By MAUREEN DOWD
After “Rahmbo” Emanuel, the Illinois congressman dubbed “the hostage negotiator” by the Obama forces, fails to talk Hillary down, Barack Obama knows that he is left with one final roll of the dice. He sets up a secret meeting with Bill Clinton in neutral territory at Rahm’s hideaway office in the Capitol.
Bill arrives two hours late, red-faced and truculent.
“If you brought me over here to cry uncle, shame on you, Barack Obama. You and your press lackeys are engaged in a cover-up even though Hillary’s winnin’ the popular vote and the general election.”
“Hey, Bill, please, stop wagging your finger at me. Call off Harold Ickes and the Hillaryland Huns. You’re right. I can’t win without her. The two of us can clean McCain’s grandfather clock.”
“Goshalmighty. You could knock me over with a hair on a biscuit, Barack. Smart move, everybody wins. Now Hillary won’t be the skunk at your Denver garden party.”
“That’s why they call me: No Drama Obama.”
“You’re a natural, like me. I was for hope; you are for hope. I was for change; you are for change. I took the Camelot sword from J.F.K.; you took it from Teddy. I would have been with you from the beginning except for that little deal I had with Hillary. She’s going to be so relieved that she doesn’t have to return to the back rows of the Senate with everybody there snickering that she flopped. And if something happens to you, God forbid, she’s right there in the Situation Room, ready to go at 3 a.m. on her Day One.”
“Yeah. I really want to announce this quickly, so let’s clear up a few niggling details.”
“Thank goodness you’ve got Jim Johnson frisking me. He’s the guy who missed all the baggage weighing down Geraldine Ferraro’s husband.”
“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”
“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”
“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”
“Ha, ha.”
“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”
“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”
“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”
“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”
“Higher.”
“Oh, no. Not that.”
“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”
“You know, Barack, the more I’m seein’ what you’ve got in mind for me, the more I’m worryin’ that Hillary’s just not cut out for this job. You don’t want her glomming on to everythin’. Since she’s almost even with the delegates, she’ll want to go halfsies in the government. She’ll want to run foreign policy, cause you know nothin’ about that. And legal stuff, because you never practiced real law. And economic policy, ’cause she connected better with working-class voters. And everything to do with white people, of course. I’ve got to level with you, man. Hillary’s a lot of work. And that Kathleen Sebelius is terrific and has those twinkly eyes.”
“So, Bill, you’re not wedded to Hillary being vice president? You won’t sabotage my campaign if I pick somebody I like, I mean, like, if I pick somebody else?”
“Nah. Now that I see the big picture, the idea of Hillary as your No. 2 was always a fairy tale.”
(I hadn't seen these numbers before, but the NYT says that she only got 55% of the vote in Michigan? Obama wasn't on the ballot but a full 40% of voters took the trouble to mark 'uncommitted'?! And that's a victory? C'mon!)
765, the michigan democratic party at the time was urging all registered democrats to vote "uncommitted" as a protest vote after most all the candidates had withdrawn their names from the ballot. edwards was also a viable and very popular candidate in the state at the time. not all of that 40% was necessarily a vote for obama. one way or the other the michigan democratic party royally f-ed up; democratic voters in the state are still bitter about how everything shook out.
One thing people have to remember is that these are elections for political parties - not government.
Im not an election lawyer but really this is like a club voting for its leadership, not the president. They can do whatever they want its only a party.
This is why most of the founding fathers concidered abolishing party systems early in the creation of the United States. But the problem arose early as founders of Hamilton ( the greatest of the founding fathers I say) saw the constitution as a loosely interpreted document. Jeffersonians saw it as a strict document infused with the spirit of the nation - he was a purist and an architect - go figure. The Jeffersonians evolved into the democrats and the Hamilton Federalists evolved into the Republicans.
Federalist #51 deal with this topic - as it says that factions are inevidable and its the first rationalization of parties - although it encourages multiple factions so as to check ambition with ambition
And i urge anyone who thinks they know what America is meant to be to read the federalist papers - they are in many ways more imortant than even the constitution as they are essentially the notes and debates about how to form the nation and what they really thought
what galls me the most (the most? well...there are lots of things really up there...) is that most people still operate under the assumption that we are a "pure" democracy and that individual votes (ie, the popular vote) matter. While votes DO certainly matter (en masse), the reality is that we are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and our votes count only so far as the politicians they are connected to. In this FLA/MI snafu, the idea that poeple are upset about being "half a vote" is absurd -- all it means is your vote is part of the 20,000 votes that a delegate represents rather than the 10,000 they did before. Once again -- there is no sacristy afforded anyone's single vote in our overall system as it currently stands. We vote for people who vote for things that we hope represent our interests. That's how it works and how it has always worked. Deal with it.
If YOU (FLORIDA!) want your votes to really count, please figure out how to NOT be the subject of election controversy as you have been every time over the last 8 years!
PR is already called at 65% so that makes it that she would hate to win SD and MO by 100% and get 67% of the super delegates and she would still loose
this is insulting to the intelligence of anybody who can count that she does not give it up. there is no such thing as a 'popular vote' in the primaries and if there was Obama is up
"Obama leads Clinton by nearly 450,000 votes in the combined popular vote in primaries and caucuses where delegates were at stake"
If you would have asked my in March if this would cause a serious rift among voters, this prolonged battle, i'd of said no. Im starting to think the Clintons are salting the earth - spoiling it for everyone.
I was at home this weekend with the fam and my dad and I were having a conversation during the Rules Committee meeting (I know fun times at the oe homestead) and dad had a really great analogy that all of a sudden made clintons maneuverings seem completely logical and had me feeling really naive about my impressions of this race and politics in general. He said securing a nomination is exactly like the hostile takeover of a corporation. Votes are shares and the party bigwigs are the board of directors. Clinton started this race with a very comfortable lock on the company, she had at least the impression going that she had the most shares in her pocket, and by extension had control of the board. Obama really came from essentially nowhere to gather just enough disgruntled boardmembers and gobbling up just enough shares to put him over 51%, much to the panic and dismay of the Clinton guard. Ive been here losing my mind, because in my head this really was some noble democratic process to make the world a better place, and in that context it seems crazy for clinton to do so much damage to the party simply for the sake of her own ambition, to make moves in the last few weeks to essentially claim hostage over latinos (by claiming some kind of Mugabe like usurpation of the florida vote) and "Hardworking white people" (by poking and prodding racial tensions so as to isolate her demographics) and women (by playing this sexism card and marching out like some victimized stalwart last hope for women everywhere), in sum dividing the party potentially irreparably. With such clearly impossible odds, why would she take that chance? Is she really just some kind of self-absorbed neurotic denial of the reality of her situation?
Im realizing though, that thats not it at all. The Clinton campaign is a 300 million dollar failed investment, and right now shes just doing everything she can on the part of her investors to mitigate her losses. Shes lost 51% of the pie, but shes not just going to hand over the 49 shes retained out of the goodness of her heart. Her people know shes lost, but they arent ready to give up what control they have left, and shes now missioned with defending it. If Obama wants the nomination hes going to have to make concessions, mitigating their financial losses, working to help her supporters in the house and senate keep their seats, even put her on the ticket (though her bargaining power here seems to have lost out lately.) The idea is to at least retain a latent base of support outside of the Obama cabal that now owns the party to either survive his loss in November or levy some kind of influence within congress during his presidency.
I'm sort of entertaining the thought that, if Obama is really about changing the face of politics, he might simply put Clinton on the ticket as his running mate.
While it's true that if he were to think only about winning he would fare better by strategically selecting a running mate that positions his ticket to win (choosing the military running mate, or the older white male candidate, etc.), Obama has long said that his campaign is about changing the way politics is done in Washington... Ironically, for all that Clinton may represent the "democrat estabilishment", putting her on the ticket may be exactly the most unconventional move in politics. Obama has said that he is about lifting people up, not tearing them down, about uniting people, not dividing based on labels... What if he set aside the differences from the political battle and chose his running mate based on the voice of the people... Choosing the tenacious, well fought runner up...
How revolutionary would it be for Obama to now demonstrate a kind of class act in reaching out to his bitterly fought rival in order to unify the party? It would be a shocker... It would really be about stepping above the petty feuds and doing what's good for the party, for the country... After all, alot of his policies are almost identical to Clinton's... Pettiness aside (in a tough fought race), it would be an inspirational move on his part, it'd be certainly a surprise to alot of people, and one that in my opinion could, played right, magnify the strength of his campaign...
It's sort of like the heroic turn of events in many Japanese anime or epic comicbook stories... The arch-villain who after being defeated by our hero has a change in heart... Arch rivals, after fighting a bitter near death battle, join forces, combining their powers to face a new, more powerful enemy lurking ominously on the horizon...
Well I wont discount that out of hand, but there are certainly problems with that conception. It is to me a question of the surreality of current campaign narrative, and what the wisest path forward should be.
First, I think one could argue that Clintons actual merits as a candidate are actually vastly inflated, and that while Obama has been reticent to deflate the illusions which prop her up in order to maintain party unity, the Republicans surely will not. Her resume is vastly inflated; compared with people like Biden and Richardson her actual experience in matters of foreign policy and economic management is no more compelling than Obamas. She selectively runs on her husbands record, a fact the republicans will point out far more aggressively. She is in fact fundamentally dishonest (even for a politician) on practically every issue she has built her self up upon; shes fully aware a federal mandate will never pass congress, her foreign policy experience is essentially fabricated and endlessly self-contradicting, her reputation as a 'down and dirty with the workin' man' reputation is a fairly transparent stage stunt, all of which will be made readily visible if the republican opposition research, (which is, mind you, 16 years in the making) were allowed to fall fully upon her.
Looking at the apparent tenacity her campaign is finishing with its easy to for us to say how strong she has been, but this deeply belies the institutional advantages she started with over her competitors and just how poorly in long fact she has done given that head start. I think what we have actually seen is the candidate of almost complete inevitability and supposedly flawless discipline show simultaneously a terrible lack of focus in message and presentation and an incompetence to plan and adapt appropriately. This coupled with a kind of arrogance and condescension that could assume absolute unscrupulousness of method would go somehow unnoticed, one really unrivaled in the democratic party, I think has frankly insulted the intelligence of the average American and played greatly to her demise.
Second, the methodology of her campaign and the endless psychodrama both overt and subliminal it has woven this entire campaign process in, one so enveloping I think it may be difficult to see outside of in this short run, has been deeply harmful to the Obama brand and persona. The racial divisions that appeared at least in the terms of his candidacy to be melting at his feet between Iowa and South Carolina have been now so intensified by her campaign, from Bill Clinton to Geraldine Ferarro to this quite overt scorched earth strategy of isolating constituencies along racial lines, that the genuine question remains whether the historical democratic coalition can ever be mended. Now certainly Jeremiah Wright was an inevitable scandal, but her her use of that scandal within the context of primary, (remember the Wright scandal and the "bitter" comments formed really the basis of distinction that allowed her to suddenly invent this 'down with the white workin' class' false persona) has managed to institutionalize racial divisions within the ranks of democrats in a way the republicans could never have dreamed for. Between this and less than subtle implications that hes a everything from a sexist to an election thief, she has handed a suite of attacklines to the republicans they simply could never have hoped to construct on their own.
Given all that, it may, frankly, be quite wise on Obamas part to pick a fresh new face so that the entire Clinton psychodrama can be put to rest more or less permanently to be forgotten as a bad dream.
While I don't think that the republican's would have failed to trot out wright and promote "quotes" so out of context that they aren't even in english anymore, I do agree with you that its hurt Democrats in general in ways that no republican ever could. It can be interpreted that minorities are welcome in the democratic party so long as they play a subservient role. And unless HRC spends some quality gore-style-time in the wilderness, that's what's really going to hurt in the long run.
I wanted a Gore/Clinton ticket sixteen years ago, instead of what we got.
Maybe an Obama/Clinton ticket isn't a bad idea. What's wrong with including the ladies (and their friends) at this point ? Or is anything we say about women "sexist" now. . .
I'm loving these conflicting stories: first the AP says she'll concede tonight, then her campaign says she won't, but if you read both statements closely, they both actually say she will if Barack gets the delegate numbers.
No Obama/Clinton ticket please. The Clinton's do not represent change. She is too prominent of a figure for VP. No Pres ever wants to possibly be upstaged by their Veep.
One main reason I would not take her as a VP is her hubby. I'd be afraid of what he might say and that I would then have to possibly explain. If Hillary can't control him, Obama certainly can not.
Well I love Kathleen Sebelius for VP, girl is sharp as a whip and has made huge strides in Kansas. Maybe more I just like the sound of it,... Obama Sebelius 08'! damn thats smooth. I guess my only reservations are whether Obama can hold down the foreign policy angle on his own, and whether he really needs a bad-cop. But the good bad-cop contenders like Jim Webb and Hagel and Biden have problems of their own. I guess all in all Richardson is probably the safest pick, but a big female boost and clearing the Clinton pallet might in the long run be the better bet.
As unscrupulous as the clintons may appear, I have no doubt whatsoever the Republicans will play every filthy hand they can get their hands on. I mean they tried to call him a nazi appeaser before he even had the nomination for christ sake. An all minority ticket seems like a risk, but its actually a hard hand for them to play without looking really transparently like white supremacists. As nasty as the sexism implication was it doesnt really have any teeth fixed in reality and itll be pretty well impossible for John McCain and whatever christian right wacko he picks for VP to cry feminism. Theyre certainly going to try to make him look like Malcom X, but what they really want, and Ive been watching them work on it, is to set the subliminal message "Obama likes white women." Theyve been working it behind the scenes with the "sweetie" stuff and the "touchy-feely" stuff, and mark my words, if he goes for Sebelius Fox News will have no problem laying that little subliminal shitbomb in his path.
So its an ugly little maze hes gonna have to run. The stuff he should really worry about is the stuff thats true. As spot on as hes been, he is a neophyte, and is a pretty unproven quantity when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully given how bad things are people will be willing to take that risk, but there are some really nuanced arguments hes got to get across to a lot of really un-nuanced people. Hes also kept some somewhat radical company and ideas in the past, and unfair as it may be hes going to have to allay those fears. Granted he dropkicked the most potent political machine in US politics with all that already hanging over him, but I have no illusions this will be easy.
I was forgetting the calculation that Hillary will bring out more Repubs (to vote against the Dem ticket) than anyone else.
Doesn't Obama's black wife inoculate him against the "white womanizer" tag (if any) -- unlike, say, Clarence Thomas ? (I hate getting my pants dirty with such speculation. . .)
i was at the gym and bill is ranting about obama not calling out people who said him and hillary are white racists.
in my mind they are the only ones talking about race, so doesn't that make the the racists, always playing the race card to divide in some way to their favor but it back fires, like projection
By BETH FOUHY and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers
15 minutes ago
Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.
On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House, according to a participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak for Clinton.
Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.
"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.
Clinton also told colleagues the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, but that she wanted to take time to determine how to leave the race in a way that would best help Democrats.
"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate.
Ugh... Hillary as Veep would be a poison pill on the ticket. She and Bill would be undermining Obama at his every step, like shades of LBJ. Thankfully, I Obama is smart enough to know this, and will act accordingly. Hillary needs Obama far more than Obama needs Hillary.
I'm hoping that Obama will appoint her as ambassador to some small, insignificant island country out in the middle of the Pacific, with very infrequent airline service to the US.
The only hispanic I know that would vote for McCain lives in Canada, therefore he can not Vote. So tell me what makes the Hispanic run to vote for McCain instood of Obama? You think McCain is a Senator because he has the Love of the Hispanic Population in Arizona? I would venture to say not. I think if Obama is on the ticket, the Hispanic people scattered across the country would see him as more of a representative of the people than McCain. Please don't forget Hispanic people live all across the country, and they do think seriously about these things like voting. Because they know they can make a difference. Move over Hillary and Bill Obama is on the way with a "NEW White House"
VOTE OBAMA
Yay. Thanks for the good news.
May 28, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Can He Take a Frisk?
By MAUREEN DOWD
After “Rahmbo” Emanuel, the Illinois congressman dubbed “the hostage negotiator” by the Obama forces, fails to talk Hillary down, Barack Obama knows that he is left with one final roll of the dice. He sets up a secret meeting with Bill Clinton in neutral territory at Rahm’s hideaway office in the Capitol.
Bill arrives two hours late, red-faced and truculent.
“If you brought me over here to cry uncle, shame on you, Barack Obama. You and your press lackeys are engaged in a cover-up even though Hillary’s winnin’ the popular vote and the general election.”
“Hey, Bill, please, stop wagging your finger at me. Call off Harold Ickes and the Hillaryland Huns. You’re right. I can’t win without her. The two of us can clean McCain’s grandfather clock.”
“Goshalmighty. You could knock me over with a hair on a biscuit, Barack. Smart move, everybody wins. Now Hillary won’t be the skunk at your Denver garden party.”
“That’s why they call me: No Drama Obama.”
“You’re a natural, like me. I was for hope; you are for hope. I was for change; you are for change. I took the Camelot sword from J.F.K.; you took it from Teddy. I would have been with you from the beginning except for that little deal I had with Hillary. She’s going to be so relieved that she doesn’t have to return to the back rows of the Senate with everybody there snickering that she flopped. And if something happens to you, God forbid, she’s right there in the Situation Room, ready to go at 3 a.m. on her Day One.”
“Yeah. I really want to announce this quickly, so let’s clear up a few niggling details.”
“Thank goodness you’ve got Jim Johnson frisking me. He’s the guy who missed all the baggage weighing down Geraldine Ferraro’s husband.”
“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”
“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”
“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”
“Ha, ha.”
“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”
“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”
“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”
“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”
“Higher.”
“Oh, no. Not that.”
“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”
“You know, Barack, the more I’m seein’ what you’ve got in mind for me, the more I’m worryin’ that Hillary’s just not cut out for this job. You don’t want her glomming on to everythin’. Since she’s almost even with the delegates, she’ll want to go halfsies in the government. She’ll want to run foreign policy, cause you know nothin’ about that. And legal stuff, because you never practiced real law. And economic policy, ’cause she connected better with working-class voters. And everything to do with white people, of course. I’ve got to level with you, man. Hillary’s a lot of work. And that Kathleen Sebelius is terrific and has those twinkly eyes.”
“So, Bill, you’re not wedded to Hillary being vice president? You won’t sabotage my campaign if I pick somebody I like, I mean, like, if I pick somebody else?”
“Nah. Now that I see the big picture, the idea of Hillary as your No. 2 was always a fairy tale.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
or
this is what hillary winning looks like, either 100% of all remaining state contests and 81% of the remaining delegates
or
56% of all states and 100% of delegates
somebody put this 'Troll Politician' to sleep, it's not going to happen
Is it over? Please tell me it's over.
(I hadn't seen these numbers before, but the NYT says that she only got 55% of the vote in Michigan? Obama wasn't on the ballot but a full 40% of voters took the trouble to mark 'uncommitted'?! And that's a victory? C'mon!)
765, the michigan democratic party at the time was urging all registered democrats to vote "uncommitted" as a protest vote after most all the candidates had withdrawn their names from the ballot. edwards was also a viable and very popular candidate in the state at the time. not all of that 40% was necessarily a vote for obama. one way or the other the michigan democratic party royally f-ed up; democratic voters in the state are still bitter about how everything shook out.
in their bids to matter more, fl and mi have not only screwed up their own credibility but screwed up the dnc's. we need this episode behind us.
luckily, a month after the race is decided (clinton willing) this will be forgotten and the focus will be on a different political farce.
...because that's all we really get anymore.
One thing people have to remember is that these are elections for political parties - not government.
Im not an election lawyer but really this is like a club voting for its leadership, not the president. They can do whatever they want its only a party.
This is why most of the founding fathers concidered abolishing party systems early in the creation of the United States. But the problem arose early as founders of Hamilton ( the greatest of the founding fathers I say) saw the constitution as a loosely interpreted document. Jeffersonians saw it as a strict document infused with the spirit of the nation - he was a purist and an architect - go figure. The Jeffersonians evolved into the democrats and the Hamilton Federalists evolved into the Republicans.
Federalist #51 deal with this topic - as it says that factions are inevidable and its the first rationalization of parties - although it encourages multiple factions so as to check ambition with ambition
And i urge anyone who thinks they know what America is meant to be to read the federalist papers - they are in many ways more imortant than even the constitution as they are essentially the notes and debates about how to form the nation and what they really thought
Thanks for the rec., evilp, I will check that out.
what galls me the most (the most? well...there are lots of things really up there...) is that most people still operate under the assumption that we are a "pure" democracy and that individual votes (ie, the popular vote) matter. While votes DO certainly matter (en masse), the reality is that we are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and our votes count only so far as the politicians they are connected to. In this FLA/MI snafu, the idea that poeple are upset about being "half a vote" is absurd -- all it means is your vote is part of the 20,000 votes that a delegate represents rather than the 10,000 they did before. Once again -- there is no sacristy afforded anyone's single vote in our overall system as it currently stands. We vote for people who vote for things that we hope represent our interests. That's how it works and how it has always worked. Deal with it.
If YOU (FLORIDA!) want your votes to really count, please figure out how to NOT be the subject of election controversy as you have been every time over the last 8 years!
I dont know, watching the clinton campaign nowadays all I can think of is Baghdad Bob.
look at this new math even if she wins 100% of the states and 57% of the super delegates she can't win she cant win at 50% either.
somebody shoot her she looks more psychotic and crazy every day.
i mean seriously who could elect a woman who dies her hair to run a pro environment government !? and who has a brother that obese.
PR is already called at 65% so that makes it that she would hate to win SD and MO by 100% and get 67% of the super delegates and she would still loose
this is insulting to the intelligence of anybody who can count that she does not give it up. there is no such thing as a 'popular vote' in the primaries and if there was Obama is up
"Obama leads Clinton by nearly 450,000 votes in the combined popular vote in primaries and caucuses where delegates were at stake"
It'll be over Tuesday.
For everyone but Hill & the people she's willing to take with her over the cliff. I just hope she doesn't Nader the democrats.
She's certainly working on it. . .
think shes going to have PTSD or already has it?
More like CDS.
If you would have asked my in March if this would cause a serious rift among voters, this prolonged battle, i'd of said no. Im starting to think the Clintons are salting the earth - spoiling it for everyone.
Well, you can imagine how frustrating this has been for the Clintons -- not that I give a ____ for their feelings at this point.
Wow.
I wonder what she'll try to extract, for giving up "so soon". . .
* crosses fingers *
I was at home this weekend with the fam and my dad and I were having a conversation during the Rules Committee meeting (I know fun times at the oe homestead) and dad had a really great analogy that all of a sudden made clintons maneuverings seem completely logical and had me feeling really naive about my impressions of this race and politics in general. He said securing a nomination is exactly like the hostile takeover of a corporation. Votes are shares and the party bigwigs are the board of directors. Clinton started this race with a very comfortable lock on the company, she had at least the impression going that she had the most shares in her pocket, and by extension had control of the board. Obama really came from essentially nowhere to gather just enough disgruntled boardmembers and gobbling up just enough shares to put him over 51%, much to the panic and dismay of the Clinton guard. Ive been here losing my mind, because in my head this really was some noble democratic process to make the world a better place, and in that context it seems crazy for clinton to do so much damage to the party simply for the sake of her own ambition, to make moves in the last few weeks to essentially claim hostage over latinos (by claiming some kind of Mugabe like usurpation of the florida vote) and "Hardworking white people" (by poking and prodding racial tensions so as to isolate her demographics) and women (by playing this sexism card and marching out like some victimized stalwart last hope for women everywhere), in sum dividing the party potentially irreparably. With such clearly impossible odds, why would she take that chance? Is she really just some kind of self-absorbed neurotic denial of the reality of her situation?
Im realizing though, that thats not it at all. The Clinton campaign is a 300 million dollar failed investment, and right now shes just doing everything she can on the part of her investors to mitigate her losses. Shes lost 51% of the pie, but shes not just going to hand over the 49 shes retained out of the goodness of her heart. Her people know shes lost, but they arent ready to give up what control they have left, and shes now missioned with defending it. If Obama wants the nomination hes going to have to make concessions, mitigating their financial losses, working to help her supporters in the house and senate keep their seats, even put her on the ticket (though her bargaining power here seems to have lost out lately.) The idea is to at least retain a latent base of support outside of the Obama cabal that now owns the party to either survive his loss in November or levy some kind of influence within congress during his presidency.
I think we can a better return on investment somewhere else.
Ah but it's too late: SHE's made the investment, and now WE have to help her pay it. (Maybe this belongs on the "debt" thread. . .)
No, we're the shareholders. She's just a wannabe CEO. That's why I bought a different stock.
This is an absurd metaphor anyway, it plays up the worst aspects of representative democracy. It doesn't have to be like this.
I'm sort of entertaining the thought that, if Obama is really about changing the face of politics, he might simply put Clinton on the ticket as his running mate.
While it's true that if he were to think only about winning he would fare better by strategically selecting a running mate that positions his ticket to win (choosing the military running mate, or the older white male candidate, etc.), Obama has long said that his campaign is about changing the way politics is done in Washington... Ironically, for all that Clinton may represent the "democrat estabilishment", putting her on the ticket may be exactly the most unconventional move in politics. Obama has said that he is about lifting people up, not tearing them down, about uniting people, not dividing based on labels... What if he set aside the differences from the political battle and chose his running mate based on the voice of the people... Choosing the tenacious, well fought runner up...
How revolutionary would it be for Obama to now demonstrate a kind of class act in reaching out to his bitterly fought rival in order to unify the party? It would be a shocker... It would really be about stepping above the petty feuds and doing what's good for the party, for the country... After all, alot of his policies are almost identical to Clinton's... Pettiness aside (in a tough fought race), it would be an inspirational move on his part, it'd be certainly a surprise to alot of people, and one that in my opinion could, played right, magnify the strength of his campaign...
It's sort of like the heroic turn of events in many Japanese anime or epic comicbook stories... The arch-villain who after being defeated by our hero has a change in heart... Arch rivals, after fighting a bitter near death battle, join forces, combining their powers to face a new, more powerful enemy lurking ominously on the horizon...
Well I wont discount that out of hand, but there are certainly problems with that conception. It is to me a question of the surreality of current campaign narrative, and what the wisest path forward should be.
First, I think one could argue that Clintons actual merits as a candidate are actually vastly inflated, and that while Obama has been reticent to deflate the illusions which prop her up in order to maintain party unity, the Republicans surely will not. Her resume is vastly inflated; compared with people like Biden and Richardson her actual experience in matters of foreign policy and economic management is no more compelling than Obamas. She selectively runs on her husbands record, a fact the republicans will point out far more aggressively. She is in fact fundamentally dishonest (even for a politician) on practically every issue she has built her self up upon; shes fully aware a federal mandate will never pass congress, her foreign policy experience is essentially fabricated and endlessly self-contradicting, her reputation as a 'down and dirty with the workin' man' reputation is a fairly transparent stage stunt, all of which will be made readily visible if the republican opposition research, (which is, mind you, 16 years in the making) were allowed to fall fully upon her.
Looking at the apparent tenacity her campaign is finishing with its easy to for us to say how strong she has been, but this deeply belies the institutional advantages she started with over her competitors and just how poorly in long fact she has done given that head start. I think what we have actually seen is the candidate of almost complete inevitability and supposedly flawless discipline show simultaneously a terrible lack of focus in message and presentation and an incompetence to plan and adapt appropriately. This coupled with a kind of arrogance and condescension that could assume absolute unscrupulousness of method would go somehow unnoticed, one really unrivaled in the democratic party, I think has frankly insulted the intelligence of the average American and played greatly to her demise.
Second, the methodology of her campaign and the endless psychodrama both overt and subliminal it has woven this entire campaign process in, one so enveloping I think it may be difficult to see outside of in this short run, has been deeply harmful to the Obama brand and persona. The racial divisions that appeared at least in the terms of his candidacy to be melting at his feet between Iowa and South Carolina have been now so intensified by her campaign, from Bill Clinton to Geraldine Ferarro to this quite overt scorched earth strategy of isolating constituencies along racial lines, that the genuine question remains whether the historical democratic coalition can ever be mended. Now certainly Jeremiah Wright was an inevitable scandal, but her her use of that scandal within the context of primary, (remember the Wright scandal and the "bitter" comments formed really the basis of distinction that allowed her to suddenly invent this 'down with the white workin' class' false persona) has managed to institutionalize racial divisions within the ranks of democrats in a way the republicans could never have dreamed for. Between this and less than subtle implications that hes a everything from a sexist to an election thief, she has handed a suite of attacklines to the republicans they simply could never have hoped to construct on their own.
Given all that, it may, frankly, be quite wise on Obamas part to pick a fresh new face so that the entire Clinton psychodrama can be put to rest more or less permanently to be forgotten as a bad dream.
Ow oe.
While I don't think that the republican's would have failed to trot out wright and promote "quotes" so out of context that they aren't even in english anymore, I do agree with you that its hurt Democrats in general in ways that no republican ever could. It can be interpreted that minorities are welcome in the democratic party so long as they play a subservient role. And unless HRC spends some quality gore-style-time in the wilderness, that's what's really going to hurt in the long run.
I wanted a Gore/Clinton ticket sixteen years ago, instead of what we got.
Maybe an Obama/Clinton ticket isn't a bad idea. What's wrong with including the ladies (and their friends) at this point ? Or is anything we say about women "sexist" now. . .
I'm loving these conflicting stories: first the AP says she'll concede tonight, then her campaign says she won't, but if you read both statements closely, they both actually say she will if Barack gets the delegate numbers.
anybody want to guess on a time that it will be called tonight?
Primetime: 9 pm EST
No Obama/Clinton ticket please. The Clinton's do not represent change. She is too prominent of a figure for VP. No Pres ever wants to possibly be upstaged by their Veep.
One main reason I would not take her as a VP is her hubby. I'd be afraid of what he might say and that I would then have to possibly explain. If Hillary can't control him, Obama certainly can not.
More on sexism:
Breaking the glass ceiling
Well I love Kathleen Sebelius for VP, girl is sharp as a whip and has made huge strides in Kansas. Maybe more I just like the sound of it,... Obama Sebelius 08'! damn thats smooth. I guess my only reservations are whether Obama can hold down the foreign policy angle on his own, and whether he really needs a bad-cop. But the good bad-cop contenders like Jim Webb and Hagel and Biden have problems of their own. I guess all in all Richardson is probably the safest pick, but a big female boost and clearing the Clinton pallet might in the long run be the better bet.
As unscrupulous as the clintons may appear, I have no doubt whatsoever the Republicans will play every filthy hand they can get their hands on. I mean they tried to call him a nazi appeaser before he even had the nomination for christ sake. An all minority ticket seems like a risk, but its actually a hard hand for them to play without looking really transparently like white supremacists. As nasty as the sexism implication was it doesnt really have any teeth fixed in reality and itll be pretty well impossible for John McCain and whatever christian right wacko he picks for VP to cry feminism. Theyre certainly going to try to make him look like Malcom X, but what they really want, and Ive been watching them work on it, is to set the subliminal message "Obama likes white women." Theyve been working it behind the scenes with the "sweetie" stuff and the "touchy-feely" stuff, and mark my words, if he goes for Sebelius Fox News will have no problem laying that little subliminal shitbomb in his path.
So its an ugly little maze hes gonna have to run. The stuff he should really worry about is the stuff thats true. As spot on as hes been, he is a neophyte, and is a pretty unproven quantity when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully given how bad things are people will be willing to take that risk, but there are some really nuanced arguments hes got to get across to a lot of really un-nuanced people. Hes also kept some somewhat radical company and ideas in the past, and unfair as it may be hes going to have to allay those fears. Granted he dropkicked the most potent political machine in US politics with all that already hanging over him, but I have no illusions this will be easy.
wasn't it in the news he is picking the kansas gov. lady as VP?
only in the news because the anti-choice crowd howled about it.
I think theyre just trying to box him off of it.
Associated Press is already officially calling it:
link
I was forgetting the calculation that Hillary will bring out more Repubs (to vote against the Dem ticket) than anyone else.
Doesn't Obama's black wife inoculate him against the "white womanizer" tag (if any) -- unlike, say, Clarence Thomas ? (I hate getting my pants dirty with such speculation. . .)
i was at the gym and bill is ranting about obama not calling out people who said him and hillary are white racists.
in my mind they are the only ones talking about race, so doesn't that make the the racists, always playing the race card to divide in some way to their favor but it back fires, like projection
^^ It may sound crazy now, but they took good notice of what happened to Harold Ford, believe me this is being worked on.
Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP
By BETH FOUHY and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers
15 minutes ago
Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.
On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House, according to a participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak for Clinton.
Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.
"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.
Clinton also told colleagues the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, but that she wanted to take time to determine how to leave the race in a way that would best help Democrats.
"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate.
_____________________________________________________________
"I deserve. . ."
What's the name of the skater who wanted a do-over because of a broken shoelace ? Why am I reminded of that. . .
Ugh... Hillary as Veep would be a poison pill on the ticket. She and Bill would be undermining Obama at his every step, like shades of LBJ. Thankfully, I Obama is smart enough to know this, and will act accordingly. Hillary needs Obama far more than Obama needs Hillary.
I'm hoping that Obama will appoint her as ambassador to some small, insignificant island country out in the middle of the Pacific, with very infrequent airline service to the US.
The only hispanic I know that would vote for McCain lives in Canada, therefore he can not Vote. So tell me what makes the Hispanic run to vote for McCain instood of Obama? You think McCain is a Senator because he has the Love of the Hispanic Population in Arizona? I would venture to say not. I think if Obama is on the ticket, the Hispanic people scattered across the country would see him as more of a representative of the people than McCain. Please don't forget Hispanic people live all across the country, and they do think seriously about these things like voting. Because they know they can make a difference. Move over Hillary and Bill Obama is on the way with a "NEW White House"
hillary should run third party
as should mitt romney (maybe i'll write him in, anyway ..)
i can't vote mccain or obama no way no chance good luck with that
What can we do to bring you around, Free?
^ Build the Great Wall of Texas Im guessing.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.