My Photo

« Q and...Oh? | Main | Back In The USSR »

May 14, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200e5523ddb078834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Endorsements:

Comments

I had to double check and make sure hilzoy wrote this.

Last night, though, my main thought was: when someone finally drags her away from the race for the nomination, she'll leave teethmarks on it. They really will have to pry her candidacy from her cold, dead hands. She will go on doing this forever. She'll be like Harold Stassen, only all rolled up into one primary season.

Damn. When you've lost one of the most thoughtful, generous, smart, and sincere persons in the blogosphere like that. Just, well, damn.

i just assume she was trying to get people to pay back all that money of hers that she spent on the campaign, now that it's not working out.

or maybe she's trying to build enough war chest that she'll be an attractive VP choice. (super-mega-double-ultra-blech)

Hillary is like a typical James Bond villain. Name a Bond film where the villain says "Ok Mr Bond I give up you win" Hillary is drunk with delusions of grandeur and wants to go out in a blaze of glory like James Cagney in White Heat. She's on a kamikaze mission to destroy Obama so if he loses she can say I told you so and start her 2012 campaign

they're having a grand-ol time nutpicking from the pro-Hillary blogs, over at Balloon Juice. and i gotta say, Clinton has really created a monster here. many of her supporters have taken her refusal to face the numbers to the level of 9-11 truthers. it's absolutely over-the-top insane stuff: conspiracies of all kinds, demands that Obama refuse the nomination, comparing the way things have worked out to a "virtual gang rape", double-bank-shot plans where Edwards' endorsement now means Obama must win KY (else Hillary wins it all), on and on.

they are so far gone, and they keep moving further away from reality, every time the numbers change. it's easy to see why the number of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary loses keeps climbing with each state: she's whipping their froth into higher and higher peaks each time she gets up there and pretends she still has a realistic chance.

the Party had better revise this system: compress the primary season, do away with the superdelegates, something. right now it's an EPIC FAIL.

You guys need to stop doubting me.

A ‘pledged’ delegate is nothing more than a promise from a politician. Personally, I give Hillary one chance in three. I mean we’ve still got Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and seven other states to go.

Every time I listen to Mrs. Clinton I find solace by looking up the latest delegate count. Or the Iowa Electronic Markets.

I once thought that Hillary needed what I call an Al Gore moment. By this I mean that in 2000 Gore appeared as if he were focussed grouped--every thing he said was calculated. Once he emerged from his post-election hibernation he was far more attractive as a politician--he seemed to know what he stood for. He was relieved of the pressure of balancing the disparate elements of his coalition while seeking to carve into Republican support. And he now comes across as a liberated person in a way that he did not before. I would vote for him now in a heartbeat, though I had doubts about him in 2000.

I don't know if Hillary has the possibility of such redemption in her. I have always felt that she was so focussed grouped (I don't care if that is not really an adverb) for so long as to not know who she was. Thus a campaign where she tried on new messages each week, trying to find one that worked. And none of which seemed to fit her, until she took up the mantle of fighter--though whether she was really fighting for anyone but herself was never clear.

I hope she can find the real Hillary once the shock of losing an election she could have won has worn off. But it has been so long since she has been apolitical that I am skeptical. And unlike Gore, she will have the platform of U.S. Senator to grandstand from. We have not seen the last of her, and I find it hard to belief she will find her genuine self in that setting.

cleek: I know; I just read a whole comment thread at TL. It's pretty strange.

I mean: my opinion of Hilary Clinton has suffered a lot during this campaign. But I cannot imagine myself saying: oh, I will sit the election out, or: I'll never vote for her, or anything like that. In the final analysis, she is smart and capable, and will appoint decent people to the Supreme Court; I don't think any of these things is true of McCain. (Or: if he's smart, he doesn't use his intelligence on policy.)

Aha, they might say, but that's because you're considering voting for Clinton, who is great, whereas we have to think of voting for Obama, who sucks. -- Myself, I don't think that really is the difference, somehow.

And there are some strange theories about what is happening and why. (Like: has it occurred to anyone that Edwards' endorsement today is because of the 'Sweetie' thing? Me neither.)

Oh well. Life is short.

It's possible that some supers are looking at these results -- states in which Hillary overwhelms Obama in the area of white working-class voters, i.e, winning West Virgina by almost a 3 to 1 margin, and winning Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, just to name four states -- and they see that, like or not, she has a strong base.

A base that has allowed her to pile up milions and millions of votes, putting her very, very close to soon-to-be, and presumably, presumptive nominee Barack Obama in the popluar vote.

And it's just possible that the supers -- knowing the Dems will need this white working-class base (some of whom were Reagan Democrats, and some of whom could become McCain Democrats) -- and knowing they will also need her loyal female base, especially women over 50 -- and maybe, just maybe, they come to this conclusion:

Obama-Clinton.

In '08.

Name a McCain ticket that will beat that one.

Personally, I give Hillary one chance in three.

I'm guessing Jack Ryan's not here to save Hillary.

Name a McCain ticket that will beat that one.

Big Brown-Eight Belles?

Nice try no credit Ugh.

Captain Marko Ramius

Ramius doesn't survive without Ryan.

cleek said:

Clinton has really created a monster here. many of her supporters have taken her refusal to face the numbers to the level of 9-11 truthers.

So I went over to Obama's website a couple days ago, and the delegate count is right there on the front page, and there's a link there to a handy page that graphically displays the states won and lost.

Over at Clinton's website, I spent about half and hour searching for a delegate count and couldn't find one. There was, however, a video of McAuliffe in an interview floating the campaign's one-eyed idea of a plausible path to the nomination, which involved seating MI (giving zero delegates to Obama), and some unrealistic assumptions about superdelegates 'correcting' the delegate total.

I'm thinking that explains why Hillary supporters think Hillary has a better than trivial chance -- because that's what they're told.

As for the hate so many of them have for Obama. Well, Hillary Hub links straight to hatemongering sites like No Quarter. Nuff said.

But I cannot imagine myself saying: oh, I will sit the election out, or: I'll never vote for her, or anything like that

i said it, multiple times. and i meant it each time.

i know the risks of another R presidency, and the benefits of a D, but i always assumed that NC would give me the luxury of being able to skip the top of the ticket because it would never be close to going for her anyway. she really turned me off.

but, i think i'd probably have swallowed my pride, held my nose and voted for her, if it actually came down to Clinton v McCain. and, hey, there was always the chance that she could've actually won me over for real, in the months until Nov.

i hope some of her supporters can settle down at least as much as i did.

As I said before: this is not normal. People normally drop out when it becomes clear that they will not win.

Is it not possible the people that claim that the Clintons' narcissism and sense of entitlement really has led to actual clinical denial about their prospects are correct in that assessment? The Democratic poobahs are going to have to sit them down and tell them it's over at some point. I think that's probably the thinking behind Edwards' endorsement of Obama.

Name a McCain ticket that will beat that one.

I think Obama/Clinton has a better chance of losing to any McCain ticket you care to name than does, say, Obama/Strickland or Obama/Webb. Hillary would bring all of the Clinton baggage (scandals, well-equipped VRWC enemies, political showboating, etc.) to the ticket, with few of the positives, and becoming the veep would actually be a step down for her in terms of power and influence compared to being a well-placed NY senator. Furthermore, it does not follow that because Hillary has more appeal to Applachian working class types vis-a-vis Obama she is therefore the most appealing veep candidate to them period. I just don't see it. Obama will have to offer her something for her support, but I don't think it will be the veep slot.

When Hillary finally tumbles to the fact that she's lost, it'll be like Buzz Lightyear realizing that he's a toy, not a superhero. A meltdown for the ages.

My impression is that Clinton sincerely believes she's the stronger candidate. She did outperform Obama in some (not all) critical states, and it is still a pretty close race.

Net/net, however, she doesn't have the votes. The math doesn't work. In light of that, it would be gracious, lovely, and helpful if she'd just stand down, but that is just not going to happen.

Since we're gazing into the crystal ball, I think she'll push it as far as she can, then bargain for whatever she can get for her support of an Obama candidacy. She's a hardball player.

I'm with Xeynon on this one, Obama/Clinton would not be a good ticket, and VP would be a step down for her.

In any case, I have my fingers crossed that she's holding out for her best deal, as opposed to getting ready for the big meltdown.

As an aside, Stassen's record as a candidate is kind of a standing punchline, but he also had a really creditable record as a public figure and public servant. I think he was kind of a good guy. Clinton, and probably most folks, could do worse.

Thanks -

I honestly don't understand the Hillary as Veep idea. I don't see how it would be good for Hillary, regardless of how the Obama camp would react. Its not like she is going to lose her senate seat come fall. I could be wrong after Bush's expansion of executive branch power, but I thought a senator (especially now a non-freshman senator) carries more weight than the veep with the sole exception of if the President leaves office. And yes, while I am aware that the last young president didn't make it to the end of his term, I wouldn't place my political future on the idea that Obama is going to die at a ripe old age of 47-55.

Frankly, while I don't like what it would do to the platform, if putting Hillary as veep would unify the party and get the focus on the general, I'm all for it. I just don't see why she would want the job.

Obama-Clinton.

In '08.

Name a McCain ticket that will beat that one.

I think we need to look beyond just electibility issues and ask ourselves, what sort of administration would this make for?

Either Hillary would have considerable power a la Dick Cheney but with the risk the she might at times be working at cross-purposes with the President and much of the rest of the administration (not to mention, what about Bill? He has been a bit of a wild card on the campaign trail, would that continue into an administration of which Hillary was the VP?), or else she would be effectively neutralized and spend 4-8 of her best remaining years of political life idling away at the Naval Observatory doing nothing of consequence.

The former sounds like a recipe for chaos (and although I think highly of Obama, the Lincoln administration's "cabinet of rivals" which is the happiest precedent here seems like a bit of a stretch), and the latter would negate much of the feminist premise that is part of Hillary's campaign appeal.

Neither one of those options sounds very attractive. I think anything that Hillary could accomplish as VP (working on health care for example) she could accomplish as well or better as a powerful and increasingly senior figure in the US Senate.

Someone is going to have to play the heavy in the Senate to break the back of the GOP filibuster-on-every-bill strategy, and Hillary has certainly demonstrated the required toughness. Before someone points out that this isn't much of a consolation prize, let me point out that traditionally the Democrats have tended to be more of a legislature centric rather than WH centric party (at least in peacetime), in contrast with the more top-down GOP. For that reason, being a focal figure in the US Senate where many of the crucial policy showdowns will occur in the next 4 years is no small beans.

p.s. I'm retiring early tonight courtesy of a nasty cold, so don't mistake my further silence as showing a lack of interest in any replies or this discussion more generally. I'll try to tune back in tomorrow and respond when time allows. G'night all.

russell: agreed about Stassen: he really was a credible candidate the first couple of times, and a good public servant. That was kind of what I was thinking when I used the parallel: the whole decline from quite good (I never saw the appeal, but, as I've said, I used to think: we could do a lot worse) to -- well, the end -- in one season.

She did not start out this way. I hope she doesn't end the way her speech last night suggested.

And agreed on her as VP: bad, bad, bad.

I was reading some of the comments at WaPo (Chris Cillizza and Dana Milbank) and some were saying that they were going to be among those who wrote in Hillary Clinton's name in November, if Obama got the nomimation. There were hard words all around. I wish Obama supporters would take their cue from him as to how to behave. We need to be trying to change some of the ridiculous ideas these people have instead of pouring salt into their wounds.

Jonathan Alter in Newsweek has a long peice about the end of the HRC campaign. I just skimmed it but my takeaway is that Harold Ickes is a very very bad man who has sabotaged tow prior candidates (Carter and Dukakis) and who will do his best to screwu p the convention to undercut Obama.

It was sort of a shock to me because I always assumed that she'd do the right thing. ALter thinks that she will say the right things but do as much ahrm to Obama (and the chances of getting a Dem President)as possible through her allies.

Depressing.

"Last night I listened to Hillary Clinton's speech,"

A link.

"...focussed grouped (I don't care if that is not really an adverb)"

It's certainly not an adverb, but that's irrelevant. What you want is "focus-grouped," not "focussed grouped."

Obama-Clinton.

In '08."

Respectfully, no one with a clue could possibly think that's a good idea. For the same reasons as why Clinton isn't getting on the top of the ticket, and a lot more besides. She adds little but all her negatives, in short.

And since most superdelegates have a clue about politics, it's got about a 5% chance of happening. This is something only time will tell, of course, but I will bet you this shiny nickel that I'm right.

"I think Obama/Clinton has a better chance of losing to any McCain ticket you care to name than does, say, Obama/Strickland or Obama/Webb."

Correct. And, what, she's going to bring NY State, and Illinois, into the Democratic column?

The hard core racists aren't going to vote for a ticket with Obama on the top no matter who is #2. In the end, as I said, Clinton brings all her negatives, and few positives, so it's a net loss. But Clinton supporters are in the "bargaining" stage of grief now, and acceptance that she's lost, lost, lost clearly is going to take most a while, given that they've been delusional for months about her chances, and buying into the lies they've been told.

"Obama will have to offer her something for her support, but I don't think it will be the veep slot."

Helping pay off her campaign debt will be a likely sweetener, as well as other favors.

I really wish Clinton could find the decency to return the $400 from the 11-year-old who sold his bike for her.

John McCain thanks you for your support, hilzoy.

I really do not get what is up with you people. If you supposedly support the Democrats in the election, but can not be arsed to actually take on the Republican candidate, then why not just chill? Take a pill or something. Chew some valerian root. Obama has the votes. Clinton is, in coded language, telling her supporters to vote for him. The attack dogs are being called off. The obstinancy that irks you now, you will appreciate later.

Having the current Republican candidate elected would be a far greater disaster than having ANY of the Democratic candidates elected, so, instead of tearing down the people you will soon be asking for help, why not write about, you know, the worst political party in the country since the time of Nixon, if not before, and how the current Republican party candidate is a poster boy for everything that is wrong with said country.

Sheesh.

now_what: Have you read what I've written recently? Just wondering.

Gah, enough with the "huge landslide victory" already. That makes what, two that she's won by that kind of margin? Two.

Then we've got these.
State - Obama - Hillary
Idaho 82.2% 17.8%
Hawaii 76.2% 23.8%
District of Columbia 75.8% 24.2%
Alaska 74.6% 25.4%
Kansas 74.2% 25.8%
Washington 68.4% 31.6%
Georgia 68.1% 31.9%
South Carolina 67.6% 32.4%
Minnesota 67.4% 32.6%
Colorado 67.3% 32.7%
Illinois 66.3% 33.7%
Virginia 64.2% 35.8%
North Dakota 62.6% 37.4%
Mississippi 62.2% 37.8%
Maryland 61.9% 38.1%
Wyoming 61.9% 38.1%
Louisiana 61.7% 38.3%
Vermont 60.6% 39.4%

And that's not even counting the ones that he won by comparable margins as her "huge wins" in PA and OH.

She's sucking money out of her supporters, who are sucking up her lies and it's downright pathetic to read the posts on her website. As in, seriously sad. But mostly it's maddening because she IS doing actual damage to our chances in the fall.

I don't really give a fart about people who aren't ever no ways going to vote for the black man. Whatever. But she's actively poisoning the well of voters that he can win over and she's sucking their money into a campaign that is hopelessly out of touch by now. For what? The Clintons can replenish their bank within a couple years, easy. It's not like they seem to live extravagantly so as she's said, they'll be fine.

Remember how she said she's doing this for the people that won't be fine if we have another Bush? Well, she's certainly not working in their interests now.

It makes my skin almost crawl when she speaks of how people are supporting her to the tune of doing without medication and that boy selling his belongings .... monstrous, there really isn't a better word.

now_what: Have you read what I've written recently? Just wondering.

Scroll up, hilzoy. All the way to the top. What purpose does that serve?

Answer: John Mccain's purpose.

Hilzoy, as for how she can with a clean conscience solicit donations, what if she thinks that staying in longer helps her bargaining position to be VP or that staying in longer will give her some kind of policy leverage that could be beneficial to her base?

Scroll up, hilzoy. All the way to the top. What purpose does that serve?

Answer: John Mccain's purpose

You haven't shown your work. No partial credit.

Ara,

Wouldn't taking the VP slot be a demotion for her? Can't she do more for people as a powerful Senator and potential future majority leader than she can hemmed in as the VP? And how does fundraising give her any policy leverage whatsoever? The amount of money that she'll take in won't be enough to change the final outcome, so what's the point of squeezing people for money when she's got $100 million sitting in the bank collecting dust?

she could accomplish as well or better as a powerful and increasingly senior figure in the US Senate.

No half measures here: Hillary for Majority Leader. It's a much more important position than VP, and plays to her (and Bill's) strengths.

Great points, ARA / 12:45 AM --

Why would Hillary remain in the race?

Heck, there's just a handful of states to go -- but hell, with her beating Obama by a 3 to 1 margin in West Virginia, and another can of whup-ass coming for him in Kentucky -- it does indeed increase her bargaining position to be vice president.

At the very least -- I agree with ARA -- she will have some kind of policy/platform leverage at the Convention: She hasn't, and will not, abandon her base.

Clinton holds the key to a unified Democratic party and, in turn, a Democratic victory.

I raised this question of an Obama-Clinton ticket because, as Mr. Farber acknowledges, it is indeed a possiblity.

While Mr. Farber gives it a mere 5 percent chance -- stranger things have happened: see Johnson, Lyndon -- I'd put it at 15 percent. And no more.

No more than 15 percent because Hillary probably does not want to be VP. Then again, who knows?

If she does -- and if she puts Obama in a spot where he'd have to make at least an obligatory offer -- things could get awfully interesting (if only to watch the Obamabots throw up after realizing he picked Billary for VP -- aah, just kidding guys, relax:)

Don't worry, guys.

It's unlikely to happen. But Hillary is going to have a big say in this before it is over; she ain't rolling over and playing dead -- and neither are the thousands who are coming out and voting for her in a primary that's supposed to be over.

I think Hillary wants to stay in the Senate -- where she's worked both sides of the aisle successful, much better than Senator Obama -- and become majority leader.

Those who mention her running for Governor of New York are nuts -- she wants no part of Albany.

Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton, that's where I'm placing my bet. And just think, even if Obama goes two terms, vibrant, vivacious, villifed Hillary will be a very young 68.

Last time I checked McCain is older, and looks it.

Speaking of McCain, getting ready for bed and logging on here for one last look, I read a very fine back-of-the-book piece in this week's Newsweek by George Will, no McCain fan.

Will takes McCain head-on in the form of 22 hard-hitting, wide-ranging questions. A must read.

Obama-Clinton.

Maybe -- 15 percent of a maybe.

Obama-Webb.
Obama-Strickland.

That's more like it.

Either would be a very, very strong ticket for the Dems.

By the end of all this, Clinton's millions and millions of votes will almost be equal -- if not, more than (depending on the Michigan/Florida solution) to Obama's millions and millions of votes.

Love her or hate her, that's a hell of a constinuency she has.

(P.S. TURBULENCE -- Did I see where you mentioned Clinton (with Bill, of course) has a net worth of $100 million. Really? Never heard that before. Just think, Obama -- who hasn't even had eight years in the White House yet as President Clinton did -- already has a net worth of $10 million. At this rate, he and Michele will reach $100 million way faster than Bill and Hillary did, especially if he keeps getting sweetheart real estate deals from pals like Tony Rezko. Good night.)

What I don't understand about the suggestion that Clinton must be rewarded with some important new role because she ran such a close second for the nomination is this: John Kerry actually won the Democratic nomination in 2004, and it's not like the Dems felt like they had to make him majority leader. And, yes, he lost the presidential race and no one likes losers, but Clinton will have lost the nomination race, so what's the difference? In the end, more people voted for John Kerry than will have voted for Clinton.
I don't know if it's because she's a Clinton or the first woman with a real shot or what, but it's annoying. Going back to your regular job, which happens to be being one of 100 U.S. Senators, is not demeaning or insulting or whatever. It's pretty damn powerful.

bedtimeforbonzo,

I misspoke. The Clintons have earned $109 million, but they don't have $109 million sitting in the bank. The poor impoverished dears probably only have $50-60 million sitting in the bank. My source is here.

So, where's your source for Obama having $10 million. Did you just make up that number?

Also, if Clinton is going to fight it out to the end as you seem to want, why should Obama give her the VP slot? I mean, if she wins the nomination, then Obama can't give her anything, so the only situation where he could give her something is after she's lost. The most important thing she can offer him would be an end to the campaign, now. But if she competes all the way to the convention, then she can't offer that to him, now can she? So, please explain to me, what is it that Clinton can offer Obama that might compel him to offer her the VP slot?

Also, do you believe that Clinton will not campaign for him and support him when he's the nominee unless he offers her the VP slot? Do you believe that she places her own wishes above the needs of the party?

No half measures here: Hillary for Majority Leader. It's a much more important position than VP, and plays to her (and Bill's) strengths.

Except that it isn't within Obama's power to make her Majority Leader. That'll be up to whatever Democratic caucus emerges from the 2008 Senate elections.

Mind you, I doubt whether Obama wants to make her his running mate, either.

Except that it isn't within Obama's power to make her Majority Leader. That'll be up to whatever Democratic caucus emerges from the 2008 Senate elections.

Ssshhh! Don't disturb the Clinton-fanatics with your facts and your logic. It makes them terribly dyspeptic. Besides, no matter what you tell them, when Clinton fails to become majority leader in the future, it will still be Obama's fault. Obviously.

Part of me would like to see an extended exchange between Brick Oven Bill and now_what. Part of me realizes that it would be like the vintage pastime of piping Racter output into ELIZA, and vice versa, with the two of them periodically changing who gets to be Racter.

Go "No Half Measures" Mike Schilling, go!

You've got it!

You've got indeed (1:12 am).

Hillary likely wants to be Senate Majority Leader.

So pipe down, Turbulence, with all your blather about why does Obama owe her the veep spot?

(Never said that he does, doc. So pipe down, she probably doesn't even want the damn veep spot; plus, she's got that $50 million in the bank that pisses you off so much, doc; I can here that wonderful cackle of a laugh of hers right now. I loooooooooooooove it.)

Mike Schilling you're right (1:12 am) -- The Senate Majority Leader role would play to her strengths. So go get 'em, girl; you ain't no Harry Reid.

(Oh, Turb, I'm sure you've read one of your beloved Obama's books. During the short time that's he's been in the Senate -- thanks largely to the profits of said books -- said profits going in his pockets, not charity -- he and Michele have made an income of roughly $10 million. You may remember the Obamabots getting all worked up about when would Hillary release her tax returns. Well, she did. And so did Michele and Barry. Public record. Looks like Michele and Barry are well on their way to joing the $100 million club. Going back to bed now. Doctors orders.)

Obama-Webb, '08!

What do people here think about a cross-party ticket like Obama-Hagel? Tweety (I know, I know) was batting around VP ideas with a couple of guests earlier this week and it was the one they were most jazzed about.

FARMGIRL/ 9:24 AM --

Have never gone Republican in 28 years of voting. But I have always admired Senator Hagel.

Hagel is his own man. Works both sides of the aisle. And like my senator here in Delaware, Joe Biden, is a foreign policy expert.

In fact, Biden and Hagel are good friends and have made several trips to Iraq together.

Hagel is probably too conservative overall for many left-leaning Democrats but he is no conservative, right-wing nut, like so many who serve in Washington for the Republican Party.

Hagel's firebrand, independent, conservative thinking would balance Obama's liberalism nicely.

A plus: Hagel and Obama agree on the Iraq issue.

Obama has already said he wants to reach out to the Republican Party and get rid of the red state/blue state mentality. So this would be a stirring move in that direction.

I could also see Obama -- if he intends to really make this country whole again --selecting Hagel as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

But Vice President?

Obama-Hagel.

That would be a very bold choice.

And one I would support enthusiastically.

Good Lord, once you say that Hillary would be good at something, you've apparently become a Clinton Fanatic(TM). God only knows what I'd be called if I suggested Barney Frank for Speaker (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

No half measures here: Hillary for Majority Leader. It's a much more important position than VP, and plays to her (and Bill's) strengths.

I agree that the VP speculation is weird, and I don't really understand why she would want to be VP.

But the Majority Leader speculation is just as weird, and just as hard to see occurring.

The Senate Majority Leader is not, and never has been, a particularly glamorous role, nor is it a self-aggrandizing one.

The basic job of a Senate floor leader is to put their own ego to the side and spend most of their time soothing the massive egos of their colleagues in order to get things done. Successful ones have generally been hard-working and self-effacing - work horses rather than show horses. Let's look at Democratic Senate leaders since Lyndon Johnson - Mike Mansfield, Robert Byrd, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle, and Harry Reid. None of them are charismatic superstars, and that's the way their colleagues want it.

Clinton's colleagues have shown no sign that they even particularly like her, much less want her to be their leader. And Reid's still in the Senate until at least 2010, and is unlikely to want to give that up (nor is it likely his colleagues will take the job away from him - this has never happened, so far as I'm aware).

If Clinton wants to be a successful Senator, her best course is to work her way up in seniority and become a committee chair, and to do the hard work of actually legislating, not to somehow magically grant her the not particularly well-fitting role of Senate Majority Leader.

MIKE SCHILLING/ 10:08 AM --

Here! Here!

John/ 10:10 am --
"Clinton's colleagues have shown no sign that they even particularly like her, much less want her to be their leader."

Really?

Clinton has shown a surprising ability to work across the aisle and several of her colleagues have voiced their respect for her.

Biden.
Carper.
Schumer.
Hagel.
McCain.
Feingold.
Feinstein.
Boxer.
Specter.
Collins.
Come to mind.
I am sure there are others.

So pipe down, Turbulence, with all your blather about why does Obama owe her the veep spot? (Never said that he does, doc. So pipe down, she probably doesn't even want the damn veep spot;

Um, I think your comments certainly suggested that Obama would have to offer her the VP slot. Specifically, you wrote that "it does indeed increase her bargaining position to be vice president" and "Clinton holds the key to a unified Democratic party and, in turn, a Democratic victory" and "if she puts Obama in a spot where he'd have to make at least an obligatory offer". Now, I happen to think that much of your analysis boils down to magical thinking wish fulfillment, but those quotes suggest that Clinton has something to offer Obama that would make him want to offer her the VP slot. So what is that something?

Also, you can feel free to keep telling me to pipe down, but since I don't really respect you at all, I don't plan on listening.

(Oh, Turb, I'm sure you've read one of your beloved Obama's books. During the short time that's he's been in the Senate -- thanks largely to the profits of said books -- said profits going in his pockets, not charity -- he and Michele have made an income of roughly $10 million. You may remember the Obamabots getting all worked up about when would Hillary release her tax returns. Well, she did. And so did Michele and Barry. Public record. Looks like Michele and Barry are well on their way to joing the $100 million club. Going back to bed now. Doctors orders.)

You are wrong yet again. I've never read any of Obama's books. I chose to vote for him based on his policies; I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

Secondly, I have searched and I have not been able to find this $10 million number. That's why I want you to provide a link or a citation. Until you do, I'm going to assume that you just made it up.

Thirdly, Obama released his tax returns long before Clinton released hers, and lots of people who weren't Obama supporters have been after Clinton to release her returns because if she's going to be the nominee, the right wing will get her tax return data eventually, and we'd like to know if there's anything politically dangerous there before we nominate her, not after. I mean, it is a great thing that Bill gets crazy dictators to write him large checks; I'm sure that couldn't be used against Clinton in the general.


Bedtime: "So pipe down, Turbulence, with all your blather"

The posting rules require civility. Please respect them.

Best I can tell, Obama's net worth is around $1.3 million (link from Dec. 2007.)

I read that Obama made one million more or les s for the books, And the Clintons didn't release all of theri records--the stuff relating to Bil's influence peddling is still unre wraps.

HRC's stregnth is in being a policy wonk. She sucks at leadership and management and she is mentally stuck in the politics of the nineties.. She would be much more productive as a committee member than as the chair. She needs to be the person who provides expert opion on a matter that she has researched, rather than the the person who makes appointments, or lays out a politica game plan.

And is she continues to use mark Penn as a guru...well. Judgement that bad shouldn't be rewarded.

Wait a minute. That reminds me, do we for some reason still not have this year's tax records from Clinton?

Also, you can feel free to keep telling me to pipe down, but since I don't really respect you at all, I don't plan on listening.

I realize that BTFB crossed the line first, but you might want to tone it back a bit there, Turbulence.

Wait a minute. That reminds me, do we for some reason still not have this year's tax records from Clinton?

I think we only have "preliminary information", such as that available here.

Wait a minute. That reminds me, do we for some reason still not have this year's tax records from Clinton?

No, what it should remind you is that McCain's wife -- i.e. the real holder of his wealth -- still hasn't released her tax records, and likely never will.

Thanks, Anarch.

And Hilzoy.

Would anyone else -- other than Farmgirl and I -- support an Obama-Hagel ticket enthusiastically?

bedtime: I'd support it if Hagel had no views on any issue outside foreign policy. Alas, however, he does.

Successful ones have generally been hard-working and self-effacing - work horses rather than show horses. Let's look at Democratic Senate leaders since Lyndon Johnson - Mike Mansfield, Robert Byrd, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle, and Harry Reid. None of them are charismatic superstars, and that's the way their colleagues want it.

And none of them has been half as effective as LBJ was. I won't try to guess how the Senate will be divided come 1/2/09, but if it's close to 60/40, a string leader will be required to ensure that cloture votes succeed. As we've observed, that's not Harry Reid.

Hilzoy --

Indeed, Hagel would be THE guy for foreign policy -- perhaps reason enough to make him Secretary of State. What do you think?

However, you underscore the issue of Obama running w/ a Republican, even one as "likable" as Hagel: His views on social issues -- and perhaps the economy -- would likely clash with the President at every other turn.

Therefore, what looks like our best option:

Obama-Webb?

Obama-Strickland?

Please don't say:
Obama-Richardson.
Or:
Obama-Edwards

"No, what it should remind you is that McCain's wife -- i.e. the real holder of his wealth -- still hasn't released her tax records, and likely never will."

And that is a problem too. Surely you don't mistake me for a McCain supporter?

Can someone explain what Hagel has actually done with foreign policy that is good? I know he made Bolton's nomination more difficult, but besides that, has he done anything? I was under the impression that he says very reasonable things about foreign policy but, aside from the Bolton nomination, when push comes to shove, he votes with the party. Was I mistaken in that impression?

That was mine too (same with Specter and McCain, actually) but I freely admit I'm not particularly well-informed on such matters.

Would anyone else -- other than Farmgirl and I -- support an Obama-Hagel ticket enthusiastically?

I should say that while I will enthusuastically support any ticket headed by Obama (up to and including Obama-Satan, heh heh), I don't have any particular brief for Hagel. I thought the idea was interesting in its potential for appeal to independents and the potential to neutralize McCain's Viet Nam service record in the general. But I don't know much about his record in the senate, which is why I thought I'd raise the question here, amongst the thoughful and well-informed.

Farmgirl --

What do you think of:

Obama-Webb?

Obama-Strickland?

Or do you have another non-Hagel selection that you prefer?

btfb -- I haven't thought deeply about the VP picks; I don't know enough about Webb or Strickland to opine intelligently, but from the little I know about Webb he could bring the same advantages I mentioned in Hagel, with the additional one of having crossed the aisle already.

Exactly, farmgirl.

Obama-Webb.

In '08.

My guess is that it will be McCain-Romney on the other ticket.

"Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton, that's where I'm placing my bet."

I've been saying I support her running for that role for at least two years now.

Of course, now I trust her just under the degree to which I trust Karl Rove, so I'd support most of the Democratic caucus against her, but she's still one of the most realistic candidates for the role in future, so I might support her as a lesser of evils, depending on who else wants the job. (I doubt Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders stand a chance, or necessarily would even be good at the job, much as I'd trust them 10000% more, and be far more likely to be aligned with their policy preferences, for example.)

"You may remember the Obamabots"

This sort of language seems to clearly violate the posting rules. Feel free to note if anyone crosses the same line in characterizing Clinton supporters.

"I've never read any of Obama's books."

I'm still reading "Dreams From My Father, and I highly recommend it both for insights into Senator Obama, and for the writing, per se.

"I won't try to guess how the Senate will be divided come 1/2/09, but if it's close to 60/40, a string leader will be required to ensure that cloture votes succeed."

I like the idea, but I suggest silly string.

Webb is a freshman, and hates campaigning. I agree he's a top tier candidate, and have been including him in my list of suggestions, but those qualities should be noted.

I otherwise look at, as I've mentioned on this blog a number of times before in recent weeks and months, Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Pat Leahy, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards, and I'm entirely open-minded about a fair number of other suggestions, but I'm probably most positive about Chris Dodd. Dodd has been the best senator on a range of issues both foreign and domestic: why not the Doddster? (Yes, he's an "eastern liberal," sure.)

And what's wrong with Richardson or Edwards? (Richardson in particular having some foreign policy credentials.)

Of course, there's always Al Gore. (No, I don't think he wants the job, but for the good of the party? No, I don't expect this to happen. But ponies are nice.)

It will NOT be Obama-Webb. If nothing else, the Senate will simply be too close to the 60/40 thing and there's a very good chance that Webb would be replaced by a Republican, not a Democrat.

An Obama-VP, should they currently hold office, will either be someone term-limited or in a seat that Democrats can easily hold.

This is especially true given the way Obama has embraced the 50-state strategy. He's not going to sandbag the Senate or a given state by snagging a Democrat that's a proven party-builder or hard to replace. Especially in an election where he really doesn't NEED a certain type of VP pick.

Look for any VP candidate to enhance Obama's message, not shore up a "weakness". Probably a Washington outsider, but experienced, with either cross-party experience (working with, I mean) or legislative experience, and probably passionate about change of some sort -- whether poverty, education, health care, or ethics.

I like the idea, but I suggest silly string.

After thirty years of coding, I have typed "string" so often that "string" tends to come out as "string".

Dammit, I mean "strong" tends to come out as "string".

Farber/3:03 pm --

Obamabots?

"This sort of language seems to clearly violate the posting rules."

Didn't know that. Seems civil enough to me.

I've seen Clinton supporters called "Clintonistas" on this website, and as a Hillary supporter, never took offense to that. I suppose some folks are more sensitive than others, and I, thankfully, have a pretty thick skin.

P.S. I still say Obama-Webb -- or Obama-Strickland.

"Didn't know that. Seems civil enough to me."

You believe calling people mindless robots is civil?

Posting rules:

[...] Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool).
Moe was quite fanatic about keeping people from calling anyone out by any kind of negative group characterization whatever, and keeping people from falling into claims that members of a group that aren't homogenous are homogenous, since such claims are, by definition, falsehoods.

Implying that people are mindless robots is not, in my experience, civil.

To be sure, I don't speak for this blog, so: Hilzoy? Sebastian? Eric? Correct me?

"I've seen Clinton supporters called 'Clintonistas' on this website, and as a Hillary supporter, never took offense to that."

What's offensive about "Clintonistas"?

Gary,

I suppose in this hyper-sensitive world we live in, someone, somewhere, perhaps even on this blog, would find "Clintonista" offensive. Who knows?

But I do know that you find using the term "Obamabots" uncivil, if not outright rude. And if you do, I am sure other Obama supporters -- in fact, make that other readers, whether they be Obama backers or not -- do as well.

Thank you for the civility lesson.

Won't use "Obamabots" again.

Gotta log off now and pay some attention to Olga, Danny, Bowser, Baby, CoCo, Tiger and Hamilton.

Thanks again.

Thanks, bedtime.

btfb, I think there are plenty of inoffensive names that can be used for Obama supporters (beyond "Obama supporters"): Obama fans, Obamistas, Obama folks, Obama partisans, Obama enthusiasts, etc.

Stuff with negative implications, on the other hand, isn't courteous, just as I would find it discourteous, and see it as a violation of the posting rules here, if someone referred, say, to "Clinton zombies," or "Clintonbots," or "the Clinton braindead," etc.

Thanks muchly for your courteous response. The goal of this blog has always been to be a place where people of different political persuasions can argue reasonably respectfully with each other, and keep within civil boundaries, no matter how strongly we may disagree, have different perspectives, or be convinced that we're conversing with a moron, or how pissed off we are.

I certainly fail in this in many ways at many times, and you are as free and welcome to point out my failures to me, as I have been to you, if you think I've not noticed, as everyone else.

"P.S. I still say Obama-Webb -- or Obama-Strickland."

They're fine with me, setting aside the quite correct considerations about losing a Democratic vote in the Senate that others have pointed out, and which were slipping my mind when I made my hasty earlier comment.

I'm still wondering, when you have a moment, what's wrong with Richardson or Edwards, in your view, as a nominee (though Edwards might have a sense of deja vu, of course). And I'd note that Edwards, while I like him greatly, myself, has some noticeable negatives amongst those who dislike his economic populism, etc. (Ask Von, and doubtless Sebastian, for instance.)

Real quick before I hit the sack for good (this site gets way too addictive, and my wife is wondering what's up with all the time I've been spending on the computer lately) --

My whole thing about not putting Edwards on the ticket as VP is, in a word, yours: "deja vu."

I truly think he would serve Obama, and the country, better as AG or Secretary of Labor.

Richardson? Just not a big fan. Have always found him to be wishy-washy, and a political opportunist. Of course, you can't argue w/ his work in getting hostages released, etc. (I could see him as Secretary of Labor, too, but my hunch is he wants the veep slot.)

Good night.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast