Is Clinton being vetted after all?

July 20, 2008

Given that it’s mid-June, most of those being considered for the Democratic and Republican tickets know whether or not they’re under consideration. Both John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s VP search committees have been working for a while now, and both committees have contacted potential running mates to ask for background materials.

So far, the only Democrat who has publicly acknowledged that the Obama campaign has requested information is Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. And what about Hillary Clinton? About two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s former communications director, said she was not being vetted “as far as I know.”

The NYT reported today that she may very well be under consideration.

Democrats said they thought it was less likely now than it was a month ago that Mr. Obama would choose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York as his running mate, though they said she remained in consideration and that she was being vetted.

If he does not choose Mrs. Clinton, several Democrats said, it would be difficult for him to name any woman — like Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, someone for whom he has had warm words. Both Clinton and Obama advisers said such a move could create a backlash among women who supported Mrs. Clinton.

It’s certainly possible that Clinton is “being vetted” as a courtesy and out of respect, but may not seriously be under consideration. No one outside Obama’s inner circle knows for sure.

As for the notion that women Dems would be outraged by Obama picking a woman Dem, I still find this rather confusing.

Just to reiterate a point from last month, Kathleen Sebelius really is a compelling choice.

Let’s pretend, just for the sake of discussion, that Hillary Clinton was not a presidential candidate this year. Obviously, she was, and she was very successful and had a tremendous impact, but let’s just say she didn’t run this time.

If, under this scenario, Barack Obama won the nomination and considered Sebelius for the ticket, I suspect most Clinton supporters, most notably feminists and those of us concerned with gender equality, would be delighted. In fact, there’d be legitimate questions if he didn’t consider her as a finalist.

She is, after all, a popular and successful governor of a red state in a key region with a very impressive record.

Sebelius has been a strong supporter of children’s rights, expanding unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage, and health care reform. She refused to accept donations from insurance companies when she ran for insurance commissioner. She publicly scolded President Bush for diverting the National Guard to Iraq when it was badly needed for disaster relief at home. She angered conservatives (and at least one archbishop) when she vetoed legislation that would have strengthened the state’s late-term abortion ban. […]

As for experience, Sebelius has accomplished a thing or two in her 60 years. Most famously, she prevented an Indiana-based health insurer from buying out Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Kansas, arguing that the shift would raise premiums. She vetoed legislation for building two big coal plants in western Kansas — four times. She pushed a $500 million education funding package through a deeply divided legislature. And she eliminated a $1.1 billion debt without raising taxes.

Who’s seriously going to argue that Sebelius shouldn’t at least be considered as a running mate? Worse, given Sebelius’ record, why would women who support Clinton argue that Sebelius should be discounted as a possibility because of her gender?

Now, Clinton did run, and she brings a lot to the table as a VP candidate. What troubles me, though, is the notion that Clinton’s campaign necessarily disqualifies every other woman as a possibility. Sebelius and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano may be women, but they’re apparently the wrong women.

It seems to me this gets the legacy of Clinton’s campaign backwards. Clinton proved that a woman can compete, succeed, and as she put it recently, make it “unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States.” Clinton blazed a trail for the nation to follow.

But it’s madness to think that no other woman but her belongs on that trail.

The Clinton supporters who refuse to vote for Obama (or are, worse yet, voting for McCain) out of spite are acting like … well, teenage girls.

Fast-forward to January 20, 2011, two years after the next president is inaugurated. John Paul Stevens will surely have retired by then, as will other judges. If McCain is elected, and does what he pledges to do, will all the Clinton supporters who wouldn’t vote for Obama say on January 20, 2011, “yes, this is exactly what we wanted?”

  • I read that some important Clinton supporters are writing letters telling those others who are still outraged about the primary to grow up and start acting like responsible adults. Essentially they said it was a tough race but Clinton lost. It’s over, deal with it. The important thing now is to get the Democratic candidate into the White House.

    Good for them. I like Sebelius, too, and I hope Obama picks her.

  • IMHO, a governor is more qualified to be second-in-command than a Senator. While not being too familiar with either Sebelius or Napolitano, one would gather that prior to winning their respective governorships, they also held other offices as well. Clinton has only been a senator for two terms, and her time as first lady don’t really qualify her.
    However, given Sen. Clinton’s recent stand against Bush, I wouldn’t mind Sen. Obama picking her as his VP, either.

  • Kudos for the great words on Sebelius — who has been my first choice since I read about her, and everything I’ve since read confirms this. (The only knock on her is that she gave a bad speech in response to the State of the Union. But whether that was just an ‘off-day’ or not, so what? Except for John Edwards, not that many recent VP candidates from either party have been great — or even good — campaigners. Lieberman? Cheyney? Quayle? even Gore?)

    But the ‘name another woman and it is an insult to ME ME ME ME‘ is another example of why we made the right choice in the primaries. (I am still waiting for Hillary to state that — despite her famous comment — John McCain is NOT qualified to be President — which he isn’t — and to publicly condemn the PUMAs and demand that they stop using her name. I said this the night she gave the ‘gracious’ concession speech — five days too late and only when the entire NY delegation were, figuratively, holding guns to her head. I’m still waiting, or did I miss something?)

    What I don’t understand is how people can still support her on grounds of ‘feminism’ after she has taken this stand. “We put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling — so don’t you dare let someone else break it.” WTF??????????????

  • If he does not choose Mrs. Clinton, several Democrats said, it would be difficult for him to name any woman

    Is the suggestion here that Hillary put a thousand cracks in that glass ceiling only to replace it with herself?

  • But it’s madness to think that no other woman but her belongs on that trail.

    I wouldn’t go that far. There’s something to the argument that if it’s a woman, it should be Clinton. I don’t know if I can explain the sentiment well, but I definitely get it. This was her year. She brought the magic and raised the hopes of the first female president. To add a different woman to the ticket would feel like an attempt to co-opt the spirit of Hillary’s movement. Kind of like in Wayne’s World (1992) when Rob Lowe’s company slicked up Wayne and Garth’s public access show with lots of bells and whisltes, but commercialized it and drained it of its heart in the process. Or like the Chinese, kidnapping the real Panchen Lama and trying to install an imposter Panchen Lama in his place.

    It would be nice if Obama picking Sebelius or Napolitano wouldn’t be considered all that different from picking Brian Schweitzer or Joe Biden but we’re not there yet. If we were, Hillary’s campaign wouldn’t have been historic, and we wouldn’t even be talking about this.

    “Party on Garth.”
    “…I…guess…”

  • Haik: Gotta disagree on this. Your argument would be compelling if

    a) Sebelius were much less qualified than Clinton and was only being picked because she was a woman — like Geraldine Bunker Ferraro. Sebelius is at least as qualified as Clinton based on her many achievements — and brings first-hand executive experience to the ticket which Clinton does not.

    b) Hillary Clinton were Hillary Smith — in other words, if her campaign were not so dependent on her having been first lady.

    This is not to say she does not have some achievements of her own — she does, but that was not what her campaign was about. In fact, after Super Tuesday her campaign seemed to be about nothing but ‘pick me, not him.’ She reinvented herself so many times that it was she, herself, who buried her own actual achievements and talents.

  • Well, this Clinton supporter would love to see Sebelius as VP. I don’t know what those no-woman-but-Clinton folks are thinking.

  • My eight year old read the headline and announced “So Clinton is a dog?”

    lol

  • Worse, given Sebelius’ record, why would women who support Clinton argue that Sebelius should be discounted as a possibility because of her gender?

    Looking for defensible and rational arguments among the extreme minority of Clinton supporters who remain dead enders is a mug’s game. It really is all about anger at this point. Quite simply–pathetically simply–nothing that Obama could do about his VP choice will make these people happy, including putting Clinton on the ticket (although that will make some of them less unhappy than his other choices might, there are still Clinton supporters arguing that offering her the VP spot is an “insult” to her).

    There are some people who are absolutely determined to read every Obama move as a slap in the face to Clinton–we’ve all seen their comments on the usual-suspect blogs. Fortunately, there aren’t many of them. Worrying too much about them is a mistake, one that Obama won’t be making regardless of whom he chooses as his running mate.

  • No other female potential candidate had the support of nearly half the dem party. Those vehemently against Clinton always fail to consider that point and use the same tired cracks to block her now as they did in the nominee race. This is what I think..about a third of the dems and independents hated her; another third liked her but liked Obama more and a little less than half of the dem party liked her over Obama…therefore I submit that she has more support than any other female candidate for the VP spot. So if Obama were to choose a female she should be the highest on that list simply by the fact that she was very nearly the presidential nominee.

    That is a highly defendable position and isn’t so easily dismissed by “it’s her ego” arguments. A lot less people even know who Sebelius is much less (after her poor performance giving the dem response to the SOTU address) know what she is capable of should she have to assume the presidency.
    She is largely only known for her ‘Bush stole my national guard and disaster equipment that I need to combat this tornado disaster’ . I love the woman but am very hesitant to want her on the ticket…especially over someone like Clinton. I know it’s just my opinion but it’s a little late to expect people to get to know a seemingly obscure candidate like Sebelius 7 months before the election. But I’m open to it.

  • I think it’s kinda childish at this point to paint Bill, Hillary, and her supporters as childish. They’re all grownups making their decisions according to their beliefs and feelings just like all of us. Pretending they have childish motivations is just too much like Dowd and her Repugnant friends trying to paint Dems as weak, scared, feminized men, maninized women–all that sick psycho-babble they indulge in. Speak maturely of other Democrats.

  • Obama is a disaster for the US-incompetent, changing his program all along, unreliable,false, -his pop star European campaign shows him as a clown,not a future President.

    I’d dream that at the Colorado Convention the Dems would wake up and re- decide their choice!

  • uh, joey? first of all, to claim that no other potential female candidate had the support of nearly half the party is a moot point, since no other potential female candidate ran for president, and no other potential female candidate has Clinton’s visibility. True there might be polls somewhere that indicate that Clinton still polls best among all Dem voters who know, and know well, all the other potential candidates. But I haven’t seen that poll, and it looks like Obama’s making a decision beyond polling anyway.

    Second of all, I don’t know if you’re using Karl Rove’s math, but I don’t think you can break down a group of voters (or any group really) into “about a third,” “about a third” and “just under half.” I think the closest you’d get would be like a 30/30/40 split. 🙂

  • Vetted out of courtesy I could swallow but Mrs. Clinton on the ticket could make the ticket a lot less appealing. All I remember about the primaries was “Shame on you Barack Obama!”. Does anybody remember why Mrs. Clinton said that any more? I suppose I could go to youtube.. I remember the “Annie Oakley” comment by Obama as well but that was both hilarious and true; he pointed out this ridiculous pandering while everybody on her team was still trying to get some juice out of the Reverend Wright non-issue. Clinton on the ticket forgives that kind of political dog and pony-ism (making it legitimate) and leaves the “Change” mantra hobbled and hemorrhaging. And then there’s Bill…

  • Both Clinton and Obama advisers said such a move could create a backlash among women who supported Mrs. Clinton. — NYT, via CB

    Obama didn’t cave in to the demands of thousands of his own long-time supporters, when it came to the FISA “fix”. What makes anyone think he’d cave in to a few disgruntled PUMAs?

    Both my husband and my stepdaughter were Clinton supporters (the only ones in the immediate family), my stepdaughter in particular. It still comes easier to them to dump on McCain than to praise Obama. And both still worry about Obama’s electability. But, did I ever catch hell last night (my stepdaughter is visiting, from Colorado), when I started bitchin’ about Obama”s misguided FISA “fix”… 🙂 Democrats first, personal partisans second — both of them — I’m happy to say. My stepdaughter would be very happy with a woman governor as a VP — either Sebelius or Napolitano would be fine with her. Less so with my husband, mostly because he doesn’t know anything about Napolitano and only the State of the Union response about Sebelius. But there’d be time enough for both of them to learn enough to like them, I think.

  • As for the notion that women Dems would be outraged by Obama picking a woman Dem, I still find this rather confusing.

    Seriously, it makes a lot more sense if you quit looking at the publicly-stated reasons for their loyalty (‘experience’ that is actually pretty thin, a long history of workplace discrimination that she really didn’t suffer very much, if at all, etc.), and start looking at what she represents as a wife instead. Not so much the fact that Bill cheated & humiliated her, although that made it even more imperative that he help her secure the presidency, but that her narrative is familiar and symbolic because she sacrificed some degree of personal achievement for her marriage. She would have been the most famous do-over, the one wife who was more than repaid for her family-oriented compromises, ever, and that’s what really hits home for a lot of women who are still asking the what-if/if-only questions about their own lives. Personally, I don’t think she would ever have been presidential material without Bill, because she wouldn’t have been able to build the machine without his charisma (and by the same token, he very likely couldn’t have done it without her discipline), but it’s easy to construct a narrative in which she would have made it the more conventional way had she not hitched her star to his instead. And it’s no surprise that the Clintonites cultivated that alternative history, by putting the story out there about Bill saying she had too bright a future without him.

    In any case, it’s pretty pointless IMO to look at the general advancement of women as a legitimate reason for her diehards’ resentment, when looking at broader trends in women’s relationships and how their work situations are affected seems much more pertinent. Unfortunately, no other qualified woman fits this particular symbolic role– not Nancy Pelosi’s having had five kids before entering politics, or Sebelius’ parental and marital political connections– because they’re still the political power centers of their respective families, so yes, there’s some potential for increased resentment.

  • and start looking at what she represents

    You know? I was hoping that you were going to go in the direction that I see here. What she represents is a WHITE person. And I’ll tell you this, all the people that I know (including my brother and his partner) that are still beating the drum for Clinton and saying they will vote for McCain are WHITE.

    At the DC Pride Festival there was a booth for angry Clintonites with slogans like “it’s still not over.” Everyone running the booth was WHITE and so the people who stopped at the booth.

    I know from my own brother and his partner, who live in Chicago themselves. They are very, very uncomfortable with the idea of a black president or people of color at all. I’d say the same thing about those who decry Obama’s lack of experience. No white male with his experience and age would be considered under qualified.

    Sorry to bring up the race card, but I just believe that this is where it’s coming from more than anything.

  • One “woman” is not interchangeable with another – that’s why you might find it “confusing” that many of HRC’s supporters would not go for Kathleen Sebelius Or Claire McCaskille, etc.). I certainly wouldn’t. If you don’t understand what a complete slap in the face it would be for Obama to choose Sebelius as his running mate, there’s not much more I can say.

    KS is NOT HRC. She may be a two-term governor and wildly popular in Kansas. She has zero national experience, comes from a bright red state with a small populace, has zero charisma, is a terrible public speaker, and is basically deadly boring. Aside from these factors, we already have a Republican-lite candidate for the Democratic nominee; we don’t need two Republican-lite candidates on the same ticket. As far as I know, Sebelius didn’t earn 18 million votes across the country, either.

    If Obama does not understand the huge distinction between choosing Hillary Clinton and choosing just any woman, he’s as clueless as I thought about women and our concerns.

  • MaBelle is funny.

    “If Obama does not understand the huge distinction between choosing Hillary Clinton and choosing just any woman, he’s as clueless as I thought about women and our concerns.”

    I’m sure people who know Sebelius, who work with her or for her, will just LUUUUUUV her being referred to as “just any woman.”

    Ditto any other “just any woman” on the potential veep list.

    If they had nothing to offer, they wouldn’t be on the list. Just admit you’re a big fat crybaby, the first step to grow as a person is to admit and accept your faults.

    You might line up to smooch her big ol’ ass but Hillary is not the be-all end-all. If she were, her negatives wouldn’t be as high as they are. For the few shrill jackasses who won’t vote for Obama if he chooses Hillary as his running mate, there are indies and left-leaning/more-open-minded-than-most Republicans who will vote for Obama UNLESS he chooses Hillary as his running mate. Hillary recognizes this, and has made an effort to have her base embrace Obama even if it means no veep status for her. If she can read the writing on the wall, maybe you should, too. Unless, of course, you can’t read. I don’t know, and I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to accuse you of being that dumb. Only you know for sure.

  • One “woman” is not interchangeable with another

    Any particular reason quote marks are used around a noun that we all seem to agree describes the politicians in question?

    KS is NOT HRC.

    Quite true; for one thing, her political career is more her own, albeit still a legacy operation in many ways.

    She has zero national experience

    Sigh… I guess she really should have had the good sense to become First Lady instead of actually, y’know, gaining executive experience in government. Seriously, why the hell was similar– and not necessarily better or more successful– experience perfectly okay for Bill Clinton when seeking the top job back in ’92, but now insufficient for VP in the face of his wife & their joint machine?

    we already have a Republican-lite candidate for the Democratic nominee; we don’t need two Republican-lite candidates on the same ticket.

    Evidently some people don’t remember the [welfare-bashing, NAFTA-hyping, DADT, school-uniform, etc.] nineties very well, or even the 2002 AUMF vote, when assigning the ‘progressive’ label to HRC.

    he’s as clueless as I thought about women and our concerns

    Per my #21 comment, it would really be dumb for him to choose a VP based on how certain women feel about their marriages. The rest of the arguments– allowing for a noticeable racial factor as Christopher mentioned above– simply don’t hold up. If HRC was even as impressive a potential VP candidate as Al Gore (equal senate term in a state where he had roots, plus 8 years as rep, plus more political courage re: the first Gulf War, the environment, technology, & so on) was for her husband, there might be enough material to debate, but when it’s merely based on international fame and an ordinary-at-best Senate footprint, it’s pretty clear that there’s something much deeper & more personal going on here than highly-spun qualifications.

  • I believe Kathleen Sebelius is prime for Obama’s vice president choice.

    One “woman” is not interchangeable with another – that’s why you might find it “confusing” that many of HRC’s supporters would not go for Kathleen Sebelius Or Claire McCaskille, etc.). I certainly wouldn’t. If you don’t understand what a complete slap in the face it would be for Obama to choose Sebelius as his running mate, there’s not much more I can say.

    KS is NOT HRC. She may be a two-term governor and wildly popular in Kansas. She has zero national experience, comes from a bright red state with a small populace, has zero charisma, is a terrible public speaker, and is basically deadly boring. Aside from these factors, we already have a Republican-lite candidate for the Democratic nominee; we don’t need two Republican-lite candidates on the same ticket. As far as I know, Sebelius didn’t earn 18 million votes across the country, either.

    MaBelle, the vice president slot is not suppose to be some popularity contest. Obama certainly does not need to have the Clintons be the limelight show behind him while he’s trying to govern the nation. Second place running in Democrat candidates is not a guarantee on Vice Presidency, we tried that in 2004 and both John Kerry and John Edwards lost. I hope Obama picks Sebelius or Hagel.

  • Hagel? He would need to become a Dem for that and it’s very unlikely IMHO. And, except for war, Hagel still reliably votes with Republicans in the Senate.

  • Historically, past VP selections that have been winners are as follows:

    Kennedy – Johnson
    Reagan – Bush

    Both tickets included the partys runner-up as it’s VP nominee.

    Obama would be “really rolling the dice” if he selected a woman other than Hillary.

    Also, Obama risks a loss if he chooses anyone other than Hillary.

    As hard as it is for some of you to swallow…. the winning ticket is “BOH & HRC”

  • “As for the notion that women Dems would be outraged by Obama picking a woman Dem, I still find this rather confusing.”

    It’s certainly interesting.

    Frankly, I think he should pick another women to assert himself and remind everyone who is and who is not the Presidential nominee. Senator Clinton and many of her supporters are suffering from delusions of entitlement. That bubble needs to be burst.

    The only thing to which Senator Clinton is entitled is the opportunity to represent the good people of New York. As President, Obama should leave her in the Senate and fill out his cabinet with people who fit his “no drama” management style.

    If Senator Clinton wants to take another crack at the nomination in 2016 after she’s gotten a little more experience as an elected representative, by all means she should. She wouldn’t be entitled to the nomination, not in the least, and that’s something that needs to be drilled into people’s heads, but then neither would anyone else, including the woman President Obama selected as his Vice President.

    Sounds fair to me.

    In the meantime, I do wish Senator Clinton well in her November trial.

    Susan B.

  • Hi Randy,

    “Obama would be ‘really rolling the dice’ if he selected a woman other than Hillary.”

    With all due respect to the depth and seriousness of your analysis, have you looked at the polls?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

    Senator Obama is polling way ahead of Kerry and Gore in every state _either_ of them won, and moreover is ahead in several red states, including Indiana, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, with Missouri, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Alaska and Georgia all in play.

    Which states do you think Obama needs to win that he can’t win without Senator Clinton on the ticket? Can you name even one?

    Susan B.

  • Women are not replaceable.

    Just because Clinton did well doesn’t mean any old white woman would do well.

    There really are talking heads out there that think that ‘because Clinton did well means we should/could choose a woman!’ which is the part that offends progressives and feminists,

  • Half of all democrats that already voted, voted for Clinton. If nothing else, that alone is reason enough to pick her. Of course there are a hundred other reasons as well. If she had won and picked some other black guy than Obama to be her running mate, how would you have felt?

  • Let’s be honest with ourselves: there’s only one plausible reason for these few Clinton supporters to bash Sebelius. The former Clinton campaign is hoping to have another crack at it in ’12 or ’16, and if she divides the “women’s vote” with another credible female contender for the nomination, it will be curtains for her. I suspect the campaign is worried that Sebelius would run for president herself if given the national profile of a veep campaign in ’08.

  • If Obama doesn’t pick Clinton, it looks like he’s afraid of her, or so arrogant that he can’t stand the thought of anyone stealing his “I’m special because I’m the first – ” limelight. He should have picked her by now and unified the party.

  • Clintonites, please.

    Your gal ran a terrible campaign, her husband shot her in the foot repeatedly, she got caught fabricating her own reality several times, and they had pathetic fundraising (compared to their expenditures). The only thing Clinton had going for her at the end of that self-destructive run was her name recognition. Why the hell would Obama want to invite the Clintons on board?

    Thank GOD you lost, because if you had won the McCain team, as pathetic as they are, would be mopping the floor with you.

    If you really want the party to unite, then you need to put aside your ridiculous sense of entitlement and get behind our candidate. But that’s not gonna happen with some people. A pity.

  • Yeah, Racer X that’s why more people voted for her than for any primary candidate in the history of the country in spite of misogynistic pundits making fun of her and the Obama supporters trying to brand her and her husband and her supporters as racists..

  • I hope for party unity’s sake he does pick Hillary as his running mate. Saying that Clinton’s supporters are responsible for party unity is naive. He has to offer them something. Saying get over it and support the other guy makes as much sense as if Bush had told democrats in 04 that “I won, now you have to get over it and support me.” He offered us nothing, so we never supported him either.

  • Perhaps Clinton supporters want her to be the VP because she’s the best person for the job once again? Ummmm because she deserves it? You people hate her for no reason other than to be nasty and disrespectful. The woman deserves the position she has worked her ass off. Sebelius is just as weak as Obama. Plain and simple. If Obama doesn’t pick HRC this is going to be the most boring election season that has ever been. Admit it…..politics just isn’t interesting without the Clinton’s who are clearly smarter than everyone else…lol. I bet the news ratings took a big nose dive after Hillary dropped out. I can almost guarantee it. You people still don’t want to give her the due she deserves and it’s pathetic. I hope all the Clinton movements out there stick to their guns. Obama is a disaster.

    Good day.
    Ellen

  • Hi Ellen

    “Obama is a disaster.”

    Many of us would be interested to learn of the extraordinary evidence required to support such an extraordinary conclusion. Please, share it with us.

    Thanks in advance. I look forward to your reply.

    Susan B.

  • Hi Patrick,

    “Saying that Clinton’s supporters are responsible for party unity is naive.”

    I think might be right about that.

    It’s Senator Clinton who bears the primary responsibility. Had she conceded back in February when she lost the race, her supporters would be less agitated now than they apparently are. Senator Clinton herself made the argument, when asked why she continued campaigning when she had no chance of winning and thereby putting party unity at risk, that there was no risk because everyone would support the eventual winner within two or three days after the race ended.

    You have proven how wrong she was. She misjudged, badly, and she’s responsible for the predictable consequences of her mistake, which include not just the deep divisions within the party, but the tens of millions of dollars Obama had to spend to play out a match to a predictable checkmate, the tens of millions of dollars she milked from her contributors for forcing Obama to play out the match to a predictable checkmate, and the millions of dollars of debt that she now expects Democrats to pick up on her behalf. All told it’s nearly a hundred millions of dollars siphoned off from Democrats to satisfy her vanity.

    Her poor judgment on a matter of such importance demonstrates why she’s unfit for any position in the Obama’s White House.

    Susan B.

  • The amount of animosity towards Hilary Clinton amazes me, particularly from women. What young women in particular have failed to realize that as women, this was their shot, they won’t get another one. African Americans realized this early on and voted Obama, women didn’t vote as a block in the same numbers so race trumps gender. Everything will trump gender until women vote as a block for a woman in the way the black community did for Obama. The young women who think that there will be another viable female candidate anytime soon are in for a very long wait.

  • Hi Mark,

    “What young women in particular have failed to realize that as women, this was their shot, they won’t get another one. African Americans realized this early on and voted Obama,”

    I have no idea why you think Senator Clinton was _my_ shot at having a women President. Surely it was _our_ shot as a country, wouldn’t you agree?

    That’s certainly how many of Senator Obama’s supporters viewed his candidacy. He represented _our_ shot, as a country, at having a black President.

    So if, as you claim, we as a country had one shot electing a women or a black person as President, why on earth would you assume women would or even should pass up the opportunity to elect a black person?

    For the record, I think it’s a mistake to frame the decision in those terms rather than, say, which candidate demonstrated the best judgment, regardless of race or gender along with a myriad of other factors. But even if we were to follow you in reducing the nomination down to a contest between race and gender, what you, in particular, have failed to realize is that a contest between race and gender no more pits blacks against women than a contest between education and health care would pit teachers and students against nurses and patients.

    Best,

    Susan B.

  • It’s Senator Clinton who bears the primary responsibility. Had she conceded back in February when she lost the race, her supporters would be less agitated now than they apparently are. Senator Clinton herself made the argument, when asked why she continued campaigning when she had no chance of winning and thereby putting party unity at risk, that there was no risk because everyone would support the eventual winner within two or three days after the race ended.

    You have proven how wrong she was. She misjudged, badly, and she’s responsible for the predictable consequences of her mistake, which include not just the deep divisions within the party, but the tens of millions of dollars Obama had to spend to play out a match to a predictable checkmate, the tens of millions of dollars she milked from her contributors for forcing Obama to play out the match to a predictable checkmate, and the millions of dollars of debt that she now expects Democrats to pick up on her behalf. All told it’s nearly a hundred millions of dollars siphoned off from Democrats to satisfy her vanity.

    Her poor judgment on a matter of such importance demonstrates why she’s unfit for any position in the Obama’s White House.

    The Hillary Hating in this post is transparent. It is not surprising that Susan B. wanted Hillary to drop out after February, as Hillary then went on to win the Texas Primary, Ohio, Pennslyvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and South Dakota — some of them by whopping margins. How inconvenient. It is fiction that the race was settled in February as neither candidate was able to get over the magic delegate threshold without the Super Delegates. Until the Super Delegates tipped their hand, Hillary had every right to stay in the race so long as she had a chance. She commanded a huge share of the vote and her historic run inspired many people, especially women. After the final primary on June 3, the Super Delegates weighed in, putting Obama over the magic 2118 mark and Hillary conceded.

    I also completely disagree that Clinton’s supporters would have been less agitated has she dropped out in March. They very well might have wound up even angrier if it appeared she was being forced from the race before it was over. But perhaps some are upset that she actually had so much support. She won half the popular vote, 20 states and over 17.5 million votes for President. Yeah, that’s a real sign she is “unfit” to serve as President or Vice President.

    Furthermore, in 1980 Ted Kennedy took his campaign all the way to the Democratic Convention, as did Gary Hart in 1984 and Jesse Jackson in 1988. Hillary was in a stronger position in terms of her share of the vote than any of those guys, yet she did not take it to the convention.

    Hillary Clinton has endorsed Barack Obama for President. She has asked her donors to help him. She is out on the trail campaigning for him. The way some here continue to smear her you’d think they were right-wing trolls in disguise trying to stir up trouble.

  • Susan,
    You mistake me, I simply look at the facts. On voting in the senate there isn’t a dime’s difference between Clinton and Obama. The rest is all rhetoric. Do you think that 90% plus of African-Americans voted for Obama because of his positions on issues? I am simply saying that there will never be a female that is elected to the office of the presidency until women vote as a block to elect her. So far I’m right,and I think that I will be correct for a few decades. A woman might be nominated for vice president and be put into the presidency with a death of the president but that’s all that I see for the long term. I am in no way pitting blacks against women, I just pointed out that in this election race trumped gender, and it did. In polling, in the primary’s being female was as large a liability as being black. Again, the difference in the democratic primary was the block voting of the African-American community. I am not saying that in a pejorative sense but as fact.

  • if Hillary isn’t the VP, then I’m voting for McCain.

    I HATE Obama and it would be the first time in my life that I didn’t vote for a Democrat, but I don’t trust him – he has no record, no experience.

    but

    If Hillary is the VP – I would vote FOR HER. and that is the only way Obama would get my vote.

    Anyone else he chooses is irrelevant to me, because HE is an empty suit and who really knows anything about his background?

    why’d he go to Pakistan in 1981? when Pakistan was on the the non-travel list for US citizens.

    he insists he’s not a muslim, but both his father and step father were and his family in Kenya are.

    what’s his relationship with Ralia Odinga who ran for Pres of Kenya and claims he’s Obama’s cousin? but he wants to install Sharia Law in Kenya, a Christian country.

    Nope. Sorry – I don’t trust this guy AT ALL and it isn’t my fault that the leaders of the democratic party are SOOO utterly stupid they would SELECT (he didn’t win) the young, inexperienced, unqualified male over the older, experienced, qualified female….

    sounds like discrimination to me.

    I’m done with the democratic party after what they did to Hillary Clinton.

    • Comments are closed.