Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhy would a smart woman like Hillary Clinton continue her campaign when the odds are against her? In her public appearances as a newly cast woman of the people she says she is doing it for us. If so, thanks but no thanks.
Speculation assigns her pertinacity to other motives. Some are guessing that she is continuing to campaign as a means of crowbarring herself into being chosen as the vice-presidential candidate. According to this line of thought, the longer she campaigns the more she binds white women of a certain age to her and can argue that unless she is on the ballot they will be so disaffected that they will stay home on election day.
Others whisper that she hopes by soldiering on to make a deal with the Obama campaign that, in return for a.) her withdrawal and b.) her promise to stump for him against McCain, her campaign debts will be taken care of and she will be repaid the money she loaned herself. She does have a reputation for grasping for a buck.
If the tens of thousands of Obama contributors were to learn that their money has been given to Hillary Clinton, there might be something of a backlash. Such a deal would have to be done secretly, a mode of doing business which Ms. Clinton has some familiarity with. In fact the Washington Times reports that her penchant for keeping things in the dark brought her to the edge of being indicted by a federal grand jury for lying during the first Clinton presidency. The paper says that she escaped because the prosecutors had doubts that a jury would convict a first lady.
Barack Obama will have to ponder whether he will lose more votes by keeping Clinton off the ticket than putting her on it. She does bring her legion of devoted women as well as an unspecified number of Caucasian males to the voting booth. But will her presence as running mate discourage Obama's most enthusiastic and idealistic supporters? For weeks now he has been saying that Clinton is the essence of the old politics, whose page he promises to turn.
If she does force her way onto the ticket it will not be the first time. In 1932 the price Franklin D. Roosevelt had to pay for the nomination was accepting as his running mate John Nance Garner, a Texas reactionary of the whiskey-drinking, tobacco-chewing variety. The two men despised each other and spent the next eight years staying out of each other's sight.
The modern vice presidency is a much bigger deal than it was in Garner's day. Then the VP supplied his own housing and did nothing but preside over the Senate. Roosevelt neither worked with nor confided in his vice presidents. When he died and Harry Truman assumed office, he had not even been told of the existence of the Manhattan Project.
Nowadays the vice president has a mansion and a retinue. Although a modern president could exclude his veep from the White House, the present-day custom is to give the vice president and staff a White House office.
If Obama has a sense of self preservation he should place one proviso on choosing Clinton as his running mate: extract a promise that Chelsea Clinton be installed in the White House as his official taster. You can imagine the intrigues for power and the placement of her liegemen in top jobs coming out Ms. Clinton's office. And where would Bill fit in? What happens when it is revealed that he made a deal with a Central Asian despot for an oil concession for one of his billionaire buds?
For some people Obama-Clinton is dream ticket. For others it's a dream swarming with poisonous spiders, snakes and elephant-sized rats. Instead, for the new politics of national unity of which Obama speaks he might think about putting a Republican on the ticket.
The Republican Abraham Lincoln put a Democrat on the ticket in 1864. In 2008 Democrat Obama could choose Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel or independent Mike Bloomberg. Such a ticket might not be dreamy but it would be a turn of the page.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Like I said on another thread....3 problems with HRC for Veep-
1. Grumblings from the pro-Obama bloc (Geez, how would METTEYA defend V.P. Hillary?!?!?!..heheh)
2. Obama would have to share the spotlight with not one, but TWO Clintons (You can imagine 2009-2012 and the heaadlines "HRC as the most visible Veep in history"...with Bill showing up for "post-Obama press conference analysis" on CNN and MSNBC.
3. Obama would have to hire a food taster!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 11:54am
If he put a Republican on the ticket people wouldn't even know how to rationalize it in their mind. Especially if he chose someone the Republicans trust more than McCain. My God I think the world would implode, up would be down, right would be left. It might do some good though if he got a moderate Republican or Libertarianish conservative as veep and actually listened to him.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 12:00pm
Posted by Mask at 05/8/200
He would also have to have Seceret Service outside his door at all times with a shoot on sight order.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 12:01pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/8/2008
Any Republican that "The Nation" or the DNC or average Dem votes would like....would be so weak and un-important as to add nothing to the ticket...a la Hagel.
Any Indy would have to be more Southern than Bloomberg and less seeming opportunistic than him (Pretty much everybody knows Bloomberg only ran as a Repub, because he hoped to get on Rudy's coattails.)
Obama will pick a registered Dem as Veep.
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 12:04pm
No. Not wise. Considering the desperate lengths the Clinton are more than willing to degrade themselves for, shouldn't someone consider the continuing good health of the president? I wouldn't put anything past the Clintons.
Posted by Lil at 05/08/2008 @ 12:27pm
Bill Richardson as veep brings far more to the table than Billary, without diviseness & without any threat of sabotage. Obama doesn't need the GOP ... they could have used him. President Obama, get used to it.
Posted by sloper at 05/08/2008 @ 12:30pm
I am really conflicted about this issue. Hillary Clinton ran a fairly nasty race baiting campaign, though in the past few weeks she at least tried to WIN votes rather than scare them away from Obama.
But many Obama supporters hate her guts now, and it would be hard to run with Clinton since there would be Bill, Carville and Co. undermining and leaking everything in the Obama administration. I think there is just too much baggage with the Clinton name. But I am conflicted because she did win around 49% of the popular vote, she did get a sizable minority of Democrats to vote for her, there is a case that someone should respect that kind of showing.
I think the better solution would be to try and get her the majority leader spot in the senate, and maybe get a bridge the gap sort of person, a Clinton supporter or former supporter (Bayh or Richardson).
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 12:32pm
Bill Richardson as veep brings far more to the table than Billary, without diviseness & without any threat of sabotage. Obama doesn't need the GOP ... they could have used him. President Obama, get used to it.
Posted by sloper at 05/8/2008
but bill would have to shave his cool, evil looking beard that hides his second chin...
man - that a cool beard!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 12:38pm
How about all democrats join the Republican party and bring a change to it rather than waiting?
I am debating if Hillary is not on the ticket, I might as well vote Nader or Republican and try bringing change in that party with my values.
I have yet to see spine with democratic party or Obama campaign and his take on the all major inner cities with Black Mayors with most corrupt city governments that are known. I don't see change other than throwing away money.
Posted by sbhamidipati at 05/08/2008 @ 12:39pm
There isn't enough time to heel the hurt that the Clinton's laid on the black Americans. the other problem is that the "so called" blue collar and fundamentalist crowd are going to vote on the abortion issue. the code words of the pope "life begins at conception". Kerry was nearly ex-communicate about this issue. The Clinton campaign has guaranteed that the only credible candidate is Senator Obama.
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2008 @ 12:42pm
Addenda: one of the talking heads said Senator (president) Obama would have to have a food taster.
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2008 @ 12:45pm
I agree somewhat with sbhamidipati. If this is going to be the landslide year that it appears it will be, then the Democrats need pass legislation and do things from a position of helping America rather than keeping power.
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 12:45pm
As David Gergen aptly said yesterday on MSNBC(?) , "If Hillary is the veep, Obama may want to hire a food taster."
One can easily see Bill Richardson as Obama's veep choice (he's disarmingly friendly, and would likely attract Hispanic voters in droves), but Hillary as veep???
Fuh'gedaboudit!!!
~Personally, I think it would be electrifying if Obama let the suspense build without giving any hints of his real intentions, and at the last moment unvail his choice.................. Al Gore as veep in charge of the new "Green is Golden" initiative (or something similar) that would signal a massive commitment to energy conservation and renewable non-polluting energy sources, as well as creating an entire new economic segment for job creation.
We could free up the seed money by getting out of Iraq and slashing the budgets for big ticket --and largely useless-- "defense" programs like the F-22, missile defense and many other billion dollar boondoggles..........
And then I woke up.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/08/2008 @ 12:45pm
i dunno.
ms. clinton could take the midnight shift manning* the phones.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 12:47pm
*no sexism intended!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 12:48pm
that a cool beard!
Posted by ibbleblibble
he's underground taliban!!!!!!!!
the kandaharian candidate....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/8/2008
I actually like the idea, not necessarily Gore, but the idea of having the VP as being like this sort of initiative expert on a set of issues like the environment and energy. The problem though is that they would have to be in lockstep with the president and it does sort of water down the president's power and hearken back to Cheney.
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by mihnea at 05/8/2008 |
look you moron. if you insist on spamming up these blog response pits with the exact same semi comprehensible chum, at least clean it up and correct the errors.
on the other hand if you are really just making fun of hard core khmer hilly fanatics...
well done!
regardless i'm quite close to ignoring you and so are many others, so if its option 2, above, you might want to bust out some new material...the schtik is fine, but the content needs updating, dear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
Never underestimate the ability of many Democrats to hold their noses, we've been doing it for years. I think he might be better served by "playing a new kind of politics" than pandering to Hillary and Bill. I think one thing seems to be a constant this year, conventional wisdom is generally wrong, probably has been wrong for a long time but no one wanted to challenge it.
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 12:55pm
i don't know what you guys are all worked up about.
RICHARD CHENEY HAS ALREADY ANNOUNCED HIMSELF AS VP FOR '09.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by JOMAMMA
what you have posted is factually incorrect in so many ways that your only choice should be to quickly hit the unsubmit button in order to avoid further embarrassment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 1:02pm
You can't run for VP by running a divisive and racially polarizing campaign. Also, Hillary' negatives would sink the ticket, and it would therefore be best to have a VP who was right on Iraq and has strong economic credentials.
North Dakota senator Kent Conrad or Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius would be great picks.
Sebelius, in particular, would be able to unite the Democrats by keeping older white women energized and involved.
Both are red state Democrats that share Obama's values.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/08/2008 @ 1:04pm
Sebelius, in particular, would be able to unite the Democrats by keeping older white women energized and involved.
Posted by Metteyya
remember,
9 out of 10 focus groups focused recommend a white woman for vp to their clients who chew gum.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 1:08pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
The problem is the government helps buisnesses to stop green initiatives. IE. The electric car which the Bush administration helped to kill.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 1:08pm
Green industry and altenative enegry sources will not work if they come from govt,,(see Ethanol, mandated and screwing the food chain)..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
who is suggesting "thuh gubbament" run any industry, green or otherwise?
how about tax incentives to green industries to get them up and running? or tax breaks to builders/property owners who build green or convert to green alternatives?
there actually seems to be quite an opportunity for small to mediun sized entrepeneurs here as well as gigantic corporations if the hated gubbament were to extend some small business loans or tax breaks to joe scmo's solar and wind installers/repairers or any number of such projects.
because thuh gubbament NEVER EVER HELPS OUT PRIVATE BUSINESSES...LIKE BAILING OUT SAVINGS AND LOAN GROUPS OR GIVING HUGE TAX BREAKS TO WEALTHY CITIZENS WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED IN THE HOPE SUCH WILL BE WISELY INVESTED...
but seriously, wise government ACTION (admittedly an impossibility under the current gubbament badders of the gubbament destroying/self no bid contract granting neocons) has time and again helped out people of all income levels and promoted healthy business environments.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 1:09pm
we can all look forward to higher prices on all necesssitys and shortages...so...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
this is happening NOW. before Bush $20 abarrel of oil. after Bush $120 a barrel of oil. get it?
the private sector has made a killing at your expense.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2008 @ 1:11pm
>>"True..and would not carry their own states in Nov nor add any red states...without that capacity they bring nothing of value other than symbolism/over/substance....which seems to be a huge habitual problem in the left."
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008 <<
They both have high popularity in their sates and could carry them in November. Kansas also typifies other red states in the region, and could bring in other states like Colorado and Nebraska to the Democrat column.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/08/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/8/2008
The government seems to have no problem giving tax incentives to oil and coal companies why not to the green ones too? I think that is the single most demonstrative fact that the administration is working AGAINST getting us off of our oil addiction and moving to zero emissions sources of energy. They give all these tax breaks to oil companies but they won't give them to green businesses.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 1:13pm
~Posted by the Monsta' (Jomamma).
Another of your typical tangled ball of string comments.
Government provides the direction and stimulus for the private sector to act, dunderhead.
"U.S. has 2 times the oil reserves of the Middle East" is patently absurd, dufus.
Perhaps you mean to include Canada's tar sand deposits?
See "Tar Wars" for a peek at that nightmare:
tinyurl.com/3w8v8m
excerpt:
Below, some 2 billion tons of soil and rock--"overburden," as the oil industry politely calls it--have been stripped away to reveal deposits of hydrocarbon-laced sandstone known as tar sands. Trucks that can carry up to 400 tons lumber across the subarctic expanse, hauling the oily muck out of terraced pits to "crushers" located in massive processing facilities.
The tar sands began forming 350 million years ago, when a prehistoric ocean deposited a layer of organic materials that was gradually cooked into a huge underground pool of light sweet crude beneath what became Alberta. Erosion made way for microorganisms that invaded the oil, forming a thick tar sandwiched between the forest above and the groundwater and limestone beneath.....
Underlying an area the size of Florida, Canada's tar sands (also known as oil sands) contain as much as 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil--more than the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Russia put together. Only Saudi Arabia possesses larger oil reserves. But removing oil from the sands, which involves injecting them with steam or digging them up and pumping in vast quantities of water to heat them, has always been astronomically expensive--until now. As American politicians talk about weaning us from Middle Eastern crude and the price of oil has skyrocketed, the tar sands have become a viable source of foreign fossil fuel. Canada is now the United States' top oil supplier, selling us more than the Saudis. Not since Texas wildcatters hit black gold 80 years ago has North America seen such a frantic rush for oil. Over the next five years, investment in the Alberta tar sands is expected to exceed $75 billion; oil production is set to increase by 160 percent by 2015. Alberta's 59 tar sands sites now form the single largest industrial zone in the world. If it is fully developed, THE RESULT COULD BE UP TO 54,000 SQURE MILES OF MAN-MADE WASTELAND.......
~Not to mention the wasteland we're turning the entire planet into by continuing to burn what is essentially buried sunlight at incredible rates.
Sounds like a course of action only a "monster" would love.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/08/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/8/2008
Okay, you got me....I'm David Gergen!
heheh
(Actually, I thought Dick Morris said that first!)
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 1:19pm
Green industry and altenative enegry sources will not work if they come from govt,
well, government mandated programs have fueled a VERY successful war machine. what, is america too dumb to do the same with "green" (hate that clichι) tech?
(see Ethanol, mandated and screwing the food chain)
yes, ethanol for fuel certainly is an excellent source of milk for the corporate sucklings. ΏΏΏΏΏΏΏΏΏΏfood chain??????????
..it must come from the private sector with private money chasing to fill a demand in customers pressure or shortages...
mr. market is moving too slowly because his fat ass is too full of artery clogging oil.
we have customer demand for now,
so?
but we have no genuine shortages of oil,
According to the EIA, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. 84% of the reserves are concentrated in four states. Texas has 25%, both onshore, and offshore. Alaska has 24%, California has 21%, and Louisiana has 14% onshore, and offshore. Since 1990, U.S. oil reserves have dropped about 20%. New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels). All other discoveries were extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old fields. (404 million barrels).
unless we tax the shit out of it
you don't want roads?
and prevent more drilling.. so far we have one leg with no drilling allowed to get at the oil that is there
who cares if it make a huge mess if we can power our BUILTFORDTOUGH egopumpers for another 2 year?
(more than the ME has today in reserves by 2 times),
prove it.
and if the Dems win the WH combined with the loons in Congress we can all look forward to higher prices on all necesssitys and shortages...so...
actually, most of that is being caused by the current (and previous') administration's absurd monetary policy and deregulationary "skills".
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 1:20pm
just say no to the clintons. no clintons anywhere near the obama administration!!!
Posted by loveloki at 05/08/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
I'm not saying the government needs to create anything but hey do need to be equal opportunity. If they are going to give subsidies to oil companies and coal burners they have to give them to the green industries too. Otherwise they are just propping up the oil companies and trying to keep the green business from being able to compete. That is my point about it. They have to give equal opportunity. If you are going to give tax break and incentives to one energy company you have to give them to all energy companies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 1:26pm
OBAMA / KUCINICH 2008!
Posted by imadane at 05/08/2008 @ 1:26pm
OBAMA / KUCINICH 2008!
Posted by imadane at 05/8/2008
And let us all poop rainbows, ride our unicorns and have the leprechauns broker world peace.
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 1:28pm
imadane
i was gonna post that just to get mask going........
but i thought,
"naw, cheap shot".
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008
Naw, I can recognize a joke when I see one.
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 1:33pm
Encarta:
'In June 1864 the Republicans met in Baltimore, Maryland, and renominated President Lincoln. The convention was known as the National Union Convention to attract the support of the War Democrats. To reward the Southerners who had remained loyal to the Union, Johnson, a War Democrat, was nominated as Lincoln's running mate....
The conflict between the executive and legislative branches continued over the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The provisions of the amendment were similar to those of the Civil Rights Act, which Johnson had vetoed on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional invasion of states' rights. When the president submitted the amendment to the states for ratification, he reiterated his opposition and advised the states to reject it. All the Southern states except Tennessee refused to ratify the amendment. The Radicals used the rejection to discredit Johnson's Reconstruction program, claiming that the South could not be trusted with self-government....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/08/2008 @ 1:35pm
gas......
Posted by JOMAMMA
anachronism.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 1:35pm
"vice pesident clinton?"
as an old drill sarge of mine used to say,
"not no! HELL NO!"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 1:39pm
And now (Just so MAASCH doesn't feel alone...heheh)...
CLASSIC MOMENTS IN PREDICTIONS!!!!
Barack Obama is a flash in the pan. But he's not Presidential material. He will win the next few primaries and close the delegate gap but Hillary will take Texas and Ohio and possibly With Gov. Rendell's help, Pa. as well. Look for Hillary to clinch the nomination in mid April. Dems don't want a convention fight.---Frank Grits @ 1:29pm
I think Hillary already has the race won.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/07/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/8/2008
Kiteo, his eyes closed!
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 1:41pm
Just once in my life I would like to vote for a ticket where at least one of the members has the cajones to state plainly the things which I feel are necessary to make this country better.
Posted by imadane at 05/08/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
True enough about the subsidies but the problem is the government DOES give them. Selectively. If the government helped out green companies with money and resources as much as they helped out oil companies we would be in a green heaven right now. The government is willing to subsidize everything for oil companies, pass every legislation needed and give them as many tax incentives as possible as well as go to war to protect their profits. Yet they won't give any help to green industries and some they will purposely kill in order to protect oil companies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 1:47pm
1) 100 years in Iraq
2) Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
3) The American economy is strong
Equals
Anyone with a D next to their name beating St. John the Maverick.
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/08/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by Tzimisce at 05/8/2008
Seriously, if you held a BASIC Poli-Sci class, and asked (even the conservatives)...
"Imagine a scenario where Party A has held the Congress, but lost it after 12 years to Party B...and Party A holds the White House, but the President has a 28-30% approval rating, a war with 70% disapprovals, a recession, credit crises, and "wrong track" polls worse than Jimmy Carter....
and Party A's Presidential nominee is essentially promising 'four more years'...."
"Who wins in the Fall, Party A or Party B?"
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 1:59pm
If Obama is crazy enough to offer the Vice Presidency to Clinton, he doesn't deserve anyone's vote. He has absolutely no need to make such an idiotic decision and, if he does, he can count on lots of independents to look to McCain, and progressives to Nader. It would be absolutely nuts to make a move like this and associate himself with all of the bilge Clinton is and has made herself in this campaign.
Posted by john lowell at 05/08/2008 @ 2:24pm
FRANKGRITS 02/07/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by Mask
patience, cricket.
we mustn't force karma's hand................
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 3:03pm
And let us all poop rainbows, ride our unicorns and have the leprechauns broker world peace.
Posted by Tzimisce
to be fair,
i think dennis k. is truly deserving of the job.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 3:06pm
gotta go earn extra $ for may gas..
Posted by JOMAMMA
YOU MEAN DILUTED PROMISSORY NOTES!!!!!
WAKE UP!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 3:07pm
"Who wins in the Fall, Party A or Party B?"
Posted by Mask at 05/8/2008
watch 'ousie! (mrs. jefferson. wheezy?)
we're talking people who picked a DONKEY as their mascot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 3:09pm
Yes, I agree with von Hoffman. And I like the reference to "giant-sized rats". These should be avoided, definitely, although there are lots of them in Washington, and not just Clintonites. As I said yesterday on this blog, we should remember the name of the Obama advisor who had to quit because she called Hillary a "monster". Her name was Cassandra, or should be, and her only mistake was to use the wrong descriptor.
Posted by mikhailovich at 05/08/2008 @ 3:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008
Oh, I think if FRANK still held out hope for Her Majesty winning it....he'd be here battling to the last.
The fact he's been gone since before IA and NC....seems to indicate permanent departure.
Too embarassing to have old "She WILL win it" lines thrown in his face, along with now having to be pals with LVLIB, PONTI, SLIVER, MARYBRET, etc.
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 4:06pm
that would undermine all that obama built his campaign around - and boy would it tick me off.
Posted by ywinchell at 05/08/2008 @ 4:08pm
depends on Partt Bs candidate and his philosophy.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
Also depends on if you can say ANYTHING good for your guy in "Party A".
Hear much of that, MAASCH? Rush barely mentions McCain, Hannity too. And the conservative bloggers spend most of their time with dire warnings of the "Commie terrorists-loving Negro who hates America"....to tout poor Grandpa.
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/200
With what do you disagree? That the government gives a lot of breaks to oil companies or that it should treat all energy companies the same and not a favoritism of one in order to kill another?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by Euler at 05/8/2008
We aren't talking about Clinton Euler. We are talking about oil subsidies and green energy initiatives. Something a little more important that Clintons fall.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 4:43pm
Nicholas von Hoffman on 05/08/2008 at 11:49am If Obama has a sense of self preservation he should place one proviso on choosing Clinton as his running mate: extract a promise that Chelsea Clinton be installed in the White House as his official taster.
At this stage, I could see Mrs. Clinton agreeing to that. If so, I suspect that the poison would be slow-acting. The senator, martyring her daughter for the "cause," would probably see it as a small price to pay.
Posted by rivermonk at 05/08/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by Euler at 05/8/2008
Does this mean that Jom and myself are not allowed to discuss the road to green business?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2008 @ 4:55pm
I would like to see vice-president Rice elected.
Posted by DavidTheron at 05/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
What is incorrect?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008
For starters your Hillary proclimation for the past two years.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/08/2008 @ 5:06pm
proclamation
damn little message box
Posted by Hman23 at 05/08/2008 @ 5:07pm
Posted by john lowell at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
relax sweetheart, this suggestion did not come from Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2008 @ 5:07pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
try some facts. only 20% of oil imports comes from the Persian Gulf. Saudi supplies 14%. Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria supply most of our oil.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2008 @ 5:19pm
"that is how the conservatives view the election...MCCain is the best thing they can hope for out of a bad lot.
It is what it is.."
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/8/2008 Is this not how everyone views elections? The best of the worst is what has been fueling every vote I have ever made.
Posted by davefoley0 at 05/08/2008 @ 5:19pm
Side note, this site is terrible now, in pretty much every aspect. In most complete overhauls I have seen, the object is improvement. I can not say what this is.
Posted by davefoley0 at 05/08/2008 @ 5:20pm
Obama/Rendell
Posted by rasalula at 05/08/2008 @ 6:04pm
I don't see any motivation for Obama to financially bail out the Clintons. Couldn't they just get another loan from the Saudis?
Posted by nicR at 05/08/2008 @ 6:27pm
and I agree with Dave. This site is hideous. I miss the old format.
Posted by nicR at 05/08/2008 @ 6:28pm
And then there's Al Gore...
GORE: Ultimately the guarantor of our freedoms are the people. And these kinds of outrages, a president saying that he has the right turn George Washington's 200-plus year prohibition against torture and torture anyone he wants with his assistants gathering in the basement of the White House -- according to recent revelations -- personally reviewing the kinds of torture techniques being used prisoner by prisoner, its obscene.
Highlighting Bush's "arrogation of authority," Gore also noted that the Bush administration has "refused to comply with the Supreme Court decision" requiring it to regulate "global warming pollution" under the Clean Air Act.
While Gore called Bush's abuses of power "outrages," the media does not seem to be as concerned. However, the House Judiciary Committee provided a bright spot today, voting to subpoena David Addington, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, to compel him to testify about the administration's interrogation programs.
http://tinyurl.com/6zzn43
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/08/2008 @ 6:54pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=hsuBfools
Gore is a nice fellow. next topic
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2008 @ 7:11pm
You're really a very bright journalist for your insights in suggesting that Chelsea be offered the job of White House Food Taster! I would have thought you'd suggest that Michele Obama be given that task! Your article smells of the aroma of sexist bias. Who was your Junior High teacher, I wonder...
Posted by sakel at 05/08/2008 @ 7:20pm
and when Venz runs Chavez out of town on a rail or firing squad, we will get it easier on the market..
Posted by JOMAMMA
how dare they put your oil under their asses!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 7:23pm
Emile,
I don't know what you're talking about re: "try some facts".
I don't believe I said anything to contradict your oil import numbers, dude.
Perhaps you are confused with a monsta' Maasch snippet I was quoting.
My larger point to him was (essentially) that we need to get off oil rather than madly scrambling for the dregs of oil in Canada's tar sands.
I certainly didn't make any statements about oil importation statistical breakdowns.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/08/2008 @ 7:31pm
My larger point to him was (essentially) that we need to get off oil rather than madly scrambling for the dregs of oil in Canada's tar sands.
Posted by b_kool_66
when prime minister zoom takes office next year,
he's gonna nationalize, suckas.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 7:38pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/8/2008
Right upto Obama's acceptance speech at the Convention, huh, HSUB?
0.052 micro-seconds before he takes to the podium, to accept the nomination (after his non-Gore Veep has made their speech)...right uptil then...
you'll be posting about Gore "winning a brokered Convention"...won't you?
Or at that point do you switch to, "Obama loses, Gore starts his 2012 campaign and nothing can stop him" posts???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/08/2008 @ 7:49pm
"I do not believe in subsities of any kind to any private industry, nor should govt compete with industry."
Agreed. No subsiDies, no competition. Just nationalize critical industries until corporate America can demonstrate that it can be a responsible world citizen. Energy, utilities, healthcare and pharmaceuticals come to mind. Don't even get me started on predatory banking and credit.
Yeah, sounds like socialist agitprop, but extreme times call for extreme measures. This is about as extreme as it's gotten since the great depression. Disagree if you like. The numbers don't lie.
Besides, corporate America already has subsidies in the form of greedy shareholder investments!
J. Goodrich (remember her?) thought I was joking when I last proposed this, and I was to some extent, but, really, something drastic needs to happen. Incremental measures will take way too long to remedy problems of such magnitude.
Hey FZ, is there really an "unsubmit" button? They will need to fix that too! hahaha
Posted by jackwells at 05/08/2008 @ 7:53pm
Apologies, that post was way off topic. Get carried away some days.
Posted by jackwells at 05/08/2008 @ 7:54pm
"ALGORE is a fraud and a charleton...."
~Monsta' Maasch
You mean to say we'll get meaningful action in regards to global climate change when we pry it from his cold, dead hand?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/08/2008 @ 9:14pm
Canada is now the United States' top oil supplier, selling us more than the Saudis.
this is what I, apparently erroneously, disagreed with. sorry B.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2008 @ 9:14pm
No problema, Emile, just wanted to clarify.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/08/2008 @ 9:22pm
Sibelius not Sebelius. Tauri, where are you when you're really needed?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/08/2008 @ 10:33pm
here's one for you, mr. maasch:
<i>the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's single biggest consumer of petroleum, using more of it every day than the entire nation of Sweden.</i>
Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:53:34 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 10:48pm
Every day, the average G.I. in Iraq uses approximately 27 gallons of petroleum-based fuels. With some 160,000 American troops in Iraq, that amounts to 4.37 million gallons in daily oil usage, including gasoline for vans and light vehicles, diesel for trucks and armored vehicles, and aviation fuel for helicopters, drones, and fixed-wing aircraft. With U.S. forces paying, as of late April, an average of $3.23 per gallon for these fuels, the Pentagon is already spending approximately $14 million per day on oil ($98 million per week, $5.1 billion per year) to stay in Iraq. Meanwhile, our Iraqi allies, who are expected to receive a windfall of $70 billion this year from the rising price of their oil exports, charge their citizens $1.36 per gallon for gasoline.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:56:41 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 10:51pm
Most of us who voted for Obama would be furious to end up with Clinton. I can just imagine who is trying to make this happen, and it isn't Obama.
Posted by opeluboy at 05/08/2008 @ 10:51pm
I don't want those people back in the White House ever.
Posted by emberaz at 05/08/2008 @ 11:58pm
I want them to have all they need.
Posted by JOMAMMA
grrrrrrrrr.
kiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllll..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 08:24am
Meanwhile, our Iraqi allies, who are expected to receive a windfall of $70 billion this year from the rising price of their oil exports, charge their citizens $1.36 per gallon for gasoline.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:56:41 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
that low price of fuel is supported by our tax dollars, it has been reported. nice. Iraq, the 51st state.
anyone saying anything against the Iraq war is unpatriotic. Iraq the 51st state
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 08:49am
iraq, the 51st state
nickname: the cakewalk state
state motto: petroleum tappum minus (our oil spigot)
state bird: predator drone
state flower: bloodwort
state gem: depleted uranium
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 09:27am
Love the line about making Chelsea the president's taster! But, Obama might heed the advice in the Godfather to keep your friends close and your enemies closer!
Posted by jsens at 05/09/2008 @ 09:44am
I want them to have all they need.
Posted by JOMAMMA
unlike, say, teachers. or the unemployed., or kids without health insurance.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 10:11am
As clever a joke as it is to say Obama would need a food taster if Hillary was his VP, it isn't funny because it's much too real. The kind of backstabbing, race baiting and other dishonorable behavior that the Clintons have engaged in, in plain sight, makes one shudder to contemplate what they'd do to engineer a situation in which they were only one misfortune away from getting what they couldn't get through the electoral process. As for whom Obama should choose as a running mate, surely it isn't necessary to step over (or on) talented and politically savvy Democrats to find a Republican, for the sake of being able to claim a break with the virulent politics of the past eight years. This would not be a smart move, and it isn't a particularly sensible suggestion. Bipartisanship can, and should, just as well mean reaching across the aisle to make deals to get legislation passed (or repealed) for the benefit of the Republic, but it shouldn't mean making deals to put a Republican on the ticket.
Posted by robesonr07 at 05/09/2008 @ 10:23am
Agreed that VP Clinton is a really bad idea and Obama knows this. Obama doesn't need the so called Clinton supporters to win in the general. Once he has the nomination, he will shred McCain to pieces. McCain is a "has been" and should have been put out to pasture long ago. We need a clean break from the Clintons. Let Hillary go back to the senate and serve her neocon supporters in NY.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2008 @ 11:05am
If the DNC has Obama repay clintons debts off, the democrats will lose the elections. We did not send money to him for him to have to use it to paid off the bills of a pandering, non-managerial, backstabbing underhanded candidate. DNC - take note, this is NOT the way to win in Novemeber. And hell no the clinton as the VP.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 05/09/2008 @ 11:20am
and the military still has its gas, I have my gas, and the gas station has gas..until you tax it away.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/9/2008
naοve, antiquidated blatherings.
john, you seem like a good dude.
step into the future that is now.
or do you want to continue putting tyrants in your tank?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 11:26am
Obama should select Ron Paul as his VP. Paul understands the current monetary crisis to an extent that no other politician approaches. The combined grass-roots and youth support, plus the energy of a non-partisan ticket would ensure that he beats McCain.
Posted by shiz at 05/09/2008 @ 11:37am
Once he has the nomination, he will shred McCain to pieces.
Posted by OneVote at 05/9/2008
OV, that's a big "IF". And, tell me, how do you propose Obama is going to "shread" McCain? We won't talk about the age or experience issue because Obama has neither under his belt.
How about putting them head-to-head on getting legislation passed and enacted as federal law?
Posted by ACook at 05/09/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by ACook at 05/9/2008
Well Obama will have an easier time getting legislation passed. He will have a Demo Congress that is having more and more progressives elected into it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/09/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by shiz at 05/9/2008
Every fan will push their favorite long-shot or "no shot".
Posted by Mask at 05/09/2008 @ 12:46pm
denial.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 1:14pm
Nice new big posting window. (But Preview window not nearly as good as the old.)
And same old message: stop Billary now, SuperDs, before they cost you senate & house seats. Obama is your candidate, clearly, protect your base & his coattails, don't let Billary wreak any more destruction.
Posted by sloper at 05/09/2008 @ 1:40pm
That's Wright!! All he needs is OneVote!!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/9/2008 |
No, "Obama is McGovern" and that means that "McCain is Nixon" and despite 70% disapproval for the war (whereas Nixon had 60% approval for Vietnam in '72) and McCain wanting to "stay until 'victory'"....Obama is toast!!!
Posted by Mask at 05/09/2008 @ 5:34pm
Maasch, you are misinformed. the gas tax is a fixed amount, rather than a percentage, the way sales tax is. so in spite of the great rise in gas prices, the gov't collects the same amount of money.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 6:24pm
Maasch, you are misinformed. the gas tax is a fixed amount, rather than a percentage, the way sales tax is. so in spite of the great rise in gas prices, the gov't collects the same amount of money.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 6:25pm
and the military still has its gas, I have my gas, and the gas station has gas..until you tax it away.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/9/2008
Maasch, you are misinformed. the gas tax is a fixed amount, rather than a percentage, the way sales tax is. so in spite of the great rise in gas prices, the gov't collects the same amount of money.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 6:26pm
I'm a hard core Democrat, but I'm an American first. The idea of an Obama/Hagel ticket is very appealing to me. I wonder if the two men differ much on the most vital core values?
Still, Obama/Hagel could be the beginning of a return to or the start of real bipartisanship and putting America first.
Under no circumstance do I want to see Hillary as the VP.
I have donated to Obama several times in very small amounts. I personally would grudgingly although also happily accept if Obama paid a small share of Hillary's campaign debt if she would get out now and stop destroying our chances in November. No more than $5 million though. However, I worry that the media and the republicans would spin it as typical washington corruption. I can see the headline reading; "The so-calle 'Change' candidate Barack Obama buys out his opponent."
On second thought, she needs to pay her own damn debt.
Posted by dantheman at 05/09/2008 @ 7:56pm
Sebelius! Strong connections among Dem governors, Ohio political connections through her father, she won in Kansas and has the same message of reaching across the aisle. While I don't buy the argument that Clinton supporters will stay home, a female on the ticket can hedge against that.
Posted by MoPro at 05/09/2008 @ 9:32pm
Perhaps Bob Herbert said it best. "What kind of people are the clintons?" (NYT, 1-26-08, post-SC)
It's not sufficient for the Democrats to renounce--banish--the clintons, as some Democrats are now urging.
The Left is beginning to understand what most of us knew long ago: The clintons are woefully unfit. Dangerously self-serving. Psychopathic, actually.
It's more important--it's critical, in fact--to revisit all the charges lodged against the clintons, charges that the Left had dismissed out of hand. (The outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, actual and apparent, have always worked to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging. But disable them we must.)
The Left must reexamine the following:
1-The death of Ron Brown mere days before he was to testify about clinton Commerce-Dept. corruption and mere days after he told clinton, "I will not go down alone."
(Brown was alluding to hillary clinton's central role in engineering the scheme to sell trade-mission seats.) Brown's conveniently fatal Croatia trip that wisked him out of the country post haste... and out of the court system permanently... was scheduled immediately after that statement. (Recall clinton's jubilant air at the Brown funeral-- until he spied the camera. (http://members.aol.com/miat/clintonatbrownsfuneral.gif)
NOTE: The call by Jesse Jackson and the Black Caucus for the requisite autopsy of Brown, whose head contained what a govt pathologist (who voted for clinton twice, btw) said looked like a bullet hole (http://www.deletehillary.com/images/ron-browns-wound.jpg), was shut down by a payoff right under our collective nose: the clintons' Wall Street Project. The WSP yielded millions over the years for Jackson and his cronies.
2- The 120 redacted pages of the Barrett report. 'An abiding theme in the redacted pages, insiders say, is the Clinton camp practice of using the IRS to punish its enemies. Mr. Clinton plainly did not leave this illegal practice behind in the Oval Office. By all accounts he has maintained a tight grip on a number of government departments and agencies, notably the Justice Department and the IRS, the folks who can deal the deadliest damage.' (http://www.deletehillary.com/the_barrett_report)
3- The rape of Juanita Broaddrick by bill clinton and the threatening of her 2 weeks later by hillary. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)
"There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women." (Carl Bernstein)
4- Why the clintons ignored terrorism for their entire tenure. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35NXXg-M46Q)
Posted by Mia_T at 05/10/2008 @ 1:59pm
5-And, oh yes, Rwanda. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bVrquf0E44)
THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT? clinton legacy of lynching update
by Mia T, 7.23.05
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." (Martin Luther King)
Ironically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching. King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular. The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance.
Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.
Conversely, the clintons' refinement of the DNC drag and drop is, arguably, one of the more insidious and repugnant applications of their special brand of race-hate politics.
Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.
But it is even worse.
Listen to Randall Robinson in this video, read below about Rwanda. Only one conclusion is possible: A clinton legacy of lynching.
-------
Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. "When you look at those children who greeted us," he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, "how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?"
Alas, the President had precisely identified the problem. In April 1994, when the Hutu genocidaires looked at the children who greeted them in the Tutsi villages, that's exactly what they thought: they didn't want those Tutsi children to have a chance to have their own children. So the question is: when a bunch of killers refuse to subscribe to multiculti mumbo-jumbo, what do you do?
"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices," continued Bill in his apology aria, "who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."
Au contraire, he appreciated it all too fully. That's why, during the bloodbath, Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something.
Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a "final solution" to eliminate all Tutsis was underway.
SteynOnAmerica CLINTON, CLARKE AND RWANDA: TEN YEARS ON
Posted by Mia_T at 05/10/2008 @ 2:25pm
A Barack /Hillary ticket , if egos and Michelle Obama could be placed behind the curtains, will be the one/ two punch that can put America in the right direction, while destroying the barriers and opening dungeons of economic and social freedom, that were created by George , Dick, and the Republican Party philosophy. The world will welcome it with new reverence and hope for outstanding world Leadership.
In fact superdelegates should add this to their agenda when promising Obama their support.
Posted by Glass-eye at 05/11/2008 @ 02:04am
The worse reason for Hillary to be the VP is that if she wanted to she would more or less be the automatic democratic candidate in 2016 if they win. That should be all I have to say, but let me explain. Obama currently represents a change in the democratic party and a change in American politics, domestic and foreign, that I expect he will nurture throughout he presidency. Having Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee after him would erase all of of that progress. Obama needs someone who shares his ideology for change toward the better, and Clinton is certainly not that person.
Posted by danconstan at 05/11/2008 @ 2:06pm
Regarding Hillary Clinton's purported reach for the vice-presidency: As the arduous journey to the White House begins in earnest, Barack Obama doesn't need a rattlesnake in his back pocket.
Regarding Sen. Clinton's veiled threat to take her supporters and go home if she doesn't get what she wants: Fine. It is better for Obama to win -- or lose -- with no foolish bargains made than to make such a deal only to have it blow up in his face.
If the Hillaryites do abandon Sen. Obama, they will have proven what many already suspect: they are not and have never been Democrats, and the process of drumming them out of the party echelon will begin forthwith.
If Obama wins without their support, a vacation in Siberia might be preferable to the cold treatment they will get. If he loses without their support, the blame will rest entirely on their shoulders and their penance in political purgatory will approach permanence -- lasting at least as long as Chelsea's lifetime.
Who might Obama choose as his running mate? There are many good candidates, but let me tout just three possible choices who might soothe hurt feelings while helping the ticket, and once elected, bring needed governing experience:
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington inherited a major budget shortfall upon taking office, which she mitigated and got voters to approve a "rainy day fund" to hedge against hard times ahead. She also expanded health care coverage to nearly 75,000 low-income children and seems to be on track in solving some of the thornier education issues, including helping at-risk students graduate from high school.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas has also worked tirelessly to improve that state's education system and even her critics admit that she has had success. She learned how to govern from an early age: her father, John Gilligan, was governor of Ohio from 1971-75.
Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona probably suffers from the same problem Barack does, being considered "too young" to be vice president. But youth is no impediment to success and as the Grand Canyon State's third female governor -- faced with Republican majorities in both houses -- Gov. Napolitano has governed with feist and fairness. She has stood up to the Minuteman bigots while forcing President Bush to put his money -- and federal troops -- where his mouth is, and police the state's southern border to intercept illegal aliens. She also has stressed improvement of education and changed the $1 billion deficit she inherited from her Republican predecessor into a $1 billion surplus.
Posted by ciotog17 at 05/12/2008 @ 09:19am