Will Hillary Give Obama The Vice Pres Nod?

while everyone is picking Hillary apart remember this... there is going to be a general election.... Hillary IS going to be the candidate.... the repubs will put up one of the pieces of unacceptable **** you're seeing on the news.

Do you want to support Hillary or give your vote away to an independent which will give the white house back to 4 more years of war and bush style leadership, or outright vote for a republican who will continue us on exactly the same path that has damn near ruined us?

Those are the realistic choices.

nimh, you described Hillary as "an aggressive and shrewd political animal" (I won't even bother with the 'shrew' etymological root) but that's a description that easily matches what we know of Lincoln, for example. I think we understand that if Obama didn't match those two adjectives, he'd simply fail in his run for top office. So, why does it have traction re Hillary?

Its not that voters are finding out that she is really not the agressive and shrewd political animal her critics have tried to make her out to be; perhaps she's in the lead because voters still think that's what she is - and that's what they want at this moment in time.

Rudy Giuliani is predicting pretty unequivocally that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008, and that she'll pick Barack Obama to be her running mate. "He's kind of earned it," Giuliani says. "He brings a kind of enthusiasm to the ticket that everyone desires and likes to have."

blatham wrote:

But for God's sake, if we consider the number of elections we have all seen in our lifetimes in western nations and then consider how few women have managed to achieve national leadership positions, I don't know how we can think about that fact without concluding that there is a bunch of stuff going on below the level of consciousness for most of us.

[..] But that's where I agree with nimh, too. This is not as zero-sum as you seem to make it. Of course, there is sexism. [..] But it's too simplistic to say that if you do not want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, it's because of sexism.

There has been plenty of discrimination against Mormons. That's why you don't like Romney, right? Or even Richardson -- surely if you don't favor him over the other Dems it is because of your latent fear of Hispanics. [..]

You see?

Again, yes, smears occur, and yes, they're frequently damaging. But the fact that a smear is aimed at someone doesn't mean that they automatically become someone to support. One must look through and around the smears -- and when I do, there are things about Hillary that give me pause. [..]

In light of Blatham's argument, I thought this bit from Soz on the other page was worth repeating..

sozobe wrote:

blatham wrote:

But for God's sake, if we consider the number of elections we have all seen in our lifetimes in western nations and then consider how few women have managed to achieve national leadership positions, I don't know how we can think about that fact without concluding that there is a bunch of stuff going on below the level of consciousness for most of us.

[..] But that's where I agree with nimh, too. This is not as zero-sum as you seem to make it. Of course, there is sexism. [..] But it's too simplistic to say that if you do not want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, it's because of sexism.

There has been plenty of discrimination against Mormons. That's why you don't like Romney, right? Or even Richardson -- surely if you don't favor him over the other Dems it is because of your latent fear of Hispanics. [..]

You see?

Again, yes, smears occur, and yes, they're frequently damaging. But the fact that a smear is aimed at someone doesn't mean that they automatically become someone to support. One must look through and around the smears -- and when I do, there are things about Hillary that give me pause. [..]

Seems straightforward enough..

Beyond the blunt, crude fact that America is getting less white, there's a more uplifting reason to believe that the political exploitation of race may be losing its force: As a nation we've become much less racist. The most dramatic evidence of diminishing racism is the way people respond to questions about a subject that once struck terror into white hearts: miscegenation. In 1978, as the ascent of movement conservatism to power was just beginning, only 36 percent of Americans polled by Gallup approved of marriages between whites and blacks, while 54 percent disapproved. As late as 1991 only a plurality of 48 percent approved. By 2002, however, 65 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriages; by June 2007, that was up to 77 percent.

Hillary on Obama: Fear and Hatred on the Campaign Trail

Hillary on the attack. That's the narrative of the Democratic contest this week [...] Senator Clinton has begun to swing hard at the Illinoisan. Not just at his ideas, but at him, at his character.

Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said the other day, "Senator Obama is a fabulous orator, but we need more than words. We don't need someone who says one thing and does another, somebody who talks a good game but doesn't have the courage of their convictions. And on issue after issue, Senator Obama says one thing and does another." The Clinton campaign sent out an email on Monday calling Obama Karl Rove's preferred Democratic (ouch!) and blasting Obama for supposedly not understanding his own health care proposal, for lying when he has said he has not harbored presidential ambitions for years, and for allegedly running a slush fund (meaning a leadership political action committee, which he manages in the same manner Clinton runs her own leadership PAC). In other words, the fellow who has inspired thousands--if not millions--is a sleazy, hypocritical, incompetent sham. On Monday, Clinton called Obama a "talker" not a "doer" and a purveyor of "false hopes." [...]

This is much tougher an attack than anything Obama has hurled at her--and he has been critical of Clinton. [...] And it shows--take your pick--either the meanness or toughness of Clinton and her posse. [...]

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush."

What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" [..] A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible." [..]

But the Clinton attacks [..] say something about Hillary Clinton. She's adopting a whatever-it-takes strategy, mixing legitimate criticisms with truth-stretching blasts. [..] Whatever-it-takes often works in political campaigns. But we all know that hatred can be blinding. Clinton is, as has been noted, running the risk of alienating those kindhearted souls of Iowa by slamming the lovable, likable and inspiring Barack Obama. She could end up looking a bit desperate. [..] If the Clinton campaign throws anything it can against Obama--with little regard for accuracy or decency--that will reflect her own character and values. It could, to turn her words against her, be a disqualification for the job.

Clinton is playing with fire. In explaining to reporters that she will be tougher on Obama, she said, "Now the fun part starts." That was tasteless. It's a remark that certainly can--and will be--used against her. And some Democratic voters might worry that the comment reveals too much desire for (political) blood.

In politics, there can be a thin line between tough and mean. (Ask Rudy Giuliani.) The future of Clinton's campaign--and perhaps the future of the United States--will be determined by how this woman navigates the difference.

I don't think their hatred of Clinton (which I beleive is simply a hatred when compared to Obama, when compared to Rudy McRomney I'm sure they love Clinton) would keep them from voting for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" [..] A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."