Skip to main content

I'm just saying.  

If Hillary gets the nomination after she and Bill leverage nasty little wins like New Hamshire and Nevada, she's not going to have much of a base to energize for the general.  I personally would be surprised if she even reaches 51%.  

The ironic thing is that, despite all the talk about Obama ushering in a realignment election, Clinton-Obama is probably the best shot the Democratic Party has for something like this.  Obama solves all her--and Bill's for that matter--problems.  He injects all the hope, optimism, and energy of the Obama movement into their ugly, by the book campaign.  African-Americans will forgive them for using race to win whites and hispanics in Nevada and California.  He is immensely appealing to indepentents and even a certain segment of Republicans.  Finally, he brings anti-war cred to two of the most prominent democratic sellouts in the lead-up the Iraq War.  

The real question is does Obama take it?  Does he consider running at the top of a ticket with Bloomberg?  Does he wait till 2016?  Something tells me this will be his only shot.

Originally posted to Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:49 PM PST.


Obama Supporters, if HRC wins the Nomination will you

24%55 votes
48%110 votes
27%62 votes

| 227 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Does Obama take it? (12+ / 0-)

    I think no.  I think Obama tries to chew his own arm off rather than take the VP spot with Hillary.

    But I'm open to arguments to the contrary.

    •  He wouldn't (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      latts, mcfly, Sagittarius, wuod kwatch, tom3256

      not that it would be offered to him.

      •  maybe that's his hope (0+ / 0-)

        that he polarizes Dem's so much that he'll have to be asked to bring his polarized supporters with him. This is mean for me, I know, but these sore loser tactics seem small to me.  

        •  No evidence to support your claim (7+ / 0-)

          How pathetic to blast him for something that is your own speculation.

          •  that's what I was saying (0+ / 0-)

            if it's true he has this gossip about her on his web site, then he's guilty of smearing.  It's gossip, unless he saw it himself and collected names and vetted it.  Too soon for that to be possible.  

            •  Who would EVER take Hillary's VP slot? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Blue Sea, cas2, DaNorr

              She clearly cannot control Bill - look at his outrageous behavior on the campaign trail.  

              Anyone with any political ambition or any sense of dignity would refuse a Hillary VP slot, because why be 3rd fiddle?

              •  oh, no one can control him (0+ / 0-)

                she's never been able to, but he's okay, he's got universal appeal.  LIke Obama, only even more.  

              •  I regret (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:

                supporting this POS during impeachment.  The Senate should have voted to remove his sorry ass.  His replacement would have had much more honor, and a big leg up in 2000 as the sitting President.

              •  Bill will be running things in the WH (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                IF Hillary wins, it will take a highly compliant Clinton insider type to serve as VP and constantly have Bill sucking away the oxygen and second guessing decisions.   I don't see Obama in this role and I am not conceding an Obama loss either. Incidentallly, Bill has disappointed me with his in your face, unprincipled behavior in this campaign. I've read some stuff...I am not delusional about Bill Clinton but he was still one of my favorite people.  Now... not so much. He needs some humility.

            •  help me out here... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              an unclear reference in your comment:

              "this gossip about her "

              what gossip?  did I miss something?  Please clarify.  Thanks.

              "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

              by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  gossip (0+ / 0-)

                is repeating what you heard not what you experienced yourself.  It's hearsay and it's unworthy of his don't smear message. Seems that he jumped the gun on calling the NV delegates for him too, the party says no, the newspaper say no, say he's confused about the counting process.  How embarrassing?  

                •  anna, please (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I still don't understand what, exactly, you're referring to about this "gossip".  Is it about something Obama has on his site, or is it about something being slung around here on dKos??  Please illuminate.

                  As to the delegate count thing, I don't know if you're quite right.  AP is carrying the story.  Can you provide a link which confirms that the NV state party is throwing cold water on the Obama read of likely delegate assignments, which CNN, on their results site, has, as of 6.03 PM PST, flipped in Obama's direction.  

