home

It's Not Personal, It's Politics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Scott Lemieux (Lemieux responds here) misunderstands politics imo. I know he misunderstands my argument for a Unity Ticket.

He writes that "some people in the Clinton Hackosphere [meaning me, thanks for the kind words Scott] are trying to set up the argument that a decision by Obama to choose anybody but Clinton must be motivated by personal animus, because there simply can't be any rational argument . . . against it." Um no, I assume that, unlike people like Scott Lemieux, there are enough mature adults in the Obama camp who will make a rational mature decision on this issue. It so happens that the signals I am seeing are that the decision they seem to be approaching is a very bad one that is NOT directed at unifying the Party. I think that would be wrong. I think party unity is the most important criteria now. Apparently Scott Lemieux does not care about the unity issue. Or perhaps Scott Lemieux thinks Ted Kennedy's statement was helpful and unifying. On that, we would disagree.

More . . .

Hey Scott, we get it - for you, anyone who disagrees with you is a "hack." Actually addressing the argument presented? Not necessary. Just insult not only Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton's supporters, but anyone who says or writes something that SCOTT LEMIEUX does not agree with!! Yes, personal animus is NOT a part of the Lemieux calculus. Not at all. Sheesh.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< A Better Role for Obama | Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Contrast? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    It's Not Personal, It's Politics | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Another possibility: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    Lemieux is a believer in the Bowers Manifesto.

    Or as I like to call it, the New Plutocratic Party.

    Out with the Bubbas, baby!

    This premature (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    victory laps followed by the nasty, divisive, gross way they deride Hillary by saying that she wouldn't even deserve or is not "noble" enough to be on Obama's ticket will come back and bite all these boys in the butt.  

    IMO, Obama isn't good enough to be Clinton's assistant.

    I agree in spirit, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    but please let's not make comments like:

    Obama isn't good enough to be Clinton's assistant.

    We Clinton supporters have taken a lot of flak this season. But we've got to hold our heads up, not stoop to this level.

    Parent

    look at his resume (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    if you can find one.  He'd be a very good assistant to the President of the United States.  Bush has made us forget that normally the White House employs the brightest and the best that America can offer.

    BTD, I think that Obama and his people honestly and truly believe that the entire world hates Hillary Clinton.  The media believes this as well, which is why they keep pushing it.  They totally avoid the facts, which are that she has gotten nearly as many votes as Obama and that people actually do like her.  I know there are jokes about CDS, but it's true.  These people are completely blind to the truth of the matter.  Look at the Alter article you quoted, wherein a once-respected journalist used false statistics just because Obama told them they were true.

    I think they are all due for a wake-up call.  That'll be your justice.

    Parent

    Interesting observation (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    by Todd Beeton

    "I would think any passionate supporter of Senator Clinton's would take this plea to heart and understand that voting for John McCain would be a direct slap in the face not only to her wishes for the fall but also to everything she's been fighting for in this primary campaign.

    Quite frankly, a John McCain presidency would be a devastating blow to the agenda Hillary Clinton has laid out and intends to pursue regardless of the outcome of this primary, whether as VP or Senator or whatever the future has in store for her. A vote for John McCain is a vote against everything Hillary Clinton has been fighting for and hence, everything her supporters have been fighting for because ultimately a John McCain presidency would make it all the more difficult for Hillary Clinton to manifest the policies she's laid out in such incredible detail over this past year, whether on energy, healthcare or the war."

    Parent

    You know what would make her (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    agenda possible?

    Making her the nominee.

    It won't get done otherwise.

    If Obama loses to McCain, he has no one to blame but himself. And we the people will be the ones who suffer.

    Parent

    And deriding her as a racist, (5.00 / 15) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    ruining her husband's le
    gacy, having African American Democrats now hate the Clintons and painting her as dishonest, race-baiter, horrible, evil, monstrous person is a slap in the face to Hillary herself, to her supporters and it should be to all Democrats too.  They should have thought about that before they decided to slice her in 1000 pieces.  Were they thinking about the possibility of a John McCain presidency when they tell us that she's basically Satan?  That she doesn't have the nobility to be anywhere near Obama? That she's a liar?  That her husband did nothing for Dems?  I have taken this very personally...and millions of others have too.

    They should have thought about the McCain Presidency before they decided to smear 2 great Democrats and the people that love them.  Too bad, Todd.

    Parent

    It is personal now (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    It use to be about politics but that has changed for me. It is personal and I am tired of turning the cheek.

    Parent
    And of course (none / 0) (#38)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters have had nothing but nice things to say about Obama

    Parent
    point out his glaring lack of qualifications (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    is not smearing him -- starting and continuing the meme that the Clintons are racists despite their vast body of work that proves otherwise, is smearing them.

    Parent
    Some of us used to. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    We're finding it more and more difficult these days.

    Parent
    I remember trying to talk to Obama supporters (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    back in January. When they told me they could never vote for that Republican Hillary. She voted for the war. I attempted to talk sense, tell them we must realize we have an embarrassment of riches. We have TWO wonderful candidates and we'll kick Republican butt. But no. The CDS continued. Suddenly they were racist. Suddenly, Hillary had NEVER done anything for African Americans nor for anyone. Suddenly Bill was the worst president in history...just inherited some good economic times from Reagan and Bush (I remember hearing that from wingnuts before now).  That was before Obama called Hillary a liar over and over.  That was before he wiped her off his shoe and wiped his shoulder of her dirt.  That was before.

    I was for party unity before it was cool. Before they thought it was pretty guaranteed that Obama would win the nom.  Now they need ME and are trying to scare me into unifying behind the man that managed to divide us to begin with.  No thanks.  

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    This was my experience to a tee. I was calling for a Dream Ticket on 2/1/08.

    Look at me now. :-(

    Parent

    The difference is we say he's not (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    qualified, which is a reasonable, POLITICAL criticism. What Obama and his supporters say about Hillary ranges from "she's a liar" to the unprintable.

    Parent
    tell you what, do something nice that (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    we can compliment. shut his surrgates big mouths would be a nice start.

    Parent
    Well, it is good to know (none / 0) (#143)
    by riddlerandy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    that you're all going to follow Hillary's admirable example of doing everything possible to defeat McCain in the fall

    Parent
    Sounds like what I was writing to (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    Obama supporters back in February when this 'I'll never vote for Clinton' stuff first came up on their side.  I got handed my a** handed to me on TPM and came over to the light here at TL.

    I suspect a lot of Clinton supporters will take to that kind of talk about as well as the Obama supporters did.

    Does not mean Beeton isn't right though.

    Parent

    Too little too late-the Unity is gone (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    Obama will not get enough vote from the loyal "old" democratic party.  

    This  is why:

    Hillary is still standing and maybe, maybe, she can save the party from disaster
    Obama has no plans other than weakening democratic principles, polices, practices and processes
    Obama and the Party Nobility (Noble Teddy and the other feudalists) are in full attach mode to hijack the party for thei power at the expense of winning the GE
    Revolting misogyny, sexism, vicious unfounded accusation of racism brought in by the Obama's camp.

