home

Hillary, Caroline and Obama Fly to New York Together

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:18:30 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Maybe Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate after all.

Democrat Barack Obama and his former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, flew to New York on Wednesday along with his vice presidential searcher Caroline Kennedy.

The flight came on a day in which Obama touched off new speculation about his choice of a running mate by making an unannounced morning stop at the downtown building where another member of his vice presidential search team, Eric Holder, works.

..."I'm not going to tell you," the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters when asked who he met and what they discussed as he exited the office building that houses Holder's law firm some two hours and 20 minutes after entering. He had two top aides — campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod — at his side.

While I've never been one of those pushing a joint ticket, it seems to me now Hillary on the ticket would vastly improve Obama's chances in the general election. It certainly would get me more enthused about the election.

< Bad Argument For Obama Fans | Medicare Cuts Aborted, Funds Restored >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary, Caroline and Obama Fly to New York Together | 194 comments (194 topical)
    I would never (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    be enthused about it but Hillary on the ticket is the only possible way to get my vote this fall.

    ditto (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:47:50 PM EST


    Parent
    What's two times (none / 0) (#132)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    more than eighteen miilion votes?

    Compare that to the republican primaries.

    Parent

    In All Fairness (none / 0) (#134)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    Republicans in all 50 states did not get the opportunity to vote like the Democrats -- especially in states with closed primaries. McCain became the presumptive nominee after Super Tuesday Part 4 (TX/OH...) But, I get the gist of your post.

    Getting back on topic, I'm hearing murmurs that Charlie Crist, Mitt Romney and Carly Fiorina have been narrowed down as McCain's top 3 choices for VP.

    I wonder what happened to Pawlenty, Jindal and Sanford? Probably too young?

    I can't say I'm surprised, but those top 3 really do put heat on Obama to choose wisely.

    Parent

    In all fairness, (none / 0) (#137)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    do you think the republicans would have gotten similar numbers if the primary had lasted as long?  Such a stellar group.

    You needn't answer.

    We are gisty.  :)


    Parent

    I am baffled (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    by the people who claim that Hillary's vote on FISA means that she can't be the VP now, or that she did it to make Obama look bad, or whatever.

    Gee, I'm sure never before in history have there been two candidates on the ticket who disagreed about something.  What will Clinton and Obama do when the media confronts them with the fact that they voted opposite ways on the FISA bill?  Gee, they might have to say that they had different opinions about whether it was a good bill!  End of the world, clearly.

    Clinton's FISA vote helps Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    It pushes him to the middle in people's perceptions.

    Look who he voted with and who he didn't vote with today.

    He voted with Ben Nelson and not Hillary Clinton.

    I don't know how much that has an influence on the VP pick, but her vote does not hurt Obama.

    Parent

    Whoa ,that's not the middle I'm in the middle his (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    vote is a move to the Right.

    Parent
    Well sure (none / 0) (#67)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    So is Clinton.

    That's my point.

    Parent

    What-!#@!*&! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    Clinton is a move to the Right!!

    Ah, NO!

    Parent

    That's not what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    Her position on this is the center.

    Parent
    She voted NO (none / 0) (#138)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:19:38 PM EST
    and that is Center??

    Do you even know what you are talking about?

    Did you even read her statement today? I don't think so.

    Parent

    Frankly, I think NO may be the center (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    now for the population at large.  People don't really want to be spied on and are not so afraid anymore.

    It must seem far left to Democrats in Congress though  :-)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#187)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    Is "no" on this a far-left position? No, it's not.

    I'm talking relative position as perceived by the public.

    McCain not showing up for the vote places him somewhere outside of this whole thing. Outside the mainstream, maybe?

    He made a mistake.

    Again, this puts Obama to the right of Clinton on this. If there is a more "centrist" politician on the national stage, I don't know who it is.

    She's not a right-winger and she's not a liberal.

    If Obama can position himself between Clinton, the     middle, he's closer to the middle than McCain is. I do believe the buzz-word for this is "triangulation".

    It's classic politic strategy.

    This helps Obama more than it hurts him.

    If the vast majority of Americans didn't think this was minutiae than it would be different.

    Put her on the ticket and he shores up the left and frames himself as between Clinton and McCain.

    Parent

    Again, when you hear the click (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:35:57 PM EST
    click, click sound on your telephone, you'll know it's the gov't listening illegally to your conversation w/out authority to do so and no on watching what they are doing. Obama not only voted to give himself this power should he be elected, he just gave it to a Pres. McCain. We, as americans were protected from this....now we are not. Maybe you don't care, but I do.

    Parent
    P.S. This is left, middle or right.... (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:37:09 PM EST
    This is American!!!!!!

    Parent
    Yes! (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:49:13 PM EST
    part of the freakin Bill of Rights for God's sake.  I'm livid about this.  I don't understand why everyone isn't livid.  Jeez.


    Parent
    This should be This is NOT (none / 0) (#203)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:04 PM EST
    about left, middle or right. This is American!!!!

    Parent
    If you think (none / 0) (#204)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    that my discussion of possible strategic reasons for these vote means I don't care about these votes, well I don't know what to say other than you don't know me and it's likely that you missed my post last night that I would be proud (as an alternate delegate for Clinton in Denver) if Clinton voted NO.

