Bill Clinton makes things ‘complicated’ for Obama/Clinton ticket

July 12, 2008

Reading the tea leaves is always difficult, but one gets the sense that Hillary Clinton’s chances of making the Democratic ticket are less than good.

Barack Obama told a potential donor to his campaign that Hillary Rodham Clinton is on his list of possible vice presidential running mates, but that her husband’s status as a former president makes matters “complicated.”

Jill Iscol, a faithful Democratic donor who was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said Obama reached out to her because he heard she was unhappy about the way the New York senator had been treated by the Democratic Party and the media.

Iscol turned their phone conversation Thursday to the vice presidency — something the Obama campaign has refused to discuss publicly. She said she told him that Clinton would be his best running mate.

Obama replied that she is on his list, Iscol recounted, and that it would be a mistake not to have her on such a list. But he also explained that he was thinking through a potential “complication” — Bill Clinton.

“He said once you’re a president, even if you’re a former president, you’re always a president,” Iscol said.

That suggests Obama might be worried the White House could get crowded with Bill Clinton back on the scene.

Even now, I suspect emotions are still running high in some corners, but I think it’s very tough to make the case that Obama hasn’t been respectful of Hillary Clinton since he secured the nomination. But having the former president around would be awkward, and Obama knows it.

That said, I think the most interesting part of the story wasn’t the perspective on the former president, but rather the fact that Obama contacted Jill Iscol, specifically because “he heard she was unhappy about the way the New York senator had been treated by the Democratic Party and the media.”

I don’t know if he can make all of these voters happy, but Obama is taking them seriously.

I think that Obama is totally spot about not wanting Hilary as VP and the complicated baggage that Bill would bring to the table. The Clinton’s represent the past and they really have outlasted thier usefulness in this county. This is especially true if Obama is really the canidate “of change”.

  • “Complicated” is spot on. That is also a very good reasoning to oppose selecting Hillary Clinton for VP. She would best serve as the administration’s universal health care advocate/czar/whatever (I hate that word). What I believe the country requires most in a VP is a “progressive” business person with foreign policy street credentials and somebody who will keep Obama honest when it counts.

  • She won;t be the vp. He’s laying out a very good reason why she won’t be pick and why no one can complain when she isn’t. He has treated with more respect than she and her husband probably deserved. The thing is, no one is really talking about her anymore. His poll numbers among women are very good. I don’t think people need to get all caught up over a handfull of oddballs.

    He has a number of very good choices who would bring something to the ticket besides an encore of the Clinton Freak Show. If he chose Clinton, instantly it would be non stop 24 hour a day coverage of the attention sucking clintons and their antics. THAT he doesn’t need.

  • Gee, after the way that Bill has gone on the stump for Obama you’d think that he’d be welcome in the Obama administration.
    /snark

  • Yeah I dunno. To me (as relatively uninformed as I am) it seems that the main “complication” of having the Clintons in your near orbit is that they are predominantly transitional 20th – 21st century figures. Bill built a rickety bridge into the 21st century, Hillary strode confidently across it (despite all attempts to knock her, and other women, off of it) and then W. set it ablaze. Old news. Ancient history, folks. Like him for his FISA thing or not, Obama is bringing change (or should be, at least) and dragging old political figures along won’t help that at all.

    He needs another like him: a brand-new person, plucked from near-obscurity and rising meteorically to the national stage. Especially if that person is further left than he is. Obama is a one-man balancing act, he does NOT need two more such. (Especially since Bill is becoming more and more unhinged every day, it seems.) I don’t think this is complicated at all. If anything, it’s a no-brainer.

  • Clinton would definitely be the wrong person on a ticket which should be contrasting the difference between a candidate ready for the 21st century and those who are stuck in the mindset of the 20th century (the Clintons) and the 19th century (McCain).

    The most amusing argument is the whining that Clinton has not been treated well. Obama himself has gone out of his way to treat her well, for obvious reasons (which should not extend to offering her the VP spot). Clinton certainly continues to receive less than enthusiastic treatment from many others, but that is a consequence of her own atrocious conduct. When she has behaved every bit as badly as the Republicans have in recent elections, she should not be surprised when she is treated that way. She crossed the line, and no amount of campaigning for Obama at this stage will change that.

  • Why would Obama need a Clinton on the ticket when he seems to be doing such a fine job of imitating their worst qualities? He wants to be liked more than Bill ever did.

  • Whether or not she’s on the ticket as VP, now would be a good time to lose 200plus lbs of ugly, life-sucking fat.

  • Am I the only one that thinks that Obama was actually trying (in his own peculiar way) to be diplomatic about Hillary? The HRC fanbase is devoted to her – I can think of better ways to spend a weekend but that’s their choice – but that devotion doesn’t extend to Bill. In fact, within the HRC supporters there’s probably a majority who think that Bill’s a liability whose time has passed.

    Obama can hardly turn around to a HRC supporter who he’s trying to persuade to part with her hard-earned cash and say “You know what? Hillary isn’t worth putting on a Christmas card list, never mind a Vee-Pee list. Can’t stand the woman. Now how many zeroes would you like to put on that check?”

    It’s the political equivalent of a break-up scene that starts off with “It’s not you, it’s me.” You always know in actuality it’s very much you, but you can’t expect them to say anything else.

    In this instance it’s “It’s not Hillary, it’s Bill.” Bill’s name is so toxic these days, his behavior during the primaries so quixotic and self-aggrandizing, it’s hard to argue against the inference that he might be a major drag on the ticket and a major disruption in the White House.

    I dunno. It’s up to the still fuming embers of the Hillary fan club what they want to do with their vote. I think he’d be better spending more time talking to independent-minded voters who are open to persuasion than people who still bear a grudge.

  • Or, is Obama making things complicated for the Democratic Party. It’s pretty obvious that most of the comments here so far do not appreciate all the efforts the Clintons have delivered to our culture. One huge cultural change is usually dismissed regularly by Blacks and Neo-Con Whites in many Internet debates were they avoid the ambitious promotion of the Internet itself during the nineties by the Clinton/ Gore administration.

    One can smile to themselves to perceive and witness the shallow minds that labor on Bill Clinton’s private sex life yet freely condemn the Clintons for any achievement. For me and the advantage of how my skills have developed because of this Internet far exceed Bill Clinton’s personal passion with sex. Moreover, most of those who insist that moral authority is worse than Bush and Companies moral authority to intentionally profiteer in tax money by the way of war and disrespect for the Constitution, International law of torture, and now wide spread fear of a dysfunctional economy with horrible grief of terror loan sharks to American home owners is missing the core point.

    For me and many of you may disagree, though I know and lived through that period were Clinton and Gore progressively went on with a very spirited campaign to promote the Internet through America’s educational system. So, here we are not only with a tool to use as a private citizen to be informed as no other time in recorded history plus giving way to a commerce system that has brought America into a global economy with web sites and a new tool for business in unpredictable advantages that has confounded the Republican party to such a degree that is impossible to match such a giant leap in culture and benefit to man kind. Or, even Obama is going to have a difficult time to match that. It isn’t that the Clinton’s are a burden on society, they just have good ideas. Hillary was in the forefront off Universal Heath Care long before Obama likely even used a band-aid.

  • Or, is Obama making things complicated for the Democratic Party. It’s pretty obvious that most of the comments here so far do not appreciate all the efforts the Clintons have delivered to our culture.
    NAFTA
    DOMA
    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    Repeal of Glass-Steagall
    Flag Burning bill
    AUMF vote
    Kyl-Lieberman vote
    The Commander-in-Chief Threshold…

    Yes, my gratitude is unbounded.

  • “Hillary was in the forefront off Universal Heath Care long before Obama likely even used a band-aid.”

    If you check your history, Clinton’s plan never got as far as a band-aid, and in many respects did the patient harm. Amazing how a person who completely and utterly failed is hailed as a champion. By that measure, I suppose Bush and Rummy are experts on Iraq.

  • beep52,

    Love your comparison between Clinton’s “expertise” on health care and Bush and Rummy’s “expertise” on Iraq. For Clinton to take credit for advancing the cause of universal health care really is like Bush or Rumsfeld taking credit for their policy in Iraq. Clinton set health care reform back at least 20 years. That might be around how long it takes to undo the harm Bush and Rumsfeld did in Iraq.

  • Megalomania said, “I don’t think you appreciate things the way I want you to appreciate things.”

    I “appreciate” the “Manchurian policy-making” of “the Great Triangulator” about as much as I might “appreciate” the thought of being hit in the face with a bucket of pure hydrochloric acid—which would be placed about 30 miles to the left of zero on a number line….

  • the “complication” bill clinton would add were hillary to be the candidate for democratic vp has been an obvious and publicly discussed factor for quite a while. none of that is news.

    in re “I don’t know if he can make all of these voters happy, but Obama is taking them seriously” — i just wish obama were taking his commitment to the constitution, and his supporters who are concerned about the constitution’s destruction, as seriously.

    regardless, i’m fully supporting obama, fully recognizing that you go with the best that you’ve got, and despite his flaws, he’s pretty damned good.

  • BillyJeff Clinton says the next president needs to make climate change a major issue of his administration, or risk the ecological and financial consequences. He particularly lauded Sen. McCain, saying he “had the best position on climate change (among the GOP). I think that Sen. Obama and the Democrats have a better position, but I think McCain deserves credit for moving his party.”

    so Bubba does again what he does so well in taking his anger out on Obama: he gives with his left hand and takes away with his right…praises Obama and then praises McCain…it is NOT being diplomatic. it is NOT being presidential (he doesn’t know how to do that anyway). it is about undercutting Obama at every turn.
    if Obama picks Hillary as a running mate we will get 8 years of this shit.

  • As I said for me and many of you may disagree, here again listing pitful reasons to condemn the Clintons only shows proof of a duality in poor logic and judgement when at the top of a list is NAFTA when Obama himself is in favor of NAFTA to make changes and say it is necessary. We are in a global society which he did say after he condemned NAFTA. At first Obama was not for it but he fliped just as he fliped on FISA.

    Now who knows what he believes in, the Gay community are certain for a suprise. Hell Obama had to be egged on to wear a flag pin or hold his hand over his heart while making the pledge of allegiance shows a simple important ideal in his heart does he want to ? Seems incredible to me for man that taught the Constitution at the University of Chicago does not know how to hold his hand over his heart to pledge, or is that an islamic trait ? Of course Islam a would not support that gay stuff either.

    Being the forefront in Health Care is a factor all the while the team of a Republican controlled Congress condemning any changes then but now embracing the total ideal obviously shows the now known huge Democratic following that was and is complicit to the Neo-con effort. Some person had the courage to initialize this Health Care Debate and it sure was not Obama. Like Obama is no JFK.

    Actually Obama was always behind the Clinton leadership curve, that accounts for the little difference between them in the run of the primary.

    Why am I pounding on Obama ? That FISA bill vote floors me that Obama voted for it. Its only my opinion O.K. just like you have yours, but for me anyone who dismisses the basic “Oath and “Affirmation” built in to the Constitution has lost his mind. It astounds me that Obama spent eight year teaching the constitution at a great inistitution yet dismisses this fundamental civil right. For me there is no comprimise here this a civil right Obama gave away. And its not good judgement.

    It is only my opinion.

  • As I said for me and many of you may disagree, here again listing pitful reasons to condemn the Clintons only shows proof of a duality in poor logic and judgement when at the top of a list is NAFTA…
    I can put them in alphabetical order if that would make you feel better. I did forget to include old Bill attempting to invoke Executive privilege during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. That was sure a proud moment for Democrats.
    Clinton being in the forefront of health care is an insupportable claim. Her leadership of the Health Care Task Force was so secretive and high-handed that she alienated many Democrats. When the over 1000 page plan was presented, the Clinton’s found that they could not muster enough Democratic Senators to pass the bill – in a Senate with 53 Democrats.
    The forty seven million uninsured Americans of today can in part thank Hillary and Bill for turning Universal Health Care into such a poisonous issue that it took fifteen years to come back.

  • What makes more sense to me than pounding on Obama for his imperfections would be to pound on the media for their obvious conservative bias that makes it impossible for true liberals to compete, and our current, Congressional Dems who cower to the Repubs more often than not. In other words, work to change the environment that has and continues to make liberalism a dirty word and anything progressive akin to socialism or siding with the terrorists.

    Yes, Obama’s FISA vote was deplorable. Yes, some other positions could and should be more progressive. Think of getting him elected as one step in a long process to restore the standing of liberalism. Recognize that he’s (gulp!) a politician running in a hostile environment. And for everyone’s sake, get past the Clintons. The primary is over.

    That’s my opinion.

  • Why can’t we just leave the Clinton’s alone?

    Personally, I think both of them would be great assets in President Obama’s administration.

    Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the UN, and
    Hillary Clinton as majority leader of the Senate.

    John Edwards as Attorney General.

    As soon as the liberal Supreme Court Justices announce their retirements, Obama can have Hillary as well as John on the short list.

    Both of them would be very well qualified, regardless of that the Clinton detractors are saying.

  • I think Fast Eddie at #10 has it about right. Obama’s being diplomatic, and Bill Clinton handed him everything he needed to do so plausibly with Bill’s outrageous conduct during the primaries.

    Someday historians are going to have a field day discussing how Bill Clinton got his wife to the brink of the presidency and was one of the key factors in putting it out of her reach. That man’s psychology, with its addiction to risk, its self-destructive streak and its ambivalence about his wife’s power, is absolutely fascinating.

  • Maria @ 27 … That man’s psychology, with its addiction to risk, its self-destructive streak and its ambivalence about his wife’s power, is absolutely fascinating.

    I thought you were talking about George Bush… Pretty much describes him, except the wife’s power you’re eluding to would be George’s mommy “Barbara.”

    🙂

  • As soon as the liberal Supreme Court Justices announce their retirements, Obama can have Hillary as well as John on the short list.

    Both of them would be very well qualified, regardless of that the Clinton detractors are saying.

    Let’s get serious. Clinton hasn’t practiced law in 20 years. Neither Clinton nor Edwards has ever even been on the bench. The last SC justice with that little judiciary experience was Clarence Thomas, who’d barely had a year on the federal bench and no time at the appellate or other levels. Yes, I know these aren’t requirements for being on the Supreme Court–there are virtually none for that–but we have a strongly established modern tradition of nominees having at least written one opinion. Remember Harriet Miers? She was ridiculed as a nominee because hers was a fourth-rate mind, yes, but also because she simply didn’t have anything approaching the appropriate experience.

    The Supreme Court is not a dumping ground for politicians to whom we want to give consolation prizes.

  • I thought you were talking about George Bush… Pretty much describes him

    No, Bush is much more oblivious of risk than he is addicted to it, and similarly unaware that his actions are likely to be self-destructive. He and Bill Clinton share an arrogance and a strong alpha male thing, but Clinton is much more aware of the likely disastrous consequences of his actions and still gets a huge thrill out of high-risk behavior. It’s very interesting.

  • Hillary was in the forefront off Universal Heath Care long before Obama likely even used a band-aid.

    Assuming Obama used his first band-aid during the Kennedy administration, you’re saying Hillary’s been working for universal health care for roughly 45 years.

    Jeez, you’d think she’d have accomplished something on that front by now.

  • I agree that Bill Clinton’s attitude may be an obstruction for now, but Hillary seems to be going out of her way to sound nice to Obama, which may improve chances. This what I wrote on my blog:

    Hillary Making Nice with Barack
    Hillary Clinton’s speech before ‘Women for Obama’ platform in Manhattan this morning was a far cry from her campaign speeches. Gone is the aggressive, condescending and sharp mention of Obama. Her tone, tenor and body language today was very pleasant and personable and for the first time her praise for Obama seemed genuine and sincere.

    The Woman for Obama group is presumably the former ‘Women for Hillary’ group so she was addressing her former constituency but really put a serious effort to support Obama. While some of the funds raised at such gatherings are going towards retiring her campaign debts, but her speech appeared above such considerations.

    Is Hillary finally making a serious effort to be considered a running mate? Her speech certainly had the hallmark of a wannabe running mate than a wannabe President. With Jim Webb out of the Veep stakes, the field is narrowing and she may have just improved her chances. The success of such a ticket however is still in question. Will the Southern Whites vote for a ticket that has an African American and a Woman on it or will they scoot towards McCain?

  • The Obamamites through Clark under the bus.

    Webb rejected their overtures, and Warner seems inclined to join Webb in the Senate (leaving Kaine if you want Virgina).

    Dodd would be a horrible joke.

    Vetting is going on (we suppose) but how far as it gone?

    Clinton, one might suggest, has the vetting of 18,000,000 Americans. Or some large fraction thereof.

    So the problem is Bill? Maybe. I say give him Hillary’s senate seat and see how things progress from there. The new Governor of New York would probably be thrilled to have both Clintons safely engaged in Washington, rather than eyeing a mansion in Albany.

    After his flip/slip/trip on FISA, the notion that Obama couldn’t join a ticket with those triangulators Bill and Hillary is nothing more than a sick joke. It seems that Obama’s new politics already has a name…

    … it’s Clintonism.

  • Sometimes, the problems telling the difference between bona fide Clinton supporters taking their wrath out on Obama, and bona fide McCain supporters (or at least bona fide NON-Clinton supporters) PRETENDING to be Clinton supporters and furious at Obama, is a little like figuring out who was or wasn’t possessed by “The Thing” in the John Carpenter remake. Too bad we can’t do a blood test on all of them.

    In any event, here’s the deal. Despite the few digs Obama made at Clinton’s expense (and despite the plenty of times Clinton and her surrogates put their feet in their mouths trying to belittle Obama), Obama was pretty respectful of Clinton, and the Clinton legacy, throughout the primary. His overall “dig” was “the Clintons did great things for the 20th century, but new politics dictate new thinking, different thinking, and it’s time for change.” Hardly calling Clinton a c*nt.

    I’ve always agreed that there were plenty of elements in the “liberal media” (HA!) who treated Clinton poorly. Even when she was considered the frontrunner, she was never treated with respect. But the Clinton supporters, real and faux, seemed to behave as if Obama deserved their wrath for the media’s behavior. Kinda like finding out your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend has a hard-core crush on a neighbor, so you beat the crap out of the neighbor and barely issue a warning to your jerkhole partner. It’s not like the media’s learning any lesson by people getting angry at Obama for their treatment of Clinton. If anything, it proves that they have power over you and your opinions, that they can color your perception of reality and you won’t even know it. Like the friend who tells you your partner has a crush on a neighbor, not out of any friendship or caring, but because the friend wants to see blood, and sits back and watches the melee with silent and sadistic glee.

    And some of you feel quite comfortable being played that way. Though Of course, I’d never single anyone out by name. In part because I feel quite comfortable in saying, anyone still on here bitching about how mean Obama was to Clinton (HA!) has been a McCain supporter all along.

  • The more interesting thing to me is how Obama is having to bend over backwards to appease Clinton supporters. It’s getting to be ridiculous. Having a conversation with this person and her telling him who he needs to pick as his running mate would be unthinkable had Sen. Clinton won. Could you imagine the hoots and howls from her supporters had she won, and the big, pushy boys were bullying her into picking a particular VP. Claims of sexism and Obama somehow being the product of the good old boys’ network would be all over the place (because we all know black guys with African fathers and hippie Moms from Kansas are usually key members in the good old boy network).

    Obama wasn’t nearly as harsh as Sen. Clinton was during the primary and I can’t quite understand what her supporters’ beef with him is. If Clinton was their candidate, it can’t be because they demand a principled, consistent, authentic advocate of progressive politics.

  • If Clinton was their candidate, it can’t be because they demand a principled, consistent, authentic advocate of progressive politics.
    If Dianne Feinstein had run they’d be saying the same things.

  • Obama wasn’t nearly as harsh as Sen. Clinton was during the primary and I can’t quite understand what her supporters’ beef with him is. If Clinton was their candidate, it can’t be because they demand a principled, consistent, authentic advocate of progressive politics.

    Referring to the minority of Clinton supporters who are still shrieking that they’re owed homage: Clinton was their candidate because she is a woman. Period.

    A few years ago somebody did a story about voters claiming to be undecided two weeks before the 2004 general election. How could anybody still be undecided? No one could understand that–the differences between Kerry and Bush couldn’t have been clearer. Several psychologists weighed in with the identical opinion that the “undecideds” were emotionally fragile people addicted to the attention being paid to them by the media and both campaigns. Once they admitted having made up their minds, all that attention would stop, so they continued having public “crises of conscience” about whom to vote for.

    There’s obviously a healthy dose of that going on here. We have a couple of regular and a few drive-by trolls here who can’t let go of the supposed victimization of Clinton because they revel in the attention paid to constant Clinton carpers. Many of them are politically very naive and truly believe that inartful whining and attempted emotional blackmail are effective means of political negotiation. Many think this situation is so special that the regular rules don’t apply; they’re unable to recognize that in every primary season everyone but one person loses and that we’ve all had to swallow our disappointment and get behind the candidate (every single election of my life for me). It doesn’t help that every blog has some well-meaning folks who can’t distinguish between genuinely conflicted Clinton voters and the handful of people who believe they should be begged to vote for Obama despite themselves having been the out-of-line aggressors during the primaries. The well-intentioned people often encourage us all to spend our time encouraging everyone who voted for Clinton to come over to Obama, not recognizing that there’s no percentage in humoring would-be bullies and tantrum-prone children who quite evidently won’t be voting for Obama in any case.

    Beyond the need for attention, there’s also a curious phenomenon at work having to do with people’s propensity for digging in their heels rather than maturely stepping off a discredited position. Having convinced themselves that Clinton’s loss is the result of pure sexism and the good old boys’ network, they now have to go into mental contortions to pretend that Obama grew up as a privileged member of that network. As you say, that isn’t a belief anyone rational would hold, and the lengths to which some of them go to try to prove that Obama is a typical plutocratic oppressor of women are quite hilarious.

  • First of all Obama hasnt got a snow balls chance in hell and why would Hillary want to be on the losing ticket? She wont be.. guaranteed.. Secondly, Obama should pick a loser like himself, say, Richardson? or dumbo moron, Edwards? Yes thats the ticket.. like the flood gates open wide so Obama can swiftly be sent where he belongs HELL. Lastly, I dont think Bill had to make it anymore clearer then he did when he said Obama can kiss his ass.. **

    Devoted Hillary Supporter voted for the next president, Mccain!

  • This is almost related to the topic: I made my first (and probably only) donation to Hillary on the day of the FISA vote (since she voted against it).

  • oh yes I found this article interesting and laughable.. thought I would share it :

    The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that many of these members may no longer support Obama, with some even threatening to ask for their campaign contributions back:

    The online group is flooded with messages of disappointment and disillusionment. Some threaten to ask that their campaign contributions be returned, while others suggest they will simply stay home this fall.

    One man even said he had removed his Obama bumper sticker from his car. “It’s the first and only bumper sticker that I’ve ever put on a vehicle that I owned, so my disappointment felt personal and significant,” he wrote.

    “This just seems like a tremendous betrayal,” said Tom Vincent, a Web designer from upstate New York. “It’s a deal-breaker for me.”

    Obama is a big L n L loser- liar LOL we love it…

  • Devoted Hillary Supporter voted for the next president, Mccain!
    Because cutting off your nose to spite your face is always the choice of mature, sensible adults.

  • Aw, look—the feral cats have come to play in the sandbox. Could Tony Snow’s funeral procession be over so soon—or do his corpse-like features remind them a bit too much of what their triangulative hypocrisy will look like, once “Dear Leader Dubya” and his enablers are brought before the Hague?

    Let’s see now—Tammy Sue is a troll, calling Lance a troll would be a fighting-words insult to trolls all over the world (so I’ll just say that he’s a Nixonian troglodyte and be damnedably done with it, since he’s obviously too illiterate to have ever read the FISA legislation to begin with—and most trolls can read, even if it’s just My Pet Goat), and “patty” is a blithering twit who can’t even manage to cut-n-paste a link—or her source—or even a title——but she can cut-n-paste the whole story.

    This is why you should always buy a sandbox with a lid—to keep the feral cats from using it as a toilet.

    Better feral cats trolls, please….

  • Maria @ 39, very well said. I’d also add (as I have in the past) that the shriekers have one valid point in that the media has always been less-than-fair in their coverage of Clinton. Even when they were admitting that she was the frontrunner, and her ascension to the nomination was a foregone conclusion, there was a lot of very petty sniping amongst the so-called neutral (or more laughably, “liberal”) media. Hillary didn’t do herself any favors – there was a lot of open-mouth-insert-foot throughout her campaign, but the Sunday morning talk shows always behaved like they were auditioning for Fox when it came to the Clinton campaign.
    My issue was how those Clinton supporters thereby assumed Obama had an easy ride in the media (possibly easier, I’m willing to argue that point, but not easy, never easy), and that Obama not only contributed to that media narrative, but was a ringleader and therefore doesn’t deserve the support of Hillary fans. Obama hammered her on the facts, and rightly so, it’s what you’re supposed to do during a campaign (whereas Clinton’s people would belittle his victories in those states that don’t matter, and insinuate it’s because he’s black and because she’s a woman – double victimization for the price of one!). My analogy has been that it’s like finding out, from one of you gossipy friends, that your spouse has a serious, relationship-threatening crush on one of your neighbors, so you blame the neighbor and not the wandering eye and lustful heart of your spouse. You plot ways to destroy your neighbor, and make it xlear hwo much you hate that neighbor to anyone who’ll listen. And you never notice the sadistic smile your “friend” is wearing throughout your tirade, smug satisfaction in this creation of a tempest in a teapot.

    If someone is angry that Clinton lost, well that’s fine and dandy. A more productive use of their time would be to try to get Obama to adopt some of the Clinton platform they purport to hold so dear (unless, of course, they don’t know dick about her platform and are just pro-Hillary because she’s a woman…nah…THAT can’t be it, for any of ’em). But to punish the Democratic Party’s chances of winning back the White House out of spite is too stupid to words, and we can be sure, the McCain campaign is loving every minute of it, toasting these Hillary supporters’ stupidity as a boon for their campaign. The GOP thrives on ignorance and stupidity and if that ignorance and stupidity is borne of anger and petty vindictiveness…well f*** it, it’s still ignorance and stupidity, and they’ll take it, gladly.

  • Jesse Jackson is whispering about the wrong nuts. He should bite Bill Clinton’s clean off.

  • We’re in agreement, slappy. I think the widespread transference of blame from media to Obama you mention is largely part of what I described as being unable to back away from what knows is an erroneous position. To demonize Obama sufficiently to justify helping to elect the Republican, these folks have to take those absurd mental handsprings I mentioned. One of them is blaming Obama for the media’s sins.

  • Or, is Obama making things complicated for the Democratic Party. It’s pretty obvious that most of the comments here so far do not appreciate all the efforts the Clintons have delivered to our culture.
    NAFTA
    DOMA
    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    Repeal of Glass-Steagall
    Flag Burning bill
    AUMF vote
    Kyl-Lieberman vote
    The Commander-in-Chief Threshold…

    Yes, my gratitude is unbounded.

    I’m certain many Rwandans would be equally non-plussed.

  • Re # 45

    Poor Steve, seems pointing out that his “new politics” is nothing new is just too much for a Obama supporter to take.

    Remember, Hillary voted the RIGHT way on FISA.

    • Comments are closed.