Here’s why I like it:
- If Obama chooses as VP anyone other than Hillary, we’ll all know that it was because Clinton didn’t want the job and chose not to emulate Cheney. The offer is understood to be made, and rejected. But understood, rather than publicly staged: thus Obama is not publicly rejected by Clinton, and Clinton is not put in that somewhat embarrassing position of being offered favors from her onetime rival.
- Putting Clinton in this position gives his eventual VP pick the air of Clinton’s approval, or at least tolerance, thus expecting her supporters to also approve/tolerate it.
- Even if the final result isn’t a Clinton ally, we’ll know that her friends received a fair hearing. It keeps the Obama campaign from appearing to strike off the list anybody who supported Clinton. This especially means Wes Clark (not my choice, but on the list).
- It doesn’t really take the choice away from Obama. The VP search committee’s job isn’t really that hard or crucial. They do some “vetting” and interviewing, but chances are you don’t end up a Senator if you’re completely unable to campaign (though Jim Webb comes darn close to that) or have skeletons that some committee could find within a month or two. Anyway, the search committee usually just provides the nominee with a “short list” annotated with plusses and minuses that we all know anyway. Obama would of course make the final decision.
- It sends some strong signals to the Democratic Party. It makes clear that Obama acknowledges that Hillary Clinton is a person of deep knowledge and strong influence within the party, and will be a partner in the Senate of Obama’s presidency. It makes clear to his supporters that there will be no tolerance to turn this bitter primary into a left-wing locus from which to attack her in the Senate. It also makes clear Obama’s awareness and respect of her influence within the party as a valuable tool, and not a threat to him.
- It also mends bridges. Seeing Clinton touring the country on “official” business for the Obama campaign will make it more smooth for her supporters join the Obama campaign. She has accepted this somewhat humbling position.
The offer would have to be handled carefully. This job is a somewhat bureaucratic task, and if handled poorly comes across as rather demeaning to Clinton. I’d hope that a statement would make clear that Clinton would have a great deal of independence and autonomy in this job. She should be meeting with/interviewing people on the list that she and the committee believe merit consideration. Clinton will have something official to do, and help her move on in this process (Keep Bill far away from this, incidentally.) It allows her some prominence throughout the spring and summer, and unites the campaigns in a very official way. Meanwhile, Obama doesn’t have to deal with endless speculation — it’s not on his plate. Obama can work the swing areas of the country, and credibly claim to be in close contact with Clinton.
I don’t know if these two people have it within them to accept such an arrangement. But if the Democrats are going to do what needs doing this fall, these two (and anyone who thinks “we won/ shoulda won the nomination, so everyone else should shut up”) really do have to get over themselves pronto.
Cross-posted on Quriltai on the Shore, wherein I also offer my argument for Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as VP.
<
p>Horseapples. If BHO doesn’t choose HRC, it’s because
* he’s running as an outsider, so choosing the ultimate insider doesn’t support his slogan
* she’s scorched the Earth
* he doesn’t want to deal with HRC and WJC for 4/8 years meddling in the White House
* insert your own reason here
<
p>
<
p>I think this is an interesting idea that I first saw six weeks ago over on daily kos, but the devil’s in the details, and that’s a conversation between BHO and HRC that we won’t be privy too.
<
p>Essentially — is HRC willing to be a team player? If not, she can do far more harm than good from her position on the VPOTUS search committee.
As I said, I don’t want Clinton as VP. But the fact is that in some way, at some level he pretty much has to offer it to her. Anything less, and he’s kissing tens of thousands of votes good-bye. If Edwards gets the nod from Kerry for his far distant second, Clinton should get the offer, too. I realize this is a bitter pill for some people, but the fact remains that screaming “unity” at Clinton’s supporters* isn’t a real strategy to effect it.
<
p>I didn’t realize kos has mentioned this…I stopped visiting there when the misogyny got so far over the top. Hopefully when he and his calm down it’ll be worth reading again. I think Obama and Clinton both look out for number one, and this is a way for them to do so, while playing on the same team.
<
p>*I’m not referring to some of the nutjobs who were at the meeting yesterday…for everyone one of those, there are hundreds like me who are embarrassed with them, but still think Clinton is getting steadily shafted.
There’s an interesting discussion developing over at OpenLeft on what’s happening with Clinton supporters. Do we understand the problem well enough to be proposing remedies?
horseapples.
<
p>
<
p>If he does it, he’s kissing tens of thousands of votes good-bye by kowtowing to her and her supporters instead of keeping to his vision of a politics of change.
<
p>The fact that Kerry offered the VP slot to Edwards has absolutely no ramification on what BHO should do w.r.t. HRC or the VPOTUS slot. None. In many ways, people feel that Kerry’s actions are generally instructive on what not to do when running for POTUS as a Dem.
<
p>
<
p>The ball has been in Clinton’s court for some time now, and even though the numbers have suggested since late February that she just wasn’t going to catch BHO, she’s spent the past few months lobbing bombs instead of olive branches. Everything from comments about hard working whites to RFK to riling up the FL and MI primary voters with comparisons to apartheid, Rwanda, slavery, and goodness knows what else. Clinton has had months to play for the VP slot and she didn’t. That’s fine — she played for the top prize, and I’m perfectly OK with that. However, she had the choice months ago to play for P or VP, and she choose P. VP isn’t a cracker jack consolation prize, and coming in second in the race for P nominee doesn’t warrant the VP slot.
And his campaign and his supporters are blowing it. Another example of that was the fight yesterday before the DNC rules committee. Some of us our asking what would have been the harm in letting the Michigan delegates be apportioned according to the vote. Hillary Clinton would have gotten a measely 4 more delegates and the rest would have gone to uncommitted, which surely would have voted for Obama at the convention. Even with this outcome, Obama probably is pretty much assured of the nomination, according to the press reports about how the undecided super delegates will declare after Tuesday, so why not just let Hillary Clinton keep all her delegates from Michigan? Instead, the Obama campaign beat a dead horse and they have angered alot more of Hillary Clinton supporters, as a result. So much for unity.
<
p>In addition, calling up super delegates to try to get them to declare before June 3rd by telling them after that date, their vote will have not have the same press play…as the Obama campaign did, is just offensive to all the people who still want to cast a vote for either candidate. Barack Obama does not just want to win the nomination, he wants to try to crush Hillary Clinton in the process. So much for unity.
<
p>Then there was the whole Robert Kennedy assassination thing that the Obama campaign spun out of all recognition and in an incredibly offensive way, even though they claim he is already the party’s nominee. What was the point of that? It only served to alienated a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters. So much for unity.
<
p>The Obama campaign and his supporters continue to do things and say things that only serve to further alienate Hillary Clinton supporters. Either they think they do not need us to win in November or they assume, incorectly I think, that Hillary Clinton’s supporters will be there in November, helping with the general election no matter what. Barack Obama has had a lot of opportunities to fix this problem; he has done nothing. So much for being a unifier.
Why should Hillary get anything from Michigan? We’ll never know who really won; all we have is speculation. I think if MI was a normal primary that Obama may have had a chance to win. There’s no evidence to suggest that each and every MI voter who voted for Hillary would have also cast her/his vote for Hillary had it been a primary that counted from the beginning.
<
p>Giving Hillary 100% of MI pledged delegates would mean 100% of Michigan Obama supporters would be left voiceless and unrepresented in Denver. The 14% of the Michigan population that is African American likely would have shown up in droves to vote Obama – to not give Obama any MI pledged delegates would be to disenfranchise a majority of MI African American voters and say that giving into Hillary’s politically expedient change of heart on the MI primary is more important than the Black voting block and anyone in MI who supports Obama. If Obama had let this happen, then he is sending a message to all his Michigan supporters that their voices weren’t worth the effort to stand up to Senator Clinton for.
<
p>I’m happy that a compromise was reached on FL and MI, but I don’t see why Clinton deserves more MI delegates than Obama. What would Hillary supporters think if the roles were reversed? What if in your state Obama was the only one on the ballot in a non-binding primary that all of a sudden became valid? Would Hillary supporters sit quietly by while all of their state’s pledged delegates are allocated to Obama and their voices were totally shut out? “Here, you can hope the uncommitteds will vote for Hillary.” Never happen.
<
p>The Obama camp wanted a 50/50 split. This compromise was proposed by the MI state committee. Many people worked long and hard in both campaigns and in the party to get this hammered out, put through the processes, and voted on by the rules committee. Considering I think it would be unreasonable to expect Hillary to get exactly what she wants, and unreasonable to expect Obama to roll over and not contest Hillary’s desire to have the primaries reinstated, I can’t imagine a more balanced outcome.
<
p>Two more comments:
<
p>
<
p>Fair enough – as long as you are equally offended by the way Hillary has pressed superdelegates. Don’t act like Obama is the only one hustling for pre-June 3 superdelegates and endorsements.
<
p>
<
p>False. You said this last week, too, when I asked you to support that statement and you didn’t. That statement is just as unsupportable now.
<
p>Please cite the most offensive thing Obama or his campaign said about HRC’s RFK statement.
You are factless. And making the most out of nothing.
<
p>The media spun out the RFK thing, not Obama. Complain about them.
<
p>And to say he did something wrong by trying to get superdels to support him sooner rather than later… So a person running for the nomination should not try to get the people who choose the nominee to support him. Bizarre criticism of a candidate for president actually trying to win the race.
<
p>And as far as Michigan goes – the Obama camp had the votes at yesterday’s session to ensure Michigan got nothing. Instead let the proposal put forward by the Michigan folks themselves stand. Watch THIS WEEK and hear what Donna Brazile and member of the rules and bylaw comm says about it. The Clinton camp didn’t agree the compromise.
<
p>C’mon, you seem to expect that Obama should have just given in on this entirely. I guess from your perspective, if he doesn’t do exactly what Hillary wants him to do then he is being divisive.
<
p>Its funny, forever Obama has been called weak and inexperienced, not politically ruthless, too much talk and not enough doing. Then, he actually backs up his candidacy with some tough politics and all his detractors say he is not living up to his rhetoric. Obama is a very skillful politician and he does have a ruthless streak when he needs it. I would think a Clinton supporter would see some of that spine and nous as a strength. But I guess its not a strength when it is deployed against the Clintons. For be it from Obama to actually do what it takes to win.
<
p>Look, we need every Clinton supporter manning the barricades come June 5th. Hillary rocks! I may not like her tactics, but I got a huge amount of respect for her. Time to come together.
From the WSJ Washington Wire Blog:
<
p>
<
p>How malicious of Obama; Hillary supporters have every right to be upset by such a fair-minded move!
Stephanopoulos’ roundtable.
<
p>Of couse Obama could afford to be magnanimous and he was. So it would be nice if people on both sides recognized that it is time to start pulling together. Stop nursing wounds or reopening them.
<
p>And for my part, I won’t try to either, except when a Ferraro or her ilk decide to fan the flames further and drag this thing out. Then a response is called for.
I agree that Obama could afford to be magnanimous, I don’t want to pretend that Obama is all altruism here. I do find it strange that many on the Clinton side are on the attack about Obama’s efforts in this MI/FL fiasco, yet there has been no flex or outstretched hand of compromise from Clinton. They rigidly demand 100% of their original terms – what purpose does that serve? Grandstanding? Inciting the irrational wing of vocal supporters?
<
p>Other’s have pointed behavior by Obama that has disappointed, so I’m not trying to deify him. But at the very least give Obama the credit for his effort to compromise and recognize that Clinton probably never intended to compromise knowing full well it was highly unlikely she’d get the full boat.
Why is Camp Obama so fragile these days? They scrape for every delegate at the RBC meeting…even though they’ve got it all sewn up. And now you tell me that tens of thousands of people would abandon him because…he selects Clinton as VP. That’s right, the tough-as-nails lady who would be the first female VP would drive Obama’s voters into the arms of…what?
<
p>If Obama & Co. want to be winners, it’s well past time they started acting like it.
See tblade’s post above.
<
p>So much for Obama’s “scraping for every delegate at the RBC meeting.”
<
p>My sense is that Clinton supporters want Hillary involved in some way with the VP decision because they still want her to have some sort of veto power over the direction of Obama’s campaign, if not his actual nomination.
the wonderful use of the word (phrase? term?) “horseapples.”
I find it so ironic that Obama supporters support the candidate who claims to be the only one who can unite the country, yet almost every time they write a post in support of their candidate, they make unsupported, factually wrong, nasty offensive comments about Hillary Clinton. BTW, the comment about Bill Clinton meddling in the White House if Hillary were to be the Vice President is incredibly sexist and offensive.
<
p>Where are they in this post and thread?
but here is what you wrote:
<
p>
<
p>Need I explain more?
bullet 1: clear difference in government philosophy
<
p>bullet 2: some certainly see it that way. She’s been way behind since late February, and since that time BHO’s been nothing but courteous [the way a leader has to play], and HRC’s been throwing firebomb after firebomb. Compare her behavior to that of Mike Huckabee r.r.t. JMcC.
<
p>bullet 3: unreasonable possibility?
<
p>bullet 4: used to point out that 1-3 are just some of the oodles of possible reasons BHO might have.
<
p>
<
p>Which of those are “unsupported, factually wrong, nasty offensive comments”?
<
p>bullet 1: HRC has touted her experience, BHO has touted change. Straightforward.
<
p>bullet 2: RFK, MI, FL, hardworking white voters, diminishing dozens of states by claiming that only big swing states matter, outright lying about popular vote counts over and over again, her attempt to un-seat delegates in Texas. All of these HRC comments/issues scorched the Earth. Personally, I’m OK with it. She was playing to win. Kudos to her. But, in doing so, she made it impossible for her to be Vee Pee. Like I said, no worries herre – but she did scorch the Eath, and thats suppoted, factually corrective, and inoffensive.
<
p>bullet 3: HRC and WJC are both hands on, active leaders. That’s well known. I could understand a POTUS not wanting his VPOTUS [or the VPOTUS spouse, also a POTUS] to usurp his press, power, or influence. Would HRC and/or WJC usurp? Nobody knows. But, it is a reasonable guess, and an understandable circumstance to want to avoid. Nothing unsupported, factually wrong, or offensive there either.
<
p>
<
p>So, which is it? What in my comment was unsupported? What was factually wrong? What was nasty or offensive?
In any event, Hillary Clinton has not “scorched the earth,” whatever that means. She campaigned for the Presidency. BTW, the examples you include are only there because the Obama campaign spun them in a way that was not at all factual… e.g., the whole offensive and unnecessary RFK incident that probably cost Obama a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters and was so unnecessary. And standing up for Michigan and Florida voters is hardly “scorching the earth.” It is what all Democrats should do… and, quite frankly, I am surprised the Obama campaign, which claims to be about changing from the old politics, really played the old political game with the Michigan and Florida issue. Hillary Clinton has not lied about the popular vote; she is ahead if you count everyone who has voted, especially after yesterday. That is a fact, not a lie. Finally, swing states do matter in the general election and the Demoractic Party ignores that fact at its peril. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Texas delegates, but a link to a source would be helpful.
<
p>As for bullet point 3, your comment was sexist no matter how your rationalize it now. BTW, Obama would do well to seek counsel from Bill Clinton if Obama is elected President. We had a great economy and peace during Bill Clinton’s terms of office and he was the first Democratic president to win a second term since FDR. Hillary, however, will be perfectly capable of handling the Vice Presidency without President Clinton’s help despite your reservations.
Complete popular vote count.
<
p>Of course, never mind that we’ve got
<
p>open primaries
semi-open primaries
closed primaries
open caucuses
semi-open caucuses
closed caucuses
dual-system (Texas, Washington)
non-Nov-voters (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc)
<
p>which means that it’s impossible to accurately even measure popular vote. She’s been lying because she’s been selectively excluding caucus states, as well as the caucus goers at dual-system states. Don’t those votes deserve to be counted too?
<
p>
<
p>And about the sexist stuff. As I’ve written before, this has nothing to do with the Clenis. I’d expect HRC to include WJC just as WJC included HRC. They’re both smart and talented, and they trust each other’s political instincts. Why wouldn’t they involve each other? What’s sexist about including one’s spouse in important job decisions, especially when the spouse has clear, relevant experience? Was it sexist when WJC included HRC? Why would it be sexist now?
The reaction to the appointment, however, was sexist. It is the assumption underlying your statement about Bill Clinton meddling if Hillary Clinton were to be Vice President that is sexist along with the fact that you are using that statement as a reason for her not to be Vice President, i.e., because of something you think her husband would do.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion about what the popular vote means, but calling Hillary Clinton a liar over it just proves my irony comment, which is how this discussion all got started. It is ironic that Obama supporters, who support a candidate who claims to be a uniter and all about a new kind of politics, make statements that are divisive and very similar to what Obama claims to be the old kind of politics.
Is too far from what most people would agree is reasonable. And the whole point of claiming the popular vote win is to imply that she would be stronger in the general election. That argument goes out of the window when you realize her definition of popular vote does not include several states that will participate in the general election while including voters in PR who will not. Finally, even given her favorable definition, she still has not won it by much. Given that she is falling way behind in national opinion polls, I don’t think this is going to convince to many superdelegates to go with her.
<
p>I agree it is ironic that Obama supporters have made some divisive statements given his call for unity, but it is not all the surprising since they are no less human than Clinton’s supporters.
BTW, supporting a candidate for President in a election is not divisive. Calling someone who has been in the Democratic party for a long time, has worked hard her whole adult life to get other Democrats elected, and has the support of millions of people who voted for her a liar and other names is being divisive.
Pointing it out is honesty.
I have to admit that pointing out when Clinton lies is somewhat divisive. Clinton has indeed worked very hard for the party, but that does not in any way give her free license to lie without being called on it. And why is it that you can say whatever you like about Obama and that is just “supporting a candidate” but if Obama supporters say something critical of Clinton that is “being divisive”?
<
p>
<
p>I don’t follow this logic. Indeed, it seems quite reasonable to at least be apprehensive that a former President that has been the main player in the Democratic Party for nearly two decades would attempt to exert an influence far beyond most VP husbands. How is this claim possibly “sexist”?
…on earth is it logical to be apprehensive that the husband of a person holding an office that in and of itself holds little to no actual influence in the administration would in turn be able to exert influence beyond the normal VP spouse.
<
p>VP spouses have no influence because VP’s have no influence. Any influence that WJC migh have will be by virute of his being who he is, and he will have that influence if HRC is not the VP and he will have that influence even if BHO loses to John McCain.
<
p>To suggest that WJC would have disproportionate influence because of HRC being the VP wreaks of sexism because of the ludicrousness of the statement in the firt place, the contention that something wholely illogical is somehow logical and the fact that no one ever seems to assume that a wife is going to have undue influence over a husband but people make that assumption in the inverse all the time.
It has to do with WJC, a former POTUS, living in the VP mansion in Maryland instead of Chapaqua, NY. It has to do with WJC, a former POTUS, visiting the spouse in the White House. It has to do with WJC, a former POTUS, touring with the spouse as the VP does VPial things.
<
p>It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the VP’s spouse being a former POTUS.
<
p>Of all marriages, I consider that of WJC and HRC to be the most team-oriented equality marriages out there. They’re both natural leaders, both interested in public policy, and both have their own overlapping networks of friends and influence.
<
p>This isn’t about gender. This is about a former POTUS hanging around the WH after the former POTUS’ term is up — something the former POTUS would do a whole lot more of if the spouse of the former POTUS is VPOTUS. Note: no gender at all!
…assertion that WJC would be hanging around the White House is ludicrous in and of itself. Do you think the white house is a software company where spouses are encouraged to hang around when they have the time to do so and shoot pool with the employees.
<
p>WJC is one of the shining stars of the party. He has access already because of that. Being married to a VP will have no effect on that.
<
p>There is no legitimate reason for this concern other than to use it to attack HRC. It is a ridiculous assertion that flies in the face of all common sense. It is reasonable to presume that absurdity is based on prejudicial bias.
He could rightfully hang out with HRC just about anywhere — political parties and events, travel, etc. Any time he’s there — any time — he’d be asked questions by reporters. And, he isn’t exactly shy.
<
p>That is substantially different than if WJC isn’t VPOTUS-spouse. Sure, he can still opine on events, but he won’t be at the events nearly as often. Generally, former PsOTUS recede into the background. Sure JEC dabbles in foreign policy and WJC & GHWB did some charity work… but that’s worlds of difference from being on the scene all the time.
<
p>There’s a difference. It’s not an attack on HRC. I didn’t attack HRC at all; I commended her for going all in 100% for the POTUS nomination. But, she didn’t win, and the thought of WJC being around more than the typical retired POTUS wouldn’t give me warm fuzzies if I were the POTUS. WJC is and has been both a tremendous asset and a tremendous liability to HRC in her campaign. Them’s the breaks, and there’s nothing prejudicial about it It’s judicial to be sure, but based on things that have already happened; there’s no “pre”.
I love Bill Clinton as much as anybody, and the reason he was a great president is because he’s a compulsive meddler. Bush is terrible because he’s incurious and delegates too much.
<
p>Clinton’s basic personality traits have most likely not changed. I’m not saying he’ll move down to the DC Area with a grand plan to ‘usurp’ power however once he’s around the moving and shaking, he won’t be able to help himself but to try and steer it in the way he thinks would be the best public policy for America.
<
p>Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Nice try though on the rationalization. I don’t know which is more disturbing: the original sexist comment or the failure to recognize why it is sexist. Hillary Clinton, if she becomes vice president, is perfectly able to handle the job without Bill Clinton’s help or assistance, just as she would be able to handle the Presidency without Bill Clinton’s assistance. (I think the word you used was “meddling.”) The underlying assumption of your statement assumes that is not the case.
<
p>BTW, the fact that Bill Clinton was President for 8 years means that Barack Obama will occasionally need his support if Obama becomes president, just as Bill Clinton called on former Presidents when he needed their support. Surely, Obama will not think of that as “meddling.”
WJC was perfectly capable of handling POTUS without HRC. And yet, he brought her in, because he valued her ability.
<
p>Why would it be any different with HRC as VPOTUS? Why is it that if a man brings in a smart, capable woman to the team it’s wise and savvy, but if a woman brings in a smart, capable man it’s because she can’t handle the job? Why that assumption?
<
p>That’s not just a sexist idea, its a dumb one. It’s not that I assume HRC can or can’t handle the job. I do assume that she’d be interested in doing the best job she could do, and that would mean bringing in as many smart, capable teammates that she trusts — including, oh I don’t know, some which happen to own a penis (a Clenis even) and might have some experience in the Oval Office.
<
p>
<
p>But keep making it about sexism and about how everyone is against HRC. It’s absolutely asinine.
We probably would not be having this conversation. I am referring to this part of your post, of course (the rest is not worth responding to):
Of course there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman can bring in a smart, capable man as an assistant or seek advice from a smart, capable man, but that is completely different from what you said originally. You are correct, this reformed version is not sexist.
<
p>I feel we have made some progress here. Hopefully, someday you will realize that too.
My point and my observation never changed. I had to rephrase it 10 ways to demonstrate to you that it wasn’t sexist.
<
p>Hopefully, someday you will realize that the initial meaning and the above meaning are the same, and it was your false and insulting assumptions that yielded your claims that the phrase was sexist.
<
p>It wasn’t. It never was.
because this argument is incredibly silly, but the statement that:
<
p>
<
p>has absolutely nothing to do with the point that the concern is Bill trying to exert influence over Obama and the President’s team, not over Hillary as you claim.
<
p>In any case, the suggestion that “nobody” seems to assume that a wife is going to have undue influence over a husband is flatly contradicted by the Clinton years, when right-wingers continuously attacked Bill for supposedly allowing his wife to be a “co-President”. So pretty much no part of your last point makes much sense to me.
….no right wingers continually attacking WJC for being unduly influenced by his wife assuming the role of co-President. They attacked him for allowing her to be what the called a co-President. That is, as they say, a horse of a differnt color, since the power to allow the influence was HIS and not HERS.
<
p>There is a continual assumption that WJC will just be hanging around exerting his influnece, no one will be able to stop it, least of all HRC. The presumption was that Bill had the power to give Hillary the right to have influence but Hillary won’t have the power to prevent Bill from having influence (even though he’d have none at all by virtue of being married to a VP). So, I submit there is nothing silly about asserting that there is something blatantly and/or latanlty sexist in asserting that there is great cause for concern if Hillary is VP that Bill will be some sort of a problem.
<
p>It is also, btw, an insult to Obama. As though the President would not be able to control who would have access to his office and his staff.
<
p>In fact, the incredibly silly position is the one that supposes Hillary as VP will have anything to do with whom Bill Clinton gets to influence. Maybe it is not sexism but just ridiculous paranoia, but sexism is still high on the list of possibilities as far as I’m concerned.
it isn’t about gender. It’s about Hillary and Bill and Barack. Those three in particular. What we know about those three based on a collective 40+ years of time in the spotlight.
<
p>It’s about those three people and their personalities. Not their private parts or their hormones. Good grief.
… influence. But he can always make hay in the press. Not sure it makes sense that he would try to manipulate anything that way, but he certainly could try.
And its not sexist to say Bill will be a player in a Hill White House. Plenty of people like the idea of having an experienced former president being a part of things. I’m not one of them, but believe me there are many folks who liked Bill and like Hill in part because of that connection. She’s often times referred to the 1990s as a reason to vote for her.
<
p>And if you haven’t noticed – Bill has been a massive player in her campaign so why is it beyond the pail to imagine him having a role in her White House – for better and/or worse. I tend to think Bill didn’t ultimately help Hillary too much. She was best when she was at the helm and he was doing pitstops in podunk.
<
p>You really get offended too easily and throw the sexist charge around a bit too wantonly. It diminishes the reality of sexism in this campaign and in our society.
I’m not actually concerned about that. He’ll get back to his speaking tour and raking in the millions. He may some bizarre stuff but he won’t do any harm if Hill were veep if you ask me.
<
p>But suggesting that he might is still not sexist. Let’s not turn everything into sexism. Its too big a problem for it to be diminished like that.
The statement that Bill will be “messing with Hill as veep” as you paraphrased is sexist because it diminishes Hillary Clinton and her abilities. There has been too much of that during this campaign. You are right, though that “it [sexism] is too big a problem for it to be diminished” which is why we all need to stop being quiet about it for fear of offending and start speaking out, no matter how we feel about the target of the sexism.
You do realize that the spouse of one of the candidates is a former President, don’t you? I think we are pretty much in uncharted waters here, so acknowleding that fact doesn’t necessarily make it sexist.
How silly of us to think that if Hill was a man, no one would even consider that his wife would be “interfering” in any way.
If “Hill” were a man who happened to be married to an ex-President, then I think it would still be a fair question.
<
p>Personally, I don’t think having WJC as 2nd Spouse would be necessarily be a bad thing, but merely asking the question is not sexist, as much as you want it to be.
<
p>Hillary Clinton IS the wife of a former President. You can’t cite her work throughout the 90’s and on the healthcare plan as selling points, but then get defensive when someone acknowledges her spouse. Neither Bill nor Hillary exists in a vacuum.
It was not some merely acknowledging that her spouse is a former President. Of course that is not sexist.
I said I don’t think it will be a problem having Hillary as veep, regardless of Bill.
<
p>And the issue of Bill’s presence has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with Bill. It is not diminishing Hillary to recognize that having the former President on the scene could prove a potential distraction. It already has. Let’s recall, Hillary having to take flack because Bill took $800k from a pro-Colombia free trade group when she opposes the free trade deal with that country. A candidate’s spouse is always an issue (look at the flack Obama has taken because of some of his wife’s less than thoughtful remarks) and in Hillary’s case it just so happens that her spouse is a former President who remains a major world figure and is raising all types of money for his library and causes from all types of people, many with interests before our Government. I have every confidence Hillary can handle it, but it is not sexist to raise it as an issue. It just is.
<
p>Bill has done plently to harm Hillary’s campaign this year (and much to help it as well of course). She has done a lot better when she was out front and he was nowhere near her. If anything it has proven her own strengths. But, Bill is an issue, for better or worse.
how someone can make the same prediction as you and yet reach a completely opposite conclusion about what it will mean.
I am a guy, but guys won’t tell her what to do. That is part of what makes her Hillary!
<
p>Hillary will decide what is the best interest of the party and she will decide what is to be done!
<
p>John Kerry, Deval, and others can say whatever they want. But keep in mide they have motives other than Hillary’s best interest. They don’t even have the best interest of the party at heart.
<
p>They have their own best interest in mind!
<
p>Unity behind the nominee!
This:
<
p>
<
p>is the rub. They’re all out for themselves and nobody else, including Barack Obama.
that people feel they can express without substantiation.
n/m
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/weekinreview/01abram.html?hp
You are right that Johnson will be a key player, but the Obama campaign has been careful to minimize what role Johnson is playing to this point, and that they have yet to name a chair of the VP committee. So the position is still open.
And no doubt, Hillary will not nor should just fade into the background as campaign 2008 goes on. She will be a hugely important figure in this race, in the Party and in the country in the short and long-terms, and the question is how can she use her talents and stature going forward, to help us win the White House this year and drive the progressive agenda forward in years to come.
<
p>Whether she should to take on such a role in the Obama campaign I don’t know. I think as you point out, becoming Obama’s veep herself has some serious downsides for both of them but Obama will need her very active nonetheless to win in November. Even though she may not have won this race, I think her stature nationally has been enhanced by it – she’s out of Bill’s shadow for good now and more folks will want to hear from her then him in the future.
<
p>I like this idea and while I am not sure the candidates will take it up – Obama may prefer someone with less profile in such a role and Hillary may not want such a role – I think generating ideas like this for how we can use the great talents in our Party to win together is awesome.
I too think the idea is interesting but has some fatal flaws. However, I simply can’t let the idea that HRC has gained stature as you suggest.
<
p>She has taken many important and powerful steps toward equality. I don’t think I need to rattle off the list of firsts she has accomplished this election as pertains to votes, money, etc.
<
p>However, she has – especially in the last few weeks – taken such actions to put a Democratic win in jeopardy in that I think it many of the “stature” gains for her, not necessarily for all women, have been lost.
<
p>She is not engaged in a sysephean effort. She is engaged in a mathematical losing battle. As a result she will not only lose the battle herself but is, intentionally or not, doing all she can to bring the ship down with her.
Don’t worry, in most things I don’t want a Cheney at least in substance. I would want her to ultimately propose herself. I also hope that if she is VP that she exercises comparable influence as Cheney, but of course to different ends. In my opinion there really is only one choice for running mate and she’s it. She steadies any concerns about experience as Cheney did for Bush, but she has the added advantage of bringing legions of supporters with her. I’m convinced the Democratic ticket can’t be stopped with her on board.
<
p>I must say, however, that I take exception to the comments that suggest Clinton would somehow poison the idea of change. Don’t you all realize that both candidates are a HUGE change from the status quo of the past eight years. Both would actually care about regular folks rather than well-connected friends, thus spurring economic recovery. Both would enhance our standing in the world virtually overnight. Both would work to draw down our troop involvement in Iraq. Both would do something novel like base policies on facts rather than ideology. Whatever differences they have I believe are actually beneficial both for campaigning and governing.
As indicated previously, Jim Johnson (CEO Fannie Mae) has already been tabbed to commence the VP search. He has been in place over a week after accepting Obama’s offer/request for help. Bear in mind that Johnson provided the same type of assistance to Walter Mondale in ’84. The decision to nominate Ferraro has certainly come under fire over the years (revisionist history) and it will be interesting to see how things develop. Moreover, Johnson’s role is more along the line of vetting the potential candidates and providing a short list to a committee. In fact Eric Holder (former Deputy Attorney General under Clinton and Acting Attorney General under Bush) will be heavily involved in the process as well. Both Johnson and Holder have ties to Clinton so one would have to wonder if she will be seriousluy considered or if they will reach into the bag of past Clinton loyalists to pull someone that can help bring the Clinton-family emotionally into the race. Holder owes his success to Clinton and I’m sure he will be looking for opportunities to promote a Clinton loyalist.
that “petitioning democrat” bushwah Lieberman used to run as an alleged independent in 2006.
Maybe she and Joe can team up…