Report: 'open civil war' if Clinton not given VP slot

Clinton debt

There have been front page posts at DailyKos in the past that have stated that even if Obama wanted to, legally his campaign could not assume more than about $2300 of her debt.  

---

by: scioto @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM CDT

He could ask his donors--

--to contribute money to retiring her debt.  They could each give up to $2300

I don't think he would or should.  And if he did, I'd be really pissed off.  If your campaign is faltering and you have to lend yourself--what?--eleven million dollars, then you should re-think campaigning.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:39:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could these people please act like adults?

I'm getting tired of all of this back and forth.  I hope Obama and Clinton can act grown-up enough to work together instead of destroying the Democratic Party. Clinton should be, in my mind, veep, in an arrangement similar to the JFK-LBJ arrangement in 1960. Could people please just act like adults instead of petulant children, considering the consequences of a McCain presidency?

---

by: rptrcub @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM CDT

There is no back and forth

Obama has won, by a small margin, and the other candidate refuses to accept it.  She believes in nothing other than her own ambition and her own divine right to rule, therefore she will destroy the Democratic Party and every principle it holds rather than concede.

This is all one-sided, and there is only one petulant child involved, not two.  She should definitely not be rewarded with the VP spot in return for her attempts at extortion.  The winner deserves to choose his running mate.  The loser needs to get off the stage, now.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:39:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WTF?

The part that confuses me is that supposedly the Clinton campaign is offering these compromises as a way for Clinton to "save face."  That isn't up to Obama, that's up to Hillary.  If Clinton wants to look good coming out of this, she simply needs to admit defeat and do her best to help the Dems win in November.  She should make herself useful and valuable by encouraging all of her disappointed supporters to make sure the Dems take the White House because it's the best thing not only for the party but for the country.  

And then she comes off, not as someone who is bitter, not as someone who had something owed to her which was then denied her, but as someone who understands what is really important.  If she takes this tack of giving her support unconditionally to Obama, then she shows that she is a leader.  And she shows that she's deserving of future support.  It's that simple.

---

by: OH les @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:30 AM CDT

She wants The Gore Effect

She wants to be revered in the way Gore has been since the election was stolen from him. He now enjoys the status of hero/martyr. There were those who practically begged him to run this time. The next time Hillary runs, she wants the coronation she was robbed of this time.

If Obama cannot find some way to publicly "kiss the ring", he is set up for demonization among all but those Dems who entirely reject her.

Who cares what's best for the nation when pride and power are at stake?
 

---

by: LAwaters27 @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM CDT

A thought...

If this report is accurate, and if Sen Clinton is truly invested in seeing the Democrats win the presidency this fall, she may be working on crafting an acceptable scenario for her more committed followers.

People who post at this site:  http://hillaryis44.com/

Or here:  http://www.clintonsupportersco...

The folks who go beyond supporter to true believers (they worry me at times).

If they aren't convinced that Sen Clinton has another acceptable option other than the presidency then Sen Obama will not merely lose their votes, he will have them actively working against him.

---

by: Zorya @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM CDT

what if...

What if Obama offered the VP spot to another woman?  Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona are both exceedingly qualified, well-liked, and Obama supporters who have been near the top of everyone's list of possible VPs for him.  I'd be thrilled with either of them, and I wonder if it would be hard for the hardcore Hillary folks to work against either of them?

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM CDT

That scenario has already been rejected...

...as deeply offensive. Women aren't interchangeable.

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

of course they aren't

but the fact remains that her team might have very mixed feelings about not supporting either of two excellent women in the VP slot.  Frankly, I'd be happy with either of those choices as president.  Clinton, not so much.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Her supporters certainly wouldn't have mixed feelings

Most of the pro Hillary blogs and comments say that the idea is not just unacceptable but also offensive. I don't agree, I'm just passing it along.

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not a reader of pro-Hillary or pro-Obama blogs...

.. so I'm just asking, since you read them...

Would anything other than Hillary as Pres or VP be unacceptable and/or offensive?  In your interpretation of the postings, of course.

---

by: OH les @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't say for certain

I don't really understand the argument really, but I can attest to a strong "Hillary or bust" vibe. I personally don't see an easy way back from some of the rhetoric out there.

(Full disclosure, I'm pro-Obama, but I'm self-aware enough to know I'm a typical fair-weather Yankees fan. If she were winning, I'd be pro Hillary)  

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Truman Style VP?

Will Clinton or her supporters be happy with a Truman style Vice-Presidency in which she is on the ticket, but has absolutely nothing to do with the administration and is relegated to the Senate?

Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea. But I don't think that is what Hillary or Bill is looking for.

The big question is will she fade into the shadows as VP, which is what she needs to do. Or would she use it as a powerbase to attack Obama? To weaken his power? She's proven very careless about the damage she is capable of doing to the party thus far in the campaign. Would that continue as Vice President?

And how much stature does Obama lose by giving in to her demands rather than offering her the position openly?

As horrible as this might be to say, the VP position is prime for both parties since I'd guess there is a more than average chance that neither nominee will survive their term.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM CDT

Bill's too loose a cannon ...

...to be anything but the head of any administration. I already believe that the VP gained far too much power under Cheney and I can't imagine anything but chaos with Bill and Hillary in that position. It's too bad, though. That could have been the perfect scenario.

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:34:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a big surprise

If you think about it, Senator Clinton is a politician and she has a very close 2nd place finish. Is she supposed to just give up as I'm sure that she and and her followers are probably thinking right now?

I suppose if a similar situation were to occur amongst Republicans the 2nd place person might more quickly give up and more quickly shore up the face of unity. This seems to have been the case especially in the past 20-30 years. They have carried the White House (more times than not) since Reagan, and have made major inroads in the South and amongst the working class. Why would anyone challenge that strategy at this point in his or her political career? Hence, it makes sense not to break rank.

But, the Democrats haven't had a winning strategy that lasted for a long period of time (at least in my opinion) so it seems logical that they, as a group, are going to be more feisty and prone to in-group fighting right now. I see this trend in other countries where the left is mostly in-fighting and losing more national elections than not (e.g. Italy, Germany and now, it would appear, England - the one area the reverse is occurring is in South and Central America)

Just a thought...

---

by: bored beyond belief @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:07:50 AM CDT

Think - Third Party Vote = More GOP nominations to the Supreme Court

Whether someone is a disgruntled Obama or Clinton supporter, a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for McCain and more Alitos, Scalias, Thomases and Roberts on the federal bench and the Supreme Court.

---

by: clay @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Supreme Court

I ran across an editorial the other day (wish I could recall where, to cite it) that suggested a Supreme Court appointment might be just the thing for Hillary.  

---

by: Rae @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:45:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed, agreed - no interest in 3rd party candidates for this liberal

I didn't mean to suggest that with my comment.

I have to be honest but I don't understand (completely) the acrimony in the Democratic party other than what I mentioned above. I don't see Obama or Clinton being substantially different (policy-wide).

I'll vote for whomever is the candidate and am happy to support them. It's too important on so many levels given the idiocy, incompetence, and outright immoral (like the alliteration?) nature of the Bush, Jr. administration.

---

by: bored beyond belief @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, yeah

there will be "consequences."  Duh.

The reason this primary season has gone on so long is that both candidates, whether Obama supporters want to hear this or not, have a lot of supporters. If Clinton isn't the running mate, many of us will be looking at third party options.

Like it or not, Obama can't ignore older voters and those "bitter" working class people and win. Demonize "Hillary" all you like; that won't change reality.

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM CDT

What is the goal?

Is the goal to have a Democratic White House, or to punish the candidate you didn't support?

Never have I had a presidential nominee that I supported from the beginning of the primary process.  But I suck it up and move ahead because what counts is winning the White House.  What counts is the long term.

As a lesbian, I've been ignored by the Democratic presidential nominee almost every single election.  So did  I punish that nominee by supporting a third party candidate?  No, because I would only be punishing myself with an eventual Republican win.

C'mon folks.  I supported John Edwards.  Yes, I was disappointed when he ended his campaign. But if we want to beat McCain and keep the right to a legal abortion and hopefully end this war and turn the economy around, we don't have the luxury of holding a grudge against the nominee.

---

by: OH les @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What comes around goes around

C'mon folks.  I supported John Edwards.  Yes, I was disappointed when he ended his campaign. But if we want to beat McCain and keep the right to a legal abortion and hopefully end this war and turn the economy around, we don't have the luxury of holding a grudge against the nominee.

Right. So get over the Hillary-bashing already if you don't want to deal with President McCain's Supreme Court nominees.

And it wouldn't hurt to also get over the idea that older women and working class people would somehow 'contaminate' your beloved candidate.

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It takes 2...

...to elevate the level of discourse. When has OH les "Hillary-bashed" or spoken ill of older women or working class Whites?

Does Hillary-bashing happen? Oh yes, it definitely does and it's not productive, especially when it's not directly related to issues or policy. But not cheering someone on is not the same as bashing them. I happen to think, and I'm not backing down from this, that Hillary should not get the nomination because she is behind in pledged delegates, which was the metric going in. I don't see why this is evil trash talk. It is an opposing view.

How "nice" can I be in your eyes, short of buying Clinton's rationales for her nomination (which I'm not going to do)?

Does seeing enemies in everyone, everywhere make it easier to threaten to undo the work of women who fought for choice? Do future generations not matter? Would younger female voters like me who support Obama be getting what they deserve when they bleed out in back alleys?

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:02:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

<i>Demonize "Hillary" all you like; that won't change reality.</i>

I have never demonized Senator Clinton and I don't refer to her by her first name, but the reality is that she will most likely NOT be the Democratic party's candidate for president.  What I have a problem with is those folks who won't accept that reality and instead insist on stirring up chaos with their "If you don't give me what I want, I'm changing teams" attitude.  Being a gracious loser is another part of being an adult.

---

by: Jami @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:07:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're absolutely right, Jami.

The other half of that mindset is that if you have any issue with Hillary, however legitimate, then you're "Hillary-bashing."

Another thing that kills me is this new meme circulating that it's disrespectful to refer to her as"Hillary." Um, have you seen her official campaign website? Her official campaign signs? They all say "Hillary for President." It's like telling people "call me Bob," and then being miffed that they don't address you as "Mr. Smith."

---

by: johnbinpt @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:03:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

she's earned dismissal

By behaving in this way, Clinton has earned total dismissal. Obama needs a VP that can help him win the general election, and I do not see her as it.

---

by: vjack @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM CDT

Keep sayin' that

honey -- hell's only half full.

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If this report is correct...

Suzanne Malveaux and anything she reports is suspect to me.  Spin it how you all want, there's no stopping you.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM CDT

Not Veep

The country can't afford two vice-presidents, Hillary and Bill, after we've had one who's been Veepzilla.

Obama should announce he will appoint Clinton to the first vacancy in the Supreme Court.  We get a fine legal mind.  She gets prestige, power, lifetime honor and position (and Bill can't meddle, at least in public).

Bill could be appointed by Paterson to fill out Hillary's Senate term and then run on his own and he's young enough to become majority leader at some point, which surely should be enough of a vindictive triumph over the impeachers.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM CDT

I have to say...

...that's the smartest solution I've heard yet. Bravo Lev!

---

by: johnbinpt @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

My spouse and I spend lots of time kibbitzing the so-called pundits.  :-)

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's smarter than that.

Proven a very poor loser but not dumb, these are her power mongering hangers on saying this.  I think she should be happy staying Senator or get AG.

And after the convention she should knuckle down and fight fight fight for OBAMA. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM CDT

This goes beyond "testicular fortitude"!

The sheer arrogance and chutzpah of the Clintons is breathtaking...Bill and Hill's sense of entitlement won't allow them to bow out gracefully, even if it involves destroying the unity of the Dems...

They are well on their way to making themselves pariahs in Liberal circles, and destroying all the good will they've built up over the years...especially if they allow a third Bush term for McSame...

Just get the Hell Out Hillary! The sooner the better!

---

by: wagonjak @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM CDT

There

Just get the Hell Out Hillary! The sooner the better!

A woman who was told to sit down and shut up won't do it. Oy vey, whatever will happen next?  

She does have a surname, dear; are you aware of that?

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:35:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Hillary Argument

I've often thought it was EXTREMELY disrespectful to hear pundits and reporters refer to him as Sen. Obama while referring to her as Mrs. Clinton or Hillary in the same discussion.  As a result, I've made a personal effort to refer to her as Sen. Clinton.  That said, I think most people refer to her in conversation as Hillary because she refers to herself as Hillary on all her campaign materials.  It is part of her strategy to make herself seem more warm (which in itself is a bit of a response to a sexist attitude).  Thus I don't think you can necessarily call sexism when someone else uses her first name as a reference to her in a more casual setting.  

I have no doubt that were the tables turned that no one would even be paying attention to him at this point.  He'd be Mike Huckabee.  The only reason she is still being considered viable is because of who she is, which really is a testament to her stature in American politics.  

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't think it was for "warmth"

My theory on the Hillary thing was to play down the more dynastic aspects. (i.e. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton)

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:04:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

excellent point

I think that's probably true also.  She does have a "likability" problem among many Americans, though, and using her first name on campaign materials does help make her seem more down-to-earth.

This November will be the first time in my lifetime I'll be voting in a presidential election without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.  That's rather amazing to me.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:20:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She has a right to brand herself

Hillary's campaign has chosen to brand their candidate as "Hillary." It's ludicrous to castigate people for using the moniker that she herself has chosen.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:45:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is the kind of Obamanista ranting...

..that I find alienating and needs to be curtailed.

...that is - IF you want to see the party healed. It just isn't smart.

---

by: SharonB @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:57:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well good.

Better hold on to that and ignore the 30 other comments of respectful disagreement. Then you can say, "All of you Obama supporters are always disrespectful all of the time!"

---

by: janinedm @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:03:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ummm...

where did I condemn the other 30 comments?
I believe I was only responding to a single comment. Please don't put words in my mouth.

---

by: SharonB @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton Caustic

   I definately don't want Hillary Clinton as VP with Obama. The race has taken a nasty trun once she realized she was not going to be the front runner. Take a look back as her tone changes over time.

   She will be forever in attempts to trump the president to show "that boy his place" as a steppinig stone to the White House in four years. I just feel that way. I wouldn't "go with her" if I were Obama. He needs to go with someone less caustic and in line with his temprament. That's how pretty songs come about, in harmony.

   And please tell me, is caustic too harsh a word for her since she has been nipping at Obama's heels the last five months?

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:08:27 AM CDT