« Previous | Main | Next »

Hybrid ticket

Justin Webb | 08:55 UK time, Friday, 6 June 2008

A first step has been taken.

To this?

UPDATE:

Where did the photo come from, Bethpa asks? One answer is right here. But tracing it further back, maybe here.

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 09:40am on 06 Jun 2008, angrystan wrote:
So it's either John McCain or Khan Noonein Singh? oh dear.

Complain about this comment
2. At 09:52am on 06 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:
Is there any way we can refer that photograph to the moderators?
Shocking!

:)

Complain about this comment
3. At 09:54am on 06 Jun 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:
Thanks. For. That.

*shudders*

Complain about this comment
4. At 10:08am on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
It talks, too!

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
5. At 10:23am on 06 Jun 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:
As Annie Lennox once sang..

'Here comes that sinking feeling..'

Don't do it Obama, you will be toast...

Complain about this comment
6. At 10:28am on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:
At a first quick glance I thought it was a noble Red Indian.
My twisted brain said "Hi er what a" is this?

Hiawatha- A follower of the great peacemaker. Politician. Skilled and charismatic orator.

Perhaps a mini ha ha?

Complain about this comment
7. At 10:37am on 06 Jun 2008, Daniel1956 wrote:
The picture is an insult and should be removed immediately

Complain about this comment
8. At 10:49am on 06 Jun 2008, rupertornelius wrote:
Looks like something out of the Giuliani playbook. Eeek.

Complain about this comment
9. At 10:52am on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
I initially thought that picture was utterly without any redeeming social value (and we should all know what was described as such by the US Supreme Court).

Then I realized that because it was so sickening, I have probably lost my appetite for the rest of the day. Therefore, it probably _does_ have some value for anyone who wishes to lose weight.

Other than, though, I can't think of any.

Complain about this comment
10. At 10:52am on 06 Jun 2008, Justianus wrote:
It's Barrily Obinton!

Thanks for the link, Ed. SNL got it about right, I'd say.

As for a joint ticket - there's no way this is going to happen. Absolutely no way at all.

I think.

Complain about this comment
11. At 11:02am on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
"Walk softly but carry a big stick!"
~Theodore Roosevelt
"I'll whup 'em!!
And a secret meeting last night with Lily von Schtupp

;-)
ed
P.S.

Complain about this comment
12. At 11:15am on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
13. At 11:18am on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #11 Ed Iglehart

"And a secret meeting last night with Lily von Schtupp"

Ah, yes, the great Madeline Kahn - In her prime, she was a lady I would gladly have gotten behind (or in front of, or . . . )

Complain about this comment
14. At 11:39am on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Aye, Peter, but it appears some (pseudo-Yiddish) references to being 'gifted' are beyond the "pale" ;-)

Long Live Mel Brooks!

A question for Jim Webb's demographic: Still got your own teeth?

xx
ed

Complain about this comment
15. At 12:06pm on 06 Jun 2008, Daniel1956 wrote:
Jay Cost, writing at the HorseRaceBlog at RealClearPolitics, thinks
“both sides need to be a little modest” as the presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama comes to an end.
“Obama has scored what amounts to a win on points,” Cost writes. “He did not score a knockout.”
He later adds:
The Obama campaign had a better understanding of the system. It found the possibilities and made the most of them. What’s more, the Clinton campaign let it do this. Simply put, Obama out-maneuvered Clinton. Clinton supporters need to respect this.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate is the victor not because he put together a majority coalition, but because he out-maneuvered Clinton. This was a highly intelligent strategy, but it was not a grand feat of majority building. Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate won not because “the people had their say,” but because his campaign out-smarted her campaign. Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.

A blogger then wrote.

To borrow terms from another African-American champion: He used her Iraq vote to punch his way in, did a little Ali Shuffle in Iowa, blasted away in South Carolina, then went rope-a-doping his way around the ring letting his own Chicago baggage land with as little effect as possible, never losing sight of the fact that this was going the full 15 rounds and was all about points. He got a lot of help from the Clintons themselves, perceived first as ganging up on him, then he just let that ol’ Clinton dysfunction implode all by itself. The rest is sniper fire.

Complain about this comment
16. At 12:06pm on 06 Jun 2008, Candace9839 wrote:
Is this the new 'I Can't Believe it's Not Butter' advert? Apologies to Fabbio. A joint ticket would be a mistake. He should include her, but not as VP.

Complain about this comment
17. At 12:29pm on 06 Jun 2008, Joann53 wrote:
How scary! Halloween is early.

I just hope Hillary goes away, even if it means she's in the Senate for a long time. Her power, as people keep going on about, eludes me. Power from what? Being married to Bill Clinton? And why is everyone expected to 'feel her pain'? Would this be the case if she was a 'he'?

On Women's Hour, this morning, two Clinton supporters gushed at the idea of Hillary as VP. In particular, their dream was that as a result, she could slide into the White House more easily in 2012. Save us!

The finale on the program was the comment that Chelsea Clinton is being groomed to follow mommy and daddy. Now that is scary. Then again, Bill always wanted to be the next JFK. Dream on.

Here's to a Clinton-free White House with Barack Obama as president!

Complain about this comment
18. At 12:34pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #15 Daniel1956

" . . . He used her Iraq vote to punch . . . The rest is sniper fire."

Absolutely fantastic.

That blogger deserves a Pulitzer for that truly outstanding piece of writing.

Complain about this comment
19. At 12:38pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
Hillary will have to show she can deliver votes to Obama or she will lose power within the Democratic Party.

First reports were that Obama was meeting at her home in Washington but now that is being changed to they met at an unspecified location. Probably it looks like he is weak if he goes to meet her in her home.

Great Photo Shop jpg. Whoever did it is excellent (maybe you should cite the source?)

Hillary imo should not be vp but she should have a role in Obama's run for the president and in his cabinet...or in the Supreme Court...

IF she can deliver votes.

She has little value to the Democratic party if her political support from voters stops with her ..and worse she is a problem for Democrats if she is a spoiler for the Democratic nominee...

She learned how to play ball in the Senate as a junior Senator. I think she can do this now..

deliver votes to Obama
(and ignore her husband)

Complain about this comment
20. At 12:43pm on 06 Jun 2008, magnificentpolarbear wrote:
Why are these meetings always described as 'secret' when they are really just 'private'.

If is was such a secret why release a statement afterwards?

Everyone knew Obama and Clinton would meet - they even said so themselves - maybe they just wantyed to do it without having to run the gauntlet of the media.

Complain about this comment
21. At 1:03pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #19 bethpa

"Hillary imo should not be vp but she should have a role in Obama's run for the president and in his cabinet...or in the Supreme Court..."

I completely disagree. I think Hillary should not be offered anything at all.

There are many independents (even Republicans) who are giving serious consideration to voting for Obama, a large number of whom have antipathy to Hillary, ranging from distaste to detestation.

I can't prove it, but I would expect that Obama would lose more votes from these independents and Repubs if he offers her anything at all than he would gain from those Hillary-supporting Dems who will not vote for Obama if he doesn't offer her something.

Complain about this comment
22. At 1:09pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
McCain't gets in touch with his feminine side?

With that grin???

Complain about this comment
23. At 1:19pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
They met at Feinstein's, and "secrecy" was indeed needed to avoid the "press gang". Obie fooled his lot into getting on a plane, while he slipped away. Clever.

I do sympathise with both of them in having to cope with being on-stage and high-vis 24/7, but they knew what they were doing, and they do know how to use it as well.

I hope the meeting was fruitful.

Salaam, etc.
ed

Complain about this comment
24. At 1:21pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
peterm99

Hillary has support from millions of Democrats..for that reason alone she should have some role in an Obama presidency.

Many thought Hillary would be unable to just be a junior senator for NY ..after having been the first lady and having all that attention..but she adjusted and was friendly and learned and was acomodating. Hillary reportedly was well liked in the Senate and not a prima dona.

I think she has had bad advice and I think her husband was part of that bad advice. Possibly Bill was affected by the two surgeries and no longer thinks as clearly and has an anger management problem that sometimes follows that kind of surgery.

I think Hillary can do it..I think she can deliver votes to Obama..and if she can then she should be rewarded. Imo part of her motivation is her place in the history books..and she might be open to being on the Supreme Court.

Complain about this comment
25. At 1:24pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
peterm 99

Obama has said he will unite the nation..His first start in that will be to unite the Democrats.

And I hope many will help him...he will need smart savy people to get him through the mine fields of American politics.

Complain about this comment
26. At 1:32pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Spare a moment in respect of RFK

Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me
The present only toucheth thee:
But, Och! I backward cast my e'e.
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

Robert Burns, R.I.P. (To a Mouse)

Complain about this comment
27. At 1:34pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
“My friends, if it’s a female leader you want, you’re looking at him,”
McCain

: )

I can't wait to watch Mc Cain and Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas kind of debate...should be very amusing..oh my!

Complain about this comment
28. At 1:41pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #24 bethpa

"Hillary has support from millions of Democrats..for that reason alone she should have some role in an Obama presidency."

Obama is running to be president of the entire nation, not just the Dems. He needs to consider the national electorate as I indicated in post #21.

I seriously doubt any Supreme Court appointment is feasible. There is no question in my mind that the ABA and others will classify her as "unqualified" in their assessment, provided that they remain objective. Even her most partisan supporters in the Senate would have a hard time justifying a confirming vote in that situation.

"I think she can deliver votes to Obama..and if she can then she should be rewarded."

That sentiment flies in the face of the message that has made Obama what he is in the eyes of his supporters. Rewarding someone for political support is the way things have been run in Washington politics - it's called the spoils system. Claiming to be a reformer of the status quo and then acting just like a "normal" politician (in the pejorative sense of the term) would not reflect well on his integrity.

Complain about this comment
29. At 1:51pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Bob Dylan: He's got everything he needs, he's an artist, he don't look back

And, he's endorsed Obama.

Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
..
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land, and don't criticise what you can't understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. Your old road is rapidly agin'.

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
30. At 1:54pm on 06 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:
Well, in the spirit of Ed's post #26:

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." - GBShaw

Paraphrased often, I believe, by Bob and quoted by Ted in his funeral eulogy.

:)

Complain about this comment
31. At 2:16pm on 06 Jun 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
Obama will get to put his pledge to be a uniter into action with Hillary's supporters.

Complain about this comment
32. At 2:22pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #25 bethpa

". . . His first start in that will be to unite the Democrats."

I recall reading primary after primary that a large majority of Dems, when asked, said that while they may have *preferred* HRC or Obama, they really didn't have anything *against* the alternate candidate. Come November, almost all of the Clinton people will be happy vote for Obama ... and, had things turned out just a little differently, almost all of the Obama people would have happily voted for Clinton.

I don't believe you have a Dem party that is not united. What you have are a very vocal group that is not numerically large that are utterly and truly ticked off (I would have used a different phrase, but for the risk of being moderated) that Hillary lost. Placating this small but vocal group by antagonizing what I believe to be a much larger group that dislikes Hillary would be a truly absurd move.

Complain about this comment
33. At 2:23pm on 06 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:
Justin, if a a soiled nappy would have been added on the top of this composite's head I would have thought it was Hillarious Hussein Mubarack Osama.

Sure beats Comedian Ali.

P.S. The seminal meeting took place at D.C. home of a very former Californian beauty queen Diane F. And not at home of that Califorian miracle of plastic surgery,
the owner of racially-segregated golf-course Nancy P., let alone DC house of Californian Boxer, as some suggested.

Complain about this comment
34. At 2:30pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
McCain't responds to the proposals for new website layout.

Calm down Sir, here's your medication....
;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
35. At 2:57pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
The lies that just won't go away:

How we were misoverintelligenced into war
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

Full report

Good ole boys share a chuckle

The conclusion:
Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

But we all knew that all along, but some chose to believe it anyway - Fool me once........

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
And HOPE
ed

Complain about this comment
36. At 2:58pm on 06 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:
Hey, that answers my question of , ohhh, months back re: who is Dylan endorsing!

:)

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Complain about this comment
37. At 3:06pm on 06 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:
My God, it's Cat from Red Dwarf!

http://tinyurl.com/5gya22

But seriously, Peter has convinced me of the electoral negatives of a Clinton Vice Presidency. Among independents, there is still a high level of distrust of Mrs Clinton - I think that at one point, something like 60% of the electorate described her as untrustworthy. Allowing for Obama's supporters and died-in-the-wool Republican, a huge chunk of that must still be independents and sympathetic Republicans.

/-_

Complain about this comment
38. At 3:27pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
peterm99 #28

The Republicans are unlikely to vote for Obama..and once in the polling booth people who are prejudice will vote for Mc Cain.
Hillary's supporters are many strong willed women who will be honest. If they say they will vote for Obama ..They will..! : )

If the Dems can get enough people out to vote and the Repubs have a depressed turnout and the Independents split evenly..Obama is in..

Why do you think Hillary could not be a supreme court judge?. She has a law degree from Yale and has worked sucessfully as an attorney.

This is not a spoils system arrangement because Hillary is a very qualified person...and does her job well. She is certainly better than some of the current supreme court justices.

Incidentally I would not have voted for Hillary in November..I would not have voted..and I might not vote if she is the vp with Obama..

but I also realize how passionate some women are about supporting Hillary ...and how important it is for these women to have role models in power ( even though Hillary is not my choice of a role model) I'm a feminist in my own way...

Complain about this comment
39. At 3:28pm on 06 Jun 2008, GazGsM wrote:
I think it makes perfect sense for both candidates to have a meeting and to do so within days of the primaries ending is sheer common sense. This way they can discuss situations that will bring the entire Democratic strategists to the table and everyone's opinion can and will be heard.

It's a very smart move.

As for the photo............That is scary. Although, after a few drinks in a Glasgow bar, you just never know.

Complain about this comment
40. At 3:31pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
McCain't understand he got it wrong.
Intelligent comment

Fool us once, Shame on Him!
Fool us twice, ......

xx
ed

Complain about this comment
41. At 3:33pm on 06 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
peterm 99

Obama has said he will unite the nation..His first start in that will be to unite the Democrats.

And I hope many will help him...he will need smart savy people to get him through the mine fields of American politics.

As my posts indicate I am no fan of Obama. He has no obligation to put Clinton on the ticket. He has to put someone he feel he can work with and trust.

For different reasons both parties VP picks matter.

If disaster strikes and he wins he needs someone like Biden or Richardson to advise him on foriegn policy

Complain about this comment
42. At 3:41pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
It shouldn't have been at the home of DiFei (one of my senators), in my opinion. She has been touting this "Hillary for VP" idea for awhile now. It would have been more constructive to have a neutral interlocutor.

Complain about this comment
43. At 3:52pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
If Obama chose Hillary for vp it would be:

" keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Imo, given a chance, Bill Clinton would be up staging everyone....which is good melodrama but bad for the world...

We need a strong America that can influence other nations and implement good human rights policies.

Go Obama !

: )

.........................................

( and imo the Republicans who have hidden that the Bush administration lied the US into a war of choice are traitors. Bush/Cheney should be in impeachment hearings now. There is sufficient evidence and enough questions that they should have been impeached.)

Complain about this comment
44. At 4:00pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
I don't believe either Clinton could be confirmed for Supreme Court. The Republicans would filibuster (and privately be thankful that they did not alter the cloture rule a few years ago). Hillary might be confirmed for a cabinet position. Whether she would want it is another question.

She ought to just stay in the Senate, which is a pretty good place in itself. If she is not satisfied with that, then it's pretty clear she saw it only as a stepping-stone to the presidency. NY State has a history of indulging carpetbaggers with higher ambitions than serving the people of NYS. Robert Kennedy of Massachusetts, who we are remembering this week for his death 40 years ago, was a senator for NY on his way to running for the presidency.

Complain about this comment
45. At 4:46pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Oh Nooooooo!

Complain about this comment
46. At 4:49pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
But this is encouraging!

Will you vote for Obama is Hillary is the VP nominee
yes(182) 28%
no(459) 72%

641 total votes since 06/06/08

Complain about this comment
47. At 5:06pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Apparently "carpetbagger" has a somewhat different meaning in the U.K. I intended the U.S. meaning.

Complain about this comment
48. At 5:16pm on 06 Jun 2008, Adrian_Evitts wrote:
What a great picture!

The best of both worlds ... or the worst?!

Complain about this comment
49. At 5:38pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
A contrast - who's more experienced?

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
50. At 5:46pm on 06 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
It's too bad Feinstein isn't interested
in the job. But, then, we need her in
the Senate.

She is one of the few Dems who would
actually appeal to us independents.

If she could just clone herself a few
times, politics in America would be
a better scene.

Complain about this comment
51. At 5:51pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Now I understand why moderation is taking so long. It's all those links to stupid websites.

Complain about this comment
52. At 5:57pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Ed (#46), there is no solace to be taken in any web poll. These are not scientific samples, and are therefore not statistically significant. I think you probably already know that, but for some reason post it here anyway.

Complain about this comment
53. At 6:12pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Guess which demographic this is targetting

Yeah! Right!

At least you won't meet Shrub on the course, 'cause he gave up golf in respect for the thousands killed and injured in Iraq...

yuk!
ed

Complain about this comment
54. At 6:20pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Gary,
"I think you probably already know that, but for some reason post it here anyway."

I reckon you can guess the "some reason"
;-)
Lighten up - you're beginning to take all this far too seriously.

And, Carpetbagger has regional differences in meaning in the US as well, but "I think you probably already know that."
;-)

Relax
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/9/2/mccain-money-tt080520.gif, the Mods seem to work in bursts - they've got a lot to cover besides this blog.

Salaam, etc.
ed

Complain about this comment
55. At 6:27pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Missed silly link ;-((

Relax
, the Mods seem to work in bursts - they've got a lot to cover besides this blog.

Complain about this comment
56. At 6:35pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Just one more silly link before serious work
;-((
Self abuse?

Bye,
ed

Complain about this comment
57. At 6:35pm on 06 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Ed (#54), I think I'm light enough. I don't mind a joke now and then, but I come to a BBC site because it's more substantive than most and because I am interested in the opinions of people around the world who come to the BBC. I am also interested in the opinions of expatriate Americans living in the U.K., but you seem to have run out of original things to say.

Complain about this comment
58. At 6:41pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #38 bethpa

Obama cannot “promise” to appoint her, or anyone else, to the Supreme Court because it is a federal offense for a candidate to promise to appoint someone to office. (18 USC 599) (Someone (possibly Gary Hill?) pointed out my error on this a while back.)

"Why do you think Hillary could not be a supreme court judge?"

I'm not saying she couldn't. In my mind, she does not possess the characteristics I feel such a position requires. I do agree that prior judicial experience is not an absolute requirement and depending on the make-up of the Court at any given time, may even be desirable. However, the notion that a seat on the Supreme Court is a “political payoff” demeans everyone involved, so I doubt Obama would nominate her. The argument that she's more qualified than some currently on the court is specious and I hope you don't really consider that to be a valid reason to consider her.

To be quite honest, I doubt that she would ever even accept an appointment to the USSC. I can't conceive that she (or Bill) would want to go through a confirmation process. Her confirmation hearings would be brutal and long. Here's why:

The ABA criteria are integrity, professional qualifications, and temperament - all subjective and open to lots and lots of debate if and when it came to confirmation. Some of the following may not even be valid, but they would all be brought up and rehashed and poked and prodded ad nauseam. Consider:

Integrity - Bosnian sniper, cattle futures, Sir Edmund Hillary as namesake, "lost and found" law documents, FBI files, scores and scores of "I don't remember" or "I don't know" during sworn testimony, fundraising illegalities in LA, Rose Law firm billing discrepancies, Lincoln bedroom, and lots and lots of other stuff. Further, financial irregularities and conflict of interest issues would be raised (not necessarily all hers, but Bill's as well), e.g., donors to library, Bill's business dealings with and remuneration from foreigners, sources of income, Clinton foundation (e.g., why is only a very small fraction of foundation money going to real projects as opposed to salaries, expenses, travel, entertainment), James Riady, John Huang, payoffs for pardons, e.g., Marc Rich, HRC relatives getting large fees for representing pardon applicants, and Puerto Rican pardons in exchange for support in NY Senate race, etc.,etc.

Professional Qualifications - flunked DC bar exam, most significant legal experience as junior partner in a not prestigious law firm whose senior partner was jailed, not even a full professor of law while teaching, no judicial bench experience whatsoever, etc.

Temperament - Lots of reports (most uncorroborated but from many independent sources) of petty, boorish, and vindictive behavior over many years towards subordinates, political foes, Bill's girlfriends, and others.

If you thought the Thomas hearings with Anita Hill, etc., were a circus, Hillary's hearings would be several orders of magnitude worse. Again, I'm not saying all the previous items are necessarily true or appropriate to consider, but I believe they are very likely to be dredged up during the hearings.

I just can't see her voluntarily inviting these issues (most of which many people have already forgotten about) to be dredged up again.

Complain about this comment
59. At 6:47pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
Addendum to post #58

In my opinion, much of the stuff I identified in post #58 is likely to come up during a possible Cabinet post confirmation hearing, as well.

You've got to admit, neither party cuts the other party a lot of slack when they can see an easy way to embarrass or damage the opposition.

Complain about this comment
60. At 6:58pm on 06 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:
Another link, but to a not-so-stupid article in, of all places, The Guardian For all those Hillary-haters above (and you know who you are) this sums up why Mrs Clinton would be a good choice for the vice-presidency. I would be doubtful if she accepted the offer should it be made since it could effectively silence her, surely an attraction for those who oppose her. Nevertheless, she's the only one who can effectively bring together the divergent opinions within the Democratic Party. Perhaps no decision will be made until July, waiting to see who will be Mr McCain's alter ego.

Complain about this comment
61. At 7:12pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #43 bethpa

". . . and imo the Republicans who have hidden that the Bush administration lied the US into a war of choice are traitors. . ."

Agreed, but you're indulging in selective history. If you were to rephrase that to something along the lines of ". . . Republicans and Democrats and Lieberman who participated in the lies that led the US into an unnecessary war of choice . . ." it would be more correct and sound a lot less partisan.

". . . Bush/Cheney should be in impeachment hearings now."

I don't think that at this late date, with only 7 months prior to the end of their terms, that would be particularly worthwhile. What I would prefer is for the US to ship them to The Hague at the earliest opportunity, or, even better, just drop them off in the middle of Baghdad or Fallujah all by themselves.

Complain about this comment
62. At 7:29pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
#58 peterm99

I never used the word "promise" in any of my posts...but Obama can say he will back or propose something she would want if he became president

Deals like that are an everyday part of politics..its when money is involved that it becomes criminal...or some form of coersion.

The Supreme Court is very political and right wing now. Hillary would give it more balance and she would understand the political meaning or ramifications behind some decisions.

The Clintons would love to be the center of attention again with a confirmation hearing. I remember when people were saying she would never run for the Senate..because of all the things you have written...but she did. The Clintons live for this stuff : ) Look at their track record.

Hilary would go down in the history books as the wife of a president, a Senator..and a presidential candidate who had a very strong run for the presidency ..Plus a supreme court justice !?!..She would love it!

Imo thats her underlying motivation...her record in history...and she loves attention.

Complain about this comment
63. At 7:36pm on 06 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
David, #60:

I suspect that this argument makes sense
to everyone except Obama and HRC.
Aside from the Bill factor, there is also
the factor that the VP is essentially a
"do-nothing" job. This explains why
Kennedy took in LBJ - it simultaneously
increased his appeal in the South, and
took LBJ out of the senate.

Now, VP's could possibly be useful in
a variety of ways, but Hillary wants to
run something. If she finds her way
into an Obama administration this way,
then she would be a continual irritant
to him and she would feel thwarted.

What possible task could he assign
to her? They have already disagreed
about health care, an issue which
other posters to this blog are seemingly
unaware.

Foreign policy? Both candidates consider
the other's approach unworkable.

Iraq? Hillary favors a conditional withdraw
(with which I happen to agree), while
Obama favors a fixed timetable.

The real issue is democratic party unity,
and that is as much a matter of personalities
as organizational structure. Politicians
in America are not known for humility,
in the same way that kings in Europe
assumed that they had a "divine right"
to rule. This appeared to be born out by
reality right up until the storming of the
Bastille.

Complain about this comment
64. At 7:46pm on 06 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
peterm99 #61

I'm just hoping Bush /Cheney don't try to get the US involved in a war against Iran to stop any investigations into their criminality.

Nixon left office under pressure from Republicans. It was a mistake to not have put him on trial so that it would be clear what was illegal behavior....even for a president.

I was reacting to the report that came out from the Senate Intelligence Committee that has listed all the deception that was done to involve the US in a war against Iraq.

There was an editorial in the NY times today :

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06fri1.html?

The Truth about the War

"The report was supported by only two of the seven Republicans on the 15-member Senate panel. The five dissenting Republicans first tried to kill it, and then to delete most of its conclusions. They finally settled for appending objections. The bulk of their criticisms were sophistry transparently intended to protect Mr. Bush and deny the public a full accounting of how he took America into a disastrous war."

.....................................

Some of the Republicans are protecting Bush..but people like Hillary are also caught up in the lies given to go to war.

I'd like to see some sort of legal investigation about what happened. I am less interested in punishing Bush/Cheney than in a condemnation of those illegal acts to stop a repeat of this.

I hope more people who saw the events like Scott McCllelan, will come forward as Americans and give us their testimonies..so that we can find out some of the truth

Complain about this comment
65. At 8:03pm on 06 Jun 2008, adrianev wrote:
I always knew Roddy McDowall would reign supreme one day...

My only question is, now that we have fought the "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes", who will win the "Battle for the Planet of the Apes"... And of course, who can play the role of McCain, now that Charlton Heston has left us?

Complain about this comment
66. At 8:19pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
David,
"she's the only one who can effectively bring together the divergent opinions within the Democratic Party."

She's the only one, She's the best candidate, ...sounds familiar and simply pure assertion. AND, I'm not sure a cosmetic truce ever truly promotes party unity - c/f Brown/Blair.

Gary,
I admit I haven't had much 'original' to say lately, but Peter says most of what I might, and mostly better than I might. I'm just kinda enjoying the opportunities for ironic humour with which this situation abounds.

Be kind. I don't cost much to indulge, and I might just think of something original to say - who knows? And there's always the PgDn key.

Peter,
You forgot to mention a demonstrated penchant for moving goalposts, which doesn't commend one as a referee. I'm with you 100% on the Hague. Tie them up for years on end, and out of here.

Beth,
You're right that HRC might actually enjoy the confirmation ruckus. After all, attention is attention.

G'nR,
I was amazed that LBJ took the job. As Senate Majority Leader, he was almost as powerful as the President, and it was effectively a huge demotion. Ego.

As to Iraq withdrawal, the Iraqis have their own ideas, and they prefer a timetable.

Meanwhile, McFoot-in-mouth slips with key groups

And, Barack seems to be attracting the Fundies

Wonders never cease!

I'll try and think of something original tomorrow, to paraphrase Scarlet.

xx
ed

Complain about this comment
67. At 8:55pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Dow down almost 400 points
Oil up $11+
Gold back above $900

How will you ride the slide?

Obama wants to liquify coal. How green is that?
xx
ed

Complain about this comment
68. At 8:55pm on 06 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:
re: #64 bethpa

OK, I understand what you're trying to say, and can't disagree with what you write.

However, I think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

1. In a de facto sense (at least it can be so argued by the White House), Congress has already authorized Bush to go to war against Iran anytime he feels he has sufficient reason. Unfortunately, what actually constitutes sufficient reason is not specifically spelled out in the authorization.

2. The War Powers Act also authorizes the President to go to war pretty much anytime he thinks it's necessary, even without Congressional authorization. He doesn't even have to consult with Congress for up to six months afterwards.

3. Based on both actual USSC decisions and non-decisions (i.e., declining to rule), the only way Congress can stop a war is to refuse to allocate the necessary funding. Even after attaining majority status, the Dems have repeatedly caved in to the Repubs on the funding issue.

4. Given that the USSC has not disallowed Bush-type signing statements, it seems that the administration can pretty much ignore with impunity any law passed by Congress that he feels limits his nearly absolute powers.

5. I doubt very much that the Senate has the necessary votes to convict should an impeachment resolution be passed by the House. Even if they did have the votes, Bush loyalists can drag the process out for many weeks or months if they so desire.

Therefore, no matter what, the administration has essentially a free hand until the end of the term, even if impeachment hearings were to commence today. There's no way to _prevent_ Bush/Cheney from doing whatever they want, and, given the power of pardon, they can even make sure that they won't be held accountable for anything under US law after the fact, either.

That's why I like the idea of dropping them off in Iraq to let the Iraqis personally show them their appreciation for Bush's "liberation".

Complain about this comment
69. At 9:11pm on 06 Jun 2008, Reuben33g wrote:
That photo-shop thing is as scary as the Hillary's apointment to the Supreme Court or Ann Coulter as McCain's public relations.

Signs of the apocolypse, maybe it's time for me to gather my family and head for the hills.

Complain about this comment
70. At 9:24pm on 06 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:
#63. G+R " Hillary wants to run something." IF she were to be VP, surely a freshly elected President could dream up a new portfolio for her - much as was done by Tony Blair in creating a "Deputy Prime Minister", who had (and has) no constitutional role to play, but it mollified John Prescott. Making her the Chair of a Health Consultation group or some other issue which is dear to her heart could be readily done. Just because Mr Obama wants one thing and she wants another doesn't mean to say that they can't co-operate or compromise (if they were British they would!) over the details. After all, a revolution in the provision of healthcare cannot be done with the stroke of a pen, by Executive Order. As a former Senator - and President of the Senate - she would know the inner workings of that body and be in a position to grease the wheels of what could well be a rough journey to enactment.

#66 Ed - If Mrs Clinton isn't the best person to restore the party to unity, who would you suggest? Don't berate me for my opinions, but provide an answer. For a person to win so many supporters is no small feat, and it's not as if Mr Obama won a landslide in voting primaries. That a number of party Pooh-Bahs voted for the presumptive Nominee is irrelevant to voters who had hoped that the glass ceiling would be broken; as it is, the choices the electorate are little different to that in the past - they are both men. One of them happens to have a darker complexion than the other, but underneath that they are the same biologically. The real revolution will be when a woman actually receives her party's nomination and goes on to win the presidency. I don't see that happening any time soon.

A passing thought - I wonder what the result of the Republican primaries would have been had the leading candidate been African-American? Considering that in some areas Mr Obama received 90% of the vote, would colour have trumped policy or would the Republican agenda have been acceptable?

Complain about this comment
71. At 9:35pm on 06 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
Ed, #67, loved "Peak Oil".

I'm planning on riding it out in a
carbon-fiber based vehicle, such
as an Aptera (www.aptera.com).

If you're in Europe, you should soon be
able to buy a Volkswagen 1-litre car:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_liter_car

Now, if we could just get those
gas-hogging Priuses off the road,
our problem would be solved.

Complain about this comment
72. At 9:50pm on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
73. At 9:54pm on 06 Jun 2008, nobleFloridian wrote:
I don't like either of them, but I thought the picture was in very poor taste. I am surprised that Justin got it past his site moderators, or is it that we bloggers are held to a different standard of decency?

Are we sure that Bill was not in on that "secret" meeting with Obama? I believe that Blair House is at the other end of the street from the White House, but if she takes the job (IF offered!), Obama will be hard-pressed to keep Bill's nose out of the nation's business. Some next-door neighbors are pretty nosy!

Complain about this comment
74. At 10:10pm on 06 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
David_C, #70: The problem that the
Democrats face is that the Obama-HRC
battle has created a demographic rift
inside their party. I would suggest that
it is essentially a manufactured one.

HRC being the VP candidate might make
sense if the personalities were different,
but in the end management is a highly
personal enterprise, whether it be a
small company, or an imperial republic
(which is what we are, whether we want
to admit it or not.)

The Dems are going to have to find another
solution, but, being the clever folks that
they are, I am sure that they will happen
upon it.

Complain about this comment
75. At 10:20pm on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:
Dear Moderator,
Sorry I caught you on the hop. # 72 was not bad language, just a simple question in Dutch asking why Justin had updated and linked us to a foreign university high school site. Had you guessing though!

Complain about this comment
76. At 00:03am on 07 Jun 2008, Grrrlie wrote:
NO - NO - AND AGAIN - NO!!!!! No Hilrod on the Obama ticket - not as a VP, not as a Cabinet member. She's about World War III against Iran. She's about lies, lies and more lies - oops, "misspeaking."

As to McCain't having a socalled "female side" - I'm a 60-yr old female and I'll put this "delicately, in print: does that mean it's time to change my "McCain't" to "McC-nt"??? (Or is that to non-pc?!!!! :P)

In reality, his "female side" is his billionnaire barracuda bride! :D

Complain about this comment
77. At 00:43am on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
David,

As to "Who can heal the party?", I wouldn't start with someone who has such nationwide "negative" ratings and a reputation for divisive behaviour. I would look elsewhere for healing than to one who has been doing so much of the wounding. Frankly, HRC needs healing more than the party does.

"The real revolution will be when a woman actually receives her party's nomination and goes on to win the presidency."

It ISN'T about gender or race! I think that's the core of your problem - you've been fixated on one particular 'glass ceiling', when what we need is to find a person with the right qualities, particularly the ability to bring people together and rehabilitate America's standing in the world.

I think the process has succeeded in doing just that. He happens to be 'black' and male, but able to touch base with his own feminine side. Let's celebrate that, and hope he can actually finesse the Middle-East despite all present indications.

He certainly seems more likely in that regard than either Mr McWardog or Ms Clinton.

Glad you liked the wild ride, G'nR, and I reckon the Dems are more likely to 'stumble upon' a solution than find it by contrivance.

Btw, the meaningless web poll has reversed its earlier results...
Will you vote for Obama is Hillary is the VP nominee
yes(3637) 71%
no(1508) 29%
5145 total votes since 06/06/08

Why not visit and add your vote? ;-)

See y'all later!
xx
ed

Complain about this comment
78. At 01:06am on 07 Jun 2008, Grrrlie wrote:
A rotten female candidate does nothing to advance women in the world - sensationalism and petty personal power-mongering is the opposite of what women in the world need. Thoughful wisdom and power-sharing, teamwork, long-view policies: this is Obama's approach and has working space for women and men to share power. Hilrod isn't a power-sharer - she's a power JUNKIE. She'll say anything, do anything to get what SHE's after - and then all of her "handlers" and "helpers" are stuck doing the inevitable damage control. How does that advance an image of women as thoughtful, competent and wise planners? How does that create a foundation for truly talented and brilliant women to advance? Answer: Hilrod is an OBSTACLE for women's advancement!

O-U-T WITH HILL-A-RY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Complain about this comment
79. At 01:19am on 07 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
#70 David _Cunard

"I wonder what the result of the Republican primaries would have been had the leading candidate been African-American? "

The Republicans have tried to have some black politicians represent their ideas but it hasn't worked very well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JC_Watts

JC Watts..and he has been mentioned for the vp for Mc Cain

There is a kind of cookie..that blacks who are Republicans are called..but it might not get past the moderator..black on the outside and white on the inside....They used to be called Uncle Toms though...

Complain about this comment
80. At 01:21am on 07 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
peterm99

The laws have been perverted and the US government is not following the law. I think it is conceivable that a war with Iran could be averted by some in the US military refusing to wage it...

Cheney is reputed on the internet to have a place to go in Dubai and Bush reputedly has a place in Paraguay. They need nations without extradition to the US

Complain about this comment
81. At 01:27am on 07 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
Grrrlie ( and I love your name)

The problem is that some of the women who are in support of her are good people. How to keep them in engaged with politics while moving Hillary off the stage.

Hillary has compromised too much and taken too many opposing opinions. I would not trust her.

( And maybe you will agree with me..thats as women gain power, the world will be a safer place and less war like...)

Complain about this comment
82. At 01:51am on 07 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
The McClatchy news service was known n the left for giving accurate information in the run up to the war in Iraq ..and now they have this article:

Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40080.html

"WASHINGTON — Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday."

skip

"The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator."

"Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces."

more at the link

Complain about this comment
83. At 02:14am on 07 Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
The first step has been taken? Barack Obama is having a sex change operation? This way he can be both the first black and the first woman President.

