home

Rumor of the Aftenoon: Hillary Says She's Open to VP Slot

Update: Jon Ausman, whose Florida challenge to the seating of delegates was heard on Saturday, announces is 1/2 superdelegate vote will go to Hillary. Why? He wants a joint ticket and she is the key to winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Shorter version (mine): Obama can't win those states without her, and the Dems won't win the presidency without them.

CNN is reporting Hillary has told New York lawmakers that she is open to the VP slot.

Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.

Could the media do any more today to discourage those in SD and MT from voting? This is their third attempt to tell them their vote doesn't matter, may as well stay home.[More...]

Donna Brazile's new tune today: We don't yet have a nominee. Update: 15 minutes later she says we'll have a "champion tonight."

Poll below: Should there be a unity ticket?

Comments now closed.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread: Running on Empty | McCauliffe: Absolutely No Concession Tonight >

Poll

Should There Be an Obama-Clinton Ticket?
Yes 28%
No 51%
Too Soon to Decide 20%

Votes: 194
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    HAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 19) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    OMG! OMG!

    Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.

    Thanks for the belly laugh, Jeralyn.

    Deja Vu (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by LeftyFan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Typical CNN, this is old news.

    Someone reported this exact BS (about Clinton being on a short list but not being fully vetted) online weeks ago.  

    Can't remember where or when it was exactly, because it was so laughable then, but it was definitely already thrown around.  (For some reason, I think it was either Politico or AP's Obamaton Nedra Pickler who initially said it, but I can't be certain.)

    Parent

    not new news (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    she has been open to it by when the DNC floated a dreamticket - saying so: till Pelosi whacked her, by beaming afirmatively at the question by ABC etc...

    Lets hold out till Denver, folks. She can't save him. The SDs have to realise its her as ticket topper.

    Parent

    "The SDs have to realise . . ." (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    I dont think so.  I mean, I think they already know it but I think it will be given to Obama.
    I am all out of hope.
    except that I can hope I am wrong.


    Parent
    One final vetting (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    I wrote it on another thread... is Clinton willing to release the Library records?  Obama's media meme issue is openness.  That is all this is about IMO, the media morons just try to make a big issue out of it.

    There were rumors about the tax returns and nothing was there other than the small rumors.

    There are rumors about the library money and who the anonymous donors are.  Many are known, some want to be kept private.  If Clinton is open to the VP, I imagine the permission to release the data has been done and it will be another yawn.  Is anyone going to be surprised if there is big money behind the library?  No.

    Parent

    That... (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    might be a fair argument if Obama himself had been open. We're still waiting for his Illinois Senate records and his tax records from the time he was in the Illinois Senate.

    Parent
    no kidding (4.75 / 4) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    the jokes just keep coming.


    Parent
    Not fully vetted? (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    They're in the comedy biz now right?

    Husband (1.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Natal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    Bill is the problem. Personally she'd be great but what to do about him?

    Parent
    Put Him on the Campaign Trail (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    Bill is incredibly popular.  It's MSM crap that he isn't or that, overall, he wasn't a huge help to Hillary.  If you look at the difference between her margins in rural areas he visited vs. rural areas he didn't, it's huge.  

    He's a walking, talking reminder that we had peace and prosperity before the current Republican nightmare.  Bill attracts all the voters that Obama lost and that Kerry and Gore lost before him.  Which, of course, is why the Obama half of the party doesn't understand what a huge asset Bill Clinton is, they aren't the ones Obama needs Bill for.

    Parent

    Loose Cannon (none / 0) (#232)
    by Spike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM EST
    Bill is a loose cannon. I think he did Hillary as much harm as good. Not only does he generate stories like the Vanity Fair piece, but his reaction to the Vanity Fair piece generated another story, and his apology for that reaction yet another. Message discipline is impossible. Who on the Obama campaign is going to be able to tell a former president to stick to the script? I hope he campaigns for Obama as a distinguished former president, but not as the spouse of the running mate.

    Parent
    is there an alien (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    of some sort that has been inhabiting Donna Brazile's body for the last few motnhs?  Is she trying to play nice now?  Does she still plan to cast her vote for Clinton as she promised on CNN Sunday during the Puerto Rico coverage?

    This is soooooo typical. (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    After Obama campaign director Bill Burton incited the RFK pseudo-scandal (as Joan Walsh of Salon stated on Hardball), Obama came out 24 hours afterwards and said that Clinton's words had been misrepresented.

    Yes, they had - BY OBAMA.

    So now that the story they wanted has been playing all day, they can come out and say they disagree.

    Laughably transparent.

    Parent

    Joan Walsh of Salon (1.00 / 3) (#117)
    by independent voter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    is a HUGE Hillary supporter that has offered her opinion on many things. Her opinion is not fact. She is part of the reason things have gotten so heated in this race.

    Parent
    Joan Walsh (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    discussed the specific steps taken by the Obama campaign to advance the RFK non-story.

    When Axelrod was confronted with the information, all he could do was keep trying to change the subject.  

    This is typical Obot behavior -- when forced to deal with facts that conflict with their opinions, they attack the messenger.  Its why there is no point in having a discusion with Obots -- they are WORSE than far-right zealots.

    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    I know you're right.  Sometimes i can't resist asking them one simple question though.

    Parent
    Can you name one (none / 0) (#186)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    inflammatory thing she has said?  I know her comments section gets heated, but often without much provocation.

    Parent
    We know this about Donna: (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    She has experience in losing
    Presidential elections!

    Parent
    You never know (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    someone could, for example, put forward an unfounded rumor about Bill's sex life, and that would change EVERYTHING!

    Obama and his people are either fine with Hillary as VP or they're not.  If they are, I understand the instinctive reaction that they still want to show it's their choice and not hers, but winning in November is more important than alpha male stunts.  No more tin-eared statements like this one, please.

    If he wants to (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    build some good will. The exact thing he needs to do is project that she hd a HUGE part in the decision. Alpha males may get the girls inthe movies but it ain't going to play with feminists.

    Parent
    I'm so tired about it being his choice. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by kimsaw on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    It shouldn't be simply Obama's choice-the VP is not a puppy. The VP is next in line to lead the nation if need be. He should focus on what is in the PEOPLE'S INTEREST in the Democrat Party, the other half have chosen Clinton. His question should be  who will get my team get over the  finish line.  If he can't work with her on behalf of this nation. His whole premise of change and unity is a hoax simply put a grab for power not empowerment of the American electorate.

    Fully vetted? When is anyone going to vet the Obamas! The arrogance is beyond reproach.

    Parent

    Maybe It's Not (none / 0) (#146)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    I've been thinking about the SD's and why many have waited to endorse.  Could they be secretly lobbying Obama to announce Hillary for VP?  I mean, think about it.  It would be a smart thing for a SD to do if he wants the party to win.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dave B on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST

    He should focus on what is in the PEOPLE'S INTEREST in the Democrat Party, the other half have chosen Clinton.

    That would be "Democratic Party."

    Sorry, but that's always really rubs me the wrong way.



    Parent
    since we're talking rumors, I can (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    put forth a conspiracy theory, right?

    I think she doubts his elect-ability and knows she will be blamed for the loss.  So maybe this is her way of staying around until Denver, hoping by that time the SD's will have seen the light?

    Just a thought....

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    Hill wants the Dems to win in November.  She cares more about the country than her own ambitions.  If she's offering herself up it's because she thinks she can help win.

    Parent
    This woman has become my hero (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    I don't have very many people I admire but Hillary is on "my" shortlist and I'd say she's been fully vetted for the position. I still disagree with her on some stuff but I admire her tons.

    Parent
    It won't work (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    I can't vote for him.  Her sacrifice will not help the party.  It will only end up hurting her in the long run.  This has gone far beyond Hillary.  She has to stand back and not get in the way.  

    Parent
    Nodding (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    I can not vote for Obama and it will make me very sad to not be able to vote for Hillary, if she runs with him.  I do not understand why she would want to be his VP.  The thought has crossed my mind that she wants to be on the ticket when the Obama pyramid comes crashing down.

    Parent
    I'm with you. (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by MMW on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    I won't support him. I don't care who his VP is. I will not sanction this, or go back and hope for crumbs.

    I've never been into hope, which is probably why I never trusted Obama.

    Hillary can take the hit if she feels strong enough about it.

    Like I've said before consequences are the only way most people ever learn.

    My two cents - I'm not in.

    Parent

    goldberry....it's (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    just a tactic, I'd say...and a good one...pressuring him to deal with her and her voters...elevating the fight inside the Obama camp between thos who hate the Clintons vs. those who 'get it' and see he can't win without her.  Fun!  

    It's strategic.  Gets the pressure off her to concede, forcing the press to cover the story she wants, buying time and delivering a message to the precious that his troubles are just beginning.

    Personally, I like it.  A lot.

    Parent

    agree! (none / 0) (#230)
    by jedimom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    exactly I have been saying this at Taylor Marsh, it is a great move, and now the onus is back on him while she can keep the SDs still to take it to Denver....

    Parent
    Yeah well, who else is on the list and how.... (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    ...vetted are they? That's what's wrong with the Obama campaign in the nutshell. They can't leave well enough alone they have to end everything with an insult.Just consider the following...

    You're likeable enough.

    She's on the short list. But we are concerned that the Clinton's haven't been fully vetted.

    If they could learn to leave well enough alone, they wouldn't piss so many people off.

    I don't get it... (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    Why the anger here?  Isn't this good news that they're even talking about it?  Everyone gets formally vetted as a part of this process, it's just the way things work.  If they don't have the full files on the Clintons, they'll get them.  It's no big deal unless you choose to make it one.

    I know there's a lot of anger here.  But please don't let it blind you to things that are truly (well, if you support a Clinton VP nod that is) good news.

    Parent

    Dear me. (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    Have you forgotten that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been under a public microscope since 1991?

    And Bill Clinton was President for 8 years?

    And Hillary has been in the Senate for a term and a half?

    Just exactly would the august and exalted Barack Obama consider to be "vetted?"

    Parent

    What About Since Bill Left Office? (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    The microscope they were subjected to (and the egregious infamies and lies) has largely been turned off since then.

    But do you really think for one minute having gone through that trial by fire in the '90s they are now immune from a new one?

    Do you think that Vanity Fair article on the former president (hit piece or not) is the only one like that waiting in the weeds should Hillary either become the presidential or veep nominee?

    People made up vile things about them before. Do you think the republicans and wacko activists like Scaife have lost their appetite for that?

    I'm not saying that should disqualify her as a vice presidential nominee (if she would want it in the first place). But I have no doubt that she (and her husband) attract extra passionate fire so it's a concern. The nineties taught us that.

    Parent

    OBAMA will decide against her as VP (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    and his reason?  SHE IS DIVISIVE!

    Parent
    It's you that doesn't get it.... (4.42 / 7) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    ...We, the Clinton supporters are the ones that Obama needs. So are you afraid that after all these years we will discover something about Bill that's going to do what 16 years of dirt digging hasn't been able to do? Or are you afraid that is is current Obama supporters who will be so dismayed by some as yet undiscovered Clinton skeleton that they will turn away from their hero? This makes no sense, and is quite frankly, total BS.

    Parent
    Not At All What I Said (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Vetting isn't just about digging for ACTUAL dirt but also for the potential that someone has something else in their lives that can be made to look like actual dirt.

    The Republicans and the activist right wing have a massive appetite for targeting the Clintons. And the attention they got when he was president has not continued  That's a concern and it demands careful consideration. Just as it would with any potential veep choice.

    I made no comment about Obama needing or not needing Clinton supporters so I have no idea what you mean by that.

    But two additional points for the record:

    I don't think it's appropriate to discuss Clinton as VP before she has stopped pursuing the presidential nomination. (And, I doubt Obama has publicly done so this time.)

    And, I have no doubt other things about Obama will come out between now and November which the opposition will try to use to sink him. No surprise there. I'll bet that will be true for McCain as well.


    Parent

    However you define vetting..... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    ....looking for actual dirt, future dirt, potential dirt, fictional dirt....it's all been done to the Clinton's.

    Parent
    It's just the way things work (2.33 / 3) (#74)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    The Obama campaign wasn't running that microscope.  They don't have the raw data.  They just have the abstracts (to extend the metaphor) that appeared in the media.  History is filled with examples of skeletons that weren't discovered until too late.

    Clinton will be "vetted" when a full set of files are in a cabinet in the Obama campaign.  It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, no one gets a pass on this.  If the situation were flipped, there's no way that the Clinton campaign would give a VP nod to Obama without exactly the same process.

    Please, I know everyone is angry about the election.  But don't invent insults where none exist.  This is good news.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    You don't think they've been doing research on their primary opponent, they've just sorta been picking up the newspaper every morning?

    Parent
    Apparently the poster also thinks (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    that bolding words makes your argument stronger.

    Personally, I think we're seeing some very, VERY low-information Obamans here.

    Parent

    Look, all the Obama campaign (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    had to say was that she was on the short list. Obviously, if something untoward came up, they could simply say that it did, and that's why she wasn't chosen.

    Saying that she "hadn't been vetted" was simply an entirely unnecessary insult.

    So don't pretend that people aren't right to be offended by the Obama campaign bringing that up, OK?

    Parent

    But the fact is (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    that the voters have done some vetting and don't like him!

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    Yeah, if they don't happen to have the full file ON THEIR PRIMARY OPPONENT FOR THE LAST NINE MONTHS, they'll have to start Googling.

    Come on.  It's not the vetting itself that bothers anyone, it's the announcement about vetting.  It comes across like they're bound and determined to put her in her place.

    Parent

    Media and Republicans are afraid of her.. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    trying to destroy any possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    The pundits know that an Obama/Clinton ticket would WIN the general election.

    Interesting timing on the article about Bill.
    That was intentional to justfy Hillry not being offered VP.

    Mass meida has done everything possible to diminish Hillary...even today before the polls close.

    Parent

    You're reading too far in (1.50 / 2) (#85)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    They didn't announce anything.  It was reported anonymously via Malveaux, probably from something someone said during conversation.  Hell, it might not even be completely true.  Even a statement like "I'm not sure if we can formally declare anything yet, because I don't know if the research department can sign off of the vetting yet." could have prompted the report as given.

    I'll say it one last time: This is good news!  Stop being angry about it!

    Parent

    Pfft (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    "The research department."  You just have some really silly ideas about the internal process at the Obama campaign.  "Hang on, I have to call down to Research and see what they have on the Clintons, we've been too busy with the campaign to really think about them much."

    Parent
    "the research dept" (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by hlr on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    ACME Research
    Vandelay Research

    Parent
    I'm glad that is the last time you will say it. (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    Because it's getting old.

    Parent
    Repeating Yourself And Issuing Orders (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    doesn't make your argument any more credible.

