Apparently, there are no ‘formal talks’ between Clinton, Obama camps

Following up on an earlier item, I should note that CNN’s report about “preliminary” discussions between the Clinton and Obama campaigns don’t appear to exist. CNN reported this morning that the discussions were underway, that Clinton was aware of them, and that the negations were not going especially well (Suzanne Malveaux described them as “difficult”).

CNN is now reporting this story in an entirely different way.

Several close friends and supporters of Hillary Clinton tell CNN they are pushing for a “graceful exit strategy” that would allow the Clinton and Obama camps to come together, and for the New York senator to save face should she fail to become the Democratic nominee for president.

The discussions are not taking place between the campaigns, but rather among informal campaign advisers on both sides who are trying to actively influence and shape the debate as the competition nears a close June 3. […]

Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod said “there have been zero discussions, back channel or otherwise between the campaigns.”

Clinton campaign aides also deny that any talks are taking place between the campaigns, emphasizing that the contest is not yet over. Clinton herself said the report was “flatly untrue” during a meeting with the editorial board of a South Dakota paper Friday.

But some Clinton camp insiders and close friends are actively floating three scenarios which they believe will influence whether or how the two teams merge.

Which, of course, lead us back to those scenarios we talked about this morning.

I’m a little surprised CNN would be careless about describing “formal” discussions that don’t actually exist, but I’m not especially surprised that there are no talks underway.

These two don’t seem close to the negotiating table. For one thing, Clinton is blaming the Obama campaign for a CNN story that relied exclusively on people described as members of Clinton’s “inner circle.”

During a meeting with the editorial board of the Argus Leader, Hillary appeared to accuse the Obama campaign of being behind the story CNN aired today reporting that there are “talks” between the two campaigns about her getting out of the race and possibly becoming veep.

“That’s flatly untrue — flatly, completely untrue,” Hillary said when asked about “reports” of such talks. The edit board meeting is being aired live, and is still underway.

“No discussions at all,” Hillary continued. “It is not anything I’m entertaining. It is nothing I’ve planned. It is nothing I’m prepared to engage in.” … A bit later, Hillary added: “This is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it’s over.”

Later still, Hillary brought the hammer down: “I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of those stories,” she said.

That does seem rather unlikely. CNN said the sources of the story were people close to Clinton. I’m hard pressed to imagine how the Obama campaign could get them to tell CNN about non-existent negotiations.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s top fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee, seemed to be making veiled electoral threats about Obama and the general election.

“[T]here’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

If CNN’s follow-up report is accurate, and “informal advisors” to both camps are moving towards some kind of talks, I hope they hurry. After a couple of weeks of relative detente, this week has been a mess — which has gotten progressively worse and more tense.

Blackmail

  • Shalimar

    It’s no doubt what Hillary wishes would happen, and I think most people will perceive it that way. It’s a wish-projection on the unknown. How could she say such a horrible thing about her opponent who has been gracious and supportive of her right to campaign to the bitter end if she wishes?

    I cannot begin to express my outrage at this woman.

  • I just saw the Bobby Kenedey reference. Its time for the party leaders to step in and stop this. The super delegates need to make their move. She’s vile beyond description.

  • What the hell is Hillary talking about the RFK assassination for today to justify her continued fight for the nomination?

    Now she’s apparently saying she’s gonna hang around, just in case someone takes Obama out?

    I now believe everything the Republicans ever said about these desiccated pieces of dog shit masquerading as human beings. I can’t believe I defended these people back in ’98.

  • Several close friends and supporters of Hillary Clinton tell CNN they are pushing for a “graceful exit strategy

    Say I’m sorry, and leave the room.

  • It is a good thing if she hangs around until voting is complete. He may always implode still and that’s a fine reason to stick around, as long as she isn’t going negative.

    This has to end in June, though. Hopefully it’s just bluster and setting up the negotiating table, which she is quite good at.

  • All this “save face” and “respect” stuff is beginning to sound like a bad mafiosa movie.

  • Hillary just aplogized for her Bobby Kennedy remark by saying the Kennedys have been on her mind a lot because of Ted. She then apologized, but it sounded like she was doing it for the sake of the Kennedy family. She needs to think a little more about that graceful exit.

  • It wouldn’t surprise me that the Clinton camp “leaked” this as though it were from the Obama camp as “proof” of how much Obama “needs” her to win the GE.

    I can NOT believe her comment about the RFK assassination. What is she suggesting by this comment?

    I believe that this woman can and will do ANYTHING to win.

  • Make no mistake about it, Hillary is not trying to become VP, she is trying to win. MSM outlets like the NY Times would like us to believe it is over, but it is not.

    Yes, Obama will likely win the nomination regardless thanks to caucuses in red states, but there’s no precedent for pushing HRC out, especially since she will carry the popular vote

    This is going to be a fight to the convention, guaranteed.

  • Invoking Robert Kennedy’s assassination to justify her continued presence in this race? I think she’s showing her true colors. How much ego and anger does it take to start fanning the flames of the fringe?

    I cannot in good faith vote for this monster, even should she get her evil wish.

  • Commander Guy, et al

    No surprise here. What did you think she had been talking about — if in a more veiled way — before, when she’d mention that “anything can happen” before the convention? She wasn’t referring to any dirt being dug up on Obama all of a sudden; if there had been any, it would have been dug and aired long ago.

    No. It’s Her Royal Highness as Henry II and Obama as Thomas Becket all over again.

    To be sure… The possibility has been hanging like a cloud from the very beginning. Some of my (female, black) friends here said they wouldn’t vote for Obama in the primaries, because they were afraid that, should he win, it would be setting him up for an assassination.

  • This creature is an embarrasment to the democratic party and our political system. She is using the Bush tactics of propaganda; if anything is said enough, people will believe it. Adolph Hitler and the old Soviet Union did. The current administration uses it continuiously. The American people are tired of lies, pandering and political gridlock. The clintons will do anything to gain the powers of the presidency, thanks to bush, it is complete dictatorship.

    I hear Obama talk about restoration of habeas corpus, our civil rights and closing the torture camps. Clinton said she would look into restoring “some” of our civil rights, she is no different than the republicans. She supported the Kyle-Lieberman bill giving bush the right (again) to attack Iran if he sees fit. Be sure he will do it before the November elections to shove national security issues down our throats. She has complemented McCain continuiously, and attacks Obama.

    I find her contemptable and repulsive. She is trying to destroy Obama’s campaign, she shows no sportsmanship or honor. She would rather McSame win so she could try again in 2012. She and her husband are pathalogical liars displaying a greed for power that is unlimited. When she whines she is discriminated against, understand if her name were anything but Clinton, she would have been rightfully gone since Feb.

    It is time for the Democratic superdelegates to step up, give Obama his remaining 58 endorsements to take him to 2026, and send that nasty piece of work back to the senate. If there were any justice, she would be tossed out of the senate as well. She doesn’t care about this country, it is all about her. “I, I, I, ME, I, I, I will..” Her rhetoric is all about her. I find her undignified and graceless behavior insulting to all women.

    Her lies about Obama’s inability to reach working people are monstrous. She is the most polarizing figure in American politics today. Obama has brought millions of people into the system, and we are all fed up with the status quo. Obama is refreshing in his mindful and intelligent response to things. The way he handled clinton’s gas tax scam was wonderful! We are fed up with liars, lies and noise. We want a leader who has some intelligence and class who doesn’t lie and steal from us at every opportunity. It would be nice to have a leader for whom I don’t have active contempt. Bush, Cheney, McCain, Rice, Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein, are all people I can no longer tolerate to view or listen to….they sold us out years ago. I am tired of whores running this nation, if we are to survive another 4 years, we need a radical shift to the left, along with honest endeavor to restore some of the honor we have lost in the last 8 years. It is time for rebuilding our infrastructure, national health care, and building things in America again

    I think both parties need to do a lot of housecleaning. Most of the people in DC have been there too long and have forgotten who they are supposed to represent. One of the silver linings in the clouds hanging over us is the fact everyone is now paying attention.

  • Greg, there an awful lot of her advisors and surrogates suggesting her for VP. NONE from Obama’s side. She could easily tell her peeps to hush up. If this is not a coordinated effort, it certainly defies the odds. You might at least think she would tell her husband she doesn’t want it. And even if she merely knows that all this talk is going on, she has to realize it isn’t going to help unify the party. She certainly knows she will not be asked to be VP.

  • Make no mistake about it, Hillary is not trying to become VP, she is trying to win. -Greg

    Yes, by ensuring Obama loses in 2008, she’s trying to win in 2012. I’ll give you that.

    You’re such a pathetic bunch, trying to convince us Hillary has won the popular vote by discounting legitimate caucusing states and including illegitimate, rule breaking states. The linked opinion piece you hold up as proof is no more intellectually honest than you are.

    When you include all legitimate contests, Hillary Clinton does not have a majority of the popular vote, delegates, or super delegates.

  • I watched the video that was posted, the RFK comment was to say that anything can happen, nothing more.

    One such scenario would be that Obama could end up being even more unelectable than he is now, which could be possible if the rumors of Michelle Obama on tape denouncing “whitey” are true, or any number of unknown possibilities which haven’t been uncovered yet, or he could say something out of line again like bittergate which offends another segment of the population (look how West Virginia and Kentucky voted after bittergate).

    Point is that she has the popular vote and could yet be the nominee.

  • I am just stunned. The amount of good will the Clintons, especially Hillary, have destroyed is just phenomenal. There was a time when I wanted H. Clinton to be president and would have been willing to work hard to make that happen. Reconciling myself to the idea that a lot of the filth that GOP hacks were throwing her way in the 1990s may have actually been justified in some small way? I hope my head doesn’t explode.

  • Forget the medical report on John McCain. I want to see a psychiatric evaluation of Hillary Clinton.

    She’s really lost it if she thinks that RFK’s assignation provides any justification for her behavior. If anything happened to Obama (either assignation or something coming up which makes him unelectable) the convention could then turn to her regardless of whether she is still out there bashing Obama at present and regardless of whether she is still officially in the race.

  • Doubtful, I suppose you will also argue that Puerto Rico should not be counted towards the popular vote as well because they don’t get to vote in the GE.

    Florida’s vote was legitimate by the way, the vote was certified and is on record with all candidates on the ballot. Michigan may be a harder sell, but for arguments sake, let’s give all of the uncommitted votes to Obama, ok?

    If BHO wants to win the GE, he should start pushing for the full seating of FL delegates as they were voted, otherwise he will lose here in November, period.

  • Point is that she has the popular vote and could yet be the nominee. -Greg

    No, she doesn’t. Repeating this lie is nothing more than a waste of bandwidth. No one here will be convinced. You have to do too many mathematical gymnastics and discount too many legitimate votes. Like Erik in Maine said earlier, why is Hillary so eager to disenfranchise him?

    How can you legitimately count Florida? Michigan? Neither contest was legitimate. Only by including them and excluding several other states can you arrive at your conclusion.

    It would be like me saying ‘Greg is the smartest poster in this thread.’ I can waste bandwidth repeating that all day, but it still won’t ever be true. It’s nothing more than a lie, or misstatement as Hillary calls them.

    One such scenario would be that Obama could end up being even more unelectable than he is now, which could be possible if the rumors of Michelle Obama on tape denouncing “whitey” are true…

    Blah, blah, rumor, rumor, blah…Like I said earlier, if we’re disqualifying people due to rumors, explain to me how a lesbian who murdered her former lover isn’t disqualified?

    Get back to reality, Greg.

  • Greg,

    You put words in her mouth that she did not speak or intend to speak. THIS time she ratcheted up her rhetoric from “something might happen”. to being specific about what she wanted to “happen”.

    She could have referred to any number of possibilities for “happenings” if she wanted to be specific, but she chose the one that would benefit her most — Barack Obama’s death.

    She’s stirring up the crazies the same way she did the racists and bitter white women. She’s SICK!

  • Florida’s vote was legitimate by the way, the vote was certified and is on record with all candidates on the ballot. -Greg

    Really? You don’t think not having delegate representation had any impact on the outcome of the vote? I can’t buy that.

    I don’t care if you count Puerto Rico. Hell, make them a state and give them representation while you’re at it. Point is, you’ve got to discount caucus states to give her a lead, and that’s never going to be acceptable to anyone who lives in reality, least of all super delegates.

    Of which she needs, what, about 85% of to seal the deal? Good luck with that.

  • Please calm down about the RFK comment until you see the actual tape of what she said.

    She was asked about all the comments that she should drop out of the race because having it drag on would hurt the party. She said having a primary race go on is not as unusual as people say. She said her husband didn’t really have the nomination locked up until the California primary, which in 1992 was in June. She reminded the Argus Board of Editors that RFK was assassinated on June 6, 1968, on the night of the California primary, in a primary season that was still being contested. She said this idea that the winner is always decided before June is just not true.

    That’s all she said. She did NOT say she’s staying in because something might happen to Obama. Nevertheless, Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer are gabbing on about this — and in both cases grossly misrepresenting what was said. Blitzer just referred to it as “1988” instead of 1968 and Matthews suggested that she said “anything might happen” which bears no resemblance to what she said.

    HRC decided to apologize for even referencing RFK, trying to defuse this, but at this point nothing will stop the panel talk shows from making this a “Gore said he invented the internet” type of discussion.

    I’m not surprised by the media, but a little disappointed by posters on this site who seem to be willing to jump to conclusions and decry statements they have not actually heard.

  • I’m not surprised by the media, but a little disappointed by posters on this site who seem to be willing to jump to conclusions and decry statements they have not actually heard. -pfgr

    While we’re not jumping to conclusions, don’t jump to the conclusion that we haven’t heard the statements and just didn’t arrive at a different conclusion than you.

  • pfgr

    She reminded the Argus Board of Editors that RFK was assassinated on June 6, 1968, on the night of the California primary, in a primary season that was still being contested.

    No she didn’t say this. She didn’t explain her reference to Bobby Kennedy at all. YOU’RE also putting words and explanations into Hillary’s mouth that weren’t hers.

    Here’s the clip.

    “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….”

    =====

    She did NOT say she’s staying in because something might happen to Obama.

    She certainly DID say that and has been saying it all along.

  • http://youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI&feature=user

    “I’m not surprised by the media, but a little disappointed by posters on this site who seem to be willing to jump to conclusions and decry statements they have not actually heard. -pfgr”

    “While we’re not jumping to conclusions, don’t jump to the conclusion that we haven’t heard the statements and just didn’t arrive at a different conclusion than you.”

    I conclude that no one, watching the tape, can honestly conclude that she was saying she’s staying in the race because of the possibility of a development like an assassination. Her statement is not susceptible of that interpretation.

  • She said what she said and she knew what she was saying. It’s not just us who interpreted it as such: please go HERE and make note of the consensus of thought there too. That she uses this as justification for staying in means she has likely hoped for it. And maybe even entertained the idea of funding it.

    Straitjackets for her and her flaccid husband!

  • 30. pfgr said: I conclude that no one, watching the tape, can honestly conclude that she was saying she’s staying in the race because of the possibility of a development like an assassination. Her statement is not susceptible of that interpretation.

    I think it’s very clear she was saying she’s staying in the race because it’s not over and anything can happen including assassination. If she wasn’t saying that, why was an assassination one of her two examples?

  • The assassination of RFK was used because everyone who was alive at the time remembers the 1968 Democratic primary campaign, and that the California primary was held on June 5, 1968.

    She was just saying that other primary campaigns have gone into June and gave two very prominent examples. That’s all.

    AP picked it up as she said anything can happen, as a reason for staying in, and Matthews/Blitzer started to run with the AP version rather than what she actually said. I’m sure a concensus of commentators based on the misrepresentation of what she said would be outraged.

    This is exactly how the “Gore says he started the internet” baloney got started, and in this age of Youtube where the actual statement can be verified, it’s too bad this type of thing still goes on.

  • Geez, look, she’d mention tinky-winky and you guys would make up some tenuous connection.

    …Not that assassination references are really good comments, I have no idea why she’d be making that reference, other than it isn’t June yet and we’ve switched horses in June before. Wasn’t that one of the seminal campaigns in her history as a Democratic activist?

    Not the best thing to say. But you know, it isn’t ancient history to some people.

  • pfgr

    If Hillary believes her path to the nomination is that she can win 90% of the remaining delegates, she should say that.

    If she thinks her path to the nomination is to steal the deal in Denver at convention, she should say that.

    But can’t Hillary just stop saying stoopid stuff? Zimbabwe, Assassination, jim crow nonsense ain’t convincing anyone other than her most delusional supporters.

  • Going back to the formal discussion/no formal discussion thing, it’s obvious that everyone’s going to deny it. Obama’s going to deny it because Hillary out of the race before all the votes are cast does nothing more than turn her freak-show camp-followers loose to wage political terrorist attacks on a wholesale level—putting Obama in the middle of a two-front war with Clinton on one front and McForrestalFire on the other front.

    Clinton’s going to go absolutely bizarro-berserker at even the mere mention of such talks—it kills what fund-raising chances she still has—and there is that $21 million in debt that needs to be retired, y’know….

  • Are the people pandering this “popular vote” BS arguing that if the contest had been set up so that the winner of the popular vote got the nomination, Obama would have not set up a campaign to win the popular vote? That any state would have set up caucuses?

    The skanky math that gets used to compute this “popular vote” makes about as much sense as all the theorems dreamed up to explain why all the planets and the sun don’t orbit around the earth in perfect circles – problem is, they don’t actually rotate around the earth. Problem for Hillbots – the nomination process was not set up to be won by “popular vote.”

    They played by the rules – she lost. Now she’s whining, when she’s not imagining her opponent gets murdered. And if she brought that up as an example of why she should stay in the race, she is, at the very least, imagining it. At long last Hillary (and Hillary supporters) – have you no shame?

  • “Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

    this threat is retarded.Obama’s fundraising is designed to get around the reliance on big doners (who often give just as generously to republicans) and put democrats on an even fundraising footing with the republicans by tapping into that oh so novel thing the electorate holy shit who could have thought!

    Heck a large part of obama’s coat tails could be the donations he makes to congressional and senate races. given that the big bucks have decided the influence to buy is democratic the DLC and other democratic orgs will be raking in cash, but these guys aren’t hillary partisans.

    Obama doesn’t need hillary’s small doners, and the proportion of money from the biggies that is that partisan probably isn’t significant given the present fundraising.

    this is an empty threat from people who thought they’d already bought their influence and are committed to clinton. their money is unlikely to make a difference in the general.

    Shorter Namazee. WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

  • if obama is somehow forced to accept hillary as his running mate, he should make sure that the agreement includes that chelsea is his official food taster (i first thought bill, but then i figured hill could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak).

  • i have had enormous tolerance for hillary clinton, for a number of reasons, but she is clearly coming unhinged.

    conceding that it was probably a slip of the tongue, the RFK remark would only pop out if it was a thought in her head. that she should be walking around with such thoughts in her head puts her outside of the realm of reasonable people.

    hillary clinton, it seems, is remarkably tone deaf. given the extended period of time she has demonstrated this unfortunte character trait (including but not limited to her campaign’s statements about florida/michigan, her bizarre impulse to publicly blame the obama campaign for cnn’s story, the incredibly childish “veiled electoral threats” by her “top fundraiser” and the RFK comment) she has earned a spot on my own personal short list of people i wouldn’t want to see elected dog-catcher.

  • I wish there were talks.

    But isn’t it illegal to discuss terms between candidates (because of the money involved) until the elections have passed?

  • I am just grateful that any talk of VP is now moot – shillary has repeatedly crossed lines that most would know better to cross.

    Very poor judgement, shows an extreme sense of entitlement on her part. And her main qualification for presidency is she was married to bill and then bought a senate seat in NY.

    Hopefully – someone will run against her and beat her there – she has no place on that national stage.

    Anyone would be nuts to make her VP now after the assassination talk.

  • I just watched the entire clip. As easily as I can imagine her saying something so crazy, she really didn’t. Let’s stop this kind of deliberate misinterpretation that is so much the perview of Rove et al. We’re better than that.

  • My general perceptions, for what little they are worth (down here at the bottom of an old thread no one is going to read any further anyway ::grin::) —

    Leaving aside every other issue as regards general integrity, etc, etc, there seems to me to be one very clear difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama — when Clinton loses supporters, she cannot replace them. She has no capacity for winning over people who do not like her, and even less ability to win back people who once supported her but have changed their minds. And a significant number of one time Clinton supporters seem to have changed their minds over the course of this campaign, a trend that is, if anything, accelerating as we get further towards November.

    Senator Obama, on the other hand, seems to have a genuine talent for persuading not only uncommitted voters into his camp, but even for swaying diehard partisans of his opponents towards his standard. And once someone decides to support Obama, they seem to stick with it. Clinton’s campaign is hemorrhaging staff, delegates, and supporters; Obama’s is steadily gaining ground.

    To boil it down — Senator Clinton cannot change the minds of the people who loathe her, and they are legion. Beyond that, many of the people who once loved her now regard her with distaste, and she alienates more and more of those people every day. Senator Obama is just the opposite; I honestly believe, given what I’ve seen, that if he has enough time to do it, he could even bring around Appalachia. He’s really that charismatic… as charismatic, in fact, as Bill Clinton.

    Which may be another reason Senator Clinton cannot stand the thought of being beaten by him…

  • Comments are closed.