I believe that is her mindset right now. None of this may come to pass, but I believe this explains her actions. And although Major is correct in some of things Obama has to lose by picking her as VP, this is NOT (honestly, no pun intended) a black and white decision. She may be the LAST person he wants on his ticket with him, but he HAS to at least consider this. Her threats are real.
Hillary backer, Hilary Rosen, on the speech. It's not just Obama people or media observers that had the negative reaction. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html I Am Not a Bargaining Chip, I Am a Democrat Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been. I am disappointed. As a long time Hillary Clinton supporter and more importantly, an admirer, I am sad that this historic effort has ended with such a narrow loss for her. There will be the appropriate "if onlys" for a long time to come. If only the staff shakeup happened earlier; if only the planning in caucus states had more focus; if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign. If only. If only. I have written many times on this site about the talents of Hillary Clinton and why I thought she'd make a great President. After last night's final primary, she was only about pledged 100 delegates behind him. Ironic that after not wanting to make the decision for so long, it was in fact, the superdelegates who made the decision. But I guess they did so for another reason. It just isn't her time. It is his time. It's a new day that offers a freshness to our party that many have longed for. We felt the rush of new voices and a new energy in the Congressional sweep of 2006 and the sweep continues. It has been an organic shift. And a healthy one. The life's work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama's success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad. So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due. Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters. But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.
Interesting. 1. Are you saying the likes of Kennedy and Kerry are all the self-calimed new-bread politicians, like Obama? Remember, the most of the Dems establishment were older style comparing to Clinton. All of the sudden, Clinton is the only bad politician of old style? 2. Why are you so insecure? Large corporations always have ex-CEOs from other large firms sitting on their boards or executive managements. Besides, didn't we learn from Bush Jr. that you need people around you to "secondguess" your decision? 3. Even after Bill Clinton's 8 year presidency - the only Dem presidency in last 20 some years, even after 18 millions voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, you are worried the whole republican base hates Hillary above everything else? Who's more delusional? The so-called republicans or some others? Any political decision or any decision at work or in life, comes with pros and cons. How to get the job done is about JUDGMENT and execution.
I think that's just a loss he has to accept. He can't start his campaign - and potentially his administration - out of fear of the Clintons. It may help him win, but it won't help him lead. And, if he's the candidate most of his supporters hope he is, the goal is to lead and govern - not simply to win.
Huh? The Clinton style of governing - dividing people, trying to win 51-49, pure partisanship, etc - is everything Obama was running against. What do Kerry and Kennedy and everyone else have to do with it? They are supporters - they are not people he's putting on the ticket. Putting Kerry or Kennedy on the ticket would be stupid too. We learned from Bush Jr. that if you put a powerful person with their own agenda in the VP spot, it's a recipe for disaster. No President (or any leader) wants a former leader looking over their shoulder second-guessing. You realize the way that Gore lost was by association with the Clintons, right? If you've followed politics at ALL over the past 20 years, you know the formula for the GOP to win: bring out the base in mass, and do moderately well with independents. McCain does well with the latter - he doesn't have the former right now. You bring the Clintons back, and the formula is all set for the GOP. In case you've forgotten, during the 1990's, the GOP managed to take control of both houses of Congress, state governorships, and state legislators using this method. Clinton survived in 1996 because he's an extraordinarily good politician and the opponent was not-so-good, but the GOP very effectively attacked the Democratic brand by associating it with the Clintons. I agree. And hopefully Obama has the judgment to realize that Clinton would be a net negative for the ticket. And I believe he does.
Looks like she has no intention of stopping. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/hillary_ally_says_she_authoriz.php She authorized the BET Founder to start pushing the Hillary-for-VP campaign. Nevermind the tradition of giving the the nominee wide leeway to pick their own VP. Standard Hillary protocol, if true. Another Hillary backer from the NY Congressional Delegation also came out today and said Hillary might need a few weeks to think about what to do. Obama needs to stop playing this game. I'm sure he has a few people in mind for VP now. Vet them - fast. And announce his VP within weeks. End the speculation and end the Hillary campaign. He's going to piss people off - better to do it now than in August.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/04/obama_needs_to_make_vp_choice/ Obama Needs To Make VP Choice by End of June he very next thing Obama has to do is to pick a VP. Now. Traditionally, a candidate does not pick a running-mate until the convention. What else is there to make a convention exciting? This year nothing is as remotely exciting as the nomination of Barack Obama. Only convincing FDR or JFK to join the ticket could make the Democratic convention more exciting. The point to doing it now is to avoid being steamrolled into picking Clinton. He's not going to do it. Perhaps that was a possibility, and not a bad one, a few months ago. Now it is impossible for a dozen obvious reasons. Remember poor Mondale. He is a wonderful man who was forced into choosing a VP that he did not want and who immediately helped sink the ticket. The difference between Clinton and Ferraro in '84 is that although both had millions of Democrats who wanted her on the ticket, Clinton is strongly opposed by just as many, if not more. Mondale looked a little like a hack for being forced to pick Ferraro but, without strong opposition to her within the party, it didn't matter much. Obama's base (i.e. the people who voted for him, his millions of donors and the netroots) have become increasingly and now vehemently anti-Clinton in the last month or two. So pull the plug. Allowing Clinton to be the focus of media attention for another month or so would constitute Obama's Eagleton moment. Pick a VP now. There are a dozen great candidates. Vet them and pick one. Now. This moment, not the convention, will determine whether Obama or McCain becomes the 44th President. Cool, decisive toughness is required now. And the one way to demonstrate it is by choosing a VP Obama wants, not one who, if too much time passes, could be rammed down his throat.
LOL, think its Hillary's plan to put the msg out that she wants the VP job, and have Obama be the bad guy to publicly reject her. I am sure she knows Obama isn't gonna pick her.
Since we are bringing Bill into the discussion, which is the main reason Obama couldn't pick Hillary as VP, according to you, let's talk about him. Who has a better bragging right than Bill does, about "working with bi-partisan"? Don't we forget that he got things done with a Republican controlled congress? Clinton's style is dividing people? Maybe because he's not main stream liberal? Is that the definition of old political style? So you are saying Hillary's fault was to have a former president as husband, therefore all her qualification and all she has done should be ignored? If you don't give Bill any power, how could he second-guessing? Or you are afraid that he might speak to the press? That is a Democratic party, right? Really? I thought they lost because they thought they didn't need Bill Clinton. They chose to distance themselves from the president, in the most difficult times. Gore was running on elitism, Bush was the "likable guy", remember? I said many months ago, when Obama supporters were bragging about voters with college degrees leaning towards Obama, that no one has ever won anything by running on elitism, in any country at any time in history. Good that you don't see them mentioning about that any more, and the media doesn't bring it up in late primaries any more either. Clinton's 8 years of presidency has its own place in history. You are worried that Republicans attack you by associating the party with the only successful Democrat in the last 20 years? I don't get it. What makes you so sure that all republicans hate Hillary Clinton and loves Obama? Remember, she won 18 million votes in primaries, not just winning in big blue states, but many swing states. Lots of republicans and independents voted for her. You said McCain isn't strong in the Republican base, then what sane logic would lead you to believe those republicans and independents who voted for her will choose McCain over Obama, just BECAUSE HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE TICKET?
Please find where I said that Bill is the *main* reason he couldn't pick her. It is simply one of a very long list of reasons. As far as Bill goes - he worked extremely well in a bi-partisan fashion after he was forced to because his original governing style got Dems kicked out of Congress. That lasted from about 1994 to Monica, at which the Clintons became the enemy of the right, and the Clintons decided a "right wing conspiracy" was after them. No, that's not partisan at all. It's not Hillary's fault, but it's reality. She got plenty of benefits being married to Bill, and there are plenty of drawbacks. That's life. Hillary has no official power right now, and yet she's still has influence and is causing problems. Power is not something that is simply assigned to people. Of course, there are also more educated people in the US now than ever before. Holding on to old perceptions is not very useful when the demographics are changing. Obama doesn't have an elitism problem - Hillary is just very popular with 3 major groups: older/women/less-educated voters. They prefer Hillary to Obama, but there's nothing to suggest they prefer McCain to Obama. Obama's main fundamental problem vs. McCain is with the Appalachia area, moreso than anything else. You might not get it, but that doesn't change that it's the case. Until the TX/OH primaries, Obama beat Clinton dramatically with Republican voters. In fact, the Clinton people b****ed about the idea of "open primaries" (along with caucuses, small states, red states, etc) because they were losing with the Independents and Republicans (often 80-20 or 90-10). It was only after the Limbaugh plea to Republicans to vote for Hillary to extend the race that she started becoming competitive with Republicans. What leads me to believe that those people don't like Hillary is the fact that they tell us that they don't like her. According to exit polls, significant chunks of Republican Hillary voters said they plan to vote for McCain in the fall - that wasn't the case with Republicans who voted for Obama. And of course, when asked about approval ratings and like/dislike levels for various candidates, Hillary has always had and continues to have extreme dislike levels with Republicans. It started with HillaryCare in 2003/04 and has never changed. You don't have to like it, but the data is pretty clear.
Another Clinton supporter blasts the speech. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...riticizes-clinton-over-non-concession-speech/ Rangel criticizes Clinton over non-concession speech (CNN) — Prominent Hillary Clinton backer Charles Rangel thinks the New York senator could have been "far more generous" during her speech Tuesday night after it was clear Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination. Rangel, the senior member of the New York congressional delegation and an early supporter of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in an interview Wednesday Clinton should have been more clear about what her future plans are. "I would agree that after the math was in before her speech, that she could have been far more generous in terms of being more specific and saying that she wants a Democratic victory," Rangel said in an interview on MSNBC. "I don't see what they're talking about in prolonging this," Rangel added. "There's nothing to prolong if you're not going to take the fight to the convention floor…I don't know why she could not have been more open in terms of doing up front what she intends to do later." Rangel also said the entire New York congressional delegation is awaiting guidance from Clinton on what to do, and could be put "on the spot" if the New York senator does not explain herself soon. "We could be on the spot if we don't get some answers about what does it mean when you say that you are not endorsing — or what does it mean when you say that you haven't — you're not out of the race. It just doesn't make any sense. It's inconsistent with wanting a Democratic victory and not endorsing the Democratic candidate."
So the only guy with REAL bipartisan experience as you said, is the representative of old partisan style. But the half term senator, who others labeled as one of the most liberal voter, is the authentic and only agent of bi-partisan new-bread politician in your book? A 2 term US senator voted by people of the State of New York, a formal first lady, who has been worked hard for health care, women and children, among many other areas, is causing problems? Just because she doesn't rollover and die? So, we are cleared that Gore lost wasn't because he was associated with Clinton, which was your original claim. In your book, Obama did poorly among working class comparing to Clinton, was because .... Limbaugh?!! My question to you was, what makes you think those voted for Hillary (guess they don't hate her) over Obama, will automatically vote for McCain, because Hillary is the VP candidate? We were discussing about Clinton as VP, right? Didn't more Obama supporters claimed to vote for Hillary if she wins the primary? Why all of the sudden you believe they will dump Obama just because Hillary is on the ticket? That was my question.
And, as promised, she's done. Can the hysteria now stop? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4705151&page=1
Depends on how she does it. If she keeps angling for the VP spot, then no, it won't stop. If she actually accepts defeat and lets Obama determine the way he wants to proceed without pushing her supporters to start petitions and fight for the VP spot, then yeah, it will probably stop.
Bill Clinton was definitely bi-partisan for parts of his term. Obama has both rhetorically and legislatively been bi-partisan both in the US Senate and Illinois Leg. Hillary Clinton, not so much. Pretty much. When you lose, you're expected to shut up - I've posted numerous articles from her own supporters saying this. If you don't, you are causing problems - that's how an election works. If Kerry kept acting like he was in the race for several days after he lost to Bush, he'd be causing problems too. Not at all. Gore was associated with Clinton by the GOP. It was how the GOP excited their base in 2000. Just as McCain will be associated with Bush to rile up the anger, despite him being a separate person. Did you even read what I wrote and what you quoted? It had nothing to do with working class voters. It was specifically about Republican voters. Again - because many of them ADMITTED it. In the exit polls, they basically said they were McCain supporters voting for Clinton to extend the Democratic primary. Or do you have another explanation why Republicans voting for Clinton said that in a Clinton/McCain matchup, they would vote for McCain? He'll keep his Democratic voters and the loyalists. What he'll lose are the swing independents and Republicans that like him, think McCain is just OK, but hate her.
Seriously, quit trying to spread lies. He doesn't have a single legislative accomplishment in the Senate that required reaching bipartisan consensus on a hotly debated issue. Furthermore he was deemed the most liberal politician in the Senate. Oh, and that rhetoric? That's from his handlers -- his campaign staff and speechwriters, not from him. The guy has been running for Pres since the day he stepped foot in the Senate! Is that serving our country, or serving his own selfish interests and ambitions?
I have listed the bi-partisan bills before. But aside from that you've mentioned part of what is Obama's unifying strength. He will promote and push forward the many ideas that we all agree on, instead of trying to fight and divide about ideas that aren't agreed on. That's how he's accomplished so much as a Senator including the Coburn-Obama act.
Obama signed himself onto a bill that Tom Coburn has been pushing for years, and some bloggers started putting pressure on the committee to release it. When it finally hit the floor, it passed without dissent. The Coburn-Obama act is a wonderful piece of legislation, but it's Tom Coburn's baby. It is not an Obama accomplishment. Besides, there's a huge distinction between nonpartisan issues and bipartisan issues. Obama's done a great job of attaching himself to nonpartisan issues to create an illusion of bipartisanship.
The bill was co-sponsored by Obama, and it didn't have to be. You can try and minimize his role if you like, but it shows his willingness to work with people from across the aisle, and also illustrates his style of focusing on what unites us rather than divides us. You mention that it passed with out dissent, and yet it didn't come about until Obama co-sponsored the bill. If it past without dissent that is incredibly unified at a time when their is a more than healthy dose of divisiveness in Washington politics. The fact that it passed without dissent doesn't mean he didn't unify, but goes to the type of change he is talking about. Other politicians have been and continue to focus on what divides rather than all of the things that everyone agrees on. Obama wants to change that in order to accomplish legislation that most everyone is agreed upon. That's great leadership.
