Negotiating with Hillary. Where do you stand ?

Seems the talking heads all think Hillary is staying in the race to win (just in case the Earth opens and swallows Obama whole) or to maintain a position of power if she loses.

We're hearing a lot of chatter about Hillary as potential VP and Obama helping her to retire her debt.  There are other options out there as well.  I'm interested in discussing some of those.

Personally, I can't picture Hillary as a net-productive VP, for a variety of reasons.  Most of those are rooted in the concept that HillandBill as VP would turn Obama's presidency into a drama-laden media circus with Obama as chief cat herder.  Obama runs a disciplined organization, he's already fully aware of the toll distractions take on goal achievement.

I think it makes sense to help her with fundraising so she can retire her debt.  That would bring the good will of her supporters while opening the space for her to vigorously campaign in his favor.

I also think it would be a good thing to negotiate some of the policy differences between the two.  It seems a number of experts think Hillary's health care proposal is stronger than Obamas.  That's something she obviously cares about very deeply, she's had that mission for a long time.  Even though I think it would be a financial disaster for me personally (self employed, single, cancer survivor and barely squeaking by without a mandate to make me pay for something that probably won't offer useful coverage) I can see that for the country as a whole mandated health care is probably for the best, even if some of us will have to struggle a little harder while it settles out.

A lot of voters seem to feel Hillary is stronger on the economy.  I'm not sure exactly why they feel that way, unless they're nostalgic for the booming days of Bill.  Whatever the reason, she's got something that's resonating with people and it might be valuable to incorporate that into Obama's policy decisions.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

•  tip jar

  Hillary's speech wasn't bad, considering the premise was based in fiction.

  by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:55 PM PDT

  •  what

    speech?

    by ratador on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:26 PM PDT

    •  Her victory speech in WV.

      by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:02 PM PDT

  •  Hillary as VP? Two words

    Manchurian candidate.

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:39 PM PDT

    •  Angela Lansbury would be great casting

      in the Hillary bio-pic.

      by crankyinNYC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM PDT

•  To be perfectly honest

  if it were up to me the only negotiating I'd want to do with Hillary (I'm having a hard time writing Hillary because to myself I've been calling her Smellary for about a month), is (to use my grampa's standard phrase) "give her a swift kick in the ass".

  I don't want to help her (with her 100 million) pay off her (narcissistically incurred) debt.  I don't want to pretend that a race baiting liar is someone we need that badly in our party.

  by Urizen on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:42 PM PDT

  •  Why make it worse?

    While I agree with the essense of your position, the tone leaves much to be desired. I feel you are personalizing the whole thing too much. Yes, it is important to care, emote, get involved, be the flame. But it can go too far. Such sentiments as you are expressing will do nothing to heal wounds and recapture alienated voters. even if most will support Obama in the fall, some might just be put off by the chorus of angry rhetoric, toned down as it is. There is a larger picture. Trust that the Obama campaign is not staffed with rubes. It's time to take a deep breath, step back and see the forest...

    by Enterik on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:27 PM PDT

    •  I trust Obama's management skills.

      Frankly, I put this one out there because I'm tired of seeing the same meager options as if they're the only ones available.  

      I like thinking things through before they happen, no better place to get food for thought than here on Dkos.

      by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:19 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough...

        ...but consider that vocal and motivated Clinton partisans also lurk about these pages. A win is so much better when you take the high road...

        by Enterik on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM PDT

        •  I hate it when people appeal

          to my Inner Buddha  :-)

          Yes, you're right.  All I can say is you'd be surprised at how much down-toning editing went into it before I hit 'publish'.

          I'm working on it.

          by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:55:58 PM PDT

          •  I still yell at the TeeVees...

            ...truely most of my dsitemper is directed towards the media that have happily protracted the notion that this primary is somehow a dead heat, even so, I am determined to focus on benefits of Clinton's candidacy, difficult as that may be...

            by Enterik on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM PDT

    •  that's the sentiment you engender when

      you decide to burn down bridges like Hillary has done. She's reaping what she's sown. She can go pound salt for all I care. I'd like to see her run out of the Democratic Party on a rail.

      by elmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:28 PM PDT

      •  Of course she can...

        ...but it need not be said. Actions speak. Paying off debts will gain no traction. Clinton VP will gain no traction. Most of these rumors are media generated to fill air time anyways. I don't think any potential advantage should taken for granted in order to sate ones sense of righteous indignation. Look at it this way, not nearly as many people would have invested in the Democratic Party Primary process without the formidable, regardless of whatever else you think of it, candidacy of Clinton. Those are activated voters who must remain active. The General Election will not be a cake walk and those who think otherwise should remember the lessons of 2000 and 2004. No advantage should be squandered, don't let them get close enough to steal it, to do so is hubris...

        by Enterik on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:58:08 PM PDT

    •  Know what?

      I'm not afraid.  I believe Barack will be able to get his message across to a majority of the american people.  I don't think he has to anything he isn't already doing.  I don't think he has to pretend HRC represents anything like the political ideals he stands for.  I think he'll do fine.  I don't think he needs to pander to Hillary's voters.  If their smart they'll vote for him.  If they're idiots they'll vote for McClown.

      by Urizen on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM PDT

      •  Why shave a margin?

        Certainly some percentage of Clinton voters can be forced into voting for McCain be continued withering rhetoric of Obama partisans. Given how close things were in 2000 and 2004 when the should not have been and casual discarding of potential voters seems wreckless.

        You can be right or you can be happy. And if you find righteous indignation too powerful an addiction, why not start taking hits off of McCain?

        by Enterik on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:12 PM PDT

        •  I don't think this will anything like close

          Our candidates in 2000 and 2004 were unappealing to large portions of the electorate.  In addition to that they ran weak campaigns.  

          Barack is very appealing to large portions of the electorate.  We've seen that he runs a very strong campaign.  In addition to that his opposition is pathetic.  McClown only gets about 70% in these primaries even though he's already won.  His friends don't even like him.

          by Urizen on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:56 PM PDT

  •  he he he

    Me too, a week ago.  I'm still very disappointed with Hillary, and her Obliterator stance horrified me.  But that doesn't change facts, and facts are, Obama is going to be negotiating with Hillary in some way.

    I'll not contribute to paying off her debts, that's no reason her supporters shouldn't be facilitated in doing so once she steps (or is dragged) out of the race.

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:34 PM PDT

    •  He's a better man than I

      And if he helps people who want to give her their money, fine by me.

      But I don't want to hear about how she's earned a place on the ticket or anything like that.  She lost, it's time for her to go.  She'll get to give a speech at the convention and bask in that glory for awhile, but she'd better start getting used to being an also ran.  That's what she is (and a graceless one at that).

      by Urizen on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:18 PM PDT

  •  "We don't negotiate with the enemy"

    or something....

    There is nothing to negotiate.  She will support Obama or not, depending on what she wills.  

    Her Rovian attacks, moving the goalposts, and support for McCain put her in the camp where negotiations should be out of the question.  

    She (and Bill) made her own bed, now let her lie in it.  

    by JimPortlandOR on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM PDT

    •  "Not one penny for tribute," as the quote goes.

      by khereva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM PDT

•  Just a quick correction...

  I know you can edit poll options, and this might have been a typo rather than deliberate phrasing, but it should be "Democratic candidate" rather than "democrat candidate."

  No need to adopt Rove-speak for our party.

  by Angry Mouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, I meant cannot edit polls. nt

    by Angry Mouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM PDT

  •  oh, damn!

    Yes, that was a typo.  And I just tried to edit it, it wouldn't let me edit the poll.

    My appologies, no offense intended.

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM PDT

    •  No worries.

      Every now and then I see it, and I always want to make sure it's a typo and not a Democrat who has fallen victim to Rovian subliminal messages.

      No offense taken.

      by Angry Mouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

•  totally don't agree about the mandated healthcare

  unless Hill wants to pay my tsudent loans.

  Seriously, I will literally be Homeless.  So, yeah, I'm not going to vote to be homeless.

  by erin r on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:41 PM PDT

  •  Well, she claims it would be affordable

    for everyone.  I'm not sure about that either, and business is really tough right now.  I guess if it came down to it I could take a roommate or find a husband.  :-)

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:05 PM PDT

    •  she also claimed she was under sniper fire

      She promised a gas tax holiday that she knew she could never deliver. She voted for legislation authorizing military force and later claimed she only meant to authorize dipolomacy.

      Look, she'll say anything to get elected, and turn around and knife anyone in the back if she thinks it's in her political advantage. We simply cannot afford to have someone like this anywhere near the White House.

      by elmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:31 PM PDT

    •  I already have a husband and we Will be Homeless

      if she wins

      So, I can't vote for that.

      by erin r on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM PDT

      •  Uff.

        Sorry to hear that, Erin.  

        We'll make it, regardless.  I think things are going to get tougher before it eases up.  I take heart in thinking about the Great Depression, and Germany during the wars.  My parents and grandparents survived severe hardship; it can be managed.

        I'm already seriously rethinking my idea of 'necessary' and luxury, makes it easier to gain perspective as I consider where to trim the fat.

        Best fortune to you!

        by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM PDT

•  Negotiating:

  I cannot stand the thought of Clinton as VP. You don't run for change by bringing the Clintons along. I intend to express this opinion in writing to the Obama campaign.

  I totally support paying off her debt--especially since it won't be my money doing it. Obama would have to raise money specifically for her to pay it off, and I don't see why his big dollar donors wouldn't do that. It would help unite the party, it would keep everyone engaged, and it would help neutralize the VP talk.

  I would also support him adopting her healthcare plan, though I'd have preferred he did that with Edwards the day Edwards dropped out. But whatever, if it will help with Clinton supporters, I'm all for it.

  As for your poll, I answered "other" because my top two reasons for supporting Obama aren't on the list: 1. no vote for war in Iraq, and 2. he's a serious intellectual, and I'm STARVED for that in our government.

  by vancookie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if there's precedent

    for the candidates all getting together after the nominee has been decided and working together to mingle the greatest bits of their individual policies into one superior product?  That would be a great use of resources for the good of the party.

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM PDT

•  with my back tunred in her direction

  if stand in her presence I must.  The tenor of her campaign has been simply unacceptable.

  Ne negotiations.  Give her room to withdraw on her own.  Only then offer to do a major fundraiser for her, but that's it.  

  Oh, and I won't contribute anything towards that fundraiser.  They should not get their 11 mill back if they can't raise it on their own.  But the small vendors and the lesser staff (not the Wolfsons, Penns and Singers) should all get full pay.

  by teacherken on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

  •  you'd turn your back on her?

    You have a lot more confidence in her than I've got. Or that Obama should have.

    by alizard on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:21 PM PDT

•  I voted other

  I like Obama because he talks about the subtleties of the issues we are dealing with.  I give huge points for intellectual honesty.

  by Mickey Thunder on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM PDT

  •  ah! You said it!

    That's what I was groping for with 'he'll bringing out the best in us as a country."

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM PDT

•  Would Clinton be a Cheney?

  My feeling is that yes, she'd try to be in charge like a certain Mr. Cheney.  I want a VP this time around who shows up at state functions, looks good in the background and DOESN'T MAKE DECISIONS.  

  by ssmt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:53:52 PM PDT

  •  The right VP can be a huge asset.

    Even Cheney was an asset for Bush.  They needed one brain between the two of 'em, otherwise Bush would probably have been impeached long ago.  

    by britta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM PDT

•  Community Organizer! Grass roots builder! et al

  From the 1 May edition of The Nation:
  >http://www.thenation.com/...

  Lost in the media brouhaha are the facts about what the Woods Fund actually does, why it attracted someone like Obama and how Ayers came to be on its board. This story is less sexy than the current gotcha games, but the composition of the organization and its commitment to community organizing tell us a lot more about Obama than mischaracterizations of his association with Ayers. As Michelle Obama once put it, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change."

  The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago's economically depressed South Side. Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd, and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago, Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals. (Obama also served on the board of the larger Joyce Foundation, which specialized in environmental conservation, welfare reform and education.) "Community organizing was a central priority of this foundation, so more and more we drew him in," says Rudd, who retired in 2000.

  "The fact that we were one of the few foundations that funded grassroots community organizing appealed to him," says Deborah Harrington, a veteran of Illinois government who joined the fund in 1999 and took over as president in 2006. "Being on the board kept Obama grounded and gave him a pulse of what was happening at the grassroots level."

  Established by Nebraska businessmen in 1941, with a current endowment of $68 million and annual grants totaling $3 million--a tiny figure in the foundation world--the Woods Fund has taken risks that larger foundations can't. It awards hundreds of small grants a year, usually no larger than $50,000, to activists, neighborhood groups, think tanks, and arts and culture projects in Chicago's most-forgotten and blighted communities. It has funded ex-offenders to lobby for the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences and unfair drug laws, organized senior citizens to advocate for affordable housing, pushed parents to get more involved in their children's crumbling schools. The fund has linked public policy groups with community organizers--wonks with activists--a particular interest of Obama's. "The grants are small, but the impact is significant," says Jesus Garcia, vice chair of the board and the first Mexican-American elected to the Illinois senate.

  In the late 1980s and early '90s, the Woods Fund was at the forefront of the movement to reform Chicago's public schools, stressing the need for more local control and community involvement. That focus on education led the fund to Ayers, a tenured professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a widely published expert on the subject. "The foundation had a special interest in the Chicago public schools, and Bill's specialty is teaching teachers," Rudd explains. "He had built a great reputation in that field." Ayers joined the board in 1999, serving as chair for two years and overlapping with Obama until 2002, when Obama left to run for the US Senate.

  In 2006 Laura Washington, a DePaul University professor of humanities and a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, took over as chair. "Bill has been painted in the media as a cardboard caricature of a guy who threw bombs," she says. "That's not the Bill I know, and that's not the Bill I ever knew. He has changed his life, built on the lessons of the '60s and become a civic leader in this city." Indeed, after the ABC News debate, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley--hardly a radical leftist--put out a statement calling Ayers a "nationally recognized distinguished professor of education" and "a valued member of the Chicago community." Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago, said the Washington Post on April 18. Ayers/Obama Connection Brings 'So What?' Reaction in Chicago Media, said Editor & Publisher.

  Today Woods's eight-member board includes three academics, a civic leader, a former Illinois state senator and executives from the BP oil company, UBS investment bank and Sahara Enterprises. Former board members include R. Eden Martin (1996-2004), attorney for the law firm Sidley Austin and president of the Commercial Club, Chicago's most prestigious business group. "The board is comprised of a very representative group of Chicago civic leaders," says Adele Simmons, of Chicago, a former president of the MacArthur Foundation.

  Because of its small size and local focus, Woods enjoyed relative anonymity until this year's presidential campaign. Its grants were about community empowerment, social change and elevating marginalized voices, not political grandstanding. "They invest in giving poor and working people a voice in how their city runs," says Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change, in Washington (and Nation editorial board member). "I don't know how much more apple pie you can get."

  by phillybluesfan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:39 PM PDT

•  Other: understands the importance of restoring

  Constitutional government.

  by khereva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM PDT

•  Don't worry about it - it's the Bargaining phase

  Don't worry about it. This is all going exactly according to plan (heh heh heh). Seriously though, she and her followers are in the five stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Positioning herself to be a VP is part of bargaining. Obama needs to stand fast and weather it out. They'll move onto depression, then acceptance. This will all be over soon.

  A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

  by tmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM PDT

•  For me

  2, 4, 5 and 6.  I voted for 6.

  by onanyes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM PDT

•  There isn't much to negoitate, that I can see

  Hillary as VP can't happen.  It goes against Obama's whole message of change and moving on from the old style of politics, which her campaign has greatly resembled thus far.  Add to that, I don't see her strong personality playing a back seat role very well.  There are so many other good candidates, which are less divisive.

  Beyond that, what sort of goal would negoitiating accomplish?  I suppose maybe working with her on a future health care bill and trying to help with her debts.

  by Skellen on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM PDT

•  What can you do with *almost* enough delegates?

  Even though Clinton has lost, she still controls very nearly 50% of the delegates.

  Suppose she makes a list of demands that the party and/or Obama must fullfill in order to win her cooperation in the general election. Suppose further that Obama refuses to accept her as a running mate.

  What else are her delegates good for? What else can she demand?

  I'm curious. I really have no idea.

  by Positronicus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:45:07 PM PDT

•  What is there to negotiate?

  I have posted this many times: when I was on the losing side of a primary fight, I and my fellows knew we had lost, so in the spirit of good sportmanship and because in every case the Democratic nominee was better than the Republican, we folded our tents and supported the nominee. Why is it suddenly the case that Clinton supporters need to be treated like spoiled children who must be cajoled into supporting the nominee, Obama, otherwise they will take their toys and go home?

  by crankyinNYC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:09:06 PM PDT