« AP: Obama Has Clinched The Nomination | Home | Poll: House Dems Headed For Massive Victory This Fall »
Hillary Supporter Dianne Feinstein: The Race Is Over, Make Hillary Veep
One of Hillary's most prominent supporters, Senator Dianne Feinstein, minces no words in saying that the race is over:
"I think after the campaigns are wrapped up today, it is in fact a moment of truth," Feinstein told CNN. "I think a decision has to be made about whether keeping this nomination wide open is in the best interest of winning in November. I do not believe that it is, and I'm a very strong supporter of Hillary being placed on ticket as a vice presidential candidate."
As noted below, in their private meeting yesterday uncommitted Senators discussed the idea of Hillary as veep. It's one thing for Hillary supporters like Feinstein to call for Obama to offer her a spot on the ticket. The real tell will be if prominent neutral parties call for the same in significant numbers.
Advertisement
Noooooooooo! The clintons as co-vps would be a disaster. Why bother going through all this and then wind up having the clintons screw everything up!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!
June 3, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of being redundant:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll third that:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
June 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw hay-ell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f'in way.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
June 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL!!!!
Oops. I mean:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO!
June 3, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
June 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What ya'll said....
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No...Infinity.
June 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO!
June 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MiKntEWnfo
June 3, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of party unity:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, thank you.
June 3, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Shia LaBeof says it best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think my avatar says it best.
June 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, she didn't have the guts to endorse him before making impossible demands. Is she nuts ?
June 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
After watching the super delegate decision making process, it's no wonder to me now why the Democrats have been so ineffective in combating Republicans -- they clearly have no basic understanding of strategic negotiation or how to use leverage to gain what they want.
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's loyal.
Just like you are to Baywatch reruns.
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And by not doing so, it would make it look like she forced her way onto the ticket, which would make Obama look weak.
But that's win-win for Hillary.
She keeps her bitter supporters on the sidelines and Obama loses or she makes Obama weak and he loses.
I think she destroyed any chance of being on the ticket tonight.
June 3, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, hell no. Cabinet position at the most.
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOO! The clintons shouldn't be anywhere near the white house. It would be a disaster.
June 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Give her a seat on the Supreme Court. Let bill be ambassador to the U.N. The rest of the world still loves him.
June 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want her on the court either. I don't trust her at all and she could wind up doing a 180 on the court. The clintons are too in the pocket of big corporations and we have enough of those justices on the court.
On roving ambassador for mr. bill, as long as he goes where there aren't any reporters or tv cameras. He has major foot in mouth disease.
June 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might be right. On the other hand, she'd be a champion for women on the court, and we'll get at least one or two more seats to fill with excellent judges. (I shudder to think what we'd end up with at the end of a McCain term. In that context, Clinton looks pretty damn good.)
June 3, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know before this election I would have agreed with you. Now, I respectfully disagree. I don't even know if she is so into women's issues as she claims to be. Her track record in some ways indicates otherwise. She is sooo all over the place that I just don't trust her. I hate to say it as well but the whole bosnia sniper thing gave me the willies. She is definitely an over the top narcissist and with them you really don't know what you are getting.
June 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. So, if you were gonna give the Clinton's any door prizes, what would they be?
June 3, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My foot in their ass and an ambassadorship to Membatu.
June 3, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're right. I think her membership in the Fellowship or the Family or whatever it's called that took credit for her voting on some mildly anti-choice bill, DQ's her from the court for us.
June 3, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to add my voice to this chorus. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
June 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unity:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Unity:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
June 3, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't get left behind: NO x millions!
June 3, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...
But I think we do not have to worry: just take the Vanity Fair article allusions to Bill's ongoing recklessness with the ladies. Obama's people surely know that Conde Nast's army of lawyers -- this is a billion dollar company, folks -- steam-pressed the article to within an inch of its life before allowing publication.
Which means anything in the article probably pales in comparison to the reams of stuff which the lawyers excised from the original draft.
Plus, I mean, who wouldn't bone Gina Gershon?
June 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad Henry (D-OK) is the best choice for VP.
June 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks for the advice, Di. If we need any further Republican input, and Joe Lieberman's not available, we'll call you.
June 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You supported Mukasey, too, Dianne. Just so we all know how excellent your judgement is.
If Clinton is the Veep, all we will hear from Republican mouthpieces is how even Obama's Vice President thinks John McCain is more qualified.
Sorry, Dianne, that little turd isn't going to be flushed away. Words do have consequences.
June 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance in hell, ma'am.
June 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
DiFi needs to STFU about that veep stuff, it's incredibly disrespectful to our nominee who has earned the right to choose his VP.
Again, everyone's acting as if it's a tie and Hillary's the more powerful person. It's not - Obama won and it's his party now.
Prediction: huge increase in the number of people calling for a "dream ticket" in the next few days. So much so that Obama will announce he is not announcing his VP choice until August.
June 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting until August is the exact right thing to do. That will give supporters time to digest the fact that Hillary is out. It will also give the media room to begin "OBAMA VP WATCH 08!", which will psychologically open up the idea that Hillary is not the automatic pick just because she came in second. By then, Obama should have more room to make the best choice (Sibilius?).
June 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
completely agree. on the side, i saw Sibilius on tv for the first time. That lady is good. Ultimately it comes down to the electoral map and I trust they'll make the right decision.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
She rocks, I'd like to see either Sebellius or Claire Mcaskal be VP.
June 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
mcCaskill sounds good. but doesn't ease the minds of experience fetishists, so again i say: bob grahampa!
June 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner (Fmr. Gov-VA)
Ideologically the same, excellent campaigner, will deliver VA.
Check out:
http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warner would be a great choice if we could figure out a way to capture old fart Warner's senate seat with Mark Warner out of that race.
June 3, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ther can be no other serious VEEP candidate unless she withdraws her name. Anything else would be an unprecedented show of disrespect to 50% of his own party....not wise.
June 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unprecedented? I'm pretty sure there are quite a few precedents out there for not choosing the #2 person as your VP.
June 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's unprecedented! Don't you remember how Dukakis chose Jesse Jackson as his Veep, and Clinton picked Jerry Brown? And how Carter through over Mondale and tapped Teddy when he ran for re-election back in 1980? And who can forget the Mondale/Hart ticket in '84?
I swear, aren't they teaching you people history any more?
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: "THREW over..."
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: "THREW over..."
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot about the Gore/Bradley ticket.
June 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course! Gore/Bradley! I still have the bumper sticker!
June 3, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real tell will be how many Hillary SDs switch to Obama unequivocally. This will give Obama all the more leverage in truly deciding whether HRC is on the ticket, rather than this 'hostile takeover' attempt.
June 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krusty the Klown has more chance to be the VP nominee than HRC.
Obama didn't come all this way only to tie himself to that Fun-Pak-o'-Psychoses.
June 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, NO. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I DO NOT WANT HILLARY CLINTON ON THE TICKET. Period.
June 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
After all, this election is about you, isn't it.
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is about you. Go fuck yourself, you arrogant prick.
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's as much about ChronoSpark as it is anyone else.
June 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her Opinions are pure Mukasey
June 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Diane should have been giving Clinton some advice on toning down the nature of her tactics and divisive comments over the last few months.
There won't be an Obama-Clinton ticket. Clinton won't subordinate herself and doubt seriously if they TRUST each other enough at this point.
June 3, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO for the love of Sweet Jesus and of kittens and of everything holy and nice and good, No.
June 3, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should I take that as a No ? :)
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, with a double helping of No on the side.
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
June 3, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and
NO.
June 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
kittens I can relate to...
June 3, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Figures.
June 3, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know why, but that made me laugh. Thanks.
June 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed (but i know why)
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
18 million of us say, you better.
Tomorrow is a bad day for Obama.
June 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO.
FUCK.
YOURSELF.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, unity.
No, you GFY and put a shirt on kook.
June 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, gotalife, you are a star on youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnkoUIVRnxU
And here you are earlier today!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEw5BiCa6EA
June 3, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the silliest of the trolls, gotalife.
June 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so hard on gotalife, guys...he's sunk so low I've caught him commenting on Huff Po a couple of times.
June 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, go fuck yourself - you inbred Larry Johnson believer..
June 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unity.
You voting McCain or Obama?
June 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
GET BENT!
For all my fellow old-timers....
June 3, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"put a shirt on kook"
What is that?
June 3, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classy.
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow us.
June 3, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you cut?
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I assume he still has his foreskin.
June 3, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cracking up again. Too funny.
June 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Victory hangover?
Thanks for your concern.
Now make like a hair-dryer and blow me.
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No means no. No is always no. When they say no, they mean 1,000 times now.
Hell, I'll up the ante on TMBG and say a MILLION times no. Why? Bill Clinton. Hillary can have her image rehabbed, and be a productive part of the Democratic paty moving forward. Bill is beyond redemption, period.
Obama/Sebelius '08. Sebelius/Warner '16. Warner/?? '24.
June 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg?
About this:
Who were you thinking of? Who is prominent and neutral at this point? Al Gore?
Everyone else in the power structure seems to have taken a side, whether officially or not.
June 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in other words -- The DLC lets rip...
No to Clinton as VP -- period.
June 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, the problem is that you'd get two V.P.'s--and both love getting attention.
Obama will have enough on his hands without having to manage the Clintons.
Frankly, Sen. Clinton, as an enthusiastic supporter (i'm not dreaming, right?) of Democratic nominee Obama, would be fantastic.
Having her support Obama, without any personal gain for her, would be incredible. Hillary would be much more valuable campaigning for Obama rather than running with him--where we might get back to Hillary's "it's all about me" theme.
June 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that train has already left the station.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/senators_failed_to_reach_endor.php#comment-2873322
June 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fienstein credibilty with Obama will be what?? zero..she has not been a backer of Obama...certainly not a progressive...and she is wanting that soft landing for Hillary. Hell, on the sneak, she probably would advise Hillary not to accept the VP if it was offered...I do not trust her.
Let Obama choose his own VP...I will suport his choice...he has won my unending admiration and I am confident that it will sense.
June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's one of my senators, and I don't trust her.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't blame you. do i have to google whether she supported the iraq catastrophuck? no, i don't.
June 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She also seems to have no problem with the idea of spraying her constituents with monthly doses of potentially dangerous chemicals for the next 5 years - all because the agriculture industry pulled some strings with the Bush administration.
She can kiss my ass.
June 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say pollution; I say evolution.
June 3, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
I love our other Senator. Heck, I'd love an Obama/Boxer ticket, but Barack's already gonna win CA by a landslide.
Feinstein is 100% DLC DINO.
Should she run again, primary her...
June 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with y'all - I'll work hard to unseat her the next go around.
June 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, Boxer ROCKS!
June 3, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's one of my neighbors here in the Richmond, and I don't trust her, either.
June 4, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, put Clinton on the ticket. Then the minute Obama takes office he puts her on a four year long good will tour of Amazon river communities. Give her nothing of substance to do until she elects to quit on her own.
June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you say "NO" in over 520 languages:
http://www.elite.net/~runner/jennifers/no.htm
Or: STFU
June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Diane: NO.
as in: no fucking way no how.
June 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those glasses you wear are really awful.
June 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those aren't glasses.
June 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3469/nathannooootw2.gif
June 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
Hillary as much as admitted she was staying in the race in the hope that some racist/crazy fuck assasinates Obama.
Would you want to work with someone whom eagerly awaits your murder? Especially if that someone is a Clinton? There is nothing a Clinton wouldn't stoop to.
No fuckin way. The Son of Sam Killer would make a better VP. Freddy Krueger would make a better VP.
June 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definite no on Hillary as VP . . . he would not only have to fight her and her ideas (of course, because she is the better candidate) but will also be saddled with Bill's intervening. That would dictate nothing but total chaos! Obama won fair and square . . . she needs to gracefully concede and keep what little dignity she has left.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send Bill to an undisclosed location and promise to keep him there till 2016. Then we can talk.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Clinton on February 5th and let me say: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Thank you.
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO THANKS -- Hillary's not what Obama's been running his campaign on for the past 15 months. She's from the past and fights like it too.
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine any objective observer thinking Hillary as VP would be a good idea. Hillary's supporters of course love the idea, and Hillary probably will too (after all, then she can keep waiting for his assassination even AFTER he is president), but everyone else HAS to be aware of the thousand and twenty reasons why she would be a HORRIBLE choice.
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhh, yes...Feinstein, she who loves Hillary one day, throws her under the bus the next, then suddenly loves her again and wants her to be VP.
Not to mention she's reponsible for putting a complete asshole into the role of Attorney General!
Now that's one person we should all listen to! PU-LEEEEEEZE!
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I say "no" again? Just asking? What? I can? Thanks.
No. No way in Hell. No f*cking way. No way on God's green earth. No. NO. NO!
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heads have exploded.
What a freaking mess.
18 million voters say yes to Clinton VP.
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit whinning and go away, you backed a loser, you are a loser and a bit of a tool.
Fuck off now.
June 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And even more say no.
Yay, Democracy!
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Why would you want to see your presidential pick relegated to attending funerals? Why not have her in a position that matters?
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
If Obama picked her the VP position will go back to what it was before Al Gore and Dickhead Cheney actually made it into an important role: a powerless figurehead.
June 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this based on those who voted for her in the primaries? First, states like California have changed their minds and would support Obama now. Second, supporting her in the primary doesn't automatically translate to support for her being VP. If Clinton won I would want her to win the general, so I would be opposed to Obama being the VP because he had spent the last year arguing that she shouldn't be president. I would like someone who had the same appeal as Obama (anti-war, new blood, etc), but not Obama himself. The Clinton supporters who think she shouldn't be the VP nominee for this reason may be partially offset by Obama supporters who think putting the runner-up on the ticket is the way to win, but when things die down most Democrats, as opposed to Hillary idolaters, will realize that she is not the right choice.
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget that much of her support of late has come courtesy of Rush and operation kay-oss - enough to put her over the top in PA, TX and OH, at least. So even her best argument is a mirage.
June 3, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hill ain't change.
Bimbo Bill damn sure ain't change.
This should be a non-starter.
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding ding!
You get a prize for being politically astute.
Obama has campaigned on "change". McCain would ridicule what would be Obama's biggest decision in the campaign thus far, knocking one of the strongest pillars out from under Obama's campaign.
Political suicide. It won't happen.
June 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think Clinton will get ANY superdelegates today? I can't imagine any would at this point, but stranger things have happened.
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/06/03/surprise_fl_superdelegate_to_c.html
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're going to blame Hillary for not winning, then we must blame Obama for failing to reach the magic number until June. Let's hope the undeclared superdelegates announce tonight so that Obama can finally declare victory and we can move on. Let's hope, immature Obama supporters notwithstanding, that Obama makes the right decision and puts Hillary on the ticket because it isn't as easy for Hillary supporters to vote for Obama as his supporters might think. And let's hope that there are no "bombshell" revelations yet to come out that could destroy Obama's chances for victory in November. In other words, lets hope that the GOP hit machine hasn't been doing its job very successfully.
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, this:
just isn't going to happen. Senator Clinton sealed her own fate on this matter with her comments about who is qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Unless she sits down and publicly eats a large helping of crow, she disqualified herself from consideration because of those comments.
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole, "Please God, let someone kill Obama in June," thing sealed the deal.
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner (Fmr. Gov-VA)
Ideologically the same, excellent campaigner, will deliver VA.
Check out:
http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html
June 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that suggestion a lot.
June 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my top choice.
June 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never understood the need to have the president as the one giving orders and making decisions until the Buscheney presidency.
I have no doubt that Clinton would be an amazingly competent, hard-working vice president.
I do have doubts that she would stay in a subordinate, supportive role. I say this because I haven't seen that this is in her personality.
There's nothing wrong with unwillingness to take a subordinate role, unless that's what the job description requires. I have absolutely no data on this, but I think it's likely that vice presidents that have gone on to become presidents—and do well in both roles—had personalities that allowed them to adapt to their circumstances.
Cheney may have no aspirations to the presidency, but he hasn't had to. He's gotten his way and had more power than he should have had. Fortunately for him, Bush seems to have been okay with deferring to Cheney's decisions, as long as he still got to be the president.
I don't see that working with Obama and Clinton. And I don't want to live through an administration that has an ongoing power struggle within it. There's way too much to get done.
June 3, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, she's got much bigger balls.
June 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a 3rd ball too. How can Barack compete with that?
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're running for the White House, not Ringling Bros.
I'll stick with the candidate with the requisite number of testicles, but more importantly better judgement.
June 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bosnia story, N. Ireland story, Gas Tax...
VP campaign? -- nuff said!
June 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Clinton would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice; she would have a lifetime of affecting women's rights, long after this particular Presidency is over.
There is no reason for Obama to enter into a power-sharing agreement with the Clintons, and I am sure he is too smart for that.
BP
June 3, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would really prefer that she wasn't on the Supreme Court. She is too much of a divisive political figure and it would risk turning the Supreme Court into a circus.
June 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean more of a circus, right?
June 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No judicial experience. No experience as a trial lawyer. No experience as a prosecutor. No relevant experience of any kind. In short, no.
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A prosecutor is a specific type of trial lawyer so that's a bit redundant.
For that matter, last time I looked, most of the justices on the Supreme Court didn't have trial court experience as lawyers; many of them had appellate court experience, but that's a different matter.
As for no judicial experience, it's only relatively recently that we've, in effect, required that Supreme Court nominees have previous experience on a Federal Court of Appeals or a State Supreme Court (or both).
It used to be that appointing politicians wasn't all that unusual (for that matter, in many states and counties, the State/District Attorney is an elected position).
June 3, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth makes you think she is Supreme Court material?
Her legal accomplishments are pretty sparse, it is not like she is a constitutional scholar, that is Obama.
June 3, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because after nearly 28 years of propelling every authority-loving Republican toady into the judiciary, there just aren't any qualified Liberal SC candidates out there, are there?
June 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
More from Wolfson on CNN - he's still claiming that NO ONE voted for Obama in MI and the only reason he took his name off of the ballot is because he knew he would lose and wanted to save himself from embarrassment.
Funny that no one from Detroit placed a vote for Obama...funny that even though Edwards publically stated, as did Biden and Dodd, that Obama can have all of his delegates from MI, Shrillary's campaign still claims he received no votes and that no Uncommitted's were for him.
How dead does a horse have to be when a Clinton campaigner beats it???
June 3, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
they also discount the thousands of write-ins
June 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F...troll supreme. no one listens to your crap here...go bother Rush! You and he will be great buddies!
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's about you, and your disgruntled brethren...Hillary will soon be asking you to support Obama (she actually already did, saying it would be a "grave error" for any Democrat to NOT support him). The question is, will you?
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reply was for Mark Simmons upthread, and for all other supposed strong Hillary supporters who must now face reality.
June 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nominee of the party always gets to pick
the VP of their choice. Why should Senator Obama not have the same freedom to do so, as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were allowed. Senator Feinstein has no leverage on that matter, since she supported his opposition.
Senator Obama does not have to make a selection
until the week of the convention. He should take his time and let things play out. That way Hillary will have to be on her best behavior, if she wants to have any chance of being considered. Take your time, up until convention week, Senator Obama. That will give you more time to observe how the many contenders for VP actually perform in the limelight. Let them all take batting practice and spring training for the next couple of months, and then you will have a better idea of which one would make the best lead of batter for you.
No need to tip your hand now, and allow McCain more time to work over your running mate.
Let Hillary twist in the wind for a couple of months. Regardless of what Diane Feinstein says, this is not about picking a VP now. It is about you locking up the nomination to become the next President of the USA.
Congratulations, and well done. Now take charge of the party. Call the Democratic governors to Chicago to discuss the fall campaign. That will give you an opportunity to size them all up, without the press being able to call it a VP screening process. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge.
You just might discover a gem, that up until now has not been on your VP radar screen.