    McCain will be much less scary too many people than any of the above.

    Parent

    I'm (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    voting "post-issue" in this campaign.

    That is, I'm "beyond" issues.  I'm in a new light now.  I'm "above" issues.

    See, Hillary would make the best President.  She believes she needs to stay in for the good of the country, regardless of the mean lies said about her and her mistreatment by the media.

    You learn alot about a person in how they respond to stress.  Hillary fights for what she believes in, and keeps her cool.

    Obama complains - about racism, and mocks Clinton.
    That's where I come in - it's not about issues anymore for me. It's the above.  I have seen McCain under pressure, and I have seen his character.  It is strong.  He is a good man. (with some wrong ideas, but congress can keep those in check).

    I want a fighter, not a whiner.


    Parent

    you mean (none / 0) (#45)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    they're buying into their own race baiting?

    Parent
    Why? It's truly what I believe. (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    I'm an office worker and my resume could fill more pages than Obama's. I AM holding my head high. Hillary is beyond qualified and by far the best candidate to run our country. The fact that the frat boys of the party decided otherwise is another story altogether.  But my head is high. Knowing full well that Hillary is the most qualified.

    Parent
    Again -- I agree in (none / 0) (#149)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    spirit. But we may have to convince ourselves that Obama is the best man for the job if he wins the nomination. We may even have to campaign for him if McCain looks strong in the general (which he does). Look at the way Gandhi and King thought of their struggle -- they embraced folks they REALLY didn't like in order to get something they all really needed. If they could embrace the racists, then we sure as heck can hold our noses and get down to the dirty work of avoiding another Republican presidency.

    But we first have to do what Dr. King called "self-purification": purge thoughts and statements like the one you made from our minds. I emphasize that I feel the exact same way as you, but we need to try really hard not to. At the end of the day it's individual decisions like this one that will unite the party, not Obama's or Clinton's speechifying.

    Parent

    If the cost of Unity (none / 0) (#150)
    by Nadai on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:58 PM EST
    is developing a taste for Kool-Aid, thank you, but no.

    Parent
    When Hillary becomes the nominee (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by felizarte on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    This premature attitude on the part of the Obama campaign basically frees Hillary also to choose someone else as VP, especially if she offers it to him and he refuses, or Michelle O. says something that makes this impossible.

    Parent
    Boy Friday? he'll have the rest of the week off (none / 0) (#29)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:38:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I see this is your first comment (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    Who were you before so we can consider whether you should be banned again.

    BTW, do none of you have anything better to do but troll this site?

    I think one of the biggest road blocks to the (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    unity ticket is the "media darling" consideration. If Obama wants to keep as much of the media goodwill as he can, I think his camp won't want the ultra hated Clinton near them. Every story, every day will be about how Clinton is trying to usurp Obama, and how the Clinton and Obama camps hate each other, etc. etc. Obama's beloved media would punish him for not utterly dispatching Clinton.

    It's a lose/lose proposition (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    For Obama.

    The media will force him to do the very thing that forces voters to vote for McCain.


    Parent

    If Obama truly is "The One" that will (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by kimsaw on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    lead the Dems to victory than he would invite Clinton to join the ticket and end the hate dynamic toward Clinton. His action would show a man in control of antipathy toward others. He's suppose to be the post racial, post partisan candidate.  But he has run a campaign of contradictions that plays on divisiveness and diminishes differences simultaneously. It's his method of operation. Cloudy pictures that never give the viewer a clear image and hides all the flaws.  Problem is that post partisan can mean dumping core Democrat values with no one offering which ones. Post racial candidates don't stereotype white working class as bitter, angry gun toting voters.  

    This is a new party folks. It's reformatted using a old name to camouflage it's intentions. Anyone remember UNITY '08. They didn't have the financial backing to run their own candidate and ran into problems with FEC regulations and jurisdictions. It's foundation laid in the rhetoric of good intentions but without definition or proclamation of values.  It wanted a joint ticket to force America to the center. Obama is a Dem. in name only he's not the Dem's "One". He's the Unity's "One".  Look for a -Obama/Bloomberg or Obama/Hagel. Someone play Day is Done on the trumpet cause I love that. The Party deserves a decent burial.

    Parent

    I agree that Obama is no democrat in values (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    and I also agree that this is a total takeover of our party, but I don't know what to do about it...Obviously the only thing standing between them and total power is the American voter and the Clintons....

    Parent
    The One... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    We've got the Matrix generation floating around, eh?

    Parent
    I really disagree (none / 0) (#97)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:10:25 PM EST
    I actually completely agree with BTD on this one.  Assuming he is the nominee, I think the only way to win this thing and to actually BE the uniter he is so fond of talking about is by bringing her on board quickly.  In my opinion there are very few risks to this.  He knows she is capable, he knows she is a tireless campaigner, he knows she's been vetted.  I could go on and on.  All the talk about how they dislike each other or what Bill would be doing is simply just that: talk.  If he truly wants to do what's best and bring the White House back to the Democrats they will both buck up and realize this is the best solution.  Besides, she brings almost 50% of the democratic party.  What other person in the world could we say that about??


    Parent
    Not likely at present, according (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    to Wolfson and Axelrod:

    CNN

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    you say its politics, not personal.

    I have seen Obama do so many offensive , some "coded" things, I suggest it is personal.

    It has become both: Political and Personal (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    and they marry well well for me and for a number of my female friends.  

    We are actually also hoping that at this point, if BO is the nominee,  it would become militant in Danver

    Parent

    I understand why some here (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    don't think Hillary would be interested or it would be demeaning because she is more qualified, but I think you underestimate Hillary's loyalty to the party. If Obama asked her, I think she would do it for the good of the party.  The people that hate her have always misunderstood her motives, imo.  She wants to make this country better, she wants us to have healthcare, if she feels she could best do that through the VP slot and that it would in fact help Obama win, I think she would consider it.  If I were her I would also be hesitant to go back to the senate and sit with Kennedy, Kerry, McCaskill, Leahy, Dodd, Rockefeller, etc.  They do not respect her and have gone out of their way to let her know it.

    At the very least, Obama should pick someone that supported Clinton and can help with the demographics that Clinton dominated in the primary.

    I think she would do it (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    despite the reasons not to that others have offered, and which I understand.  No on could blame her if she refused.

    I think she would see 'first woman VP' as a prize worth having.  It gives her a platform and a voice.  

    But i would be shocked if Obama offered it.  He is so sure he can win with his and Brazile's  'new Dem party' that he won't think he has to have her on the ticket.

    Parent

    They (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    better respect Hillary.  All she has to do is say "Let's go." and half this party will follow her anywhere.  
    To put it in perspective - Kennedy and Kerry said Obama, and Massachusetts said  "Clinton" to those two Senators.

    Two words - and "POOF" - all those weasels are powerless, including Obama.


    Parent

    personally i think 1/4 to 1/3 of the party (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    base is on their way out the door in any event.

    Parent
    I think she would do it (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    despite the reasons not to that others have offered, and which I understand.  No on could blame her if she refused.

    I think she would see 'first woman VP' as a prize worth having.  It gives her a platform and a voice.  

    But i would be shocked if Obama offered it.  He is so sure he can win with his and Brazile's  'new Dem party' that he won't think he has to have her on the ticket.

    Parent

    If they choose someone who has been (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    overtly hostile to her, they will please their troops enormously. What Obama has needed to do to perhaps win the primary will be costly to his efforts to win the White House.

    I see no evidence of the humility or maturity necessary to do what is good for the party. I think the "Let's have fun beating up on Hillary" party will continue and drive her and her supporters farther away.

    per Jeralyn's post to the Times article (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    Obama has a history of burning supporters once he sees a clearer path up the ladder.  I can totally see him asking her because he knows she'll do the heavy lifting.

    But, this isn't over by a longshot.   Clinton still has a chance and I am still phone banking, donating, and doing whatever I can to help her.

    I have said before that I will vote dem downticket, but will not vote for Obama if he is at the top.  I have been voting straight dem since I was 17.  Obama's supporters should start asking themselves why long-time yellow dog dems like me are so angry right now.

    The fact that they are not speaks volumes.

    Parent

    Another yellow dog (none / 0) (#114)
    by seeker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    agrees almost completely.

    My only concern about not voting for Barry is the probable vacancy of 2-3 Supreme Court positions in the next few years.  How do others considering a non-vote for Pres. deal with the probability of a Roberts/Alito tinged majority for the next 25 or more years.

    Parent

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    I went over the edge after Indiana, after a mere 44 years of voting for a Democrat in ever election at every level, of every hue, right or left. Believe me, with some of of those candidates it was hold your nose, gag, and gut it up for the sake of the Donkey.

    I see no way to vote for Obama, except as I have said before, if it were to become crystal clear that McCain would wage preemptive war on another nation.
    Then, maybe.

    It is sad, nay tragic.

    Parent

    Roe card counter-arguments (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    I've  been tracking these on my blog.  I'm convinced Obama is no champion of womens' rights - I don't trust him on these or any other issues.  As a pro-choice feminist, after a lifetime of voting Democratic, I'll continue to vote for local Democrats, but I will not vote for Obama.

    1) Obama backed John Roberts until he was told it would come back to haunt his political ambitions. This is from his own site:

    It was the fall of 2005, and the young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    2) Republican-appointed justices upheld Roe in 1992 - it is entirely possible McCain could appoint a moderate justice.  This is from Michael Farris in Constitutional Law for Christian Students:

    In 1992, the Supreme Court considered the case of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992). ...Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, and Blackmun joined together to hold that Roe was still valid and that speculation on its demise should be put to rest.  All five of these justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

    3) The SCOTUS is not in play, nor will be for the next decade.  This is from an attorney named William who comments on Taylor Marsh:

    I want to emphasize again: The Supreme Court is not in play in this election. Conservatives have five sure votes on almost every issue. Kennedy has moved to the right, aligning with Roberts. It will take a retirement by one of the five to change the court. Scalia is good for another 15 years, the rest for 20 or so. It's sad, but true. The key election was 2000; and a bunch of latte liberals just couldn't be bothered, and voted for Nader. So while I have cared about the court as much as any of you (I am an attorney, after all), we have to accept the fact that the basic stance of the court cannot be changed for the next decade.

    ... as best as I can recall it, Obama was going to vote for Roberts, but an aide suggested it would not be politically helpful. So he didn't. Hillary voted against him, one of not too many who did. On Alito--and this is key--the only hope of stopping him was a filibuster. Hillary was for the filibuster. Obama voted for cloture, to stop the filibuster, thus making Alito's nomination certain.



    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    This is one of the most measured, well-reasoned responses to the SCOTUS issue I have read. Thank you.

    Parent
    Thanks for the comprehensive (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by seeker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:52:48 PM EST
    response.  Maybe I will not feel so bad if I do not vote for Pres.

    OTOH, I still hold some hope for Hillary.

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#116)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    I agree completely.

    Parent
    I am tired (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by soccermom on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:36:31 PM EST
    of the SCOTUS argument. It doesn't scare me anymore.  The argument is who is most qualified to be POTUS?  Don't be "distracted" by young men posting to frighten you.  If they really cared about women, would they be savaging Sen. Clinton?

    Parent
    They had plenty of chances to take a stand ... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    ... and didn't, and not just SCOTUS but AGs, DOJ.

    This extortion on women every election cycle (with disgusting pre-blaming from the likes of Rahm Immanuel) is played out.

    No other group that supports the Dems is treated this way about constitutional protection, first finger wagged like children by the party leaders to get Congress, then finger wagged again by Rahm Immanuel to get the White House.

    I've heard that song for way too long and I'm done. Indy since '04 but I helped register, GOTV and support Dem races to retake Congress because OMFG what about SCOTUS?!?!

    It wasn't important to the Dems the last two judges so my conscience is clear. I wish the same old Dem perma-losers and their new oPods well.

    Parent

    I used to think (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Lil on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    I'd vote for Obama even if he wasn't my first choice. I would never vote for McCain, but I would consider sitting out if he doesn't make strong overtures to her. She has gained at least half, if not more, of the Democratic vote and she should be rspected for that and her supporters should be enfranchised, as well. Otherwise the Dem party is completely divided. I think she would owe him the same respect, btw.

    When Bush won in 2004 and claimed a mandate, I was sick to my stomach thinking doesn't he know that Half of us didn't vote for him. I don't want to feel that with Obama. but, I'm starting to.

    Armando the problem with the unity argument (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    is that most in the Obama campaign and the Media base their hope in that once more good Democrats will toe the line and vote for whomever they decide the nominee should be in November.  They don't seem to be making a serious effort of convincing those very doubting Hillary supporters that if Obama is the nominee he will be such a better choice than McBush.  They just assume that the "D" behind his name is enough to convince everyone that he will support choice, LGBT issues, Universal Health Care, and other issues that are important to them.  My opinion is that this man's history has been vague and full of opportunistic flip-flopping that has even included some very suspicious tactics as was shown in Chicago 1996.  Not all voters are as aware of the fact, that McCain is no moderate and that his so called maverick status is really as much a Media creation as Obama's Liberalism appears to be, as we would like to think.  Now I am scared as hell of a McBush administration but wether the DNC wants to believe it or not there are a lot of Democrats out there that really believe that they would be better off with McCain than Obama and that's not even taking into consideration Independents and Libertarians.  There are a lot of fences that would need to be mended if Obama becomes the nominee and they fences that would need to be mended with a good portion of the base of the party.  

    Optimistic as you I think they can be mended but seeing some of the things I am seeing sometimes I wonder.

    My question is (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    as many times as Clinton has been attacked and attacked* and we've heard not one peep from the Obama camp standing up against sexism and misogyny (not standing for Clinton, but against what is wrong), how am I going to be able to find outrage in myself when this same hatred and denigration is turned toward Michelle and Barack Obama?

    Time and again I have seen outrage over anything remotely denigrating to Obama, but no such outrage when it's targeted toward Clinton.  Howard Dean didn't call MSNBC out on Tweety.  Donna Brazile didn't rail against Shuster.  Dean did call McCain to pull the Wright ads against Obama, so obviously, he has a phone.  What this primary has shown me and a lot of other women is that to the leaders of democratic party, some rights matter more than others.  Women are still second place citizens.  Why do some republicans look better on this issue right now than my own party?  It's a rather disgusting turn of events, don't you think?

    *I have no problem having Clinton attacked on her policies, but on her woman-ness, her sex, her motherhood, her sexuality--totally off-limits and unacceptable.

    Parent

    Unfortunately Kathy they have given no answer (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    and that is why both my Wife and my Daughter will be writing Hillary's name in if Obama is the nominee.  The only reason they are going to vote is because they want to vote for Corrine Brown.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by nell on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    When women called the DNC after MSNBC's repeated attacks, they were at first told that Howard Dean would be issuing a press release to decry the sexism. When this never happened, people were told Dean didn't think it was the place of the DNC to get involved between the campaign and the media. Imagine my surprise when Dean went on Fox news for an interview and told them their coverage of Wright was racism. Now I disagree with Dean, I think Wright speaks to judgment, but even if you agree with his premise, he was obviously willing to call out a network on Obama's behalf? Where the heck was he/where is he now when these networks continue to engage in sexist Clinton bashing, which I view as women bashing? Where was he? And now he expects me to vote for a man I don't like much or respect much in the name of party unity? Because the man has a D behind his name? The Democratic Party did not stand up for me and I will not stand up for candidate Obama or the party.

    Parent
    Nell (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    Exactly!

    This iw why I'm registering Independent as soon as the forms come in the mail  - hopefully this week.

    Parent

    I switched to Independent, too (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    I can't, in good conscience, belong to a party that treats women like this.


    Parent
    i would understand if hillary walked away (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:42:21 PM EST
    with her base and played very hard politics at the convention. is that not why she continues on?

    Parent
    why would she (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    get on board a sinking ship?  i dont think even hillary could save his campaign should the dnc completely lose its mind and make him the nominee.

    My take on the unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Belswyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    I don't think a Unity Ticket of Obama/Clinton will happen (I am assuming here that Obama will be the nomineed). I could be wrong, but I think Hillary will have more power and clout as a senator. So, I don't see her accepting it. Despite what Cheney has done, the VP has no real authority within an administration and I think that would be frustrating for both Clinton and Obama.

    On the other hand, I think Clinton might have an interest in being Secretary of State. But it really depends on what her political ambitions are if Obama is the nominee. Her senate seat seems secure for the forseeable future and she would be a force to be reckoned with. Majority leader is not outside the realm of possibility.

    I also think that Obama can reach out to the Clintons in a number of ways to unify the divisions within the party by November. Let him offer her a position within his administration, VP, State, whatever. Let her decide what she wants to do, and let them reconcile on how they can bring a Democratic reign to the country. Hillary has an agenda regardless of whether she's the president, VP, or a senator, and Obama can help her push it through. That kind of promise to work together will unify the party quickly in my opinion

    Senate majority leader and universal healthcare (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by davnee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    That's the price I want her to extract from Obama.  His Senate fan club needs to fall on their swords and give her that guarantee, and he needs to adopt her health care plan and run on it.  They can even bring Edwards in on this one.  Have a big unity press conference where Obama says he is making Edwards his point man on poverty and that Hillary has convinced him that universal healthcare is the best way to go, and that he looks forward to supporting the bill she'll be sponsoring.  Elizabeth can be there too, saying she looks forward to joining Hillary on the campaign trail fighting in particular for health care.

    Of course, that assumes Obama is the nominee.  I'm only 85% convinced he will be.

    You know, I could see some very amusing (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    consequences to this if Hillary were to say: 1) I become Majority or Minority Leader, no matter what; 2) all Dem. senators agree to push for UHC (no more Chuck Schumers saying it isn't possible). Imagine what the Senate would be like after an Obama loss: Hillary wins after all!

    Parent
    i wouldn't trust them if they signed a (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    blood oath on tv and neither should the rest of america. just how trust worthy have they been?

    Parent
    Wow Her negs are down 10 pts (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    since the race began -- that's awesome. I wonder how much Obama's have gone up?

    BTD, I understand that you need to respond (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    to someone who has called you out. However, the Lemieux article is trash talk. The man doesn't even know how to write well. He just tries to string together some insulting quotes with pseudo-hip phrasing. He's his own best argument against following his advice.

    I disagree with you on the idea of a Unity Ticket. I don't disagree with the idea of trying to create some real party unity, although I see it as increasingly unlikely. Nevertheless, your argument was well written and well reasoned; his was not. Game, set, match. You win.

    likewise (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    having never read this guy before, I'm not sure of his style...is it satire? humor? or like you say, trashtalk what?

    what would explain this:

    "Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton.

    After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place."

    Ah! its the Glenn Close narrative again. How original!

    Parent

    think about this! just maybe that is how (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    these folks in the obama camp feel. i include the obamas in the equation. maybe they do think they'll "punish" the clintons. THAT IS A VERY BIG MISTAKE. but they don't know that with all the hubris flying around. when and if that happens, katie bar the door. the democratic party will split wide open never to be repaired in the next 10 years. take it to the bank.

    Parent
    They (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    better respect Hillary.  All she has to do is say "Let's go." and half this party will follow her anywhere.  

    To put it in perspective - Kennedy and Kerry said Obama, and Massachusetts said  "Clinton" to those two Senators.

    Two words - and "POOF" - all those weasels are powerless.

    should sen. obama (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by cpinva on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    be the eventual dem. nominee (and i haven't heard the fat lady sing yet.), don't worry your pretty little heads about his "media darling" status, it will disappear before he even makes his acceptance speech at the convention, i guarantee it.

    between the MSM, and the repub/right-wingnut 527's salivating in the wings, sen. obama will be savaged like he's never been savaged before. losing the GE will end up being the least of his problems, his public career will be over; a hot, steamin' pile o' shambles, with the vultures feasting on the carrion.

    any elected democrat, who wishes to continue in office, will stay as far away from him as humanly possible, with respect to being his running mate, for they will be savaged as well.

    the only exception is...............hillary clinton. she's been continuously savaged for 16 years. she has nothing to gain by being sen. obama's running mate. she'll have more power in the senate, than by being the "bucket of warm spit" that is the VP.

    the real pity of it is, sen. obama coulda been a legitimate contender, in 2016. what a waste. the democratic party "leaders" who pushed him into this should be ashamed of themselves.

    The U -Ship has been sunk (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Boo Radly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    My gut level feeling from the beginning has solidified. With all the piling on by D party "leaders", the media and even more evidence of BO's lack of credentials intensified by his blantant immaturity, it is crystal clear they are exactly what I feared - they have gone bat poop crazy. I have only one hope and that is Hillary will get the nomination. I will vote for her as president period.

    There is no Democratic Party that I will suppport in any manner because they are now lower than the Rethugs. I will not be member of a party lower than Bu$h.

    I do not see this as a black and white issue nor a gender issue. That these two issues have been hoisted up the flag pole by the plutocratic/ignorant supporters showcases his weaknesses even more. There is no gesture that can be made by any supporter that would make me vote for a train wreck for me personally and for this country. I vote my conscience and my principles. Actually, you can't call me a racist nor a feminest I am for human rights, which I thought the Dem party was for. They proved me wrong and I will adjust. These people spewing hate - either racial or misogyny - come from what I consider the lower of human nature. Hillary Clinton is not quilty of doing either IMO. She is the best qualified and most electible. I want no part of the Train Wreck Party period.

    BTD - you remind me of my father, who was the only person I have ever known close to sainthood, in that you are fair and balanced. Not perfect, but intelligent and humane.  He voted for what was best for the country - that is what I will do from now, with an eye toward my issues. It is that lack of humane quality, the ugliness of BO, MO, "leaders", supporters that has sickened me to this point on top of the lack of experience and qualifications.

    Boo.... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by oldpro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:52:02 PM EST
    a well-chosen sig and a touching post.

    I agree with almost all of it.

    The train-wreck party...yup...that's what it looks like now.

    It's both politics and it's personal.  How can being called racist not be personal?  How can supporting a candidate, a party, that will demonize with racism its most successful couple, not be both political and personal?

    How can class war, splitting my party right down the middle and sending me packing after 50+ years not be personal...and political?

    It was a choice...a deliberate choice by men I will never again enable under the guise of politics.

    Unity?

    Not bloody likely.  This is worse than '68, '72, '76, '80, '84... same old, same old...Slow Learners Of America (the alternative name for my former party).

    Dammitalltohell.

    Parent

    good post and i do like your screen (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    name. TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is an all time favorite of mine both book and picture.

    Parent
    I firmly believe that Hillary won't exit (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    until she gets what she needs for her "issues" in negotiations and we may never know what that is...Hillary is a winner and a fighter and if anyone thinks she will simply fold her tent and walk calmly off the stage is sadly mistaken...She might fold after WV and KY as a winner but trust me she will have something in her bag that will help her supporters in the future...she is a superb politician and plans chess well...I totally trust her instincts....

    Can't see Unity ticket happening (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Rainsong on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    With Obama as nominee. His supporters/surrogates, especially within the Dem Party, have been so adamant on this point - and for once, consistent.  She would steal his thunder as VP, outshine him on the campaign trail, and he would hobble her ability to do anything anyway. He is fully backed by the Party who seem to not want her - in ANY capacity whatsoever. I expect a Party Purge of the Clinton wing if Obama wins the GE.

    I tend to vote for issues, and he hasn't shown me that he's willing to fight for any issues, from removing mercenaries from Iraq (in fact, he's shown willingness to fight against Hillary's proposal on this) to energy policy to reproductive choice to health care to education to personal privacy and telecomm immunity. No matter what Hillary as VP or Senate Leader tried to negotiate with him, Obama and his Party supporters will block it anyway.

    Obama is this close to the nomination and has absolutely no record of taking a stand on anything except running for bigger and better office.  I can't find one vote, one position, he has taken where he got political heat for doing so.

    Usually people running for high office, have something. Obama graduates from Harvard Law School, goes to work for a medium sized civil rights law firm, and doesn't lead on a single case. Does that mean in those years, there wasn't one civil rights case brewing in Chicago that needed a smart young attorney ready to make his name?

    Clinton wasn't holding office, but that didn't stop her from fighting for federal funds to build medical facilities in rural Arkansas. That didn't stop her from creating a homeschooling program or a micro-loan program that funded business ventures for poor Arkansans. She got stuff done while still working full time at Rose Law, including a lot of pro bono stuff.

    Stopping McCain would only motivate me to vote for Obama if I thought an Obama presidency would actually be better, and saving the democratic party would only be important if I thought the democrats had been doing a good job these last many years.

    The Party have had to rig the game almost beyond belief to get rid of the Clintons. For example, they sacrificed two large states, without blinking an eye, just to "handicap" Clinton at the beginning of the race to advantage Obama.

    If/when Obama wins the nomination, I'm leaving the Party. Staying with family in Florida in the fall, now that it is a safe red state, just handed over to the GOP, beautifully gift-wrapped.

    Maybe watch from way up the back of the bus, and see if McCain makes a play for California. I suspect the Republicans can read Exit Polls and Electoral Maps, since the Dems can't.

    Donna Brazile (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    may have put California into play with her insulting dismissal of the latino vote. If the GOP can effectively spin that comment to inflame the hispanic population -- and there is nothing to suggest they can't or won't -- California becomes a question mark in the GE.

    Parent
    Brazile alone is reason enough to leave the party (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:01:29 PM EST
    After what she did to Gore in 2000, the DNC is actually PAYING her???  She's like Typhoid Mary.

    I can't belong to a party this damned stupid.

    Parent

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    that Obama supporters are coming to the sites I visit and trying to make nice.

    That is their right to do so, but I'm statring to feel that this is a new tactic.

    Now that they know they need our votes, they want us to forget what they have done/said?

    Am I reading something into this that isn't there?

    They are worried about Nov (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    and rightly so.  The tenor is still missing.  They come in to dismiss Clinton talk about Obama and if you don't start drinking, they get angry.  It's all predictable and tiresome.  Unity my @ss.  I was one of the few people who was willing to vote for Obama if he got the nom and picked Clinton and then I read articles that Obama supporters are heckling Clinton supporters when they are out supporting their candidate and...nope, not for me.

    Parent
    Re Unity and 'the adults' (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by oldpro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    in the Obama campaign...

    If the whole point of drafting Obama was to take out the Clintons once and for all, explain to us why they would even consider letting a Clinton on the ticket...

    Makes. No. Sense. To. Me.

    I think he has to offer the VP slot. . . (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    . . . to Senator Clinton (should he win the nomination) in the name of unity only, a la Kennedy/Johnson. I also think she would refuse the position, freeing him to pick someone he really wants on the ticket, out of respect for his status as the nominee.

    I will not vote for Senator Obama, because I don't think he is qualified, experienced, capable or ready enough to handle the job.

    I will not write in Senator Clinton's name because I think that would just be giving ammunition to the inevitable cries of "she sabotaged his campaign." With one exception: I will write in her name if she states that she will not run for the nomination again, in 2012 or later. In that case I would want to have had the privilege of voting for her once.

    (By the way, I would believe her if she said this is her only run for the nomination, unlike other Senators who think nothing of breaking public promises they make to their constituents -- e.g., to serve out his complete term in the Senate, to run in the GE with public financing, etc.)

    ted kennedys statement (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    is a disaster, period. I don't care who or how they spin it, it is bloody awful.

    I saw the Kennedy interview today. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    It was not as bad as the transcript but the unity ticket question was pretty awful. He looked like " Yuck. That is a repugnant suggestion."

    The man is 76 years old. (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    It may be time for a new Senator from MA.

    Is it too evil to suggest that he should be primaried - by a young, liberal woman?

    Parent

    heh, there's a list of those that (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    should be primaried by strong liberal women  ;)

    Parent
    Yes. Obviously, he can no longer (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    control his facial muscles which is a requirement for politicians.

    Parent
    it's not personal, it's politics (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sawyer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    i agree with you that no one should be insulted purely for supporting one or another primary candidate.  i care about the unity issue, and the reason my comment is relevant is that the first step towards unity is being able to talk to one another civilly, without insulting one another (as Scott Lemieux may have done) and without erasing each other's comments.  by the way, i come here from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/11/122441/474/882/513714

    That is not a relevant argument (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    I think you can try and make your point in the Open thread.

    I am deleting it here.

    Parent

    completely expected (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sawyer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    thanks for proving my point

    Parent
    I think you would need to have a point (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    for me to prove it.

    you may be new to this blog. Here we demand comments be on topic to the post at hand.

    You just admitted that your comment was not.

    Indeed, you proved MY point.


    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    The link is NOT to this post. go write about the linked post if you want.

    Parent
    Long story short. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    They are using Jeralyn's post for another Hillary pinata.  I'm beginning to believe you are right, it's a lost cause over there for now.

    I had to rebut a comment from BarbinMD, a front pager.  Is there anyone there to talk to?

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Barb convinced me a few months ago that it was time to leave.

    Parent
    BTD: Most excellent comment. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST


    Why would Hillary accept? (none / 0) (#20)
    by makana44 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    I just can't imagine why anyone would assume or believe that Hillary would find the vice presidency even remotely of interest. Is the point just to make the unity gesture of offering it to her? Because in no uncertain terms, she would turn that offer down.

    Except why?...to lay her body on the line for the sake of the party? I don't think she'd give up her seat in the Senate for the VP spot.

    It would demean her. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Yet again the more qualified woman steps aside for the less-qualified man.  

    Parent
    They have made it easier for her to decline (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by felizarte on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    without prejudice to her future run.

    Parent
    For the Party is exactly why she (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    may accept if offered. It's one of the differences between her and Obama.

    Parent
    It will be hard enough watching her (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    campaign for him. Having her play second fiddle to him . . . I don't even want to think about it  :(

    Parent
    Hillary And Bill Will Campaign For Obama (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    even if she is not selected for VP. They are Democrats.

    The only way this will not happen is if Obama refuses their help.

    Parent

    We need Hillary in the Senate (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    If Hillary doesn't get the Presidential nomination, I would urge her not to take the VP spot. (Assuming that Obama would offer it to her. I don't think he will.)

    I'm being selfish here. Hillary is my Senator and I'd like to keep her there! We need to elect a Democratic House and Senate.

    Parent

    BTD has never been one (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST
    to articulate a reason for a Unity Ticket other than as it pertains to electoral politics.

    I know that is paramount for him, winning the election, but others still bore themselves with the mundane question of "What next?  Is there no better reason other than Obama would lose without picking Clinton as VP?"

    Parent

    Obama will lose in November. (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    I hope HRC has the good sense to decline such an offer, if he can be professional and courteous enough to make it.

    Parent
    professional and courteous (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    that hasn't struck me as his strong suit in regards to her.

    Parent
    Campaign tenor and tone (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Boo Radly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    used in conjunction with subjects never before highlighted makes this primary totally different.

    Race and gender - emotional issues for some - are used by one side of this primary to cover lack of qualifications.

    We are viewing the ugliest behavior I have ever seen by so called proffessionals - by people I used to respect and never, never will respect again.

    This has been sickening to me because it is not about political issues we had prior to BO being selected - yes, this is a different kind of primary - not just pols being pols. There is a nastiness, a putrid level to this that I will never forgive nor support. Pols as pols my #&& - Unity Ship SUNK!

    Parent

    Professional? (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    Are you kidding? Professional politician does what it takes to win. Everything both do are geared to winning, sometimes attacks work well sometimes they backfire.

    Would you say it is unprofessional for a boxer to punch her opponent in the face during a match?

    Relatively speaking, All in all this campaign has been extremely civil and professional, imo.

    Parent

    It might work (none / 0) (#42)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    I was against her taking 2nd place and still am, but looking at November, there are not many options. I won't vote for Obama. But with Hillary on the ticket, it might sway that decision. I would prefer her first, but as the VP, she could be as vocal as she wants. Look at how powerful Dick Cheney became and no one seems to shut him up. That is because Bush is a weak President. And, she would be a stone's throw from the top job for whatever reason including health or boredom. Closer to than Pelosi and a thorn in Kennedy's side. She could handle the economic problem and the people would know she was the one. I finally have to agree that the only way Democrats win the GE is with her on the ticket period. Without her, we lose. End of story and with no guilt. It would be interesting how DKs and the media would have to back peddle. Heh.

    Parent
    I'm glad you understood that, BTD. (none / 0) (#48)
    by lyzurgyk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Because the references back and forth between LeMieux, Balloon Juice and the Dowd article confused the heck out of me!

    A Unity Ticket would be the best outcome.   Not gonna happen in my opinion.   I'm hoping Hillary at least gets veto power over the VP pick and keeps Richardson out of the mix.   My ideal veep would be Wes Clark - probably also not going to happen.

    Some of the conventional wisdom, (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    for what its worth, as expressed on the Sunday shows, is that Obama will pick a Hillary supporter like Wes Clark or Ted Strickland rather than Hillary herself.  

    That will take a step towards unity, and Strickland would help in Ohio.

    Obama has to walk a line between unity and still being able to claim a 'new kind of politics' that he might not be able to claim with Hillary as VP.  Clark, a non-politician, or Strickland, an un-Washington one, may fit that bill.

    Parent

    O could achieve some party unity (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    with Strickland and could shore up certain of his own weaknesses, namely lack of DC and exec experience.  Plus TS on the ticket would automatically and directly boost our chances in OH.  

    No Clark  though.  We need more political/campaign experience on that ticket since Obama hasn't run a race yet against the might Repub machine.  Clark for SoS or UN Amb in the 1st term; SecDef in the 2d.

    Parent

    That will (none / 0) (#75)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    take a step toward unity?

    You're kidding , right?

    Parent

    Perhaps it is not (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    But I am not a hack for thinking unity matters.

    What about the voters? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    Do they seem unified too?

    (Hint:  The answer is no)

    Parent

    silly rabbit (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    I can tell this is your first time at the rodeo. It ain't over til its over -- such a simple concept, why is it so hard for the Obama supporters to understand?

    Parent
    Who is unified? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    I think you are missing the point completely.  Almost 50% of Democratic voters want Hillary yet you want to harp on her negatives?  I don't know another VP choice that could bring that kind of base.

    And I think you should give up the argument that Hillary is holding up the unity.  There are 3 weeks left in the primary season, let the voters vote and, should she not become the nominee, the least anyone could do is let Hillary have a dignified ending to her campaign.

    Parent

    Premature Discussion! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Muzza on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    Given that this race is far from over, any discussion about a "VP" for Obama is highly premature and unhelpful. Last time I checked neither candidate had reached the 2209 goal - yes 2209, not the pathetic 2025 the DNC has temporarily promoted. Also last time I checked superdelegates can change their "preference" at any time, and ultimately what counts is their actulal VOTE at the AUGUST convention. As such, the race must continue until ONE candidate crosses the FINISH LINE. June to August is a LONG time in politics & more than enough time for the DNC/superdelegates to WAKE UP & realize that it's Hillary Clinton who can win the SWING STATES (PA, OH, FL, NH, NV, NM, WV). Obama has already demonstrated - on countless occasions - that he is everything BUT about unity. If he was such a great "unifier" he would not have invested in an entire campaign aimed at DIVIDING the Democratic Party - he has done a very good job of that!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    It Appears To Me...... (none / 0) (#74)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    That many of the Hillary supporters, here on TL, are assuming that it will be Obama who will be soliciting Hillary to become the VP on his ticket, in order to garner support from her Democratic base (rural voters, those earning less than $50,000, high school educated, over 60 female voters, white blue collar workers, etc).

    I realize that Carl Berstein is not looked upon highly on this blog, but he offers another analysis of why Hillary will be the one to seek out the VP position, instead of the other way around.  

    His article today is on CNN...

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/bernstein.clinton/

    I happen to agree with his analysis because I believe that in the end, Hillary is about "power", just like Bill was.  You may sugar coat the quest for power in the most altruistic terms, but ultimately it is the quest for power that drives some pols.  So Hillary will settle for the VP, if offered by Obama, because it still is about power for her.

    Berstein writes: "Friends and close associates of both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now convinced that, assuming she loses the race for the presidential nomination, she is probably going to fight to be the vice presidential nominee on an Obama-for-president ticket."

    snip  

    "Almost no one I have spoken to who knows her well doubts that, as she reconciles to the likelihood that her presidential campaign will fall short, she will probably seek the vice presidential spot. One reason: Contrary to common belief, she doesn't look forward to going back to the Senate, they say. Many Democratic senators believe that she would not have an easy time winning an election for majority leader; the tenor and tactics of her presidential campaign have alienated some of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate."

    So if Hillary becomes Obama's VP, it will because she wants it and has campaigned privately for it.  Speaking for my opinion only.

    Thank you!

    Yes. Obama is not about power at all. (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    Not only do I disagree with your assessment but Carl Bernstein is a total jerk and hates Hillary with a passion. The man that makes fun of her body and said she had cankles.  How lovely.

    Yes, somehow Obama is not about power after being in the senate for 2 years he fancied himself the best guy in the whole world to be President. Surely, he's only doing it for altruistic reasons.

    People need to get a clue.  No one goes for the presidency if they don't want some kind of power. And if you think Obama doesn't want power, you're kidding yourself.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    can you imagine - fat, ugly Carl makes fun of Hillary....go figure.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    Barack Obama is a egocentric, power-hungry man who will clearly do whatever he has do to become POTUS.  Power for power sake.  As others have observed and I agree, he doesn't come equipped with a solid core set of Democratic principles as Clinton does.

    Clinton wants power but not for power sake.  As Clinton said earlier in the year and was foolishly and maliciously called a racist for her comments, MLK wouldn't have gotten his civil rights dream translasted into a reality without LBJ.  That's just historical fact and even Bill Moyers who was LBJ's Press Sectretary "defended" Clinton for her astute comment and said it was quite true and even MLK in his pragmatism felt the same.

    Clinton is nothing if not a pragmatic politician.  She wants to implement her Democratic principles for the good of people: Universal Health Care, for one, which will not see the light of day without the requisite power and influence to illuminate it into reality.

    Idealism married to Presidential Power and Influence over the Congress = passing social legislation with the goal of making people's lives better.  

    My question is how much power will she have as VP with Obama as POTUS?  Right now it's not looking good.  So, why in the world would she want to be VP if she has no power?  Unless Obama let her play a role as Gore played for her husband.   I won't even mention Cheney because that's a whole other kettle of rotten fish.  What is the likelihood of Obama giving Clinton VP powers that are not a normal part of that Office?  I just do not see it because I do not see Obama as being magnanimous or a team player especially when he's the team's owner.  

    Parent

    Bernstein is a child (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Lisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    Really, does little Carl have no mirrors in his house?  And he's taking shots at someone else's looks?

    I saw Hillary from a handshake distance the other day, and the woman is gorgeous.  She's got great bone structure.

    Parent

    I Believe That (none / 0) (#84)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    Obama has a more altruistic character than Hillary will ever hope to achieve in her life time.  Just look at what Obama did right after graduating from Harvard Law.  He could have secured any number of positions in prominent law firms throughout the nation, but he opted to work on the south side of Chicago, registering voters and working at the grassroots level of social action, while Hillary was very comfortable for a number of years in her corporate legal world.

    Parent
    what did he do? (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by DJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    registered people to vote.  Who did he help?  Rezko or the people of Chicago.  Oh yeah, Rezko.  

    Hillary has worked for children, women, less fortunate for years.  You are sadly mistaken.

    Parent

    You "believe" that (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    but the facts prove otherwise. Do a little research -- after law school Hillary went to work for the Children's Defense Fund -- and she actually worked there, she didn't use it to get "street cred."

    Parent
    I have the opposite opinion (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    As a senator we did not move a finger to support the people in slam housing that he supposedly "organized", he actually befriend the landlord, accepted donations from him and had him organize fundraisers for him, bought land from him at well below market price from his wife.

    The slam landlord name? Rizko.
    Goggle it if you care. I,am done trying to provide information to those who refuse to listen.

    Parent

    "I believe" (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by oldpro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    are the operative words in your post.

    I am not a believer person but I do think just the opposite of what you believe...based on factual evidence.

    Sigh...

    Never mind.

    Parent

    Um, I thought he went to HL AFTER (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    he was a 'community organizer'?

    Parent
    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Munibond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    And after HL, he went with a politically connected firm, which is hardly altruistic.

    Parent
    You need to get your facts straight. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by seeker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:32:43 PM EST
    Although the Obama campaign makes it very hard to follow his career, he became a "community organizer" after his undergrad degree fron Columbia.  After a couple of years, he went to law school. He then went directly to a Chicago law firm

    Doing a couple of years of community serrvice after a BA is not all that unusual.  

    Of course the campaign obfuscates this, talking about his having given up the possibility of a big money job and implying that he did the organizing thing after law school.  

    Parent

    you forgot to add (none / 0) (#112)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    in the shadows of the rusted steel mills of the south side

     Please get your bio themes straight.

    He could not have gotten any law firm job he wanted but instead opted for community organizing.

    He worked in community organizing BEFORE he went to law school.

    Parent

    Bernstein has CDS (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by nell on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    Any man who would sit on national television discussing Hillary's "thick ankles" is not rational and his opinion is not worthy of consideration. Bernstein has Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and this becomes more and more clear every time I see him on CNN.

    Perhaps you hold him worthy because he reflects the views (which I completely disagree with) that you already have about Clinton. But you should consider his bias, which has been made crystal clear, before you put him up as a voice of authority.

    Even if you look into the meat of his claims, they do not make any sense. First, Clinton has actually run an incredibly positive campaign. Yes, she has questioned Obama's record and experience, which is valid, that is not a negative campaigning, that is reality. Whenever I see people buy into the Obama spin that she is just so negative, negative, negative, I know to take their opinion with a grain of salt because it is just false. Second, Bernstein argues Clinton does not want to go back to the Senate because some of her colleagues are upset with her. Gee...she didn't seem to afraid to walk into the Senate years ago and cross the aisle to work with Republicans who wanted to IMPEACH her husband. If she can work with those folks, these Democrats are the least of her worries. Third, Bernstein is a hack and he cannot imagine working so hard unless it had only selfish motivation and thus he says Hillary cares only about power. I have seen nothing to indicate that and I think such a comment says more about you and about Bernstein than it does about Hillary.

    If she takes the VP slot, and I sincerely hope she will not, I believe it will be to help unify the party.

    Parent

    No Clinton Supporter....... (none / 0) (#93)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    Will ever acknowledge or accept the premise that her campaign has been negative.  Any poster, who cannot step back and see for themselves how non-Hillary supporters may view her campaign style, is willfully being disengenous imho.

    For instance, you may wish to visit some of the AA blogs and see how they perceive Hillary's campaign.  I assure you that they are not viewing Hillary's campaign in the best of light....read that as Hillary running an offensive negative campaign against Obama.  Remember the "kitchen sink" tactic.....

    As far as Hillary working across the aisle on legislation, please expand on exactly what type of legislation she has authored, with her name on it, that has her crossing the aisle to work with Republicans.  Offhand, I can't recall any bill sponsored by her in her eight years as Senator.

    Furthermore, working with your opponents is different than working with your own like minded colleagues in the Senate.  Unfortunately, I believe that Hillary has lost favor with several of her Senate associates because of the tactics she has used during her campaign.  Some Senators have stated that was one of the reasons why they gave their support to Obama, in endorsing him as their super delegate choice.

    Parent

    Hillary has (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    been most gracious toward Senator Obama throughout this campaign.

    I do not remember her saying anything like "you're likeable enough".  In fact she said it was "an honor".  She didn't give him any fingers, call him anything comparable to Annie Oakley, say he was "in his element" after a bad debate (of course she didn't have a bad debate either.)  

    I'd say she has been very easy on him.

    Parent

    I wholeheartedly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    And if the campaign has been so negative then why haven't you actually provided any examples?  Using the phrase 'kitchen sink' strategy does not cut it because that does not refer to anything specific.  It's the same as saying she was knee-capping Obama, it's below the belt talk from the media that has no basis in reality.  And unfortunately, a lot of the things that have left a negative impression have been brought on entirely by Obama himself (bitter/cling, Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc.).  

    She has continually only gone after his policies, his tactics and his inexperience.  These are valid things to discuss and are not attacks on his character.  He has attacked her character repeatedly and has allowed his campaign to do far worse.

    Parent

    You can try factcheck.org (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Radix on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    they can give you a list of Bills authored by Clinton. You can do a Google search for her bipartisan efforts. But you wont do wither will you?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Bills she sponsored and co-sponsoed (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Radix on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Same old, same old, same old... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Camorrista on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    No Clinton supporter will ever acknowledge or accept the premise that her campaign has been negative.  Any poster, who cannot step back and see for themselves how non-Hillary supporters may view her campaign style, is willfully being disengenous imho.

    Here we go again.  Yet another Obama admirer drops in to explain how disingenuous (or worse) supporters of Clinton are.

    After all, according her posts, not only is Senator Clinton so power-hungry she would eagerly play second fiddle to Obama, but she's run a negative campaign, she's offended the African-American community (we deaf and blind  folks should check out a few AA blogs to learn what's really going on) and--and, wait for it, wait for it--she's been ineffective in the Senate both with Republicans and with her fellow Democrats.  Which is why some of her fellow Democratic senators nudged the super-delegates to support him.  Or should I say, Him...?  

    It's Mother's Day--can't we get respite from the condescension by Obama's admirers even on Mother's Day?  (Please regard that as a rhetorical question--I know they will never give us a respite.)

    By the way, has anybody noticed that not one these virgin visitors has posted a message along the lines of..."It's been a tough fight, and it looks like our guy won, what can we do to make it easy for you to help him beat McCain in November?..."

    Why is that?  Why do all these visitors stop here only to (1) rub our noses in Obama's impending victory; (2) lecture us that resistance to embracing him is racism; and (3) threaten to blame us (and, of course, Clinton) if McCain is elected.

    Parent

    Well, of course it is about power. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST


    Parent
    And wanting power is a bad thing? (none / 0) (#88)
    by wasabi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    Don't you need power to move your ideas into fruition?

    Parent
    i'd rather to listen to my cat's georgie (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    than listen to one thing berstein has to say.

    Parent
    So, is all politics personal or not? (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:40:15 PM EST


    Maybe you know the answer? (none / 0) (#86)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST


    I (none / 0) (#87)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    think it is always personal, for the individual picking a candidate to back.

    BTD, a question.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    signals I am seeing are that the decision they seem to be approaching is a very bad one

    What do you mean?


    the press (none / 0) (#152)
    by teachermom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:15 AM EST
    I tried to post on the other column and couldn't, so I'm putting my comment here.

    The discussion of the press reminds me (ohmyg, I'm a grandma! And glad of it!) of the sixties when the press "objectively" reported on Vietnam. Time after time the media showed it was gung-ho for the war machine. To get an opposing point of view one had to read the "underground press." Now -- it's hard to find. I can't stand reading the NYT anymore, can't watch the news, can read only a few blogs -- hard to be a media/political junkie and be for HRC these days.

    It's Not Personal, It's Politics | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment