CNN: Preliminary ‘formal talks’ underway between Clinton, Obama camps

CNN is reporting, based on word from Hillary Clinton’s “inner circle” is pushing for some kind of “compromise,” and that “preliminary … formal talks” have begun about a Clinton exit strategy. TPM’s David Kurtz posted this video from CNN this morning:

Listening to the report, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Clinton campaign is outlining three possible scenarios:

1. Obama offers the VP slot to someone other than Clinton. According to Malveaux’s report, the Clinton campaign would find this “completely unacceptable,” and said it would be an offensive dismissal of the success she’s had during the process. According to CNN’s report, the Clinton campaign would be so insulted by this slight, it might prompt a “civil war within the party.”

2. Obama would publicly announce that he wants Clinton to be his running mate, with the understanding that she would turn it down. This, according to Malveaux, is complicated by the notion among Obama insiders that they can’t necessarily feel as though they can trust her — they could strike a deal, only to see Clinton announce she would accept the offer.

3. Obama and Clinton get together and hash out various steps Obama can take to make Clinton feel satisfied, including possible help with debt-retirement and/or support for Clinton to become Senate Majority Leader.

Clinton, Malveaux reported, is “aware” of the formal discussions that have begun between the two campaigns, though officials in both camps have denied that any such talks are underway. Malveaux added that the talks haven’t exactly been going smoothly, describing them as “difficult.”

I find all of this rather confusing.

First, the CNN report makes it sound as if Clinton doesn’t want to be Obama’s running mate, she just wants to be asked to be Obama’s running mate. I can appreciate the notion that there are some powerful egos at play, but this seems a little silly.

Second, are we really talking about some kind of elaborate blackmail scheme? To avoid a “civil war,” Clinton needs to feel like she’s been duly respected?

Third, I’m not at all convinced that there really are “formal” talks underway. That’s what CNN reported, but there’s no evidence to support it. Indeed, even in Malveaux’s report, there was no indication of who is talking to whom, where, when, and under what circumstances. Instead, Malveaux’s report seemed to focus on what Clinton’s “inner circle” is thinking about if and when there are “formal” talks.

That said, it’s possible — and I’m really just speculating here — that Clinton insiders are dishing to Malveaux like this as a way of sending a signal: “Obama campaign, we’re open to some kind of end-game compromise here. Pick up the phone.”

I’d just add one side observation here. After seeing the TPM item about the CNN report, I started poking around to see what other news outlets were saying about these “preliminary … formal talks.” I was surprised at what I found: nothing.

There are a bunch of outlets I check for campaign news, and none of them mentioned anything about this. Not a word at the Politico, the NYT’s Caucus blog, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza, Ambinder, and even CNN’s own campaign blog. Nada. (A few outlets — Bloomberg, Newsday — are talking about CNN’s report, but not adding any news of their own.)

If these two campaigns had really begun discussions about Clinton withdrawing from the race, this seems like it would be a pretty huge development. It’s possible CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux got her hands on an exclusive scoop, but it’s also possible there are no talks underway.

At this point, I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m sure that we are talking about blckmail. Obama supporters, me included, have consistantly thought better of HRC than she deserved.

  • Which is not inconsistat with the idea that HRc is leaking a lie about formal talks in order prompt the Obama campaign into actually having the talks. The point of the talks will be blackmail, if the talks ever happen. Right now it is blackmail to make the talks happen.

  • I love rank speculation as much as the next girl, but this whole “story” is so gelatinous it’s not even worth close review. When something firmer develops, I’m all ears.

  • After seeing the TPM item about the CNN report, I started poking around to see what other news outlets were saying about these “preliminary … formal talks.” I was surprised at what I found: nothing.

    That is exactly what I did.
    Same result: Nothing.

  • Let me translate this for ya:

    After losing fair and square, “the Clintons” are trying to strong arm their way onto the Democratic ticket by threatening chaos if they don’t get their way.

    I say – NO WAY! They are reaping EXACTLY what they have sown – a ticket back to New York.

    P.S. If she can’t concede the defeat she has already suffered, then I say – see you at the convention! No more bowing and scraping before these two power hungry degenerates.

  • How about if Obama threatens to treat Clinton like she would treat those who didn’t back her should she remain on this course? Either she behaves responsibility or gets shut out of virtually everything once Obama is in the White House. Phone calls won’t be returned, no invitations to White House meetings on health care reform or any other policy she is interested in, etc.

    Clinton’s influence in the Senate has been based upon the assumption that she would be the Democratic nominee in 2008. After her failure this year, and considering all the bridges she has already burned, she should return to the Senate as just another Senator. The days in which she was a high profile Senator should be over–especially if she is really threatening Obama in this manner.

  • VP, It’s a trap..

    It sounds good but

    How would she ever explain why she supports the man
    she said had not passed the “commander-in-chief test”?

    Anybody
    please let me know, am i the only one who see’s the future melt down?

  • …she just wants to be asked to be Obama’s running mate.

    What is this, the kindergarten playground? Is somebody getting a little gwumpy before naptime?

  • We do not need for Senator Clinton to have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court – she is simply NOT STABLE enough for that – she never makes a mistake and is unable to compromise.. At this point she is a raving lunatic who the media is just assuming couldn’t possibly be crazy. They are wrong.

  • “…an offensive dismissal of the success she’s had during the process… might prompt a ‘civil war within the party.'”

    Threatening a civil war within the party is exactly what should disqualify Clinton from higher office. I wouldn’t have a problem with Clinton as VP, or even as the presidential candidate, except that she turned out to be the kind of person who threatens tantrums.

  • I thought at first this was a snark piece.

    Clinton will of course attempt to blackmail, coherce, whatever to get what she wants. The fact that she stoops to such methods is exactly why Obama will not name her VP.

    Case in point: Jim Costa CA SD just switched from endorsing Clinton to Obama today…citing this behavoir as his reason.

  • axt: You are kidding about the Supreme Court, right? I, for one, don’t want anyone on the SC who makes arguments like the ones she makes about fairness and vote counting.

  • If Obama is dumb enough to be blackmailed than he deserves what will come of that. Blackmail will only lead to more blackmail. IMO he isn’t dumb enough to trust the Clintons.

    As for “civil war”? Bring it on, Hillary.

    Bring. It. On.

    Bring all your DLC buddies and let’s have it out. We will BURY YOU.

  • @Not again, offering her the sup court would plactate women’s groups since she is a strong pro choice supporter, it would safguard Roe v wade for decades

  • Sen. Clinton has close to half the Democratic primary delegates. She HAS to be listened to and accommodated. The two campaigns must negotiate an end game. I think they are both smart enough to know that major party strife is to be avoided (i.e., convention debacle over Florida and Michigan).

    Sen. Obama has some electoral problems with Appalachia and Hispanics. Can Sen. Clinton help deliver those blocs at least enough to garner electoral votes? On the other hand, will West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc. really go Democratic in November? Can she help smooth over the Florida and Michigan delegate issues? Swing states?

    Sen. Clinton is not going to get the nomination. What else does she want instead? VP, Senate Majority Leader, policy promises? She is in a very powerful position right now. And what can Sen. Obama deliver?

    Instead of the usual hurling of insults by both camps, let’s talk about what each has to offer the other. Because now we begin the general election and no matter what has passed these few months, we are in this together. It’s politics, there is a deal to be made. As long as most or all of it helps in November, get it done.

  • She’s not going to be his runningmate. As each day goes by she becomes more and more repugnant. Blackmail won’t work. Once Obama is the nominee Democratic voters who were supporting clinton will get on board. The ones who won’t are the rabid cultist and shams masquerading as Republicans. If Obama allows the Clintons to bully their way onto the ticket he’s lost all credibility and he’s lost all control to them. They will set the aganda and manopolize the campaign. It will be the Bill and Hillary Freak Show, and they will be presenting her as the “real” candidate. Obama needs to amputate both of them and cut this cancer out. I’ve noticed on the cable new shows all of the conservative “experts” trotted out are desperate to see her as the vp nominee. They want her on the ticket so bad they can’t bear it. I think Obama is too sharp to fall for it.

    He has many choices that will serve him, the Deomocrats and ultimately the nation much better.

  • Even if you exclude FL and MI, Hillary Clinton received over 49% of the vote – over 17 million votes. She has, at the very least, earned the VP nod. Obama cannot win in November without ALL of those 17 million plus votes.

    Not to mention the fact that she is the strongest and smartest candidate in either party!

  • People are getting far too frantic about this. Take a deep breath and relax. It’s not that urgent that Clinton drop out quickly or be forced out. Forcing her out the way #8 suggests may work temporarily, but is more likely to backfire. Keep in mind, she’s got many fervent supporters who say they won’t vote for Obama. Disrespecting her or trying to strong-arm her will simply anger them more. The truth is, she’s already become irrelevant. The media have moved on to Obama vs. McCain. Once the decision on Florida and Michigan is made, she won’t have any real arguments left, and Obama may have enough delegates to declare victory at that point. The best thing Obama can do is what he’s been doing: ignore her. Yes, try to help her find a graceful way to exit, but don’t panic that it has to happen immediately, and don’t force it. He should just keep the focus on McCain, and be as positive as possible if someone brings up Clinton. And I think she should stay at least another couple weeks, until the last primaries are done. Keeping with the Rocky metaphor she’s used in the past, I think her supporters will be happier if she goes the distance, even if she loses, than if she was forced out of the race before it’s over. Yes, she’ll lose, but I’ll bet there are voters in South Dakota and Montana who want a chance to vote for her, if only as a gesture. Remember: grace and dignity, not backroom deals, is what will heal the party.

  • Personally, I think that this is just a trial balloon being floated by the Clinton campaign. I can’t imaging that Obama would want her as Veep. It would undercut his change message and having her and Bill lurking around the White House wouldn’t do a lot for his image as a leader. There are plenty of other important high profile ways he could involve her in his administration that would be meaningful and sooth her ego (if that’s really an issue). She could be offered a cabinet position, be his point woman on health care or some other big initiative, as was pointed out above he could support her as Majority Leader.

    I hope this isn’t their way of pressuring Obama into playing ball with her. If it is, it will likely back fire. I doubt it would really destroy the party as only the most tone deaf Democrats would support her in her efforts but it could certainly damage her career. It would just make her look spoiled and power hungry. The Clintons have problems with that image already. She’d better tread carefully here. If the nation had Clinton fatigue in 2000, we’d certainly be feeling it again in a big way if she tries any shit.

  • Alas, I see my comment arrived too late.

    There will be no “civil war” in the party. Deals will be made, egos will be placated.

    This is not blackmail, it’s a negotiation for the end game. And it’s going to take a week or two as the primary string gets played out.

    I know there a lot of bruised commenters now, but can everyone step back and be amazed that it all stayed relevant and was fought to the last three primaries? First in my lifetime! I know all about the math, but would 75,000 people have shown up in Portland, OR in a late primary in a normal campaign season?

    Peace, brothers and sisters. It’s time for November.

  • I will be really, REALLY disappointed in the Obama campaign if they offer Clinton the VP slot.

    After the way she has handled herself and her campaign, she doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near the White House after this. You can’t say someone is unfit to be president, and then try and make a play to be his vice president. Obama doesn’t need her, and at this point Democrats shouldn’t give a shit what Clinton “needs.”

  • Todd, csh, and Jurgan – go back and read the story. But this time reverse Obama and Hillary’s names. Also assume, hypothetically, that Clinton was leading in every metric, except for the extremely disingenuous popular vote (including MI and FL). I know that if the story is true, my outrage is genuine. And I have tried imagining the reverse.

  • Clinton would be a awful choice for the Supreme Court (as well as VP).

    First there’s the personality issues. The Court is just too small to handle someone with her ego and inability to compromise.

    Then there’s her ideology. Among her many faults has been her support for increased Executive power and defense of secrecy by the president. Obviously this is based initially on Bill and now on the assumption she would be the president, and may or may not be applied if someone else is president. We can’t take the chance. With the move to the right in recent years we need Supreme Court justices who are much stronger supporters of limiting Executive power and of civil liberties than Clinton has been. Do we really want a Supreme Court justice who supports a ban on flag burning and censoring video games, along with increased presidential power?

  • The problem with HRC is this story is believable. That’s says mountains about here campaign. I will hold off because even if this is real, once HRC realizes how pathetic this appears, they will deny.

    I used to be able to talk to conservatives, no matter their level, and know in my heart that we might lose some battles, but a least we can walk away with out dignity and know we didn’t sell out souls. HRC sold her soul and still lost, pathetic.

  • This is becoming surreal and in conjunction with the release of “Recount”, and Gary Kamiya’s excellent review, it’s got dimensions and tangents that are beyond understanding. Hello TV movie. It’ll take eight years to put the pieces of this together as well. My hope is that the outcome is less disastrous. Maybe Senator Obama can just offer Hillary movie rights as a way to pay her staggering debt. That might be a less toxic solution.

    My other hope is that “Recount” draws a parallel with viewers who realize just what the Clintons are trying to do. How is “ahead in the popular vote” and “seating the Michigan and Florida delegates as they voted” different from Bush & Co.’s efforts?

    On another note, does anyone have a link to a site that provides a reasonable discourse and / or an intelligent approach to understanding Hillary’s campaign and tactics? Is there anything that argues sensibly from her campaign’s point of view? Seriously, I want to see something. Anyone? Anyone?

  • Hillary for Veep? Why not? Just restore the office to its John Nance Garner “pitcher of warm spit” original impotence. As one of the Senators recently said of it, “Sure. Why not? Big house, nice car, not much work.” If Obama wins, he’ll be the President and any Vice President of his will breaking ties in the Senate.

  • For now, it is still Obama vs. Clinton …Let Their Records Speak

    Let’s take a closer look at who’s really qualified and or who’s really
    working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
    Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an
    informed decision.
    Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term – 6 yrs. – and another
    year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law – 20 – twenty
    pieces of legislation in her first six years.
    These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress but to
    save you trouble, they are posted here for you.

    1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
    2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
    3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
    4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
    5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
    6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
    7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of
    his death.
    10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning
    the championship.
    11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on
    winning the championship.
    12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
    Commemorative Program.
    13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
    14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
    condolences on her death.
    15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who
    lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton ‘s bills are, more
    substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of
    9/11.
    17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims
    in other countries.
    19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
    20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as
    protected in the wilderness preservation system.

    There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record.
    Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so
    I’ll mainly categorize.
    During the first – 8 – eight years of his elected service he sponsored over
    820 bills. He introduced
    233 regarding healthcare reform,
    125 on poverty and public assistance,
    112 crime fighting bills,
    97 economic bills,
    60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
    21 ethics reform bills,
    15 gun control,

    6 veterans affairs and many others.
    His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored
    another 427.
    These included
    **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 – became law,
    **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, – became law,
    **TheComprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
    **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, – became law,
    **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more. In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills
    and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
    He’s not just a talker.
    He’s a doer.

  • Many FL & MI voters did not vote BECAUSE they were told it wouldn’t count!!
    So, to now count those who voted is total disenfranchisement of those who didn’t. I

    Since neither state Democratic Party chose to hold a legitimate primary….then the only just solution to the mess in these states is a wash (50/50) or nothing (0/0)…the latter being what the stated rules say as I recall.

  • I said yesterday that Clinton couldn’t possibly prefer being vice-president to being the Senator from New York. But there is one factor that might make the vice-presidency attractive. It’s so awful that I can’t even make myself say it. I keep thinking of Bobby Kennedy.

    Is that why Hillary would want to be vice-president? How cynical is that?

  • Let it go to June 4. Her people will be a minority in the May 31 Rules committee hearing, she will surprise by losing PR on June 1 and then MT and SD on June 3, the supers will come to him and he will have 2209 by then. She will be sorry she dragged it out so long she had to go out on a losing note.

  • Clinton lied when she pledged not to “participate” in the Michigan primary (Google the “Four State Pledge”). Clinton: “I won! Psych.”

    Clinton lied when she blamed Obama for starting the MLK/LBJ controversy that arose out of her remarks.

    Clinton lied when she claimed that Obama said Republicans had better ideas.

    Clinton lied when she pledged not to “campaign or participate” in the Florida primary (as defined in the Four State Pledge). Clinton: “I won! Psych.”

    The Clinton campaign referred to Obama as “the black candidate” after he won SC.

    Clinton campaigned on the idea that McCain would make a better C-in-C than McCain.

    Clinton lied to the voters of Ohio and Pennsylvania about the Canadian NAFTA-Gate story (she continued to run with this lie long after it had been debunked).

    Clinton has been exploiting the divisions among races and between genders throughout her campaign.

    Clinton is lying when she continues to claim that she’s “winning the popular vote” in order to undermine the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination.

    She does not deserve a spot on the ticket. She does not deserve to be appointed/elected (?) to the Senate Majority Leadership post. She does not deserve to be re-elected by the people of New York (IMHO).

    Senator Clinton is an embarrassment to our party and our country, and I’m sorry I ever supported her.

  • Repeating Dave at #6 – check out Al Giordano at The Field:

    http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

    The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

    My favorite word in that is “irrevocable.”

  • For the sake of clarification…if the story is true, then I believe Hillary Clinton’s demands are more akin to extortion than blackmail.

    I’m just sayin’.

  • RonChusid @ 26, I’m not sure what you mean by Hillary being unable to compromise to be given a shot at the Supreme Court. It’s judicial, not legislative. A Supreme Court judge doesn’t HAVE to compromise. She renders a decision and it’s either part of the majority decision or the minority decision. Unlike, say, the jury in a murder trial, the decisions of the Supreme Court judges do not have to be unanimous, so compromise is not a factor.

    I’m of the opinion that Hillary is incredibly bright and thoughtful when the pressure of competition ceases to get in the way of her judgment. Her campaigning, the people she’s surrounded herself with, the strain of once being the de facto nominee and now clamoring for relevancy is taking its toll, and that toll will no longer be an issue if che concedes the nomination…AND doesn’t seek the VP nod. Were she to become the VP nominee, all the Clinton baggage becomes a factor in this race all over again, and if Obama-Clinton wins in 08, it will be a factor once in again 12. Whereas, if she’s a Supreme Court Judge…I’m not saying there’s no pressure in being a Justice, but there’s no added pressure in having to fight for your job again every 2 or 4 or 6 years. The gig is hers for as long as she wants it or until she kicks the bucket. Meanwhile, without having to flip-flop to appease various constituencies, without having to knock back shots with the locals or judge pie-eating contests, or any of the other crap politicians running for election or re-election have to do, Hillary’s free to become the intelligent, thoughtful it-takes-a-village moderate lib she seems to want to be when her ambition doesn’t get in the way. And while Justices rarely get the press Presidents or VPs get (especially the past 16 years), they wield a tremendous amount of power, perhaps decades longer than a President does.

    Between a Justice or the VP, I’d say she’s much more qualified AND suited for the former. Not saying she’ll be asked to do either/or, just stating that Hillary can truly be the PERSON she wants to be if she stops trying to get the POSITION she wants to have.

  • She simply does not have the legal background to be on the SCOTUS.

    She has a LESS impressive legal career than Harriet Miers.

  • I think Obama should offer Hillary the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in his cabinet. If she’s really as devoted to health care issues as she claims she is (and I believe her), this would be a perfect spot for her.

  • How about this? Clinton drops out now. Serves out her term as Senator, and then is forced into retirement after losing to a primary challenger in New York. How’s that for compromise? It’s what she deserves. And that goes for all the other Lieberman’s in our party.

    She doesn’t have the power to do this anymore, in my estimation. Even states that voted for her in the past have buyer’s remorse now.

    Obama is her only hope of a future in the Democratic party, and frankly. His whole campaign has been about ushering in a new politics and the future. I don’t think choosing the icon of old Democratic politics and someone who, as is evidenced by every move her campaign makes, mired in the dirty tactics of politics past, would be a good move for him.

    Not to mention the fact that she is the strongest and smartest candidate in either party! -csh

    That’s not a fact. It’s an opinion. One which is not shared by a majority of Americans. Hell, she can’t even run a campaign. How can we assume she’s smart enough to run a country?

    Clinton is an awful choice for any leadership position. At this point, I wouldn’t let her run my dishwasher.

  • Her camp must be feeling the pressure.

    She’ll be the worst VP Obama could pick. If picked and she chooses to continue with the “Cheney Rubric”, and Lord knows she’s shown that awful form of audacity, he’ll regret the offer forever. I say call her bluff. Offer her campaign debt relief, her an Ambassadorship, say to Burma, and a Thank You card for making the race about “race”. BUT DO NOT offer her the V.P. spot. If her supporters feel that strongly about not voting for Obama if she’s not offered it, and refuse to vote for Obama in the General, then they deserve what McCain’s Supreme Court will do to their reproductive rights, and to their sons who will be killed-off (or worse) in the Iranian war, and the litany of other forms of malaise they will be responsible for if they desert their party because she isn’t anointed V.P.

    The Clinton legacy is more important to the Clintons then to piss it away by being sour grapes and completely annihilating any chance of any support for a future bid for the office in her future. If the Billories want to pull this crap I say let them do it. Maybe her “supporters” will finally see her for what she is : An opportunist.

    Just the fact that she’s pulling this crap says legion about her feigned support and love for her party which apparently is: Zero. Lord knows she’s had a good mentor, good ol’ “BJ” Billy…

    — stevio

  • Barack Obama would be out of his mind to choose Mrs. Clinton as his running mate. She has shown no respect for him. Why should he show any for her? Most importantly, her every word and action shows that she wants him to lose. That includes carrying her weak case right to the floor of the convention, as she now threatens. Is she saying she won’t do it if he names her as VP? No way, Mrs. Clinton. That is too high a price to pay.

  • The Republicans in the Florida government moved the Florida primary to the earlier date knowing what it would cost the Democrats. On the day to vote, a Republican turned Democrat who knew how sad I was that our vote came by on a hunch and encouraged me to go vote anyway. By then I was flabbergasted by My Hillary’s caustic and “Divide and Conquer” strategies (I fought for and supported Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro when I lived in New York). I was also impressed by OBAMA’s work, history and vision for America.

    WITH A HEAVY HEART, I VOTED FOR OBAMA EVEN THOUGH I KNEW THAT MY VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT. Many disenchanted DID NOT VOTE. Many people thought that we were done in again and that the Republicans were successful in dampening the Democratic vote in Florida AGAIN.

    HILLARY should fight on… That way, when OBAMA wins, she can not honestly cry FOUL 🙂

  • I don’t think there’s any way to stop her from taking this to the floor.

    I have faith that the members of the RBC will act sensibly, but if they do anything but sit FL and MI as is — including 0 votes and delegates for Obama — she will appeal, and even if she loses, she will continue to the convention.

    If the RBC gives her what she wants re Fl and MI, and if tthe SDs come out en masse for Obama, giving him the delegate lead, she will still continue to the convention floor because she will argue that she has the lead in the popular vote.

    It’s a pretty goos chess game. It’s incredibly selfish, narcissistic and self-serving, but looked at purely tactically, it could either give her the nomination (and she will lose the election) or Obama will somehow fight her off, a chunk of preopl who supported her will prove to be diehards and will stay home or vote for McCain, and he loses the election.

    If she had fought for those caucus states in February, she would have acquired a real lead in delegates and would have earned the nomination fair and square. Instead, she’s acting in such a way that either a chunk of her own supporters, or a chunk of Obama supporters, won’t support the other in the fall.

    Democrats: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory one more bloody time.Thanks, Clinton.

  • I think Obama should offer Hillary the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in his cabinet. -impeachcheneythenbush

    I think that position better suited to Edwards. It’s what he cares about, and his legal background as a trial lawyer is not well suited for AG. Look for an AG with more Constitutional background.

    I’d really like to see anyone who supports Clinton in a leadership position explain to me, and the unpaid vendors she owes money to, what she has done to show she can be a competent leader?

    I mean, sure, in college she was president of the Wellesley Young Republicans, but what since then…

  • AWESOME SUGGESTION:

    impeachcheneythenbush said:
    “I think Obama should offer Hillary the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in his cabinet.
    IF she’s really as devoted to health care issues as she claims she is (and I believe her), this would be a perfect spot for her.”

  • I really like Edwards, he seems sincere, just a little too soft spoken like OBAMA used to be.

  • Sharon – you aren’t the only one to regret supporting Clinton. I had her pegged as my candidate early on…and then the Clinton Circus began.

  • This is simply the pro-Obama biased media trying to sabotage Sen. Clinton’s ongoing campaign because she is headed to win the popular vote and get the nomination from the uncommitted superdelegates. The uncommitted superdelegates will show their wisdom, integrity, and courage in using their indepedent judgment to select Sen. Clinton as the best qualified and strongest candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election hands down in November. Sen. Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

  • 20. On May 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am, csh said:

    Even if you exclude FL and MI, Hillary Clinton received over 49% of the vote – over 17 million votes. She has, at the very least, earned the VP nod. Obama cannot win in November without ALL of those 17 million plus votes.

    The analysts are expecting a 100,000M voter turnout in November, and there’s no WAY McCain can win the election even if every single one of the 17M Hillary primary votes went to McCain. He’s simply too closely tied to Bush and will be trounced in the GE.

    Nobody “earns” a VP position. It’s a position the nominee must determine. If she was interested in the VP position, she should have thought about that before kneecapping him and her ugly campaigning against him, MUCH uglier than against McCain.

    Furthermore, her foreign policy/international law positions are diametrically opposed to those of Obama, as well as the kind of government Obama intends to establish. She’d be an albatross around his neck.

    26. On May 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am, RonChusid said:

    Clinton would be a awful choice for the Supreme Court (as well as VP).

    First there’s the personality issues. The Court is just too small to handle someone with her ego and inability to compromise…. Then there’s her ideology. Among her many faults has been her support for increased Executive power and defense of secrecy by the president.

    I agree. She’s also tied ideologically to the Bush administration foreign policy agenda, and if detainee lawsuits, impeachment or war crimes trials end up in the Supreme Court, we can pretty much anticipate the kind of vote she’d cast right along with the conservatives on the court.

    She also doesn’t have the kind of Constitutional legal experience needed for the Supreme Court, given the Constitutional disaster the Bush administration is leaving America.

    She can just go back to the Senate like most of the other candidates for the nomination have done.

  • I think this is a good test of Obama’s ability to do some of the tough but principled diplomacy he’s been advocating. He wants to do talks with power-hungry Iranians and North Koreans? Fine. Let’s see how he does with his fellow American first.

    If he gives her the VP slot and/or she is still in the race after June 10th, we’ll know Obama failed the test.

  • The Democratic party is right in insisting that primaries should be held later, so that you get to know that candidates better. Yet, the Republicans will always use strategies to FOIL that system. It is also good that Democrats do not have the winners take all delegates. If they did, it would be CLINTON against McCain! YIKES! Where would we be? We have to stay involved so that htese horrors do not come to pass.

  • NICKC

    That is too short a time frame from now to undue the race card that CLINTON has played while the rest of the primaries are still going on. You are talking about TWO and a HALF weeks… What CLINTON has encouraged is already showing its ugly head.

    IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT I MEAN:
    Roswell Beacon’s “White Fright” intention is to put the Presidential candidate in real crosshairs. Many believe that it was planned to have dire consequences on the candidate. While our intelligence is NOT successfully insulted by the Roswell Beacon’s planned innocence and ignorance plea, the intention to incite a murder is done. Roswell Beacon can not claim lack of fore knowledge that this would cause great danger to the candidate. It smells of undercover clandestine gathering of racists to deploy unspoken intents. Roswell Beacon should be thoroughly denounced by rival presidential campaigns, especially the Clinton campaign (due to the empowerment of the race card that they have played) to diffuse the Pandora effect her campaign has encouraged. Robert C. Byrd’s input would be of great help here too.

  • “I think that position better suited to Edwards. It’s what he cares about, and his legal background as a trial lawyer is not well suited for AG. Look for an AG with more Constitutional background.”

    Why? The Attorney General’s job is to supervise the Department of Justice, not to engage in constitutional litigation. The Solicitor General arguably needs some foundation in constitutional law (though not all of them necessarily have that), but I don’t see why the AG particularly does.

  • Wow! This post is up for 90 minutes and already 58 comments. That’s impressive.

    What do people think of promising Hillary a seat on the Supreme Court. I’d like to see her there.

  • I rethink: I think putting Clinton ANYWHERE in Obama’s administration is asking for SABOTAGE. She is much too caustic.

  • 23. Todd said: This is not blackmail, it’s a negotiation for the end game.

    RK is right, the correct word for it is extortion. Offer me the VP spot or I’ll start a civil war and sabotage what looks to be the strongest Democratic cycle in 34 years. You have a weird view of what is acceptable in a negotiation. I can’t think of a Democrat ever doing anything this disgusting to the party.

  • This CNN story about Obama-Clinton reminded me of a documentary I saw called “The Made-for-TV Election”. By parsing media coverage of the 1980 presidential election, this documentary persuasively illustrated the destructive effect the media has on our elections .

    One example used was the speculation of the so-called dream ticket where Reagan would pick Ford to be his running-mate. This speculation that it might happen and subsequent false reporting that it did happen was a great illustration of how traditional media actually creates stories out of thin air or manipulates decisions and behavior (including the decisions and behavior of those they cover) specifically for ratings.

    If you can find the time, watch all 20 clips, but here’s the four-minute clip about the media’s role in the Reagan-Ford dream ticket. It’s worth a look—I promise you.

  • Indegenous Americans are calling him “Barack Black Eagle”, they really like him.
    When Barack Obama held a rally in Crow Agency, Montana at the Crow Indian Reservation. Obama was given the name of “Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish” which means “One who helps people throughout the land.” Obama was adopted by a Crow couple named Black Eagle. He joked that he very much liked the idea of “Barack Black Eagle.”

  • #31: I don’t believe you. Show me a specific link, because I tried searching the LOC and couldn’t find a list. Until I see proof, I assume that list is bogus.

    Mind, I don’t support Hillary Clinton, but I less support lying, whether intentional or not.

  • JRD

    The POTUS depends on his/her AG for advice on Constitutional law, so an AG skilled in Constitutional law is extremely important to keep the POTUS on constitutionally-safe grounds. One of the problems w/GW Bush was that he chose AGs who did it backwards — they wrote opinions and twisted Constitutional law to “justify” his every unconstitutional action.

    However, since Obama is a Constitutional scholar himself, he may just need a sounding board and someone to come to a consensus with on Constitutional matters.

  • As for the Supreme Court, Hillary’s religious affiliation makes me very wary of what her beliefs would be unfettered by the need to court public opinion. I suspect she would be to the right of Kennedy but probably not quite as extreme as Scalia, etc. There are hundreds of far better qualified people a Democrat could nominate.

  • I had also liked the idea of HRC as HHR Secretary, or even on the Supreme Court. But there was a book published this week — by a good reporter, by a ‘respectable’ publisher — called “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlet. He’s also published an article in TNR. A quote from the article:

    For the eight years she lived in the White House, Clinton met regularly with a gathering of women who put aside political differences to seek–for themselves, for their husbands’ careers–an even greater power. Among Clinton’s prayer partners were Susan Baker, the wife of Bush consigliere James and a former board member of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family; Joanne Kemp, the wife of conservative icon Jack, responsible for introducing the political theology of fundamentalist guru Francis Schaeffer to Washington; Eileen Bakke, a leading activist for charter schools based on “character” and the wife of Dennis Bakke, then the CEO of AES, one of the world’s largest power companies; and Janet Hall, the wife of Representative Tony Hall, once a socially liberal Democrat from Ohio who, in The Family’s care, became pro-life, anti-gay rights, and simply confused about the separation of church and state. Hillary’s “prayer warriors,” as she called them, sent her daily Scripture verses to study, and Baker provided Clinton with spiritual counsel during “political storms.”

    Here is another quote, from an interview with Sharlet on Talk2Action

    The Family doesn’t work from the outside, like most Christian fundamentalist groups, but from the inside. Their influence has been staggering–they played key roles in U.S. involvement with the Cold War’s worst killers, the rise of what I call the “Popular Front” of Christian fundamentalism, its public presence, and, more recently, the creation of Faith-Based Initiatives, which even one of their own members–and a former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush for the Faith-Based scam–refers to as a vote-getting machine. The Family began in 1935 as an elite anti-New Deal coalition, and by the late 1940s, their members and friends in Congress had succeeded in rolling back some of FDR’s greatest achievements. Then they moved on to foreign policy, becoming matchmakers for foreign dictators seeking access to American power. There was General Suharto of Indonesia, who ordered the murder of at least half a million of his own citizens, and General Siad Barre of Somalia, who reduced his nation to rubble, and a couple of lunatics so drunk with power they actually thought they were gods, Emperor Selassie of Ethiopia and Papa Doc Duvalier, the vicious ruler of Haiti. That’s just for starters; their archive is a gallery of monsters. They call them “key men,” chosen for leadership by God. Simply put, The Family helped steer American foreign policy in the most horrific directions for generations. And it’s still doing so.

    If this book gets looked at — and, of course, if Sharlet’s claims prove true — but he is a respected reporter — I think the Hillary cavalcade will come to a screeching halt. (To pick the most minor of things, a lot of feminists will be offended that Hillary was part of a sex-segregated prayer group.)

  • “The POTUS depends on his/her AG for advice on Constitutional law”

    Not really. The President depends on the Justice Department’s Office of Special Counsel, the division formerly headed by, John Yoo and Jack Goldsmith, for legal advice, including but not limited to advice on the Constitution. But the AG him(or her-)self isn’t tasked with writing those memos, though of course he or she has some input. Still, the AG’s job is not primarily to advise the President on the law, but to oversee the enforcement of federal law. Obviously some familiarity with constitutional law is helpful but it’s certainly not a primary requisite for the job. Indeed, I can’t think of an AG in recent memory who was principally a constitutional law scholar.

  • The Roswell Beacon type stuff might influence some voters, but I don’ t think it has too large a bearing on the challenge facing Obama right now. This is purely Democratic party politics.

    He has done well with creating his organization, raising money and getting the majority of pledged delegates. Now his task is convincing superdelegates, the DNC, the Rules Committee and the Clinton campaign to get behind him before this situation develops into a crisis.

  • Can he offer her a co-host spot on The View? Can he offer Bill the middle square?

  • JRD

    Thanks, though in the beginning of the Bush administration, there was a lot of overlap among those who were advising Bush on legal matters.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2167985/

    At any rate, the AG is not in a compartment separate from the president but has a LOT of imput about how to lawfully administer the president’s directives within the justice department.

    I was thinking of Alberto Gonzales, but he was Bush’s “White House Counsel” and then became AG.

  • NickC, I hope you are right that the “Roswell Beacon” ploy is not as inflammatory as I think. I remember Lincoln, King and the Kennedys’ being victimized when the race card was in full vogue shows that I am not so FreeFromFrear in Florida. I am still reeling from Hillary’s and Roswell Beacon’s tactics.
    I think that if they are not exposed for their intent, we cause much harm. Perhaps we need to get off of these blogs and impress on the players to do all they can to diffuse the possible inflammation. 😮

  • This is the best blog I have been to…. I am going to write the players and campaign… Thanks to all! (H)

  • Piggybacking on comment no. 69, to be clear, The Family (aka: The Fellowship) is more like a bible-study/prayer group than a church. Its members (or “Friends”) do come from various denominations and many continue to attend their respective churches while being active in The Family.

    Here’s a quote from what appears to be a reliable source:

    …the Family mostly seems to me to be is one of those organizations that do do what establishmentarian organizations always do: provide the contacts and networks, the modes of understanding and accommodation, and the rites of entry and inclusion that enable elites to function and perpetuate themselves. The Family appears to be a right-wing example of the breed–rather more inclusive, by the evidence available, than, for example, most right-wing Washington think tanks. It does have a shadowy leader, which makes it seem more ominous than it otherwise might. His name is Doug Coe, who Clinton describes in Living History as ‘a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.'”

    The author of a book about The Family responds in the comments section to the bolded comment above by saying that The Family’s “greater than normal inclusivity makes it more powerful than more doctrinally pure think tanks but does nothing to counterbalance its rightward lean.”

    In other words, the first guy is saying that it’s an inclusive organization in that it draws from both sides of the political spectrum. The second guy is telling us not to let that fool us…they’re right-wing. He goes on to say, “That rightist tilt is most evident not in its influence on domestic politics but in foreign affairs, where it has concentrated most of its energy…The Family strongly favors dictatorship and has been effective in arranging support for ‘key man’ dictators it deems anointed by God.”

    The bottom line is that Hillary’s association with this crowd, whether or not its actually a church, is disturbing.

  • Blackmailer
    Liar
    Mommie Dearest
    Raving Lunatic
    Hillary Clinton = Louis Farrahkan

    Glad to see that even with the nomination well at hand, that Obama supporters are still anxious to show their stunning political maturity by (by this point) gratuitously insulting an excellent candidate with a lifetime of support for women’s, children’s, and working folks’ issues – one who will continue to be a powerful Democratic leader after the nomination goes to Obama.

    Say Obama supporters like you, to 17 million-plus Clinton Democratic primary voters – “Fornicate you and your lying, blackmailing, party-destroying two-term Senator from New York.”

    “But, once the nomination is all over and the Hillary-bile is now cold, please vote with us now in November because after all, we’re all one, our candidate is the one who can bring us all together and heck, we’re all Democrats again.”

    And no party-destroying activities to be seen here. Nosirree, Bob! Move along.

  • I’d say Tom Cleaver @28 has put the fine point on it. Nothing like an accurate analogue. Oh, the irony. Hill-arious. (ahem).

  • Jim Hart (and Tom Cleaver)

    Oh yeah. Ha ha ha. And what was it that Senator Obama was saying about Hillary’s contributions to the cause of women’s rights in Iowa the other day?

    Oh, but he’s just busy being a policitian – not so interested in being as incisively witty as you two.

  • colonpowwow ,

    First, the people who support Obama are not the monolithic, brainwashed bunch you imply with your complaint about “Obama supporters” this and “Obama supporters” that. Many, if not most, of us were once Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and/or Clinton supporters first.

    Second, we’re complaining about Senator Clinton herself, not “Clinton supporters”.

    If you think we have our facts wrong or don’t agree with our assessment of Clinton, then of course, feel free to tell us why. But the bone-headed inference you made in your second paragraph (“fornicate you”) is utter nonsense. Nobody in this thread (or in most I’ve seen) said it, nobody implied it and nobody feels that way about people, in general, who voted for or continue to support her.

    To generalize is to be an idiot.
    — William Blake

  • # 31

    Ha ha. Very funny. Now here’s an actual list of legislation that Clinton co-authored during her first years in the Senate. Notice her name is in the title of the bills listed here. That means that she didn’t just “sign-on” as a co-sponsor on hundreds of bills (which she did, just like Obama did on the ones you mentioned) – it means she actually authored these bills and herded them through the Senate, the House, and into law – mostly in a very partisan Congress.

    Hillary Clinton
    Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
    Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
    Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
    Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
    Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
    Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
    Schumer-Clinton Amendment Forcing Deadbeat Diplomats To Pay Parking Tickets And Property Taxes
    Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
    Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
    Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
    Clinton-Hagel Legislation To Support “National Purple Heart Recognition Day”
    Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico’s Caribbean National Forest
    Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
    Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
    Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
    Israel-Clinton Legislation to Honor Long Island Hero
    Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
    Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America’s Children Against Terrorism Act
    Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act

    Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act

    Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation

    Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families

    Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act

    Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
    Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion

    Sorry if some duplicates here, but I did this in a hurry.

    Next.

    Moron!

  • FWIW, Nancy Pelosi has given a hopeful and rational series of statements about how the Democratic nominee will be chosen here. Let’s hope her predictions are reliable. Some quotes:

    May 22, 2008. Pelosi, 68, said the Democrats’ delegate-selection process, not the popular vote, will determine whether Illinois Senator Barack Obama or Clinton wins the party’s nomination this year.

    “The person who has the most delegates becomes the nominee of the party,” Pelosi said. “It’s not been about the popular vote.”

    Pelosi said in the interview that delegates from both states will ultimately be seated at the Democrats’ national convention in Denver in August under a system that will be accepted by both candidates.

    Racial Divisions

    “It will be done in a way that I think is signed off on by both of the candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, each of the states, Michigan and Florida, and also by the Democratic National Committee,” Pelosi said.

    Pelosi said she isn’t concerned about racial divisions that appear to be reflected in votes in some primary states, and that the outcome of the Oregon primary — where Obama overwhelmingly won white voters — provided further evidence that the Illinois senator can appeal to both black and white voters.

    “Should he become the nominee of our party with the message of change and what that change means for working families in America, I think those same people will see that their interests are served by a Democratic president,” Pelosi said. “It needs to be attended to, but I don’t think it’s a worry.”

    Pelosi predicted that Democrats will win the White House because of the contrast between the Democratic nominee and presumptive Republican presidential standard-bearer John McCain, an Arizona senator.

    She reiterated her skepticism about Obama and Clinton running on the same ticket.

    “In all honesty, I do think it is not likely,” Pelosi said.

  • Okay, Chris,

    You and your ilk all just infer that 17 plus million Clinton-voters must be idiotic and misguided enough to vote for a lying, party-destroying Farrakhan clone.

    I stand corrected.

    Sorry.

    And what insults have I ever hurled at Obama. Heck, I like the guy, will work for him, and support him 100 percent after he wins the nomination. I just think Hillary would be a better candidate.

    Sorry again.

  • Oh, BTW Chris,

    I said in my post “Obama supporters like you” – that refers specifically to Obama supporters on the lefty blogosphere (like some here) who hurl insults like calling her the Farrahkan of feminism.

    Sorry that wasn’t clear enough for you.

    Thanks for calling me an idiot in your signoff. Also pretty much to be expected from the Obamahkans.

    “What’s the difference between an Obama supporter and a cute little puppy?”

    The little puppy stops whining every once in awhile.

    You won.

    BTW – It’s not “blackmail” – it’s called “politics” – using the leverage you gained by garnering 17 million votes in your party to get some things you want. Did you call Ted Kennedy names when he took his nomination fight all the way to the convention against Jimmy Carter even though he was over 1,000 delegates behind?

  • colonpowow

    And what insults have I ever hurled at Obama.

    Who is this, then?

    a lying, party-destroying Farrakhan clone

  • Why? The Attorney General’s job is to supervise the Department of Justice, not to engage in constitutional litigation. -JRD

    I thought it would be fitting given the Constitutional overstepping the department, especially Gonzales engaged in, but ultimately, I would defer to you on this point, given your expertise.

  • aristedes:

    If you’d read a just little bit further before you post, you’d see that “a lying, party-destroying, Farrakhan clone” refers to insults hurled at Hillary Clinton on this thread.

    Incredible, no?

  • “I can’t imaging that Obama would want her as Veep. It would undercut his change message.” The change message is not immutable- first woman is pretty big change, too.

    Now, the old politics message is tougher to deal with but he’ll be in charge, not her.

    I don’t see any real problems except for die hard O supporter disgust at everything about her campaign since Feb 5th. But that’s politics, right?

    Isn’t the real question for us: who do you choose, HRC or McCain?

  • doubtful/JRD

    Here from the link I posted earlier is described what the Bush administration was doing with its attorneys (AG & DOJ), questions raised about their responsibilities, and some answers:

    =====

    In March 2004, the White House insisted on access to a very ill Attorney General John Ashcroft for approval of its warrantless surveillance program. Then-Acting Attorney General James Comey, who had already denied approval, raced to the hospital to protect his boss from being pressured by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. With Comey at his side, Ashcroft mustered his strength to tell Gonzales “no.”

    The question remains: Were Comey and other DoJ lawyers wrong to threaten to quit when the program proceeded without any DoJ authorization? After all, doesn’t the president have ultimate authority to make such calls? What are the boundaries between lawyers’ responsibility to the president and their duty to uphold the Constitution?

    The proper role for presidential lawyers is actually quite clear, although more nuanced than either zealous advocate or neutral arbiter. The Constitution explicitly commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and it is up to the attorney general and, under his direction, DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to provide the analytical expertise the president needs to ensure the legality of his administration’s actions. Presidential lawyers should operate first and foremost as stewards of the rule of law and our constitutional democracy. Their legal advice must reflect an accurate and principled view of the law, not just plausible, ends-driven rationalizations. And in order to do that with any effectiveness, they must be allowed to tell the president “no.”

    The president unquestionably possesses very broad discretion to hire and replace those who serve at his pleasure, and that leeway is fundamental to his authority to control the executive branch. He has the authority to disagree with his lawyers when he honestly determines that they are wrong, based on a principled, alternative best reading of the law. But the president clearly oversteps permissible bounds—and in the process endangers our constitutional democracy—if he or his vice president retaliates against his lawyers for standing up for the rule of law or proceeds against their advice without a valid legal basis.

  • aristedes,

    That’s all true, and obviously a working knowledge of the Constitution is valuable for any high-level federal officer. But the context of my original statement was a response to doubtful’s argument that John Edwards is not qualified to be AG because he is a trial lawyer rather than a constitutional expert. My point is that there’s nothing in the AG’s job description which makes constitutional expertise a requisite for effectiveness in that role.

  • But the context of my original statement was a response to doubtful’s argument that John Edwards is not qualified to be AG because he is a trial lawyer rather than a constitutional expert. -JRD

    That’s probably just bad wording on my part. I don’t think he’s not qualified, I just thought it would be better to have someone with more of a constitutional background, and ultimately feel that Edwards would be more effective somewhere he had a hand in poverty and health care policy.

  • I’ve attended a BO rally, where the big applause line was…….’I will be a president who understands and respects the constitution.’ Hoots~hollars~claps~
    Please, it’s not ONLY about Roe v Wade. Are people really suggesting that Hillary has the constitutional background to be a supreme court member?? Really??? My understanding was she was a corporate lawyer. Not exactly the same thing.
    She’s a lot of things to a lot of people, but the constitutional wiz doesn’t jump out at me. We will all suffer if those become PATRONAGE positions. Please, NO!

  • “Edwards would be more effective somewhere he had a hand in poverty and health care policy.”
    That’s entirely possible; I think a stronger argument against Edwards as AG would be that he (as far as I know) hasn’t had any experience with the federal criminal justice system, either. But, again, not every AG has, though it’s a vitally important part of the Justice Department’s work.

  • JRD

    With Obama’s expertise in Constitutional law, he could probably get along fine with an AG who was NOT a Constitutional expert, though I suppose we’d all agree that it’s a fine quality for an AG to have. If s/he isn’t an expert, then it’s crucial to have attorneys serving under the AG who are if a president is to stay on safe Constitutional grounds.

    And we know that Bush got rid of all the experts and/or ignored them. Given what he did, I have been fixated on how the next president can undo the damage, what kind of advisors he’d choose to help him carry that large burden.

    I, personally, would rather see John Edwards in a position where he could make a real difference in getting corporations out of the government, clean up the contract-awarding function of the government, the lobbying, etc. I don’t know if there’s one position that would have that many arms, but it really needs to be done.

    Since Obama is running as a Washington “outsider” I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bring in other “outsiders” into key positions to strengthen a different approach to government.

  • “Please, it’s not ONLY about Roe v Wade. Are people really suggesting that Hillary has the constitutional background to be a supreme court member?? Really??? My understanding was she was a corporate lawyer. ”

    This is kind of in line with what I was talking to doubtful and aristedes about, and raises a broader point– I think that constitutional expertise tends to be fetishized to the exclusion of everything else a little too much sometimes. Obviously constitutional interpretation is an enormously important part of the Supreme Court’s work, but it’s not all that the Court does. I think the Court would actually be better served if one of the nine Justices was an expert in, say, securities or intellectual property law (Breyer does have a strong background in administrative law and was a principal drafter of the federal sentencing guidelines, experience that he has put to substantial, if not always good, use on the Court). That’s not to say that I think Clinton would be a good choice for the Court– I certainly don’t, nor do I think Obama should reward her with such a position– but not because her legal practice involved private civil litigation on behalf of corporate clients rather than constitutional work.

  • Oh, wow! From ABC News:

    Obama Proposes ‘Team of Rivals’ Cabinet

    May 22, 2008 9:14 PM

    An amusing question and an historical answer at Sen. Barack Obama’s town meeting in Boca Raton, Fla.

    The questioner asked, “You’re about to achieve a truly wonderful, historic nomination, but we both know unless you, and we, win in November, it’s going to be a footnote. So, my question is when the time comes, will you be willing to consider everybody who is a possible help to you as a running mate, even if his or her spouse is an occasional pain in the butt?”

    Obama first begged off the presumption that his nomination is a done deal — “I don’t want to jump the gun,” he said — but then he pivoted and jumped the gun a touch.

    “I will tell you, though, that my goal is to have the best possible government, and that means me winning,” Obama said, per ABC News’ Sunlen Miller. “And so, I am very practical minded. I’m a practical-minded guy. And, you know, one of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln.”

    Obama then referred to “a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called ‘Team of Rivals,’ in which [she] talked about [how] Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever, you know, personal feelings there were, the issue was, ‘How can we get this country through this time of crisis?'”

    Lincoln, FYI, appointed three of his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination to his cabinet — three men who at the time loathed him.

    William H. Seward became secretary of state, Salmon P. Chase became secretary of the treasury, and Edward Bates became attorney general.

    Another former rival, Edwin Stanton — who once called Lincoln a “long armed ape” — became secretary of war.

    “That has to be the approach that one takes,” Obama said, “whether it’s vice president or cabinet, whoever. And by the way that does not exclude Republicans either. You know my attitude is that whoever is the best person for the job is the person I want. …

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obama-proposes.html

  • hey colonpowpow – if lefty blogs get you all upset, STFU and go drip your snide all over Free Republic – your sneering attitude pretty effectively blocks out anything rational you might be trying to say here.

  • I think the Court would actually be better served if one of the nine Justices was an expert in, say, securities or intellectual property law

    HRC is not in expert in any branch of the law. The little legal scholarship she was involved with was childrens rights. But that was 30 years ago.

  • Erik,

    Keep reading to the part where I say that I don’t think Hillary would be a good Court nominee. That aside, I also don’t think that “scholarship” as opposed to legal practice is necessarily a key criterion either. Of the currently sitting justices, only Breyer, Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy are former law professors (at least full time; I wouldn’t be shocked if some of the others taught adjunct courses at some point in their careers). In any case, there’s an enormous distinction between being an expert in a field of law and being a legal scholar. Plenty of law firm partners are more expert in their fields of law than most judges, yet they generally don’t publish law review articles– they’re too busy handling actual cases.

  • Here’s an idea: Offer Hill and Bill the next two seats on the Supreme Court… I can’t remember if he was disbarred following the impeachment (but not conviction), but not sure you have to be licensed to practice law to be a Justice. The two of them ought to balance off Scalito/Thomas nicely. As one lawyer I know said, “They could sell tickets to those decisions.”

  • This may sound extreme but I’m dead serious: If I were Obama I would disqualify Hillary from the VP slot simply for fear that she might try to have me assassinated. She’s so fixated on the presidency that she’s come unhinged. How hard would it be? If I was Obama I’d consider Hillary radioactive.

  • NO F’N WAY. Not after the way she’s conducted herself. Obama would have to sleep with one eye open. And with Bill around… oh, let’s not go there. NO rewards for the selfish, spoiled brat.

  • The Obama/Clinton was good at first but now it will be a nightmare. Those two are not on the same page. Clinton is from the “old establishment” and Obama is the “new establishment”. The two cannot work together and when there is division among the ranks nothing will be accomplished.

    Anyway, Obama is not a weak man, nor is he stupid. He is not going to let some self-serving politician try to extort the Vice President spot from someone who is more qualified to work with a man like him. Not saying that Clinton wouldn’t make a good vice president, just not Obama’s vice president.

    If there is a civil war among the Democratic Party, so be it. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.

  • Hillary is far too proactive to take a backseat as VP. I have not heard any discussion about the post in which she would most excel and that is secretary of State. That would allay the fears a lot of people have with Obama’s nievete’ (or is it?) with regard to foreign affairs.

  • stephen1947

    Ed Schulz calls them “lefty blogs.” It’s just a figure of speech.

    My goal in life is to someday be as articulate and refined in my attitude as you demonstrate with your last post-personal diatribe.

    I’ve been a progressive Democrat since the first time I voted for Gene McCarthy in 1968.

    Go Freep Yourself, Einstein!

  • Bear, you fucking rock in my book. You married? I’ll go lesbo just to get a chance for a date. How ’bout we cuddle up at the inauguration?

    Love and XOXO,
    MM

    Oh and colonpowwowwow: I love you too man. Old guys rock my whorl

    Maria, I told you it was something sinister! Little did I know the whore was praying for the bullet solution!

    (Sorry guyze, the good lord hath giveth me waaaay too much happy hour)

  • 15 gun control bills? so he has tried to undemine our constitution 15 TIMES! wow what a guy… not that HRC is any better…. or any of them… throw em all out! Take back your rights beofre they take them all and we live in dictatorship (almost to late)

  • Comments are closed.