    Parent
    Anydem Will NOT Do! (none / 0) (#210)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    Just Hillary.  You don't know how angry I am and will be even more if she is not the nominee.  Not even Hillary herself can tell me to stop being angry.  So don't even bother.  There are several of us.  I am only the tip of the asparagus.

    Parent
    Anydem Will NOT Do! (none / 0) (#218)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    Just Hillary.  You don't know how angry I am and will be even more if she is not the nominee.  Not even Hillary herself can tell me to stop being angry.  So don't even bother.  There are several of us.  I am only the tip of the asparagus.

    Parent
    anydem (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    read your subject line again. It's true.
    I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't see it then you really don't get it.

    Parent
    I suspect... (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    that Clinton is leaving open the possibility as part of her effort to placate some of her black supporters that Obama's race-boating campaign has angered.

    Because she's NOT conceding, she's telling Obama "don't declare victory, because the minute you do, your "choice for VP" will become the topic, and I all the speculation will be on ME, and I'll control the agenda -- and you won't like that.

    But I sincerely hope that she's not stupid enough to actually run as VP on an Obama ticket.  

    Parent

    Me and thee! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    What??? (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    Where were you in the 90's?  If anyone needs vetting, it's Obama and his wife.  
    And FWIW, Clinton as Obama's VP is not going to help HIM.  Joint ticket or not, it is not appropriate to put the stronger candidate with the better qualifications in second spot.  That is no enticement for me to vote for him.  In fact, there is nothing I can think of that he can do to make me vote for him.  Nothing.  Everything about his campaign violates my principles.  

    Parent
    Obviously he was in pre-k (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    if he can say with a straight face that the Clintons haven't been vetted.

    Parent
    Why the anger? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by camellia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    Well, before I answer may I suggest you go take a look at the little poll which asks if Hillary should be on the ticket as VP.  As for the anger,  "Isn't this good news that they're even talking about it?  Everyone gets formally vetted as a part of this process, it's just the way things work.  If they don't have the full files on the Clintons, they'll get them."  

    I suppose if one has been living under a rock for the past 16 years, one would need to "vet" the Clintons and obtai "the full files".   And -- although I do respect your opinions and your many sincere attempts at peacemaking here-- I  would HATE to see HRC as second fiddle on the ticket, probably as the object of much patronizing, to whom the scutwork was assigned.  She does not need that.  

    Parent

    just order Jerry Falwell's Clinton Chronicles (none / 0) (#219)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    I think his ministry is still selling them

    Parent
    Did they throw that in about (none / 0) (#197)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    anyone else on  the short list?

    It seems like pure payback for the times Clinton has said  Obama has not been fully vetted as a presidential nominee, and nothing more.  I'm not going to get gassed about it.

    Parent

    one word (none / 0) (#206)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    rezko

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#217)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    Yes, the big difference is that when Clinton says it, it is true.

    Parent
    Et Tu Jimmy? (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Chimster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    ATLANTA (AP) - Former President Carter says he'll endorse Democrat Barack Obama after the polls close on the final primaries.

    Well, isn't that strange. Jimmy say's he'll endorse before he endorses and does so during his party's primary election. What's happened to this party?

    I had admired Carter (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    He was the first person that I ever voted for.  I do not understand how he can dedicate his life to ensuring that free elections are held around the world and have no problem with what the RBC did on Saturday.  The Carter Center may just as well start selling used cars, it no longer has any credibility.

    Parent
    I still admire him (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    He's entitled to one bad decision.

    Parent
    I agree.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    Carter is doing what he thinks is right in terms of party unity.  

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:47 PM EST
    Except he announced this months ago by refusing to say he was supporting, but then noting that everyone in his family was supporting Obama.

    Carter is a politician.  He also has a history with the Clintons that isn't entirely a good one.  

    That's one benefit of having no experience at the national level, you have fewer enemies at the national level.

    Parent

    What do you think (none / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    of him being against a unity ticket?  I was very surprised to hear him state his outright opposition to that on the Larry King show a few weeks ago.

    Parent
    I've been a donor to the center-- (none / 0) (#129)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    up till now.  I wrote him to cross me off the list.  And I also asked  if he ever wondered what Miss Lillian might have thought of this campaign.

    Parent
    AP. At it again (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    They are pulling out all the stops today.

    Parent
    Read Ben Smith. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    He reports the same conversation and only says that Clinton didn't rule out the possiblity when asked.  Of course not.

    More voter suppression rumor mongering from NBC? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    Gee, whodathunkit.

    Parent
    Well, considering (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    that she was the one who brought up the Unity ticket first...in FEBRUARY...of COURSE she would be open to it!

    And did she even say that she would be the VP, or did she say "combined"?

    Parent

    Alice in Obamaland (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    ...the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted."

    I think if water is found on Mars, I may relocate. This planet is just too far out.

    Obama's people need to (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    be careful here. If he gets or when he gets the nomination, it is of course his right to pick a VP, but if they start hemming and hawing about vetting and this that and the other, they will lose the few women who supported Hillary, like myself, who are hanging on right now.  I just want her treated with respect, is that too much to ask.

    Parent
    Someone quite dear to me told me.... (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    ...yesterday that Obama is treating Hillary with respect and its my problem if I don't see it.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    That great invisible respect that you can't see, hear, or feel.  That must be the best kind.

    Parent
    You too? (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by camellia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    My dear husband has decided that I have gone over the edge.  Anyone know where I can buy a bucket of little fuzzy balls to throw at the TV and at my dear husband when we discuss this?

    The Carter vote is not a surprise -- he said months ago that his family was voting for Obama, and that he would follow their lead.  I do wonder if all these people have fallen under a spell.  I simply do not get the magic!

    Parent

    I'm Concerned That The Obamas Have Not (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    been fully vetted. I have no doubt that they will be fully vetted between now and November.

    Parent
    Sorry, Miriam (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    There's water on Mars.  

    Parent
    Oh, thank God (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    When does the next shuttle leave?

    Parent
    HA (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    I was just going to say that! But unfortunately, not enough oxygen. We need another destination.

    Parent
    It's frozen...... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    but if they find running water and indoor plumbing, I'm there!

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#214)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST
     Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

     In fact, it's cold as hell.

    Parent

    but, before we all give up (none / 0) (#138)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    and head for a less far out planet... today is the last day to go tell Hillary what we prefer she do:

    convention?
    or vp.

    As I now see it, no loss by going to the convention.
    He was more electable at one point, but no longer. He has pissed off too many of us. She is already blamed for his inevitable loss.
    He has shown he cannot beat McCain in electoral votes. That is not going to magically change.


    Parent

    It's frozen...... (none / 0) (#179)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    but I'm there!

    Parent
    That's not what vetting means (1.66 / 6) (#36)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    What they are saying is that while clearly lots of oppo research has been done on the Clintons over the yeras (a bunch was just "published" in Vanity Fair, for example), the Obama campaign itself doesn't have it in their files.  They need to do the work themselves rather than trusting the media or the other campaign office to do it for them.  It's no different than the principle of due diligence in the law.

    Really, people are on too thin a knife-edge here.  It's not a slam to say that Clinton isn't fully vetted.  They're not saying she's got skeletons in her closet, they're just saying they don't have the files to prove it.  It's an issue of bookkeeping, not campaigning.

    Parent

    Ludicrous. (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    Axelrod's speciality is fully vetting the (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    opposition.  Give it up.

    Parent
    The Obama campaign doesn't have it in... (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    ...their files? No offense, but could you keep a straight face while typing that?

    Parent
    Slam or not (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    If that is what they believe, then they are outright stupid and I don't want stupid people running the country.

    They should have said she is on the short list and left it at that. Instead, they are laying the groundwork for rejecting her as the choice, and of course it will be her fault because of some deep, dark secret that two decades of living the in media glare hadn't brought to light.

    Parent

    give it up (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    you've said it twice and it's laughable. Enough.

    Parent
    I love it (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    when Obama supporters tell Clinton supporters what "vetting" means.
    dont you?


    Parent
    I know you mean well... (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    but you're parsing out words carefully, looking at literal meanings, to avoid the associations those words evoke.

    BHO has a degree from Harvard, and a reputation as an eloquent speechmaker.  I suspect he knows exactly the contempt the word "vetting" implies.

    Certainly if he had ANY sense of the anger in half the voting Democratic party, he would have spoken much more carefully. "We haven't made a decision yet," would have been much more diplomatic.  "Shortlist" means nothing, anyway.

    I sincerely hope she won't take it. I trust the horse sense of the American people -- those Appalachians, for example -- and they will sense exactly the kinds of forces behind this race. I think it's going to be a landslide for McCain.

    I don't want to see Hill serving someone who will blame her and jettison her when the going gets rough. I don't want to see her buffing the shoes of a candidate who is her inferior.  And I don't want to see her spinning justifications for the kind of stuff the GOP will level when the campaign gets going.

    I wonder if it's just a strategy so that she will be second-in-line when he implodes, and that she's guessing this will be before November. If so, I think it's a poor gamble ... and probably wishful thinking on my part.

    Parent

    that's fine (none / 0) (#55)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    but I hope they are planning on using Vanity Fair as a source, especially since the article has NO ONE on the record, all anonymous, hearsay sh!t.

    Parent
    NOT planning, that is (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    Only a moron would see the need to state (none / 0) (#209)
    by TomLincoln on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    publicly the need that any VP candidate be fully vetted. All they had to state was that she was definitely on Obama's short list. The rest is feeding the MSM idiots. If you ask me, it would be the Obamas who have to befully vetted by HRC camp before she ever joined shuch a ticket. I frankly don't believe that Hillary being on an Obama-Clinton ticket will help Obama win the presidency, so I would be a lot more pleased if he did not even offer it to Hillary. As a resident of Puerto Rico, I will not get to vote in presidential election in November anyway, but if I did, I would not vote for Obama even with Hillary as VP. And I really, really like Hillary a lot.

    Moreover, being VP means very little when you are the far better candidate, unless you are going to play a very crucial role. Obama would have to publicly commit to thaqt before HRC could accept, IMO.

    I cannot understand why the Obama rush to declare himself the winner without giving Hillary the opportunity to talk to SD's and then, if she did not find the support she needs, to step down on her own terms. But what can one expect from the same person who treated Hillary like dirt he was brushing off his jacket, etc.  He has no class, if you ask me.

    I am very upset at how this entire primary has worked out. True, Hillary's campaign is part to blame for not having planned better for a post Super Tuesday strategy. My eyes have been opened to the stupid rules of the Democratic Party for selecting a nominee. And the behavior of the DNC and other Democratic leaders has left me wondering as to their motives, and I can never bnring myself to conclude that the motives are good. Too often they have tried to push Hillary out, pressure others to go Obama's way, etc. Pelosi, Dean, Brazille, are sickening.  The RBC is a joke

    I wish Obama a big loss in November, for he has earned every bit of it. I consider him underhanded, two-faced, insencere, and completely inexperienced to handle the job. In my view he will not bring the troops out of Irak, he will never get any meaningful health insurance passed, and will be very bad for US foreign relations. I am not happy with GWB's way at all, but if you think that simply doing exactly the opposite is the right thing, then you are as wet behind the ears as Obama.

    I know this blog will support him if he is the nominee, but I simply cannot.

    Parent

    All such a joke... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    Call her a racist then ask her on the ticket?

    The media taking itself so seriously?

    I am growing old and starting to believe that Nader was right.

    Unless we make real changes to the system, led by campaign finance reform that will allow real changes to occur, America will continue to fool itself as it rushes toward financial and moral bankruptcy.

    Don't look for real (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    change in campaign finance from Obama.  He has already backtracked on that since raising a record amount for the primaries.  

    Parent
    You can't raise $300 to be nominated... (none / 0) (#71)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    and be for reform.

    Parent
    $300 million (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    Though As I Mentioned (none / 0) (#123)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    earlier today, there's probably already been some (hopefully) unintentional bleeding between his primary and general election accounts, because some chunk of his donations have been improperly recorded.  I personally know several big Obama supporters whose donations well above the $2300 primary limit were not recorded as being for the general election only.  I can't say whether this means that Obama's campaign has extensively been spending money they're not permitted to use, but it doesn't inspire faith that he's going to be quite the champion of finance reform that many belived in early on.

    I don't necessarily think that this misrecording has been done with deliberate malice, but is more likely a reflection of sloppiness in recordkeeping by the campign staff.  Nevertheless, it displays a willingness to not pay attention to the "rules" when it would be inconvenient to do so.  I suspect we may start hearing a fair bit about this kind of thing over the next few months, especially if McCain starts twisting the knife about Obama backing away from his earlier commitment to public financing.

    Parent

    Re Donna Brazille: I suspect Obama (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    hasn't clinched.

    No, that's the standard line to the Hillary as VP (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    discussion. They can't consider her yet because it isn't over while they have said for months that it is over. It's funny to watch them twist and spin.

    Parent
    She can talk out of more sides... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    of her mouth than anyone.  Her pretending she has not been in the tank makes me laugh.

    Parent
    What Brazile has been saying is (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    far more likely to be emanating from an orifice south of her mouth.

    Parent
    C'mon, can you quit the childish insults (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    so we can have an adult discussion?

    Parent
    Geez, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    couldn't you have waited, and let BTD post this.  You know he'd be so happy when doing it our computers would all be flashing smilie faces! ;-)

    What (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    is wrong with the Obama campaign today? Of course, they've really been doing a poor job since Wright appeared on the scene but today seems to take the cake on idiocy from them.

    What's wrong today? (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    I think it's called PANIC.  More and more states' voters are saying they don't want Obama.  He peaked long ago and it's been downhill since then.  We Democrats, and those who are now former Democrats, are sending a very loud message to the DNC...which they don't chose to hear.  They are so deafly and blindly intent on getting rid of the only Democrat who can win the presidency, one has to wonder why.  What is the real reason for their suicidal leap off the cliff of reality?  Why are they so afraid of Hillary Clinton winning the presidency?

    Parent
    I think this is just their idea of payback (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Which really is astoundingly childish behavior in my opinion. Wow I hope this is not in any way indicative of how they think they will run a GE campaign.

    Let me get this straight- (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by Lena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    not content to have pissed off every non-Obamabot in the Democratic party, alienating and offending people left and right, Obama's surrogates and supporters are insisting that it's CLINTON'S job to put the party back together?

    It's like he's been hacking away at the party edifice assiduously during his campaign, while at the same time insisting that Clinton's "divisiveness" (??) is destroying the party.

    FYI, Obama: there is no amount of campaigning that Clinton can do for you, either on your ticket or not, that will turn back the damage you've inflicted on my erstwhile party. You've already sunk your own ship, and there's nothing HRC can do to dredge you up from the murky depths. The fact that you've driven away Democrats from the party is completely on you.

    I wonder if he does choose her... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by citizen53 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    how it will go over at DKos, especially among the ones who spent the most vile.

    I'll be amused to watch how they flip like a dime, or whether they will stay true to their principles.

    I vote flip like dime (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    If Hillary can bring herself to be on his ticket I will consider him because of her. I still won't be visiting Dkos. That's another ship that can set sail without me.

    Parent
    it's simple (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    without unity there may be no unity.

    you can quote me on that...

    Whoa. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    That's deep.

    ;)  You're right though.

    Parent

    Great! Then you'll have no problem with... (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    Hillary at the number one spot.  That is the only unity ticket I will vote for.  Take it or leave it.  Me and millions of other women are ready to walk.  Just say the word.  

    Parent
    of course i have no problem (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    with her being at the top of the ticket. but if my say mattered, al gore would be finishing his second term, and hillary probably would have just defeated lieberman for the nomination.

    Parent
    hey turkana, come on over to goldberry's site (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    sometimes:

    I just hate your leftcoaster haloscan - fullatrolls, whereas she has bouncers at the doors.

    If you'd post em there, we could all chat in yr diary like back when dailykos had us rational beings...

    Parent

    hey turkana, come on over to goldberry's site (none / 0) (#177)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    sometimes:

    I just hate your leftcoaster haloscan - fullatrolls, whereas she has bouncers at the doors.

    If you'd post em there, we could all chat in yr diary like back when dailykos had us rational beings...

    Parent

    Us Too (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by LeftyFan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    Me and millions of other women are ready to walk.

    Men too.

    Parent

    But Pelosi said no Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    before demanding party unity.

    Parent
    and pelosi has proven (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    that she couldn't lead a starving party to lunch.

    Parent
    She shoots, She Scores n/t (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    remember when the DNC floated the dreamticket? (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    - nonspecific - and so good public servant Hillary said "my supporters have asked if we couldn't have (non - specific)both"?

    and the astroturf campaign with its bloggerboiZ all hurled themselves at her and made mincemeat of the very idea!!!!

    losers don't get to offer vp slot to winners!!!!!

    and Pelosi condemned Satans Spawn for the VERY IDEA!!! @#@@%%$ !!!

    Now they look at the electoralcollege and see if we don't put her in there somewhere he's a gonner...

    Parent

    As BTD has said repeatedly, (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    and I agree, a unity ticket is the only thing that can assure a dem victory in November.

    I'd rather she head the ticket, but she'd be an awesome VP and would be a real asset to him.

    Since there's also a rumor about Richardson being tapped for SoS, Obama will need all the good help he can get.

    The thing is (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    I TRUST her and I can't say the same about him. If nothing else Hillary jas proven she ca and ill fight for what she believes.

    Parent
    I repear, it will not help the ticket (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by goldberry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    The problem is the idea of Obama on top.  Having her as VP absolutely does not make me want to vote for him.  It would be like voting for complete obscrity on her part.  And to OBAMA of all people.  Does she get invited to meetings or does she fill the coffee urn?


    Parent
    Speaking from experience (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    of seeing many women in support roles to less qualified men, she'll do all the heavy lifting and he'll get the credit.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    It's not clear to me that Hillary is really all that into credit.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:49 PM EST
    Like a lot of women, she seems more interested in getting stuff done than in who gets the credit.  It's still infuriating. (To me, anyway.)

    Parent
    Maybe she isn't (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    But we don't want her not to get it. Harry Truman said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." And I believe that's true, but it gets old when someone who accomplishes little keeps taking the credit.  Sometimes we need our friends to help save us from ourselves. Many of us do not want Hillary to be quite that self-sacrificing for us.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#227)
    by sj on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    It's not clear to me that Hillary is really all that into credit.

    On the other had, it is clear to me that Obama is completely comfortable taking the credit.  And, since he's hardly a workhorse, it could actually be good for the country.

    I'll have to ponder this.

    Parent

    That's been my experience (none / 0) (#216)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    I just cannot watch it if it happens.

    Parent
    Do you really believe (none / 0) (#155)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    Hillary would allow herself to be obscured? I don't. She's a strong and opinionated woman and I think THIS is probably why they are floating the "not vetted" slop. I daresay managing herinto obscurity would be a full time job for many many staff members if she were to be on the ticket.  

    Parent
    How hard is it to say VP talk premature (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    That's a twofer.  1) You sound less like a presumptuous jerk claiming the nomination while primaries are still going on; and 2) You do nothing to offend HRC supporters by dissing her and Bill yet again.  Even if HRC is on the ticket, I'm still not voting for this guy, but I might think the country wasn't going totally to hell if he could conquer his outsized ego enough to embrace her with graciously open arms.

    I beleive the ONLY (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    way the Dems will get into the WH is with the Unity ticket.

    However, the chances of that happening is nil.

    The Dem powers have done everything they can to detroy any past or current political power of the Clintons.

    I cannot see Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin and Dashle letting Obama even think about it. The verification of such .... will be that she will NOT be his running mate.

    And that is exactly why Sen Clinton an say she will.... because he won't.

    I said this last night. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    I can't think of a viable choice for VP that will help him besides her.  Look around at the dems.  Not a pretty sight.

    Parent
    Obama is such damaged (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Left of center on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    goods at this point, it's probably best for Hillary to stay away from any unity ticket.Obama at the top of the ticket is a sure loser(possibly a historically disastrous 45 state loser)  She's better off waiting till 2012.

    Parent
    But what power does a VP have? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    Cheney only has power because Bush allows it. Gore had some power because Clinton allowed it.
    Obama's VP to-do list will be Quayle-like:
    -Attend funerals and B-list ceremonies.
    -Show up at the Senate, when Obama needs a tie-breaker vote.
    -Get humiliated by Michelle at State dinners.
    -Take the blame when ever anything goes wrong.
    -Be the brunt of late night comedy's jokes for 4 years.

    Parent
    She will be (none / 0) (#205)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    one step away from the Presidency.... the same reason McCain has to be careful about who he chooses.

    Parent
    CNN saying Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    only 30 delegates short now, Clinton 201.

    MSNBC said (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    29 hours ago. They can have him up ten and it doesn't matter. So long as Hillary stays in, the numbers can change anytime up until August.

    Parent
    As IF (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by DoggieDaddy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    I think it's a laugh riot that BO's mouthpieces have claimed they have to 'vet' HER first. Hopefully they'll do a more through job than they did vetting him.  

    What a bunch of amatures.


    Well, I'm still for the unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST


    The Media Will Be, Too (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    The Clintons are good for ratings.

    Parent
    They were talking about this yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    on CNN or XM's POTUS channel as they were already pushing the Obama victory speech on Tue night and speculating on some sort of joint appearance with Hillary and Obama in New York Wed night.  

    The media wizards had been hearing from Clinton insiders that she is open to VP.  The Obama camp, or about half of his camp, is not sold on the idea because they don't know what will come out about Bill's financial or social associations.  They believed Hillary would be on the short list but Obama would certainly go through the full process of choosing a VP with Hillary receiving no preferential treatment.  

    I have to wonder what planet the Obama camp has been living on as I am almost certain it is different from the one I inhabit.    

    the joint appearance, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    I've read, is for a previously scheduled NY-DNC event.

    Logistically speaking, why would the party put the younger, (far) less experienced one on top of the ticket?  Beyond all the other stuff we know, shouldn't we as a party be thinking of the long-term 16 year plan?  

    Parent

    Did You Not Watch Saturday's Clusterfrak? (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    The "party" is run by idiots who are divorced from reality.  They had an opportunity to take a step to unify the party and, while pounding the table screaming "unity," instead chose to do one of the things that was most likely to create hard feelings and prevent unity. Because kicking Hillary Clinton - and non-Obama supporters - in the teeth remains more important than electing a Democratic President.

    While I don't generally care who Obama selects as his VP, since I think people vote for the top of the ticket, I will admit that anything that forces the Hillary haters to smile and talk about what a great addition she is to the ticket would be fun.  Not enough to make me forgive and forget, but fun nonetheless.

    Parent

    Sadly (none / 0) (#226)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:01:19 PM EST
    I think there would be a good many who would not have the good sense to be gracious about Hillary being on the ticket.  And many of them have been very vocal about Hillary not being on the ticket, the latest this week following Bill's remarks in South Dakota.  It was as if they couldn't have been happier to learn what Bill said to give them another reason to proclaim there is no way that Obama could choose her for VP.  

    They will probably get their historical first African American nominee but I have little faith in the Democrats ability to figure out how not to lose it in the fall.

    Parent

    To tell you the truth (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    I am actually pretty excited about the idea of a unity ticket, even though I respect those who aren't.  Looking at all the superdelegates who are openly coming out in favor of the idea, for the first time it seems to me that it actually might happen.

    It's not that I feel this way because I like Hillary.  I mean, I'd like her just the same if she were back in the Senate.  I'm under no illusions that VP is some all-powerful job and she'll change the world.  I think she'll be great, I think she'll be a very valuable asset if he's smart enough to take advantage of her, but that's not really what it's about.

    I just feel, plain and simple, that this is the only selection that has a serious chance to win in November.  The idea of Obama winning a huge bipartisan consensus is long dead - with the unfortunate stuff that's come out over the last few months, he's going to be just as demonized among the conservative base as she has been.

    Only this ticket has a hope of keeping the Dem coalition together to win a general election.  There's a lot of folks in that coalition that simply don't want to vote for him.  This selection would bring home some, although not all, of the disaffected Clinton voters, and more to the point, it would grab hold of some of the Bill Clinton Democrats that Hillary has built such an affinity with during the course of this primary.

    The superdelegates, for once, seem smart enough to grasp that this is the only way.

    Actually, there is a better way... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    Clinton/Obama.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    Don't think I don't hear ya!

    Clinton/Obama would have crushed the GOP, Obama/Clinton just has a shot.  But I'll take the best deal I can get.

    Other advantages: Nancy Pelosi and the other unity opponents get to look stupid; some of the haters have to suck it up and acknowledge that Hillary is not actually a conniving racist you-know-what.

    Now, whether the liberal blogosphere is actually up for defending Hillary from GOP attacks if she's the VP candidate, that's one I'd like to know the answer to.

    Parent

    The Nancy Pelosi thing (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    is the only attractive part of the entire scenario for me.

    Parent
    There ya go! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    See, I swore I wouldn't be advocating for Obama, and I'm already doing it in spite of myself.  The lawyer in me can't help but come up with arguments.

    Parent
    Well, I think Obama is the least (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:17 PM EST
    qualified candidate in the history of this democracy.  Hillary would absolutely have to be his Cheney(I mean that in a good way).  However, can you imagine the smirking Pelosi, having to share quarters with Hill at the State of the Union?  Priceless.

    Parent
    The way I figure (none / 0) (#185)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    is if Hillary can be gracious and join his ticket after the crap that's been pulled then it'd seem rather small for me not to support her decision in my own small way.

    Parent
    Why is this so impossible?! (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    Why the hell can't it be CLINTON/Obama?  Jesus!  Besides, Obama/Clinton won't work: her as VP will only serve to emphasize his absurdly obvious weaknesses; voters vote for the top of the ticket (i.e. it'll still be Obama vs. McCain); and she won't be allowed to do much if they do reach the WH considering the Party establishment is hellbent on "cleansing" the Clintons from power.  Lastly, he is not a legitimate nominee (e.g., MI/FL, RBC) and the GOP will not fail to point that out.

    It has to be Clinton/Obama for the sake of winning.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    I'll tell you as a woman who has endured the blatantly sexist corporate world, the Obama/Clinton ticket is just a mirror of that world.  It will just change the bitterness from "the better candidate didn't win because she's a woman" to "the better candidate mirrored the corporate world because she's a woman".

    I think the Gerry Ferraro wing will hold.
    It may bring some back to the fold, but it's going to peel off 10% of the vote which is just enough for a McCain win.  And yes, that includes myself. Because of the horrors of this campaign on many levels, and the direction it will take the party (away from the little guy) and the completely sexist bend of the Obama/Clinton configuration, I will not vote for Obama at the top of the ticket no mater who the VP is.  Ever.

    And Hillary can' run in 8 years.  She'll be 68 AND a WOMAN.  She needs to retain her autonomy so she can run in 2012.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#110)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    If true, it means they're good for something.  They're there to pick the person who has the best chance of winning.  The decision is not usually theirs to make, so I want to believe they know what they're doing here.  Pushing a joint ticket tells me they do.

    Parent
    The joint (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    ticket will only work with Hillary on top. She can't push Obama over the top.

    Betsy, could you show a little grace please... (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    ...Most of us are Hillary supporters. If Hillary drops out it will be a very sad day for us. But you think today is a really good day to come here and lecture us and insult us. Haven't you got better things to do right now? Like celebrate your BIG DAY with your buddies?

    The Funny Part In All Of This (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    is that Obama thinks it's up to him.

    If the SDs decide a joint ticket is best, then Hillary will be VP because Obama does not have enough pledged delegates for the nomination.  If Hillary decides it's what she really wants* and pushes the SDs for it, then my guess is she'll get it.  They really, really do not want a convention mess and the only one who can ensure that the convention is not ugly is Hillary Clinton.

    * I'm not personally convinced she wants to be VP, although I have no reason to think she doesn't want it either.  But she's going to want to be asked.  That would be expected in a primary this close and she's not going to want to be treated any differently than another candidate would be.  

    Re-read my post. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by honora on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    I said that I felt that his failure to take issue with the actions of the RBC made a mockery of the Carter Center.  I do not care who he supports. Since Carter has been hinting about it since at least the Georgia primary, it does not strike me as breaking news.  I believe it would have been better to wait until the voting was finished.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#161)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    I've thought Carter has been acting out of character for a while. Not the apartheid stuff, but the shoving matches he got into in Africa.

    Bit more in-your-face in his olden years. I find it unsettling.

    Parent

    Hillary Should Get Whatever (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by bob h on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    she wants.  She could, for example, run a third party effort that would destroy Obama, and I would bet a lot of us would be with her.

    hugh? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by tlhwraith on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    What would her running as a third party candidate do except for guarantee a Democrat isnt in the WH?  I know a lot of people here are really upset Clinton isn't the nominee, but can we get some real perspective here?

    The truth is, the race could have gone either way.  No, Obama didn't blow Clinton out of the water, but guess what, neither did Clinton.  Truth is, Clinton had every advantage known to man/woman for a POTUS candidate and she still got beaten.  It's time to come to terms with that and start looking down the road.  At the end of that road maybe you'll see that the big issue is getting the GOP out of the WH.

    Personally, I am a supporter of Obama, but if he didn't win I would have still shown up for Clinton in November, because it is that important.  I'm reading this comments today and I'm saddened by the sheer level of venom being displayed.

    Again, I don't fault anyone for preferring Clinton over Obama, she is a very strong candidate and like I said the race is darn near even.  But in the final analysis, like they say in the movie "highlander", there can be only one.  Looks like Clinton is one the losing end of a 49.9 to 50.1 race.  Isn't the important bit that our party was able to put out 2 extraordinary candidates who are amazing in their own rights?

    Parent

    She had every advantage? (none / 0) (#215)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    She had entire TV networks trashing her nightly and cuddling Obama.

    She had the DNC doing their darndest to make sure she didn't win.

    And she is a woman, and dealt daily with flabbergasting misogynistic HATE, that, as you can see, I took personally.

    If you think she "had every advantage," then my friend, you're just plain WRONG.  Go say it at DailyKOS where they still believe that claptrap.

    Me, I'd say, it's a miracle that she's still in the race with the uphill climb she had.

    Parent

    My first post! Hat tip to all you Clintonites?! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    I have been reading this blog for a few months now and just wanted to let you all know that I have really enjoyed reading all your opinions. I am not a citizen so cannot vote but I really hope Senator Clinton becomes the nominee.

    I started out with a very favorable opinion of Obama but that changed as soon as he declared what qualified him as an expert on foreign policy. I have lived and studied in the middle east, southeat asia and the US and I figure by his definition I should be even better than him at foreign policy (yikes!).
    As time has passed far from being inspired by the unity pony, I feel like he brings out the racist in me...a feat I thought impossible since I am not white!
    As disillusioning as all this has been for me, I cannot imagine your anger and frustration. If not this year there is always 2012.

    This quote from the AP article makes me want to cry for the kool-aid drinkers "One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage"

    Betsy, one more (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    insult like that and you're out of here.

    The Obama campaign is a study in (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    passive-aggressive behavior, and I do not intend to be on the Obama yo-yo as he reaches out with one hand and smacks down with the other; screw it.

    Hillary is clearly a better person than I am, willing even after being beaten up for months to be on the ticket if that's what it takes to win; I can't believe she trusts him, so maybe she is holding out hope that if he tanks, she can step right in and rescue us from disaster.  

    I am no fan of McCain, and have no doubt that he will be wrong for the country and wrong for the things I care about; I just cannot, at this stage, see myself actively arguing against McCain because it will mean I am arguing for a candidate I do not think it possible for me to loathe more than I do today.

    I have watched and listened as people I used to respect have come out in support of Obama by trashing Hillary Clinton and her husband - people I once hoped would take the House and the Senate in their firm grip and begin to set a lot of things right.  I have even less confidence today that people whose judgment told them that Barack Obama would be a good president will be of much use even if Obama is elected.  I have watched as these same people who are supposed to be standard-bearers for all the things our Constitution stands for allowed years of hard work on issues of gender and race to go swirling down the drain.  How is it possible that people who held hearings on voter rights actively aided and abetted the stealing of votes/delegates from the people of Florida and Michigan because it benefited their chosen candidate?

    I think I understand better than I ever have before why it is that so many people never vote - because I can picture myself standing in front of a voting machine and wondering why it is I should continue to vote for people who have proven in this election cycle that all the things that matter to me are not important to them.

    This effects of this election are going to be with us for a long, long time, and it is not going to be pleasant.


    For real?... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Lil on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    "Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted."  

    That is just too frickin' funny!

    If the only way he can win is with her (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    on the ticket...

    then why don't we cut out the middle man and just nominate her?

    Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by mexboy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    If Obama becomes the presumptuous nominee-I hope Hillary rejects the VP position. He will fail without her and president McCain will be held in check by a stronger Democratic congress.

    After four years of McCain, the Democrats will come to their senses and elect a person who will put the country in the right direction.

    I have been turned off by the bosses trying to anoint the less electable and qualified candidate. What an eye opener.

    Will I remain a Democrat after this mess? 90 to10% I won't.

    nice to see (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    He can't even without pissing people off.

    SD delegates (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST
    Sen. Johnson said he'd go with the popular vote in SD if its for Hillary...

    Really, I can hear the Hildebrand camp screaming 'Hurry up with those AP reports!  We've got a mega-church, er, mega-coronation, er, a darned big thing in St. Paul tonight!"

    Just wait til Hildebrand Tewes is heading up the DNC.  Then you'll know why SD has been red so long...

    Switch, Johnson, switch!

    First he has to get the votes (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    for the nomination.

    Then, they have to actually be cast for him...in August.

    Heh, heh, heh.  It's a looooong time to August.  A long hot summer.  Very hot, I'd say.

    Hillary is doing two things with this rumor...she's putting Obama on the spot while taking Bill's story/Vanity Fair off the news and putting herself back on...AND...she's diverting the Republicans to attack Obama for the next 3 months.

    They will vet him bigtime...all summer.

    Then, we'll see.  In August.

    Fully vetted.... (4.83 / 12) (#5)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    Arrogance overload here.
    I'm headed out to the garden so my head doesn't explode.

    Here's today word-a-day: (4.60 / 10) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    jackanapes (JAK-uh-nayps) noun

       An impertinent conceited person.

    [Probably from Jack Napes, from "jack (man) of an ape". This word was the
    nickname of William de la Pole (1396-1450), Duke of Suffolk, as his badge
    was a clog and chain, as might be tied to an ape.]

    Example:
      "It turned out some jackanapes of a whippersnapper at my publisher's had
       appended his own subtitle to a forthcoming book of mine and announced it
       on Amazon."
       Mark Steyn; Michael Ignatieff's Home-ophobia; Macleans (Toronto, Canada);
       Oct 19, 2006.




    Parent
    Jack Napier (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM EST
    aka The Joker.

    Parent
    This guy is clueless. (4.69 / 13) (#1)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    Doesn't anyone else worry about how arrogant he is?

    I for one am. (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    With the number of groups he has alienated, his arrogance may well keep him from even seeing he has done so.

    Parent
    This life long Democrat will only vote for (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    The Dream Ticket

    I have been emailing and calling Senators, members of Congress,Governors,the DNC....and telling them of my anger.

    Senator Obama should not underestimate the anger of women in the nation that has been created by the hate and vitriol spewed by Obama supporters.   It is not Hillary's responsibility to try to bring these women back into the Democratic fold.  That is not even possible.

    I have voted a straight Democratic ticket for more than 30 years.   I contribute time and money to progressive campaigns throughout the nation.   Never have I been as angry as I am now.    Nor did I ever dream that I would vote for a Republican, but I will not vote for Obama if Hillary is not offered the VP slot.  



    Parent
    Not anymore (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    He's the DNC's problem. You dance with the ones who brung ya.

    Parent
    answer to: this guy is clueless (1.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Betsy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    I cannot believe that you would call him arrogant.  His upbringing proves differently.  I have a friend in Chicago that has met him.  She says he's very warm and engaging.  So please, all of you grow up.  Instead of attacking people personally, let's see how he does as President.  Remember what is in office right now.  Do you want McCain a Bush puppet in office, just because you are angry about Hillary losing.  That means that your selfish desires far outweigh what's good for America.
    If Hillary had won the Dem nomination I would have voted for her, even though she wasn't my choice.

    Parent
    We call him arrogant (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    Because to some of us he acts arrogant. I mean here he is, in one fell swoop he could probably unify the entire party behind him and guarantee a win (and if not I am pretty sure he will lose).

    And this is what they put out there. What do you call it, self defeating?

    Parent

    LOL, his upbringing? (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    Would that be on mercer island or hawaii? Obama had a pretty nice upbringing.

    Parent
    Betsy (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    I'm not feelin' the Unity.

    Parent
    Whoa.... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    "Let's see how he does in office"?  Excuse me?  I've seen all I need to see, or don't you believe in looking at someone's history?  And if I'm not mistaken, that's already been done...eight years ago. How did that work out?

    I have a "very warm and engaging" Maine Coon cat.  He has not offended half the Democratic party and he adores women.  All women.  By your reasoning, we could nominate him and then see how he does in office.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    has he been fully vetted?

    Parent
    Yes.... (none / 0) (#212)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    Once a year and the vet says this cat is Mr. Perfecto.  And he's now sexless as well.

    Parent
    Once a year. (none / 0) (#222)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#39)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    what is so offensive?  

    Okay so what if Hillary said this about Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    ...would you be offended?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#112)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    Is not being fully "vetted" an insult?  How about being on the short list for VP?  I think that some people have a very low threshold for finding statements offensive.  I think I know insults when I hear them, and being "unvetted" must be pretty low on the insult list.

    No I absolutely would not be offended of anyone else said that about Obama, or Edwards (my first choice).

    Parent

    Kitty...she's won over half the votes. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    It's an insult.

    Parent
    But remember those votes (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    came from all those low-information Appalachians. You can't trust their judgment.

    Parent
    Hillary is not (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    either of those two.  She's a former First Lady and a United States senator.  She's been vetted six ways to Sunday.

    Don't be silly.

    Parent

    Sorry Kitty but I don't believe you... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    ..because people who think that fairy tale is a racist insult would be livid if Hillary said this about Obama and we all know it.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#122)
    by mbuchel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    It would be totally irresponsible of either one of them not to fully vet the other.
    The reality is there is a lot that of stuff from the end of Bill's presidency (think last minute pardons for starters) to his post-president years (Kazakhstan, Ron Burkle anyone?) that hasn't been fully examined in the context of a political campaign.  For Obama as the nominee not to fully examine all these issues and more would be political malpractice.
    Likewise it would be irresponsible of HRC if the roles were reversed.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    is not running for office.  Before you get too high on that unity pony, you'd better realize that Michelle Obama might get some vetting herself, and it won't be pleasant.

    We do not have perfect people here.  Get real.

    Parent

    Breaking News! (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is NOT running for office!

    Parent
    I give up (none / 0) (#165)
    by mbuchel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    You can't on the one hand say that they are fully vetted and then say "But that doesn't count!"
    If you think Bill's dealings aren't going to be politically relevant going forward then there's no point in discussing this.

    Parent
    wow... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    the american people know bill clinton.  If he's screwing around, they'll yawn.

    I mean, when the Clintons released their tax returns the media went crazy -- and except for the Obots, nobody cared.  The public isn't as stupid as the Obots project them to be -- everyone knows that former presidents go around making money by giving speeches.  

    Parent

    Interesting question (none / 0) (#224)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    Will anyone be paying George W. Bush to give a speech?

    Parent
    she did. (none / 0) (#229)
    by tlhwraith on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    Unless I miss something, didn't she already say that Obama hasn't been "fully vetted"?

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    you don't understand what is so offensive here.

    Parent
    I would welcome Hillary on the ticket (none / 0) (#47)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    I did not always think she was the best choice but my thinking has evolved. She's earned it certainly. Obama did not exactly blow her out.

    Or you know, win (none / 0) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    Without SDs. So pretty much a tie until the non-will-of-the-people decided, right?

    Parent
    If you win you win (none / 0) (#173)
    by Seth90212 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    someone has to win, someone has to lose. He will end up over 100 pledged delegates ahead. Close, but not a tie. Hillary has been more dependent on SD's than Obama has. You should not discredit the SD element simply because they did not save Hillary's campaign as they could have. They performed their function as conceived.

    Parent
    The Obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Lil on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    did not feel this way months ago when they were concerned that the SD's were going to "give" it to Hillary. Only now it's ok.

    Parent
    Well shucks, (none / 0) (#207)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    he hasn't even exactly won either. But thanks.

    Parent
    Check out the AOL home page photo of Obama, (none / 0) (#59)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    top news. One of those photos that has a halo effect.

    Give me a break.

    See this is what they have all been waiting for... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    ...all of these media chumps had their "historic nomination" stories in the tank already. They were growing impatient. Never mind that Hillary's candidacy would have been historic too. They had their hearts set on the other one.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#75)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    a sense of humor... that was cute.

    Meanwhile, Al Gore Resurfaces.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:11:53 PM EST
     
    Al Gore Resurfaces for the DSCC...(Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)

    http://tinyurl.com/3m4mvz

    And I reply to him....

    In an ironic twist of fate (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    and karmic timing, I received a "survey" from the DNC yesterday...there were quite a few places where I had more to say than just the check-in-the-box they were looking for.

    The answer to "would you consider joining the DNC?" became "Hell" No.

    The answer to "What is the likelihood that the Republicans will try swift-boating the Democratic nominee?" became "Are you kidding me?  If Obama is the nominee, look out!"

    The answer to "How likely are you to vote in the 2008 election?" became "Very likely, but I WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama."

    The answer to "What advice do you have for the Democratic nominee?" was "If the nominee is Obama, I would advise him to step aside for the more electable, more honorable, harder-working, more devoted to Democratic principles candidate - Hillary Clinton - who can actually beat JOhn McCain."

    The question about whether I was concerned about the likelihood of Republican attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement was answered, "Are you kidding me?  After what the DNC RBC just did to Michigan and Florida, I am now concerned about Democratic attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement."

    In the question about the DNC's 50 state strategy, I crossed out the "50" and replaced it with "48," and added, "Enough said."

    I stuck a hot pink post-it on the back and added a few thoughts on my extreme disappointment with the DNC and with members like Donna Brazile who had made a mockery of the Democratic election process.

    Since it gets mailed back in a postage paid envelope, I wish I had a lead weight I could could send them.


    Parent

    Thanks for the laugh (none / 0) (#221)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    That's hysterical.

    Parent
    I got a call from the DCCC (none / 0) (#223)
    by otherlisa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    yesterday AM. Asking for money.

    That was fun.

    Parent

    Yeah, I couldn't believe my eyes (none / 0) (#199)
    by bridget on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    here we are in the middle of this big brouhaha on Sat and he sends this to me extremely annoying letter.

    btw. World Wildlife is also on my long list of animal rights organisations I support.

    Parent

    If They Need a Clinton on the Ticket (none / 0) (#157)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    because Obama can't win it on his own, they should choose Bill as the VP nominee.

    The point of Superdelegate endorsements today (none / 0) (#162)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    is simply so that the attainment of 2118 delegates can be announced before the full verification of SD & MT voting tomorrow.

    It's all semantics (none / 0) (#231)
    by jb64 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    Saying Hillary hasn't been fully vetted is just the Obama campaign's way of posturing to get in front of Clinton's offer to accept the VP slot for the good of the party. Pretty smart strategically on Hillary's part by the way.

    I'd suspect that some discussion about this possibility has already occurred between the two camps. I'm sure that these talks will intensify in the coming weeks. Clinton will simply not accept the VP slot in my view without some substantial place within the Obama administration, I'd suggest that it would only be palatable to her supporters if this were the case.

    that being said, and assuming that Hillary will not be merely an empty suit, I could support this.

    Here's Hillary's press release (none / 0) (#233)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:12:21 PM EST

    Link

    This is just exactly what she's said all along.  It isn't news, it isn't her conceding and begging for the second spot, it's just the same words she's said from the beginning, that she'll do what it takes to beat John McCain.