Former president calls Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ‘unstoppable force’

What’s that old expression? Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend?

For the third time in the last four days, the Clinton camp is emphasizing, rather blatantly, the notion of a Clinton-Obama ticket. This time, it was the former president.

At a small town hall meeting in Pass Christian, Miss. this morning, the former president took questions from the crowd, something he hasn’t really done since the days of South Carolina. While a large portion of the questions focused on Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Pass Christian community, one resident asked if Hillary would pick Obama as her Vice President. It is a question that Clinton is very familiar with, having been asked it nearly once a day back in the days of Iowa and New Hampshire. Usually, President Clinton shies away from answering, explaining that his family is VERY superstitious when it comes to politics and they never go thinking they’ve won before they really have.

Today, however, the President seemed especially tickled by the answer, and chose to share with his personal thoughts on picking Obama as a VP. […]

“I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat. I mean you look at the, you look at the, you look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio. And the map in Missouri or — well Arkansas’s not a good case because they know her and she won every place there. But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force,” Clinton went on to say.

I think Team Clinton is starting to drop its subtleties.

For those keeping score at home, the first hint came Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows by straying from the usual script. Asked on CBS about running with Obama, Clinton said, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

Yesterday, the senator brought it up unprompted.

Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week’s primary, Clinton said, “I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”

While Wednesday’s comment came in response to a specific question,comment, this one was unprompted — meaning Clinton specifically wanted to raise this point for emphasis.

To reiterate a point from the other day, I still think this talk is off-base, at least so long as Clinton is openly and publicly questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for office (she said this week that John McCain meets the “commander-in-chief threshold” and has the experience to do the job, while Obama’s qualifications remain unclear).

Hilzoy had a good item about this yesterday.

It’s not that I think one candidate can’t ever say this about a candidate in his or her own party. It could happen that some candidate in one’s own party was obviously unsuited to be President. (Jack the Ripper. Hitler. Pick your own imaginary nightmare candidate.) If that candidate seemed at all likely to win, I think one should say: listen, this would be a complete disaster. The reason I think Clinton’s comments are out of line is that Barack Obama is not, by any measure, that imaginary candidate. Moreover, I assume that she knows this.

However, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that she actually believes that Barack Obama cannot “cross the commander-in-chief threshold.” One of the most important jobs a President has is to defend the country. If she thinks that Barack Obama is not qualified to do that job, then she should not support him over anyone who can. Specifically, she should support McCain over Obama.

That’s why I think some enterprising reporter should ask her whether she would support Barack Obama if he were nominated. If she would, then she should be asked why she would be willing to support someone she does not believe is qualified to be commander in chief.

While the fitness-to-serve question remains an open matter to the Clinton campaign, any talk about a joint ticket seems misguided.

Translation: Hillary has no chance in hell of getting the nomination unless Obama agrees to having her as a running mate. But wait; why would Obama who she says is unqualified be qualified enough to be her running mate? Can you say bi-polar??????

  • Tunde hit the right note: Bipolar

    Either these Clintons are mentally ill…
    Or else they are mentally ill.

    I gave this theme my best shot yesterday.
    I’ve got only one more bullet to shoot off and then I leave the floor to other, more qualified psychoanalysts:

    The Clinton are trying to capture that tiny niche market of voters who will vote for Hillary because she will agree to let Barack drive her around town.

    [Which is to say: I really love the Driving Miss Daisy thingy….Perfecto! Give that poster a Carpetbagger embossed coffee mug.]

    By the way:
    Do the math. It is going to take utter Clinton blowouts for them to win this thing:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056
    Only Clinton cultists still believe in miracles….

  • The Clintons are deluded.

    After the lying over NAFTA last week, any self respecting liberal has to walk away from the Clintons.

  • I’m trying to think of a worse job than vice-president in a Hillary Clinton administration, but I can’t.

    With Bill around and all the other huge ego hangers-on from the ’90’s, it would be funerals and making paper clip chains at the vice-presidential desk.

  • The simple question to all of this is, “would Hillary intentionally place someone a heartbeat away from the presidency who is not qualified to be president?”

    Even a hardcore Clintonian like Mary would have to admit that either (a) Hillary truly believes Barack is qualified to be C-in-C, or (b) Hillary is pandering—shamelessly pandering—to the Obama supporters, and has no intention of asking him to join the ticket. She’s also completely aware—as in Billy J—that Obama has no intention of serving as VP. You simply cannot say that someone is not qualified, and them place him in a position where he might actually have to take over.

    I’m betting the farm on option (b)….

  • Come on, we know the reason for this tack. By talking up BHO for VP, Hillary does three things:

    1) She makes herself look as a party unifier;
    2) It reduces BHO’s stature (he’s not ready to be President but with some OJT, he’ll be an outstanding choice in 2016);
    3) It puts pressure on Obama to accept the VP spot if he loses Pennsylvania.

    It’s one of the few brilliant tacks taken by the Hillary team this year.

  • I see the shared ticket talk as a page straight out of Rove’s book. In a nutshell, as Clinton launches new rounds of attacks on Obama’s character, judgment, and capacity, she also launches a round of positive warm hugs about his wonderful capacity to be her running mate. Both messages are out there in the political swirl with the ever-deficient media unable to sort it out and force it to make sense (or nonsense). The result is that those who want nice HIllary have a storyline to follow, while the trashing goes on unimpeded. It’s a great innoculation and coexistent message strategy. Funny that paid reporters can’t figure it out.

  • Thank You! I have been waiting for a mainstream blog to pick up the consequences to Obama of Hillary’s defining Obama out of existence as Commander in Chief. Too bad Hillary and Bill didn’t know the Army was hiring during the Viet Nam War, because they are both tough hombres. Hillary’s giant military complex-sized cajones are the reason she wears Pant Suits, they don’t fit in any known dress or skirt & she would be criticized for wearing her Tribal Kilt.

    I am not a Blogger and I posted the Hillary Defining Obama out of existence as C-i-C dilemma on Talk Left, which is a pro-Hillary Blog where one of the Bloggers is openly pro-Hillary (the attorney Jerelyn who is a frequent guest on tv shows) and the other co-host is a male who claims he is for Obama but criticizes nearly everything Obama does and is in constant outrage at what he percievs as attacks on Hillary’s & The Clinton’s character (sic).

    Talk Left, not as adamantly as Erica Jong and the abominable human being whose name ryhmes with Sailor Carsh) views most, if not all objections to Hillary and The Clinton’s as sexist attacks on all women, especially given Hillary’s unimpeachable (oops!) great record of accomplishments, none of which is visible or measurable.

    (btw, does Sinbad, the comedian who traveled with Hillary on one of her important diplomatic missions get the Nobel Peace Prize if Hillary is Commander-in-Chief, our War President and health care expert?)

  • Invasion of the charisma snatchers. Hillzilla as Sylar on “Heroes” sucking the power out of those who can do things that she can’t.

    Do we really want a V.P. with the top of his head missing?

  • It looks like Obama’s going to pick up 2 or 3 delegates in Wyoming with about a 60/40 win (78% reported already), and he’ll likely pick up a few more in Mississippi on Tuesday. Once Texas gets off its ass and gets the final results tallied, by Wednesday we’ll probably see that Clinton’s “big wins” last week were just so much vapor. Obama will likely come out the winner in Texas and little ol’ Wyoming and Mississippi will probably offset the rest, leaving him just as far ahead of her as he was going into March 4. Funny that the MSM keeps talking about how decisively she beat him, isn’t it? No? It’s not funny? I don’t think so either.

  • Turn-out is reportedly extremely high in Wyoming. It will be interesting to see if this is normal pro-Obama fervor, unusually high interest in any Democrat replacing Bush and the Republicans, Republicans making mischief under the bidding of Limbaugh, or some combination of the above. So far, Obama is reported to be ahead (56%), so I’m guessing #1, plus a bit of #2.

  • Once again, the Clinton’s leave me speechless except for things I’d wouldn’t want associated with this comment section. I now understand how a bj can lead to impeachment.

  • First: I strongly support Obama.

    With that out of the way, I think this ties the last week of Hilldog comments together. She’s trying to say that McCain would make a better president than Obama because he has experience. She says that she has experience. Clearly, she wants experience to be the dealbreaker. Obama could get that experience, and end her mudslinging, if he submits to being her VP. She’s tossing him a chip for 2012/2016 if he folds now.

  • President Lindsey’s numbers were better than mine, and I should also have pointed out that a huge turn-out among Wyoming democrats is still very small in actual numbers:
    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/WY.html
    As of 5:15, with 78% reporting, Obama has 58.6%, which represents a total of 4,000 votes. Clinton has 2,756 votes (40.4%). By comparison, all of 665 democrats voted in the caucus in Wyoming in 2004, so it is already a ten-fold increase.

  • I just hope the Clintons are pushing this issue because she wants to be VP.

    If she’s talking about taking Obama as VP, when she’s over 150 delegates back, that is extremely arrogant and furthers her image as a monster.

  • Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend?

    Actually, the way I’ve always heard it is:

    Once is an accident.
    Twice is a coincidence.
    Three times is enemy action.

    Which, come to think of it, fits pretty well here.

  • If Hillary wants a joint ticket, somebody from her staff needs to ask somebody on Obama’s staff whether negotiations can begin for her to serve as his VP.

    Period.

    In the meantime, she’s just pandering and manipulating, insinuating that maybe a vote for her is also a vote for Obama.

    Reverse coattails, anyone?

  • 91% now, Obama’s got 58%. So they’ll split the 12 delegates 7-5.

    On to Mississippi! Oh, and Texas. I think their two monkeys with an abacus might just be finished by Tuesday night.

  • You know Obama’s going to be getting asked about a unity ticket. I wish he’d respond, “Well, I think I’d like to pick somebody with more experience for my VP.”

  • Gee Clintonites, if you want him to run as Veep, why not pick up the damn phone and ask?

    Better yet, since you both work in the same bloody building why not ask him the next time you’re at work?!

    Can you say bi-polar

    At the risk of seeming horribly cynical and crass: Do you remember the jokes about Dan Quayle? And how he served to protect Bush the Elder from assassins?

  • 8. john said: Funny that paid reporters can’t figure it out.

    In their defense, speaking as someone who grew up in a family of newspaper editors, paid reporters seem to be drunk most of the time.

  • In what many in the GOP came to view as the 11th Commandment, Ronald Reagan famously said,” Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Hillary Clinton, it would now appear, is taking his advice to heart. Not content to merely lambast the supposed inexperience of Barack Obama, Clinton’s scorched-earth campaign has lavished praise on John McCain as the embodiment of a commander-in-chief. Desperate to resurrect her once-fading candidacy, it is Hillary Clinton who has sadly emerged as the embodiment of Reagan’s Law.

    For the details, see:
    “Hillary Clinton Follows Reagan’s 11th Commandment.”

  • Is it possible that Hillary actually sees the handwriting on the wall, and is angling for the VP slot for herself on exchange for dropping out of the race? With the example set by Cheney, and with Bill by her side, I assume she still believes she would wield significant power. And that’s really what she wants most of all.

  • I do not care. If Hillary is on a Democrat ticket. I will vote for McCain.

  • I think clinton is campaigning with the super delegates with these statements. She’s trying to make it go down easy when she tries to take the nomination. She really can’t successfully finesse “stealing” the nomination. All hell will break loose.

  • You can bet that the Obama campaign has thought through the political calculus of Hillary as VP: How many would she drive away vs how many would she attract. But she’s been so scathing about his qualifications that I don’t see how she could now campaign vigorously on his behalf. I think she’s burned that bridge already.

  • I’d like to say that the negativity I’m feeling toward Clinton now, is in NO way a retroactive feeling that she or bill deserved the rightwing attacks when he was president. two different things.

  • I’m flabbergasted that anyone could think there’s anything of substance behind these remarks. After all the video of the Clinton’s attacking Obama as unqualified and without substance, how could she possibly choose him — or he accept — or he choose her? The entire Republican campaign would be Clinton tapes criticizing her for choosing an unqualified VP — or her as VP criticizing the ticket’s #1. And rightfully so.

    The Clinton’s are dangling an imaginary carrot in an attempt to trick some voters while pretending to be the gracious front-runner. It is all an illusion. It is all bullshit.

  • I agree completely with Dale. The anger I feel is based entirely on the way they have campaigned the last 2 months. I have never been a big Clinton supporter, but that was because of their centrist triangulating governing philosophy rather than any feeling that they personally were sleazy.

  • Hmmm, let’s see what the Democratic party has done to hamstring themselves in the primaries:
    – Hillary claiming Ohio has spoken, ya, the rest of the country doesn’t care who Ohio wants.
    – My home state, Texas, enough said.
    – Florida & Michigan, which wasn’t an issue until Hillary was losing.
    – Hillary giving McCain mad props.
    – Bill Clinton, about 1 in 5 things coming out of his mouth is either grossly misrepresentative of an actual lie.
    – The ‘scary’ 3am commercial.
    – SUPER DUPER DELEGATES, specifically the Ohio brand.

    If our goal is to lose one of the most winnable elections, we are right on track.

    Anyone else seeing a trend ? I am no hater and I was on Hillary’s team until she started losing. And I am so tired of Ohio. Hillary/Ohio, you are not anointed, you do not get to change the rules when they don’t suit you. Please, for the sake of the Democratic party, get over yourselves and realize the party is more important then you own ambitions.

  • Sorry, I don’t usually correct comments but my #33 was a mess. Please look at the link for something intelligible.

  • Obama could get that experience… -Stephen

    The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the Presidency. To begin with, that hardly ever happens. But more to the point, the qualifications for Vice President are the same as President since at any moment, even 3 AM on day one, the Vice President could be required to assume the Presidency.

    If she thinks he is qualified for Vice President, than she thinks he’s qualified for President. Her cries of inexperience ring hollow in this light.

    Dale is 100% right that she’s pandering to the supers. Fortunately for Democrats, it won’t work.

  • clinton stll has to prove she is VP material.

    Thus far she looks more and more like Cheney insider beltway, say or do anything vicious sleaze material…

    Cheney/Clinton

    or Clinton/Cheney ??

  • The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the Presidency. To begin with, that hardly ever happens.

    Well, not exactly…

    Just in the 20th c., there were seven presidents who were first VP — George H.W. Bush, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Taft, & Teddy Roosevelt — plus an eighth who had been a VP nominee first, FDR.

    Just as many presidents with no VP connections — Clinton, Reagan, Carter, JFK, Eisenhower, Hoover, Harding, and Wilson. (Though JFK tried to get the nomination in 1956 and failed, and Reagan was floated in ’68 and ’76.)

  • With 100% reporting, it was 61 to 38 for Obama. So, of course, it’ll be “a squeaker” for him, or something like that – it’s only a “blowout” or a “huge victory” if Hillary wins.

  • Why would Obama even consider a vp so tied to lobbyists? That is one of his major themes as to what is wrong in our government.

    And in IL 14 Congressional Dist to replace Hastert….Foster is now ahead…or was a few minutes ago with 25% of the votes in.

  • The sense of Imperial entitlement the Clintons ooze just reminds me how much I disliked that slimy con-artist back in 1992, when he told his self-revelatory tale of how he conned his way out of the draft. That story was a “tell” to anyone who creates characters (which I do for a living, and it involves studying characters in real life to co it), and absolutely nothing that “cracking trader” has done since has been surprising to anyone who “got” that story.

    The two of these arrogant, self-involved egomaniacs are exceeded in their valuelessness to America only by the guy who succeeded Bill in office.

    For the loser to be maganimous enough to offer the winner the #2 position is the height of their entitled arrogance.

  • TR wrote: “Well, not exactly… Just in the 20th c., there were seven presidents who were first VP — George H.W. Bush, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Taft, & Teddy Roosevelt”

    Except that 5 of those 8 became president by the death or resignation of the previous office holder. Taft was never vice-president (he was secretary of war before running for president.) George H.W. Bush, Nixon, and Taft are the only two to gain the office by election (and Nixon lost the first time he tried). I would assume “doubtful” had that latter fact in mind.

  • “Is it possible that Hillary actually sees the handwriting on the wall, and is angling for the VP slot for herself on exchange for dropping out of the race?”

    I think she’s going about it the wrong way if that’s what she’s up to. The last thing Obama would need as a VP is someone who might work to undermine his authority. Cheney complemented Bush because Bush was in it for the glory rather than the actual power. I think Obama actually has things he wants done.

    And remember, when people started talking about Mike Huckabee angling for the Republican VP slot, it was when Huckabee started acting suspiciously nice to McCain.

  • “I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat.” ~William Jefferson Clinton

    Translation: “On our own, we really don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The uneducated who have been voting for us will almost certainly vote for McCain in the general, because while we’re good at scaring them, he’s better. We want his votes and we’re pretty worried that out slimy tactics will cost us those votes. Plus, we’ve managed to alienate the better part of black America and we don’t have the time to pander to them. We’ll use him; marginalize him once in the White House; and probably corrupt whatever good name he has. It will be great, because the important thing is to get another Clinton into the Oval Office. Remember that, it’s the important thing. And this time around we don’t have H. Ross Perot, so Hillary is going to need more than 43% of the vote for her ‘mandate’.”

    If Obama came to accept the VP slot from Clinton, i don’t think that i could respect him enough anymore to throw away my vote in that direction. Thankfully, the World Workers Party is generally on the ballot; if you’re going to throw away a vote, it might as well get tossed at the communists.

  • I wrote a post about this topic on my blog: http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/

    An excerpt:
    If cynicism, political calculation, and manipulation were Olympic events, we’d be talking gold medals for the Clintons.

    How the hell can Bill and Hillary Clinton relentlessly hammer Barack Obama as nothing more than a shell, an empty vessel that lacks the substance and experience to be the president and, in the next breath and with a straight face, suggest that Obama would make a great vice presidential choice if she’s the Democratic party nominee for president?

    They really do think we’re stupid.

  • She’s not a monster; she’s a Cookie (kooky?) Monster. “Vote for me and I’ll — MAYBE — give you a cookie (Obama as VP).

    The words for today: “fallacious” (thinking), “mendacious” (acting) and “arrogant” (all over)

    Lex, @ 47,
    Don’t you go and vote for commies, now; with FISA un-fixed, it ain’t safe… I doubt they’re gonna give you web-access in the clink.

    I think, the best thing for us to do come November (supposing that Her Royal Cuteness manages to get the nomination somehow), is to leave the presidential slot empty and vote straight Dem down-ticket. It would be helpful even with a Dem Prex but, with McSame in the Oval, having as many Dems as absolutely possible in the Congress is going to be *essential*

  • I think this is a wonderful idea. Look how many votes were cast in the Wyoming Caucus..8,000. Hillary could get that many in a suburb of a large city. Obama does not have experience. He does need the experience of acting as a vice president with an accomplished President. The only way I would vote for him is if he was on the Hillary/Obama ticket. Him for president, I would not vote for him. I would vote for Ralph Nader. Or lord help me, McCain….By the way, all of these young supporters all of a sudden getting interested in the change of the U.S. Why don’t we see them joining our broken military if they have such an urge to change America…They could build a lot of roads, bridges, tutor kids, protect borders, etc. Whoa! This is great action on their part. They have actually gone to an Obama rally and they are going to take an hour out of their selfish little lives and go vote. Give me a break!!!! This is not real physical actual support of the country.

  • Joanie, Joanie, Joanie…

    Obama doesn’t have enough experience, so if he gets the nod, you’ll vote for Nader. Brilliant! Nader has NO experience other than losing three elections — one of which he threw to GWB. In three presidential bids, his combined share of the total vote amounts to 1/5 of what that powerhouse of electoral experience, Ross Perot, earned in one presidential bid.

    You think Obama should serve under an accomplished President — are you aware that during the Clinton administrations, Bill was the president, not Hillary? Obama has more experience in elected office than she does!

    You think Obama’s young supporters should join the broken military — but you’d rather vote for McCain who is running on the record of the guy who broke the military. As for them buidling bridges and roads, I’ll be the first to donate a shovel and a bag of gravel for each mile of road you build. But I won’t drive on it.

  • Except that 5 of those 8 became president by the death or resignation of the previous office holder.

    Of course. But doubtful said it rarely happened that the vice presidency was a stepping stone to the presidency. She/he never said succession-by-death-or-resignation didn’t count. Almost half the 20th c. presidents were VP first.

    But yes, I blew the Taft call. Yikes.

  • The only way I would vote for him is if he was on the Hillary/Obama ticket. Him for president, I would not vote for him. I would vote for Ralph Nader. Or lord help me, McCain….

    If you would shun Obama, who shares 95% agreement with Clinton on virtually all issues, and instead vote for McCain, who would enact policies that are diametrically removed from Clinton’s stated policies — war forever, tax cuts for the rich, more Scalias on the Supreme court — then you’re invested in just her personality and nothing more.

    You’re not a Democrat, you’re a Clinton cultist.

  • Joanie, did you vote for W.J. Clinton in 1992? He didn’t have all the much experience either, nothing like a Senator from the great state of NY and a former first lady. And he campaigned in much the same way as Sen Obama. Remember? He was the man from Hope; he was going to show us a new way to do things in Washington.

    Don’t get me wrong on either count. I’ve never liked the Clintons, and i don’t plan on starting now. But i don’t think that Sen Obama is all goodness and light. In fact, my greatest fear is that in electing him, we might be subjected to Clinton II, half-Kenyan boogaloo. (but probably minus the congenital lewdness)

  • And he [Bill Clinton] campaigned in much the same way as Sen Obama. Remember? He was the man from Hope; he was going to show us a new way to do things in Washington.

    This is exactly right. Reagan also ran a positive campaign based on change in Washington. It’s a winning strategy. George H.W. Bush ran the exact kind of campaign Hillary is running, based on experience and trashing the other guy. He used to call Bill the “Commander-in-Chief of the Arkansas National Guard”. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

    When is Obama going to break out Bill’s response to the experience question? It was very effective and it’s right there on video tape. Contrast it with candidate Hillary, candidate Bill and George H.W. Bush.

  • Joanie,

    Yeah, those young whippersnappers haven’t done nothing to help America except get involved in the political process. So tell me again what you have done to serve the nation? Glad to see that you are posting this response from Iraq. No, you’re serving in Afganistan, aren’t you?

    “Umm, waiter, can I have some hypocrisy with my coffee this morning?”

  • Why Obama, with more delegates, the popular vote and charisma, would agree to be the VP candidate with Clinton has no rational explanation. She certainly has no intention of being VP, and the presence of Big Bill in either arrangement would be toxic. She is no more, or less, qualified to be president than is Obama, and that argument is specious. She’s probably just more ruthless.

    I have always been ambivalent about Big Bill, and neutral on Hillary, but their combined behavior in this primary campaign has lowered my opinion of both of them, and it’s sinking fast.

  • If Obama shares 95% with Clinton on all issues, why the extreme response to Clinton?
    Incidentally, part of that 95% is universal health care which Obama sees for children only.

  • The Obama narrative is changing fast…the MSM is bored with the messianic hype – now Obama’s present incarnation is that of a chain-smoking wuss putting in a 3 AM call to Hillary, because international tensions aside, he doesn’t know how to turn the heat back on at the White House (and don’t expect Saturday Night Live to let up on him either…)

    Obama is now facing the following: primaries/caucuses over the next few weeks where Hillary is favored to win in states with approximately 3X the population of those states where he is expected to win…

    I’m thinking Hillary arrives in Denver still behind in delegates but ahead in actual votes cast during the primary season.

    Now, if you were a party elder/superdelegate what would you do? – vote for the guy who controlled the caucuses or go with the one with the votes?

    I’m posting this late but if I were Obama I would consider a deal with the Clintons…he runs on a Clinton/Obama ticket as VP if Hillary resigns before the 2012 election and leaves him the Presidency (sort of a Tony Blair/Gordon Brown arrangement)…the Clintons clean up Dubya’s mess (and that will be a thankless job anyway) and Obama coasts to victory in 2012…

  • (shakes head in disbelief)
    Will the Clinton’s stop at nothing? One moment Obama doesn’t have the “required” experience to be President, now he’s qualified to be Vice President? The Clinton’s seriously DO think voters are stupid – first Obama isnt winning a Vice Presidential nomination, he’s winning a Presidential nomination, second the unrepentant “kitchen sink” style of campaigning to draws people’s attention away from the fact that the Clinton’s have a LOT of baggage – and it will hit the fan if HRC is the nominee. Just because the MsM wont touch it – dont think for one second it wont ALL come out. The Democratic Party cannot and WILL not go through that and lose in Nov. Now consider:

    Voters in MS, PA, and in the remaining states need to take a hard look at both campaigns here for the Democrats from a very real standpoint. Voters need to ask themselves some very important questions and be honest with themselves about their answers.

    1. Which campaign has demonstrated the organization, leadership, inspirational motivation, overwhelming grassroots growth, and consistency of message since Iowa?

    2. With content of character being at the very core of Democratic values, which campaign is truly committed to genuine transparency, advocating full disclosure of any and all monetary sources (ie. where did a spare $5,000,000 come from?)

    3. Which candidate is truly less polarizing and has the greatest ability to reach across party lines in Congress to actually get things done in Washington?

    4. As a Democratic voter, does it matter if one campaign destroys another with all out negativity, essentially arming Republicans with damaging political ammo and a more likely victory for Republicans in November? (While it may be fair, is it ethical?)

    5. Which candidate offers the clearest contrast to the current administration appealing to the overwhelming sentiment that where we are is not where we want to be?

    6. While it doesn’t necessarily affect the political process here in the U.S. – does it matter to you that there is overwhelming International support for one of these candidates and do you think that this support might ultimately strengthen the U.S. alliances worldwide?

    Open, honest answers to these questions should help decide what our country says to world as the largest free Democracy.

    It should be noted that most of the entire country had no idea who Barack Obama was 1 year ago and looking over the growth and support graphs over the past few months should be a clear indicator as to where the U.S. wants to go.

    Best of luck to both campaigns. This is a remarkable time. Let’s try to focus on bringing people together to get this done in November.

  • Senator Obama,
    PLEASE don’t even entertain the notion of giving in to blackmail. (Make me your veep, or I’ll sabotage you this year so I can get the top slot in 2012.)

    You need a chick? Sebelius beckons.
    Or surprise us. Just don’t take the “easy way”. It;’ll bite you in the end.

  • Ooophs, I hadn’t read your article in conclusion. Obama did a superb job in writing and delivering that speech. Not sure how it will affect his campaige, however; should the America people be ready to embrace and embark on this mission to change this country’s past ways, then I would conclude that it was a complete success. Their hearts and minds are truly in tuned without a shadow of a doubt. This speech appeared inevitable as a result of Hilliary initiating race ponderously in prior tactics targeting Obama. Now, that this concern have been addressed, maybe the election can proceed , hopefully without any more rude interruptions from Hilliary. Hope fully, the election can now pick up where it left off it.

  • Comments are closed.