country's most distinguished US Senator. If Obama asks, I hope she turns him down. Who knows - he might come up with a vice-presidential seal as arrogant and unprofessional as his recent "vero possumus" attempt at self-glorification.

Posted by: ichief | June 25, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

I feel like a complete blank.
That's how it is.
I can't be bothered with anything recently.
adipex online
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Posted by: buy adipex on line | June 25, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Now we are asked to give her $22 million dollars for being a terminally self absorbed and divisive diva?

Posted by: x32792 | June 25, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Good grief! This may be a very broad generalization, but the Obama supporters seem to be a bad bunch of sore winners. I'm not sure that they will be any better that the current Bush/Cheney/Rove gang has been in the White House.

Posted by: tlc20011 | June 25, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Well, Martha, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and he's not a legal citizen either. why don't you take your hate mongering somehwere else?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Seeing as how I completely lost respect for the Washington Post writers since they did nothing but bash Clinton for several months in a pathetic excuse for journalism, my only guess is that your bosses realized your paper makes more money when you write about Clinton. Whether it's for or against her.

Posted by: Ryan | June 25, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"Everyone seemed to grant Clinton the advantage on the experience issue..."

CC, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "everyone" here. Maybe you mean every Clinton supporter gave her the edge in experience. Unfortunately, if she was chosen as VP her "experience" would be a anchor to Obama. Just as Obama argued in the primary she cannot continue to take credit for everything that went well during the Clinton years while getting a free pass on everything bad. Also, being the spouse of the President does not contribute to ones creditials/experience to be President. Has anyone else tried to use that line in a job interview? Do married people get to combine resumes when applying for jobs? Does her Bosnia "experience" counteract McCain's war hero cred, I think not.

I believe choosing Clinton would open the door for McCain. Obama choosing Clinton (a politics a usual subscriber) would contradict Obama's message to his core supporters. He doesn't need the rest of Clinton's holdout supporters (who will more than likely come over anyways). Obama needs to add someone who will bring something to the table beyond name recognition. Obama's VP selection needs to make further in roads into Republican territory--particularly the South or West. Obama's best strategy is to keep McCain right where he has him, on the defensive.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 25, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

This came from a USNA alumnus. It'll be
> interesting to see how the media
> > handle this...
> > ======================
> > Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen
> according to the law
> > on the books at the time of his birth, which falls
> between December 24,
> > 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that
> the office of
> > President requires a natural-born citizen if the child
> was not born to two
> > U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John
> McCain, though he was born
> > in the US Panama Canal Zone.
> >
> > US Law very clearly states: ". . . If only one
> parent is a U.S. Citizen at
> > the time of one's birth, that parent must have
> resided in the United States
> > for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the
> age of 16." Barack
> > Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
> >
> > Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born.
> This means even though she
> > had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of
> Hawaii being a
> > territory), his mother fails the test for
> at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack
> > Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.
> >
> > In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify
> her son for automatic
> > U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his
> mother turning 16 to the
> > time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His
> mother would have needed
> > to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of
> Barack Obama's birth for
> > him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was
> already 3 years old at
> > the time his mother would have needed to be to allow
> him natural citizenship
> > from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have
> been naturalized as a
> > citizen . . . but that would disqualify him from
> holding the office.
> >
> > The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized
> citizens are ineligible to
> > hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was
> sent back to Hawaii at
> > age 10, any other information does not matter because
> his mother is the one
> > who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen
> for 10 years prior to
> > his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years
> being after age 16.
> >
> > Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the
> USA for some time frame
> > to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather
> than living in
> > Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring
> violation of U.S. Election
> > law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California
> should be very
> > interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be
> elected President
> > without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this
> would set a precedent.
> > Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of
> this information will
> > be leaking through over the next several days.

Posted by: Martha | June 25, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Bill lied, but no one died.
What he did has nothing to do with the ability of Hillary.
I for one will not vote for Obama, unless he picks Hillary for the second seat.

Posted by: WAYNE | June 25, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Absolutey right on target. What other VP candidate can bring as much to the table as Senator Clinton. I can't think of one. There are way more pluses than minuses. We are just waiting for what Obama will do...If nt Hillary. Hello McClain for many of us. Deal with him for 4 years and then get Hillary elected in 2012. It is up to Obama...we' just waiting.

Posted by: Sally Burke | June 25, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Fair peice- one thing:

"Obama beat Clinton in the primary due to the public -- or at least Democratic primary voters' -- desire for change."

Really, Obama was only able to compete with Clinton due to the "desire for change". He won because he out politiked her- he played a delegate game- concentrating on racking up large victories among the small numbers of voters that do primaries (ex.:9100 in Wyoming or Alaska) and by large victories in states where African Americans make up the majority of Democratic voters (GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, LA)--he lost by 100,000 votes in TX and took more delegates, similarly with smaller margins in NH, NV and other places. Additionally, MI and FL were states she was heavily favored in and his campaign blocked the revotes.

It is easy to lay blame for a campaign that didn't win- but really he out politiked her in the Dem party- he lawyered the rules. He also managed the press so that he could still be seen as "above the frey" politically evan as he played politics and started the "withdraw" thing in Feb. so she seemed to be lingering by June- even though the pledged delegate count was 115 different (much smaller than the 600+ delegated Edward Kennedy was behind at the 1980 convention and he was one of the main "pull out of the race" advocates for her)

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has served in the US Senate for over 8 years now, and not once did Bill Clinton interfer or make unfavorable national news in regards to his wife's job. The Clintons are simply the best at compartmentalizing their lives. She has been very gracious in defeat (even after winning the popular vote count). If she had prevailed, Obama would have been VP no questions asked. Obama should do the same if he is the true uniter.

Posted by: JTN--Balto | June 25, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Mr. Obama. I believe in his message. Bill and Hilliary have a different message. The question is what will happen on Day ONE? Her agenda would be - working for her cronies, to consolidate her power, and to watch her back; not to push vigorously for Mr. Obama's policies. The next president faces the most difficult job ever and it will take tremendous focus on an agenda that Hilliary is not committed to: change Washington politics!

Posted by: Tim T. | June 25, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I do not know if Hilary is the right choice or not. I do love how people keep mentioning that Bill lied to us about Monica. This is true. His Monica lie did cost a number of people their reputation. On the other hand, "W" lied to us in order to get us in a war and cost us thousands of lives. Believing that ALL politicians lie to us, I will take the cheating husband lie over the alternative any day.

Posted by: Cory | June 25, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Chris: get over it. The primaries are over. Democrats had two able candidates. One won. They're moving on now, and you're beating a dead horse now.

Posted by: alanr | June 25, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

As I recall, Hillary's offer still stands. If Obama wants to show what an "Un-politician" he is, he could accept the position as her VP. It certainly would make an interesting campaign. :o\

Posted by: rush_is_right | June 25, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

To quote from ed s.: "... why Mrs. Clinton is the right choice for VP are as clear as the pristine waters of the deep seas." I could not agree with you more. Once you get below about 500 feet the "deep seas" become increasingly dark and black and are no longer clear, a perfect analogy for HC!

Posted by: Jack | June 25, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

I agree with PatrickinBeijing. Picking Hillary would be the cautious pick. Obama would pick up the Hillary supporters and probably win the election. But, instead will Obama "cut his nose to spite his face?" Not picking Hillary would put Obama's campaign in a precarious position. As far as that right to life mantra that Obama and his supporters cite, that's an idle threat. The Supreme Court already has a 5 to 4 conservative advantage and the Democrats are in the majority in Congress. If that were the case, then why weren't the religious right in lock-step with McCain. That is until yesterday, when Rev. Dobson, who wants less to see Obama as President, has finally thrown his support towards McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

This post is contorted and offensive. It's one thing to talk about voters' perception of her as experienced, but to take that position yourself without any sort of basis is irresponsible and unprofessional.

She was one of the least experienced of the field on the Democratic side, and her campaign knew it. It is for that reason, and none other, that her campaign self-consciously pushed that message. She has not successfully sponsored any major legislation. She has not served as an officer in any military force. She has not been a national executive candidate before. Her claim to experience is as laughable as it is presumptuous.

Posted by: Josh | June 25, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Shootingsparks | June 25, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should have been the nominee but I can tell you this here and now if Obama doesn't put her on the ticket I will not vote for him in November. I really don't see him as commander and chief. Lets hope that he does the right thing. He says he is different from the present politicians but time and time again I hear him putting down McCain. What is different about him?

Posted by: Diane | June 25, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I read your blog, but still have not seen any valid arguments in you blog for having HC as a VP candidate with BO. There was not a single point I could agree with. How can you state that she is "up to the job" when she could not win the nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. It was hers to lose and she did. I expect she will work her similar "magic" if she runs on the ticket in the VP slot, and, of course, there is always hubby BC who has increasingly shown his predilection to mess things up as he focuses on massaging his own ego.

Posted by: Jack | June 25, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Well said ,and right on target ! The rationale/reasons you enumerated why Mrs. Clinton is the right choice for VP are as clear as the pristine waters of the deep seas.

I hope Senator Obama realizes by now, that Senator Clinton is a priceless and tremendous asset for his candidacy.

But why should Mrs. Clinton consider a VP post? She's bigger than that!

Posted by: ed sallador | June 25, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Shootingsparks | June 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

obama could win,with hillary at his side there is no chance of losing. with all the obama people and all the hillary people voting mccain might as well stay home. it will be a landslide win. do i think obama will chose hillary, NO.

Posted by: donald share | June 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

You corporate douchebags are beating a dead horse with this Hillary BS. You might as well start jocking McCain, he's your man.

Posted by: Hairy Rod'Em Clittin | June 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Makes no matter, as a Clinton supporter, I will never vote for Obama at the top of the ticket. All the while Obamatards expect my vote they keep saying nasty things about Clinton.

I keep wondering who Obama will disappoint first - I guess it's MoveOn.org who are outraged over his acceptance of FISA. The Blacks will have their turn when they realize he won't give them everything they want. Then it's the antiwar activists when the troops don't make an immediate withdrawal. Then it's the young voters when they realize hope doesn't translate into action. Then it's the feminists when .....

Posted by: itsme | June 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Hillary would be much more valuable as a Senator than a VP

Posted by: Norm Q | June 25, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The "Little Monster" is Not VP material.
B H's supporters would never vote for H R Clinton in a thousand years.
She is a racist like the late G C Wallace.

Posted by: The Monster is Done | June 25, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

spare me...
what was that expression Randi Rhodes used to describe Hitlery? It was apt...how can you suggest she has "increased stature"?
from the Clinton's coke money laundering business, to their coke importing business in Mena Arkansas...lemme put it this way, had we had the internet during his first run for office it would have ended faster than David Dukes ride...the Clintons suck balls, and not in a good way..

Posted by: Shootingsparks | June 25, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

WHy do you not moderate this? DO we have to put up with cranks like two of the first four posters (one resorting to name calling ('socialists'!!!!!) and the other calling the Clintons murders) - seriously, who are these people? do we have to put up with them when we are trying to read adn contribute to intelligent dialogue? WHy does the WP put up with this? They lose the rest if they do not act

Posted by: cranks | June 25, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

www.voteboth.com

Posted by: VS | June 25, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

It's clear to see that we do have some real arrogant Hillary haters out there. Unfortunately she would have been a better choice for president with Obama as her VP. However, the media put a halo around Obama, and Hilary didn't run a very stong campaign. So seeing how she should be president I would feel much more comfortable if she was in the White House making the decisions for Obama.

Posted by: 1234 | June 25, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Boutan, Alan in Missoula, and blert:

pls contact me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

All will be revealed.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 25, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

There are several good arguments for Clinton being Obama's VP choice. I never posted them before because I don't think she should be his VP, for her sake. But I will hit a couple of them here.

AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY

Obama has an authenticity problem that is inverse of the Clintons. His charisma is about being able to speak about things and be seen as authentic and being compelling. He has the affect and presentation and charisma of an authentic person. However, he lacks the substance (actual specific knowledge and insights that win debates) and evidence of authenticity (professional record of success, record of action on stands taken, experience) in the things he claims. Obama is the brilliant elitist without actual substance. He is the kind of guy who moves people who live in the world of affectation -- media professionals and ivory tower white liberals -- but leaves blue collar people and pragmatic thinkers cold. The Clintons have the inverse problem -- they are the basis for success: actual brilliance in policy and how to implement it. They are deep practitioners of the "competence rules" and "preparation wins" type of blue-collar-to-leadership talent achievers (like Tim Russert's path). If Obama is the stylish, cool kid in the class who knows how to game the teacher and students and system, Hillary Clinton is the geek who has the prepared notes and project that enables her to not only put together the right stuff, but fix Obama's science project when it goes awry. The Clintons' problem is that, in being elite geeks, they were never GOOD ENOUGH at being liars, and always get caught in dumb, pointless lies. The problem with the Clintons is that they don't have an authenticity problem when it comes to themselves as capable and gifted, but their authenticity is always in question due to their lame attempts at affectation. Obama is a more natural fit to the online chattering classes and the liberal media elites and others whose interpersonal currency is more influenced by affectations of elitism: he has the gifts of affectation of leadership but lacks the actual substance of leadership. The Clintons are the inverse: they have the true leadership elements but lack convincing affectations of elitism. Together, Obama + Clinton form a true leadership team.

Being affected and shallow, the media elites and online chattering classes and political analyst talking heads are not focused on the product but the public perception of the product. That is a big mistake. That's like focusing on the perception of a flavoring rather than the origins of a flavoring. An orange flavoring made of real oranges is going to be more appealing than the orange flavoring made of cow feces, to any consumer who digs deeper and reads the ingredient list. It's surprising and disappointing that the analytic discussion is all about public perception of the team. To win, put together a good team on all levels -- starting with what would be a really good leadership team and then work with the public perception part. The Obama-Clinton team has all the elements of real leadership needed for a truly gifted administration in a time of historic, multifaceted economic, infrastructure, military and global dislocation problems.

MAKING GOOD ON THE CHANGE AND OVERCOMING DIVISIONS THEME

The Obama theme of change is wearing awfully thin; it seems to have a meaning that is substantially different then what other people think "change" means. "Change" doesn't mean just upsetting, dominating and replacing the old people in the system and putting in new ignorant people who are more cool in the eyes of the new base. That is a form of "change" but it's one that is shallow, self-focused, irresponsible and immature and proven throughout history to have only random results. "Change" doesn't mean making promises and breaking them. "Change" doesn't mean creating new paradigms by making racism the new McCarthyism while age-bashing and mysogyny and other forms of "ism" attacks run rampant. The only real change in culture and tone we've seen in Obama's support base is the change attendant to inverting the old prejudices for a new ghetto culture of anti-white racism, sexism and other "isms" that are part of the stream of consciousness of hip hop and black culture. That's not appealing to most white people, especially where the culture war gets mainstreamed in national media the way it has this election year.

If Obama can't embrace the Clintons, bridge the cultural divide and bring their doubters on board, all he has done is shift the electoral base calculations by plotting to bring more blacks out to vote and other Democratic-voter replacement schemes. That's not unity. It doesn't reflect the mind of the man who can get Republicans enough to work with them or face hard decisions.

There is a reason why Obama's coming off as a pansy, an affected elitist without real manhood. He obviously lacks the experience and insights needed to implement the vision of unity and change he's hyped. Being forced to deal with the Clintons will give him actual experience in deep leadership mediation and bridging. The Clintons are also the only Democrats who have beaten and won and won over conservatives when they needed to. Obama has a lot to learn from them as well as a lot to learn from being forced to deal with them. If he can't make it work with the Clintons (with their help and effort), he can't lead the country in the great disruptions that are unfolding.

OBAMA'S ADRIFT IDEOLOGICALLY

Obama's adrift and needs better input than what he's getting. He's obviously green and ignorant. He's been channeling Jimmy Carter on how to lay out a slate of stagflation-creation economic anti-stimulus taxes and has made it clear that most of his social vision of change is to be implemented in a massive reallocation of assets and wealth to the lower classes via taxation on small business and upper middle classes. In his Pollyannish, simplistic, lets-schmooze-with-Iran talk, Obama is also channeling the Jimmy Carter behavior (and Jimmy Carter, we must recall, actually caused the downfall of the Shah of Iran and the coup of the Ayatolla Khomeini).

There are dozens of elites at the top of the Democratic Party ideological food chain. Most of them aren't any smarter or real than the elite neo-cons in the right wing of the Republican Party. Having a green, naive and clueless Obama is a happy thing for the left-wing ideologues in the Democratic Party elite, long frustrated and enraged by years of Reagan, Bush, the centrist Clintons and then the Bush neo-conservative domination. But those old left-wing ideologues aren't coming out with new ideas for the new millenium; they are coming out with the old ideas that failed in the last millenium.

It's easy to think an inexperienced, green President can get everything one needs from academics, policy wonks and party ideological elites, but that's the formula that failed for George W. Bush for 8 years. Obama, for deep advising, can't get any better than the Clintons right now. Larry Summer put it best: there is a kind of policymaking that is not about economics or about leadership but about political economic leadership. It's a world unto itself and the kind of intellectual political gifts that the Clintons have not easy to find and tap for excellence in governance. They are not easily replaceable as top inner-circle advisors.

Obama's adrift in a sea of incompetent, last-century politically bankrupt left-wing ideology in the same way Bush is adrift in an incompetent implementation of last-century right-wing ideology known as his brand of neo-conservatism. A steep injection of pragmatic competence and expertise of centrist geeks is the remedy for the ideological disease that Bush had and that Obama appears to have developed the left-wing version of. Any green, iconic figure without a clue who gets elected President by extremists needs people like the Clintons in his inner circle to ground and grow his leadership, or he will be adrift among the ideologues. The Clintons are the remedy against Obama developing into a left-wing Bush.

THE CONSERVATIVES WERE STARTING TO LIKE CLINTON

The left-wing media seems to be missing that in the last half of the primary season, the conservatives were warming to Clinton. The kind of admirers she was picking up weren't just among the blue collar whites, but among conservatives, too, who were paying attention to her grit, her addresses of the issues, her intelligence and gift-child performances in debates. The FoxNews network anchors, including Bill O'Reilly, were visibly crestfallen on North Carolina Primary night. The mainstream media seems to be understating the extent of her fundamental appeal growth.

ALL THOSE DEMOGRAPHIC ARGUMENTS

We've all heard and seen those demographic arguments based on polls and exit polls. What is deceptive about them is that the polling now and during primary season, are based on results that are from the electorate in certain mind frames. A single event can shift the mind frame of the electorate significantly, if it moves one voter concern ahead and others behind. By being too narrow in demographic appeal and making too many demographic calculations, you buy into a system of calculations about the electorate that might not be valid on election day. E.g. the "terrorist strike would benefit Republicans" thought. There are many such events that would benefit Republicans, because of Obama's counting so much on a lot of deep support from a narrow base.

REPUBLICAN SCREWUPS

The Republicans have no concept of how outdated and infuriating they are. They're still spinning around in the old, dead ideological circles of the last century, imperfectly retrofitted to this century by Bush neocons. The only reason Obama's doing so well now is that the Republican ideologues, wonks and talking heads are spending more time bashing, undermining and criticizing McCain than Obama.