Complain about this comment
84. At 05:55am on 07 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:
#77 Ed - For African-Americans it was very much about race as exit polls have shown - and many female voters felt the same about 'their' candidate. I can't see that a third party is going to heal the divisions between the Obama camp and the Clintonistas - she has to do it and no-one can pinch-hit for her. To leave her out of the process would be an affront to all those who voted for her - remember, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" and millions of women will not take kindly to Mr Obama should he in any way cold-shoulder her. I'm not sure that showing his "feminine side" would be such a good idea since the Larry Sinclair claims could come back to haunt him, even though it seems highly improbable that there is any veracity in what Sinclair claims - for a start, he's no oil painting!

# 79 bethpa "There is a kind of cookie" - Oh, you mean an Oreo! Actually my least favourite of all American sweet products, although I understand that they are being (or have been) introduced in the UK. But IF there was a successful African-American Republican, I just wondered whether colour would trump policy.

Complain about this comment
85. At 07:52am on 07 Jun 2008, LesParke wrote:
Re 84

The only reason that a Clinton supporter would vote for McCain - who is pretty much her ideological opposite - over Obama would be a combination of stubbornness, blind loyalty and a tempter tantrum that would put a 4-year-old to shame. You can pigeonhole roughly 18 million people like that if you want, but personally I'd give them a little more credit.

Complain about this comment
86. At 08:03am on 07 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
David_C, #84, all that Obama has to do
is to take a woman as his running mate,
and he is back to where he was, without
Hillary's helpful guidance.

#79, bethpa, I seem to recall that
Lincoln was a republican, (and so
was Eisenhower). You are confusing
the Democrats' current popularity with
a (supposed) long-term advantage
based on race.

Complain about this comment
87. At 11:07am on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
David,

"she has to do it and no-one can pinch-hit for her. To leave her out of the process would be an affront to all those who voted for her - remember, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" and millions of women will not take kindly to Mr Obama should he in any way cold-shoulder her."

Open your ears and eyes. SHE has consistently been the one doing the cold-shouldering - that's the problem. Yes, she has to 'get on board', and that will go some way towards healing the rifts which she has been instrumental in creating.

I cannot recall any similar situation in which the loser of such competitions repeatedly neglected (refused?) to concede gracefully. It has been a pattern throughout the extended primary - when Obama came second, he congratulated HRC, and when she came second she either said nothing or made excuses.

I agree with Beth and Grrrlie that it is unfortunate for the cause of women that this particular one (with her narcissistic complications) has been the one to attempt to break the 'glass ceiling'. The problems are exacerbated by the simple fact that to succeed in a 'man's world', many (mistakenly?) feel the need to sacrifice or diminish feminity, which is perceived as a weakness. Thatcher is another prime example.

I also agree that when the right women get into positions of power and influence, the world may begin to become a better place. The Temple of Solomon is said by some to have been built upon the ruins of the temple of Astarte, as was the Greek Patriarchal system built upon a preceding Matriarchy, of which the written evidence is "fragmentary", i.e. the tablets were broken up into little bits.
Carrying body and soul and embracing the one,
Can you avoid separation?
Attending fully and becoming supple,
Can you be as a newborn babe?
Washing and cleansing the primal vision,
Can you be without stain?
Loving all men and ruling the country,
Can you be without cleverness?
Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.

Lao Tzu, some 2400 years ago

xx
ed

Complain about this comment
88. At 11:29am on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Speaking of hybrid candidacies,
BREAKING NEWS

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
89. At 12:32pm on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
What is the most important election issue?

This is it!

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
90. At 1:01pm on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
David and all,

A studied view of the feminist/feminine difficulties
in the primary outcome. Well worth reading, imo.

Looking forward to HRC's speech this Lunchtime/Teatime (depending on timezone). It's at High Noon (EDT), 1700 GMT.

Pace
ed

Complain about this comment
91. At 2:45pm on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Make that 1700 BST or 1600 GMT
[blush]
ed

Complain about this comment
92. At 6:02pm on 07 Jun 2008, british-ish wrote:
Oh, Spitting Image, where are you now we need you?
But in the sidebar of that link it says "Webb to meet Obama in Virgina". Justin, is there something you're not telling us? I know the Beeb doesn't pay that well, but can a Brit be VP?

Complain about this comment
93. At 6:10pm on 07 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

The only reason that a Clinton supporter would vote for McCain - who is pretty much her ideological opposite - over Obama would be a combination of stubbornness, blind loyalty and a tempter tantrum that would put a 4-year-old to shame.

There is one more to add to your list.
they could be a good old fashioned racist.

Complain about this comment
94. At 6:15pm on 07 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:
They CAN(be vp), but america won't let them.

After al all school kids ( me still being there ) know we can but we may not.

Ah spitting image failed here in the states when they gave it a go.
people did not like to see reagan in bed with maggie while looking for his marbles.(I think ed stole those and made a lampshade out of them.

Complain about this comment
95. At 05:31am on 08 Jun 2008, DENNISJRWORLD wrote:
Hillary and Barrack!

Complain about this comment
96. At 08:38am on 08 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:
HillBilly back to the Barracks!

Complain about this comment
97. At 9:13pm on 08 Jun 2008, mary gravitt wrote:
Is it better to leave the Clintons outside the Obama camp to make mischief?

Complain about this comment
98. At 9:23pm on 08 Jun 2008, sleepless_in_NJ wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.