It's the Bill, stupid
Neither Barack Obama nor I want to spend Saturday with Hillary Clinton in Washington. I will let him decide whether we do.
I have tried repeatedly to view the website for those who want to force Hillary Clinton onto the ticket but it seems to be overwhelmed. Is this a story?
Me, I agree with the first sentence of this and it's not just the perceived gracelessness of her demeanour in recent hours: it's the simple fact that Barack Obama does not want That Man down the corridor. He wants Bill for his ambassador to Vanuatu. It's the Bill, stupid. And the Bill issue is not just the Library and the opacity of the funding (the donors list is secret) and the potential for special prosecutors to be beating the doors down looking for him - it is the simple fact of his presence.
Obama is confident (arrogant?) enough to want to sink or swim on his own. If she wants to marshal his healthcare plans in the Senate, fine; anything more is dreamland.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For once, Mr. Webb, I concur with you in your assessment.
Complain about this comment
Old Politics and New Faces: Is enough, enough?
Graceless yes, on Hillary's part, how she loosened her grip on the candidate role, hopefully she will indeed, just let go.
Is it also arrogance on her part or is it greed, one can only guess from the outside, but Hillary you stuck with Bill and look what you got.
The synergism of the two of you, and perhaps just you alone or is it Bill alone, is distasteful apparently to too many people.
And then there is the history of behavior that goes into a politician's image:
As McCann argues, we know his history and apparently we know the Clinton duo (and from the ever presence of Chelsey--and what accomplishments might she just try to use to become a politician, it seems rather obvious her mother is pushing), we don't have a history about Obama.
But then a short history, collaborative orientation, and leadership is better than a long history of old school politics, spoiled personalities.
Enough of the Clintons and hopefully the voters will say enough of you too, McCann
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Justin -
In spite of occasionally having to wince at some of your comments on this blog, I appreciate most of your observations, commentary, and references, as do I also appreciate the opportunity to interact with many of the commenters thereto.
However, the implication of your inclusion of "confident (arrogant?)" is beneath you. Certainly Obama has many faults, but I have not noted even a hint of arrogance about him. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible explanatory rationale for your inclusion of the parenthetical comment, I will consider your comment to be what we in the US call a "cheap shot".
Complain about this comment
(revised from post #1)
If Obama has any sense of self preservation he will not ask that ruthless woman to be his Vice President, neither should he promise her a cabinet post.
Besides that obvious point, it's Anti-Clinton sentiment that got him where he is now, he isn't so foolish as to sabotage his own campaign now.
Complain about this comment
The moderators haven?t censored my second post (#6) YET,
So considering what I left out, I have to assume that they don?t want me reminding everyone of a very dark skeleton in Hillary?s closet on the very first post of the blog.
Complain about this comment
This is a bit off the subject. Condoleezza Rice spoke very graciously about Obama's win today. (And she is a republican.) Compare her words with those of Hillary Clinton after Obama's win. Can there be any doubt why she lost the race? Obama is a gentleman, Rice is a lady, Clinton is a thug.
Complain about this comment
re: #7 Reuben33g
Sorry, Reuben, that doesn't help us out a lot.
There are so many skeletons in that closet (and they're all very, very dark) that you'll have to provide a few more clues so that we can narrow down the possibilities to which specific skeleton you were referring.
Complain about this comment
I am so relieved that Obama has won.
Both Bill and Hillary are brilliant, determined, and relentless politicians but it is all about their own ambitions and ego. Bill was a mediocre president... It is only the contrast with his dreadful successor that casts him as anything else.
I have, for some time, felt that the 16 years of Bill and GW will be viewed as an awful watershed in US history. Eight years of Bill's stagnation and eight years of GW's corrupt, disasterous incompetence.
Sixteen years of lost opportunities and wasted time that could have been spent dealing with global warming, the energy crisis, and the economic changes brought on by globalization.
Eighty percent of Americans feel the country is going in the wrong direction.
Hillary was never going to be the candidate of change. She is the epitome of what we all despise about Washington DC. The smoozing with lobbyists, the trading Presidential pardons for contributions to her Senatorial campaign, trading Senate bills for campaign contributions.
And God knows what Bill would get up to if we let him loose in the White House for another four or, I shudder, eight years.
What did he actually do to earn the $109 million dollars he has received since he was last in office? Who are the secret donors that paid for his Presidential library...
And Hillary's latest performance... "I won't concede and endorse you unless you offer me the VP slot?"
And all this crap about winning the popular vote if you count Michigan and Florida?
Bill and Hillary have been the two most powerful Democratic politicians for the last 20 years. If they didn't like the way the primaries were structured or the rules by which the nomination was decided, they had lots of time and certainly the clout to have changes made. They had no problem with any of the rules or procedures... Until they found that Hillary was going to lose according to those rules and procedures. And then suddenly they are weeping over the disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan.
This isn't Al Gore having the election stolen by a bunch of Bush Supreme Court appointees. This was rules and procedures that were created and interpreted by other Democrats.
Hillary is tough. Hillary is intelligent. Hillary is determined. But she is also totally self serving, lacks any integrity, and will do anything to win whatever contest she is in.
I am sorry for the many decent well meaning people who became so invested in her candidacy. Quite bluntly, she is, and always was, unworthy of their support. I can only hope that her churlish behavior of the last few days will make them realize that and that they will come to recognize that they will actually have a much better candidate in Obama come November.
Complain about this comment
There's a consistent pattern here. Every time Obama is gracious to Clinton, she takes advantage of it. Offering her the VP slot would no doubt have the same effect. I was worried that he might be stupid enough to offer her the position, but selecting Caroline Kennedy to the search team indicates that, no, he is smarter than that. He has chosen a woman, and a sympathetic figure, to handle the rejection of Hillary.
Complain about this comment
re: #10 SalemDesign
Wow! I'd like to have written that!
Kudos on a great post.
Complain about this comment
#11. I am so glad you pointed out that Obama chose Caroline Kennedy for he VP search so that a woman would be rejecting Clinton. That was a very clever thing to do and I missed it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
peterm99 (#5), I don't agree that characterizing Obama's demeanor as (possibly) arrogance was a "cheap shot." I can see how that interpretation might reasonably be arrived at. It doesn't bother me, however. I agree with the late John Kenneth Galbraith, who said: "modesty is a greatly overrated virtue."
Complain about this comment
The USA political scenery is very much attractive to all in the whole world for many reasons.
1- people really want to know whether the USA has leave above the prejudice of the past.
2- 2-people want to know whether the USA can leave up to what she preaches all over the world "DEMOCRACY". Now we can say the country is beginning to make passes ?KEEP ON?
The situation of Hillary and Obama is very unique in the sense that they are both the first in their kind of candidates to get this far. You need to understand that while I and many other people sympathise with the candidacy of Hillary being a woman to lose out of the race for Obama, we need to see the inappropriate campaign Hillary has been running, this is becoming something detrimental to her and the party.
THE CASE OF THE REV. WRIGHT- she generated unnecessary debate and accusation on Obama while the USA is a democratic country and everybody has the right for freedom of speech as define by democracy , with that in mine Obama never the less denounce the reverence speech but Hillary was not satisfy because of her negativity towards Obama. bcos of votes but she failed.
THE CASE OF OBAMA MAKING STATEMENT OF PEOPLE HOLDING TO GUNS OR FALLING BACK TO RELIGION-
Hillary knew very well that Obama meant no insult while saying this, nevertheless she was using this as campaign speeches against Obama. bcos of votes but again she failed.
THE CASE OF BOSNIA- Hillary said, she was shot at by snipers etc, this were clear lies proven by others and documents/video, she has given some explanations for such blunders while she claim to be experienced in foreign affairs but then Obama never use it against her.
THE CASE OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN- I wish you explain what proves a better leader than an obedience person, a person that respects rules and regulation/ law if you like. These states break the rules, regulations etc of the democratic party while they were warn and Hillary went along with them, good the rest candidates realize on time to pull out their names, the results were cancelled, Hillary signed to this same as every other candidates initially, now understanding that she is losing, she is requested for the results to be reinstated in other words, to hell with the rules / regulations of the party.
THE CASE OF WHITE BLUE COLARS VOTERS- she has persistently been talking about this as though only blacks have been voting for Obama. ?THIS IS RACISM? PORTRAY BY THE CLINTONS EXTENSIVELY AGAINST OBAMA. Obama has raised more money than her in small donations, pls. Can you tell me where all this money is coming from if people do not prefer him to the Clintons, why is she in debt while Obama is out spending her AN IRONY. This kind of politics and attitudes of the Clinton is destroying / damaging the image of the Democratic Party and the USA at large
Finally it takes a lot to know how to lose graciously. This is also one of the characteristic of a good leader and somebody who is reader for the betterment of any society he or she is involved in shaping: the Clinton does not even know how to lose, A SHAME, she is trying to blackmail for the VP post. It is this sense that has cost the world the unending war in Iraq. She could not even congratulate of being the getting the numbers needed, Pls wind back the video of the GOP and see what the candidates said to McCain when he cross the mark and you will see the different.
Complain about this comment
Bill's reputation is so low now that
women are now denying having slept with HIM!
He is falling fast. Apparently pigs with
rounded tusks are considered the primary
form of wealth on Vanuatu, I wonder how
many of them Bill could buy with $109
million.
Complain about this comment
SalemDesign (#10):
While I agree with most of your (very well written) post, I disagree with you on one point:
All three counts of the votes in Miami-Dade showed that Bush won Florida in 2000, and three counts are all that are allowed by Florida?s election laws. The Supreme Court didn?t steal the election from Gore, because it wasn?t his to begin with. What the Supreme Court did was simply uphold the law, and put an end to an illegal delay to the end of the election. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices were still very liberal, so the justices that were appointed by Dubya?s daddy were not numerous enough to control the Supreme Court.
Those who continue to spread the myth that the 2000 presidential election was stolen act like Hillary is now: sore losers.
Complain about this comment
Hilary is an extremely complex and cranial individual who always and I do mean Always has her eyes on the future. For her to concede to Mr. Obama exactly when every political talking head in the world expected her to, would be just too easy and way too anticlimactic. Not to mention potentially damaging to her incredibly loyal and passionate political base. I mean we are talking millions of people here! Oh' and yes, potential tens of millions of green backs for the Dems.
It's quite clear that Hilary's concession/unity speech will be in at least two and maybe even three complex parts. We've already witnessed part 1, which has many people both pro and con Clinton howling in anticipation. Plus, the political donations are still rolling into her coffers. In this case, haste would indeed make waste $ And the news networks certainly do not mind a bit more drama dollars rolling in their direction.
Mr. Obama is also benefiting from the Clinton drama via an extra day or two of breathing room before the Republicans truly pounce in earnest. He will also play out the VP selection process for all it is worth for both fun and political profit. For the sooner he gives the McCain camp a clear picture of the full ticket, the sooner they will devise a strategy to defeat it.
As every living snake charmer well knows: Cobras don't like biting moving targets.
Complain about this comment
If you credit Barack Obama with running a brilliant campaign ,to then say that he does not have the ability to lead America, is disengenious at the very least.To run against, and beat, the Clintons and overcome the prejudices that are rack america,is no mean feat.
If he were to be the first Non white (Not African American- He is mixed race)president , the country would go up in the estimation of the world.If not, the not so pleasant underbelly of the country will be exposed.It will be interesting times nonetheless.
Complain about this comment
Peterm99:
My answer (#14) to your implied question (#9) was censored by Hillary?s moderators at the BBC.
If you think about what I said in my (as yet) uncensored post (#6) and what Kelly McParland said at the end of his story , and then apply those similar ideas to what you already know of Hillary?s skeleton-filled closet, you should be able to guess exactly which skeleton I was referring to.
Complain about this comment
Justin, your comments just go to prove what I have said all along, that you have favoured Mr Obama over Mrs Clinton in the most partisan manner. Your maladroit remarks about a candidate who has received the best part of eighteen million votes do you and your masters in London a disservice.
How do you *know* what Mr Obama wants or does not want, or are you so close that he consults you on what to do? I think not. It was in no way graceless for her to say what she had to say last evening; considering that a flood of latecomers to the Barack lovefest appeared to desert her at the last moment, I think she was very cordial when she could have put in the knife to indicate how unloyal these creatures are. Had it not been for those fair-weather friends, the result could have been different considering that, as one of my fellow posters pointed out, Mr Obama had (and has) insufficient pledged candidates to secure his nomination. As another observer has mentioned, perhaps out of consideration for her supporters gathered together and the countless numbers watching on television, she had no wish to burden them with too much bad news. Whatever had to be done could wait; surely the baying Obama supporters could be patient for a short while; she is not Marie Antoinette and the venue was not the Place de la Revolution. All things in good time - and now, just 24 hours later she has made her decision. It wasn't really too long to wait, was it?
With regard to the running mate, the reasoning you make is specious. A president is not obliged to have the vice-president "down the corridor", even though apparently Mr Cheney has this arrangement. It could just as easily be in the vice-presidential residence or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. There would be no cause for President Clinton (to give him his correct title and mode of address) to even meet with a new occupant of the Oval Office. As one of the most successful holders of the office in recent times, Mr Obama might well want the former president's guidance on some matters - experience can make life very much easier. A good leader selects input from all manner of people; if President Carter can see fit to publicly advise Mr Obama, then certainly President Clinton should be able to do so. I would hope that Mr Obama would select Mrs Clinton who shows great tenacity and, come the October televised debates, would be a distinct asset, since Mr Obama time and again has shown discomfort without a script. In that respect, Mrs Clinton is far more able; he's better with a text, she's better on her feet.
Finally, "dreamland". There's an old English saying, "dreamt tonight, done tomorrow" - and if Mrs Clinton has dreams of the vice-presidency, then perhaps wishing may make it so. It worked for Mr Obama.
Complain about this comment
Reuben33g, you are perhaps referring
to the Vince Foster affair? But, we'll
never know what he took to the grave.
Complain about this comment
peterm99:"Certainly Obama has many faults, but I have not noted even a hint of arrogance about him."
You're the first Obama supporter I've seen who comment on this blog to mention Obama's faults (during American elections, it seems no one finds fault with their own candidate). I'm curious what you think they are.
Complain about this comment
re: #20 goodobservateur
"If he were to be the first Non white (Not African American- He is mixed race)president , the country would go up in the estimation of the world.If not, the not so pleasant underbelly of the country will be exposed."
I reject that assertion.
While the US does contain many racists, a blanket statement that if a non-white who competes does not win the election reveals the underbelly of racism is absurd on its face and reveals the racism of the one making the claim.
Complain about this comment
#22, Cunard. For the most part I agree with Justin Webb, and I see no reason why he shouldn't favor one candidate over another. After all, we do.
I should point out a couple of things. First, were Clinton the vice president, then her spouse would have automatic entry to the White House. If you think Bubba would not milk that for what it was worth, then you are very naive. He is an ace manipulator.
Secondly, when Clinton gave her "victory" speech on the night of Obama's win, her captive supporters were two stories underground - no mobile, no TV, no contact with the outside world. They did not even know that Obama had won the nomination.
Now I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Obama did not have sufficient pledged delegates. Do you mean that until the few superdelegates required declared that he had not won. Many who had not officially declared were known to be pro-Obama and had held back there endorsements until the close of the primaries.
I really don't understand what you are upset about. The strongest candidate captured the nomination. Clinton may blather about being the strongest candidate, but apparently the voters and delegates did not agree. She lost. Get over it!
Complain about this comment
Vince Foster's "suicide' and other 'skeletons' aside, rumors have already begun that Mrs. Bill Clinton may start working behind the scenes for sen. Obama's defeat in November, because that would make it possible for her to wrestle the presidency from 76 year McCain in 2012.
Whereas in 2016 only Chelsea Clinton would have a fighting chance.
Complain about this comment
"If she wants to marshal his healthcare plans in the Senate, fine; anything more is dreamland."
I think Obama will keep Clinton as far away from his healthcare plan as possible. She botched it once before - no need for a repeat performance.
Complain about this comment
If B.O. gains the presidency he will have an enormous task in restoring the name of the the US in the outside world. The Bushes and the Clintons have been in power for 16 years and damage to be repaired is huge. However, B.O's grace and his ability to empathize with the disaffected , coupled to a complete break from a period of shame, is an essential step in the right direction. As a long-term believer in the ability of the US system to produce the leader, after twice getting it horribly wrong, B.O's victory is cause for celebration.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re #5
I think Justin only means Obama would come off arrogant to some in thinking that he could do it alone without Hillary.
I do think Obama is confident (arrogant) enough resist the pressure to give Hillary's VP slot. As a politician, you need that kind of confidence.
It will drive the fanatics in Hillaryland to vote for McCain, but we can only hope the majority of the voters are reasonable.
Complain about this comment
So let me see.
How many scenarios are there to explain Senator Clinton's hesitancy about pulling out altogether?
1. Obama accepts McCain's invitation to go and stammer and stutter and contradict himself at ten -yes, ten- "Town Hall" "debates" before the Convention? Obama's ratings collapse. Clinton gets nominated.
2. Obama joins Bobby Kennedy in the pantheon of Democrat candidates assassinated before the campaign even begins. Clinton gets nominated.
3. Obama's personal history runs foul of Clinton/McCain/Ku Klux Klan/Anybodyelse's dirtdiggers. Obama's ratings collopse. Clinton gets nominated.
Any more, anybody?
Complain about this comment
He might consider it. But if he's got an iota of intelligence he won't consider it seriously. The problem is not him being too competitive nor is it that she does not have lots of support and political capital to offer. It is that he has nothing sufficient to offer her that can possibly outweigh the loss to her of the presidency and the influence of being the notable Senator from New York.
As vice president Hillary would have no real power in the legislature, and little to no power in the executive. (Note: I don't expect a split Senate again in the near future.) Why would she give up the opportunity at a power comparable to Ted Kennedy's? At 61 today she could easily have two decades representing New York in the Senate, with all the attendant influence that position has. She's already better known and more important than Chuck Schumer, and more influential and (infinitely more) intelligent than Al D'Amato was.
We'll have to assume a two term presidency, so the "on the job training" effect would mean she couldn't run until 2016, which would put her in her late sixties. While she would be eminently capable, it is unclear that she would be seen as electable at that age by the voters. Before you mention it: McCain is running because every other republican candidate imploded under the massive pressure of ego or insanity. His age has come up, and he had to release his medical records early to snuff that issue before it became enough of a rumor to gain brain-share in the electorate. Even so, there is a certain amount of mumbling among the masses that he is too old to be entrusted with the office.
So she gets to cool her heels for the better part of a decade to try again later?
In purely practical terms from the democratic party's point of view: Obama and Edwards as Pres and Veep, with Hillary in the Senate and Bill more or less free to roam. Edwards could be a very effective moral voice holding court from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (or from Number One Observatory Circle depending on his temperament) while Hillary could become a supremely influential Senator. And this leaves Bill free to be the consummate good will ambassador to the world, a role we now desperately need filled with a first rate candidate.
Complain about this comment
Obama is better off with Wesley Clark as his running mate to boost his defence credentials. I know Clark endorsed Hillary, but that was back in September - before things got nasty.
Complain about this comment
Poor Obama, all I've been hearing is how he will be assassinated. Well, it's his security's job to protect him from that, surely. As for Clinton/vice president, perhaps the major pro is having her on the ticket would be the fact she seems popular with voters Obama hasn't quite reached yet. Although couldn't he hire someone else who would attract these people? I'm afraid I don't know enough about other possible candidates, but I doubt Clinton is the only person to do this job. And what you say about Bill is spot on, in my view. No hopeful wants him hanging around - he's said some dodgy things already, hasn't he? Why would Obama want him? I mean I know Hillary's the one running but they seem to come as a double package.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
This issue is not a case of Barack being "confident (arrogant?) to sink or swim on his own". The obvious ticket WOULD have been an Obama/Clinton ticket, but due to the negative tone of Hillary's campaign there is no way that this can now come to fruition.
When you consistently attack your Democratic opponent in the manner that a Republican would, there's no way that you can work in tandem with that person once more. Hillary has constantly made inferences towards Barack being a Muslim (the muslim garb episode), his "associations" with Minister Louis Farrakahn and Rev. Wright and thinks that it will all be forgotten from now until November.
Her attacks on Obama can never be forgotten. They have been extremely divisive to the Democratic party and wanton, and all because this insidious, odious woman has a voracious appetite for power and being back in the white house.
She has shown herself up to be a person who bases her "experience" on a myriad of falsehoods (i.e. dodging sniper fire in Bosnia), and is so delusional that she doesn't think that archived footage would highlight these experiences as a lie.
During the entire primary season, not once has she been gracious in defeat by congratulating Barack Obama on winning any state, whereas Barack has been the complete antithesis on every occassion.
All in all I think the Clinton "presence" in and around the white house, would be too much for Barack and I think he'll sever the potential ties of a "dream ticket", by going for a running mate that will garner the requisite votes that are necessary to get him into the white house come November.
Complain about this comment
I listened to Obama telling a Jewish crowd the other day that he would do "anything in my power" to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb. He repeated the phrase at least once, with meaningful pauses.
Now, "anything in my power" includes launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran. It even includes dropping a nuclear device on Iran.
I assume he said this to persuade US Jews that they can vote for him. However, it was at best disingenuous and at worst a lie for political purposes.
And there's me thinking Obama would being "change" from the usual political hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Anyone with any knowledge of the process knows that Clinton has been a beaten woman for 6 weeks at least. Even she knows this.
So the question remains why has she remained in the contest? Is it arrogance? The possibility that Obama might get assassinated a la Bobby? I doubt it. Given the disunity in the party, and given the position 6 weeks ago, it might well have made sense for Clinton to remain in the race to maintain a profile high enough in order to encourage the whole Democratic party to unite. Recently the tone of Hilary's speeches has softened towards her oponent, as it became clearer and clearer that he would win, and she would unite behind him.
I think the general ill feeling in the media towards Hilary has undermined her campaign since she lost in Iowa. Everyone seems to have waited for a chance to stick it to her and taken it when she lost the first primary, continuing to do so until now. This includes you. The Clinton campaign has not been run perfectly by any means, but she still has near enough the same number of votes as Obama, and has spent the last few weeks repairing some of the damage that has been done.
How about a little credit where credit's due?
Also, I might point out that quite a few people in the UK know all about Obama an Clinton, but don't have a clue who McCain is. If this is even slightly indicative of how much people know in the states, surely Obama has a huge head start for November?
Complain about this comment
No.10 Extremely well said.
No. 30 "lacks moral fibre" What nonsense, sen. Obama stood against those cowards who were determined to invade Iraq, a defenceless country, when all those around, including Hillary, were jumping on the bandwagon for fear of being attacked by the Bush thugs.
Congratulations to sen.Obama he is a breath of fresh air which I can feel blowing over from the Atlantic. I have no doubt that he has the good wishes of the world to go forward and become President. My firm hope is that he doesn't disappoint like the disgraced Tony Blair.
As for McCain, quite frankly, he is a phony, and those who don't already realise this, will do so as the campaign progresses.
Complain about this comment
As a disenfranchised subject of the Empire who has to endure American politics and its Presidents' policies, I'm certainly RELIEVED the Clintons are OUT, and I hope they will be OUT for good! It is too old stuff.
Nothing more dreadful than having them back in the White House! Where next bombing, please? I couldn't possibly tell the difference between them and McCain as far as foreign affairs are concerned...
Sheer imperialism!
Now I feel very happy with Obama, his very modest origins, his ethnicity and all that made him an improbable candidate, and he was on the losing streak facing the accomplished candidate of the establishment, who had been preparing herself for the last eight years... And he made it! He had to compromise on some issues, but it is undeniable he brings some change, at least in style, which is a lot in the US!
As the top manager of US capitalism he may not bring as much change as he would have liked, but I hope he will be a more compassionate and friendly president than usually.
That is, if he wins. His worse challenge will not be McCain, but Clinton's sabotage...
Complain about this comment
No. 37 The reason that, in my previous post, I mentioned I hope that Obama does not disappoint like Tony Blair was because I also heard the speech to AIPAC and like you I was a little concerned but for the time being I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Complain about this comment
An excellent assessment. But it's a bill of another sort as well. The $30M campaign debt she has and looking to get paid off; nearly $12M to herself with interest.
Complain about this comment
I think the time was right for Clinton and the democrats have chosen the wrong candidate.
Obama is already beginning to go back on some of his commitments
Complain about this comment
At this moment of triumph for Obama and the Democrats, McCain and the Republicans will do their worst, starting with the matter of experience. Which takes me back to George H. W. Bush and 'the vision thing'. Obama might be well-advised to consider just that sort of oblique reply, updating Reagan's 'There you go again' at the same time.
Complain about this comment
At this moment of triumph for Obama and the Democrats, McCain and the Republicans will do their worst, starting with the matter of experience. Which takes me back to George H. W. Bush and 'the vision thing'. Obama might be well-advised to consider just that sort of oblique reply, updating Reagan's 'There you go again' at the same time.
Complain about this comment
Hilary Rosen. Kelly McParland. Patrick Cafferty. You, Justin.
Are you all just catching up with Michael Pfleger now? Or is there a difference?
Ed Hemlock
Complain about this comment
Enoobongitak,
Welcome, and well met! An excellent post.
Rueben,
"Those who continue to spread the myth that the 2000 presidential election was stolen act like Hillary is now: sore losers."
It has, however, been fairly clearly established that there was manipulation of the voter rolls in Florida, and considerable likelihood of voting machine fraud in Ohio in 2004, but the past is the past.
Ljbella (19),
Well noted.
David (22),
Please move beyond denial. It's getting tiresome and your paragraphs are getting longer again.
10cents has it about right. And Godzilla!
Schopenhauer, Clark also virtually endorsed Kathleen Sebelius.
TellitAsItis, You highlight my only reservation about Obama (akin to the "political necessity" of ditching Rev. Wright).
Jackturk,
"As for McCain, quite frankly, he is a phony, and those who don't already realise this, will do so as the campaign progresses."
McCain is a war hero, and has some other achievements, but I agree, he is less than meets the eye in many respects, fading (and none too bright to begin with). It's sad to watch the rather obvious signs. Reagan was able to carry it off because he had the ability to surround himself with clever folk, and, to be honest, the Republican party has always been able to mount a good puppet show.
I, too, am giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, wee of little faith, to have ever feared that Obama would be unwise enough to take HRC as VOP running mate!
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Wow! I'm astounded!
Complain about this comment
Justin Webb thinks Hilary is perceived as "graceless" in his article beginning "Neither Barack Obama nor I want to spend Saturday with Hillary Clinton". How graceless is that? Members of the press are so concerned with their own perceptions of the psychological state of the candidates (always good for a story) that they forget that these people are professional politicians, with teams of experienced advisers. They usually make decisions, not based on which side of the bed they got out of, but what it takes to win. Or is wanting to win also "graceless"?
How about more on politics and less on psychology Mr Webb? Half the party voted for her, and half for him. It is not yet clear that he is the best candidate to beat McCain. Perhaps as you say, Americans are 80% for change (I myself don't know anyone who voted for Bush :-) but surprisingly they voted not once but twice for him. (Perhaps only the ones that we don't know).
Complain about this comment
I think BO needs a white male southerner with beeg bluecollar appeal (sadly, all my experience of the US tells me race does matter - heck, my dad remembers seeing all those 'whites only signs' and he still thinks race will die as an issue only when the last person who remembers experiencing segregation does); gotta be John Edwards.
roping in a Kennedy woman was a masterstroke
Complain about this comment
I strongly believe presidential candidates should choose running mates that reinforce their perceived strengths. Picking someone to fill a weakness only draws attention to that weakness. It makes the candidate seem less confident of his/her own appeal.
Clinton might have been worthwhile. The simple fact of her being a woman - and therefore embodying change by her very presence on the ballot - reinforces the the appeal Obama has. She also has a proud record of pushing for change in Washington, for instance on healthcare, even against firm opposition.
But Hilary hasn't played the game that way. She's tried to differentiate herself from Obama at every opportunity. She told the world repeatedly that he had serious 'flaws' - his inexperience, his relationship with radical elements, his race - that she did not have. And that she had the strengths and appeal he did not have.
The Clinton supporters had every right to push the campaign all the way. But the fact she went so far gave the whole country to consider her case against Obama, and it was (albeit narrowly) rejected. That's the end of it.
Complain about this comment
Hiboutoo,
Surely you can see the contrast between gracious (gestures or not) behaviour and ungracious! Even politicians (the cleverest ones) know how to act graciously, and that it pays benefits.
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!"
Streathamite, I love Edwards and his ready smile, but he's already failed as a VP candidate (2004), and couldn't even deliver his home state. Now Jim Webb, he meets your criteria and delivers military credibility - pity about the "misogynist" words of a couple of decades ago.
;-)
ed
P.S. Like your dad, I remember the "White only" signs, and never shared a school (or a lunch counter, drinking fountain, toilet, you name it) with non-whites until University....I could tell a few shameful stories.
Complain about this comment
I often wonder how many people posting on these boards are living in the USA and have a clue about how US politics works. Even many Americans vote for someone based on their looks and media hype rather than by looking at their policies. Hilary for one would have pushed for universal health care - something that is urgently needed in many areas of this country. I'm still not sure what Obama stands for. McCain is so old, you have to wonder what he will achieve and why he didn't retire and enjoy life.
Considering the US is the number 1 superpower, isn't it ironic that the last 3 candidates for President have less charisma than Mickey Mouse?
Complain about this comment
#22
Both Candidates have won record numbers of votes, lets not only say that Hillary won X number of votes and therefore, as has been clear, this has been a record breaking primary season in terms of voter turnout.
If it angers you that Justin has taken more of a liking to Obama (sorry justin, despite your best efforts to remain neutral, we know youre an obamaniac, but no one blames you), as has America, then read Blitzers blog on CNN, its not just pro clinton, its anti obama. Its a blog, lord forbid the writer has an opinion. If you dont like his opinion, you can stop reading, no ones got a gun to your head to read the BBC.
I'll agree, Hillary did not have to concede right that very moment, since shes hung on for this long, whats another 24 hours. But lets not be coy. We all know she hung on for the better part or the last 3 weeks beacuse she knew she could tout the VP position. Shes basically said you cant get rid of me unless you offer me something, good politics, yes, good politics on behalf of the democrats, no.
Your comments with regard to "late comers to the Obama lovefest" is well versed, and made me smile, but ultimately, is a little bitter, wouldnt you agree. The supers had to go with Obama, because ,and this might surprise some, they considered whats best for the party, even if you argue that she has more of the popular vote by way of a unique formula, he was still the front runner, and at the end of the primary a decision needed to be made. Its not betrayal, they were doing their jobs.
With regards to "president Clinton" (I'll refer to him as Bill, for ease of typing), I think you're being coy again, Hillary and Bill are a package deal, they always have been, and to have him back on the spot would give Senator Obama a host of issues he does not need. With regard to Bill helping with experience, I'm not sure which particular experience you refer too ;) but then there are plenty of democrats with expereince minus the baggage. In fairness, I think there were some debates where Sen Obama did out debate his more experienced counterpart, and again, I think that letting Hillary on the VP ticket would be betraying the very values he has so passionately sought to bring to politics, she is still a political heavy weight in the Dems party, adn she will be immensely helpful come the GE. But she has shown that while she has the best interests of the party at heart, she can also be self serving at the same time, this primary has shown that. Her Campaign adopted the wrong strategyand was heavily in debt, despite her obvious tenacity, her flaws are also in evidence. There are other nominees for VP that could provide Obama with the same demographics of voters as Hillary would and again, minus the baggage, you can see a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are very able politicians, but clearly, alot of people want the slate wiped clean, and the Clintons being a part of the process would only reignite the republicans.
The Clintons have left their mark on American politics, Hillary has served the people of America and will continue to do so as a public servant, just without the honour of being madame President. She'll have to get used to it.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
I just spotted the pun! The Old Bill are knocking on the Clintons' door.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
re # 32
"How many scenarios are there to explain Senator Clinton's hesistancy about pulling out altogether"
Gerald,
For what it's worth: losing candidates rarely pull out "altogether". They suspend their campaigns.
That way, if a big black piano comes crashing down on the apparent nominee's head before he or she is actually nominated, they can pick up where they left off.
Nothing prevented Clinton from conceding on Tuesday and suspending her campaign. It's what she'll do on Saturday.
Why she decided to give her extraordinary speech on Tuesday is anyone's guess. David Cunard may be right - perhaps it's a question of not quite being able to handle the notion of defeat (her inability, or her voters'). Or perhaps it's just a badly misguided sense of still being in it to spin it, grasping at leverage that isn't really there.
It's moot, though. There just isn't any room for her to bargain for the VP slot or a Cabinet post at this point in time. She'll have to concede and endorse Obama unconditionally on Saturday; once she's done that, she'll have to start supporting him. Obama, for his part, can sit back a while and then reach out to her on his own terms. "All things in good time" - as David rightly points out.
Complain about this comment
lkrndu (45),
So, you've proved you can cut-and-paste! Can you tie your own shoes?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It will be interesting to see exactly what HRC has to say on Saturday. Some are saying she will hold onto her delegates 'just in case' and only 'suspend' her bid for the nomination.
Complain about this comment
@ ed iglehart.
he sure would; except for he's another with just 2 years in the Senate
Complain about this comment
No. 47 There are many in the US who do not believe John McCain is a war hero, take a look at the vietnam war veterans against john mccain web site.
Even if you do believe he is a war hero, you should read "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter.
Complain about this comment
Nice piece on Obama's win on the telly yesterday, JW - the live sound was a bit fuzzy though. Was it because of the wind that was whisking Hillary away?
Complain about this comment
It doesn't say much for the potential next President of the United States if he can't run a team of talented individuals and get value from them.
Clinton was the best President the US has had for a long time, few can compare with his achievements - if he doesn't have a contribution to make then we should all go home.
Given the state that Bush has left the US in, and the problems in the rest of the world, we need to get the best talent working together.It's up to Obabma to take a lead on this.
Complain about this comment
Surfin' Surfin'
Charisma?
(have a sick-bucket handy)
Hillary calls it a draw
SuperObama!
Electoral map:
Interesting times, indeed.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
It is surely crass stupidity to think that a haevyweight politician like Hillary Clinton is a presence that can just be marginalised and left to skulk away in the backwaters of washington political life. The Clinton name and presidency, despite some of the self inflicted wounds of this campaign, still holds huge and emotional currency. I think people are making the mistake of not acknowledging that the Clintons still remain dear to the heart of a sector of the traditional Democrtic party alliance. Whilst Obama might have seduced the glitterati, chatterring classes and the virginal youth, Clinton has cemented her place in the heart of rural and working class Democrats, many female voters (of a certain age) and the Hispanics. Clinton i believe will run again, because even if Obama wins this time, that constituency of voters will be quick to throw their weight behind a Republican in 4 years time if and when the American economy hits the buffers. Mr Obama... how does the saying go? 'keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer'.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't say much for the potential next President of the United States if we think he can't run a team of talented individuals and get value from them.
As about 50% of the Democrats wanted Hilary as leader of their party then she should have an opportunity to play a major role. However most of you are saying ignore their wishes, based on democratic principals no doubt.
Bill was an outstanding President (based on ecomonic achievements alone) he must have a contribution to make, he is young enough and still ambitious.
Let Hilary have her say and then let them work out a strategy. Too many people with their knives out for her, with silly stories.
Given the state that Bush has left the US in, and the problems in the rest of the world, we need to get the best talent working together.It's up to Obabma to take a lead on this.
Complain about this comment
What about Sec. of HHS for Clinton. Seems like a natural choice given the healthcare background. Do you think Obama would consider that?
Complain about this comment
The fact that Obama has already formed a cimmittee to look for the VP options and that committee has Caroline Kennedy in it .This will ensure that Hillary will not be one of the options for the VP ticket.Obama's intentions are loud and clear.He would prefer to go alone on his own terms to the White House than with two persons(Hillary and Bill) who have excess baggage with them to haunt him for the full first term.
Complain about this comment
Please keep in mind that Hillary has a significant following. Mr. Obama ignores this at the peril of losing in November. The choice of Caroline Kennedy seems like a clear signal that Hillary is not welcome on his ticket. However, if she makes a speech on Saturday to transfer her support to Obama, that does not mean that he now "owns" the votes she received. He must find a way to appeal to those who voted for her and against him.
Complain about this comment
It will be interesting to see how Obama matches up against McCain.
I do think McCain deserves credit for his military service and the years spent as a POW. But he was a very junior officer and the most useful thing he gained from getting beaten up in the camps was the ability to identify a bit with the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Dick Cheney's Gulag.
John Kerry did his bit in Vietnam too but that didn't stop GW and his handlers from Swiftboating him... And the voters accepted that from a guy that turned National Guard service into a no-show job!
The Presidency of the United States is the most important job in the world and I am afraid the voters should be a bit ruthless in asking any candidate "What have you done for us lately?" and "What are you going to do for us in the future?"
I actually voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and I was appalled and disgusted by the dirty tricks that the GW folks used to defeat him. But I was even more disgusted when McCain then cozied up to GW for the 2004 election. McCain must despise GW... How could he stomach embracing him on stage?
I imagine the RNC must have whispered in his ear.... Gee, John, if you want support from us in 2008, you better get out there and put on a good show.
So what has McCain done for us lately?
He helped us get another 4 years of GW. He has failed to criticize the grotesquely mismanaged occupation of Iraq. He has said nothing about the rampant corruption and incompetence of the Halliburtons and Black Waters all of which has put US soldiers and marines at risk.
He has not criticized the creation of a bloated Homeland Stupidity department staffed by incompetent political cronies like FEMA's "Helluva job Brownie."
OK, he supported the troop surge which seems to have been having some positive effect.
But he never said a word about Rumsfeld firing General Shinseki for suggesting that we needed more troops in the first place.
He has, literally within the last week, discovered that we really are experiencing global warming and maybe we ought to do something about it. Even that sounds like a cobbled up attempt to differentiate himself from the most unpopular president in modern history.
It will be interesting to see who he picks as his running mate. Might I suggest...
McCain-Cheney '08
Complain about this comment
There seem to be some who consider that Bill Clinton was a good President, this is taken from a Media Lens alert about Clinton:-
the man who presided over "infanticide masquerading as policy" in Iraq, according to 70 members of the US Congress (Quoted, Philadelphia Enquirer, April 1, 1999). In May-June 1999, John and Karl Mueller wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs that the "sanctions of mass destruction" imposed by Clinton had up to that point killed more civilians in Iraq than "all the weapons of mass destruction in human history". (Quoted, Edward Herman, ZNet, November 21, 2000)
In his August 1998 cruise missile attack on the Sudan, Clinton targeted and destroyed the al-Shifa factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to the Sudan estimated that, deprived of life-saving medicines, "several tens of thousands" of Sudanese had died as a result of the attack (Quoted, Noam Chomsky, 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2001).
Ahead of East Timor's August 1999 referendum on independence, Indonesian troops armed and trained by the United States, slaughtered thousands of people across the occupied territory. Indonesian historian John Roosa, an official observer of the referendum, reported:
"Given that the pogrom was so predictable, it was easily preventable... But in the weeks before the ballot, the Clinton administration refused to discuss with Australia and other countries the formation of [an international force]. Even after the violence erupted, the administration dithered for days." (Quoted, New York Times, September 15, 1999)
John Pilger wrote:- "in a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down"
Complain about this comment
Hillary needs to face up to the fact that she didn't win the nomination - Obama did. Only a child would refuse to acknowledge the fact and it is disgusting that she would not put an end to both her campaign and the actions of her delegates to actively campaign on her behalf. It is time for a new generation to take over. Hillbillary had 8 years in the 90s, they don't need another 4 (or 8) in the 21st century. As one op ed piece said, choosing Hillary would find Obama in a situation where the White House isn't big enough for 1 president and 2 who think they are. Maybe it's time for the Americans to add another ammendment to the Constitution - one that bars former first ladies (and laddies) from seeking the office of President.
Complain about this comment
Interesting article on Billary 'running' for VP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/hillary-clinton-running-f_n_105376.html
but as it notes, "If you drool, you lose." Obama has many better choices than Clinton, and I suspect his campaign is reading about her intentions rather than hearing them firsthand.
Complain about this comment
To #10 salemdesign
I agree! You put it all in a nut shell. It's a matter of character.
My granny always said that 'a real lady always knows when it is time to leave before the welcome runs out.'
Complain about this comment
This American voter concluded before 2007 was over that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama was qualified to run for vice president. Both are dynamic, take-charge kind of people who like to run their own show. That's good in a president. That's good in a senator, who runs their own office, if not the entire chamber. Filling the number two slot requires a team player who can defer to the top executive, while being capable of stepping up if tragedy strikes, which hopefully it won't. Neither of them could be that kind of team player for the other, or perhaps for anyone.
That is the nice way to say it. As it happens, I also voted for Obama, and had Hillary on my list of people I could never vote for, along with McCain, Romney and Giuliani. Her candidacy is all about ego, about winning for its own sake rather than for what she might accomplish, never about principle. She is vindictive and got uglier the more the campaign went on. Incidentally, my mother, who has been a woman her entire life, also prefers Obama to Clinton, as do most of the women I am on a first name basis with at work. (OK, most of them have dark complexions, but that doesn't make them any less women, does it Hillary?)
Until 2001, her "experience" was being the governor's wife, the ex-governor's wife, the president's wife. Obama has more experience in his own right than she does. It is quite true that there are as many people who will question Obama's judgment if he does pick Hillary for veep as people who will question his commitment to unity if he does not. I would like to see our first woman president get there entirely on her own, not on the back of her husband's career. In this respect, and only in this respect, Margaret Thatcher is a role model. I didn't even know her husband's name was Dennis until near the end of her time at #10 Downing Street.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#22) is incorrect in his statement regarding the title of President in the United States. Only sitting presidents are properly referred to as "President so-and-so." Many people think otherwise because the error is so common, even among journalists.
Senators and state governors retain their titles as an honorarium after they leave office, others do not.
Complain about this comment
Sore loser?
You bet!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I'm guessing that after the lack of a true concession Tuesday a large number of supporters from both camps came down hard on Clinton. "Enough is enough" as it were.
I personally agree with notion that it would be a superhuman feat to gracefully end a 17 month venture in a single night. I can't imagine I would have been able to stand up and proudly declare my defeat.
So for the time being I think nothing of Clinton's lack of a concession. For me, how "graceless" she may be will be decided by how she conducts herself Saturday. Should she damn with faint praise I, and potentially a large majority of the Democratic Party, will be extremely disappointed.
Complain about this comment
Mods: I have the express approval of the author to reveal the following leaked draft of HRC's upcoming speech:
Hillary's next speech (we hope)
Sometime at the end of the week:
We live in hope of a gracious exit.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I meant "honorific" in #76, of course.
Complain about this comment
#70 could have been written by me if I were only capable of so coherently expressing my thoughts.
Those that remember the "glory years" under Clinton should reflect on how much of that economic prosperity was built on foundations of sand like the tech bubble or cooked books a la Enron. Also remember that it was Clinton who deregulated banking, which many blame the current housing market problems on.
Clinton was not a good president. Sure he was better than Bush, but shouldn't we be trying for good and just "not horrible"?
Complain about this comment
It's official! On her website as of 10:46 this morning is a letter which among other things says;
"On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans."
Complain about this comment
IMHO, Obama needs to select someone who can fill one of his areas of weakness without polarizing the Dems and energizing the Repugnicans. Such as:
1. If he really is weak among Hispanic voters (which we'll really find out in November): Bill Richardson
2. To add national security credentials: Wes Clark or Jim Webb. I live in VA and Jim Webb is my senator. Don't particularly like him, but he does have credentials.
3. Someone who can bring in white southern males (sorry, but its true, I live a couple of miles from W.VA and see the problem there, as well as in rural VA): John Edwards or very popular ex-VA governor Mark Warner. Mark Warner has declared he will run for Senate, which will slam dunk against Gilroy, but I'm sure a Veep position would work for him instead. He could also bring VA with him.
4. Someone who can bring in women (although I fear this might be too much for some of our less open-minded bretheren): Kathleen Sebelius or long shot Janet Napolitano, each of whom could bring a red/ swing state with them (KS/ AZ).
5. Someone who could bring several swing states: Brian Schweitzer (MT, NV, CO).
The Billari (is that the plural?) are too polarizing and, in my book, lost any remaining brownie points with the non-concession speech and holding her/ their delegates hostage this week. Plus Obama doesn't need the problem of herding them both through the election process and keeping their noses clean.
Complain about this comment
#47 Ed - "Please move beyond denial. It's getting tiresome and your paragraphs are getting longer again." What denial? It is quite plain that there was a very short time between Mrs Clinton's speech on Tuesday evening and the announcement on Wednesday; I suggested that the impatience demonstrated by those who support Mr Obama was out-of-place. Perhaps the Highland air affects your reading ability as well as your logic. If you can't handle longer paragraphs, why bother to read them and then make some inane comment?
#76/81 - In modern times the custom has been to refer to a former president as Mr President - in point of fact the true form of address is 'The Honorable Joe Doe', rather a mouthful. Whatever one feels about a former President, courtesy is due him, not the crass description applied to former President Clinton by Justin. Of course, he may have thought it a clever remark to connect the man with the popular British television series "The Bill" (not seen in America) or indeed with the Polish punk rock 'band' of the same name.
Of course Mrs Clinton will be gracious in her remarks; people talk and write of her as if she's a fool. She knows that she can bring the Democratic Party together far better than anyone else and that her continued presence will be an asset. If she wants to continue in politics, then whatever sorrow and anger she feels to those who deserted her will not be on display but rather a call to unity and success in November. It may be calculated, but then what in politics isn't?
Complain about this comment
#85, "The Honorable Mr. so-and-so" is what one writes on an envelope, not what one speaks in informal circumstances. I am aware that the modern custom is for reporters interviewing former president Jimmy Carter to call him "President Carter" to his face, but that is because they are ignorant boors, not because it is acceptable. I once heard Mr. Carter correct a journalist who did this, but usually he doesn't because he is a gentleman and because he no doubt realizes (without saying so) that American reporters are slow learners.
Complain about this comment
Hillarys' actions in her refusal to accept defeat are atypical. She can't believe that she and the Clinton political machine were beat out by an African American man who didn't come from privilege and was the product of a single-parent home. As Obama said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." THIS VIDEO IS INSPIRING: http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/
If Hillary is about uniting the party, then she needs to communicate to her constituents that voting for McCain will continue the current administrations policies. If they would prefer to have high food costs, ridiculous gas prices and watch money that could be used to improve Americas' infrastructure, flow out of the country to fund an unpopular war and enrich mega conglomerates like Halliburton (who don't have offices in the U.S, so minimum taxes are collected on revenues)and for those women who are "Pro-Choice" are willing to allow McCain to fill the 3 Supreme Court Justice positions just because they don't want to vote for a Black Man-- then her constituents are in far worse shape than anyone could ever imagine.
We all use the same gas, we all need to eat and we need to realise that there is only ONE RACE---THE HUMAN RACE!
Americans, we must truly realise that "it takes both the black AND white keys on the piano, to play their national anthem."
Complain about this comment
David,
Lighten up. ;-)
The denial lies in continuing to entertain the possibility of a co-Vice-Presidency and the possible accommodation arrangements.
HRC's VP odds are below 17% now, having risen on such fairytale anticipations as high as 30%, but I'm not rushing to cover my shorts yet.
If you know better, there's money (real or play) to be made. Buy! Buy! Buy!
A bright day and a new morning!
Salaaaaaami and cheese!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Time to join the crowds.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
It is well know here in the USA that Bill Clinton became more of a handicap to his wife tahan many of her Mis Sopken errors did.
He is becoming, or should I say I magnet for the media and they just love to hate him, and Iam surprised to say, with some justification .
Obama must be his own man and make the mistakes that all Presidential running candidates do. He will have a lot of pressure from his pers to pick HRC but it'll be his choice and his alone to say NO, and that will finish the notion that she ( HRC ) was worthy to be Vice President of this country which she certainly was not.
Complain about this comment
# 86. Gary_A_Hill - Don't you have anything better to do than quibble about the form of address? The crux of the matter was that the writer was disrespectful of the former two-term president.