The Republicans might decide to let go of their political and ideological fixation with bankrupt ideas and decide to follow McCain's leadership. They might, someday soon, decide to stop arguing with McCain and start exploring the merits of what to them are his radical ideas and selling them to the public. If they do, Obama's in a lot of trouble because a lot of what McCain says makes sense, like leading certain energy initiatives with federal government energy usage mandates. McCain is making a lot more sense than Obama is with his corn ethanol biofuels support and vague talk lifted inexpertly from Clinton's energy plans. If the Republicans stopped undermining McCain and following and echoing him, the public might figure that out, too. Obama can't continue to count on the Republicans' continued screwups.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 25, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse


(CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.

Posted by: new war coming | June 25, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

The perception of HRC's "experience" is inflated by her years as First Lady of Arkansas and of the USA. In other words, it is a figment of press exposure and press repetition and her own spin. When you ask the rhetorical question "What other candidate being considered for vice president can speak as deftly and knowledgeably about issues both foreign and domestic?" the first obvious answer is JB [did you see MTP Sunday?], and he is not the only one.


That annoying point aside, HRC is a credible choice who became a good campaigner in her own right, as you suggest. But as you will surely attest on Friday, the negatives are great.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 25, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

If you study history as I am sure most of us reading the papers do than we remember how many people lost there lives during the Clinton administration. Foster to name one,which is still a mystery. If Obama picks Clinton he better fear for his life. Brown went down in a misterious plain crash remember? I hate to say this but this should be thought about. We forgave Nixon over time and Clinton in less time for lieing to us. Do you remember when he looked right into the TV monitor and said he did not have relations with Monica a direct lie. The fact is the Clintons are capable of anything. Clinton supporters there is no other way to put this, get you heads out of the sand as the Clintons are the best act in town. They acted there way thru his presidency and with them back in the White House anything can and will happen. They scare me and they should scare Obama as why wait until 2012.

Posted by: wixie | June 25, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

If Sen. Obama picks the "Queen of lies" as his running mate, he'll lose my vote.

Posted by: DWayne | June 25, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

It would be a shame if the Democratic party didn't take this opportunity to cleanse itself of Clintonism. There is a great political realignment going on, great expectations have been raised, and traces of the Clinton era of corruption, incompetence and sleaze must be swept away. To quote Al Gore (out of context) "it's time for them to GO!"

Posted by: Tirebeight | June 25, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

who in their right mind would want two socialists an a ticket, this country is crazy, geting rid of one Husein and instol another one.both of them should go to Cuba or where ever socialism is stil exist.you liberals distroing this country.SOCIALISM is dead did not work in Russia will not work her for sure.

Posted by: genet45 | June 25, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree on a number of points.
There is at least one person who also ran who has much better creds than Sen. Clinton, and that would be Bill Richardson.
With his experience as UN Ambassador he would bring the foreign policy experience many claim Sen. Obama doesn't have.(Although intelligence, a decent education,common sense and a grasp of history should be enough, all of which Sen. Obama does have.)
His experience in the Dept. of Energy could help in our current energy crisis, and his Hispanic background could help reconcile those voters with Sen. Obama.
None of which real-world, on the ground experience Sen. Clinton could provide and without the liability of having potentially two Vice Presidents - Sen. Clinton and past president Bill Clinton. (Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton could keep his hand out of it and his mouth shut didn't watch Sen. Clinton's campaign.)

Posted by: Baycat57 | June 25, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I have serious doubts about the wisdom of putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket as vice-president, and I write this as a supporter of the People United Means Action movement (although I really prefer the other acronym). Those of us who believe that Senator Clinton should have the presidential nomination and are ready to bolt the party have many motivattions. Some of us feel that the nomination was awarded in an undemocratic (small d) manner, while others have serious doubts about Senator Obama's sincerity, or policies, or experience. As the justsaynodeal, PUMA group becomes more visible however, there is likely to be more awareness that we are not alone in our feelings, and a cross polination of grievances is inevitable. While my own doubts about Senator Obama were based on the serious flaws of his health care proposal, exposure to the nobama web sites has made me increasingly resistant to voting for him. Some portion of this feeling is now based on Senator Obama's condescending behavior, as well as the "you lost, get over it" behavior of his supporters, which is rather like the "we won, it's our due" comment of Vice-President Cheney. To my mind, since being assured of the nomination, Senator Obama has tossed off some of the idealism that made him initially attractive as a candidate (FISA, rejection of public funding) so that having lost thr support of many traditional Democratic (lage D) voters, he runs the risk of alienating the young, well aducated first-time registrants who made up his own base.
I don't believe that we can be placated or brought around to voting for Senator Obama by the sop of nominating Senator Clinton as vice-president. At this point, there is no way either Senator, Clinton or Obama, can be nominated in a manner that would be perceived as fair to their supporters, and it's unlikely that the party can be unified. If the PUMA faction coalesces, the Democrats will face something worse than the Bull Moose Party.
From a political viewpoint, Senator Obama would be best off trying to hold onto his own supporters. He won with support from the traditionally unreliable youth vote -- first time registrants who turned out in record numbers, but traditionally are underrepresented at actual elections. He is likely to lose some of these supporters as he turns towards the right for the general election. Senator Obama might be best served by finding a running mate who can hold onto the youth vote which supported him, rather than try to retrieve the voters whom he and the Democratic Party have already tossed aside.

Posted by: Samskara | June 25, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Selecting Hillary is "singing to the choir". She doesn't add much in the areas that Obama is weak and she adds huge liability. For example, Both Hillary and Obama are weak on foreign policy. Putting them together and they are still weak. Additionally, both are "non-mainstream" candidates. Quite frankly, Obama would benefit among independents with a white male on the ticket.

Furthermore, we forget that Hillary is the single most polarizing candidate in recent history. Her negatives are the strongest of any candidate. Putting her on the ticket will just move some people on the fence to not voting.

At the end of the day, she adds older white liberal women. That's it. As a practical matter, Obama is polling as well or better than Kerry did among ALL women. What he may be losing on liberal white women (who will eventually come around to him anyway) he is making up in independents. She adds nothing to the his electability.

Posted by: Steve | June 25, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

I really think that Hillary is a big assest to Obama whether people realize it or not(heck obama is already picking most of his team from clinton administration. Republicans hate her. It would be funny to see all the republicans who have been singing her praises now that she lost the primaries do an about face and start attacking her if Obama makes her the vp.

Posted by: rachel | June 25, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

"Obama could argue that despite the differences between he and Clinton had during the primary ..."!

Chris, Are you a product of "no child left behind"?

Posted by: Grammar Gramma | June 25, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse


Oops, on other factor in her favor. If McCain's best bet is to siphon off Clinton supporters, this would kill that strategy, leaving him in even worse trouble.

One might make an argument that picking Clinton is both bold and cautious. Bold in that he would be picking the last person most people expect, and showing that "bigness" factor. Cautious, in that it might very well be the final deathblow to McCain's hopes (at least in terms of VP, and Clintonista outreach dreams).

An interesting year, indeed!!

Posted by: PatrickInBeijing | June 25, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse


Actually, in my mind, the best argument is the "bigness" argument. People would be so astounded, it would be hard for McCain to outdo such a choice.

Certainly, it would dominate the summer media, making it harder for McCain to get his message across. From a PR standpoint, it is a winner.

Two questions though, 1) Does Clinton really want it? It did seem like she was sending signals of wanting it immediately after she lost. But this can be put down to withdrawal symptoms from campaigning (which while hellish, can also be addicting if you can stand it).

Second question, does Obama need her to win? I would guess that her and Bill alongside him on the campaign trail will do just fine.

He is in a somewhat enviable position. He looks like a clear enough winner that he can pick almost anybody at this point (except Ralph Nader) and still win.

So, what does he really want in a VP? I have no idea, and don't think he has really given us a clue.

It is an "interesting" year, and almost anything could happen. I would bet no on Clinton, but would not bet very much.

Posted by: PatrickInBeijing | June 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Dear Obama:

Would you please ask your donors to assist with my debt too? I only need about 10 Thousand because I don't waste millions of dollars on tv commercials.

Obama you are the man.

I can see that you have decided to help people with their bills - I'm sure from your days as a community activist you have done that for many people.


I think you should help the poor too.


Why do you want your people to give more money to a multi-millionaire white woman who lives in one the richest places in the country - when all she has to do is quit the job she is not doing and go on a speaking tour which will pay off all her debts?

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Dear Obama:

Would you please ask your donors to assist with my debt too? I only need about 10 Thousand because I don't waste millions of dollars on tv commercials.

Obama you are the man.

I can see that you have decided to help people with their bills - I'm sure from your days as a community activist you have done that for many people.


I think you should help the poor too.


Why do you want your people to give more money to a multi-millionaire white woman who lives in one the richest places in the country - when all she has to do is quit the job she is not doing and go on a speaking tour which will pay off all her debts?

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Hasn't everyone done this series?

Isn't everyone sick of this prospect?

Does anyone actually believe it might actually happen?

Can't we just let it go? Can't the Clintons just fade a little?

Please?

Posted by: Politickler | June 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

hill should never be considered for the VP job when there are enough good men around,names already known,for that role.It could be tempting fate.
Meanwhile,she is test-proven in deceit,lies,poor-management,arrogance,self-delusion,sexism when needed etc.This person, meeting foreign states-people or dignatories, is just not an option.
More a weep-stake job than a veep-stake!

Posted by: canyon1 | June 25, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

This is a George Carlin routine, right? -- HRC for veep. In the words of McEnroe, you can't be serious...HRC adds nothing, she doesn't get him any state he wouldn't win anyway. And her real dead-end supporters like YouTube artist Harriet Christian wouldn't vote for Barack even if he were Abe Lincoln. Why would Barack want to re-live that nightmare...Move on please.

Posted by: Broadway Joe | June 25, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Jkates is simply wrong, which the current polling shows. Some percentage of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain (just as some GOP voters will vote for Obama). However, "many, many millions" of Hillary's voters (there were only 18 million of them) will not vote for McCain, particularly when they learn how right to life McCain is. It is understandable that some Clinton supporters are very disappointed their candidate did not win but they are not going to vote for McCain just to give her a chance to run again in 2012.

Posted by: LouisXIV | June 25, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

"Many, many millions of Clinton supporters are not going to vote for Obama."

Last poll I saw had this number at about 10% Time heals wounds. I have a feeling this is true on both sides now that people have a little distance on the whole primary and a little more perspective.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 25, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Ik~!

Chris./ I normally like your column and insight, but starting with this?: "There is no person on either side of the veepstakes more speculated about than Hillary..."

Really? WTF? NO. Wrong. Incorrectomundo.

Where are you coming from with this line that opens your story? That's just lame.

Posted by: Captain John | June 25, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

While I do agree with most points you make, Chris, Bill Clinton will be the "Elephant in the White House" and that alone is enough to find another VEEP candidate.

Hillary may fit in some other important position in an Obama Administration but not in the White House.

Posted by: J.H. Shahani | June 25, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

"between he and Clinton"?; really Fix, you should know better: "between him and Clinton"

Posted by: jkates | June 25, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary would be the best choice for Obama to pick as VP. That said, I hope he doesn't. I think Hillary was and is the best candidate for President and I'd like to see her make a run for it in 2012. Many, many millions of Clinton supporters are not going to vote for Obama. They're going to vote for McCain, who is the best of the Republican candidates and much better than Obama. If Hillary is Obama's VP choice, Obama will win and there goes Hillary's chances in 2012. Those polls that say that Obama has double digits are wrong. This primary season I have favored the Reuters/Zogby polls because they have had the correct percentages in the 2008 Primaries.

Posted by: Janet8 | June 25, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company