    In the context of Clinton being on the ticket, which is, nominally, the topic of this thread, I think this points to that possibility and the possible strategies behind the votes illuminates that.

    I don't think that Obama needed to vote the way he did. I can see why he may think he did.

    That doesn't mean I support his vote.

    I suggest you do a search for my posts on this blog in past to see where I stand on this.

    Parent

    phat: I have no problem with what (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    you wrote or with you at all.  My anger is strictly with the FISA vote itself.  

    Parent
    Zfran (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:56:39 PM EST
    and talex seem to be upset at me.

    I'm not that worried about it. And yes, I'm a little bit upset at the vote.

    Well, actually, I'm a lot upset about the vote, except for this.

    I expected this to go down the way it did from the beginning but didn't expect Clinton to vote the way she did. I never expected Obama to vote NO on this FISA bill. I've thought about it and calmed down. That doesn't mean I like it.

    Parent

    Phat, I appreciate your (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    clarification of your comment(s), however, to capitulate why he voted this way is nonsense, imo. He either votes for us, or against us. I believe he chose against us and for his interests. We've not had a situation where a sitting senator who votes to make law is running for pres. and is voting for the laws he/she will have to follow if elected. If he has to "calculate" his vote because as BTD puts it, a pol is a pol, then America, my country, deserves way, way better, and I'm really upset at this vote as well.

    Parent
    In the context of the VP pick (none / 0) (#213)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    This is how I look at it.

    Of course it's nonsense, on some level, it's Kremlin watching, really.

    Ask my friends and my penchant for nonsense might be a particular topic that comes up.

    But seriously.

    Who can Obama pick for VP now?

    Biden? Richardson? Sebelius?

    This vote points to a pick, at least given the context of the thread we're discussing.

    It just so happens that my slightly OT reply which started this whole mess seems to point to Clinton as a choice for VP.

    I, for one, would be ecstatic about this.

    [/attempt to get back OT]

    Parent

    or he doesn't vote at all... (none / 0) (#219)
    by kimsaw on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:38:27 AM EST
    let's not forget MoveOn!

    Parent
    You have no idea what (none / 0) (#191)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    you are talking about.

    According to you Feingold who voted no didn't make Left vote. No one did according to you. That's really laughable.

    Parent

    This is an interesting point. (none / 0) (#199)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    Is the "left" position on this outside of the mainstream? You're assuming it is.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#200)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:33:42 PM EST
    and I don't think voting NO would have hurt Obama. But I can guess why he did it.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    If Obama's goal was to run to the center with this vote, she did him a huge favor.

    Parent
    The Middle (none / 0) (#30)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:42:47 PM EST
    What's the easiest way to look like you're closer to the middle?

    Get in between the middle and your opponent.

    Or, vote with Ben Nelson.

    Parent

    My tinfoil hat theory... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama did it on purpose.  Bad cop, good cop.  He did a vote his base would not agree with, while Clinton made a vote his base would support.  Weakens Obama supporters argument against Clinton.  

    Sorry, that's the best I can come up with.

    Parent

    That's plausible, for sure. (3.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    Peter Daou dropped by dKos today with her statement on her vote... bringing the message to Obama central, priming his most passionate supporters to welcome her.

    Parent
    The question will never come up (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    They called George Bush Sr. "Rubbers" in the House before he accepted the VP nod from Reagan.  

    Parent
    Rubbers? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    I don't get it.  Condoms?  Bridge?  Cats?  Boots?  What?

    Parent
    Condoms (none / 0) (#133)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:58:24 PM EST
    Point being, he was pro choice and everyone knew it. Then he got on the ticket.

    Parent
    It depends on how he is doing come Novem ber (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:23:39 PM EST
    If he is way ahead in the national pols it really doesn't matter who he picks for VP.  However, if he is in a dead heat or McCain pulls ahead then Hilary is his ace in the hole to cinch the election.  Just don't like how he is using her.

    November means nothing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    he has to pick and anounce his VP before the convention.

    Parent
    Still it depends on how he is doing nationally (none / 0) (#24)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:37:12 PM EST
    on the day he picks the his VP Here again if he is hurting he will pick Hilary to cinch the election

    Parent
    I don't believe that is the case (none / 0) (#173)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    I don't think the pick "has" to come before the convention or even at the convention. It has just become customary to do so in recent years.

    Parent
    VP is voted on at the (none / 0) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    convention.  The nominations of the VP have great history.  .. '49 Barkley;  '56 vote; currently, it's an affirmation of the Pres choice, but there is still a voice vote...here's Kerry in '04... vp on Wed to be followed by Kerry on Thurs.

    A press release for VP choice would be inappropriate, the cost of another event wasteful.  Also, it would detract from the Pres nomination to then have an later event to affirm a VP choice.

    Parent

    I Agree (none / 0) (#215)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    It used to be done at the convention and lately (more often than not) has been done just prior to the convention, but there is no rule saying it must be done that way. With the convention beginning August 25th, I would look for a VP to me named between August 18-20. The only reason or benefit to naming one earlier is if it is Hillary but even then not before August.

