Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 20, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar
Cinema by the Bay

Cinema by the Bay

By Sheerly Avni

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Carter to Obama: Stay Away From Clinton

Posted on Jun 4, 2008
Carter Hay Festival / Barry Batchelor

Jimmy Carter insists he would have been equally against a Clinton-Obama pairing, had the former first lady won the nomination.

Former President Jimmy Carter offered Barack Obama some serious campaign advice late Tuesday. He is quoted in an interview to be published Saturday saying that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be “the worst mistake that could be made.” Citing opinion polls that show 50% of U.S. voters with a negative opinion of Clinton, Carter spoke to The Guardian about the barriers Obama already faces in his bid for the presidency, and the additional problems that Clinton as his running mate would bring.

The Guardian:

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

“I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made,” said Carter. “That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates.”

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: “If you take that 50% who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds.”

Read more

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, June 7, 2008 at 3:16 am Link to this comment

Tony Wincher,

Great to hear from you, and I will visit the site for input. Does Obama actually get anything from these posts? I know that was certainly the intent, but I’ve not visited it for a while. You mention this, and I hadn’t really thought of it either.

•  “But he is also trying to restore the civil rights coalition between Jews and African Americans, which as he has said has become frayed in recent years.”

This is something to ponder. I agree that this once strong civil rights coalition between Jews and African Americans has become frayed, and it’s been a concern to me. But in relative terms, it IS recent. So, why is that? We need to know in order for it to be addressed, and I fear that it is in part because of AIPAC and the neo-con/Jewish connection to the atrocities of the Dick Bush regime and Israel, AKA, the Terrorist Twins.

(OK…I got ahead of myself. I just read further and realize that you’ve said the same thing.)

Until very recently, there has been no Jewish American ‘counter’ to AIPAC, but now there seem to be some emerging. Specifically, a newly formed organization of Jewish Americans who plan to provide just that: A counter to AIPAC. It would be helpful for Obama to engage with them.

On this:

•  “…But this lobby has indeed tilted U.S. foreign policy in toward Israel, and it has indeed suppressed criticism of Israel by calling all such critics anti-Semitic,…”

Yes, yes. All true, and especially the part about maintaining a reasonable conversation. If it’s not being called anti-Semantic, it’s being accused of giving Obama a ‘pass’ for allegedly ‘trading with the enemy’, in this case, AIPAC. The neocons and AIPAC call him an appeaser of the ‘other’ and then the anti-AIPACS call him an ‘appeaser’ of THEM! Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!

But, back to your comment. Yes, it’s true that this has been ONE of the ways of suppressing criticism of Israel, (call anyone who does, anti-Semitic). HOWEVER, we need to be aware of the fact that in 40 years, NOBODY has criticized Israel, INCLUDING the International Community, and Israel didn’t just start all of these atrocities!

Who, besides Jimmy Carter, (and not really until after he left office) has EVER criticized Israel? And why have there NEVER been International sanctions or other measures employed against Israel to stop their history of abuse? There are some obvious reasons for that…too long to articulate here. But my point is that public discourse has now been framed to put Obama’s feet to the fire or otherwise deliver him some sort of a MANDATE to correct a 40-year old atrocity that he’s had less than ANY OF THE REST OF THEM to do with CREATING! (Obama didn’t create AIPAC)

So, who’s really getting the ‘free pass’ here? When and how did Hillary Clinton EVER address this, and why wasn’t anybody all over her to do so? When has John McSame EVER addressed this, and why aren’t the ones who are now claiming that they’ll vote for HIM, because SHE didn’t get the nomination, not holding his feet to the fire?

Yes, I agree that Obama has run on a platform of changing things in DC, and hopefully that includes bringing the US in line with the rest of the world, specifically in respect to adhering to the established global order and international treaties and obligations. But does that also make him solely responsible for ‘solving’ the longest international conflict in the history of the world? I also agree that a 2-state solution isn’t going to work at this point, and that’s what his speech seems to suggest he favors. But this argument has been on-going for decades! So, why does HE have to ‘fix it’ - THIS WEEK?

I’m just saying..

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 6, 2008 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Carter is right.  Can’t “change” things with someone like Hillary around. 

She is too much of the “corporation” that has become government.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, June 4, 2008 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

My comment on Obama’s statement to AIPAC is at

I suggest everyone go there and make some more comments. Obama needs some input on this.

Here is my series of posts on the Obama HQ blog:

This speech is does not recognize that there cannot be peace without justice. If Obama’s support for Israel is really as one-sided as this speech, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will not be settled during his administration. Yes, most Palestinians want peace but they will fight to the last gasp. No two-state solution will ever solve the conflict. As a Jewish state, Israel is said to be the national expression of the will of the Jewish people. Therefore one who is not Jewish can possibly feel that he is a full citizen. Only Jews can be full citizens of a Jewish state. Palestinians are supposedly going to be given some sort of a “state” where they can be citizens. All the Jews in the Palestinian area will have to move to Israel, and all the non-Jews living in Israel will have to move to “Palestine” if they want to have real citizenship. That is segregation, nothing else. Our Supreme Court rulled in Brown v Board of Education that separate is not equal. Segregation is inherently unjust. Can Obama really support segregation? How can he oppose black nationalism as divisive and still support Jewish nationalism? Is it not equally divisive?

It’s partly about getting elected. Obama is speaking before AIPAC trying to get the Jewish vote, which is very influential. But he is also trying to restore the civil rights coalition between Jews and African Americans, which as he has said has become frayed in recent years. Unfortunately, there is a reason why it has become frayed, and the reason is Israel, and the fact that the Israeli government and its Jewish American supporters are now on the WRONG side of the civil rights issue. If Obama does not address this fact at some point, he will fail to bring peace to Israel/Palestine and fail in his Middle East policy.

Although I do not agree with Obama’s statement to AIPAC, I continue to be a strong supporter. I believe this is an emotional issue and the way to deal with it is to be as dispassionate as possible. AIPAC is a lobby, that’s for sure. Obama is campaigning as one who is not influenced by lobbies, so why, indeed, should AIPAC be an exception to this rule? It is however not clear to me that AIPAC is more “criminal” than a lot of other lobbies - for oil, pharma, insurance, etc. It has just been highly successful. Jews are good at a lot of things, including lobbying. What else can you say? But this lobby has indeed tilted U.S. foreign policy in toward Israel, and it has indeed suppressed criticism of Israel by calling all such critics anti-Semitic, including those such as myself who do so on genuine human rights grounds. But there are plenty of genuine anti-Semites out there also, which makes the issue very difficult. We have to be very careful with the hate and divisiveness surrounding this issue. We have to be careful that we are part of the solution and not part of the problem. It seems that every time I try to initiate a mature discussion of this issue, some loudmouths on one side or the other start shouting and make rational discussion impossible.

Report this

By i,Q, June 4, 2008 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

By “even handed,” do you mean a president who will continue to assure Israel that we are their greatest ally no matter how it behaves as a nation? Or do you mean a president who will hold Israel to the same standards which we (supposedly) hold ourselves and other “friendly” nuclear nations?

Report this

By paxbob, June 4, 2008 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

As vice president, Hillary would be the train wreck that never ends, the headache that doesn’t go away, the pit bull that never stops biting. Besides, there are better options. Here’s one:

Republicans accuse Obama of being “weak” on national security. An odd accusation, coming from the Republicans. After all, the terrorist attack that started this whole mess took place on the watch of a Republican president. The catalog of Bush’s weakness is well known. He ignored warnings from his predecessor and from the intelligence community about the threat of Osama bin Laden. He preferred instead to focus his energy on the Star Wars missile defense shield. So he did nothing to stop the attacks. Then, once this horrific crime had been committed, primarily by Saudis, he retaliated by attacking Iraq, which had not attacked the United States, had NOTHING to do with 9/11 (as even Bush was finally dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge), and was in no position to attack the United States. And now we’re bogged down in a war without a reason, without an end. It’s sapping the strength of the military, creating thousands of widows and widowers at home and new enemies abroad on a daily basis. So how, compared to this horrendous mess, can Obama be considered “weak” on national security?

Still, that will be the Republican line of attack, and Obama will have to deal with it. My suggestion: Pick Senator Jim Webb of Virginia for vice president. He is a decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam and a former Secretary of the Navy.  He quit that job to protest the Reagan administration’s stupid decision to side with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, one of the many missteps that helped shore up Saddam Hussein. Webb’s resignation was just one illustration of the key thing you need to know about him: He’s a smart strategic thinker. Also, he takes no crap from anyone, least of all the current occupant of the Oval Office. Yeah, yeah, I know: His nine books include novels with some steamy sex scenes, and the Republicans will get all hot and bothered and make some heavy-breathing attack ads about them. Well, as the current occupant infamously said in another context: “Bring it on.” The novels are about a lot more than the sex scenes. They’re about the nation’s recent history. They’re about the Vietnam War, which Webb experienced up close and personal, on the ground, not from several thousand feet in the air, like McCain. Anyway, if you don’t like the novels, don’t read them. Read Webb’s latest book: “A Time to Fight.” It shows his incredible breadth of experience, and his acute understanding of geopolitics. Also, and not incidentally, it shows that he actually studies deeply and reads widely on national security, unlike the current occupant, who reads children’s books, upside down. Webb would be a real asset to Obama on national security. And, as an extra benefit, he’d add an Emmy winner to a ticket that already boasts a Grammy winner at the top. Imagine that, a president and a vice president who not only read, but write intelligent books. What a great change that would be, after eight years of a president who has trouble forming a simple declarative sentence.

Report this

By Louise, June 4, 2008 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment


Excellent point! I hope everyone gets it, because in reality the biggest stumbling block to a fair and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue is Israel’s failure to make that place a TRUE democracy. A democracy where ALL citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity are given the same rights.

In other words, the ONE STATE solution. And while that can in no way erase the discrimination the Palestinians have suffered all these years, or the animosity between the two, it can open a path to the beginning of healing.

So you are correct. We, our president and our government need to stop blocking every effort made by other countries and the UN to bring Israel in line with international law.

How simply and concisely you put it!


Report this

By reason, June 4, 2008 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

I am very happy Barack Obama has been nominated and I am glad to see so many others enjoying his nomination. But, as sleazy as the primary was, I think it was nothing in comparison to what is coming in the general election. It is not wise to underestimate the Washington insider machine. Obama is a fresh wind, “blowing over the city dump” Washington has become, and though he represents relief from the stench that permeates Washington politics, it will take a sustained wind to effect real change.
As a nation of the people, we have the opportunity to re-establish faith in the principles that our country was based on. Obama represents that great hope but hope can only be sustained with faith. Not the blind faith that the Bush Administration demanded but the faith demonstrated by the ideals and principles of our Constitution. Barrack has a tough job in front of him and there will be those who want him to fail but they are the same people who see the “everyday working person” as something less than themselves (the intitled few). Hillary’s great mistake was to start believing her own “bull”. The sad thing about Hillary Clinton is that she is talented and intelligent but uses those traits to support the “status quo”. She does not represent any real change and has demonstrated that in the way she ran her primary campaign. HILLARY CLINTON IS PART OF ROT THAT HAS MADE WASHINGTON SMELL LIKE A CITY DUMP! Hillary Clinton is inconsistent with what Barrack Obama represents.

Report this

By MackTN, June 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Johnson, puhlease.  And tell me, what does the CBC have to do with influencing Obama or anyone else in recent memory? 

Hillary has been putting together her case for some time now, creating a power base that at least puts her at the table.  Obama et al will probably take some time to figure out the new landscape and tally their chances , run various scenarios for winning.  I don’t think Obama needs Hillary as vp to win, but he will need her as a major player.  I bet she’ll deal for a high profile cabinet post with a promise to appoint her to the Supreme Court if a post opens up.  She’s not returning to the senate, that’s for sure.

Report this

By cyrena, June 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment


I understand your frustration. But…that hope for an even handed President may not be so totally down the drain as you think.

Here’s the thing….he has to get elected first. And, AIPAC would surely prevent that from happening, if Obama was already trying to lay out some plans to change things on that front, in a way that would create any hope for the Palestinians.

The OTHER thing to consider, (and it’s easy enough for us to forget, after all of these long years) is that the fate of the Palestinians should NOT be determined by the US President!

Yes, yes…I know what you’re going to say, because of course that’s certainly the way it has appeared. AIPAC rules Dick Bush, and Dick Bush uses the geopolitical influence of the US to allow Israel to continue their crimes against the Palestinians.

BUT…in the real world, and built-in to the structure of the legal order that is the International Law, it is really up to the International Community to enforce the laws in a way that would stop Israel in it’s tracks. What Obama CAN do, is to allow for that process to occur.

Most of us never even consider that, because we’re so used to the US exerting it’s power over the entire system, and intentionally PREVENTING the multilateral system of international law to work as it should. All Obama has to do is to actually COOPERATE with the system as it’s been set up, and the issue with Israel will take care of itself, and it will be enforced by the entire International Community, and not just the US.

So, I know it seems frustrating on the surface, but try to hang in there, until he’s actually got the reins. There actually IS hope in the World Legal Order, IF it can only be enforced.

I’m not saying it will be easy, because we know that Israel has no respect for International Law. But for all of this time, there have never been any restictions or other sanctions imposed on Israel for violating it, because the US has prevented that from happening…and that goes way back to the 8 years of the Clinton Admin, and the 4 of the Bush Admin, and on and on.

But, the international community has NOT been silent on these abuses by Israel, it’s just that none have gotten around to actually initiating any sanctions or other measures that would force Israel to abide by the laws.

It is not just the US that is responsible for righting the wrongs done to the Palestinians, even though we’ve been an arrogant superpower for so long, that it has come to seem that way. Rather, it is the responsibility of the entire Int’l Community, as guided by the UN and it’s other world bodies. And when the system is finally allowed to operate that way, it can be highly effective.

So..hold on. we’ve waited this long. Let’s see what will happen. AIPAC might be a powerful cabal here, but they aren’t powerful enough to run the entire UN operation without the US running interference, and Obama may choose NOT to do that.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, June 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary would be an “Obamanation” pure & simple. 

Now with Obama ingratiating himself so pitifully with AIPAC, whatever hope the Palestinians could have had for an even handed President(assuming Obama might get elected)is totally down the drain!

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

Hillary ‘s Neo Con Slip fell out quie sometime back. having been a Clintonian throughtout th e’90’s I began to smell the Copr whore stench coming off her soon after she Took the Senate Seat- Wha ta major disappointment. She not only ruined herself, but trashed what few shreds of goodwill were left for her Husband too by shoving him back out in the limelight. I never Hated Hillary during his Presidency- but began to hate her as She began Voting with the adminis every hope & dream, NOW I not only Hate Her I fear her because of her psychotic, sociopathic tendencies she has revealed on the campaign trail.
My Choice to cut the legs out form Under Mac (and if done immediately this Arragant sore Loser)
Sen Chuck Hagel- Now tha twould knock th eshit out of all the Crap In DC- on both sides of the aisle.
We ain’t jokin’ about CHANGE!!!

Report this

By Peter RV, June 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

  Since Clintons have excited all those “hard working whites” to vote only their superior race representative, McCain, Obama should counted them out and strive to form a new majority behind him, as this was his original idea. Reagan menaged to do that and I am sure Obama can do it. He is intelligent, very presentable and has a tremendous ideological advantage over his senile opponent.
  Obama should abandon any nonsense of the ‘unity’ of the Democrats (with Hillary who is waiting for him to be murdered? she must still be hoping, June is not over yet) and reach to the Anti-War and Anti-racist America. You would be surprised how many conservatives would support him.
  My candidate for his running mate is Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska.

Report this

By Jim Yell, June 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who said Carter was the weakest? He did a lot of things I didn’t support, but things he did do were deal with reality and not the wishful thinking of a bunch of knee jerk patriots that really aren’t necessarily patriotic at all. How does George and Cheney two non military types get the love of the military, only because they bought it with no bid contracts, no oversight, no control You want weak look at the last 8 years for crying out loud.

If Reagan hadn’t of taken the programs off line mandating the use of new tech and alternate energy, we would have had 20+ years of progress instead of Hummers wasting space and gas.

Report this

By tp, June 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Hillary has a few other options in the back of her mind other than being Obama’s VP. She has two elephants in her corner at this point. They are her corporate connections and her continued female for president PAC supporters neither of which care much about what she’s promised to do once elected as she is a woman and bought by monopolies like Wal-mart, Exxon and AT&T;. I think she just might go it alone, without the Democratic convention, as a third party. I could see the wheels turning in her greedy little power hungry mind with supposed 18 million voters on her band wagon when she said that she wasn’t going to make any decision now. That sort of takes the heat off Obama in giving her the opportunity to join his forces. We’ll see as this is a neverendingstory.
But, I imagine Ralph Nader would love to see her as a third party candidate. Actually we need a real debate on the real issues as opposed to hearing about Obama’s Church affiliates or Hillary’s choice of pants suit or seeing her soft tender side. Ralph might bring a little substance in with him but he had better get moving now that Obama is. I really don’t think McCain has a chance against either even Nader no matter what else happens. The controlling mafia types and fascist monopolies are equally vested in any of the three top contenders but not in people like Ralph.  Imagine – ‘Nader/Kucinich on an independent ticket’ together. If women and all the lower and middle class races were to think about the real issues, such as 4 or 5 bucks a gallon gas, health care for all, education, the loosing of their homes and their place in society - then we might give Ralph a chance. Ralph, though don’t have those Hollywood good looks. And, voters are too busy looking for the American Dream and a way to survive and all this while being lied to on a daily basis by the current administration. Change is always a word used in elections. Remember the word ‘Surge’ was an answer to change. It only makes sense that all the front runners are not going to give us any real change. Ralph on the other hand would. So, I don’t really give a shit what Hillary does or Barack either. Oh, I’ll vote democratic unless it looks as though Ralph might have a chance, which I doubt.
I wonder though, “will my vote even be counted?”  I wonder if we will have the opportunity to vote since an evasion of Iran might cause world war III. That might call for Martial Law. If we have Martial Law Bush might be our next president in a third term. What a nightmare that might be.
I welcome an Obama/Clinton ticket!!!!—no matter what Carter say’s and I respect Carter a lot.

Report this

By Mary Muir, June 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama should choose as his running mate a person who will be a great person for our country. Perhaps, to mollify GOP attacks, someone who has shown leadership, foreign policy experience, etc.  Although I am a woman, I strongly suggest a white male - again to counter the GOP attacks.


Report this

By Frostedflakes, June 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

First of all, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be nothing more than a disingenous, immoral shrew, and any ticket that she is ever on is a ticket worth passing up. Secondly, if the American electorate is so stupid that they can not tell the difference between a possible agent of real change and the pandering of a delusional old coot, who is in the pocket of lobbyists and Bush loyalists, then they deserve the continued failed policies of Cheney/Bush.And finally, what is it going to take for Americans to stop voting against their self-interests. How is it that these supposed working-class whites continue to support politicians that send their jobs overseas and give tax breaks to the richest 10% of the country while increasing the cost of living for the masses. I am not an Obamamite, but with the sorry choices that we have one would have to be pretty narrow minded to choose otherwise. If nothing else, this surely illustrates the futility of the two party system. Viva la revolucion !!!!!

Report this

By cyrena, June 4, 2008 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

I think the ‘other’ woman is definitely a possibility, simply because there ARE so many more qualified than Hillary.

The thing I’m unsure of, is whether or not that really IS the issue with Hillary supporters. Just to be perfectly blunt, I don’t believe that so many of this contingency of women, (or even the men that support her) were so much demanding a woman as they were demanding that there NOT be a BLACK man. (or woman for that matter). How else do we explain the number of them that will now vote for John McCain?

Now I only say that from reading these comments over an extended period of time. Even Hillary’s most avid and articulate supporters have NEVER attempted to make a case FOR her, but only AGAINT Obama.

I’ve yet to read any comment from a so-called ‘supporter’ that gives any valid assessment of her qualifications for the job, and so ALL energy has been focused on what’s WRONG with Obama, rather than what’s RIGHT with Hillary.

The remaining energy has been spent in apologizing for her, and/or saying that “Obama is the same as Hillary.” So, if that were really true, (that their positions on everything were so identical) then why would it be such an emotional trauma for them to have Obama instead?

That said, my own sense is that they would not support another any qualified woman, (for VP) as long as the President on the ticket was still Obama.

Now it would be great if I was wrong. I just don’t think I am. These women are all hollering about they just want to hear the words ‘Madame President’ in their lifetimes. Others are saying that it’s because of the way women have always been treated as second class citizens, (go figure on that logic) and others, (like Crazy Harriet) are more forthcoming…she doesn’t like the black guy.

So, while I don’t think it would make a difference to THEM, to have ‘another’ woman, I think it would be great for the rest of us. There have already been several suggestions made for qualified woman that would be great VP’s.

So, we shall

Report this

By Frostedflakes, June 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, but the weakest president is the one still residing at 1600 Penn. Ave.

Report this

By troublesum, June 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

Nunn is too old.  He’s about McCain’s age.  The running mate will be a governor, a business leader, or a general, no more than 50 years old.  It’s all about passing the torch.

Report this

By Ed, June 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One of the most compelling attractions about Obama is that he has passion.  He seems to say what he believes, and not just simply to get votes.  He and Hillary are opposites in that regard, and picking Hillary Clinton as his VP would seem to be simply for the purpose of getting votes.  Edwards, also full of passion, and someone else who obviously cares for the average American, would serve the Democratic Party and America far better.

Report this

By felicity, June 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Before he chooses anyone, Obama needs to find out whether the contingency of women who support Clinton do so because she is a woman.  If it’s an affirmative, they’d probably support any qualified woman - there are plenty around far more qualified than Clinton.  Isn’t the ‘other’ woman a possibility?

If David Gergen’s read on Hillary’s speech last night is correct and she’s lobbying for the vice job in order to establish an Executive Department run by a coalition, putting her in as vice would make Obama’s life a living hell - not to mention how the country would fare.  (Not off the wall if we remember that when Bill took office he told us that we “were getting two for the price of one.”)

Report this

By FJC, June 4, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is great.  Carter, the weakest President in U.S. history is giving advice.  Obama should steer clear of the peanut man.  Instead, a Hillary suicide watch should be manned because the Clintons are elitists who think that the Presidency is their destiny and Hil wanted to be the first woman Prez.  Boo hoo!

Report this

By John, June 4, 2008 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With due respect to Carter who is a very good man and was not nearly as bad a president as he’s painted, he does have a bit of a credibility gap when it comes to giving advice like this. Even if he in fact does since this seems a prophecy rather than a fact. Whether folks want to accept it or not Obama who is an entirely admirable candidate, has only won the Democratic nomination by the slimmest of margins. The traditional democratic leaning blocs of women and the elderly have gone substantially to his opponent. This has created a new political reality that although he has won the nomination he’s probably going to need her help to take the crown in November. If he’s got any sense he’ll recognize this reality and put her on the ticket. Rapture will break out across the party and he’ll romp home. I don’t say he can’t win without her but it has to be faced that a replay of 1968 with HHH and Gene MacCarthy is not an impossibility.

Report this

By cyrena, June 4, 2008 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

Well, it was interesting to hear from President Carter about his own recommendation for VP. Sam Nunn. I would never have thought of him myself, but not for any particular reasons aside from that he just didn’t come to mind.

Meantime, this certainly proves my point about Clinton’s Corporate Clan, and proves that the Clan isn’t restricted to White Wall Street only….

•  “…Meanwhile, Bob Johnson, the Clinton backer and founder of Black Entertainment Television, has announced that he hopes to persuade the Congressional Black Caucus - the umbrella group for African-American members of Congress - to lobby for an Obama-Clinton partnership…”

Figures. This doesn’t even surprise me. And, I’ve never liked this guy or BET! But then, I’m an anti-corporatist, and make no apologies.

Wish I could make a reasonable prediction of how this would go over with the Congressional Black Caucus, but I honestly can’t. No doubt there are SOME that won’t go for it, but there are just as many in that group (probably more) who have strong money ties of their own, to the Clinton machine.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, June 4, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That’s an interesting observation that never occurred to me(though I haven’t been enthusiastic about ANY of the candidates to begin with).  But if enough of the electorate is even more turned off by McCain, then an Obama/Clinton ticket has a “marginally” better chance to win.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook