The networks are reporting that Hillary Clinton has said she would be open to serving as Barack Obama’s vice-president. My first instinct is to urge Obama to choose her rather than the “safe” choice of a centrist white male senator or governor (Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, etc.). If the price of ending the primary now is taking all of the other veep options off the table, that might be worth it. Most progressives are eager to see a united ticket against the GOP in the fall, and the high emotions (many tied to issues of racism or sexism) have proved damaging to Democratic unity.
Early prediction: Obama/Clinton for the Democrats; McCain/Sanford for the Republicans. (As a very liberal Republican, my veep choice for McCain would be Sen. Susan Collins, or Christie Todd Whitman. Not gonna happen, I know). Of course, I was the one who last year predicted that John Edwards and Mitt Romney, the two handsomest candidates of modern times, would win their parties’ respective nominations!
Thoughts?
The primary is over now (well, six hours from now); Clinton has no power to hold out as a cudgel over Obama. He would be an absolute fool to pick her as VP; it simply attaches all of the Clinton baggage to his campaign in exchange for nothing. She will not bring him any states that any other (white) politician would, and the antipathy and division that’s been stirred up to date would make integrating her field troops into his organization counterproductive, at best.
He won. She lost. He gets to pick a VP that works for HIM, instead of for herself, and move on with the campaign. She gets to go home.
I have always been one who said feminists saying they wouldn’t vote for Obama is stupid, but Webb? I had trouble holding my nose and voting for him for VA senate; picking him is the one thing Obama could do that would make it hard for me to vote for him. (Though in the end, I probably still would).
The rumor I heard yesterday was that Clinton was saying she’d bow out if Obama would promise to nominate her to the Supreme Court when there’s the next opening. Stranger deals have been made, or have they?
Clinton would be a bit old for a Supreme Court appointment by recent standards, I fear. You want legacy, you go young, like a Roberts or a Thomas…
Christie Whitman? After she colluded with the Bush administration in hiding from workers at ground zero (and others in the neighborhood) how hazardous the conditions were? Yuck, Hugo.
I hope to Goddess that Obama does not pick Clinton as VP. It would essentially negate the message of his campaign, to wit, that he is offering newness, honesty, integrity, etc., to the American political process. What would he go and do that for? I’m thinkin’: Kathleen Sebelius. Or even Bill Richardson. And I’m prayin’: Not Clinton.
from Think Girl –>> And the Nominee Is: Barack Obama
Mary, it’s pretty slim pickings for progressive Republicans with national name recognition… Chris Shays? Jim Saxton? Or… Mike Bloomberg?
I hope to Goddess that Obama does not pick Clinton as VP. It would essentially negate the message of his campaign, to wit, that he is offering newness, honesty, integrity, etc., to the American political process. What would he go and do that for? I’m thinkin’: Kathleen Sebelius. Or even Bill Richardson. And I’m prayin’: Not Clinton.
I second Luis. I highly doubt that Obama will pick her anyway, nor do I think Hillary would accept the VP position. I am also pretty pissed at her for throwing so much mud towards Obama and for being so stubborn throughout the whole campaign. She’s the main reason the Democratic party is so divided now, and I want her out of the picture.
hmmm those who say she should be on the ticket never seem to say why she would be a good VP or why she would be a good fit in a government. while cheney and gore before him had some power, the VP has no official job other than to wake up and ask “is he dead?”. if no then they don’t necessarily have anything to do. the assumption is that she would have some power but that would come with the task of playing a complete second fiddle. she would have to do what Obama says, he would be the boss. does that seem like a good fit for her: no.
One responder on some news commentary show or another said this, regarding an Obama/Clinton ticket:
“If Obama chooses Hillary as VP, he will need a professional food taster.”
I very much like the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket. She would make an excellent VP, and if she was suddenly required to step into the presidential role, she’d be a superb one.
Re: McCain, God help us (in every secular and non-secular use of the term) if he became president. My prayers and best wishes go to “liberal Republicans” at this point as their party goes he way of other endangered, or extinct, species. I don’t honestly see a way for anyone of any liberal bent to vote Republican in this presidential election, no matter who McCain’s running mate should prove to be.
Whoops, I meant “liberal Republicans” going the way of endangered species, not the Republican party. Sunburn, what can I say?
“If Obama chooses Hillary as VP, he will need a professional food taster.”
I herewith volunteer.
Howard Preston Burkett (Oriscus)
Austin, TX
I voted Republican in today’s primary (California has two primaries this year, the presidential one was in February, in which I voted for McCain as the least evil of the GOP hopefuls.) I will certainly vote for Obama in the fall, regardless of who he picks. I would have preferred a Clinton/Obama ticket, with Barack getting eight years of further prep, but I’ll take the other way around. Hillary ran a fine race, and though she often blundered, she was — and has always been — like Lear, a “sinner more sinned against than sinning.”
“Mary, it’s pretty slim pickings for progressive Republicans with national name recognition…”
That’s why I honestly can’t understand why you would identify as a Republican. Now that you are pro-choice, I have trouble imagining what policy positions you share with the GOP. I know it’s not war and peace. I don’t recall your specific writings on the subjects, but I’m also pretty sure it’s not taxes, regulation, immigration, etc.
“(As a very liberal Republican, my veep choice for McCain would be Sen. Susan Collins, or Christie Todd Whitman. Not gonna happen, I know).”
Well, if you want a female running mate, how about Elizabeth Dole?
Despite Webb’s failings, he makes much more sense than Hillary. He lends more credence to Obama’s anti-war platform, in stark contrast to Nuke-em-till-they-glow Hillary. It would be very strange and jarring for Obama to pick such a vicious hawk for VP. Hell, if Hillary, why not his mentor Lieberman? After all, he was elected VP by popular vote on the Democratic ticket in 2000; shouldn’t he get his due?
One of Obama’s main strengths is his professed desire to move US politics past the red/blue polarization of the Baby Boomer generation. Clinton epitomizes that divide. Not to mention that she has spent the last few months throwing every smear and flagrant reality-redefining lie she could think of at the Obama camp, hoping enough would stick to to reclaim “her” nomination.
Obama/Clinton? DEAR GOD, NO.
How soon we forget that, early in the campaign, Obama said unequivocally that he would attack Pakistan in much the same way Hillary said she she would attack Iran if they invaded Israel. So surely one cancels out the other in terms of unfortunate one-off campaign bombast where “war” is concerned.
Hillary, like Obama, is pro-international diplomacy, something the U.S. is in dire need of at this point. The ability to be reasonable without appearing weak has been lacking in the White House for the past seven-plus years.
Fred, I am a registered Republican, largely because I want to bring the party of Millicent Fenwick and Pete McCloskey back to what it once was. By voting for the most moderate Republican in the primary, by voting for pro-choice, green Republicans when they run for central committees and assembly seats, I play a small role in moving the GOP back to the center. And of course, I’ll vote Democratic in the general elections until the national GOP returns to that center.
I don’t think Clinton would be a great VP candidate or VP, especially at this stage of the game. I just don’t see her — and perhaps more importantly, her entourage of staff and advisors — being very good at playing second fiddle. Nevertheless, I think she needs to affirmatively decline the VP spot. Otherwise her supporters will feel dissed and cheated.
I don’t like the idea of Jim Webb, either. My reading of him is that he doesn’t have the personality for second fiddle either, plus his shaky history on women’s issues would not go over well (especially, but not only, with Clinton supporters). Furthermore, I think he’d *hurt* the ticket on national security — picking him would be like wearing a sign that says “I, and the Democrats in general, are weak on national security.” Obama needs to push his diplomacy-based reframing of the issue, not capitulate to the old frame.
My personal preference right now is Kathleen Sebelius — I’ve been impressed recently with her success in keeping Kansas from building more coal plants. But if Obama picks her (or any other woman — Janet Napolitano wouldn’t be a bad choice either), he really needs Clinton on-board and publicly supportive lest it send a signal that he views women as interchangeable.
“One of Obama’s main strengths is his professed desire to move US politics past the red/blue polarization of the Baby Boomer generation.”
– and yet everything else he says is nothing BUT divisive, smearing President Bush and conservatives at every turn. I’m tired of every politician claiming, “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” We ARE a divided nation, not because of what any politician may do, but because we disagree on everything.
I am just pleased to have lived long enough to see this historic race. Growing up in the LA of the 50s, living through the Watts riots, living through various abusive relationships, I never would have hoped to see a powerful women and powerful black man running for the Presidency in my lifetime.
“and yet everything else he says is nothing BUT divisive, smearing President Bush and conservatives at every turn.”
Bush and his echosphere deserve all the smears they’ve received.
Although, if you think Obama has done nothing but attack conservatives, I’d be curious how you’d explain his bipartisan efforts in congress. RINOs all, perhaps?
A “smear” by definition involves negative lies, in the main. Pointing our the dishonest, greedy, divisive, isolationist, destructive, xenophobic, homophobic, and aggressively anti-intellectual and anti-scientific record of the Bush “presidency” and his sycophantic, drooling followers isn’t a “smear campaign,” it’s a recitation of tragic facts.
Imagine how difficult a road Obama would be having now if Bush had been either a gentleman, or intelligent, or even simply a leader with America’s best interests at heart? McSame could just breeze in on Bush’s record, right? Sadly for “conservatives,” it’s his record, and the record of “conservatives” that makes Obama such a promising president-to-be.
I would love to see Clinton as vice pres. She’s not perfect, Obama’s not perfect, but I still really like them both and am hoping that is what will happen. Although I kinda doubt it will.
“A ’smear’ by definition involves negative lies, in the main. Pointing our the dishonest, greedy, divisive, isolationist, destructive, xenophobic, homophobic, and aggressively anti-intellectual and anti-scientific record of the Bush ‘presidency’ and his sycophantic, drooling followers isn’t a ’smear campaign,’ it’s a recitation of tragic facts.”
Dishonest? No.
Greedy? As to what?
Divisive? See my comments above.
Isolationist? So…he’s a “warmonger,” getting us involved where we shouldn’t be…AND he’s isolationist at the same time? Classic.
Destructive? Well, he authorized a war on terror. Wars tend to destroy things, unfortunately. But he’ll have a long list of commanders-in-chief in line in front of him, if that’s your criterion.
Xenophobic? What ethnicities or nationalitiess has he condemned?
Homophobic? I’m saddened by his stance against gay marriage, popular though it may be with the American people. But Obama seems to have a larger space in his heart for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than he does for Bush. Care to look up Ahmadinejad’s comments on gays and lesbians?
Anti-intellectual and anti-scientific? Erm…no. Having policies on science that you don’t apparently like does not equate with being “anti-science.” Usually those making this charge are a bit off with their own understanding of science.
1) He lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq was an impending threat to the U.S.
2) His invasion of Iraq was motivated by what he was sure would be a cheap oil supply after what would be, at most, a three month invasion.
3) He divided America from its friends and allies, divided Americans from EACH OTHER based on his lies and his pandering to the lunatic fundamentalist Christian fringe for votes.
4) See previous comment about separating America from its allies, and making America one of the most derided, mocked, and loathed countries in the world.
5) “Destructive? Well, he authorized a war on terror. Wars tend to destroy things.” This is the sort of inanity that most of us had long hoped people had matured out of. There is no such thing as a “war on terror.” Terrorism is a criminal act, not a “war.” What Bush “authorized” was an illegal invasion of a sovereign state which had not ever aggressed against the United States. Ergo, according to international laws to which the U.S. is a signatory, it was an illegal invasion of a sovereign state, not a “war on terror.”
As to the comment “wars tend to destroy things,” this is exactly the sort of glib, ugly, trivializing attitude that has made the U.S. so detested around the world over the last nearly eight years. Torture? Rape? Illegal detainment? The death and mutilation of women and children? Refugees? The destruction of the country of Iraq and 1000 years worth of culture and artifacts? The suspension of the Geneva Convention on torture? Rendition?
“Oh, wars tend to destroy things. Ho hum, let’s see it we can get to Wal Mart before American Idol comes on.”
6) Bush’s policies, speeches, and those of his bellicose,ignorant evangelical followers have created massive anti-Arab, anti-Islamic sentiments among a massive segment of the American population who are too ignorant to differentiate between Arabs and Iranians, for instance, and who now see all Muslims, including American Muslims, as evil and worthy of violence or desecration.
7) “[His] stance on gay marriage, popular though it may be with the American people?” Yes, it’s “saddening” all right. Good thing the “popularity with the American people” in the form of votes was never a concern when it came to women’s rights, the rights of children, the ending of slavery, or interracial marriage. No president ever tried to amend the U.S. constitution to keep those people “in their place” as Bush has tried to do with gays and lesbians. What was your point anyway? That Bush ISN’T homophobic? Or just that it “saddens” you? It saddens me too, but my point is that he IS homophobic, not how it makes you and I feel.
Oh wait, you were trying to make the point that, while Bush IS a homophobe, the president of Iran is a worse one. I agree with you. Duh. Oh wait…were you trying to say that Obama and Ahmadinjad share the same view? Or just smear Obama by linking the two together? Forget it it, buddy, it’s been tried before by more committed Obama bashers than you.
“Care to look up Ahmadiejad’s comments on gays and lesbians?” Ummm, not thanks. I’m familiar with them, and likely have been familiar with Iran’s treatment of gays and lesbians for much longer than you have. I fail to understand your attempt to link a presidential candidate who is in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell” with a despotic Iranian leader who tortures 17 year old gay men to death. If you’re channeling Ann Coulter, perhaps you can elaborate. Failing that, ask Ann where she hid her soul, or her 666 birthmark.
Wanting to pursue diplomacy in the service of peace doesn’t equate to having “a larger space in [Obama’s] heart” for Amhadinejad. When America wakes up from this seven and a half year nightmare of bullying and destruction, not to mention the squandering of trillions of dollars that could have been put to good use looking after its own people who are in DIRE need of it, perhaps it can grow up a little and realize that the world is not its sandbox, nor are women and children in countries on the other side of the world merely digital figures in its own personal “Kill The Ragheads!” video game.
8) Vetoing stem cell research and urging the teaching of “creationism” in schools to appease the drooling fundamentalist mob for whom he’s spread the buttocks of the Republican party in exchange for votes IS something I “don’t apparently like.” Good catch! It’s also anti-science, and anti-intellectual. I really can’t imagine where you were trying to go with that one. Tell it to the paralyzed who see decades of immobility stretching out in front of them, or their caregivers. Tell it to the husbands and wives who are watching their life partners die of Alzheimer’s every day, and disappearing right in front of their eyes. I’m not “off with my own understanding of science,” I’m “off” with my “own understanding” of legislating religious beliefs at the expense of life-saving scientific advances,
Honestly, NEVER has November seemed further away than tonight.
1. He didn’t lie about WMDs. If they are indeed not there (anymore?), then the President received bad, inaccurate information. Did most of Congress also “lie” about WMDs (except, of course, your Messiah)?
2. This point obviously ties in with #1., but if you’re still so blind as to believe that “Bush lied,” then I’m sure you’ll eagerly go along with the MoveOn.org “blood for oil” talking point, too.
3. Again, any president is divisive if (s)he makes any decisions at all. I could just as easily claim that President Clinton was “divisive” when he altered the welfare system (angering liberals) and supported abortion on demand (angering conservatives)…but I won’t, because I am cool-headed enough to understand that if WJC took the opposite positions on those issues he would merely alienate the other sides.
4. Aside from the fact that you don’t grasp the meaning of the word “isolationist,” you seem to be unaware that we are not the only nation to have sent troops to the Middle East.
5. My comment wasn’t glib in the least. Any death in a war, whether American or not, whether adult or child, whether woman or man (though it seems you’re more worried about the former than the latter, sadly), is a great tragedy. My comment wasn’t a “s— happens” remark at all, though I’m not surprised that you chose to mischaracterize it as such.
Sen. McCain, while supporting military action in Iraq (not AGAINST Iraq or ON Iraq, another of your harbored misconceptions), staunchly opposes torture and maltreatment of Iraqi citizens, as do I. Try to focus on one subject at a time, Michael, and you might just make a coherent argument.
6. Just a day or two after 09/11/2001, GWB went visited American mosques, asserted his support for them, and then assiduously and repeatedly explained in addresses to the American people that the American citizens of Middle-Eastern descent who happen to populate their neighborhoods were not and are not the people who flew hijacked planes into skyscrapers.
Does xenophobia exist in this country? Are there misguided fools who take out their justifiable anger for 09/11/2001 in unjustifiable ways on innocent Americans, simply because they happen to be Muslims? Yes and yes. Not long ago, I listened to a story on THIS AMERICAN LIFE about a girl who went through just that sort of hell, and my stomach turned. But to assert that Bush is the cause of that idiotic animosity is rather foolish.
7. “Good thing the ‘popularity with the American people’ in the form of votes was never a concern when it came to women’s rights, the rights of children, the ending of slavery, or interracial marriage.”
Well, I certainly agree with you there, but then you’ll have to make the same point when the polls are on your side, rather than quote MesSNBC’s numbers about how many Americans disagree with Bush on x, y, or z. Both liberals and conservatives, it seems, love pointing to poll numbers that support them and abandon those that don’t.
“Oh wait…were you trying to say that Obama and Ahmadinjad share the same view? Or just smear Obama by linking the two together?”
I obviously don’t believe that Sen. Obama and Ahmadinejad share the same view on homosexuals and what rights they should have, and I’m far closer to Sen. Obama’s views on that issue — probably share them exactly, in fact — than I am to Ahmadinejad’s execrable comments. The point is that Obama and his ilk do everything they can to distance themselves from Bush, while speaking of a friendly dialogue with Ahmadinejad, perfectly willing to look past any view he might have on gays — or on Israel, for that matter — so long as he’s also anti-Bush.
8. With your careless phrasing, you state that Bush vetoed stem cell research, when in fact both types of stem cell research receive millions of dollars in annual federal funding — both the type using adult stem cells that is actually treating human patients, AND the type that requires the destruction of embryonic human beings and leads to nothing but tumor production.
It’s not “anti-science” to recognize the scientific fact that human embryos are human beings, and to build your ethical guidelines accordingly. Scientists are now flocking away from embryonic stem cells in favor of adult stem cells and the newly discovered technique of reprogramming adult cells to become induced pluripotent stem cells, as ASCs and IPSCs are proving far easier to work with (and far less ethically problematic) than ESCs.
Adult stem cells are already helping paralyzed people to regain feeling in their lower limbs (and, in some cases, to walk again). It’s also sad that you bring up Alzheimer’s, as it’s been stated over and over again that Alzheimer’s is a disease that affects the whole brain, and therefore chemical therapies are expected to be much more promising than ANY type of stem cell research. Of course, you know that Alzheimer’s disease affects so many families (as it has mine) that if you invoke its name you know you will get more people’s attention, right? I’d also like to know what “religious beliefs” one needs to have in order to oppose destroying human beings (who human embryos plainly are) for the purposes of medical research.
It’s too bad you didn’t just type this tired diatribe in sepia. It’s so old, it’s nearly antique at his point.
Intelligent, rational, educated Americans have had to listen to not only Bush’s trillion dollar lies, but also this sort of grinding, sour apologist tripe from his flyover state fan-base for seven-plus years. It’s a little sleep-inducing, and it’s very late here.
No one believes it anymore, and even the pathetic 30% of Bush die-hards are jumping like rats deserting a sinking ship. Or ships deserting a sinking rat, either is fine.
Bush’s presidency will go down in history as the worst in history, and America’s nadir on the international stage.
Enjoy the next six months. The rest of us will be cooling champagne.
PS: Yeah, I’ll go along with “blood for oil.” I believe the war in Iraq was a cynical play for cheap oil, and I believe that the willingness of American soldiers to fight and die for their country–as well as the country’s shock and grief, post-911— was abused in the most loathsome, detestable way possible.
“It’s too bad you didn’t just type this tired diatribe in sepia. It’s so old, it’s nearly antique at his point.”
That’s okay, Dear Michael. You don’t have to address any of my points. That’s par for the course for people like you, is it not? Bring up tired arguments regurgitated from The Daily Kos and then scatter when anyone with more moderate views begins to challenge you. I would expect nothing less.
I never cared for President Clinton but have nowhere near the vitriol and spite for him that you seem to have for President Bush.
Here’s a geographical analogy for ya: when you live in California (as you may well do), states such as Utah and Colorado appear to be “out east” from where you are, even if they’re actually more in the western United States. The same is true politically. I’m probably lefty on more issues than I’m righty, but to you I’m Michael freakin’ Savage, all because I don’t stew in my own bile and I don’t have a “W” with a void sign through it on the back of my Volvo. That you consider me some sort of extremist only confirms that you are one, yourself.
Michael lives in the East, bmmg.
Let’s all tone down the rhetoric and, while we’re at it, lay off the Volvo stereotype. Just because I fit that stereotype nearly perfectly doesn’t mean that other owners of the splendid cars need to get dragged into this.
Okay, he lives in the east. Cool. The analogy still holds — and, for that matter, I’ll point out that it holds in the other geographical and political direction. Many of those who are right-wing about everything consider someone with a few left-wing or moderate views to be “tree-hugging liberals,” just as many of those who are left-wing about everything call centrists (to quote MR directly now) “pathetic” diehards who spew “tired diatribe” and “grinding, sour apologist tripe.” I’m cordial with those who are cordial toward me, but I can give as good as I get with those who are not.
I’m also not against Volvos® or anyone who drives them. (I drive a Hyundai, BTW.) I am against those who think that preaching hatred is okay, so long as it’s against “the right people.”