    I suspect a day will be picked for maximum exposure, with little time in between for McCain to get much attention should he choose to name his pick in the days between the Dem pick and the start of the Dem convention.

    Parent

    I think it's about money, not VP (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:23:55 PM EST
    and I wouldn't put it past Obama to keep a Clinton VP in speculation in an effort to get more $$$$. There's a fundraiser here tonight.

    Just my jaded view  ;)

    Big Money (none / 0) (#68)
    by The Maven on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:30:03 PM EST
    Tonight's fundraiser is a minimum $1000 just to get in the door, and it goes up from there:
    Host Committee Member: Raise/Write $50,000*
      *This includes photo line at 6pm
    VIP Seat: $4,600 per person
    Premiere Seat: $2,300 per person
    Attend: $1,000 per person
    Tomorrow morning's Breakfast with Barack is the "smaller donor" event:
    Table Hosts: Raise/write $23,000; $10,000, $5,000; $2,500
    Attend: $2,300; $1,000; $500; $250 per person
    It will be interesting to hear how much they'll actually net from these events.

    Parent
    The Wall Street Journal (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:35:35 PM EST
    had a great story about how the high-rollers who supported Hillary, many who live in the Tri-State area, are reluctant to contribute to the Obama campaign. I wonder who, and how many, are invited for these fundraisers.

    Parent
    fundraising is not the topic (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:50:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Pardon me ... (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    but in politics fundraising is ALWAYS the topic.

    ;)

    Parent

    Why, why, why (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by seeker on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    would Hillary WANT to be VP on that ticket?  Try as I might, I cannot find a satisfying answer to that question.  But it might be the only O gets my vote.

    Because she really does want a Democrat to win (none / 0) (#62)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    and if being on the ticket insures that, I'm certain she'll gladly do it. I've felt all along that this is probably the ticket, barack "moving to the center" only reinforces this feeling of mine. The truth is, Obama has already thrown most, if not, all of his supporters under the bus because he knows he has their vote, but putting Hillary on the ticket not only unifies the party, but it creates the possibility of an enormous landslide in November. Imagine the image of a unified party in Denver, where Hillary as the VP nominee gets her due, and then some. Imagine Bill Clinton on the stump for a unified ticket. It's not only logical, but IMO, likely.

    Parent
    I agree that she would do it (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    for "the greater good" of the party, but I disagree with your statement that her being VP would be "getting her due." Getting her due would be her on the top of the ticket imo.

    Parent
    And i agree with you (none / 0) (#97)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    that she should be on the top of the ticket, but she's not, won't be, and that's that. But as the VP she gets an opportunity to unify the party and give people like me who are lukewarm at the most about an Obama nomination a reason to get excited about the ticket. Plus, she gets the opportunity to bask in the warm glow of a unified convention that ultimately she will be responsible for. That's all i meant.

    Parent
    Are Your Serious? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    a unified convention that ultimately she will be responsible for.

    Responsible in what capacity? Please explain.

    This never-ending meme about Hillary Clinton being THE ONE to unify the party baffles me, and frankly, infuriates me more.

    Parent

    Meaning (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:19:00 PM EST
    responsible in a good way, I think, since she will be the one to create the unity by joining the ticket.

    Parent
    Thanks, what I meant all along (none / 0) (#121)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:23:05 PM EST
    as VP will not unify the party.  That boat has sailed.  if anything, it's getting more fractured with Obama as nominee.

    Parent
    The problem is that (4.00 / 4) (#90)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    for four years he will be in charge. I fear that four years of Obama is all the American people will put up with. Then she will be saddled with his legacy. The Repugs will do the same thing that we do with McSame. They will conflate the two in every possible way they can. A Clinton / Obama ticket I could tolerate. She could give him some menial tasks until he learns what its all about. But an Obama / Clinton ticket... that's just not a good idea, I don't think.

    Parent
    Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by 0 politico on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    That is why I hope she does not take the second position.  It might win the ticket some votes.  Enough to win?  Maybe.  But, if the Big O turns into the Big Dud, which I fear, I can see 12-20 years of GOP administrations if the Dems get it wrong this time.

    Right now, the indicators are not highly positive.  And, with Democratic led Congress getting even lower approval ratings than W, that does not mean a Dem victory is certain.

    Parent

    How degrading. 'Menial' ? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    Even I (a Hillary supporter) would have wanted her to give him extensive, meaningful projects as a communicater, which is his strength.  No way a man who has done what he has deserves the idea of "menial" duties, which I find a need to demean him, so to speak.

    Parent
    You're quite right. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    "menial" was inappropriate. My apologies. I'm not sure that Hillary should let him use those speaking skills just yet though... not until he has some meaningful content to put in those speeches.

    Parent
    I was thinking that way for a while (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    and then I remembered what a work horse she is.  And what a work horse he is not.  She doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the work gets done.

    It could work.

    Do you think I've used the word "work" enough times in this short comment?

    Parent

    To be the first woman VP (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    That is something.  

    God, she has to get a higher rank than Nancy Pelosi, don't you think?

    Parent

    Well, that would be a big plus (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    Almost enough for me to want her to be VP.

    The thing is, what I'd really like is for Hillary to be VP, Speaker and Majority Leader altogether.  Then things would really get rolling!

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM EST
    Like the old SNL Chicago Superfans talking about Ditka - is that the mini Hillary or the full-size Hillary?

    Parent
    If she gets the VP slot her job (none / 0) (#217)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:00:30 AM EST
    will be to work with the hill and get the work done. Obama, who doesn't like hands on stuff, can give speeches and "create the big picture".

    Parent
    Well, she is the only VP choice (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    who would add any excitement to the ticket.  Face it, any of the other possibilities would generate no more than a ho-hum.

    Can you see anyone leaping out of their chairs if he announced Biden or Richardson or Bayh or.....

    Nope! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    Considering that no other candidate this cycle got as many votes as Mr. Presumptuous, no one would be able to rock the boat like Hillary Clinton.

    Speaking of Bayh, I really like him, but he caused me some heartache today when he voted FOR the FISA legislation. But I'm so glad BOTH Senators from my homestate of Michigan voted with my favorite Senator of all (hmm, wonder who?) AGAINST it. But I digress...

    Back to the VP subject, Mr. Edwards is back to "seriously consider[ing]" the post if asked.

    Good god John, make up your mind! Wait, can you hear that ....

    Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

    Aaah, birds of a feather would, indeed, flock together.

    Parent

    Are we surprised? The position was dangled as (none / 0) (#220)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    it was for Richardson in order to get their support at the opportune time. I don't know if I'm willing to forgive anyone of them for their actions!

    Parent
    It will take the top of the ticket for me too (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by athyrio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    because I don't see Hillary being sidelined as a VP when she can be of much more use as a Senator..For Obama to use her to gain his presidency would just tick me off probably...

    Athyrio...it would tick me off ROYALLY!! (4.33 / 6) (#23)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Me too.....Was trying to be diplomatic...lol...but (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by athyrio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:39:39 PM EST
    if Rush Limbaugh is correct, don't give up yet lol....

    Parent
    It is my great hope she will still come out (3.60 / 5) (#28)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    the nominee...In the immortal words of Lenny Kravitz:  "It ain't over 'til it's over"

    Parent
    Have you seen the new Hillary T-Shirt (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MMW on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    for a $50 donation it says something to the effect..For anyone who's ever been counted out..something something something... this one's for you. There's a shadow of Hillary standing in silhouette. Her hands are clasped in front of her. Coolest T-shirt. But can I just say, I swear I imagined that her hands clasped in front - looks like (or should be) a penis pissing on an elephant and a donkey.

    I said it looked like it not that it was and I have never claimed to not have issues.

    I think she's riding back to make him look good, after his abominable showing. She wasn't willing to follow him on the vote, so she agreed to the plane ride. No VP read here.

    Parent

    Do you have a link? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:21:58 PM EST
    Wasn't on the main site when I was there...

    Parent
    got it via email (none / 0) (#103)
    by MMW on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:04:23 PM EST


    Parent
    I will get it then (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:14:50 PM EST
    but I get all my Hillary emails literally hours and hours after everyone else.  I have gmail, and I think Google holds them back on purpose because they are pro-Obama!

    (I'm just kidding, folks).

    Parent

    dream a little dream....never say never... (1.00 / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:13:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Agreed w/ Both Of You (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:45:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Rush Limbaugh said today on his show (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by athyrio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:38:08 PM EST
    (according to another lady that blogs) that he predicts that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee by the first of August due to really bad luck hitting Obama then...Something about his astrology chart lol....

    Please Do Not Play With My Emotions (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:45:21 PM EST
    So do I take it that I need to take the week of the DNC Convention off from work to hold a celebration party?

    :)

    Parent

    JimWash....if Hillary is the nominee, we are (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:00:47 PM EST
    all coming over to celebrate!!

    Parent
    I WILL Find A Way (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    To fit ALL of you into my tiny DC 1-Bdrm apartment. No worries. Hell, you can stay over till Inauguration Day too!

    Parent
    Party at Jim's Place....$20...all the beer (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    you can drink!!

    Parent
    Jim - no worries! (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:41:19 PM EST
    We're all used to being squished together under the bus!

    Parent
    Valhalla...move over, I can't breathe :) (4.00 / 4) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST


    Parent
    sorry (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    I think that was me.

    Better now?

    Okay, WHO'S been eating chili?

    (cough)

    Parent

    Well, tossing Jesse Jackson under (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:22:43 PM EST
    the bus today made it more crowded.  He always has a cortege. :-)

    Parent
    you will be able to hear (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    me celebrating no matter where you are.
    as far as Rushs prediction, I hate agreeing with him but I still cant make myself believe the party is really going to do this.
    again.


    Parent
    If What's Been Reported Is True, (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    It won't happen because Hillary's name won't even be on the ballots.

    Which makes me extremely upset. Candidates with worse standings (and her 2nd place finish was nothing to brush off. ever.) have been on past convention ballots. Why should she be left out this year?

    Psst! Is it because she's a woman? Or, maybe, she actually would WIN the nomination?

    All bets are off if she isn't on the ballots (which is incidentally a topic that was broached in a WSJ story and AP story I read today about "bruised" feelings among many Clinton supporters.) Ha, that's not news to me!

    Parent

    "Psst! Is it because . . " (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    Ill take door number two

    Parent
    Jim....I think it is a little of both and a big (4.20 / 5) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
    dose of Reid, Pelosi, Dean, etc. not wanting to have to fall into line.  They have become drunk with power.  Hillary would whip them right into shape.  As VP, I am sure she could not do much.

    Parent
    Halstoon....thanks for the "one", but (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    you know what I say is true.  

    Parent
    What? What you say is far from true. (1.25 / 4) (#136)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    You seem to think Hillary is so much different from Barack, but guess what: she's not, and she never was. If anything, Barack is simply stealing the Clinton thunder and riding it to 1600 PA Ave.

     As for thinking she still has a feasible shot at being president in 2009, you are far from reality, and I think deep, deep down (if you go more than a couple layers) you know that her White House hopes are dashed, not just now, but forevermore.

    Parent

    Just another piece of evidence (4.33 / 6) (#144)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM EST
    for why the Obama supporters will be trying to elect their candidate this year without the help of many, many longtime Dems.

    Parent
    That's not so bad, especially if it means (1.00 / 2) (#149)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM EST
    ridding the party of a bunch of ideologues and demagogues.

    Parent
    That's right (4.42 / 7) (#154)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    my grandfather who has voted for every Dem since FDR is really someone you want out of the party.  Good call there.

    Parent
    It's not personal. (1.00 / 2) (#158)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:48:25 PM EST
    I could just as easily cite all the new people who you guys want to barricade out of the party, but I don't, because it's not about any one person.

    If your grandfather refuses to support Obama, then my position is that we must move on without him. At least this way the party is bolstered by winning the White House.

    Okay. That's 21 for me today, so I'm done.

    See y'all tomorrow.

    Parent

    Just wondering (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    whether you consider him an ideologue or a demagogue.  Maybe tomorrow you can let me know.

    Parent
    Halstoon, The desperation by obama (4.20 / 5) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    followers is what leads me to believe you are wrong.  obama should not have to be working this hard...
    Go HIllary...no VP for you...top spot or nothing

    Parent
    And how is it that we're called Obamabots (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:40:49 PM EST
    and cultists when Clinton supporters still think she has a chance to win this thing. That is the definition of delusional if you ask me. It's also an extreme example of cult psychology. You refuse to accept the truth, no matter how clearly it is recited to you. She will not be nominated for president in 2008.

    Parent
    Then (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:21:03 PM EST
    2012!

    Parent
    A. How is Obama overworking himself? (1.00 / 0) (#151)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    B. Do you sincerely think Hillary has a shot at the top job?

    If anything, I would think you might accuse Obama of not working hard enough to unify the party. He seems to be putting forth very little effort to solidify the 'base' while following through on his promise to compete in places like GA, my home state, and Montana, which is where the man I think should be his VP currently governs.

    If you really think Hillary Clinton will take the nomination or the election, then that explains a lot, really.

    Parent

    It will unfortunately never happen because of the (none / 0) (#221)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:08:42 AM EST
    ongoing narrative about Obama accepting the nomination of the very same date as the MLK "I have a dream" speech. Obama has made it next to impossible for the delegates to vote against him and for Hillary!

    Parent
    You don't have to take it from Rush (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    Michelle Whitedove (psychic) predicts that Hillary will get the nomination in November. You can read it for yourself on her site.
    (And yes, I am ashamed to admit that I know about this site -- but I'm taking what I can get right now).

    Parent
    um, that should be "in August" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    not November, and will win the election in November.

    Parent
    putting your faith in psychics (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    is not that different from putting your faith in pollsters IMO.


    Parent
    Aaah, OK. :) (none / 0) (#78)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    That's fabulous.  I'm going with Whitedove.  If she's right, maybe she can be a presidential advisor.  :b

    Parent
    Angie....we will take any good news at (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    this time...

    Parent
    Omg, you take that seriously? (1.00 / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    So if it doesn't work out that she's right this year, then she definitely sees Hillary beating an incumbent Obama in 2012? And you think she's for real?

    I love how she puts up her disclaimer about being purely objective and then delivers a completely subjective--and insubstantial--'reading.'

    If you want a real prediction, here's one you can count on: Barack Obama will deliver an acceptance speech in front of 75k+ people in Denver with Hillary Clinton watching from the front row. She will not be VP, and Obama will win the general over John McCain.

    I can't wait to see which of us 'psychics' is right.

    Parent

    If the choice is between (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:23 PM EST
    the Psychic and you, I gotta go with Generic Psychic.  You're just too obnoxious to bet on.

    Parent
    Best comment of the night, Ralph. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank you. Thank you very much :-) (none / 0) (#194)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:05:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Make your bets. (1.00 / 0) (#155)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    I'll be the one enjoying the free chicken dinner.

    Thanks for the compliment. If you think I'm obnoxious, then I'm doing something right.


    Parent

    If that's your goal (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    you certainly succeed.  Congratulations on helping Obama to lose a few more votes every time you open your yap.  I like that by the way!

    Parent
    It's amazing (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:29:43 PM EST
    What kind of candidate supporter goes around deliberately trying to antagonize potential voters?  I don't know that Obama deserves to lose the election, but his childish supporters sure do.

    Parent
    HaHa (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST
    It's not just a couple either.  Seems like I bump into them everywhere.  I'm coming to the conclusion that this is less about Obama than some kind of odd personal competition.  So much of this stuff is like the receiver doing the funky chicken in the end zone.  Scored one but may not win the game.


    Parent
    Maybe we should consult with Nancy Reagan's (none / 0) (#222)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:15:09 AM EST
    psychic Jean somebody - it seemed to have worked for the Reagans!

    Parent
    In November? (none / 0) (#75)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    Seriously? Which date; 1st, 2nd or 3rd?

    If it happens -- which it won't -- it has to happen by the end of next month.

    Parent

    Oh lord. Now I have to wait 'til it's dark (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    and go peer at the heavens tonight and see what's in the stars for this campaign season.  I would find out more by measuring moon rays than I would listening to Limbaugh, anyway.

    Parent
    don't laugh (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    I do astrology and her chart just screams an ascent to the Presidency in January.  Much more than his or McCain's does.

    He IS in for a bumpy ride starting next week and lasting until late-July, so we'll have to see how that manifests.

    Back to Jeralyn's thread, Hillary is no fool.  She sees the mistakes he's made and continues to make, she has her ear to the ground and is hearing the uneasy grumbling of those SDs who regret their decision to support him and could switch at a moment's notice and she's not dumb enough to commit to being Obama's VP if there's a chance she'll actually sprint past him to grab the Brass Ring itself.

    With the race he's run so far, it wouldn't surprise me if the Democratic Party -- and the Country! -- was electrified by an out-of-the-blue August Surprise.

    Parent

    Straws? Grasping at straws? Indeed! (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM EST
    I'll take any hope she becomes our nominee.

    Parent
    The bad (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    luck has been hitting him since he became the nominee. Of course, most of it is of his own making. We're stuck with Obama unless there's a bunch of nervous super delegates who aren't talking to the press.

    Parent
    Who's more unbelievable? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:46:13 PM EST
    Rush, or the psychic?  Tough choice.  I can understand the need to believe there is some way for Hillary to get the nomination, but I believe that if Obama was struck by lightning tomorrow, the DNC would still nominate someone other than Hillary.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:25:14 PM EST
    If something happened to Obama or if he voluntarily withdrew before the convention, the nominee would be Senator Clinton.

    There is no way it could not be unless something happened to make her unable to serve or run.

    To do anything else would shred the party, and hand it to McCain because even many Obama supporters (like me) would be outraged and would strongly protest.

    I might come along half heartedly, and many of my fellow Obama supporters may sit it out or grumble from the sidelines, but that's pretty standard operating procedure for folks whose candidate isn't the nominee.

    Parent

    Sadly, I think that's true. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    I believe they'd choose McCain over Hillary, they hate her so much.  And it's not like it would be a big leap, ideologically, at this point.

    Parent
    Then the election could be (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:16:00 PM EST
    McCain-D v McCain-R:  A steel cage death match for the presidency.  Available via Pay-per-view nationwide.


    Parent
    I would pay to watch that over (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:16:49 PM EST
    the American Idol Convention for free any day.

    Parent
    maybe (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    she just needed a ride home?

    Part of me hopes not (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    I truly do not want to vote for Obama, but I said I would if he selects Clinton for his running mate, and I keep my word. I suppose I could say that I made that vow in complete confidence that he would not, so it doesn't count, but ... <sigh>.

    Make My Day (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:02:07 PM EST
    Ditto Jeralyn!

    Actually... Hillary is one of 20 contestants (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    on a new reality TV show to select Obama's running mate.  It will be the same format as the The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. I can't remember what the name will be...

    Vice-Presidential Idol? (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    So You Think You Can Be My VP?

    Survivor: The VP Search?

    The Amazing Race .. To The Ticket?

    Will Hillary get the rose, or the Immunity Idol? Who'll be HOH?

    Okie, this is getting corny, sorry, lol

    Parent

    Who Wants to be a Millionaire VP? (none / 0) (#157)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST


    Parent
    How about the The A-Vice-Presidentice (none / 0) (#188)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:39:28 PM EST
    And Obama's catch phrase, instead of "You're FIRED", could be "No, You Can't" ; )

    Parent
    How about: The A-Vice-Presidentice (none / 0) (#190)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    And Obama's catch phrase, instead of "You're FIRED", could be "No, You Can't" ; )

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:20:31 PM EST
    you wanna be VP?

    Parent
    I dont want her to be blamed (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    for his losing.
    I cant decide if being the VP would make that more or less likely.
    probably doesnt matter, she will be blamed in any case.

    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    I was struck by how she said, very...slowly...and...clearly...,"I don't trust him."

    Parent
    Obama knows (none / 0) (#69)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    +/- 4% how much Clinton helps or hurts him.

    Parent
    the "blame" (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    wont be coming from Obama. or at least not mostly from Obama.


    Parent
    Frankly, I think he'd find a way (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    to imply blame.  I base that on his behavior for the last six months.  At least.

    Parent
    And when the media caught wind of it, (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    he would blame it on an aide.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    This is true.

    Parent
    If Clinton is on the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM EST
    it would make me consider a vote for the ticket. Without her I don't see myself voting. I wish I cold say I'm enthusiasic about an Obama Presidency, but I'm not. His positions and his rhetoric have left me with nothing but doubt. Hillary Clinton may assuage some of that doubt.

    I sure wish some of the state polling... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:07:32 PM EST
    ...included a unity ticket as an option; all the state polls I've seen that pair tickets don't mention Clinton as a v.p. option.

    The SurveyUSA Missouri poll showed Obama [i]losing[/i] support when paired with McCaskill, as he did with every other pairing. Why aren't the pollsters asking voters how they'd feel about Clinton on the ticket in their state polling?

    Sometimes I'd rather she stayed in the Senate and (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    be a counterweight to the center-right/Repub Lite policies of an Obama administration.

    I believe she would fight fiercely for Universal Healthcare and would not let Obama get away with some kind of free market sleight of hand.

    If asked, if told she is necessary for a Dem win, I think she would sacrifice her Senate seat for the good of the country. But it would not be that easy for her, I imagine.

    And, again, I want her to be, if not our president, The Lioness of the Senate. Ted will recover to return as The Lion of the Senate.

    (I also like saying the word "lioness.")

    I also really like saying "Lioness" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    I think she could out do the Lion in a few years.


    Parent
    The Lioness of the Senate (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    That's great. Keep it up. I hope it catches on.

    Parent
    The Clinton Library donors are a no-go. (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    They are just flying to the fundraisers, imo. After all the mud thrown at the Big Dog, how do they proceed? It would look bad to Obama's supporters and take too much attention away from him and his message(whatever it is currently). Just doesn't seem realistic from any angle.

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    I would like to see her in Reid's spot instead of VP. However a "merger" of Clinton and Obama would shut down a lot of the party bickering. I also think she would be a very active and effective VP (Not just attending funerals!) Cheney has added a lot of power to the office and Hilary will use it.

    Problem is that the Senate has to elect her (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    to Reid's spot.  I don't see that happening.

    Voters can make her VP though.

    Parent

    IMHO, They flew together (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    so that Obama and C. Kennedy could courtesy visit Hillary and let her know whom they've chosen and why.  With the current telecom law, it's critical not to brief her over the phone (;-)..

    If they chose her, I'd be knocked over by a feather.  It won't happen.

    Of course, I don't plan on voting for the ticket either way.  I'm an independent, and a divided government girl.

    Oh, I hope that Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    didn't give Obama cause to talk about her claws  coming out, too.

    Parent
    The other possibility (none / 0) (#181)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    is that they planned on giving her flack for the Hillraiser disloyalty issue.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    maybe they're flying to NY together to figure out how Hillary can announce at the Convention that Obama will be her VP?!!!

    Frankly, HRC as Obama's VP would make me PUKE (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:00:54 PM EST
    Really, it would.

    obama will get my vote when Hillary is at (4.63 / 11) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    the top of the ticket...

    Amen to that! (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    I was -- from DAY ONE -- always for a Clinton/Obama ticket ... even when I didn't love or hate Obama.

    I just knew, based on my limited knowledge about him and his 2004 Convention speech that knocked me off my feet (I admit!), that a Clinton/Obama team would be UNSTOPPABLE.

    And in 2016 (because that ticket would surely get reelected, no question, in 2012), Obama would be a shoo-in and a fantastic President to take over the reigns from President Clinton/#44.

    -sigh- All just a dream now...

    Parent

    Obama as VP (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    Personally I never thought Obama was qualified to be VP. I thought a Clinton / Kucinich ticket would be wonderful. My second choice would have been Clinton / Edwards. But the thought of a Clinton / Obama ticket has never appealed to me. I could put up with it as long as he agreed to stay out of her way so that she could get stuff done.

    Parent
    I Won't Stand For It (4.50 / 8) (#11)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    I'm sorry but Obama is making it increasingly difficult for me to vote for him even if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.

    The way I see it, if he does put her on his ticket, he must have realized she's his last hope of ever stepping foot on Air Force One.

    His pathetic showing in the Senate today on FISA pretty much sealed the deal that he's never getting my vote -- even though I knew how he was going to vote.

    I used to think that HRC as his VP would be the only way he was getting my vote, but it would be plainly obvious that she'd be his best bet of a win in November.

    I'd rather see that ticket lose so that we can see HRC run again in 2012, or at least she can remain in the Senate where she will hold so much more power than being VP to a lame duck.

    And speaking of lame duck, Cheney's motorcade just whizzed past my apartment. Hehe.

    So did you stand up (none / 0) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:43:23 PM EST
    and salute?

    Heh.

    Parent

    For Dick? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    No way! LOL. I would have stuck something else up at him, but I'm two floors up, so it wouldn't have mattered.

    Parent
    Oh, I bet you underestimate yourself. :-) (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes. (4.00 / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:04:31 PM EST
    " it seems to me now Hillary on the ticket would vastly improve Obama's chances in the general election. It certainly would get me more enthused about the election."

    Me too.

    If people here see Obama as such a negative (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by halstoon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:48:51 PM EST
    why in the world would they want someone they admire to entangle herself in his fate?

    Hillary Clinton should decline the position even if offered. She does not need an Obama presidency, and would she not be a 'sell out' by helping him attain what he robbed from her?

    It's his fate. (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:52:21 PM EST
    Not hers.

    Parent
    I don't think Hillary wants (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Coldblue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:02:12 PM EST
    to be VP, but lord knows my insight hasn't proven to be very accurate.

    If she becomes the announced VP choice I would be disappointed, unless 'change' meant that the VP would play a much more significant role in the prospective Obama administration.

    Parent

    They've got their poll numbers. (none / 0) (#3)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    And really, as was stated in the race for the nominations, who is more vetted for a run than Clinton?

    I just want the decision to be over with, it's making me a little bit crazy with anticipation.

    Funny (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    how many people just aren't into political foreplay...

    As somebody once said, "There are two kinds of people..."

    Parent

    I can wait. I hope she does (4.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    so she knows what she's getting into -- what yet could come out.  I don't her tarred any more by the idiocy of . . . well, men, but that's mostly what you get in politics.  And mostly what we get to marry.:-)

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:32:26 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    What if (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't want it? She knows all the oppo research that's out there on Obama.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, In your honest opinion, do you (none / 0) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM EST
    think Hillary should even consider VP?

    my opinion (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    doesn't matter. She has said she will do whatever the party asks of her. If she's asked to be on the ticket she will.

    I think I would feel a bit safer if she was on the ticket.

    Parent

    VP (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:47:32 PM EST
    They say it's the job nobody wants but nobody can turn down.

    Parent
    tell that (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    to Jim Webb

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    I don't think he was getting the offer.

    Parent
    Webb was asked for paperwork (none / 0) (#150)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    He spoke out probably because he didn't any part of the anticipation that would come.  But he was contacted to provide papers for vetting.

    Parent
    Webb may have said no (none / 0) (#206)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    That line is just an old joke about the VP slot.

    Parent
    safer... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    I think that's well put. However, while it makes me feel a bit safer, it still doesn't make me feel any more inclined to vote for Obama. But you're right. She would do it out of loyalty to the party even though IMO the party has been disloyal to her.

    I cannot bear the thought of a McCain presidency. For that reason and that reason alone I will probably feel compelled to vote.

    I'm sorry. This is rambling, I know. It is reflective of the chaos created my this impossible situation.

    Parent

    Could be Edwards (none / 0) (#60)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:15:19 PM EST
    Edwards was on the news and went on the record saying if offered to him he would accept it.  If I heard it correctly.

    course he would (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    how many cycles has he been trying to get his foot in the door?
    you know, I voted for Edwards in the primary but I wish I could take it back.
    his behaviour since has made me not like him much.


    Parent
    I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:31:38 PM EST
    vote for him in the primary but I feel the same way you do. I always liked him until he did the MI thing and NOW wants to be VP yet again? Where is his head on this? It makes me seriously doubt his judgement or political skills.

    Parent
    Why would he choose this time (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    to do that? It sounds so desperate. His timing is even embarrassing.

    Parent
    I'm Pretty Sure (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    Those timely endorsements by him and Richardson came with some strings attached.

    Edwards' endorsement came the day after Obama was severely trounced in West Virginia in the notable and influential state of Michigan.

    If he doesn't get a VP nod, then surely he's got a seat in an Obama Administration cabinet with his name on it.

    Parent

    I could see him as (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    AG

    Parent
    Elizabeth sez... (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    FWIW, Elizabeth was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today and was asked about this. She said she didn't think it would happen, John wasn't seeking the VP slot and he was just being polite.  

    Parent
    Please keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    which is Hillary as a VP candidate.

    BTD has always been (none / 0) (#125)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    right about this.

    Sad that's it's not the other way around.  My husband, actually, wishes she stays in the Senate.

    I love my husband.  But I'll support this ticket.

    Be still, my heart (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:59 PM EST


    If she's on the ticket, (none / 0) (#153)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    does she get to use the money she's raised to "retire" this debt we've been hearing all about? Serious question, if anyone knows.

    Good question (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    I read she has about 20 million she collected that could only be used in the GE.  I wonder if she could use that as the VP candidate?  If so, then Obama selecting her would add an instant 20 mil to the campaign.

    Parent
    No. GE money can't be used for primary (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    debt. If it could, she wouldn't be in debt.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#185)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    but, how does one get out of primary debt if they are engaged in spending GE money. How can they spend more money w/o clearing up old debt? If she had been the nominee, how would that get resolved?

    Parent
    I don't think he can name (none / 0) (#216)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    Hillary now after this vote. Among other reasons, imagine the repub. ads saying the presidential candidate and his running mate cannot agree on pressing issues of our day and they site this one. P.S. Not that he was even considering her. At this point, I would hope she would turn him down if he asked.

    The only way I'll get excited ... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Caro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:28:47 AM EST
    ... about this election is if Hillary is in the TOP spot, not the veep spot.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

    Hillary, Caroline and Obama Fly to New York Together | 194 comments (194 topical)