Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 22, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


Truthdig Bazaar
The Mass Destruction of Iraq

The Mass Destruction of Iraq

William Rivers Pitt (Author), Dahr Jamail (Author)

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

CNN: Clinton Camp Approaching Team Obama About VP Post

Posted on May 23, 2008
Clinton / Brian Wozniak

It might be hard to imagine, given the tensions and free-flying barbs between them in recent months, but Sen. Hillary Clinton may be angling to become Barack Obama’s running mate should he clinch the Democratic presidential nomination this summer.

The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may include joining the Illinois senator’s ticket, CNN reported. Talks are in a “very preliminary’’ stage and are described as “difficult,’’ the network said.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By cyrena, May 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment


I agree. I specifically agree with the idea that Obama does NOT appear to be suicidal,(like why would he shoot himself in the head, or otherwise agree to partake in the Russian Roulette?) no matter how much Rodham may wish that. 

She’s already put all of the nails in her own coffin. If she still got some left over (nails) she can eat ‘em.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 25, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The current price of oil is a crime against the American people, we need to use our reserves two years ago.”

Actually the price of oil and gas is lower in the United States then it is in Europe, Asia, and Canada.

The “Oil reserve” contains enough oil (at current use levels) to last us about 2 weeks.

AND although I despise the Bush administration, they have almost NOTHING to do with the current price of gas at the pump.

Two things they might try to bring the price down;

End futures speculation on oil, natural gas, and polymer products.  If this had been done last August, the price of fuel would be (by most professional estimates) 20% lower.

Mexico has the largest proven oil deposits on the North American continent, but it is pumping at less that 55% capacity.  This is due to pathetically poor investment in modernization of equipment. and a byzantine process of getting product to market.  It also doesn’t help that our relationship with the Mexican Government is poor.  Bush has no chance of changing any of this, BUT maybe a new administration can work with Mexico (and Canada) to insure more fuel is available. 

BUT this only gives us (yet another of many) a bit of time to work on reducing dependence on oil, and developing alternatives.

If you want to see how that is accomplished see how they are doing it in Germany!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Re Maani:

Your quote: “Actually, for all the “kitchen sink” talk, and the in-the-moment-stated animosity between the two camps and their supporters, an Obama-Clinton ticket makes alot of sense for both of them, and would be almost unquestionably unbeatable in November.”

> That’s just more pandering Maani.  She begged, borrowed, stole and cried in an attempt to adhere her name to the ticket.  Your CLAIM that it makes “a lot of sense for both of them” is MORE pandering from the Clinton campaign.  It makes NO SENSE for Obama to shoot himself in head, but it sure would help out Clinton wouldn’t it..? 

>There is nothing in this long campaign season which has led anyone to entertain the notion that Clinton is a democrat, other than her adulterated assertions. “Dream Ticket”.....Please….

From Huffpo:

“The Clintons’ now plaintive cries of “it’s not over by a long shot”, “every state deserves a voice” and “we’re doing this for the good of the party” are insulting. The Clintons do everything and anything for one purpose only—to keep a Clinton in power.

And they are not going to let someone less seasoned take what is “rightfully theirs.” He hasn’t yet “paid his dues.” It’s “not his time.” She did her time as an educated and ambitious woman at “the back of the bus.” He should sit quietly in the rear and respect the nice lady up front.”

>Clinton is dangerous to America.  Her constant, consistent and perverse “it’s just politics” supposition undermines the security of the situation at hand for this country.  In a time where blatant corruption is the norm and various factions have tried to hijack American politics, Clinton is playing Russian roulette.

All this leads one to one blatant fact.  And that is, Clinton is not about mending what has been injured, but is about creating and inflicting more of the same.  She’s played the race card, the religious card, the gender card, the experience card, the “obliterate” card and the sympathy card.  She has attempted to derail the democratic party and institute a fictitious reality.  How is it that one can “obliterate” human beings and still be democratic….?

By her own actions she has proven herself to be a liar, a cheat and a warmonger.  So…. while it isn’t surprising someone of this low moral certitude would attempt to be “chosen” for VP using their own vitriol and rhetoric, it certainly is shameful.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 24, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Kennedy was her hero?

Doubtful as her “landing under fire in Bosnia” claim.

She was in her youth a Republican, and did not change her party affiliation until shortly before her marriage to Bill.


The way I see that video (and I’m older than The business shill) She was making the point that things (like an assassination) happen during a campaign, and (ever the opportunist) she (in the likelihood of an “event”) will not be denied the nomination on a technicality.

Richard Bigelow, your view is not particularly invalid, I can see how you might arrive at your position. Having the same facts as you, I have gotten a different view. I doubt sincerely either view depends greatly on maturity.

Report this

By Richard Bigelow, May 24, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I had fortgotten why I don’t usually bother to read responses to news stories, but you people have reminded me.  What incredible drival!  First of all, Hillary was making reference to the fact that, along with her husband, RFK won his nomination in June on the night he was assasinated.  She was giving this as a motivation for her staying in the race at least until June.  If you look at the transcripts or watch the video, there was no implication that her reference was to Obama possibly being assasinated.  RFK was a hero to her (as he was to many of us who are in their ‘60’s)and she was merely making the point that it took him until June to get to the point where the nomination was almost in his grasp. 

A lot of you need to grow up and face the fact that presidential politics demand that candidates do some pretty stupid things, ie, drinking beer and bowling.  These two people are colleagues in the Senate and are extraordinarily qualified to be president.  If the Republican primary rules were the same as the Democrat’s, you would see the same thing going on, with possibly three candidates still in the running.  The difference is that Republicans don’t want dialog on the issues- Democrats do and we are getting it when the media does their job (which is almost never).  If any one of you is stupid and childish enough to even consider voting for McCain because their candidate isn’t the Democratic nominee, then there is no hope for you OR this country.  This isn’t American Idol, which seems to be more important to the current generation than who becomes their president.  It should not be a popularity contest.  I want my president to be the smartest person in the room (for a change) and with EITHER Obama or Hillary we have that oppportunity.  Look at the stiffs the Republicans put up-  did any of them come close to Hillary or Barack in being qualified to lead this country?  What we have here is an embarrassment of riches and you morons who insist on taking your ball home if your person doesn’t win the nomination will get exactly what you deserve- McCain (Bush Light).  Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.  Grow up.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 24, 2008 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Excerpts from the article i mentioned:

There are plenty of examples, including the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980, of bitter rivals turning themselves into successful allies.

The trouble with this argument is that it overstates the benefits of an Obama-Clinton partnership and understates the costs.

The Democratic Party has plenty of people who have more genuine appeal to the white working classes than a faux populist such as the Wellesley- and Yale-educated former first lady.

The dream ticket would also be a formula for a dysfunctional administration. It is hard to imagine Mrs Clinton contenting herself with a purely symbolic role, any more than Dick Cheney has.

Team Clinton is full of people who have made it clear that they regard the Obamaites as uppity whippersnappers.

Does America really want the vice-president’s office to become—or rather remain—a rival power centre to the Oval Office? That could mean going back to the 1990s, when the White House was consumed by palace intrigue between rival factions, each determined to advance their own agendas and do down their rivals. The presidency is difficult enough to run at the best of times, without installing a former first lady and an ex-president in the vice-president’s residence.

But putting Mrs Clinton on the ticket would produce few benefits that could not be replicated with a carefully chosen alternative vice-president. And at worst it could lay the foundations of a failed presidency.

And i think it’s free…

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 24, 2008 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Obama needs to cut the un-Billical cord which connects Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

It will take Obama 2 years to reappoint a new government without ties to the old.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 24, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

I saw Senator Obama on CSPAN down in Florida. It was typical political pandering to the free Cuba crowd. He did say he wanted the exiles to be able to visit their relatives on the home island. He also said he would keep the embargo in place. He then went on to talk about South America, attacking Hugo Chavez and every country in that America who have had enough of United States interference, and have decided to tell the US to drop dead. He then had the temerity to call for Cuba to release it’s political prisoners. That is rich, considering the little camp the United States runs on the other side of the island.
No, you can not say Obama is liberal on foreign policy. Far from it. Like the liberal myth of the two dead Kennedys, people seem to project their perceptions on the candidate, that honestly, does not really exist.
So for me, it is a generational issue to support Senator Obama. We of the baby boom have done enough damage. It is time for younger people. Sadly, Barack Obama is the best candidate in a sorrowful, corrupt, political system.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 24, 2008 at 7:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please correct me if I’m wrong, BUT Clinton says she’s staying in the race, because ANYTHING might happen (Like a Kennedy style assassination) and now she’s considering the VP slot???

Obama needs a Flack jacket unless he wants to wind up like Kenny on South Park!

I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past those Clinton’s

Report this

By Jaded Prole, May 24, 2008 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

He’ll probably choose Biden or Dodd. He needs someone with the experience he lacks that has a good record.  Clinton has too much baggage and has garnered more animosity than any candidate in history.

Report this

By troublesum, May 24, 2008 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

According to the latest Newsweek poll Obama trails McCain by 12% amoung white voters.  42% don’t know what religion Obama belongs to and of that 42%, 11% think he is a Muslim.  This is three months after the Rev. Wright story broke.  His problem with white voters is most significant in the south where 49% of whites scored high on the “racial resentmets” profile.  Obama’s lead over McCain has been steadily falling and they are now tied 46-46%.  McCain’s teflon makes Reagan’s look like tin foil.  This is shaping up just like the 2000 and 2004 elections.  Obama will be on the defensive from the get-go; McCain will get a free ride.

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 3:33 am Link to this comment


I don’t think it was Jordan who died on account of Hillary, unless you’re talking about a different Jordan (Vernon) than the one who remains closely associated with them.

It was Vince Foster who allegedly committed suicide as a result of the cut throat politics employed by the Clinton’s (but it would seem to be primarily the ‘boss’ Mrs Clinton) at the time.

As far as I’ve been able to determine, this man actually DID take his own life, and left a note to that affect. HOWEVER, it would appear from the note, (and this is only an ‘interpretation’ of many) that the hard core thuggist gutter political tactics of the then “First Lady” were what drove him to it.

As a regular guy from Arkansas, he just wasn’t equipped to deal with such hard core criminality, or maybe I should say, ‘The Rodham-Clinton Mafia’.

As for Ahmadinejad, he would only have been in his 20’s at the time of the Embassy Hostage Crises in 1979. It’s unlikely that he ‘masterminded’ it, since many students were involved in that. It was their reaction to the hijacking of their own government by the US CIA, many years before that.

The overthow of foreign governments (especially though with such rich resources) is NOT at all unusual for the US/CIA. Actually, it’s a very common occurance. They’ve been doing it for decades.

So, if in fact Ahmadinejad really had anything to do with that, it would be difficult to prove this many decades later. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t TRY, but he would be small fry on the list for Interpol. We’ve got far bigger criminals to meet with at the Hague, before we would get to him, even if such charges could be proven. And yep, most of them are political leaders here in the US.

Kissinger and Rumsfeld already have international warrents out on them, and Cheney, Bush, and a whole slew of others still need to be served.

Meantime, Ahmadinejad might be ‘flamboyant’, controversial, and a whole bunch of other things, but he’s not a pinhead. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He also holds very limited power in the reality of Iranian foreign affairs policy. Unlike the US, there are more than just him, who weigh-in on important decisions. (Here we just have Cheney)

Now you’re right that Edwards or Richardson would both be great choices, except that Edwards has said that he doesn’t want that job at this time. I’m respecting that.

But, there are others…many of them. Chris Dodd would be helpful, and of course I still like Dennis Kucinich, although I’m not certain that he would go along with the agenda either. It just depends.

Now for those who would like to see a female in the spot, there are several of them qualified as well. We only know for a fact, (and a very frightening one) that Hillary is NOT among them. Not even worth a consideration.

The very thought scares me to consider escape routes…

Report this

By Greg Bacon, May 24, 2008 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

We’ve probably all known the drunk that overstays his/her welcome into the next day after the party, hell, i was even there myself a time or two.

To cover that up, i’ll act like a politician here and say: “That was due to my inexperience and youthful exuberance, which I am happy to say, I have sought professional help to cure this horrid disease and with the help of my 3rd wife and my pastor, John HATEe, I am a new man.”

Enough BS in that statement or not?

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 1:55 am Link to this comment

See, this is exactly what I’m talking about..

“...I don’t generally vote major party for president, but i was thinking that i might just give this Obama character a chance…really, the direction of this country can’t get much worse so what the hell.  However, i won’t do it if Sen Clinton is on the ticket…i’ve never voted for a Clinton and i’m not going to start now.”

I understand this perfectly, because I know enough other people (mostly republicans) who feel the very same way. And, they have a right to feel however they want to.

What’s extra despicable, is that another large portion of these folks are, like you jackpine, not ordinarily inclined to vote for EITHER major pary, but they’ve decided the same, and in some cases because it couldn’t get any worse.

But the double despicable is that many of these people have never voted AT ALL, and have never been inclined to become involved in a political process that has never assisted them, in any form or fashion. Why would they even bother?

But Obama has created an inclusive movement that reaches out to these people, to allow them to believe that they might actually have some say in what happens to them, and their communities. They are allowed to believe that they CAN actually make a difference, and that their efforts in helping EACH OTHER toward a common goal, will help them ALL.

It’s not that they’re all STUPID, it’s just that they haven’t seen any point to expending the energy, and most of the time, they are rejected when they try. The ‘no good deed goes unpunished’ syndrome.

So, the most valuable resources that we share, simply wither away from neglect and/or abuse. THAT has changed, and I see it everywhere I go, and in all of the numbers that I crunch, and in all of the people that I speak to.

And of course we know that for the past 6 months or more, the strengths of their beliefs have been constantly threatened, with smear after smear after smear. And they’ve been told to just hang in there, and keep the faith, and stick with the integrity and the goals that matter, because WE -ARE- gonna take our country back, and rebuild this rotten infrastructure, and the rotten government, and make ourselves independent, or at least only dependant on EACH OTHER.

And then…this shit.

Time to have a talk with Sen. Obama, and maybe holler at these Superdelegates a bit. If ever there was a need for these so-called Superdelegates to do their job, it’s NOW.

Meantime, I’m going to try to find this article you referenced in The Economist. I’m not a subscriber but I should be able to get to it with my academic access.

Thanks for the tip.

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 1:29 am Link to this comment

I love it Greg.

And, this drunk doesn’t even have the decency to whine and say…“Oh, do I REALLY have to go home?”

To which my mother would reply, “No, I don’t really care WHERE you go, you just have to leave HERE!”

(of course that was back in her younger days at my own houseparties). smile

Report this

By Greg Bacon, May 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

Shillary reminds me of some drunk that passed out on the lawn at your keg party.

The next morning, when you wake up, you realize two things: One, you’ve got a killer hangover and two, the drunk that passed out on your lawn last night is awake and shaking the keg, trying to get it to pump out some stale beer.

You go outside and explain to the miscreant that the party’s over, time to go home and he replies, slurring his words, “No buddy, it’s time to Rock and Roll” and lets out a loud yell.

Again, you patiently explain that the party was over late last night, please go home.

He replies, “Time to Party Hearty, dude. I’m here for you Bud, so let’s raise some hell and finish off this keg. Yahooooooooo.”

Frustrated at your inability to explain to the drunk that it’s no longer Miller Time, you tell him to keep it quiet, you’re going back inside to sleep some more.

Just as you’re laying down, you hear a loud rebel yell and the sound of someone’s car stereo cranking up AC/DC’s “Hells Bells” loud enough to ratttle your windows.

That drunk is Shillary and she has no plans to leave or show any dignity in the primary race.

She’s too drunk with power to be able to listen to reason.

Report this

By tres, May 23, 2008 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

if she was the VP. A big let down for Obama supporters.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Heh, relax a little, cyrena. It’s not set in stone yet. The super delegates have recently been showing some good decisions by backing Obama. There is an active discussion between the campaign. We don’t know what they are discussing other than unification of the party, but I’m going to keep positive about any situation that may occur.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

I wasn’t aware of this, (about the delegation being able to deny the nominees selection and put forth their own) but it sounds like politics as it works.

So, what you describe here, (if she wants it, they can’t keep her from getting it) is pretty much what I’d already called it…constituency extortion, strong arming, whatever. And, if the delegation forces her on us, it’s the same as asking Obama to commit suicide. Just the thought is psych-ops terror for the rest of us.

Meantime, obviously unconsidered by many, is the baggage that isn’t his, that he would be forced to carry. Her baggage that could very much cost the general election. Most folks seem unwilling, (or too polite) to discuss the widespread hatred for Hillary Clinton that has existed for decades, reasonable or not. For many repugs, (the most vile among them, as well as the most ignorant among them) this is probably the first time in history, (and only because of the Dick Bush Terror Era) that they might actually consider voting outside of their die-hard repug mold. Actually, I know several who have decided to switch, based on the fact that Obama is the likely nominee. Put Hillary on the ticket with him, and they will all move right back over to McCain. (I said they were ignorant)

Now of course this may not concern many democrats, at least if they feel like they can win anyway, and that may be possible. I honestly don’t have enough of a clue to a broader consensus to make a prediction. It’s only something to consider. At the same time, why would Obama (or ANYBODY) want a monkey on their back when there is absolutely NO benefit in it for him? (talk about dying for somebody else’s sins…Jesus Christ has supposedly already done that) There’s no benefit to the US constituency, since there are multiple others who could serve in that position much better. In fact, if he wanted to please more of the people, more of the time, he could even get a Republican like Chuck Hagle. (John Edwards would be best, but he says he doesn’t want it). In other words, the selection for VP is supposed to IMPROVE the odds, not just of winning the election, but doing the job as well. Why would ANY candidate handicap him or herself by bringing somebody else’s garbage in with them? So is Obama supposed to campaign in the GE singing, “She ain’t heavy, she’s my sister?” Please. And then what? A few months later, Hillary pit-bulls him, and stands there while he’s bleeding out, singing, “You knew I was a snake when you took me in.”

I can’t take the drama.

And, I don’t wanna hear about how their positions on most issues are basically the same, when their opinions on the most IMPORTANT issues are drastically different. If they were that much the same, Barack Obama could have waited to run for that office, if he ever did. Obviously HE knew, (as did those who encouraged him to run for the office) that Hillary Clinton was already planning the job for herself. So, if that was so ‘ok’ with everybody, (because of their positions being so much the same) then he wouldn’t have been encouraged to run, or to take up the huge job that it is. It’s not like HE’S the one who’s 60 or 72 years old. So, the only reason he’s running (NOW) is BECAUSE of the urgency of the moment, and the fact that old politics as they are done in the Bush-Clinton-Bush style, aren’t gonna cut it. Hillary is 20th Century old-style back-stabbing dirt-slinging politics. Obama is in the current Century, and trying to catch the rest of us up, and leave the gun slinging behind. And, the only way that’s gonna happen is with a “Clean Break”. (no pun intended)

So, I guess I’ll go study my torture law some, since it surely can’t be any more depressing than contemplating this.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Ah, the old LBJ…force your political enemy to make you VP and then wait for the lone gunman to do the dirty work.

I don’t generally vote major party for president, but i was thinking that i might just give this Obama character a chance…really, the direction of this country can’t get much worse so what the hell.  However, i won’t do it if Sen Clinton is on the ticket…i’ve never voted for a Clinton and i’m not going to start now.

By the way, The Economist looked at this scenario this week and takes it apart for all of the salient reasons. will have it, but i’m not sure if you have to be a subscriber to read Lexington on-line.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

Manni, she won’t be offered the VP position, but if she wants it no one can do anything to keep it from her grasp. It’s just the way the convention works. Thing about the delegation is, Obama has the right to pick his VP, but the delegation has the right, like faithless delegates in the electoral college, to deny his pick and put forth their own vice president.

That’s the way it works, as I understand it anyway.

Report this

By troublesum, May 23, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

This is a great idea.  If they win it will be 4 years of great entertainment.  Obama will have to stop shaving his head so he won’t have an unfair advantage over her in a hair-pull.

Report this

By Maani, May 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

Holy Cow!  Aegrus and psmealey actually accepting this as a possibility?!  LOL.

Actually, for all the “kitchen sink” talk, and the in-the-moment-stated animosity between the two camps and their supporters, an Obama-Clinton ticket makes alot of sense for both of them, and would be almost unquestionably unbeatable in November.

Re what Hillary would personally bring to the ticket, it is BECAUSE the two of them agree on most of the major issues (with the differences being in details) that she would almost certainly strongly support Obama on his various initiatives.  And she does bring smarts and experience to the table, and once the ticket won against McCain, Obama would, I believe, be quite open to her input on these issues.

As well, while we can argue back and forth about demographics, there is no question that, certainly of late, Hillary has shown that she would help the ticket re both working-class whites and hispanics in areas that Obama has been weak.

Most saliently, though, is that Hillary is nothing if not pragmatic.  If she is offered and takes the VP spot, she would not do anything to harm their chances of winning against McCain since (i) she would still wield considerable power and input as VP, and (ii) it would put her in the incumbent seat in 2012 (in the event that Obama chose not to run for a second term, for whatever reason) or in 2016, when she will still be 10 years younger than McCain is now - and will then have the additional eight years of experience and “gravitas” as VP.

As for Bill, this is a non-issue.  First, even if Hillary was the nominee, she has already made it clear that she wants Bill as far from the White House as she can get him (as “roving ambassador”) - and she, of all people, has good reasons for living up to this.  Second, Bill has the CGI, which keeps him very busy, and will continue to do so.  Thus, it is highly unlikely that Bill would be a “presence” in the White House (or in presidential politics in general) the wasy some people think he would.

Obama-Clinton?  Hey, I support Hillary (in case you didn’t know…LOL), but I would be more strongly behind an Obama-Clinton ticket than an Obama-? ticket, not SOLELY because of my support for Hillary, but because, when all is said and done (and the two camps and candidates “kiss and make up” - which is done in politics ALL THE TIME), an Obama-Clinton ticket would (i) be a sure winner, and (ii) give us not just 8, but likely 16 years of progressive (certainly compared with the GOP) politics, and, if Obama and Clinton are as good as many of think they are, would also guarantee a Democratically-controlled Congress for at least a couple of decades.


Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

Beerdoctor, I really am hoping this is a lie. There is absolutely no reason for the Obama team to even consider such a horrific thought, and I’m taking this as yet another attempt by the Clinton team, (or Rove) to sabatoge his efforts.

And then there’s her talk of assassination? Did you read that? The woman is stark-raving crazy out of her mind. If Obama or anyone on his team suggests this, then that would make them equally crazy, and I just don’t believe that they are.

So, rest for now, like Aegrus suggests. That’s what I have to do….it’s just more than a body can take.

There is only one very far-fetched advantage to a Rodham VP-ship. It would prevent anybody (other than the Clintons) from harming Obama while he’s in office. That’s how GW has been able to guarantee his own safety and not worry about being impeached for his crimes. Until we figured out that we could impeach Cheney first, the mere thought of winding up with Cheney in the first seat was enough to restrain anyone from considering anything like that.

Now of course in real life, in this case…it would never work. Hillary would get to him in a New York minute.

Oh Lord…I can’t take it. Gotta give the computer a rest.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

This is horrible speculating that just might be true. So what is the deal? The Clinton crime family are going to have a sit sit down with the Obama posse? That all the talk about change is nullified when Hillary becomes the VP pit bull?
People who think that way are so hypnotized by pundit double speak they will allow integrity to simply become strategy. Forget about Mrs. Clinton voting to authorize this war. Forget her obliteration of Iran comment.
If Obama puts her on the ticket, there will be many people who will refuse to vote. To let the Clinton crew back in through the back door seems like a cynical betrayal of the whole idea of something new.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

On this….

“...(is there anyone who supports Barack who would NOT vote for him if Hillary is on the ticket?)..”

Sounds like blackmail and extortion to me.

on this…

“The only real question one must answer is “can Hillary be of greater value to the country in the Senate or as Vice President?”

I don’t actually believe this is a real question at all, but let me answer it anyway…

She can be of FAR GREATER VALUE in the SENATE than as a VP, (Obama would need a food tester)if of course the good people of New York are willing to take her back.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, the Associated Press just had a discussion with Hillary Clinton, and she denied any VP discussions. Is she lying or posturing? We can only <u>speculate</u>, but I will refrain from doing so. When they’re good and ready, and real tracks have been laid down, they’ll tell us. Shut the hell up with the speculation. It’s not a damn horse race, though the talking heads would like it to be.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

Louise, I wouldn’t worry about anything, but I do think we should extend our hands to the Hillary camp whenever possible.

Agreed.  I certainly underestimated the emotional investment her supporters made into her.  I honestly thought most Dems saw her as I did, an intensely smart and pragmatic, but very calculating political operative turned Senator.  I was wrong.  For whatever reason, she has galvanized a very passionate and sincere cohort of supporters that are on the bubble right now of being disenfranchised.  I think this is a huge mistake, as McCain’s next two judicial appointments will set women’s reproductive rights back 50 years, but I understand their frustration.

As for the disappointment HRC’s supporters are dealing with, I can sort of relate insofar as remembering what it was like to be a Dean supporter in 2004 (yes I knocked on doors for Dean in Iowa in the bitter cold), to lose Iowa and then have to deal with the media driven humiliation of the endless replays of the Dean Scream.  I know the situations are not analogous, and I was angry at the party for throwing its full get-on-the-bus-or-shut-up support of the wooden John Kerry, but I got in line, and worked for him too.

This time around, full disclosure, I started out supporting Edwards, but it was pretty plain that he was betting the farm on Iowa, and using that to run the table as Kerry had done four years earlier.  Just seemed like a losing strategy even back in October.  Beyond that, he didn’t have much of an agenda past poverty (which is very important, but not all there is).  At that point HRC was my second.

Hillary certainly seemed qualified (if not based on her experience then on her EXCEPTIONAL command of policy), but didn’t inspire me.  Still smarting from her Iraq vote, and remembering “HillaryCare” and “TravelGate”, she seemed very, very vulnerable against any Republican candidate.

So, I started tuning into Obama’s speeches.  I remember being impressed with his keynote speech in 2004, but I suspected that, at his age, he was just running for brand recognition and to surface a few issues.  When I started listening to him more, I could sense that something else entirely was happening.

He was thinking on his feet and speaking in paragraphs.  He was addressing complex issues with appropriate nuance, and speaking very clearly about them,  without resorting to idiotic (and ultimately empty) soundbites.  He was also impressing many of my stalwart Republican friends (yeah, there are a lot around here).  It clear to me that someone that can bring such perspective to our terribly ingrained political culture, and intractable and petty divides is EXACTLY what we need after 8 years of triangulation and equivocation and then another 8 years of pigheaded, incurious empty dogma. 

Hillary… more “electable”?  I don’t know. Maybe.  But if elected, I suspect she’ll have great difficulty governing.  She’ll inherit the same broken system that’s been sputtering along since LBJ was in office, and the only difference is that suitcases of cash from K Street will be going to Democrats instead of Republicans.  Obama may not be the panacea, but in him, I do see the promise of change… of bringing a whole new set of people that can break the current (broken) paradigm and start doing things differently.

Or else, I could just vote for Nader.

Report this

By Richard Bigelow, May 23, 2008 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama and Hillary have voted together at about a 95% rate in the Senate.  Their differences have largely been a creation of their campaigns (and the media) to give voters a clear choice.  They are two of the strongest candidates the Democratic Party has fielded in years and Hillary would be a huge asset in the presidential campaign.  She is tough and articulate and will not let the Republican smear machine go unchallenged as it has in past elections.  She can free Obama to continue his message of hope and change and keep him from having to waste his time answering Republican lies and distortions.  She is a fighter and is just what we need to put these A-holes in their place.  The most important thing this November is electing a Demoratic president and I believe Hillary would be provide a huge boost to even a great candidate like Obama.  It would help to bring the party back together (is there anyone who supports Barack who would NOT vote for him if Hillary is on the ticket?) and would place a highly qualified woman in the highest echelons of his administration- something Obama will probably do anyway. 

Hillary has shown she can be a team player by her performance in Congress.  The only real question one must answer is “can Hillary be of greater value to the country in the Senate or as Vice President?”  Rememember, politics is a rough business.  In the primaries candidates say and do what they feel they must to gain the nomination.  Although I have been uncomfortable at some of Hillary’s recent campaign tactics,  I would love to see her be Barack’s hammer in this upcoming campaign (which I believe will be one of the nastiest in history).

Report this

By David, May 23, 2008 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I know if I just had the kitchen sink thrown at me, I really wouldn’t want the thrower anywhere near me in the future.  And then there’s Bubba…

Report this

By Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

Louise, I wouldn’t worry about anything, but I do think we should extend our hands to the Hillary camp whenever possible. A lot of folks are awfully emotional about this primary season, and the campaign Hillary Clinton ran on isn’t entirely indicative of who she is as a person.

Richardson could be a secretary of state again, but he really doesn’t add anything in the VP spot, but I digress. Try to just let the rumblings and rabble of Hillary surrogates flow under the bridge. They’re going to need some time to lash out.

It’s easy to get caught up int he emotion, but we’ve won. We shouldn’t let anything the other crats say bother us anymore.

Report this

By Odinson, May 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although I have heard a lot of discussion being paid to the issue of ultimately getting a democrat in the White House this November, it seems to me that the Obama/Clinton ticket discussion has been missing the point.  Karl Rove was successful in getting Bush close enough in votes to even allow “Chadgate” to happen by running the numbers.  It was a careful and state-by-state calculation of what was necessary to motivate Republicans to get to the polls.  If democrats are truly interested in winning the White House in November, I believe they must begin evaluating the election from the perspective of what will be necessary to win versus what will make us all feel good.  Mathematics will ultimately rule the day in November, and if an Obama/Clinton ticket realizes the greatest number of votes for the Democratic party, then that is the path that should be pursued.

Report this

By Louise, May 23, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

To many Obama supporters are still smarting from Hillary supporters who love to dig in and dish out the dirt. That’s not the kinda campaign Obama wants, or needs.

Personally I’d like to see Bill Richardson on the ticket. He certainly has the right credentials.

But nobody’s asked me, and probably nobody will, and that’s OK cause it’s not up to me anyway.

It’s up to Obama.

But all the same I think he’s smart enough to know inviting angry folks into the dining room could lead to some nasty food fights! smile

Report this

By Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Why the speculation? Let’s just wait for the dust to settle. Geez. This is a short blurb with nothing substantial saying who is involved. Should any more faith be put in this than the rumor Elizabeth Edwards was for Hillary, and was keeping Edwards from endorsing Barack? It’s all hogwash. They’ve been having discussions for the past week between the campaigns. Scheisse!

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook