Clinton to suspend campaign, will endorse Obama on Saturday

In her speech on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton told supporters she would take some time to consult with her advisors and party leaders in order to determine “how to move forward.” Apparently, Clinton wanted to take a moment to take the party’s temperature — hear from her allies on the Hill, gauge the level of interest in a prolonged fight, and get a sense of what kind of support Clinton could expect if she delayed a withdrawal from the race.

What Clinton heard seems to have convinced her to end the campaign, endorse Barack Obama, and bring a close to the longest, closest presidential primary fight in American history.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.

Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, and other aides said she would express support for Mr. Obama and party unity at an event in Washington that day. One adviser said Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Mr. Obama and proclaim him the party’s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory in November.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

“We pledged to support her to the end,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

The event was originally scheduled for Friday, but was pushed back a day to accommodate more supporters who wanted to attend. The announcement came shortly after Clinton’s staff was told that Friday was their last day. (The campaign also sent an email to supporters late yesterday afternoon, which TPM posted in full.)

In terms of the practical details, Clinton will apparently suspend her campaign, not drop out entirely. She’ll hold onto her delegates, and will continue to keep an operation in place for fundraising, in order to help pay off a rather massive debt.

As for the already-overwhelming talk about Clinton’s chances of making Obama’s ticket, the WaPo report suggested it’s unlikely, not because of any lingering animosity between the candidates themselves, but because of the inherent problem with the former president sticking around.

[I]nside Obama’s campaign, there is a distinct coolness to the idea of adding Clinton to ticket, in part because of the complication of determining the role for former president Bill Clinton. […]

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), an Obama adviser, offered several names to the list of potential vice presidential choices, including those of former Florida governor and senator Bob Graham; Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a top Clinton supporter; and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama supporter who could assuage the disappointment of women who wanted the chance to vote for the first female president.

“Senator Clinton is a candidate for the vice presidency, and she should be a candidate for vice presidency,” Davis said. But he added that Obama is under no more obligation to choose her than Al Gore was to pick runner-up Bill Bradley in 2000, Bill Clinton was to pick Paul Tsongas in 1992 or Michael S. Dukakis was to pick Jesse L. Jackson in 1988.

“There is no particular tradition in the modern era of the victor picking the second place finisher,” Davis said.

Several other prominent Democrats on both sides of the divide panned the idea of adding Clinton to the ticket. Former president Jimmy Carter, an Obama supporter, told the Guardian, a British newspaper, that naming Clinton “would be the worst mistake that could be made” and “would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates.” Even Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Clinton’s top supporters, knocked down the concept. “There’s no bargaining,” Rendell told NY1 television. “You don’t bargain with the presidential nominee. Even if you’re Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don’t bargain.”

Both Rendell and Johnson noted that a joint ticket would require the Obama campaign to put strict boundaries on the role the former president would play in the fall campaign.

There’s some talk that an expedited process would help the Obama campaign tamp down an organized effort to push Clinton onto the ticket, but it’s more likely Obama will do the opposite, going with a lengthy, methodical process, which will allow passions to cool down and give time for a thorough search.

As for Saturday, it appears we’ll hear the gracious, classy, unifying words this weekend that many expected to hear on Tuesday night. The light at the end of the tunnel, thankfully, does not appear to be a train.

Hillary’s concession speech should include something like this:

I want to thank all my advisors, etc. who did a great job, helping me to get more popular votes than ever before in a primary. We ran a great campaign blah, blah, blah. But we also made a huge mistake in underestimating Obama. Not only his ability to connect to people, or to raise money and draw crowds, though he was masterful at these. We underestimated his ability to create an effective and disciplined organization. We underestimated his ability to attract and coordinate some of the most talented people in America. And most of all, we underestimated his ability to react to the unexpected. These are the qualities needed in a POTUS.

If she does this, she largely undermines Rep attempts to use the nonsense she said earlier about inexperience, and words are cheap.

  • Agree with Danp

    She’s been tearing down Obama for months when the “Math” was apparent and decisively in Obama’s favor.

    And for all the put downs, she and her shills breezily assured us that the Pary would have full and complete unity in the general election.

    It is now put up or shut time for Hillary and her people. Time to live up to their commitments.

  • Let me get ahead of all the people who will be saying that she should concede rather than suspend by saying: She wants to clear as much of her huge debt as possible. Because of campaign financing laws governing self-loans to campaigns (thanks again, aristedes, for the info), the second she completely quits the race is the second she only gets to pay herself back $250K rather than as much of the $11.4 mil she can raise. So I understand why she’s doing this–but I hope like hell we see all those other people she’s stiffed paid off first.

    I don’t believe that, after yesterday’s conference call from almost half the Democratic senators telling her she needs to go, plus all the other statements and coverage showing the party is uniting behind Obama, she still believes that she can turn around delegates for the convention. And if she’s still clinging to that hope, she’s going to find out that the party and the country have decisively moved on in the interim. So I don’t see the suspension as a problem.

    Having said all that, I do find it puzzling that this candidate requires days to put in order the affairs that she’d have resolved long ago if she were facing reality. She goes out as she came in: the “special” candidate who doesn’t want to observe the rules, customs and niceties that other candidates do.

  • One of the reasons she probably moved her concession from Fri to Sat, is that Fri is the anniversary of Bobby Kennedy’s death.

  • CommandeGuy – The difference between Obama and Clinton ended up at 61,000 votes out of 36 million. Do the math, Jack. That’s 0.17%. hardly “apparent and decisively in Obama’s favor.”

    But, none the less, Obama is the nominee. And so, strategically, we must look at who will be the Running Mate.

    RE: JOINT TICKET vis a vis the EVERYONE HATES HILLARY argument.

    According to realclearpoltics.com, a site to which many of you have pointed me, Obama and Clinton have polled virtually the same vs. McCain.

    As of this morning, the site posted a poll in the last week as

    Obama v. McCain = Obama +2.2
    Clinton v. McCain = Clinton +3

    The latest poll puts Obama +6 (New nominees usually get a bump.)

    It has been posited on these threads that Clinton will hurt Obama in a joint ticket. And I have read a heap of anecdotal evidence to support that. But I think you’re blowing out of it’s proper proportion. Enough with the vitriol, let’s crunch numbers.

    Imagine – 36 million Democrats instantly galvanized.
    Imagine – Obama’s inspiration and Clinton’s spirit.
    Imagine – All that energy pointed directly at McCain.

    Now that’s something I could believe in!

  • Maria. Are you suggesting that Hillary is/was not ready on day one?

    What about the unexpected 3am phone call? Surely she wouldn’t need a week or two to get her affairs in order to answer the red phone.

  • I’d like to quote this from Mark Kleiman’s blog:

    It should, but probably doesn’t, go without saying that from now through November 5 Obama supporters should say as many nice things as they can about HRC and her supporters, and no not-nice things whatever. The healing has to start with us, and it has to start right now.

    Makes sense to me.

  • Maria: I do find it puzzling that this candidate requires days to put in order the affairs that she’d have resolved long ago if she were facing reality.

    Well that’s just it.. isn’t it?
    Her speech on Tuesday was all about re-fueling her cult of personality.
    Arguably those that buy into such a cult are a bit off their rockers…
    But what about the one at the top that basks in the glory of obeisance?
    Mens sana in corpore sano?
    I think not… “deranged narcissist” captures it just right.

    And to think that once upon a time ClintonCo & Trolls Inc. were trying to push the meme that Obama was a cult…

  • She was running to be the President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world, yet she acts like and demands to be treated like a pouty ten year old. Has she ever exhibited a quality one would call “presidential”? “What does Hillary want? “What does she want?” it real is, and always has been, all about her. My guess is her show on Saturday will be slick, somewhat patronizing and not that gracious under the surface. She will “support” Obama, but poke him in the eye at the same time. She could have exited gracefully (John Edwards did, Mitt Romney did, all the others did), but she had to be thrown off the train.

    “What does Hillary want? What does she want?” Do her rabid fans feel used after hearing that? I would. It was never about them or us or the country…it was always about “What does Hillary want?”

    She needs to step aside with some dignity. My guess is that she’ll use Saturday as the launching pad for the next phase of the “What Does Hillary Want? Tour”. What ever it is she wants, rest assured the Clintons will be on a relentless media blitz to make sure we all know 24 hours a day.

  • A few things:

    She can’t be the VP nominee unless Bill is willing to be vetted. Just because the vanity fair article was not publicly sourced does not mean there were not sources. What happens if she’s the VP and those sources go public?

    With this endorsement will she and Bill be casting their super delegate votes for Obama?

    Will she get Terry et al out on the road to undo some of the damage they’ve done to the nominee?

  • What does it mean by ‘“how to move forward.”? I guess only way to move forward is to return to NY and Senate.

  • Imagine – 36 million Democrats instantly galvanized.
    Imagine – Obama’s inspiration and Clinton’s spirit.
    Imagine – All that energy pointed directly at McCain.

    Imagine all Billary’s baggage….

    Pass.

  • Lest anyone wonder if the media reports will be retracted, denied, or that the back-and-forth will otherwise continue, last night I received the official e-mail from the campaign, under Hillary’s signature. It is quite solid:

    On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. . . .

    I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise. . .

    I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

    Of course, if Hillary goes away, Mark Penn won’t be relevant any more. And if Mark Penn fades from view, I suppose his un-evil alter-ego is no longrer needed. I wo der w at ha pens to h s un-ev l alt r-eg ?

    Hey! Wh t’ ha pen ng?
    I’m f d ng!
    oh noooooo
    ooooo

    ooo
    ooo
    oo
    o
    .
    bye

  • Uh, Everett? Hate to burst your bubble, but your “number crunching” is no less of a big ol’ guess than anyone else’s big ol’ guess. I like my big ol’ guess better. It’s anticipated that 140,000,000 will vote in November. About 18 mill will be people who voted for Hillary in the primary, and a percentage of them MIGHT be bitter enough to vote against Obama in the fall. Another 18 will be those who voted for Obama in the primary, and who will vote for hm in November. The remaining 104 million? Dems who didn’t vote in the primary, Republicans & indies. Would THEY be more turned on by an Obama/Clinton ticket? Or less? And if Clinton’s not on the ticket, will that attract enough voters to supplement the WATBs who arent pro-dem but strictly pro-Hillary?

    I suspect those questions will be part of the vetting process – not only whose style & agenda complements Obama’s but who are the candidates that generate excitement amongst voters, who are the candidates with negatives that will have to be addressed, where efforts will to be made to minimize them? And of course, who has skeletons that can eff up the campaign in their – or their husband’s – closet? (Insert cigar /joke/ here)

    Put all that on a sliding scale, factor in whatever Obama feels in his gut, and that’s how we’ll find out Clinton didn’t stand a chance in hell of ever getting the VP slot.

  • Everett,

    I don’t really agree with Clinton as VP from a strategic point of view, but I will admit that there are some strong points in its favor. However, where I keep getting hung up on this is why Clinton would want to be VP. I have been asking this all along and a lot of other people have recently started asking this question in a more pointed way. I think Steve and Josh Marshall have also posted this as a question: What does Hillary Clinton have to gain from a Vice Presidency?

    Cheney’s outsized influence notwithstanding, its really a powerless political figurehead position that requires a kind of political subservience that really would not seem to suit Clinton well. It would be, in other words, a demotion for her. Right now, for all the talk of it being Obama’s party now, realistically she still retains a great deal of influence over this party and its agenda. As VP and as basically a second banana to Obama, that really all goes away. And for what really? So she maybe gets to run again in 8 years when she will be nearly 70 years old. Even if that is her goal she would be better served and maintain a higher political profile by continuing as a Senator or going for Governer of New York. Honestly, I just don’t see how VP makes sense for her.

  • What does Hillary want? The Presidency, that’s what. What can’t she have? The presidency, that’s what. Just the fact that she “wants” to “keep” her delegates illuminates why she was willing to dodge sniper fire to stay to long at the fair. Her egocentric self and unwillingness to get on board with the process of trying to take back this republic from the scuzzy hands of the neocons and their latest surrogate McBush is not surprising. Keep her delegates? They aren’t hers anymore, she’s finished. “Give” them back to the party for unity. Pathetic…

  • Clinton will apparently suspend her campaign, not drop out entirely. She’ll hold onto her delegates, and will continue to keep an operation in place for fundraising, in order to help pay off a rather massive debt.

    And those of us who wholeheartedly support the Democratic party will be watching her very carefully, with our checkbooks ready IF she can do the right thing and truly support our candidate by dropping the patently ridiculous things she’s been pushing.

    I suspect she will follow the “Tom Petty” approach and “won’t back down”. But if I am wrong I will be happy to help pay off her campaign debt.

  • it appears we’ll hear the gracious, classy, unifying words this weekend that many expected to hear on Tuesday night

    Put me in the group of “believe it when I see it” along with Rachel Maddow and many others. If she does I will certainly give her her due for swallowing her pride–it’s a moment we pretty much all have to go through at some point in our lives. I just haven’t seen a drop of it yet.

    Man, just think if Hillary worked half as hard at her day job (Senator) as she did for her career promotion drive; a tough-talking legislator who opposed the President’s warmongering and harried the Republicans at every turn regardless of the cost to her image and personal finances. Damn now that would be a candidate!!

  • Wapo: Several other prominent Democrats on both sides of the divide panned the idea of adding Clinton to the ticket.

    A transparently dumb idea that is DOA.
    Only her most devout trolls are pushing it now.

    A can think of several killer reasons for why it is dopey. But here is the clincher:

    Can you imagine Republicans running their Hillary-inspired attack ads where she exalts McCain’s experience but not Senator Obama’s? Can you imagine it while she is on the ticket as veep? I can’t. A more insulting, emasculating situation like that, is hard to conjure.

    Nope. If Clinton wanted the veep position she shouldn’t have poisoned the well. Sometimes in life, even the anointed ones, have to face the consequences of their egregious behavior. Trolls, acolytes, court fawners, fools in motley… be damned: Your Grand Dame isn’t going to veep.

  • Actually, I’m still seeing that “light at the end of the tunnel” as a train—but it’s an outbound train. It’s got “Dems ’08” written all over it, and it’s going to come of that tunnel like a missile, aimed right at John McCain.

    Those fight-to-the-death Hillistines who swear they’re going to vote for McCain in November? All they’de doing is copycatting the old nuclear-waste protest ploy of “lying down on the tracks.” Well—guess what? They’re going to get chopped to bits by that train and left by the side of the roadbed in tiny little pieces.

    The United States of America will be better for it. After all—we’re just going to be “watering the Tree of Liberty” a wee bit….

  • She can’t be the VP nominee unless Bill is willing to be vetted. Just because the vanity fair article was not publicly sourced does not mean there were not sources. What happens if she’s the VP and those sources go public?

    This is really a significant point: It’s not just Bill’s erratic temperament and uncontrollability, but his secrets that are a concern. Leaving aside the hay the GOP would make with Bill’s Bing and Burkle associations–and even without damning details, Clinton hanging out with these flamboyant playboys is going to easily be portrayed as unpresidential and untempered–the real issue is who has been donating to Clinton’s library and in what amounts. Details about other Clinton sources of income that are going to be sought, too. He is simply not going to give up that information, and she can’t run for VP unless he does.

    The argument that the Clintons have been fully vetted completely leaves out what Bill has been up to since he left office.

  • For those asking why Hillary wants to be VP the answer is simple.

    She doesn’t.

    She wants to be the VP nominee and then she wants Obama to lose the general election. She wants to run as the “I told you so candidate” in 2012.

  • ROTFL – and can you imagine even democrats wondering where it was they saw a manipulative and powerful VP who was unaccountable to anyone?

  • Slappy Magoo: Re guessing… show me how I miscalculated. Don’t worry about bursting my bubble. I’ll consider numbers any day of the week.

    Also, projecting into summer/fall – I agree, the question is how does Obama maximize Indy/Centrist votes? This blog is rabidly anti-clinton, and perhaps for good reason. However, I do ask you to consider that the same polls that put Obama over McCain have consistently ranked Clinton over McCain as well.

    Let’s quit the vitriol, and start crunching numbers.

    Brent: I can’t speak for Clinton, so I can’t say why she would want to be VP. Perhaps it’s all ego and a maniacal quest for power. Maybe VP is better than nothing. Maybe she wants to live in the Gray House. We can only speculate. None the less she is on the short list. As always, though, I appreciate your input. You’re one of the more elquent on this board.

    Also – Eric in Maine: I graduated UM Orono 1991. Go Black Bears!

  • I thought this news, that Senator Clinton is suspending her campaign, would slow the Hillary-Haters’ venom. Sadly, it appears not.

    She doesn’t hate the Democratic Party. She’s not trying to ‘derail’ anything. She has point blank told her supporters to NOT vote for McCain in November. Will there be some who do? Yes. Just as there would have been some Obama supporter who would vote for McCain if Clinton won.

    She will not get the nomination. It’s over. You can stop crying.

  • Everett, if you want to talk numbers Hillary doesn’t project that well as an add-on to Obama. For example from last year:

    Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said the survey showed “there’s really been a solidification of voter opinions on Hillary” and what he called “a negative drag” unique in the presidential race – the solid third who don’t like her, won’t support her and see her negatively.

    “Judging from the length of time we’ve seen the same proportions, I don’t think there’s a high probability they will change their minds,” he said… She almost has to write off at least a third of the voters who are unlikely to vote for her,” DiCamillo said. “No other candidates have this kind of solidification of negative votes.”

    I have seen the number of people who will never vote Hillary as anywhere from one-third to 40% of the general electorate. So if you are projecting numbers, take 18 million you feel would definitely vote for her and weigh that against 40-60 million folks who are guaranteed to vote against her. Isn’t that a bigger factor?

  • What does Hillary Clinton have to gain from a Vice Presidency? Cheney’s outsized influence notwithstanding, its really a powerless political figurehead position that requires a kind of political subservience that really would not seem to suit Clinton well. It would be, in other words, a demotion for her.

    Sure, it’s a demotion. The only thing to be gained from her giving up a Senate seat for the vice presidency–the only thing–is positioning herself to run for president in eight years. If, as many believe, Clinton viewed her time in the Senate largely as dues-paying and jockeying for a run at the White House, there isn’t any reason for her to continue as a senator when the vice presidency puts her closer to her goal. Yes, you’re right that she could run again from the Senate, but she’d almost certainly be running against Obama’s VP. Tough proposition.

  • I think Mark Pencil should keep his moniker as a souvenir of this fascinating primary season. In 20 years, it’ll be worth money!

  • For ROTFLMLiberalAO: So am I a “devout troll?” Also RE: “Can you imagine Republicans running their Hillary-inspired attack ads…”

    Those ads are coming no matter what. Who has been the target of more Limbaughesque Conseri-blabber than Senator Clinton? And none the less, she has consistently polled as well if not better than Obama against McCain.

    And in regards to the whole “baggage” thing to C @12 – there aint nothing to be said about Hillary that aint already been said 10 times over. Obama is still fresh meat for the AM talk show circuit. So – consider this…

    Strategically/tactically thinking – Often times in campiagns we set up a foil, or chiaroscuro dynamic. Obama has the inspirational thing going, and Clinton has the scrapper thing going. Together, they could work tag team. Obama could take the high road and Clinton could beat back the inevitable slanderous deluge that’s coming.

  • Obama is now the head of the party and the nominee. It is his task and responsibility to unite the party, including bringing along the followers of his opponents for the nomination. This has always been the case — it’s part of the job he won.

    He has been generous to Hillary in his speeches, which is good.

    Hillary’s base is less angry at Obama than they are at the media which they felt were animated by hostility to Clinton from the very beginning — especially the NBC brand. As this campaign settles into perspective, I think that we will see more clearly that elements of the media covered HIllary out of their classic “Democratic women aren’t really women and Democratic men are not really men” script. Obama needs to clearly indicate that he understands that this is what happened and that it was an affront to all women and will continue to be an obstacle to the progressive movement everywhere. Remember that Michelle Obama will be the next to play the role of Lady MacBeth in the media’s continuing narrative.

    Finally, Obama has to acknowledge that not only did he benefit from the media’s sexist assault on Hillary, but needs to understand whether his campaign helped stir it up.

    Read over the comments and blog entries in the progressive blogosphere and tell me that the criticisms of Hillary were not couched in and shaped by gender based expectations?

    What have we learned? That when we break the barriers of sex and race in politics, the temptation to opportunistically appeal to sexism and racism, “to ride the energy of prejudice”, is very strong. Lots of people bring that energy into the campaign.

    Unity in the party will come as both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns show themselves willing to hear what the other is saying.

    I think that this is what Hillary meant when she said that 18 million who voted for her must be respected and made visible. Part of respecting them is to not consider them as personless robots that move on Hillary’s command — but as our mothers, sisters, co-workers, friends, allies, and wives who saw themselves in Hillary Clinton.

  • Judging from the above, it’s Obama supporters who have residual anger issues.
    If you would like to read Clinton’s words to her supporters, MyDD has them and they are far
    more gracious than anything seen here.

  • Eric in Maine,

    Running as the losing VP candidate hasn’t worked out too well. Look at Muskie, Lieberman, Edwards. That’s not to say that Clinton isn’t hoping to do this.

    ROTFLMLiberalAO,

    “The rogue Vice is a modern nightmare. Not the sort of dreams I ever want to punch my ticket with again.”

    The Cheney situation only occurred because we had a president who wasn’t ready on Day One, or any other day. A rogue VP can only occur if the president allows it to occur. Hopefully we will never see this situation again.

  • Nick C- I’ve heard this too. But, let’s cite a source. To be methodical vs. subjective, we must ask:

    How many Independents would vote for Obama with Clinton vs. how many of those same voters would not.

    Anecdotically, many would claim a ginormous drag, but a survey of the polls shows that O & C are very close against McCain. I think the political Mercator Maps have turned the Hate Hillary thing into a Greenland of sorts.

    But, show me some hard numbers. I’m all ears.

  • I think Obama would be making a mistake in not announcing his choice right away. And, since I don’t expect him to make many mistakes, I suspect he might announce his choice soon, perhaps as early as tonight.

    Yes, it is ‘traditional’ to wait until the Convention to announce your choice. But before FDR it was traditional for the candidate not to attebd the Convention or to make a speech there, but to wait a couple of weeks for a ‘formal notification. FDR changed that by flying — in 1932 — to the convention, accepting there, and making a speech there to begin his campaign.

    My argument that Obama should similarly go against tradition has nothing to do with Hillary, and everything to do with McCain, and with Obama showing again that he is a ‘new type of politician.

    I am a strong Sebelius supporter — for details on why, along with an extension of these remarks about an early choice, see a g.p. at Mark’s that I hope he is putting up later today — but let’s be honest. There are a dozen good candidates out there, and only a couple that would be questiontable. (I would have a problem with Nunn or Hegel — though not Chaffee — would think a ‘black/Hispanic ticket’ would be a mistake, ruling out Richardson, regretfully, and think that Warner and Webb are needed where they are.) Any one of the rest, Sebelius, Wes Clark, Dodd, Schweitzer, Napolitano, or someone totally unexpected, would be fine — and I would trust Obama’s judgment whoever he picked.

    But, for me, the key would be that by announcing his selection at once, he’d force JMcC to do the same. And let’s face it, there is unlikely to be a ‘war’ over the Democratric choice — is there anyone who is passionatly against any serious contenders now that the nightmare ticket is ruled out.

    But JMcC hasn’t come near solidifying his base yet. If he is pressured into making a pick, almost any choice he makes will cost him some major group of supporters. And he has shown, repeatedly — and we and Obama should keep forcing him to show — a tendency to make really bad decisions when pressured.

    He thought he needed ‘pew creds’ so he chose Hagee and Parsley — and seriously wounded the influence of religious figures anywhere in any campaign. He oozes over Hillary, hoping to grab off her supporters, and, hopefully will get a suitable comeback on Saturday. He keeps on getting hit from both sides on the lobbyist question — and the public financing question, and the various gaffes he’s made about Iran. He even gets hit on Cindy’s tax returns and on his supposed superiority in military matters from the Washington TIMES, fergawdsake. (They broke the McPeak story.)

    Can anyone think of any possible running mate that wouldn’t hurt him, except maybe Pawlenty, whose upside is only miniscule. But what about the rest?

    Crist (gay)
    Jindal (South Asian, conservative RC, and his youth highlights McC’s age)
    Romney (Mormon, and made a lot of enemies campaigning)
    Gingrich (his negatives are almost on the level of HRC’s — with much less positive)
    Giuliani (the ‘two adulterers’ ticket — and while Obama wouldn’t mention it, it’d be used — by bloggers if nowhere else)
    Thompson (the dormouse is still asleep in the teapot)
    Huckabee (there go the independents — and a constant reminder of how many RRs prefer him to the candidate)
    anybody else?

    I keep imaging as well that he keeps picking people and his first three choices refuse. (Why WOULD Pawlenty want to be associated with a ticket this sure to use? And others would refuse because they just don’t like McCain — Jeb, anyone.)

    I can’t believe Obama doesn’t have someone in mind, that he hasn’t vetted the person very well. Why not name him/her right away? Then we can all begin to be talking about ‘the ticket’ right away, we can avoid any even minor battle between supporters.

    Hell, it’d even save the t-shirt and sign makers money because they wouldn’t be making up a slew of different ones for each ‘favorite.’

  • Tom in MA: I couldn’t agree with you more! Thank you.

    Also: “Remember that Michelle Obama will be the next to play the role of Lady MacBeth in the media’s continuing narrative.” And who has already starred in that role for 8+ years????

    Maybe Ms. Obama could learn a thing or two from Clinton on this point.

    And: “Unity in the party will come as both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns show themselves willing to hear what the other is saying.”

    That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

    Outstanding post.

  • Everett, my point is you’re not crunching numbers at all.

    You’re pointing out that 36 mill voted in the primary.

    You’re ASSUMING all 36 mill will be “instantly galvanized” with a joint ticket…just because you, apparently will be instantly galvanized. As Everett goes, so goes the nation? I’m not saying they’ll lose votes, but that doesn’t mean voters will be psyched about the ticket, either.

    You’re further assuming that energy will spread into a general election population, including many people who usually lean right & don’t like the Clintons.

    All I’m saying is you’re not crunching numbers, you’re offering an opinion, and you’re pulling it from the same part of your anatomy that I use on me to pull out MY opinion. But my point is, Kennedy & the team that will vet Obama’s potential VP candidates will do the actal “number crunching” (a term I’m really starting to think you don’t understand). If Clinton starts to look like a viable running mate based on her policy and agenda, they’ll also provide information that will help determine what her name on the ticket is worth, pros & cons.

    Personally, I think her presence on the ticket will be disheartening to Obama supporters. I also think, as Geraldine Ferraro herself claims is her opinion, Clinton as Veep won’t be good enough for her diehard supporters. Better to have another veep & give Hillaryphiles the chance, on their own, to realize how good a candidate Obama is. They’ll switch on their own, and the bitter ones who’d vote for McCain will be outnumbered by voters who like Obama to be Hillary-less.

  • Prup, I think Obama is cognizant that to name someone right away is to further enrage some Clinton supporters who would see it as brushing her off without serious reflection when she hasn’t even conceded yet. He’s not eager to fan those flames this week.

    He has announced that he won’t name his VP until July. We have no reason to believe he’s not telling the truth about that.

    By the way, I just read that Obama’s campaign learned of Clinton’s planned campaign suspension from the media. They didn’t even get the customary courtesy of a call. Classy.

  • Maria said: there isn’t any reason for her to continue as a senator when the vice presidency puts her closer to her goal. Yes, you’re right that she could run again from the Senate, but she’d almost certainly be running against Obama’s VP. Tough proposition.

    Good point Maria. By being VP herself she would eliminate one major rival in future elections. And her time in the Senate so far has not impressed me. I don’t see any reason to believe that she would be such a progressive force in the Senate in the future.

  • If VPs are chosen on the basis of enhancing a candidate’s chances of winning the election, I am convinced that Hillary wouldn’t bring Obama anything at all unless she is willing to strongly encourage those angry women to vote for Obama to further their own self-interests. I am also convinced that Hillary won’t bring Obama anything unless she is willing to strongly encourage those self-identified white racists who supported her to look beyond skin color and vote for Obama to further their own self-interests, too.

    If she can’t bring around those who she drew into her camp, she has no value as a possible VP to Obama. There are many other reasons why she’d be a millstone around his neck, but NOBODY should carelessly conclude that all “18 million” voters would switch to Obama without her trying to undo the damage she’s done. She cannot be blamed for America’s racism or America’s angry women, of course. But these are substantial subsets of the supporters she intentionally collected in her quest for votes.

    =====

    Maria,

    I agree that it’s fair for Hillary to suspend her campaign rather than conceding if her reason is to do some heavy fundraising between now and August. I’m with you on that.

    But I’d rest a lot easier if she’d release her delegates before the convention. She could conceivably make battle at the convention for the VP spot with those delegates, though most party leaders don’t think it would work and it would just be more destructive combativeness. We’ve had so many months with her in the limelight being destructive that I just want to see her drop out of sight.

  • slappy magoo (who hasn’t been remotely “vitriolic” by any reasonable person’s standard) is correct, Everett.

    36 million voted in the primary. The majority of them are Democrats who will vote for the Democrat in November. A few are Clinton supporters who will vote for Obama only if Clinton’s also on the ticket. Even fewer are Clinton supporters that won’t vote for Obama under any circumstances. Some are Republican mischief-makers who crossed over and won’t vote for any Democrat. Some are independents and Republicans who plan to vote for Obama in November, but only if Clinton’s not on the ticket. Some are independents (and, less so, Republicans) who plan to vote for Obama in November no matter who else is on the ticket.

    We have no hard measurements on any of these subcategories yet, though we should soon. What we do know is that “18 million Obama supporters plus 18 million Clinton supporters equals 36 million voters” is a rather comically simplistic interpretation of the available data that flies in the face of the “methodical” approach you say you admire.

    I will add that you show a rather bewildering resistance to getting out there and doing some simple research of your own. You seem to be very new to the intertubes, and while it’s nice that you thank people for providing you with sources you could easily find yourself, a little more get up and go and less of a “Feed me info” attitude would garner you more respect here. If you’re genuinely interested in getting answers rather than promulgating your already-formed opinions, you can demonstrate that by putting out a modicum of effort.

  • I don’t see any reason to believe that she would be such a progressive force in the Senate in the future.

    Dale, some have theorized that she’d have been much more progressive in the Senate if she hadn’t had her eye on the presidency the past eight years (and, in viewing her Senate work wholly through her goal of the presidency, incorrectly judged how far she could move to the right and still get the Democratic nomination). These folks think that if she weren’t looking at a future presidency, she might settle into a Ted Kennedyesque career in the Senate and really start fighting for the progressive causes most New Yorkers want.

    They may be right. I just don’t think she’s able to view her Senate seat as an honorable, vital, hugely significant end in itself. I could certainly wrong about that.

  • Aristedes: “She cannot be blamed for America’s racism or America’s angry women, of course. But …”

    Dude.

    Slappy Magoo: Admittedly, I don’t speak for 50% of the Democrats in America, but, I’ll bet you a dollar I’m close.

    RE: “Personally, I think her presence on the ticket will be disheartening to Obama supporters.” I understand.

    To both – in the end, Obama and his staff will crunch the numbers and make the best call they can

  • Of course, if Hillary goes away, Mark Penn won’t be relevant any more. And if Mark Penn fades from view, I suppose his un-evil alter-ego is no longrer needed. I wo der w at ha pens to h s un-ev l alt r-eg ?

    Hey! Wh t’ ha pen ng?
    I’m f d ng!
    oh noooooo
    ooooo

    ooo
    ooo
    oo
    o
    .
    bye

    Mark. Mark. Be strong. Put some lead in your pencil!

  • Will THIS shake up Washington?

    DNC: No More Contributions from Federal Lobbyists

    June 05, 2008 7:44 AM

    It’s been less than two days since he crossed the delegate threshold to become the Democratic presidential nominee and Sen. Barack Obama’s mark on the party is already being felt.

    On Good Morning America Thursday, ABC News’ Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported “the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists, will no longer take contributions from PACs” in keeping with Obama’s well-publicized policy.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/dnc-no-more-con.html

  • That’s 0.17%. hardly “apparent and decisively in Obama’s favor.” -Everett

    I believe the ‘math’ The Commander Guy is referring to is the meaningful math of delegates, not the meaningless metric of the popular vote.

    Imagine – 36 million Democrats instantly galvanized. -Everett

    Those Democrats should be galvanized behind the Democratic nominee already. The campaign focus should be on the independents and distraught Republicans at this point. I don’t want Obama to spend the next 5 months nursing the wounds of this primary.

    Those Democrats, if they are really, truly Democrats, need to get over it, and support Obama and other Democrats down ticket so we can reclaim this country, whether he picks her for VP or not.

    He won’t, by the way. It’s a pipe dream. Or, more aptly, it’s a pipe nightmare.

    Let’s quit the vitriol, and start crunching numbers. -Everett

    The vitriol is directed at disaffected Democrats who want Obama to pander to their delicate sensibilities over the next five months. Get behind our nominee, and let him run another effective campaign how he and his staff choose to, without hoisting baggage on him, to which you say…

    …there aint nothing to be said about Hillary that aint already been said 10 times over. -Everett

    Just because it’s been repeated ad nauseum does not mean it does not have an affect on the independents and Republican crossovers that will be necessary to win the general. She may play well with a large slice of Democrats, but beyond that, I think she loses her appeal. I cannot stress enough how the general is about so much more than appeasing Dems who didn’t get their way.

    But, show me some hard numbers. -Everett

    You come in making claims you don’t back up like “… I don’t speak for 50% of the Democrats in America, but, I’ll bet you a dollar I’m close,” and anyone who disagrees with you is asked to cite sources. Do your own research.

    Disaffected Dems have a choice: get behind a nominee who represents them and their chosen nominee closely, no matter who he picks for his second chair, or they can be crybabies and vote for or enable the election of the person who will continue Bush policies and further wreck this country.

  • Everett,

    The problem with the cited poll is that it limits the responses to Democrats. If the general election were limited to Democrats, you might have something.

    Let’s find a VP candidate that more than 51% of Democrats approve of.

  • Some GOOD ADVise by Governor Rendell!
    It’s refreshing to see that some Clinton supporters are seeing the full picture…….

    “Rendell reminded Clinton and her supporters that the choice for vice president belongs solely to Obama. “He has to make the choice, and it’s his choice to make,” said Rendell. “You don’t bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you’re Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don’t bargain.” THIS IS TRUE~

    I personally feel that Clinton supporters as well as the media have over stated the idea that Senator Obama somehow cannot win the presidential race without the mighty Clinton machine. This is simply untrue. and in actuality I feel that she and the former president would surely be more of a liability than an asset.
    It is past time for Senator Clinton to step aside and allow Senator Obama, his lovely wife Michelle, the hard working campaign staff and the millions of loyal Obama supporters to celebrate this unprecedited historical event. I and many of my close associates highly resent the grace-less, narssicism displayed by Senator Hillary Clinton & her staff by attempting to over shadow the greatness of Tuesday night’s events. This was shameless and will long be remembered in a negative light.
    THIS was and is Senator Obama’s moment to shine. Shame, shame and more shame on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    SENATOR OBAMA has proven himself to be the better of the two. He is a highly qualifed candidate as well as an eloquent man,a patient and articulate winner~
    SINCERE Congratulatons and Best of Luck to Senator Obama-

  • Mark Pencil, @13,

    If the pen lines are gone and the pencil marks are fading…How about a laser beam (the better to cut through BS, m’dear)?

  • Everett, what you’re leaving out is that perception is everything in presidential contests. The Clintons on the ticket, whether they seek it (as I believe they do–they’re supreme narcissists) or not, attract the spotlight–which must be on the nominee. If Obama brings them in, they take away attention from him. Worse, as major forces in the party themselves, it’s not realistic to expect them to submit to his priorities, his messaging, his vision, his strategy. Bill Clinton thinks he’s the smartest guy in American politics (as he almost certainly was, ten years ago); what happens when he disagrees with Axelrod and Plouffe?

    They also undermine Obama’s post-partisan change message. You might think this is crap and you might not, but it’s at the core of his political identity. With the possible exception of the other Ruling Family, nobody is more strongly identified with a party than the Clintons.

    The math is not simply additive. He doesn’t need them, and their minuses vastly outweigh their pluses… even before you get into the question of just what Bill has been up to over the last eight years, or the attacks Hillary launched without mercy or reservation in March and April.

  • If you haven’t already, I recommend reading the Hillary Clinton’s letter to her staff (CB provided the link in his post above).

    As a long-time supporter of Obama and someone who has been angry at Clinton since seeing her blame Obama on television for the controversy arising out of her MLK/LBJ comment, I found the letter refreshing.

    Of course, actions speak louder than words, but if there’s any truth to this letter, then I suspect the scars we all have will heal quickly.

  • Don’t count Hillary as going quietly. This weekend should be interesting as will Obama’s run. I really hope he doesn’t put her on the ticket. It would ruin him.

  • The two camps need to come together now.
    It seems that there is still alot of internet banter between the 2 sets of supporters but I think there’s a lot of manipulation from Republican supporters – remember their plan was to vote for Clinton to keep the campaign going, and cause a split – which has happened.
    Let’s move on and get Obama into the White House – lives actually depend on it.
    Clinton & Obama supporters STOP the email battles – there’s a far more important fight to win – getting Obama into the White House.
    Also, we can’t have Clinton as VP – she brings too much baggage, and Bill won’t pass the financial sniff test (which I still don’t really understand how Hillary could run for President if the Clinton’s finacial situation is so shady – but that’s another story).
    UNITE UNITE UNITE!

  • It’s nice to see that the Clintons can regonize the difference between day and night.

    I’ve said it before and am going to keep saying it: not one of the people listed as possible vice-presidential candidates should be on the ticket. We need someone who is credible, and who has the ability to grow into being a completely-competent presidential candidate in 2016, who will not be more than in their mid-50s at that time. In other words, no more Baby Boomers. All of the people who have been mentioned would be great in Cabinet offices or other political offices as allies of the Obama Administration, to thoroughly “clean the Augean Stables” as we’re going to have to do.

  • Dajafi:

    “If Obama brings them in, they take away attention from him.” I’m not so sure about this. I think Obama is such a powerful figure, he can hold his own.

    “it’s not realistic to expect them to submit to his priorities,” Likewise. I think platforms are similar enough that we’d be ok.

    “Bill Clinton thinks…” Again, I think the Obama camp is making too big off a spectre about President and Senator Clinton pulling strings, lurking around like Cassius.

    “They also undermine Obama’s post-partisan change message.” I can understand where you’re coming from on this. I’ve heard this from others. So, no, I don’t think it’s crap.

    For Doubtful:

    “Those Democrats should be galvanized behind the Democratic nominee already.”
    Well, we’re not. And you may want to ask why not, besides the whole, “Cuz Hillary is an evil self-serving sea hag” thing.

    And: “anyone who disagrees with you is asked to cite sources.”

    All I can say to that is, “What’s wrong asking someone to cite sources?”

  • Is Hillary doing the right thing? Lets think about that for a moment! YES! Showing her support for the Democratic Party, priority No.1 Showing she is available to do the VP job, very gracious, hmmmmmm maybe not. But that too, looks good for her, keeps the campaign monies rolling in. No one will fault her when Obama looses to the Republican Big Buisness machine. Democrates that Voted for Hillary are being catagorized , as I see them, they will most likley not vote for Obama under any circumstances even if Hillary is his running mate, (well maybe a few). So that leaves the Republican machine with a bunch of plausible changes that have been mentioned and are somewhat close to the Democratic proposed change, just not so far left and drastic. Now some of the so called expert political pundits, would have you believe (like the Good Old Boys Club) that Hillary is done, far, far, from the truth. When Obama flops, in his bid for the presidency, Hillary can then try again, in three years, and quite rightly so, as she does have and probably will always have, the record number of popular votes (a majority, True Democracy) from the popular side, which should be the correct way of determining a front runner in any event. So armed with that stigma, she could easily run and win in 2012.

  • There are a lot of opinions floating around about why Hillary didn’t win the nomination – bad primary campaign decisions, unfair press treatment, and so on and so on.

    But it really comes down to just one thing. And in my opinion, it’s fitting that it should have cost her the presidency of the United States, because as mistakes go, it was a whopper, it was most likely the result of political triangulation, not principle, and it was indicative of bad judgment.

    Just one thing. Her vote for the Iraq war.

    Make no mistake, it wasn’t a vote to ‘strengthen Bush’s hand’ with Iraq, it was a vote authorizing war. It was wrong, she shouldn’t have done it, 23 of her fellow Senators saw it for what it was and voted against it and so should she have. If she had voted no she would be the nominee, and most likely the next president.

    The reason I say this is the ‘one thing’ is that it was Obama’s foot in the door of the Democratic primary campaign. He was the one who was able to say, and capitalize on the fact, that he opposed the war from the beginning. It was practically his entire campaign in the early months. And it was the one thing that Hillary couldn’t counter. Her stubborn refusal to admit that her vote was a mistake only helped Obama gain momentum.

    So Hillary, my advice to you is that next time some insane renegade cowboy in the White House wants to do some adventurin’ on foreign soil and you’re in a position to stop him (or at least try to stop him), maybe you should do so.

  • Well, we’re not [galvanized behind the Democratic nominee.] -Everett

    Then get there. Obama shouldn’t be worried about Clinton supporters. He needs to be worried about independents. That says a lot more about your selfishness than Obama. You need to follow Clinton’s lead and support the Democratic nominee if you really care about this country and don’t make Democrats spend time and money nursing your wounded pride.

    It’s time to move on.

    All I can say to that is, “What’s wrong asking someone to cite sources?” -Everett

    I didn’t say that was wrong. What’s wrong is expecting others to do what you yourself won’t. You only cited one source for your opinions, and that was only after being challenged by Maria.

    If your unwilling to cite sources in you comments that support your opinions, don’t expect those who disagree with your opinion to be held to a higher standard.

    It’s quite obvious that’s what I meant, which leads me to believe at this point you’re just trolling for a fight.

    Obama isn’t running for the President of Democrats, or the President of Clinton Supporters, he’s running for the President of the United States, and he’s only got five months to convince people who didn’t vote for a Democrat in 2004 to change their minds.

    The point is, you can get behind the Democratic nominee, as Clinton will on Saturday, or you can wallow in self-pity that things didn’t go your way while you contemplate not voting or voting for an opportunist who will only harm the country. It’s up to you. Just don’t expect the Democratic party to waste time and money on supposed Democrats who can’t swallow their pride for the good of the country. That’s selfish and pathetic.

  • Hillary is doing exactly what she has said she would do this entire campaign. She would stay in until everyone had voted and then if she was not the nominee she would put her full support behind Sen. Obama. This was an extremely close race and had Sen. Obama been in her position he would have done the same thing. It sounds like all the Obama supporters expected her to do this Tuesday night even thought the campaign said this would not happen. People forget that two states where still voting. I watched in amazement as the Super Delegates sounded their support before the people had finished voting. I believe they should have waited until the following morning. This was extremely disrespectful to the voters of these states and to Hillary. Yes everyone thought that he would probably win the nomination. He should have held a small speech that evening to thank Montana and South Dakota and scheduled his big speech the next night. As all previous candidates have said it takes awhile after you have lost to contact your supporters and to leave on a good note. She is putting her campaign in order and will fully support Sen. Obama. On another note I recommend putting aside the Billary comments they not only demean you but also your candidate. Lets behave like adults.

  • I watched in amazement as the Super Delegates sounded their support before the people had finished voting. I believe they should have waited until the following morning. This was extremely disrespectful to the voters of these states and to Hillary. -Terri

    Then I assume you find it equally appalling that Hillary had over 100 announced supers prior to Iowa. To be consistent with your outrage, that would be disrespectful to Kucinch, Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and the voters of all 50 states and all of the territories.

    No?

    Then drop the ‘woe is us’ act, and move on.

  • Clinton to suspend? On Saturday HRC will officially suspend her campaign for the presidency. She is incredible. What they are thinking? I think that this is the first time that a candidate who loss the primary is pushing to be in the ticket. She is like a vulture waiting for the opportunity to be fed. Her comments about Kennedy assassination was enough, and her excuses not enough but she is still waiting for something to happen and that is the reason she will not drop out, she suspended her campaign for better opportunity like a vulture. The candidate who won has the choice to pick the VP and the Clinton’s Gang are claiming a right that is not theres. The Obama/Clinton ticket will be a nightmare, and Bill Clinton will be a guillotine to close to our next President. We want a new era, we don’t want to go back to the past, we don’t want any more Monica Lewinsky cases. We want honor and prestige back to the White House.

  • There isn’t really a good way for Hillary to handle her exit strategy.

    The way she is doing it, is about as good as any other.

    She could have conceded Tuesday. (coulda, shoulda) But for some reason she, or her campaign wasn’t ready.

    Regarding her Vice Presidential bid, there have been some missteps by some her campaign supporters that may have cost her that already. But I think if everything gets sorted and Hilary keeps a low profile, she might still get the nod. If she gets too pushy however, she will get passed over.

    Public memory is on Alzheimer’s these days as it’s gone from short to shorter. What goes on between party insiders doesn’t reach the public very strongly.

    So once everything has cooled a bit Obama can make his choice. And he can’t be pushed. I think Hilary might be a good choice, she has formidable assests and some huge liabilities as well, plus Bill’s finances.

  • Attention all Clinton trolls (you know who you are):

    Your candidate lost. Get over it.

    Do you think that’s rude? Then let me tell you a secret: My candidate lost also.

    I wanted Chris Dodd. Or Dennis Kucinich. I hadn’t decided which I liked most, but I felt the both of them were the best candidates in the field. They were the most liberal and least war hawkish.

    But both of them dropped out before I was even able to vote on Super Tuesday.

    And when they did, I didn’t start whining about how my candidate was robbed or shown no respect, though that was arguably true for both of them considering how the media ignored them. I didn’t indulge in outraged screeds over how I had been disenfranchised by having to back a democrat I didn’t fully agree with. Instead, I swallowed my disappointment over what wasn’t to be, and started looking ahead to the longer-term goal. That being, getting a democrat in the White House to start the long process of fixing what the GOP and conservatives had broken.

    If you Clinton trolls are more about Clinton than about trolling, then you will do as I did. Fortunately, you have plenty of good role models. Most Clinton supporters, in my experience, are Clinton supporters second and democrats first, and you can even find some of them posting right here on this blog. They will do the right thing, and you can follow their lead.

    But if you are more about trolling than Clinton, if your entire outlook is merely hating Obama instead of undoing the GOP, then shut up and step aside. Those of us who are more concerned about the future of our country than we are about identity politics need to get down to the business of cleaning up the mess.

  • I’m glad Senator Hillaty CLINTON will endorse Senator Obama, that’s nice to do. But No matter what Hil;lary Clinton will say in her speech Saturday WILL NOT MOVE ME I WILL NOT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA …no way. Period. I think many of her supporters will do the same. It was never my intention to vote for Obama tha’s what I chose to vote for Hillary in the first place….Hillary’s gone…vote’s gone. No OBAMA …

  • so Monalissa, as a fellow Clinton supporter, I’m curious what substantive positions of Hillary’s attracted you to support her?

  • Your candidate lost. Get over it.
    Do you think that’s rude? Then let me tell you a secret: My candidate lost also. — Shade Tail, @65

    Mine — Edwards — did also; I’m a late addition to Obama’s side. But you know what… I think our firsts — and the other voters — have made it relatively easy on us. Edwards was out of the race (though still on the ballot) by the time VA primary (Feb 12?) rolled in. I didn’t have as long to invest all my emotions in him, so divesting wasn’t as hard. I think, if I’d gone with him through May, within a spitting distance all the time… I think letting go of a dream would have been much harder.

    So I’m willing to cut the Clinton supporters some slack. Not the loony-bin-refuse like Monalissa @66, but the saner ones. Even the devotees

  • Hey, I specifically differentiated between Clinton *supporters* and Clinton *trolls*. The supporters, the sane ones, I’ve never had any trouble with. I can sympathize with them because they were sincere and acted fairly, and they’re being mature now that reality hasn’t worked out the way they wanted.

    But the trolls, like Mary and that monalissa you pointed at, they’re another story. I have no sympathy for the entire lot of them. They’re nothing but a bunch of spoiled brats who either are lying through their teeth about their political beliefs, or are preparing to betray everything their candidate stands for. All because they’re throwing a hissy fit about losing an election.

    My message was aimed at the trolls, not the sane and reasonable people.

  • I was a die-hard Republican.
    I’M VOTING FOR OBAMA!
    …unless he takes on Hillary as VP.

    Hillary as VP is the death-knell of an Obama victory.

  • Talking about a massive debt: the Clinton campaign still owes money to the high school my daughter attends. It’s not all that much, (about $1,850 for the school, and $200 for the sign language people) but when you multiply that with dozens of venues all over the US, it starts adding up.

  • Comments are closed.