Can Clinton muscle to a VP nod?

[DeepModem Mom]

Politico: Can Clinton muscle to a VP nod?
By: Roger Simon
May 22, 2008

It is possible to muscle your way into a vice presidential nod: You have something the nominee wants, and he has to give it to you. The question is: Does Hillary Clinton have that kind of muscle?

Her victories in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and her strength with women and white working-class voters have fueled the argument that Barack Obama must put her on the ticket if he wins the nomination and wants those states and those votes in the fall. And, as a senior Obama adviser told me Wednesday, some Clinton supporters are “pushing real, real hard to get her on the ticket.” But it won’t be easy.

“You don’t want your vice president taking away anything from the ticket, and she does,” said the adviser, who asked not to be named because he was expressing his personal views and not the official view of the campaign. The adviser cited two things against Clinton: the number of voters who consider Clinton “dishonest” and the “baggage” Clinton brings with her.

Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans believe Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” “That’s not a real positive,” the Obama adviser said, adding: “Her baggage in a general election is real. Does she bring women? No question. But Barack Obama is not a turnoff for women.” He added: “Keep in mind, we are talking about Democratic women. That’s who have been voting for her in the primaries. Do you really think Democratic women are going to vote for John McCain in a general election with the Supreme Court at stake?”

But doesn’t Clinton also attract certain groups of white voters that Obama has been unable to get? “Yes,” the adviser said, “but some of them will never vote for Obama anyway.”...

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0D481FCE-3048-5C12-0077C7D9BA611A9C

[Radio_Lady]

1. K & R for its positive viewpoints and sources. Thanks, DMM!

The fate of our country -- and the subsequent integrity of this website -- could rest with these two people and their followers.
Neither of them are perfect and the people who surround them are not perfect. But I would trust either or both of them to run the United States.



Here's more of this article:

Bruce Morrison ... is a former congressman from Connecticut, went to Yale Law School with Hillary and Bill Clinton, was co-chairman of Irish-Americans for Clinton-Gore and has worked closely with Hillary Clinton on immigration issues. And, in the case of Hillary Clinton, it is also about asking: “Do I want Bill Clinton hanging around me for the next four or eight years?” Which is a question I put to Morrison.

“I think Bill is a resource,” Morrison said. “He can be unhelpful. He has been, at times, unhelpful in this campaign. But on the whole, he has been an enormous resource.”

Morrison says putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket would have impact with voters. She would, he says, bring “white, working-class” people to the ticket, “the white ethnic voters” with whom Bill Clinton did well in 1992 and 1996 and with whom Al Gore and John Kerry did not do so well in 2000 and 2004.

Morrison does not diminish Obama’s accomplishments. “We have two really spectacular candidates,” he said. “They have stood up pretty well in a grueling battle for two years, and both are still standing. Neither has knocked the other out, and one is winning in the stretch.”

But Morrison said the choice of a vice president would be seen as Obama’s “first presidential decision,” and picking Hillary Clinton would reflect “the idea of bringing people together, the centerpiece of his campaign.” It would be, in other words, a good symbol. In the end, though, it will still be about muscle.

“A lot of Democrats are very strongly for Hillary and much less so for him,” Morrison said. “The most efficient, most dramatic and most effective way to get them is to pick her.”

Full article at: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0D481FCE-3048-5C12-0077C7D9BA611A9C

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Thanks for your addition, Radio_Lady! nt

[Radio_Lady]

8. No worries. We try our best to reason this out, but in the end...

I honestly think that in UNITY there is strength.

DIVIDED, we Democrats are eating each other up alive and I don't see a way back from this. Why else would I be up at 1:20 AM and still embroiled in discussion?

Somebody get the Biblical King Solomon, because I'm ready to save this baby -- but how? And why?

Where is the REAL mother of this election? Obama is downpedaling this "first decision," but it is extremely important. If Hillary steps aside, she may take millions with her. So are we looking at white men who have less resources and less votes than Hillary... Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, etc. Listen, Hillary looks like she came in second (runner-up). Do we just ditch her for one of the also-rans?

(Please note: My election ideas are posted at http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Radio_Lady/238. I'm not the person you have to convince, because unity is the only way I see it.)

[Why Syzygy]

2. Count me in the six in ten. Don't trust her.

[Radio_Lady]

4. So what about the 16 million of us who voted for her? Are we sausage or something?

:sarcasm:

Just supposed to swallow hard while one of our best BUT FLAWED politicians -- who has taken her BEST BUT FLAWED President husband's and her own lumps for 20 years -- gets kicked to the curb? I just don't get it.

I'll post this one. Suppose Obama wins the presidency outright and chooses ????? PUT ANY NAME YOU WANT HERE...for Vice President.

And they campaign bravely but LOSE to McCain and/or ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN VP?

Remember, in this scenario, Obama loses the swing states that Clinton won -- for WHATEVER reason.

WHO are you going to blame?

[Diane R]

6. The losing candidate loses. That's how it works.

[Radio_Lady]

10. Please check your American history. This is NOT ALWAYS TRUE in the primaries.

[Why Syzygy]

7. Who says I have to blame anyone.

That scenario won't happen.

You notice I'm in the majority, right?
The Clintons have a couple of legal issues pending which will do a lot to clarify for the other four of you.

[Radio_Lady]

9. I set up a couple of precepts and you sidestep the answer.

If Obama chooses to disregard Clinton, he will be showing right off the bat that he doesn't know how to make a good decision.

He will be turning his back on the proven vote-getter (#2) among the population that he simply cannot obtain.

Behind Hillary is this huge population of voters of votes that she has received! If Obama is so full of himself that he thinks he doesn't need her supporters, then perhaps he doesn't deserve to win the election.

I think the selection of the vice presidential candidate should be made upon the basis of two important factors:

One factor is what proportion of the national vote can that person bring to the support of the presidential candidate...

Second: Who, as a vice presidential candidate, can be the person who can take on the enemies of the ticket in the way that the presidential candidate cannot? In other words, it is better if the presidential candidate can stand above the fray. But that can only happen if he has a vice presidential candidate who is tough and will take on the down and dirty opposition and fight them head to head.

If you look at it from that point of view, WHO WOULD BE A BETTER CANDIDATE THAN HILLARY CLINTON?

Cordially,

Radio Lady Ellen

[Night_Nurse]

12. hmmm...

"He will be turning his back on the proven vote-getter"

...and if he's not careful, he may find a knife embedded in that back.

[handel]

13. Response to message

Hi, I'm new here, Legal Permanent Resident originally from UK, not US citizen yet so can't vote, USC husband of course does.

My question / worry - I would have gone for Clinton, she seems to me to have proven herself capable, Obama not so. However - given that Obama will become nominee, how concerned are you that - (a) there seems to be a concerted drive by the GOP to call him 'Barack Hussein Obama' and (b) that there must be a more than normal danger that he will be subject to an assassination attempt?


This seems to me to make his choice of VP especially important. Or am I talking nonsense because I'm new to all this? After all, no one would take a shot at Gordon Brown...

[earthlover]

18. Even Reagan was shot ....

All presidents, regardless of party, regardless of race, regardless of anything face the possibility of assassination. Four presidents have been assassinated.

Why single out Obama? McCain could be shot. Hillary could be shot.

I believe that bringing up assassination as if it were some sort of campaign issue is ludicrous. Seems to fit in with some code.

[Night_Nurse]

22. To answer...

Quote: "However - given that Obama will become nominee, how concerned are you that - (a) there seems to be a concerted drive by the GOP to call him 'Barack Hussein Obama' and (b) that there must be a more than normal danger that he will be subject to an assassination attempt?"

A - That's SOP for the GOP, and we just have to hope that most Americans can/will see thru that. It's a concern, but not one that anyone can do much about.

B - I hadn't really thought about that until Hillary's latest outburst, but I think anyone in that position is at high risk for assassination.

Good questions, though. It's nice to see someone who's not a citizen show an interest in, and be informed about the government - that's more than most Americans bother to do, hence the concern you mentioned in (A).

[earthlover]

17. You're saying if Hillary is not the VP, Obama is incabable of making good decisions....

"If Obama chooses to disregard Clinton, he will be showing right off the bat that he doesn't know how to make a good decision"

I disagree. There are many other possible good choices for VP. You can make the case that Hillary is a good one. Maybe even the best. But you cannot make the case that none of the other choices would be a good decision. That is just sour grapes.

Who would Hillary pick as VP? Obviously not herself. If nobody except Hillary in the universe can be a good VP, she would not make a good pick either....would she!

Wes Clark would make a fine VP pick. And he endorsed Hillary, so it would be a step towards unity. He would be a great attack dog, has impeccable foreign policy credentials, is progressive, is not afraid of the word liberal, opposed Iraq from the start. He would strengthen the ticket in several ways, particularly with regard to preventing McCain from saying our ticket was weak on foreign policy/security/patriotism.

I'm sorry, but in my view Hillary has made it very hard to be considered VP. Normally, someone in her position would have a great chance. But Hillary got caught with a grandiose lie about being shot at by snipers at Tuzla. Obama has held back criticism of her about this, but the Republicans would eviscerate her with it if she were on the ticket. Also, Hillary has on at least two occassions basically said McCain would be a better president than Obama. The Republicans would "obliterate" (to use a word Hillary is fond of) our ticket with that if she were on it.

Hillary brings too many negatives. Most people don't trust her or think she is honest. Her negatives have been hovering at or more than 50% for the entire campaign.

Yes, she would add some voters to the fold. But many of them would vote Democratic anyway. However, she would also turn off others....particularly those who were excited about something different from the old politics. She would represent more of the same.

If Hillary had not thrown the entire kitchen sink and then some at Obama, a great case could be made for Hillary as VP.

If she does not get it, she has only herself to blame. She, I believe, let down her followers when she let her campaign sink so low. Short term gains, long term loss.

[ikojo]

15. Some people voted for her because there was something

in her that they liked. I truly believe that much of her success in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states was a Republican ploy led by Rush Limbaugh, to encourage people to cross over and vote for her in the primaries. Many of those people will not vote for a ticket headed by a black man with a woman (ESPECIALLY Hillary Clinton) as the VP nominee.

There is not a movement of people clammering for Hillary as VP or even president.

[Diane R]

5. So, she's blackmailing him, or throwing a temper tantrum, to force him to put her on the ticket?

We've had a childish president. We don't need someone who resorts to holding her breath, or breaking all the toys, to get her way.

I truly believe Obama is tough enough to say 'no' to both Clintons. And when he does that, I'll know that he'll be a phenomenal president.

[Radio_Lady]

11. Barack Obama will have a much bumpier path WITHOUT Hillary than WITH HER.

Do you even remember the teams of Kennedy/Johnson and/or Reagan/Bush Number 1? Have you put any time into studying just those two elections? (I'm going to be 69 years old in two weeks, so I LIVED them!)

Someone likened Hillary to a junkyard dog! Shit! I love it!
She may cackle and be shrill and she wears pantsuits more than I would. She makes mistakes, but she gets the job done.

Better than anyone else I know... black/white/woman/man.

If the situations were reversed, I'd be telling Hillary to choose HIM as her VP. He is a young, charismatic, vibrant, handsome (that helps) man. But he needs her experience just as she needs him.

OK.

[ikojo]

14. I hope not. Obama will have enough of a struggle

being the first black presidential candidate of a major party. Hillary Clinton has HUGE negatives. People are crossing over from the Republican party to vote for her because the pugs realize THEIR candidate is weak (particularly to the base) and that it would be far easier to get the Republican fund raising machine rolling and to get out the vote if she was the Democratic nominee. Republicans would not be voting so much FOR John McCain but definitely against any ticket including Hillary Clinton.

Am I the only one to see this?

If Hillary is on the ticket say hello to a third George Bush administration via John McCain.

[ccharles000]

16. I hope she is the VP.

[Radio_Lady]

19. Just a photo, folks.

I'm worried about an assassination, but that is only a possibility. Either way, we can't be strained by these scenarios. They are just theories. To the gentleman from the UK, do you think that no one would want to assassinate Gordon Brown? Think again...

Which VP candidate would be more likely to stab Obama in the back? Why Hillary? Who came up with that scenario?

I'd be happy if Hillary got back in the Senate and did a bang-up job for the rest of her term and then just retired. Or took a high place in Obama's government.

Wes Clark would be OK with me for VP, but he had never been elected for anything.

Every one of the alternate candidates has baggage. It just hasn't been revealed.

I'm leaving this endless discussion alone for awhile.

You're in charge -- and welcome to it.

Cordially,

Radio Lady

[NCDem60]

20. If she had a chance

she blew it today with her assassination comment. She's done.

[mishte]

21. Are all 2nd place candidates treated with consolation prizes?

Maybe its my faulty memory, but I don't recall a past nomination process where there was more focus on "what does the losing candidate want"? than promoting and supporting the guy who's winning. Or has won.

Is it because she's strong-arming behind the scenes? You'd think she'd have more of a point if that were the case. Is it because she's a "Clinton" or a former first lady? Is it because she's a.... dare I say... woman? It tends to get a little nauseating when the pundits discuss her delicate feelings and how she needs to be given "time" and "space" like she's some sort of fragile flower. I think there is some "reverse sexism" in the subtext, but I'm not sure if that explains the situation entirely. It doesn't do her any favors. She'd be much better of if she were called to the carpet.

It is very disturbing that it seems as though she is being deferred to with special treatment above and beyond what the loser usually enjoys, and basically paying no attention to the guy in first place.
They keep asking about Clinton as VP, but they keep forgetting who is the one who will make that decision, No, that's wrong. They keep ignoring his answer.

Aside from Clinton's latest gaffe about RFK, the news is inundated with Clinton discussions, her curious arguments and what it will take to appease her.

Does any one else find this disturbingly odd?

[Cha]

23. hilary's big mouth has muscled her way out of the

VP slot on an Obama ticket! One perk coming from her stunning insensitive, brainless utterences.