Clinton asks for VP; Obama says No

The Cat:

I suppose it should come as no surprise that I disagree completely.

I don't advocate blowing off any demo whatsoever (and I thought it was a mistake for Obama to skip WV and KY). I think we should go after everyone and run a 50 state campaign.

I just don't agree that Hillary's recent conversion to beer swilling good old boy has made sufficient impact such that she becomes a better ambassador to traditionally GOP friendly demos than, say, Webb or Nunn or even Sebelius (who has a real, true track record in appealing to those demos not just in Dem primaries but in a really red state).

Hillary, like Barack, is a liberal senator. She also comes with high, built-in negatives, particularly among Republicans. And I don't think it's possible to overstate the fact that she's pulling swing demos in a Democratic primary -- and one in which Republicans have been encouraged to vote for her to stop Barack and extend the intra-party fight -- she has never demonstrated strength among these demos against a serious Republican opponent. Webb has, Nunn has, Sebelius has. I could go on and on. Kaine, Warner, Bayh, Schweitzer, Rendell, Napolitano, Richardson, Edwards... Each of these prospects has better demonstrated success with the voters HRC now claims than she has.

Her core constituency is women. There's no good evidence it extends beyond that except in contrast to Obama.

 

Of all people, YOU are talking about personal bias? Yours is very noticeable. How many times does it need to be said that there are a number of other Dems (Webb, Rendell, Strickland, Bayh) that appeal to "rural" and "non-traditional Democratic areas" more than Hillary? You just conveniently ignored that part of the post and prior statements by others. And none of these guys are radioactive like Hillary. So my statement stands.

Just saw your post Batman: "Her core constituency is women" is on the money. Choosing Hillary over other candidates to strengthen himself in rural areas would be foolhardy for Obama. The main reason to choose Hillary is to "unify the party" for the election. But, again, he is not running for president of the Dem party.

 

A_3PO, all those people you mentioned aren't running for President and haven't garnered nearly half the vote in a Democratic primary season that has seen record turnouts. The Cat makes a good point. So do you, but I still think an Obama/Clinton ticket would win. As a Democrat, that's what I'm looking for. A ticket that will win. I'm not sure how this primary dance will play out in the end, and I'll be surprised if Hillary Clinton turns out to be Obama's choice, but he could do far worse, IMO. He's lucky to be ahead, given the Wright problem. That comes out before Super Tuesday and I think you see a far different result. So in that respect, she did him a favor. Her tough campaign toughened him and he needed it.



Impeach Bush.

 

The only people who want an Obama/Hillary ticket are people who support Hillary Clinton.

The rest of see the pitfalls of having her on his ticket and if he wins, in her own compound with her own people as Vice-President.

 

Obama has gotten tougher. But Hillary's gotten weaker. She's been playing the victim for quite a while now.

She claims to have been the victim of a mean cruel press, she was the victim of sexism, she was a victim of party officials trying to push her out of the race, she is the victim of caucus processes, she was the victim of MI and FL not following the rules everyone agreed to, she was the victim of unfair campaigning by Obama.

I think the VP in this race needs to be tough, and despite all the talk about how tough Hillary is, she hasn't really backed it up lately.

 

The long campaign was good for Obama, no doubt. If he had won NH and closed the sale early, his campaign wouldn't have matured as fast. If the Wright issue had come out earlier, I believe it would have knocked him out. I also understand why many Dems want Hillary to be Obama's veep selection and their bias towards thinking she would be the best choice. Obviously Obama could do worse than her but he can also do better.

Right now, I want her out of the picture so Obama can be Obama and I can get a good, long read on him. At this late point, she is more of a painful thorn than a help. I want his hands untied so he can proposition the general electorate without having to worry about Hiilary's sniping and off-the-wall comments.

 

She has been the target of much tougher media coverage. She has been a target of sexism, whether the guys here like the use of that word or not. She has fallen prey to absurd caucuses in Texas, where she won the popular vote, but couldn't get a majority of the delegates. The last is the weakest, because the rules were in place before the primary. I hope they change the absurd rules here in Texas. I don't know what to tell you about Florida or Michigan, except to say it was a big mistake for the Democratic Party to not allow them in the primary process. That could come back to bite them in November, regardless of how one feels about Clinton. "the victim of unfair campaigning by Obama?" Come on, FB. It's a race for the nomination. Both sides have played the game their own different ways. When Olbermann had his rant about her comments about RFK, Obama's campaign immediately sent copies to every media outlet they could find. They were faster than Obama could back away from criticism of her about it. So what? It doesn't bother me. It's part of the process. Is she a "victim?" No, and neither is he.



Impeach Bush.

 

Mine is very noticeable? I feel like I'm one of the only people here that has said all along that I'd be perfectly OK with either Obama or Clinton as the nominee, so that seems rather odd. I guess it is noticeable, in the sense that I'm not willing to villify one of two candidates whose views are almost identical to each other's and to mine, like so many people here (on both sides).

The problem I have with your argument, and Batman's, about other Dems appealing to rural voters as much or more than Hillary is that I view national campaigning as a completely different entity. They're able to do it on a district or state basis where voters are very familiar with their track record and their stances for a number of years, but on a national level, it's about perception and visibility. I don't think it's about a regional selection at this point in our history.

Sure, Webb or any of those others could do it -- as I said in my initial post, it's theoretically possible. It's just an unnecessary risk, imo.

 

That's a whole, whole lot of people.

 

She hasn't been the victim of tougher media coverage. The ABC debate was mostly aimed at Obama. If Hillary had won 11 contests in a row, no media outlet in the nation would still be talking as if he had a chance.

Yet with Hillary she's gotten all of that benefit from the media.

Furthermore it isn't whether she's been the victim of sexism, because I agree that she has. But Obama has been the victim of racism too, and only side has tried to play it up to their advantage. That isn't the sign of someone being tough.

As far as the Caucus system goes that was in place before the election started. It is nobody's fault but her own that she didn't have the organization to compete for those. But part of what this "tough" competitor is doing is not even counting the votes when talking about popular votes in the contest.

The idea isn't whether some things are messed up in the process, it's how someone who is supposedly such a tough veteran politician is handling it. If this is what she's done in response to a mild mannered Obama campaign, she has just shown that she isn't tough enough to handle the GOP attack machine.

Hillary was wrong to make those RFK assassination remarks, and her apology was not properly directed.

I would think as a veteran of the 60's you would realize that Obama faces both a racially and politically motivated assassination risk that Hillary doesn't. He's already had to have secret service protection earlier in the process than any other candidate.

 

FB, that ABC debate was very, very far into the process. During most of the primary season, Obama got far better media coverage than Clinton did. I really don't see how anyone can dispute this. (you go ahead, though! ) I want to agree with you that you've been one of the few here who has consistantly believed she's been a target of sexism. And I can't argue that as the race has moved into some of the more rural, Southern states, those without large Black populations, particularly, Obama has been a target of racism. I don't think a target of widespread racism, but no question that it was there. Clinton's campaign didn't make that any easier for him, but I don't think she's run a "racist" campaign. Just a very tough one.

I'm not going to get any more into the RFK thing. I think I've addressed that. I know you don't think his son saying there was nothing to it was enough, but it was certainly enough for me. I've already addressed the caucuses in Texas. I don't know what I can add there. As for the "mild-mannered" Obama campaign, Senator Obama certainly has portayed himself as "above the fray," and has genuinely been above it, for the most part, but in my opinion, his campaign has not. They have just done things differently and done those things very well. I gave an example with the Olbermann rant.

I support both of them. Obama, absent some spectacular thing out of his "closet," is going to win. Whatever happens with Hillary Clinton will be what it will be. We'll just have to wait and see.



Impeach Bush.

 

The massive cover-up of Hillary's campaign finance scandal involving Peter Paul would provide evidence to the contrary.

 

Let her be elected governor of New York. She would be her adopted state's premier adminstrator and politician so she could bask in the power she craves. On the other hand, she would no longer be an affliction upon the nation as a whole.

This is the perfect solution!

 

The "warm bucket of piss' quote is from Cactus Jack, Texas's own John Nance Garner. One of the most colorful good ol' boy politicians in American history, check him out.

A VP can be as powerful or insignificant as the president wants him to be. In Johnson's case, he was the consummate jawboner and deal maker in congress at the time. The Kennedy's thought they could use him to promote their legislation and Johnson thought he could use the office to promote his own legislation.

In Obama's case, I think his best tact is to break free of mundanity of politics and keep promoting his hopeful if undefined vision of the future.
Hillary is a millstone around his neck. Her politics are too defined and muddled down in the minutia of legislation. There is a reason why long term senators don't get elected president.

I know the wonks in this thread will argue that the job of president is all about the details, but the job of 'candidate' is to get elected. If your image is lofty and your goals are obtuse, they are less assailable. We talking about a nation here that is rooted in faith.

I liken it to my 100 yard beach rule. Any girl walking on the beach looks good until she gets inside 100 yards. It's your imagination filling in the details. Once she starts coming into too clear of focus her flaws become undeniable and she is reduced to her reality. Obama needs to stay 100 yards away from reality and we already can see Hillary's cankles.

 

Obama would almost be crazy to make Clinton the VP. While it would probably help them win the election, as he definitely has to have her supporters, he'd have the female version of Dick Cheney to deal with.

 

Goodness, Hillary roaming around with a shotgun. Now that's scary.