If you can't accept Hillary on the ticket as VP you are just a big baby

[Bread and Circus]

First, think about the miracle that is the Barack Obama's ascent to the top of the Democratic Party and be thankful for it. Second, consider that despite running a loathsome campaign (I'm sorry folks but Hillary's campaign purposefully exploited racial tension), Clinton deep down has a solidly progressive voting record on social and family welfare issues. She needs work on foreign policy as she was more often likely to side with Lieberman and Likud than the Democrats but hey, she won't be CIC, Obama will. Third, you have to respect her supporters and the millions of people (especially women)she represents.

I have to admit, by the commonly accepted definition I am a "Hillary Hater". I really don't hate her, but I do hate her brand of politics. Deep down, I think she is a good person corrupted by a bunch of dickheads (ex. Ickes, Wolfson), assholes (ex. Penn, Lanny Davis), and an over-rated ex-President who only won his first election because of a recession and a crackpot (Perot). So, despite all that, I will gladly accept Hillary on the ticket. If it makes a lot of women feel better about this race, then all the better.

I'm a white guy. I have no dog in the fight when it comes to racial or gender "identity" at this point, at least saliently. On a deep level, I "identify" with Barack for the simple fact my biological father abandoned me when I was a baby and I was raised by a single mom left to make my own way in the world. However, I keenly empathize with women and African Americans in their struggle for quality and recognition. Barack represents a lot to a lot of people. So does Hillary, even though a lot of us don't like her. We have to remember that we are all ultimately on the same team, the one that strives for equality, justice, peace, freedom, and shared prosperity. Jerkwaters like Mark Penn aren't on that team, but I think somewhere deep beneath the political layers of bullshit, Hillary is.

However, I won't listen to anyone who says Hillary lost because of misogyny or that Obama somehow played unfair. Obama basically outflanked and outmaneuvered Clinton to pull off one of the most amazing and intelligent campaigns that any of us have ever witnessed. Basically, his campaign was smarter. Axelrod and Plouffe defeated Penn and Wolfson. Yay! The good guys won. For once. Hillary was mostly a victim of bad advice and her own ambition. That doesn't make her evil. That she was willing to "go there" (meaning some of the lowest places we thought she'd never go) is both alarming and reassuring, this lady is not afraid of a fight.

Some of you will say "NO! She will activate the GOP Base!" Well guess what, any woman would. Any black on the ticket would. But we can't be afraid of that. I'd rather lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong thing. Because if you win losing your principles then you have lost more than just the election. Chew on that.

I'd rather Obama not pick Clinton for VP. However, if he does I can live with that. I can donate to that. I can wear that bumper sticker on my car or plant that sign in my yard.

I personally think if you had Obama, Michelle, Richardson, Edwards, Hillary, Bill and Chelsea in all the corners of this country preaching the good word of hope, change, equality, peace, and shared prosperity we can't lose.

Well, at least that's how I feel today. Let's see what stunt they pull next ;)

[mmonk]

1. Name calling doesn't work. I would vote for the ticket out of

necessity but that's hardly a great reason.

[asjr]

9. But necessity is the main reason. We need the

most qualified people at the helm. Obama/Clinton would be unbeatable. For the last 7 years we have seen the most incompetent, rude, shallow, prevaricating people that ever landed on earth. If we have 4 more years of Republican rule there is no hope.

[mmonk]

14. By necessity, I mean no choice.

Personally, I think she is a bad fit for his themes and the republicans will use her soundbites against Obama. That being said, McCain must not be allowed to win.

[roguevalley]

44. given her remarks about Obama being assassinated, I don't think

I am being a baby wishing she would fuck off. but then, I'm funny that way.

[BlueJac]

2. Not really worthy of an answer.

[NashVegas]

5. Agreed

[Straight Shooter]

16. Lost me at "loathsome" n/t

[Bread and Circus]

19. I'm sorry, but it's true and it's well supported by the majority of commentary on the left.

[NashVegas]

25. Feh

[Straight Shooter]

29. Dupe

Fugg my computer

[Straight Shooter]

30. Obama '08, fueled by Hillary Hate.

How's that for a winning slogan?

Look, I don't want her as a second-fiddle VP. I want her on the Supreme Court, or as governor of New York, closer to the people, more effective. I want her where she can best utilize her intellect.