Do not make a pick until the last moment.
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Top choices for VP: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius- KA, Gov. Tim Kaine- VA, Gov. Bill Richardson- NM, former Gov. Mark Warner- VA, former Gov. Bob Graham (FL).
A governor from a swing state it will be. Not a senator from a state that we will definitely win (NY) or definitely lose (Webb).
June 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Nation made a pretty strong case for Webb, if you can believe that.
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I heard. I like Webb and the Nation, but seriously.... just not. gonna. happen.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - check out my VP link above, if you haven't been there already. My bet is on Warner.
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like Warner. I'm betting on Gov. Tim Kaine, his successor on many levels. And Kaine is limited to one term and Warner is up for a Senate run this fall- we don't wanna lose that spot.
I'd be happy with any of those I've named. However, I'm sure Obama and his excellent advisors will pick a great nominee for VP and may even surprise us.
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Kaine is as strong - he kinda got in on Warner's coattails. Maybe Kaine can take Warner's place in the senate??? Kaine wouldn't be bad, but the stronger VP choice is Warner. Even if you lose one senate seat, it's worth it. Like sacrificing a knight to capture the opponent's queen.
Also we have to think both short and long-term. Warner offers an immediate benefit of helping in a number of ways, but unlike some of the other choices he'd be a very strong contender to follow in Obama's footsteps and run a successful campaign after Obama is gone. He's young, and excellent campaigner/speaker, and is an ideological match with Obama. Watch the video and see how he charms his audience and is exceptionally gracious toward the opposition. He was also a very early supporter of Obama's. It's a fit and so many levels.
Warner is my prediction.
BTW, Edwards for AG!!!
Give HRC a seat on the Supreme Court. Send Bill to the U.N.
Now, everyone is happy.
June 3, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Warner would be a good pick, definitely. But I don't want to lose that likely Senate seat.
Same problem with Webb.
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, another strong reason why HRC would be a stupid VP pick.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add in ED RENDELL and TED STRICKLAND. I don't care for Eddie, too loose with the tongue, and don't know anything about Stricakland except he was standing behind Hillary when she scolded Obama, "shame on you!", but they are both Democratic governors in swing states.
Michigans' Grandholm could be added to that list too
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
wasn't granholm born in canada? does that make her ineligible to be veep?
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to both questions.
Granholm's hoser-born and constitutionally ineligible.
June 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's especially funny to me cuz I've been listening to Rush this morning.
I'm gonna go find a Bob & Dave clip on YouTube
June 3, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4KTebUT6Mw&feature=related
here you go
June 3, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting more and more convinced that Obama picking a woman who isn't Hillary will do more damage than good.
I think he picks a Gov. from a swing state that will give him foreign policy experience and blue-collar appeal.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not too many governors are going to be able to "give" foreign experience (unless its along the lines of If Z were a country it would have the Xth largest economy in the world a la Bush).
Moreover, Obama has said his VP doesn't need foreign policy experience and that foreign policy is the area in which Obama feels most confident.
See here
June 3, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be remiss to not include Gob. Janet Napolitano (AZ) and, of course, Edwards. Thanks, Dorn76.
June 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
definitely lose VA? they've got a dem gov, a dem ex-gov, a dem senator, and probably another one on the way.
still, i say grahampa's the man.
June 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. For some reason when I was writing that out I was thinking Webb was from West VA. Anyways, I do not think it's going to be any senator (except maybe, MacCaskill).
Please forgive my mushy brain today. Must be the weather. MN weather sucks and I just want to go hibernate again.
June 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Bob Graham?
Didn't he have some sort of health issue a couple of years ago?
June 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson, I don't think, is a good choice. He seems pretty weak to me. Also, let's face it--an African-American and a Hispanic sharing the ticket? Well, we can hope it wouldn't matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Richardson is not a strong choice.
Edwards--I love John Edwards, but not this time. The cons would bring out the elite charge--Obama: bitter comments. Edwards: Haircuts and his big house--I know, as if someone can't be rich, enjoy their wealth and still care about poverty. Still, the conservatives will play the elite out of touch game. They're good at getting their opponents off their message and on the defensive.
He has to pick someone that will help bring him independents and moderate republicans. I think Warner is a great choice.
June 3, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neutral? Who is really neutral at this point?
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not unless Feinstein accepts the job as "Official Food Taster for the President."
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
June 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
UPDATE: The ARG poll that showed Clinton with a 25 pt. lead was actually given to ARG from internal Clinton campaign polling.
The ARG poll in SD is bullshit! Daily Kos has a handful of polls from SD that has Obama winning all of them!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/3/114823/0206/721/528113
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC VP? NFW!
June 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not writing off VA just yet in the general, recent polls are a wash...But I agree that Webb's not the best pick. How about adding Edwards and Janet Napolitano to your list too?
Ahh, idle VP speculation. I just love this new "clinched" phase!
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
There's ALREADY been public pressure on Obama from superdelegates, usually Clinton's, to accept her as VP. This is nothing new. Please don't report as if it is.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The new part is that Feinstein has said that Hillary should pack it in. Fienstein added the dig about VP herself because she knew she would be quoted.
She needs to STFU. The last thing we need is a public fucking VP campaign! This needs to be quietly negotiated if the party is going to unify.
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think that once Clinton supporters have a chance to cool down and think more evenly about Clinton's future, they will realize that there is no particular value in the VP consolation prize for either them or Clinton.
Some of the talk about the vice presidency in recent days has been off the wall. Some people seem to think that the Vice President in our system is some kind of assistant president. Except for anomalous case of Cheney - where an ambitious VP walked all over a bumbling incompetent president - nothing could be further from the truth. VP's are just understudies. They attend cabinet meetings and keep up with events in case they are ever called upon to take over, but they basically twiddle their thumbs backstage and wait, while the other actors are out playing their roles onstage.
There are a large number of other really important jobs Clinton can do, including staying right where she is as a powerful member of the Senate, where she will have a far more significant impact on national policy that she would as Vice President.
June 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder if Di Fi is reflecting Hillary's thinking.
Personally, I'm strongly against Hillary as VP, as between her and Bill, there's way too much baggage. Plus, with both Hill and Bill jockeying for power, the West Wing would be a bit crowded.
Can't imagine either of them taking a back seat to Obama.
June 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kathleen Sebelius would be a good choice. Senator Obama does not need power on the ticket but electibility, and this would address the major feminist concerns (which Hillary Clinton has stoked and exploited shamelessly) without enabling a competing, politically supercharged Clinton White House II at the Naval Observatory.
Presidents appoint experts in defense, foreign relations, economics, etc. to cabinet positions. The VP role should above all be that of strong support for the president beyond presiding over the senate and breaking ties.
June 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re-post from upthread: I'm getting more and more convinced that Obama picking a woman who isn't Hillary will do more damage than good.
I think he picks a Gov. from a swing state that will give him foreign policy experience and blue-collar appeal.
June 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Rendell might be a good choice. Mr. Democratic party, no skeletons, good on TV, etc.
June 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell doesn't seem to be able to stay on message.
And one thing the Obama campaign clearly knows how to do is just that.
June 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
I think picking another woman is not his strongest ticket card.
And I don't think Bill Richardson is, either.
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson would be a great Sec. of State. He'd be the anti-Kissinger!
June 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if there's anyone that fits that exact bill, though. Richardson's got foreign policy experience and is a swing state guv but I don't think it would endear Obama to blue collar voters. None of the other governors in consideration have any foreign policy experience, to my knowledge.
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, exactly why I didn't offer any suggestions, haha.
June 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The winner has earned the right to choose the VP. No one should be forced on Obama. His team has been brilliant so far. We should allow them to continue to make the best decision for November and the next four years. To those that want to force a Hillary VP on the ticket, think beyond the moment. Can you really imagine Obama and Hillary together for four years. I think not. He needs a VP that compliments his judgement, style and conciliatory and diplomatic skills.
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know we need to leave our Congressional allies in Congress, but, damn, I like Bob Wexler!
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest from http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
Obama leads today's superdelegate count with 11 endorsements (8.5 superdelegate votes)
Clinton has one endorsement from a Florida superdelegate for .5
June 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No! No! No!
It would be like having your ex in the same house with you and your new spouse because she lived there before.
June 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner for VP!
June 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to add: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys:
It won't happen. Not becuase she'd be a disaster mind you, but because:
2 Senators on the tickets won't work.
She doesn't bring a state with her.
She brings Bill Clinton
June 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it does nothing for 2016. She'd be too old, just like McCain is now.
June 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it.
Also, MEMO To Diane Feinstein:
Winners set the terms of surrender, not losers.
June 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama does not need a VP candidate to help him win. Quite frankly, given the mood of the country, I think George McGovern could win this one. With Michael Dukakis as his running mate. He should pick a VP candidate who will help him AFTER January 20. Someone with one or more of the following:
1. A strong legislator (think LBJ) who can help him get programs through congress.
2. A strong administrator who can help him keep all the governmental wheels turning smoothly.
3. Someone with serious military credentials to help keep the generals in line.
4. Someone who is recognized as a key leader in a particular area that he wants to devote attention to (economic, foreign, whatever).
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add.
5. Someone with a good personality contrast to Obama, and
6. Someone who can effectively play attack dog as VP candidates are required to do from time to time.
June 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My big list (blogged on this last week)--
Some considerations for what makes a good Vice President:
--Debater/public speaker/attack dog: the primary function of the V.P. in the campaign season. How well do they speak of Obama? Defend him? How well will they attack smears and GOP talking points and positions?
--Are they vetted? Any skeletons in the closet?
--Would they make a great President? Are they Presidential?
--Good relations with the Senate? Senate leadership?
--Diplomatic? They may have to break ties in the Senate.
--Are they too influential in their current position? They may not want to the day to day duties of the V.P. Funerals, etc.
--Appearance and manner. Unfortunately in this day and age you have to look relatively good and have a pleasant or appealing image.
--Are they media savy? Are they good a good communicator? Pleasant voice?
--Geographic and demographic concerns:
--Region/state: Can they offer a win in a key swing state or key region? key demographic appeal in a region(s)?
--Demographics to consider: race, religion, ethnicity, class or income level they might appeal to.
--Also important, by taking the VP role will it leave an important vacancy that may need to be filled or cannot be?
--Issues. Do they offer experience on a key issue? Or if not, could they offer experience on an issue that is not currently talked about but that could become a winner?
--Do they line up well with Obama on the issues? You do not want a counter-intuitive stance on the issues.
--Have they endorsed or supported Obama through and through. We cannot have a candidate for VP that has talked smack about Obama or other wise damaged his credibility.
June 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But many of those have to do with helping to win in November. Maybe I'm overconfident, but this one looks too easy, even for Democrats. My point was that I'd concentrate on those qualities that will help him govern.
June 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, much depends on how much power Obama is willing to give the VP. Typically, VPs don't get into the governing aspects too much, outside the Senate, even there except to break a tie. Gore and certainly Cheney have been the exception here.
June 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Webb fulfills all those requirements. Webb for VP!
June 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goofy has just described Sen. Webb.
June 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with liam upthread, there's no rush, seems okay to me to wait until July 4th weekend to make the pick.
My gut is that Hillary would be a lousy choice, but I'm no expert. I have no idea what the hell she wants. Or what Barack wants, either.
June 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is ridiculous and outrageous!
Either endorse or don't endorse for goodness sake!
One or the other, not both!
That's a decision for Obama to make with the help of HIS advisers.
If hillary had gotten the nomination, she would have been given that courtesy and respect.
Let's remember that like the Clintons, Feinstein and her husband are some of the biggest war profiteers around - up there with Cheney and Rumsfeld.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49970/
http://www.thetip.org/art_Feinstein_Joins_Hawks_in_War_Profiteering_333_icle.html
June 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT superdelegate counter says Barack's magic number is down to 30 as of 3:03 PM EDT:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/the-superdelegate-tally/index.html?hp
June 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
bad news folks,
according to CNN, Hillary has told New York Lawmakers that she wants to be VP.
so it looks like shes gonna try to force her way onto the ticket
June 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, she's gonna have to drop out first.
then we'll talk....
June 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
to freaktown at 3:32 PM, do you have a link for that CNN story or did you just watch it on the tee-vee?
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a breaking news headline on CNN's web page right now.
Man, the AP has been going crazy today!
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24953561/
June 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depressing. However, at least the clintons can't trick him into making the offer and saying on they side that they would turn him down and then actually agree in public. That would have been a nightmare scenario. I guess obama the brain and his brain trust are going to have to figure this one out. I don't have a clue how to handle this hot potatoe.
Talk about being vetted and tested. Has there been a candidate in recent history that had to go through this kind of wringer? I don't think so.
June 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, make that 29, with Jimmy Carter's admission that he will endorse tonight after the poll's close:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/the-superdelegate-tally/index.html?hp
June 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein had to say that to assuage Hillary for Diane climbing off the Clinton bandwagon. Now she did her duty, feels better about it. I see it as fair exchange for acknowledging Obama's win. Still no endorsement though.
Honestly, any Clinton supporter who acknowledges Obama's win and follows with "Hillary for VP," no problem. It's a free country. Why get excited?
June 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama can not put Hillary on the ticket. She and Bill are the ultimate Washington insiders. Putting Hillary on the ticket would make a mockery of his promise to change how Washington does business.
He does not need someone who knows how Washington works. He will have lots of people such as Senators Durbin, Dodd, Biden,and hopefully Ted, plus Speaker Pelosi to help on that front.
June 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
to liam at 3:35 PM, how about Howard Dean, too? Not to mention Bernie Sanders, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar ....
June 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean isn't bad. But you'd want to be sure he isn't replaced by a DLC person. Also, strategic necessities demand that Obama select someone from a swing state.
June 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly; That is why I say that he does not need to pick someone who knows how Washington works. There are plenty of allies of his in the house and senate that can bring him up to speed on that, plus he probably already knows most of what he needs to, since he is a quick learner.
June 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam and DaddyD at 3:53, I must have misunderstood liam's list or else DaddyD misunderstood mine: I am not talking about VP candidates, I am suggesting there are plenty of people in place who "know how Washington works" who would help Barack, so that Barack has no need to put such a person on his ticket. He should NOT pick a 20-to-lifer for his VP, he should pick a new, younger progressive, not some old re-tread.
June 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep - I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
I think the whole experience thing is a joke. Of course, people take it seriously. But no president comes in with a full working knowledge of all the things that apply to the office. Can one be an expert in foreign policy, agriculture, energy, transportation, the economy, the environment, education, military matters , etc., etc., etc.??? No way. Good judgement - and surrounding yourself with experts who also posses good judgement is the key.
June 3, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would look too much like a corrupt bargain, especially with the whole MI/FL fiasco.
Besides, who gives a flying f*&@! about Vermont?
June 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can't "force her way onto the ticket". What little leverage she has left is a very rapidly wasting asset.
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
disagree. She has galvanized much of her base with her myth-making narrative as the defender of the 'disenfranchised' and all post-Ohio and Texas voters, let alone her shoulder-pad martyr pose. Obama can counter this leverage but it will take much work on the inside.
June 3, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should counter-offer a seat on the Supreme Court and and offer Bill the ambassadorship to the U.N. That's pretty good stuff, and it keeps 'em both out of the WH.
June 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
NIce. Offering Bill the U.N. this is good, and I am sure attractive for him let alone Hillary perhaps ;) . That said, this could be a way to difuse, some of the Obama campaign concerns in bringing her onto the ticket. Not that I am for that (seriously).
June 3, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Democratic CA voter since '75, it's time for Diane Feinstein to be replaced. Our left coast beacon of liberalism has lost her bearings and needs to be removed from power.
June 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish you hadn't raised the specter of political assassination by using the phrases "Diana Feinstein", "replacing her" & "'75".
We all know that she came in 3rd place in the San Francisco Mayoral Election in 1975; that George Moscone was elected that year; and how Feinstein eventually became mayor.
June 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my humble opinion, Diane has more to fear from a stroke than an assassin's bullet. I especially liked how her canned responses to my emails calling for her to withdraw her support of Hillary contained a typo -
"Thank you for writing to express your views about the presidential election process. I read you comments with interest and will keep your views in mind as the year progresses."
Got this comment from her 3 times. Way to screen your staff.
June 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The letter R is highly overrated.
June 3, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC says that Hillary says she would accept the VP slot.
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN quoting Charlie Rangel to the same effect - that she's open to it.
NO!
June 3, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh! Not to be rude, just saying.....
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is true, then she has launched her 2012 strategy, because she knows Obama CAN'T pick her and she's hoping her disgruntled minions will keep him out of the White House.
You can't pick a VP that runs TOTALLY COUNTER to your core message. The Repugs would have a field day!
I say that many, if not most, of her minions will eventually face that a McCain presidency is a route to foreign relations and economic and Supreme Court disaster.
DO NOT PICK HER, Sen. Obama! We can win without her!!!
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING: MSNBC just said Clinton told the NY delegation today that she's 'open' to being on the ticket.
Looks like the end game narrative is starting to come into view.
One more time:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
June 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The burden of a graceful exit is on her shoulders, not Obama's. That's why I see a concession-for-VP-slot deal being silly. He's the nominee and has every right to pick whatever VP will aid him the most in his campaign and/or administration.
June 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How pathetic that the Clintons are holding the Democratic Party hostage.
'Just say no!'
No to the Clinton demands, to the intimidation, to the threats, to the blackmail.
No means NO!
or should I say....
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
das2003's prediction above bears repeating because its probably right:
June 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds true.
Feinstein was the stalking horse, and there will be more calls for Obama to name Hillary as VP, to follow. The Clintons are hoping to stampede him into picking her.
Can't imagine, she's his first or even second pick.
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or the seventh.
June 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't expect a veep selection earlier than July, anyway. They've got a whole summer to vet. Once Hillary's out, you figure the media will start investigating the veepstakes further and help with digging up potential headaches on prospective candidates.
June 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with that scenario is that the clintons will lie, manipulate and distort the situation all the way til august and make it impossible for obama to pick someone else without causing further damage to the party. All day, every day we will hear how she allegedly won the popular vote, represents the interests of working people (Puke!!!!! What an f'n lie, just look at the clinton's 90's record, walmart board, etc., etc.), is a symbol of the disenfranchised, saved the world for democracy, etc., etc., etc.
I say he makes his pick asap to stop the clintons' chatter and shut them and the feinstein's of the world the f'ck up.
June 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Betcha that Hillary realized that going for the consolation prize would be better than leaving the limelight, all together. Ditto Bill.
As always, with the Clintons, if you follow the TV camera, they won't be far behind. Like moths to a flame.
June 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been said before but I'll echo it. The VP pick is the first test of his presidential leadership. If he caves to pantsuit pressure, he will fail that test and he will look look like a wimp.
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but we need someone who will offer us a swing state. That's just smart politics....
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, whoever told you that the uncommitted United States Senators discussing Clinton yesterday as VP was not being truthful to you. One of my cloest friends is a Chief of Staff to one of those uncommitted senators and was at tnat meeting. ALL eleven of those senators agreed yesterday to endorse Barack tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. Clinton's name NEVER came up at that meeting. If I am not mistaken, the AP, Washington Post, New York times, the Hill (I think)all reported a similar claim today. Barack knows that he would lose half of his base, not just voting base but financial base if he took Clinton as his VP. Barack is a lot of things, but a fool.....he is not.
June 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith has this to say about the whole Hillary says she's open to being on ticket:
"She didn't say 'I'm not interested in that' or 'I don't want to discuss that,'" the person said.
Instead she said, roughly, "I'll do whatever I can to help us win."
Everyone can stop hyperventilating now.
June 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, somebody better tell CNN, MSNBC, etc. because it's all over the fricking place. I just ran a quick errand and that's all they were talking about on the XM POTUS channel.
June 3, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink