Arkansas Blog

They mentioned on NPR today that the most important credentials for VP are national security credentials, which pretty much rules out Hillary. They specifically mentioned Wes Clark, though.

No, no, no! I can't stand it. I wanted Rev. Al Sharpton so that the ticket would be balanced.

Clark, Colin Powell, Jim Webb, all would make a good V-P. Hillary's getting a cabinet position?
.

It doesn't do a bit of good to pick out good cabinet members unless you get elected. Having Hillary on the ticket would unify the party, which then stands to kick McCain's ass. The only way a VP candidate helps a ticket is if the person is spectacular. Who'd be a more spectacular choice than Hillary?

Put Hillary on the Supreme Court.

Dear Hillary,

How bout you get to be the U.S. Senator from New York? Sound good? Well then it's a DEAL!!!

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

What bargaining chips does Hillary bring to the table? Her $20 million debt, her favored stature with Fox News, or her summer gas tax holiday plan?

I think she wants the Majority Leader position but from what I know Harry Reid said no dice

Anyway I think it should be Chuck Hagel for VP

Or Mark Warner

Or General Wesley Clark

My offer to Hillary. Drop out, I will retire your debt, and you can go back to being a U.S. Senator

- Orval

I wouldn't count on Hillary even thinking about backing out just yet...

As I have said many, many times before, and much to the chagrin of many monikers on this blog (especially blue ones), she seems to be willing to damage the Party with her "nuclear option" because she believes she is more electable in the fall...

Of course I will personally support Hillary if she strong-arms the system...can't say the same for the Clintonites supporting Obama, though. Seems they are willing to try to lose '08 for a run in '12 (Hillary Is 44 and Clinton Supporters Count Too are doing their best to see to that)...

I was getting warmer to the idea of Clinton as veep, but I think I would rather have her as majority leader...

Anyway, I am sure there are plenty of ruffled feathers to come...and if anyone thinks that Florida is being treated unfairly with respect to their delegates then clicky...

the funniest and most (unintentionally?) accurate headline i've ever seen in the New York Times

(name/link)

It would be Obama's first major mistake as the Democratic candidate to take Hillary on as VP. Of all the names mentioned above, I like Senator Webb best. He has military/foreign policy experience and is an excellent thinker re: strategic policy as witnessed by his novels. As a former conservative Republican he will also have great cross-over appeal. He has cut Bush no slack [re: the scene in the White House following his election to the Senate] and will be as strong toward the policies advocated by the McCainiac.

Hillary was born in 1947, which makes her more than 60, not 44.

wishful thinking? perhaps, but this does seem to be the year for HOPE/CHANGE : )

thus, my personal contribution to the bumpersticker wars ...

"UNDO the DAMAGE, Vote OBAMA/Webb 2008"

I'm sort of hoping for Webb and Huckabee as VP candidates as a change from all the VP bores of recent campaigns.

Obama doesn't owe Clinton a thing. Indeed, she's proven utterly inept at running a national campaign with seemingly every advantage--I daresay she'd be a worse president than Dubya. If Obama is smart he'll stay far away from her.

Uh, Snapback ... hate to bring this up but "Hillary is 44" is a reference to her being the 44th prez. You know, like Clinton 42, Shrub 43 ... but Obama would be 44 if elected ...

Anyway.

CHANGE IS COMING!

The buzzword of this election is 'CHANGE.' Candidates toss it around without saying what they want to change to. Just that we need.....CHANGE!
This brings to mind the following illustration.
Years ago, there was an old tale in the Marine Corps about a major who inspected his Marines and told the Gunny Sergeant that they smelled bad.
The major suggested that they change their underwear.
The Gunny responded, 'Aye, aye, sir. I'll see to it immediately.'
He went into the tent and said, 'The major thinks you guys smell bad, and he wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with Jones. McCarthy,you change with Witkowskie, Brown, you change with Schultz....everyone change, now get on with it'
And the moral of this story is:
A candidate may promise change in Washington
...but the stink remains!
Thought for the day
Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

As long as team Obama can and will keep the Lieber-Clinton DLC as far away from the White House as humanly possible... birds will sing a sweeter song of hope in my valley.

Webb isn't my favorite VP choice, though I am honored to say I helped his campaign by contributing money and time. He is leaps and bounds above the rest of VA's political contribution in many years.

VA has a strong chance of going virtually all blue this year, so in terms of the Pres race, Webb might be a good idea.. But we need Webb like Senators in the Senate right now. The body is sorely lacking in competence and common sense.. Webb would be a much better Senate leader then HR or HC.

I would like to see Hillary as Sec. of Education... not much else... and the Senate would be better off with fewer members of DLC contingent in it.

We need people who would be strong enough politically/militarily to say NO USE of the military is our biggest strength right now. We need competent civilian leadership, not MIC's chosen brass at the top.. enough of that please! Put pandora back in a lock box.

ELwood, I must say I am surprised to see you praise anything Colin Powell... He deserves a cell in the Hague as much as Cheney.... Start with Mai Lai and work all the way to his last days as Sec of State... Decades of war criminal experience must be shunned any and everywhere it's found if there is any possibility of change ahead.

Frankly I like Max Cleland.... He took a Rovian beating in GA, but the man never backed down and fights this very day for Vets and excellent political candidates (Like Charlie Brown and many others) across the country.

Kos pretty much just demolished the argument that we need to have Hillary on the ticket to unify the party (click on name). Current polls in multiple states show (most) Democrats are already unifying around Obama, giving him current polling leads over McCain in states like Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, and even Pennsylvania.

In short, Obama doesn't need to be forced into picking Hillary as his VP.

Well of course...just dismiss Hillary for VP...Michelle did, after all. What have the Clintons ever done for anyone or anything. And who gives a damn about her or her campaign...not half the Democratic Party nor the millions of Americans who have voted for either one of em. Sheesh.

"Obama doesn't owe Clinton a thing. Indeed, she's proven utterly inept at running a national campaign with seemingly every advantage--I daresay she'd be a worse president than Dubya. If Obama is smart he'll stay far away from her."--Prouster

Glad you found a thread/topic you can agree with, Prouster.

Eureaka you are obsessed with hatred of the DLC yet you would support Webb?
What a nut....

"In short, Obama doesn't need to be forced into picking Hillary as his VP.--June0f44

Well of course he shouldn't be forced to pick anyone. It's his choice...period. But I'd suggest he act like a gracious winner, rather than just another Clinton hater who's out to erase the name Clinton from everywhere/everything...and act like he's willing to learn from people who have things to teach him. Kind of like that 'bringing everyone together' rhetoric of his.

But then I'm just one of those slow Hillary loving retards...ha...maybe I'll catch up one day.

Hillary has had more Democrats vote for her than Obama. This race is as close to a tie as you can get. I think it would be a big mistake though to have the two of them on the same ticket regardless of the order. Everyone can keep talking about how the country is ready for change, but as a realist, I have enough sense to know the Nov. election will be close as always. If Obama is the nominee, he needs a white male with a strong military background.

from 5March2008 AT Blog "Clinton's Big Night" ....

if my crystal ball is working properly, it shows...
Q: "what do Politicians do when they are faced with making a decision that is
guaranteed to cut them to ribbons, whichever way they choose?"
A: they "punt". (distract, delay, etc. and hope like hell that 'events' will
decide for them)
thus, most Superdelegates being Politicians themselves, i expect they will sit
still and allow the campaigns to go on, and on, until either the math, or a
major event, changes the equations and makes the decision for them.
if that is so, then the question becomes: "Can Hillary do the IMPOSSIBLE?"
no, not winning the DEM nomination
(that would require another Sirhan or Donna Rice)

can Hillary accept the #2 (pardon the pun) slot?
her utterances this morning may be the beginning of the process toward "yes"
(and i'd expect SD's to soon begin pushing that solution)
but it seems that sometime in the next 12 weeks, Hillary is going to have her
"John Connally Moment" (see below)
------
JFK in 1960 asked LBJ to be on the ticket with him. LBJ said he had to think
about it.
LBJ goes to his most trusted aide, John Connally (as JC told it) and asks him
"what am i gonna do?"
to which Connally replied "i don't see you have any choice"
LBJ said "what do you mean i don't have any choice ?"
Connally's reply enters the annals of political history.
"Well" Connally said "you've got 4 possibilities.
1. you turn it down and JFK loses, in which case you will be blamed for the loss.
2. you accept and the ticket loses, JFK will be blamed for the loss.
3. you turn it down, and JFK wins with someone else, in which case you will be
marginalized into insignificance.
4. you accept and the ticket wins, in which case you're the Vice-President of
the United States, and that's a pretty good job to have."

Posted by: muleboy303 | March 5, 2008 09:24 AM

....
UPDATE... only the answer to one question will determine whether Madame will be on the ticket:

DOES SHE WANT IT? (and unfortunately she does seem to want it)

damn shame

You're probably right about Hillary being the VP (or vice versa), bold and blue; I haven't ever considered the possibility that Obama would ask...given the totality of his words/etc. My bone with some of the stuff on this thread (and elsewhere in blogland) is the complete disrespect for Hillary (and the Clintons in general)...AND HER SUPPORTERS. And, it's from my fellow Democrats...too much like the right-wing Clinton hatred for my comfort.

"But I'd suggest he act like a gracious winner, rather than just another Clinton hater who's out to erase the name Clinton from everywhere/everything..." -zelda

With all due respect, zelda, wtf?

It's this kind of comment that sets the tone of the Clintonites...you insinuate that Obama is some Clinton hater...all the while he has been the classiest of the bunch...

All of the Clinton supporters, while claiming to "just know better" than their opponents, might want to take a long, hard look at what Hillary might do to the Party with her nuclear option...and enough with the fuzzy math...

Then again, maybe most Clintonites want it this way so you can try again in four years...I guess you're entitled, just like the Clintons, to support person over party...

thrbatb- I expressed trepidation about Webb above.. That said, I would be much happier with him as a VP than lLinton..

In short, Webb looks you in the eye and shoots from the hip.. HC DLC goes for the back every time. Webb is no DLCer.

YO MAX!!!!!!!

May 23, 2008 --

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

I FULLY EXPECT A CONDEMNATION!!!

Seems to me he has been acting rather gracious to Senator Clinton lately, Zelda, and not at all like a Clinton hater. You don't think so?

And there hasn't been much of it in this particular thread, but the suggestion has been made before that he needs to make her the VP to unify the party and have a chance at winning in November.

Madame may have just "shot" her VP chances, regardless of whether she wants it..

from the NY Post today...

HILLARY RAISES ASSASSINATION ISSUE
DEFENDS LONG-RUNNING CAMPAIGN

May 23, 2008 --

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

... no "dog whistle" (like Shepherdstown WV on 7May) or "joke" (like Huckabee)

Wow...

Bad comment...what is Hillary trying to imply? That something (terrible like an assassination) happen?! I feel confident she didn't mean it that way, but goodness...

She's been given bad advice from the beginning of her campaign...

14 minutes and no word from Max.

Team Barry has already condemned.

C'mon, Max. Where are you with a smart-ass remark that you so quickly fired at Gov. Huckabee?

"Um, You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as Sen. Kennedy won that primary."
- Hillary Rodham Clinton 7 May 2008 in Shepherdstown, West Virginia

the full context quote:

"But I also think it's still early, I mean everybody is so focused on where we are right now, I, I, guess I remember in June of '92 that's when Bill really wrapped up the nomination, the middle of June after the California primary. Um, You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as Sen. Kennedy won that primary. I mean, we traditionally have gone longer and there isn't any problem in closing ranks..."

Thanks muleboy!

She's officially gone insane. Officially.

thanks for the "thanks" ER, it means a lot to me

if today's remark, on top of all that's been said/done this year, doesn't get a couple hundred uncommitted superdels, as well as already pledged switchers, and as we've already seen, even "earned" delegates to come out for Obama in the next ten days, so that no matter what is decided about MI & FL the nomination is his, well... i don't know what.

seriously, what in the hell might she say or do next, if an end to this is not put ?

I'm just wondering if all the right-wing kook conspiracy theories (ie, Ron Brown, the Boys on the Tracks, etc) might have a little validity to them after that little veiled threat....

Well.. I know the "lpin" word recently hit a nerve with me.. incorrectly, I admit.. And this is one of those times I won't be upset with Hillary for the same reasons as many.. It's just to damn weird to hear a Goldwater Girl tell me and other life long Democrats about 1968... and know in her heart, disaster is her best hope.

Enough!

Let FOX News or Rush Limbaugh hire her and Bill... not the D party.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.--muleboy 303

God almighty...someone take her foot out of her mouth...please. A simple 'No, I'm not dropping out' would have sufficed.

like mulligan's dream for the GOP, only an Al Quaeda attack (perhaps by Bin Laden himself on live TV, wearing an "I Love George Bush" pin) on the presumptive Democratic nominee would save Madame's fortunes.

anything else happens to him and we're looking at President Gore.

Red, you are an obsessed idiot. Hillary was talking about when campaigns of the past have ended. It is a FACT that Kennedy was still campaigning in June, the year he was killed, and Bill didn't wrap up his campaign until June. Campaigns don't have to be over by Spring.

This wasn't about assassination - it was about campaigns in the past running until June.

You need to seriously take a chill pill.

By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: April 10, 1992
NEW YORK TIMES

Even though Bill Clinton won four primaries on Tuesday, even though Paul E. Tsongas announced today that he would not re-enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, even though many of them concede there is probably no stopping Mr. Clinton now, dozens of Democratic senators and representatives remain reluctant to endorse him.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia scheduled a news conference for Friday to announce his backing. Senator Tom Daschle told news organizations in his home state, South Dakota, that the moment had come to rally around Mr. Clinton. But beyond that there was little movement.

Of 264 superdelegates in the House and Senate, 93, or 35 percent, have endorsed Mr. Clinton so far, according to a continuing survey by The New York Times. Most are Southern, and most made their statements some time ago. A much larger number remain officially uncommitted.

Dee Dee Myers, Mr. Clinton's press secretary, insisted that "people are starting to rally around the flag," and she mentioned Mr. Rockefeller as an example. She also said the Arkansas Governor plans to meet with uncommitted superdelegates on Capitol Hill on April 29, the day after the Pennsylvania primary, when Congress will return from the Easter recess. 'Terrible Doubts'

But Representative Dennis E. Eckart of Ohio, more willing perhaps to speak on the record than many of his colleagues because he has announced his retirement from the House, said that he and some of his colleagues had constituted an informal "Missouri caucus -- a show-me caucus" -- and would do nothing for now.

"The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him," Mr. Eckart said. "Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats."

In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.

"There's no reason for us to do anything," said Representative Barbara B. Kennelly of Connecticut.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, one of those who competed with Mr. Clinton in the early primaries, has endorsed him and has been campaigning for him. But Senator Bob Kerrey, another erstwhile rival, has not. "He's got it locked up," the Nebraskan said, but aides said that he would issue no endorsement as long as there was still an active contest.

No Place Else to Go

One of Mr. Clinton's supporters said heavy pressure has been brought on Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader, and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, who may be the most influential Democrat on Capitol Hill. An aide said Mr. Mitchell had been able to give the matter only limited attention. Mr. Bentsen said on Wednesday that he might issue a statement next week, but today aides said he might not do so quite so soon.

Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, has been phoning uncommitted delegates and others, "discussing the lay of the political territory," as he described it. He denied putting pressure on anybody, but others in the party said he was sending a subtle but clear message that it was time to halt the squabbling.

Eventually, most of the superdelegates are likely to back Mr. Clinton, if only because there is no place else for them to go. But they will do so "with extreme reluctance," one said, and the delay and the grudging spirit makes it harder for Mr. Clinton to move his campaign onto a higher plateau, free of character issues.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Michael S. Dukakis was in much the same situation four years ago, and won easily on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention. But the reluctance in 1988 stemmed mainly from unwillingness to offend Jesse Jackson, who was still an active candidate; this year it stems largely from fears about Mr. Clinton's weakness, not from any fear of angering Edmund G. Brown Jr., Mr. Clinton's only active rival.

'Clinton May Self-Destruct'

"There's a real tug-of-war up here," said one House member. "Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats."

A prominent Senator, who also asked not to be identified, added, "lots of people are hearing from home, 'Keep it open, even if the odds make it look impossible,' because Clinton may self-destruct before the convention." As a result, predicted the Senator, who remains uncommitted, "it's not going to shift into cruise control for Bill Clinton very soon."

prophetic thread title/question

i'd have to say that now, finally, the answer is YES.

"My bone with some of the stuff on this thread (and elsewhere in blogland) is the complete disrespect for Hillary (and the Clintons in general)...AND HER SUPPORTERS. And, it's from my fellow Democrats...too much like the right-wing Clinton hatred for my comfort. "

And this bullshit claim that her referring to RFK's assassination had something to do with Obama is the latest. I'm about to the point of not supporting Obama if he is our nominee based on comments by his campaign and supporters. Keep up the Clinton hatred and see where it gets us in November. I hope the Clinton haters that are acting like Republicans are enjoying themselves. Hope it was worth it when Obama loses.

PS. Obama has attacked Hillary as much or more than she's attacked him. At least she never called Obama "Bush-Cheney light" as Obama called her almost a year ago. That was WAY before she even attacked him on legitimate policy differences.

Hillary could've cited the 1972 primaries (a campaign she had personal experience with) or those in 1976, 1984, or 1988, as examples to make her point.

She didn't. She used 1968's and mentioned Senator (Robert F.) Kennedy and "what happened" while doing so.

It was on purpose. The Clintons are well-schooled in the practice of using words very carefully. Within a dozen hours of Hillary's devastating loss in the North Carolina primary coupled with her pyrrhic victory in Indiana, as the chorus of talking heads proclaimed the race "over", Hillary sent a heavy handed message to the Democratic party Super-Delegates who have not yet publicly committed themselves to a candidate.

The message ? "Wait"!

Hold off on jumping on the Obama express for another few weeks, at least until the primary voting has concluded, ....

because ... um, ah, you never know WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN

Hillary Clinton can be a great senator. The vice-presidency would be a bad idea. I'm the Max Cleland for VP a lot, as I was living in Atlanta when Saxby Chambliss ran his slimy campaign against Cleland, and the idea of Cleland as president pro tem of the Senate getting to gavel Chambliss down makes me smile. (Okay, you got me. I am visualizing the gavel landing right on Chambliss' head.) As for what Obama can do for Clinton, click my blue name to see.

jaa, damn good idea (thanks for the link)

this year's theme is hope, change, the future, youth

and no Clinton better reflects those ideas more than Chelsea

Chelsea Clinton - Democratic Convention Keynote Speaker 2008

"time to pass the torch, again"