It doesn't matter. The veep will be chosen for Obama per psychoanalysis of demographics. When his veep is chosen, then we will learn who McCain's veep is. That will be the sound of the other shoe dropping.

[oviedodem]

3. I can accept it, I only hope Bill can reign himself him and BOTH Clintons can stay on message

[Zueda]

4. I wonder how much Gore enjoyed being in the White house with Hillary. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. more than Obama would enjoy hill-bill.

He may be forced to wrestle Bill out of that chair in the oval office.

[papapi]

6. Can we send Bill on an 8 year holiday?

[flor de jasmim]

7. Would anyone find her a credible in saying she is 100% behind Obama?

You've said you have not been a supporter of hers, so my question is only partially to you. Unfortunately, everything she has said on the campaign trail to diminish his chances is fodder for the Republicans in the GE.

In terms of policy, I would be very happy to see Clinton as VP or P. However, in terms of her temperment, I have serious reservations. If Obama were trying to run a "typical" campaign, then having a pit bull as VP might well be good strategy. In this case, she only detracts from his message regarding underlying values.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I can "accept" her inasmuch as I would vote for the ticket. However, it would be a terrible idea.

I don't really see her as the type who is willing to sit back and let Obama do whatever he wants, even if she thinks it's politically-misguided or poor policy. Power-seeking "take-charge fighters" as POTUS and VP? Not a recipe for a smooth four years.

[jsmirman]

50. The ONLY reason she'd ever be added is a conviction her supporters are babies

she adds no natural advantage to the ticket- the only reason any would add her is if they believe she has bamboozled enough of her supporters into an insane "Hillary or Bust!" position.

Otherwise, she brings no natural constituency and has ENORMOUS NEGATIVES and WILL BE PUMMELED BY THE REPUBLICANS and WILL MAKE THE WHOLE TICKET LOOK LIKE ANOTHER CYNICAL PRESENTATION instead of the wonderful message of hope and change.

Also, as I noted before, it's not like we wouldn't vote for it, but it will cut the volunteers' message to the people off at the knees.

As to the Repubs negative stuff, she's not just a woman to attack, etc- she's a woman to attack with an entire mansion full of crooked, suspect shit and totally indefensible reversals of position. It's weakminded to say they would attack anybody. It's preferable not to have someone who present ENDLESS avenues of attack.

But other than that, it's a great idea.

:sarcasm:


The OP is not only condescending and jerky in the slant of his post, but the idea is also fucking stupid.

[KAZ]

10. I basically agree with you. Your last sentence is especially salient.

Two days ago I would have said "no fn way", but then things calm down a bit. I truly hope we're done with the "stunts".

Nominated.

[VolcanoJen]

12. Only if Obama hires a food taster

}(

[highplainsdem]

13. "Paranoia strikes deep..."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

32. there's a man with a gun over there,

hey, you realize that the Minnesota PD is already recruiting spies for the convention? to start riots, to infiltrate protest groups, and to create trouble?

[OnionPatch]

15. I don't want her as VP, but I will accept it if it happens.

And I will also support the ticket. But as she continues with the hateful rhetoric, it's getting harder and harder to feel that way.

[crankychatter]

17. Clinton's threat to go to Convention-put the GE at risk - demanding VP?

that's mature?

kma

Clinton is so DEEP IN THE POCKET OF WAR PROFITEERS she is DANGEROUS as VP

get it?

[Bread and Circus]

20. I don't think it's going to be "just Clinton" demanding it. If it happens it's going to come from

many quarters that are going to try to work out a "compromise".

[crankychatter]

23. The War Profiteer owned MSM, Clinton News Network? that's your "concerned party?"

I think not

WV and Kentucky are NON ISSUES

the disaffected "lunch bucket" Democrat? another fake demographic

Women voting against Roe V Wade?

Not gonna happen

This big division is a fabrication of the media and if you're honestly buying it... it's because you actually believe the fucking trolls on DU are Clinton supporters

wake up man... nothing personal... but it's ALL propoganda, ALL the time

Clinton is far more brutal than Bush... she's in the pocket of the MIC and Energy Transnationals.... Insurance industry and MEGAPHARMS...

she's more dangerous than Johnson ever THOUGHT of being

[crankychatter]

26. her negatives are THROUGH the roof - n/t

.

[Tinksrival]

18. Or we could actually be smart about it!

[BzaDem]

51. Yea, like nominating a candidate that would actually win.

[BobbyVan]

21. Let's get smart for once and do something that will help us win.

It might not feel good to put Hillary on the ticket, but she has strengths that we would be foolish to ignore. Her popularity among white, working-class men and women will go a long way to assembling a winning coalition for us.

I know there is some "bitterness" after the long, drawn out fight, but GET OVER IT!

[nichomachus]

22. An Obama-Hillary ticket would be an unmitigated disaster

1. A lot of Obama's support comes from people -- previously not in the process -- who wanted a change from the old ways. Putting Hillary on the ticket would send them packing, and Obama's support among that demographic would begin to deflate like yesterday's party balloon.

2. There are people who might vote for a black person, but who wouldn't vote for a woman. You can then add those to people who might vote for a woman, but wouldn't vote for a black person. All you would do for Obama is add Hillary's incredibly high negatives to the ticket.

3. Were they to get elected, the Clinton Three-Ring Circus would be back in the White House, with all the mayhem that that entails. Didn't we have enough of that in the '90s?

4. We know from the campaign that it's all about Hillary and Bill. They have no loyalty to Obama, the party, or anyone else. Obama would be facing major crises on every front -- war, terrorism, economy, and Republicans trying to undercut him. Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary and their DLC posse would be across the street trying to figure out how to cut him off at the knees to get her elected in 2012 -- and they'd be doing it on his dime. The palace intrigue would rival the Borgias and the de Medicis.

[democracy1st]

37. I can see the Clintons stabbing him in the back while talking with the DLC at 3am

[Butch350]

59. 22. An Obama-Hillary ticket would be an unmitigated disaster

You are right-on with your Assessment! Hillary would be a poison pill!

[Colobo]

24. I'm with you, Bread! Obama/Clinton is fine.

[flpoljunkie]

27. When asked yesterday in Boca, Obama said he was a pragmatic man, and that he intended to win.

Read into that what you will.

[marions ghost]

34. It reads two ways

If he's pragmatic and wants to win, he wouldn't choose Hillary...

[ShortnFiery]

28. Now HRC's supporters have truly crossed the line into "pathetic ploys"

What's next A.C.M.E. genius?

[cloudythescribbler]

31. What do you mean "can't accept"? -- I STRONGLY oppose naming her, but ...

... like you said, I'd still vote for Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for HRC if she were the nominee -- against McCain's war policy.

But this statement fudges some key questions:

I'd rather Obama not pick Clinton for VP. However, if he does I can live with that. I can donate to that. I can wear that bumper sticker on my car or plant that sign in my yard.

I doubt many DUers, who would otherwise vote for Obama as nominee, will either not vote or vote McCain (or Nader or what-have-you) simply if HRC is on the ticket. I haven't seen much in the way of people supporting that idea around here, but maybe, like the famous joke about the ham sandwich, I ate right past it.

The point is that, in the public at large, Hillary is likely to shave a few % points off the Democratic national ticket (as well as those lower down) and to add a few points to the GOP ticket, and yes, DEFINITELY MORESO THAN SOME OTHER FEMALE WITHOUT HER NEGATIVES AND BAGGAGE. Incidentally, one can sometimes run with a drag on the ticket (eg Quayle in 88) and STILL win, but it definitely doesn't help.

Dodging the electoral issue by suggesting that EVERYTHING is a reason for SOME people not to vote for the ticket (something of a tautology) is in its way disingenuous. The question is plain and simple, and I would suspect that the OVERWHELMING majority of the nearly 800(!!!!!!) recommendations, including mine, that a recent thread gathering recs against an HRC nomination see the same problem, although not necessarily the only one:

Obama could pick a VP nominee, like Sebelius, Napolitano, Schweitzer, Webb, Stabenow, Richardson or whomever (I favor Barbara Boxer) that could draw enough NET gain votes to put him in the White House. Conversely, the net effect (gains AND losses) of putting HRC on the ticket is believed by many many many of us, including myself, as someone who could COST enough NET LOSS votes, or at the very least benefit the ticket much less than other choices, resulting in a McCain presidency.

Addressing this issue, and STRONGLY, is what people by and large are doing on DU. The position you are attacking is something of a straw man, though no doubt there are some even on DU who would THREATEN to abandon the Democratic ticket if she were on. The whole ambiguity here lies in the meaning of "can't accept", as no clear line is drawn between those, like myself, who STRONGLY oppose her for the VP spot, and think it worth even a little tussle for Obama to pick someone else that he prefers, and those who would take their marbles (or threaten to) and go home.

Incidentally, I emailed the URL for the humongous NO HILLARY FOR VP thread that got 770 recommendations on the internal email to Obama's campaign. That URL is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6061693&mesg_id=6061693

I suggest to people that LOTS of them similarly email this to the Obama camp, as dozens of people doing so, while annoying to some staffer, will surely get through to Obama!

[Bread and Circus]

40. "can't accept" as in kicking, screaming, yelling, and holding breath

or doing other things to lend credence to the notion that we aren't "all in this together".

[cloudythescribbler]

45. Aha! well that clarifies EVERYTHING ....

[Bread and Circus]

48. I think this is a case of the reader has to define for themselves whether they would

"accept" such a scenario or not.

[JTFrog]

55. And banging pots and pans. n/t

[JTFrog]

56. delete *dupe*. n/t

[WeDidIt]

33. There is nothing to be gained from putting Hillary up as Veep

and everything to lose.

She would sabotage the campaign and run in 2012. You know she would.

[cloudythescribbler]

54. don't know about sabotage -- but yes, nothing gained. Barbara Boxer, on the other hand ... nt

[DevonRex]

35. I'll accept whomever Obama chooses. I'll be happier with some

choices than others, but it's his campaign.

[bvar22]

36. Obama promised to keep corrupt corporate influence OUT of the White House.

How can he now invite it in through the side door by naming Hillary VP?

If I were Obama, I wouldn't sleep well knowing that my heartbeat was the only thing keeping the Clintons out of the Presidency.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Bread and Circus]

39. You can make compromise without compromising your principles.

I mean, many of us progressives do it every time we vote for a centrist Democrat. We don't do it because we want to, we do it because we have to.

Some of the whole thing is better than none of everything.

[bunkerbuster1]

38. It's no more problematic for me than the JFK-LBJ ticket must've been for 1960 voters

Of course I'll support that ticket. I don't think it's the smartest move, myself, for Obama, but if he decides it's the way to go, I'll deal with my reservations and support them wholeheartedly.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. I only want someone who is fit to run the country.

She voted for the war and is not fit to run the country.

[newmajority]

42. Hillary on this ticket is simply NOT acceptable.

These people have been given 28 years to fuck up this country and that's more than enough. No more Bush. No more Clinton. Not now. Not ever.

[FlaGranny]

43. Whatever Obama decides

but I can tell you that there is no way that I would want the Clintons at my back - or should I say "behind" my back. They are not second-in-command types.

Edit: If she is on the ticket, Obama will have a major headache to deal with for at least 4 years. Her whole being at this time seems to be waiting for "something to happen," to quote Terry McAuliff.

[Doityourself]

46. I'm a baby then...

[Bread and Circus]

47. :)

[PassingFair]

49. Me too, where's my bottle?

Hillary adds ONLY NEGATIVES in
the General Election.

Lots of 'pukes don't trust McCain,
but their redhot hatred of Clinton
will bring them to the polls in
DROVES to vote AGAINST HER.

[TexasObserver]

52. As long as Obama keeps her under house arrest and exiles Bill, I'm OK with it.

[burythehatchet]

53. to say that she has been corrupted by those arond her again gives her a pass

and makes her a victim. She is not a victim. She is a perp.

[Butch350]

57. If the Roles were Reversed...

Would you be calling for Barack to be the VP? Probably not. How in the world could anyone justify
putting HRC on the VP list. After the campaign tactics between these two camps over the past months
would be grounds for divorce in the everyday world. After all the shit thrown by each camp - do you honesty
think these two candidates should be on the same ticket. ARE YOU F**ken stupid are just thick.

[Orsino]

58. Her voting record is solidly corporatist...

...much as is Obama's. Don't call either of these candidates "progressive."