                  "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

                  by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I read it in the Sun (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't have a link, but I'm sure there will soon be one posted.  This will get sorted out I'm sure, I just think it's weird to be posting on it, like kos diary, as if it's a done deal when that is far from the case.  The Sun says Obama doesn't understand the way delegates are selected.  It seems like trashing her win, and she did win.  some are talking about dirty tricks, not really getting the votes, all sorts of stuff that is unpleasant.  But, I don't mean to be unpleasant, sorry.  I hope kos write a retraction that gets as much interest as his obama really won one.  

                    •  here's a neat irony (0+ / 0-)

                      we're getting all exercised here about who gets 13, who gets 12 in a pretty close election....

                      meanwhile, in SC, according to CNN's latest projections, McCain, for 33% of primary votes (no caucus chaos here), gets 13 (projected) delegates, while Hucky, with 30%, gets 3....

                      In Nevada, again per CNN, Romney, with 51%, gets 18 delegates of 31 (or 58%)

                      once again, even in one of our messiest and most confusing settings, the Nevada caucus, we Dems are closer to proportional democracy than the GOP....

                      "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

                      by penncove on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:12:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •   Links 2 Jill Derby, Chairwoman Disputing Obama's (0+ / 0-)

                    camp's figures.

                    I didn't that look far down thread to see if anyone answered this so sorry if it's a repeat.

                    But as for the NV state chair who's been "throwing water" so to speak in response to Obama's claims it's in a lot of places.  Here's one full quote.

                    "The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008," said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

                    Here's one link to Sun Article:


        •  If Hillary wins the nomination... (11+ / 0-)

          I think Obama will not hesitate to support her and the Democratic Party.  The fact is all three of the top candidates have more character than their "supporters" have shown over the last few weeks.

          •  I have never (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            copithorne, limulus, TLS66, A Handsome Man

            seen Obama hesitate to do the right thing.  I'm sure that, if he is not the nominee, he will support the nominee fully.

            I'm also sure that he would accept the VP role if it was offered.

          •  Sure, he would. (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary, I'm really not sure about.  As I've posted elsewhere, he do believe she did what she could to sabotage the Gore '00 and Kerry '04 campaigns ("I STILL would have voted for IWR", remember?).

          •  Probably true... (0+ / 0-)

            And it has nothing to do with my character, thank you very much, that I won't vote for her.  It has everything to do with my hatred of Clinton style politics, a return to the 1990's, and dynasties.  That's not a party I want to support if that's the direction it's going to go.  I'd support Edwards, I'd probably even support Kucinich.  I will not vote for the Clintons even if Barack Obama begs me to.

    •  of course he does (0+ / 0-)

      Why wouldn't he?  

      We win when people think.

      by jbrians on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think he would want their (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Poet, DaNorr

      taint.  But who knows?  They will need him more than he will need them.

      "Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people." Bill Clinton

      by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO. This is not about him. Its about getting away (0+ / 0-)

      ... from sleazy politics. Joining the sleazebags only makes think he was full of shit.

      President Bartlet: "Ah! Something important - the Butterball hotline. Watch and learn!"

      by crazymoloch on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wouldn't be a Good Move (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bailey, crankyinNYC, DaNorr

      on Obama's part.  Why would he want to be a part of a losing effort.  I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee but know that she is not going to win.  She's John Kerry II.  I wish democrats would take a chance with someone else and quit nominating these North Eastern Senators who've been around for ever.  It's very frustrating.  

    •  He'd be.. (0+ / 0-)

      All over it.

      They're the same candidate.

      Then, the Democrats would lose the general.

    •  I certainly hope he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      It'd be insulting.  To everyone who supported him as well as to himself.  And it wouldn't sway me.  I'd hate to think how the Clintons would squash every bit of hope and promise out of him.  I still would not vote for the Clintons unless Huckabee were the Republican nominee.  Otherwise, I become an Independent after over 30 years of only voting Democratic.  If the party is going to go back to yesterday, they've proven to me that they don't listen and they are stuck.  At that point it'd just be codependent to continue to prop them up with a vote I don't mean.  

  •  I can't see her asking him to run with her (13+ / 0-)

    any more than I can see him taking up her offer. Bill's burned too many bridges.

    One conversation in the real world beats one thousand diaries on the rec list.

    by haruki on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:51:59 PM PST

    •  I think she would have to (0+ / 0-)

      The truth is that the party is dividing up pretty heavily into Obama and Clinton camps.  Right now the relations are so bad that I can imagine that some supporters from either camp not going to support the candidate that wins.  That's going to be bad for the democratic party.

      I think the only way that the rift is bridged is if the loser of the primary gets the VP slot.  I think this would work best in the case that Hillary got the nomination, since having the VP slot would anoint Obama as the party nominee in 8 years if they win.  Obama would still be in his early 50's in 2016, which is still pretty young for a presidential candidate.  Then in 2016, he would have both the establishment support, and the experience claim.

      I still think he's got a real good shot of winning the nomination, but if he didn't, I think Hillary would have to nominate him for the VP slot, and he'd have to take it.

      Full Disclosure: I'm an Obama Supporter

      by smash artist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is not Obama's last hurrah (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limulus, DMiller, DaNorr

      I fully expect Clinton to tap Wes Clark for the VP slot if she wins the nomination.

      And I fully expect Obama to not only support but work hard for the party nominee if it's not him. He's young and has a great future ahead of him. This is not a do or die campaign for him. And he builds lots of good will for the future if he campaigns hard for the eventual nominee.

  •  Can anyone else envision a more ignored job (11+ / 0-)

    than being Sen. Clinton's Vice President?

    Whoever it would be better hope that a lot of third world leaders croak.

    Growing the Democratic Party is a good thing.

    by citizenx on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:52:13 PM PST

  •  OK, running with Bloomberg is ridiculous (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limulus, pHunbalanced, DMiller, demer

    No way he does that. But I think if Clinton wins, it is looking more and more likely that Obama will be the VP(or at least they will try to get him as the VP). A few months ago, I would have thought, no way, but for the reasons you stated, I think it is likely now.

  •  If Obama accepts a Hillary V.P slot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soros, DaNorr, tom3256

    Then he may lose all the support he had. Obama was considered the "anti-washington." If he stands with Hillary, he is - to many of his supporters embracing the very things he stood against.

  •  It would be brave (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey, Descrates, citizenx, John DE, haruki

    Taking Obama would be a very risky and brave choice.  That isn't really Hillary's M.O.

    We win when people think.

    by jbrians on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM PST

  •  This'll go over well... (0+ / 0-)

    SInce there's like this Primary thing happening, how about we wait and see how Super Tuesday shakes out?

  •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

    Obama must be President, or else Bloomberg wins it.

    Clinton vs. Romney = President Bloomberg

    by steelman on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM PST

  •  Senator Clinton already has her VP. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pletzs, jkennerl, soros, ZappoDave, DaNorr

    And, his name is Bill Clinton.  

  •  the audacity of stupidty and childishness (6+ / 0-)

    Stay home or vote McCain options = no Democrat in White House.

    Bye bye end of war
    bye bye woman's right to choose
    bye bye middle class tax cuts
    bye bye green energy.

    But: Hillary is evil and corporate.

    Repubs rock!

    •  some day (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pacific John, DMiller, bluegrass50

      some anti-Hillary person is going to actually have to show me how she is evil and corporate...

      •  i'll give it a shot (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crankyinNYC, John Poet, tom3256

        She is funded - to the hilt - by defense contractors

        She is best buds with Billy Tauzin, the head lobbyist of PhRma.  Her health care plan is a joke.  She's phonier than Mitt Romney.   She will make Pelosi-esque efforts towards being a progressive, but ultimately cave and capitulate on anything that isn't personal about her and Bill.  She will pass a few child-friendly, SCHIP-esque health care measures and claim that she's doing God's work.  

        Basically, I see her tenure turning out exactly like Rod Blagojevich in Illinois.

        Not exactly - evil corporate - more, just plain tone-deaf incompetent.

        •  Well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rob M, Civil Defense

          Unless you're an Edwards person, you have some issues, since Obama is "funded" by some unsavory people as well...and has hung out with some of them too.

          If I were using that basis to decide on a candidate, I probably wouldn't want to vote for anyone either.


          She's phonier than Mitt Romney.

          I think this is the silliest line in the entire rant. Going back to when Bill Clinton was in office, I'm trying to figure out how she was different then from when she was in the Senate to how she is in this campaign.

          If she was "as phony as Mitt," you should be able to come up with as many flip-flops, etc. as people have with him.  But you can't.

          She will make Pelosi-esque efforts towards being a progressive, but ultimately cave and capitulate on anything that isn't personal about her and Bill.

          So how do you cave and capitulate when you're in charge, and your party is in charge of Congress?  Who, exactly, would she capitulate to?

          Or is any compromise at any level now considered "capitulation?"  And if so, then Obama will clearly do it too, as will Edwards.

          •  Obama doesn't take PAC or Lobbyist money (0+ / 0-)

            Obama is not funded by "unsavory" people, unless you think that individual employees of companies are "unsavory" in which case, you have a problem since most of us work for companies.  

            Hillary Clinton is ridiculously phony.  Listen to her answer in the debate about her "greatest weakness."   Listen to her describe her "mortgage rate freeze" plan - does she ever level with the American people and tell them that if you are a current homeowner with a mortgage, and you've been playing by the rules, you get screwed?   Your home equity - which is the primary source of wealth for the middle class - will decline?   Does she acknowledge that she's simply pandering to real estate speculators and investors who tried to play the market (and lost) at the expense of ordinary, working-class homeowners who simply wanted a house for their kids?

            No?  Can you point to a single business analysis of the effect of her mortgage-rate freeze plan that does not think that it will collapse the housing market?  

            No?   No shit.  Of course she won't admit that her plan will fuck every one of us over who has a house and pays on a fixed mortgage.  

            Same as of course she won't admit that she has no plan to fix the actuarial (but real) deficit in Social Security.

            Same as of course she won't admit that in order to realize "universal" health care she is going to force people to pay for health insurance when they can't afford it.  

            Same as of course she won't admit that it might be her campaign plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, but when her generals come back and say the surge needs six more months, she's going to say, well, that was my plan then, now my plan is to stay indefinitely.  

    •  Hillary will not end the war (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pletzs, John Poet, tom3256


    •  Hillary will end the War? (0+ / 0-)

      I hope so.  It does seem to be her trajectory though.

      To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind.

      by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some questions/poitns (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob M, Pacific John
    1. why are her wins in New Hampshire and Nevada "nasty?"  Are they nasty because you're an Obama supporter and don't like it when Hillary wins?
    1. No Obama, isn't going to tag-team with Bloomberg.
  •  1) All your bullshit aside, it might be a good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pacific John, pHunbalanced, DaNorr

    ticket. However 2) Obama would not be a very good vice Presidential candidate (he would be worse then Edwards in fact) in that the position requires that Obama fights for the Presidential candidate. He won't do that. 3) Obama does not bring anything to the ticket other then "excitement". He doesn't bring a state or experience. It's not like Kennedy/Johnson. 4) Obama and Clinton obviously don't think much of each other and have completely different views about the Democratic party, the country and the job of a President.

    Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM PST

    •  It's not a good pairing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brooklynbadboy, DaNorr

      One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is a certain small segment of the independent centrist population that might be okay voting for a white woman or a black man at the top of the ticket as long as the VP is 'traditional' but may get the jitters about a ticket that has no white guys.

      •  You are right. The only reason for Clinton to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pacific John, pHunbalanced

        take on Obama as VP is to heal any kind of rift between the African Americans and the rest of the party.

        He doesn't add anything else to the ticket. And I wouldn't look forward to him being the automatic frontrunner in 2016.

        Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

        by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There we differ (0+ / 0-)

          I would love for him to be the automatic frontrunner in 2016. I just wanted him to get that by being Gore's VP.

          As for 2008, there is not going to be any huge rift between Clinton and the black voters. Clinton still has plenty of strong support in the black community and black voters tend to be a little savvier about politics than white voters at equivalent income levels. I think the GOP hit their modern highwater mark with black voters in 2004. I suppse there may be a bit of a turnout suppression issue with a Clinton nomination, but it won't be severe.

    •  He would bring this though: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The black vote in important swing states.

      I know you probably don't think this is serious, but i can tell you from anecdotal evidence in these parts: if she ran in the general today, youd get black turnout down around 40-50%. Dead serious. There is a meme circulating in the hood that she is a "racist old white lady."

      Now, she could certainly still win with super low black turnout, but she's going to have to spend a lot of time in states she normally wouldn't have to worry about.

      Especially against McCain. Especially against McCain if he sees the opportunity and puts Powell on the ticket.

      But I doubt Obama would even accept if offered. Theres really nothing in it for him. If she wins, he's still a big shot in the party. If she loses, he's an even bigger shot. But if he goes for VP and wins, hes marginalized. If goes for VP and loses, hes marginalized.

      Theres nothing in it for him.

      "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

      by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I agree. Enough of a divide seems to have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        been created between black and whites that something should be done to heal it. I wish there was a different African American that Clinton could choose. If only Booker had a few more years.

        Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

        by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:14:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dont know what could be done. (0+ / 0-)

          It's starting to set in.

          I'm not saying black folks will go and vote Republican, although I'm sure some will. Especially military if its McCain. The bad thing will be depressed turnout.

          Republicans are seriously going to capitalize on this, naturally. They are going to heap praise on Obama all summer long and make sure Black foilks hear it loud and clear. They will also go ape-shit on Clinton and turn Obama into a living martyr.

          I doubt black folks will buy it, but there will be this sort of "fuck all the white people" attitude that will depress the turnout.

          Clinton could have won this election without this happening, but they chose not to.

          "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

          by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly what could Clinton have done differently (4+ / 0-)

            to mollify the black vote? I can't think of anything. This was almost inevitable. When the choice is either the first woman nominee or the first black nominee, a clusterfuck can't be far behind.

            How do you think women would feel if Obama wins the nomination based on his "all Hillary did is drink tea" line?

            Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

            by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, if it were me advising them- (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Civil Defense

              I'd focus very much on the data: you know, the increased black home ownership, the increased black jobs, increased black wealth.  The increase, increase, increase in the 1990s. Thats what I would push.

              Pocketbook stuff. Obama really has no argument against that, because its true. Nothing racial about it either.

              But this circulating emails, drug dealer, muslim stuff? No good. Trotting out Magic Johnson?

              And why is that bill is always doing the radio shows? Let hillary call. You know, let the candidate run.

              She could have won any state so far without antagonizing a single black vote. They got too nervous.

              Its not good for the general. Seriously.

              "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

              by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:37:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  What Obama should have said about Hillary (0+ / 0-)

              if he practiced Clinton tactics, is to basically go out and say she is a bitter, pathological battle axe. Turn her into a empty shell of an old, unloved, discarded woman. A hateful, emasculating feminist out to turn the country over to Gloria Steinem and turn your daughters into raving lesbians.

              The problem is, thats not the kind of politics he advocates. Rightly so.

              "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

              by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He doesn't have to do it (0+ / 0-)

                because all his supporters already are.  Isn't that basically the caricature that Hillary has on here from all the Edwards and (especially) Obama people?

              •  So, one of Clinton's people brings up Obama's (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                drug use. That's foul play. One of Obama's people says that Clinton doesn't care about black people. That's fine.

                By the way, there were Clinton Lesbian rumors flying about a couple months ago (one Obama supporting website was pushing them). Was Obama's camp innocent in this, but Clinton still guilty of race baiting?

                Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

                by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Of course, the best way to defend against that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Is Obama going out and saying that it's republican BS and that they should support Clinton.

            If they support Obama so much, and if he actively campaigns for Clinton, wouldn't that be more persuasive than GOP BS?

            •  Whats in it for Obama? (0+ / 0-)

              Seriously? Place himself on the opposite side of the community for the Clintons? Please. That would be a disaster for him and would make him exactly the kind of politician hes running against.

              Its not republican BS. Its what everyone I talk to when I get my haircut seems to believe. genie out of the bottle.

              The best thing he could do, if i were advising him, would be to go to red states and do all he can to help Democrats get elected to Congress. As he did in 2006.

              He won't actively campaign for Clinton. I think thats out of the question. What he will do is publicly endorse her and then keep away from her.

              "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

              by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He will actively campaign for clinton (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                you can bank it, I think.

                "What's in it for him?"  I guess having a democratic candidate doesn't count?

                •  Look at it from his perspective. (0+ / 0-)

                  Youre Barack Obama. You've now got a list of friends all over the country and a huge base of support. You took on the Clintons and kept it close. You lost. What next?

                  Well, Clinton faces a tough election. Your home base community isn't feeling her anymore. Your neighbors are telling you all about the dirty tricks they used against you and the things they circulated about you.
                  You dont like them and your wife wants this to be over so she can go back to being a normal human being. She doesent like Bill.

                  She could win. In which case, you'd still be a Senator who could run for Governor with your reputation intact.
                  She could lose, in which case you'd be in prime position to run again should you so choose. If she lost, it wouldnt be Obama's fault. She'd get all the blame.

                  But going out and advocating Hillary Clinton would pretty much see to it that he has nothing ahead but a stiff Senate challenge from the left. Win or lose.

                  "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

                  by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:54:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    But going out and advocating Hillary Clinton would pretty much see to it that he has nothing ahead but a stiff Senate challenge from the left. Win or lose.

                    And then liberals wonder why the moderates in the party distrust them.

                    If the feelings within the party were that strongly anti-Hillary, then she wouldn't be in contention to win the nomination to begin with.  If she wins the nomination, clearly she's supported enough to prevent Obama from getting a primary challenger just by campaigning for her in the general.

                    I reject the notion that campaigning for Clinton will be bad for him at all.  And even if it were, It would lower my opinion of him if he took the selfish stance of "well...if she loses then I can run in 2012 when the nation is even MORE fucked after 4 more years with a GOP candidate" than by trying to help her win.

        •  Booker? (0+ / 0-)


          To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind.

          by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:27:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Booker actually does stuff instead of giving (0+ / 0-)

            speeches about how he plans to be a hands off leader. I can't see Obama driving around the streets at night, doing everything in his power to lower crime.

            Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking

            by tigercourse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe we should let the Primarys play out. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pletzs, jkennerl

    Its not over until it over. Why worry about vice?

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM PST

  •  No Obama for VP... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Then the Clintons would get credit for raising a black man to a shot at the White House.

    That would be sick.

  •  HRC is the bitter caustic type, it would be pure (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkennerl, brooklynbadboy, haruki, tom3256

    Hell for Obama.
    He should not take it.

    Something happened to me For the first time today, when watching the 5.30 news cast. BClinton appeared and was talking to reporters and when I looked at his face, I did not develop the usual feeling of warmth and affection I always do.

    I hated seeing his mug on TV.
    The nasty divisive HRC campaign has left a very bitter taste in my political oral cavity

    I will support HRC if she nabs the nomination. I wont vote for any of the rethugs not running.

    I wont however do anything to promote her candidacy. I already dislike her.

  •  after the infighting (3+ / 0-)

    She probably won't.

    I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

    by Salo on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM PST

  •  Why should he? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pHunbalanced, theran, mcfly, Nedsdag, haruki

    What good would that do him? That would be a HORRIBLE career move on his part. Terribly bad.

    The best thing for him to do is be a fantastic Senator, possibly run for Governor or Mayor of Chicago.

    No, the WORST POSSIBLE THING for Obama would be to run with Clinton.

    Besides, she can win without him. Barely.

    "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM PST

  •  Being VP is the best job in the world (0+ / 0-)

    if you want to minimize your chances of ever being president.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

    by clonecone on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM PST

  •  Are Obama and McCain closely aligned in views? (0+ / 0-)

    His supporters who also like McCain aren't doing Obama any favors!
    Seriously, grow up. In this life, we can't always get exactly what we want.  
    I want to marry George Clooney. If I can't, that doesn't mean I'm going to storm off and marry a toad.  

  •  Surely you jest (0+ / 0-)

    Does he consider running at the top of a ticket with Bloomberg?

    Bloomberg would be the top of THAT ticket.  And without a political machine behind it, that choo-choo won't get very far.

  •  If Hillary is the nominee (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is the least useful person for her to put on the ticket.

    Though I have never bought into the notion that VP makes any difference whatever (see, e.g., Edwards, Kemp), Obama could only hurt the ticket.  If Hillary is the nominee, she will already would be looked at with a jaundiced eye by many (being a woman and a Senator from Northeast).  Adding another Senator from the North, a minority one to boot, would only convince people that Hillary is too liberal for their taste.

  •  Robert Frost says - (0+ / 0-)

               The Secret Sits

    We dance 'round in a ring and suppose,
    The secret sits in the middle , and knows.

  •  General Wesley Clark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    will be Hillary's running mate. She will need a General standing behind her not Obama.

    A yearning for the past reflects not its many wonders; rather it speaks of the present and our many blunders

    by SocioSam on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM PST

  •  WTF votes McCain? (0+ / 0-)

    Whatever you think of Hillary, you can just not vote or write in somebody else.

    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

    by theran on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM PST

  •  You forgot "Pie". (n/t) (0+ / 0-)
  •  it's truly amazing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FleetAdmiralJ, Abra Crabcakeya

    how many Kossacks have clicked on McCain.

    "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and 100 years in Iraq, just to show the Clintons who's boss.  What a joke.  As if anything the Clintons could do would be worse than giving the guys at the helm now another four years to fuck us harder.

    Unreal.  At my reading of this poll, with 147 votes, we have 76 people either voting McCain or not voting, and only 71 voting the Dem ticket.

    What a disappointing sampling.

    by kate mckinnon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM PST

    •  It's the old liberal principle (0+ / 0-)

      it's better to lose than to win.

      I forget who here I picked up that phrase from, but over and over and over they seem to prove it right.

      •  That's not a liberal principle (0+ / 0-)

        Its a leftist principle.  This is an important point.  Liberals want to keep the current system in place by buying people off.  Leftists think the system is structurally unjust. Thus, there are indeed times it is better to lose than to win.  Kerry is a case in point.  Thank god he didn't win.  If there is a realign afoot in this country, it is solely because his lose allowed for four more years of the Republicans stewing in their own juices.

        To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind.

        by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so i see (0+ / 0-)

          that you are a "its better to lose than to win" person.

          •  I don't see things in these sort of binary terms (0+ / 0-)

            I have my own political objective which the Democratic platfrom is but shadow of.  If I conclude that in this case, more of the Clintons is bad for the political left in this country--which I lean toward--I conclude they should lose.

            To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind.

            by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course (0+ / 0-)

              If I conclude that in this case, more of the Clintons is bad for the political left

              since I generally see as "the political left" as a bunch of people who want to impose excessive government regulations on things, are whiny, and can't be trusted as a member in a democratic coalition (quick to stab it in the back if it does anything they don't like), then I'm not too sad about that.

              If they wished to work with moderates to help the party, then great.  They've made clear they're more interested in running moderates out of the party and taking it over for themselves.  And then they complain when the moderates in the party diss them.  And, frankly, democratic moderates think that the Democratic Party can pick up more votes from the middle than the left anyway - especially since pandering to the left won't guarantee that the left will vote for them anyway.

              •  well, I'm not interest in debating electoral (0+ / 0-)

                strategy.  That gets way too play in my opinion, in these parts.  As a leftist, the Democratic party doesn't do me a lot of good if it ends no supporting leftist objectives.  Of course, a lot of people throw the Iraq War around if you question the wisdom of always voting democratic, but its not like voting for the center-left party gaurantees protection from idiotic foreign policy moves, e.g. Vietnam.  

                To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind.

                by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:54:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is a very ambitious guy (0+ / 0-)

    and I have no doubt part of the reason he got a lot of public endorsements from big name insiders is because he wants the option of pushing Hillary into a corner and force her to put him on the ticket.

    As a Hillary supporter, I have concerns about Obama being on the ticket because I think he might act like Edwards did in 2004 and look out for his own interests rather than that of the team.  I think Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden would be the best qualified.  Howard Dean would be a good choice to appease the left.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:07:25 PM PST

  •  Bloomberg/Obama (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'd love a Bloomberg/Obama ticket.

    I don't understand why people think we should automatically vote Dem. Bloomberg is just as liberal as Hillary, and he's not nearly as unlikable (and by the way, I never found Hillary unlikable until I saw the way she ran this campaign).

    Obama would be a lot more respected in a Bloomberg administration, I think. You know Bill would be running all over shit if Obama had to serve under Hillary.

    If Bloomberg were in the race, I'd vote for him over Hillary and I know many other Democrats feel the same way.

    •  Um (0+ / 0-)

      because this is a democratic blog whose purpose is to elect democrats?

      •  Bloomberg is a Democrat... (0+ / 0-)

        ...regardless of his current title.

        Also, I don't just blindly support someone despite their atrocities. That's what Republicans do.

        I'm a hardcore Dem and never would've considered not voting for a Dem before. However, looking at Bloomberg, he's just as much of a Democrat as Clinton is. If you have can show me any big differences on their positions, I'd love to hear them.

        •  Since I don't know (0+ / 0-)

          any of Bloomburg's positions, I can't really.  However, Hillary's liberal rating in the congress is pretty good by most measures that I've seen.

          And didn't Bloomberg run as a republican? (Yes, I know that NYC republicans are a different animal, but still)

          •  If I'm not mistaken... (0+ / 0-)

            ...he was a lifelong Democrat who only switched his affiliation to Republican to make it in the mayor races (I don't really know the details on this. I think it's because the Democratic field was crowded). He's liberal on most issues, including being even more liberal on issues like gay rights (he's for gay marriage).

            As for Clinton, I know she's pretty liberal, but if I can have the same thing without all the bullshit, I'll take it without the bullshit.

        •  He is a (0+ / 0-)

          Wildly conservative guy on many issues. He's got some nice liberal stands. But don't forget the rest of his stands.

          He is strongly anti-union. His company is anti-union and as mayor he has used his power to discourage and bust up unions. He is strongly pro-"free trade", he is very lobbyist friendly, he supports a whole variety of things that are wildly in favor of giant corporations and against ordinary people.  

          And besides there is the money thing. If Bloomberg spends 1 billion dollars of his own money to win the White House and is successful what kind of standard does that set? To people around the world, the American presidency will just be something that can be bought. To those little boys and girls (which I am one, I am 14) who aspire to greater things, what kind of message will that send? It will send the message that only extremely wealthy people can become president.

          Bloomberg campaigns for the worst kind of politicians like Joe Lieberman and Tom Davis. He campaigned for Bush.

          Hillary Clinton will get us out of Iraq faster then Bloomberg. And those soldiers who die because Bloomberg keeps us in Iraq won't care about likability.

          Let me be clear. I am strongly for Obama. He is the first political canidate who I have seen speak, the first political canidate who I have supporter, the first political canidate for just about everything. I have again and again written passionately in favor of him. I am disgusted by Hillary Clinton and I think she is a horrible influence for our party. However I would beg you to think again. Hillary Clinton is far more liberal then Bloomberg. She would make a far better president. I dislike her. However I would BEG you to vote for my future. Please vote for Hillary Clinton if she is our party's canidate. And please join me in fighting for Obama so we don't need to make a that choice.

  •  Obama would be stupid to take VP... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but he must support Hillary for his chances in later elections. Why would you want the Hillary taint, like stated above? Like I said from the beginning, it's Evan Bayh, she won't offer VP to him at this point. If HRC loses the general election, Obama can run again in 4 years and he'll be a shoe-in to win the whole thing. If HRC wins Obama can run for Governor in 2010 and have executive experience for 2016 vs. JEB Bush. I still think Obama can win the primary though, California is going to be key.

  •  why is this his "only shot"? Any evidence? (0+ / 0-)

    Any analysis?  What makes you say this may be his only shot?  He is quite young.

  •  Clinton would likely choose Clark as VP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He endorsed her and has been campaigning for her.  He has close ties to Clintons.  He would help in the south and west, and his background is perfect to be her running mate.

  •  Clinton's VP slot is worthless (0+ / 0-)

    HRC will make Bill her right hand and freeze out her VP the way that the Clintons froze out Al Gore.  

    Bush and Cheney are a team.  Hillary and Bill are a team.  Hillary and her VP will NOT be a team.  I think it would deeply upset Obama to be the third wheel in this situation. Obama is better off staying in the senate and running for president again later.  HRC might do best with someone like Bill Richardson, who can she send off on foreign trips to help improve our image in the world, while Bill Clinton serves as her unofficial VP.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site