Clintonian Saboteurs
I have two questions for the Clinton supporters in the news tonight. One, are you at all surprised that your candidate was not chosen for the VP position? And two, what in the world are you trying to do with news stories like this?
Some in Clinton Circle “Outraged” (CNN)
Of course Obama picked somebody other than Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. After the long and bitter primary contest between the two, nobody should have really expected that the two would unite on the same ticket. Even if Clinton hadn’t burned those bridges so violently and persistently for over a year, she would still have been a bad VP choice for Obama. She would draw too much attention away from him and his message, and she would undermine his ability to sit comfortably on the top of the ticket. When was the last time a candidate ran with a VP that was that politically powerful and threatening?
Also, there is no way that Clinton would have invited Obama to be her VP if the primary had gone the other way.
So now the second question; why does it keep looking like Clinton and her supporters are trying to sabotage Obama’s candidacy? If these people legitimately supported Clinton because of her policies and positions, then there is no reason why they would have a problem switching over to supporting Obama; the two are almost identical in their platforms. Even if it is a personal thing, they have had a long time to get over it, and Obama has made every effort to draw in former Clinton supporters.
It is also interesting that the Clinton sources cited in the article claim that even tokenistic gestures would have been good (leave it to the disbanded Clinton camp to demand more meaningless pandering). If they really would have been happy with tokenism, then that would seem to indicate that they are legitimately concerned for Obama’s campaign, and they are interested in helping him. However, that is both unbelievable and inconsistent with the very fact that they are creating a story like they are.
Perhaps the insidious rumors are true that Clinton wants to see Obama lose so she can challenge the incumbent McCain in 2012. That does seem conspiratorial, but the Clintons and their disgruntled advisers appear to be feeding the conspiracy.
Whatever their motivation, it is petty for her advisers and supporters to try to butt into the news cycle with their claims that Clinton was not seriously considered for the VP position. Even if it is true that she was not under serious consideration, that shouldn’t surprise anybody. If Obama does lose the election and it appears that Clinton helped lead to that loss, there will probably be a few “outraged” Obama supporters defecting away from Clinton next time around.
PUMA! haha.
What a ridiculous notion. My candidate didn’t win so I’m taking my vote and giving it to someone who has policies I don’t care for, just out of spite. Who cares about the future of our country?
Wow, the Clinton Derangement Syndrome is strong in, young Jedi.
Biden has a history of making racist statements, even one towards Obama that he had to back peddle on. Biden also voted for the AUMF.
I recall from several quarters that Obama zealots felt that Clinton was not only unfit for the White House, but for Congress, due to their misperception that she and her husband had made racist remarks towards Obama and because *she* had voted for the AUMF.
If Obama really wanted to win the White House, Clinton would have been the much better choice; she’s more popular than Biden, has much higher name recognition, and there’s the fact that she got more votes in the primaries than Obama did, which would have gone a long way to helping him secure the White House.
When it comes to bitter primaries, this one was a cakewalk. If you knew any history, you’d be familiar with the 1980 Kennedy vs. Carter blood feud, which went from the primaries to the convention and beyond. Hart vs. Mondale also comes to mind. Bitterness and rancor usually get set aside when a candidate wants to win and understands that his best bet for doing so lays in making amends with a party rival.
That Obama failed to make the smart move speaks volumes to his arrogance and pettiness, not Clinton or her circle.
As for CLINTON burning bridges? That’s laughable. It was Obama who lied to public daily that he was above personal attacks and negative campaigning, while he and his campaign released false attack ads and privately urged reporters every hour (google “Philadelphia Inquirer’s Dave Davies”) to write hit pieces on Clinton. It was Obama’s supporters, with his tacit approval, invoking racism in a Godwinesque manner whenever any one dare to point out Obama’s many short-comings.
Finally, speculating about what Clinton wouldn’t have do is ridiculous, and doesn’t serve as a justification for Obama’s folly in tapping Biden.
You Obama zealots really need to wake up.
Wow. Write a post about bitter Clintonites, and they don’t waste any time showing up. :)
Seriously, though, you do raise some good points about Biden’s liabilities. There is no doubt that he comes with his own baggage.
I’ve tried to stay out of the race thing because any time it has come up from either side, it has been absurd and irrelevant.
Actually, I am glad you brought up Carter vs. Kennedy and Mondale vs. Hart. There are a couple of lessons there. First, the winning candidate made peace with the loser, and tried to draw in that support. Second, the winning candidate did not tap the loser to run as VP in either case. Third, the longer and more bitter the primaries tend to worsen the eventual candidate’s chances. I think that last one justifies a little bit of bitterness that Obama and his supporters can have for Clinton who dragged the primary out unnecessarily long and made it unnecessarily damaging.
Why in the world would Obama select Hillary? With Mrs. Clinton you get Bill and Bill is not silent..he takes away from the message…its not that Hillary is the problem. Bill is. Kind of like putting ketchup on steak…it might be too much.Thanks for your post!
bchboy1:
Did you get that from the news, or was that a psychic reading?
1) I don’t think anyone seriously believed that she would be the VP choice and I’m glad that she isn’t. She would have done a fine job as the VP candidate, but I think Obama is going to lose and I’m not sure she could do anything about it.
2) Perhaps some Clinton loyalists are not fully on board, but Hillary herself has done everything that can be expected and more. I would be very surprised if either she or Bill did anything at the convention other than be completely supportive.
Also, I think you’re crazy to say that she wouldn’t have picked him to be her VP if she had won. She may not have wanted to (and he probably wouldn’t have wanted it), but I think it would have been a foregone conclusion.
The movement to blame Obama’s loss on Hillary is already well underway, and that is ridiculous. Candidates don’t win or lose based on their vice presidents, their party members, or their former opponents. The Republicans are stoking whatever scattered embers of Clinton support there still is, and the media are having quite a time going along. If Obama loses, it will be because of him.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters have a right to be angry. If the John Edward’s affair had gotten the coverage it deserved when the story first broke, he would’ve dropped out and she would have likely been the nominee. The Dem’s and media kept it under wraps until after Obama clinched the nomination. I’m curious as to how the floor vote will go at the convention, if it actually happens. I figured Biden would be the nominee, but selecting a long-time US Senator negates Obama’s “change” message. Now he looks like he’s contradicting his message and relying on Biden’s FP experience to get him in the White House. A better choice would’ve been a governor outside of the DC circle. McCain will only serve one term if elected, so I think HC should try again. Stick it to the boys’ club in the Democratic Party. I’d vote for her in 2012, and I usually go Republican. Hell hath no fury…
Haha, you’re right about the fury.
If Obama loses (I really don’t think he will, but we will see), I too would love to see Clinton run again. I was ready to support her if she did end up winning the nomination (my friends know that I had a stockpile of Hillary buttons in a drawer just in case). I agree with most of her policies, which are nearly identical to Obama’s, and I also think it would be really good to have a woman as president.
But even though I would have supported her in the alternate universe in which she won, I wish that now her people would get fully behind Obama.
Your Democratic-Media-Edwards Affair cabal conspiracy is pretty suspicious, though. I don’t buy that for a second.
1) The media “cabal” conspiracy is ridiculous. I won’t believe anyone who tries to tell me that all of the media was kept under control by the Obama camp. That’s absurd. Any pro-Clinton, anti-Obama, or nosy journalist (that’s pretty much everyone) would be dying to get the Edwards story out. It’s true that there had been suspicion, but that was about it, prior to the story’s release.
2) The comment about Biden negating the”change” message has a bit of truth to it. I really didn’t think Obama would choose Biden, because he is D.C. insider, a Northern, and an establishment guy. In addition to that, he is the polar opposite of Obama, in regards to personality. Don’t get me wrong, I like Biden, and I think he’ll make a fine running mate. However, his selection goes to show how much Obama will have to play it by the rule book to win this election.
3) I like numbering my comments.
You guys don’t like to entertain conspiracy theories, do you? I still find it interesting that Edwards came clean AFTER Obama won the nomination. But I personally think most of the media was in the bag for O since he began his campaign, at least NBC and MSNBC. They’re called the “fourth branch of government” for a reason. The election won’t be boring with Biden, but it won’t be nearly as fun without Tim Russert.
Yes, Edwards came clean months after Obama clinched the nomination. As people on DailyKos have pointed out, the majority of people that voted for Edwards had Obama as their second choice. There’s really no reason to believe that Edwards being out of the race earlier would have had any effect on the nomination as a whole.
Karen, could you explain better why Clinton and her supporters should be angry? Do they have any more right to be angry than New England Patriots fans following the defeat in the Super Bowl? Both Clinton and the Pats lost fair and square. You don’t see any Bostonians calling for Eli Manning to ousted from the NFL.
Ian, I heard that same line about Edwards and Obama, but the Daily Kos is a perfect example of far left media supporting Obama. I would take what they say with a grain of salt. I think the info is based on exit polls, so I think there is really no way of knowing who would’ve gotten the JE’s votes if he had gotten out when the story first broke. I think HC supporters are angry, because she was the more competent and qualified candidate with the most experience, not including her “experience” as First Lady. She was labeled a ball-buster while Obama was this new messianic agent of change ready to redeem a broken Washington, blah, blah, blah. Now, Obama has chosen a DC insider, which completely contradicts his campaign message and didn’t so much as seek her counsel in his VP choice. Plus, I think a lot of people, especially women, would’ve loved to have seen a woman VP, since the last woman on a presidential ticket was Ferraro (1984) when most people who post on this blog probably weren’t even born yet. Biden might appeal to white blue-collar folks, but so could HC. Also, she’s a better attack dog than Biden, since you get Bill & co. Obama may have possibly alienated half of the country’s population, but we’ll see.
It’s arguable that Clinton on the ticket would wholly alienate the other half of the country. She’s much more divisive than Biden and a lot of people flat don’t like her.
Many voters disagree with your assertion that she was the more competent and qualified candidate. She may be a better and more experienced politician, but she ran a terrible campaign that couldn’t seem to stop making mistakes.
It’s my hope that those who say they’ll vote for McCain mostly to spite Obama will actually look at the person for whom they say they’ll vote and see how awful he really is.
I think the main argument that Edwards not being in the race would have benefitted Clinton basically boils down to the idea that having the race trimmed down to the two serious candidates would have caused the eventual (and, I would think, inevitable) binary nature of the race to emerge earlier. If the electorate had been divided into the eventual coalitions (white liberals and African Americans for Obama, women and the white working class for Clinton) from the outset, the dynamic would have been fundamentally different and could very easily have changed the outcome. Its an interesting counterfactual, but at this point is either here nor there (not to say that there won’t be a lot of Democrats wanting a do-over on the nominee pretty soon).
Is there any difference in Biden’s stand on the Iraq war from HRC’s? I’m wondering about Obama followers who wanted someone outside of DC to be VP; do they feel that Obama had radically changed his direction, instead of changing the country? I think Biden is a good choice.
What’s the difference between Obama’s stance on Iraq and McCain’s? A matter of a “timetable” … what else?
I’ve been waiting for Mr. Horton to visit here! Just because someone has been inside the beltway for some time doesn’t mean he or she cannot be a change agent.
Hey Nick, welcome!
Although I think you’re certainly right to say that Biden is “not an ‘outsider’” and does indeed show that the whole “change” mantra isn’t as “change-worthy” as it’s made out to be. It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t bring a change of atmosphere, character, and agenda. He can be a character of change while being a beltway insider. If you look at his policy positions and political attitude, he sticks out as a relatively progressive, neoliberal democrat (certainly someone who could be a spark for change).
Nick,
I certainly won’t argue with you, but I will add this one caveat: I’d only be worried if Biden were running for president. McCain will be the lead man for the Republicans, if he’s elected, as will Obama. Their running mates are important, but they’re subservient to their chooser. Biden works for Obama, not the other way around. Therefore, I wouldn’t call out the “change” mantra as “destroyed,” just altered.
More practically, keep this in mind: Obama wants to win. In addition to that obvious statement, he will probably do some things that seem somewhat contradictory or dubious (name me a politician who doesn’t). Obama needed someone with solid credentials and experience (esp. in foreign policy). He gets that with Biden, even if he has to turn the “change” throttle from “politically messianic” to “politically progressive.” The latter being entirely compatible with Biden’s character.
Saying that a Washington insider cannot be a change agent makes for good rhetoric, but we are all in on the inside joke that it isn’t really true. McCain could be a change agent…
However, the “change vs. 4-more-years” label will survive Biden’s arrival on the ticket as long as McCain continues to advocate Bush-like policies on the economy, Iraq, and health care. The real reason why Obama represents change is not because of his resume or rhetoric, but because of his policies.
On all three of the biggest issues in the election (the economy, Iraq, and health care, in that order), Obama has extensive, real proposals that represent a significant shift from the Bush policies, while McCain’s are almost cloned copies of the last 8 years.
On the economic issue, you can see this post for just one example speech. And I think the second two are obvious enough that you don’t need me to cite specifics.
Obama’s website is very navigable and it is easy to see what his policies are (it is also much much better than McCain’s).
As for extremely limited executive power, that ended decades ago. Today, the president sets the legislative agenda for Congress, especially when that Congress is friendly, as it will be next year if Obama is elected.
David, you know you could state that Obama’s policy for Iraq is a “clone copy” of the current Bush strategy? Conditional engagement, a timetable for withdrawal, and the future establishment of some sort of residual force — this is pretty much a politically universal stance. The only stark differences come when debating the “history.” Which, for election purposes, is important because of the perception of deceit. But for real, forthcoming policy it is irrelevant.
Well the timetable is different because for one thing, Obama and Malaki want to have one while Bush and McCain do not. Perhaps another difference is that Obama talks about the need for regional conferences to draw Iraq’s neighbors into the reconstruction process.
But it is true that Iraq is not quite the stark difference that it once seemed to be (as you noted once in a post, Steve). I think you are right in explaining why as well; Obama knows that we have to be responsible, even as we withdraw.
Iraq has already reached the policy “tipping point,” in terms of “future” foreign policy. So, it really doesn’t matter who is elected, the change in “overall” outcome has been precluded, save for some nuances and procedures.
I hope it doesn’t get debated this year — since there isn’t much to debate. (I’m speaking of HU debate.)
Is he reading the same blog that we are?
David, I would challenge your characterization that Bush and McCain don’t want a timetable. This recent article in the Wash Post by Amit Paley explains the current proposed agreement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082500771.html.
McCain has opposed a firm timeline, but suggests troops be out by 2013. Obama wants them out by mid-2010. Bush and McCain have opposed a specific date for security reasons. The accord proposes troop pull out by the end of 2011 with a limited number of troops remaining for security, intelligence and training purposes. The agreement is conditional based on the stability of the country. We’ll see if the Iraqi’s go for it.
“…while you were living in your liberal bubble…”
Hahaha. I want a liberal bubble!
Seriously Nick, what gives you any confidence in your prediction that the GOP will gain significant House seats? Was it the special election wins by Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux in strongly Republican districts? Or maybe the seven and a half point win by Travis Childers in freaking MISSISSIPPI? When the congressional approval ratings are divided by party, the Republicans in Congress are even less popular than the admittedly unpopular congressional Dems. Democrats are favored on generic congressional ballots almost everywhere, and Democrats are registering voters much faster than Republicans. 20 of the top 25 contested House seats are currently held by Republicans. There is simply no empirical evidence for that claim, and this doesn’t even take the Senate (where Dems are going to gain at least a few seats) into account.
Kolby is certainly capable of defending his own claims (which I am sure he will here shortly). But I’ll go ahead an help him out, because his analysis is definitely accurate.
House Predictions
Senate Predictions
Thanks for the offer Mr. Horton, but I’m sure you could better use that money to fund that wonderful publication you’ve been littering the Student Center with.
“You guys” is obviously a plural subject. I am the only one who has attacked your garbage newsletter in any sort of way on this blog, as far as I am aware.
As long as we are on the subject of your newspaper, you might want to talk to someone in the College of Communication about headlines and typography. Your newspaper is drivel, and I really hope you some day wake up and realize the stuff you are publishing about “unfair trade” and other such topics are complete lies and garbage.
Most of the evidence you want would require you having a subscription to several pay services (primarily parts of the National Journal empire). Steven’s CQ links accomplish basically the same thing. I’m more than willing to admit that Obama has serious political problems, but not even my most rapidly partisan Republican friends here in DC expect anything approaching a positive outcome in the House and Senate this fall.
Wow, how ticked off would Hillary be if McCain won, died, and this Sarah Palin person that nobody has ever heard of became the country’s first female president?