Complain about this comment
I don't think it will be the best in the long run for either Hillary or Obama for her to be the VP candidate. In short Hillary talks herself into a still fairly powerless job and a place away from History. She would be 68 in 2016 (I believe I am right in saying) and getting to the is she too old or not stage to run. For Obama, its a short term measure. The party will come together wether or not Hillary is on the ticket or not. He can get far better headlines by picking someone more imaginative. And I think she can then go on and have a more meaningful career in the Senate, giving America healthcare and whatever else interests her.
Complain about this comment
Response to #24 Ptrsln
First of all, let me correct your erroneous assumption - that I am an Obama supporter.
I used to be, but am no longer. Even when I supported him, I felt he was merely the best of a bad lot, i.e., I supported him as the lesser of many other evils, not because I felt him to be even close to an "ideal" President. I did consider him to stand head and shoulders above all others in the fray, Republican or Democrat, primarily because he struck me as an intelligent, principled, and trustworthy individual who truly believed in the betterment of the US, rather than in his own personal aggrandizement. I would much rather have a person with integrity with whose policies I disagree as President, than one who lacks character but whose policies are more closely aligned with mine. From an overall political philosophy point of view, I am most closely aligned with Ron Paul, although I do not believe that he would have made a good President, mainly because he lacks the political skills to accomplish anything worthwhile, given the makeup of Congress.
Now, to Obama, and from least important to most important:
1. He appears to lack a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of many issues. This is evident from many instances where he has had to respond extemporaneously to questions, and responds with either statements that he's memorized from previous occasions or with glib superficialities. That is NOT to say that he's an "empty suit" as many claim - he appears to have well-thought out positions on many issues, on his web site, for example, and, when making previously prepared remarks on particular issues he is able to discuss these in depth. However, his weakness in having difficulty "thinking on his feet" leads me to believe that most of his "in depth" positions on his web site are attributable to his advisors/assistants and not to him. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw, as a President needs only to direct and influence at a high level, and let subordinates deal with the lower level details. Nevertheless, in my view, an "ideal" President would also be very knowledgeable about the details of many issues. Contrast this with Clinton (who I dislike for many reasons) and the health care issue, for example. She is able to discuss the subject in much detail, even extemporaneously, and displays in-depth understanding. This leads me to believe that her positions are truly hers, and not just those that she has adopted from advisers.
2. He is not "squeaky clean" as many seem to think. For many years, it has been common knowledge that Tony Rezko was involved in dubious dealings, although the actual criminality of his dealings have only been recently established. Obama has dealt with him, and others of his ilk, for many years. While I do not claim that Obama himself was involved in any of the criminal activities, or has even behaved unethically, his association with shady characters is bothersome to me. An "ideal" President must be like Caesar's wife, and Obama does not meet that standard, in my opinion.
3. He has used his position for the benefit of family members and/or their interests. He has used congressional influence to direct funds to a medical institution for which his wife works. She was subsequently rewarded with a doubling (tripling?) of her salary. There have also been reports (whose validity I have been unable to confirm) that some other organizations which have benefited or stand to benefit from government largesse have appointed his wife to their boards of directors. I do not claim any illegality or explicit quid pro quo, but, again, this is another "not like Caesar's wife" type of situation.
It's important to note that stuff in items 2. and 3. above are normal, everyday practice in the US. Laws (and Congressional rules) have been written specifically to allow politicians to behave in ways that most reasonable people would consider questionable, at best.
4. Finally, to the single item that caused me to decide to abandon my support for Obama and to probably throw my vote away by voting for one of the third-party candidates (extract from my post a couple of days ago):
"In earlier days, he did indicate a willingness to explore solutions to the Israel/Palestinian conflict in a more reasonable and even-handed manner than has been the case for several decades. His speech to AIPAC has exposed that he has abandoned any semblance of even-handedness.
Forget about change, forget about integrity, forget about all of the high-minded rhetoric. Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is, after all, a typical American politician who is willing to abandon integrity and principle in order to curry favor with AIPAC, one of the most powerful interest groups in the US.
Should he be elected, the prospect for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians during his term(s) is not improved over what it has been during the Bush or Clinton administrations. Truly sad."
Complain about this comment
Peter,
Sadly, I have the same reservations.
Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you
Complain about this comment
#3 - The comment that Hilrod stuck with Bill inspite of his transgressions is a bit naive: for HR Clinton it wasn't a case of "Stand By Your Man," but "Stand By The Plan." Re: Lewinski, Hillary's oft-broadcast wifely comment on her feelings began with words to this effect: "I was angry and disappointed." NOT hurt, shattered, devastated, shocked...no, she was primarily ticked off with Bill for messing up in public and getting caught. End of story. She has structured her life toward obtaining as much raw political power as she can get. And now there is no way that Obama could take her on as a VP candidate, with Bill lurking in the wings, but mainly just because Hilrod is a loose cannon who craves power and will snatch it in whatever way she deludedly thinks she can. She needs to be tucked away as the nominal head of some kind of public-policy think-tank, no way should she be a public figure positioned for a power-grab. And DEFINITELY NOT A VICE-PRESIDENT.
Complain about this comment
Hey,hands off Vanuatu !
What have they ever done to you to deserve Bill as the Ambassador ?
Complain about this comment
"Of course Mrs Clinton will be gracious in her remarks "[#95]
Particularly if she hopes to be put in charge of screwing up health care reform again.
YES, SHE CAN!
Complain about this comment
Hill is enough; but Bill is too much!
Complain about this comment
This talk of Hillary should be given time to unwind her run.
How she has fought so hard and needs to be given time to back down, Is rubbish.
She has had the writing on the wall in 10ft high letters but she Chose to ignore it , to run up huge debts, to devide the party.
Well let her suffer the consequences of being so bull headed.
Let her go on a lecture circuit to pay her debts off.
SHE CHOSE to run on and on and on andon andonandonandonandonandon.
She needed no time . did Hitler need some time to come to terms with his little project going so badly.No or who cared.
Hillary has brought all on herself through her own delusional personality.
Let her wollow in her mud hole.
Like all those republicans that ran.
Did they get their campaign costs paid.NO?
Is it not a little sexist to say " lady fought hard so we gonnahelp out her finances."
Equality means Equal ,ladies and gentlemen.
Complain about this comment
Obama was well prepared for Hillary's poorly disguised sympathy power play for VP. It will be a disaster for President Obama to invite the Clintons to participate anywhere near the executive office with its emphasis on government by the people once again.
They have had their jaunt in the White House and are the "old way" of lobby money and giving the people's needs a lower priority that causes objection to any influential current stateside appointment. Hillary had many years in the Senate to lead and accomplish the Obama "change agenda" which she now actively espouses. . . and, most important of all, she did not do the necessary research and foolishly followed Bush and voted for the Iraq war. Leaders need to think individually and not go "lock-step" with the crowd.
I am most sincere when I suggest that Hillary and Bill would be the most helpful in a diplomatic post such as the burgeoning challenging nation of China. Hillary would also help balance the Supreme Court if she was appointed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS