August 25, 2008

"Tensions boil between Obame-Clinton camp."

Writes Politico.

Bill is supposedly irked that he's assigned to speak about foreign policy and national security when he wants to talk about domestic policy. Why is that preference important? Two reasons are given: 1. "he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own record in the 1990s," and 2. the subject of foreign policy and national security restricts him to a dignified, statesmanlike presentation. I'd say this — if true — is: 1. incredibly narcissistic of Bill Clinton, and 2. striking evidence that Democrats minimize the Commander in Chief role of the President. Why should this be considered a second-rate assignment?

Further tension:
Some senior Obama supporters are irritated at how they perceive the Clintons fanned — or at a minimum failed to douse — stories that she was not even vetted as a possible vice presidential nominee. This is because she told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous process of document production unless she was really a serious contender, an Obama associate noted.
So she was told she wasn't a serious contender! Why is that any less vexing to Clinton supporters? We'll vet you for appearances sake? No thanks. Obviously.

Patterico writes: "I guess when Obama said Hillary would be on anyone’s short list, he meant anyone’s but his."

Back to Politico:
A prominent Obama backer said some of Clinton’s lieutentants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.

In fact, some senior veterans of Clinton’s presidential campaign do believe this....

The peevishness on both sides and the volume of behind-the-scenes catcalls are noteworthy because both the Clinton and Obama teams had resolved in pre-convention talks that it was overwhelmingly in the interests of both sides to get along.
What changed? Obama's failure to do well in the recent polls?

80 comments:

Pogo said...

From "Obama Powers: The Clinton Who Nagged Me":

Obama: "Why won't you die?!

D said...

He's going to lose at least 20% of Hillary voters to McCain and thus the election.

Anonymous said...

"both the Clinton and Obama teams had resolved in pre-convention talks that it was overwhelmingly in the interests of both sides to get along"

This is a meaningless "resolution", as it does not involve a commitment on either side to specific behavior going forward - and it certainly didn't dissipate any rancor. It's like those UN resolutions of the 'You should behave or we won't be happy.' type. Thet get generated by the bucketful and nothing concrete ever results.

Outis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Outis said...

This is because she told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous process of document production unless she was really a serious contender, an Obama associate noted.

Well, we all know how much Hillry hates to give up documentation....

AllenS said...

This is going to be entertaining than the olympic sport of gay diving.

Roger J. said...

I imagine there are some hard feelings, but I also suspect many of these stories are just preconvention navel gazing. I will wait until after the convention and see.

Simon said...

Ann said...
"I'd say this — if true — is: 1. incredibly narcissistic of Bill Clinton, and 2. striking evidence that Democrats minimize the Commander in Chief role of the President. Why should this be considered a second-rate assignment?"

Isn't it at most evidence that Bill Clinton "minimize[s] the Commander in Chief role of the President"? I can see how Clinton not wanting to talk about it could be taken to malign foreign affairs, but I don't see how the Democrats' assignment of the former commander-in-chief to talk about foreign policy maligns the subject.

Ann Althouse said...

Simon, if Bill viewed it as a diminishment, it was within the context of his party, which he knows very well. You could think he was just out of his mind thinking that they were putting him in his place, and maybe he is completely distorted. But it is evidence of the place of national security and foreign policy in the minds of Democrats.

"Evidence" -- the legal term -- means anything having a tendency to make something that we care about appear to more likely to be true (or less likely to be true). It doesn't mean conclusive proof. It means there is some probative value.

J said...

"He's going to lose at least 20% of Hillary voters to McCain and thus the election"

Don't forget the roughly 20% of democrats who will never, ever, even anonymously admit to a pollster that they're going to vote against a black democrat.

The Clintons have long since concluded that Obama is not going to win this election. Everything they do now is to position Hillary for 2012. The point of the "bitter ender" behavior is to give them events they can repackage as "we tried to warn these idiots, but they wouldn't listen" after the election.

Ann Althouse said...

"appear to more likely to be true" should be "appear more likely to be true"

sorry.

MarkW said...

I suspect this has to do with is the fact that the economic successes of the Clinton years were achieved with several key policies that are opposed to what Obama is running on. Free-trade is the most important and obvious example. And welfare reform. And the generally pro-business approach of Robert Rubin's treasury dept. And I absolutely don't think that Obama agrees with Clinton's famous declaration that 'the era of big government is over'.

If the Republicans were smart, *they* would invite Bill to come and give a speech about the importance of free trade and limited government. Now wouldn't that be fun?

MarkW said...

If the Republicans were smart, *they* would invite Bill to come and give a speech about the importance of free trade and limited government. Now wouldn't that be fun?

In fact, even though he'd never agree to come, if I were McCain, I'd issue the invitation *right now* to have Clinton come and talk about the importance of free trade in front of a receptive rather than hostile crowd. Just issuing the invitation would be a newsworthy coup for McCain.

The Drill SGT said...

Beyond losing Hillary Democrats, this back-biting stuff, more common among 14 year old girls than 40+ y/o's is going to negatively impact the center independents.

If my wife, an ardent Dem says, "shes voting for McCain, because he's the only adult in the race", that feeling has to be common among the center.

BTW: She felt that way back when the full democratic field was debating. e.g. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

I thought the 3AM phone call was a particularly sweet, evil way for the Obamatons to stick it to "The Bitch".

Not politically savvy of Team Axelrod and their empty vessel Messiah, but satisfying.

Both Clintons know that if Messiah wins, they are finished in politics. No 2012. So they have to show loyalty and offer ttepid support after giving a firey speech claiming Obama will indeed be commemorated by future generations as the man who healed the Earth...then back off and hope the women and "bitter folk" stay away and the empty suit collapses.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Bill Clinton is an idiot. This is an opportunity for him to attack Bush on Iraq. To attack Bush for failing to catch bin Laden. To burnish his credentials on foreign policy and international diplomacy. He could even plug the international work of his foundation. And, since Wes Clark won't be there, Bill can take sole credit for the Bosnia affair going well.

Yet instead of seizing the opportunity to repair his image on counter-terrorism (Clinton failed to take out bin Laden himself), or brag about how Bush ended up where Clinton started on North Korea, Clinton yearns to define Obama's economic message. Bill hasn't yet realized that he is over: Obama sets the economic message. The economic message that will win this year is not the same old Clintons rhetoric, and the Clinton years cannot be repeated, anyhow, because they were dependent on lax enforcement of white collar crime and the Internet tech stock boom, which won't return. Not to mention workers are leery of free trade in this populist mood, so bragging about free trade agreements would only alienate those voters Obama needs to attract. Clinton takes credit for everything good in the world, but he was a marginally decent President who screwed up because of personal foibles and bad priorities (socialist healthcare dictated by his wife and gays in the military as the most important issue on his agenda).

Peter V. Bella said...

Bill Clinton is upset because he will not be allowed to talk about the most important issue at the convention; Bill Clinton.

This is because she told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous process of document production unless she was really a serious contender...

She preferred not having to actually document that she has thirty five years of public service when such documentation is lacking. Ready to lead on day one, BAH! I guess for once her autobiography just would not cut the mustard. Also, she preferred to keep her skeletons in her own closet.

Why is Obama even bothering negotiating with the Clinton camp? He already gave her the convention and a nomination. What more is he going to give away? He should have ignored her after she sort of conceded. This shows he is not leadership material. If he continually concedes to an opponent he beat, what will he do when faced with real issues and crises: negotiated until everyone sings “I love you, you love me...” Is this guy Barney or is he running for president. Hillary should have been treated as irrelevant. She lost, that's it, go home.

Fritz said...

I'd hope by now, Obama recognizes why appeasement of an adversary doesn't work.

Peter V. Bella said...

What changed? Obama's failure to do well in the recent polls?

According to Susan Estrich, in a column a week or two ago,the problem is Hillary's campaign debt and Obama's refusal to pay it off out off his funds. Hillary feels that he should have done the right thing by her; remember to the Clinton's it is all about the money.

Ms. Estrich postured that had Obama paid off the debt, Hillary may have gone quietly into the night and appeared more statesmen like. BTW, Estrich also felt that Obama should have autorized paying off all or part of the debt as a gesture of good faith.

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton is an idiot. This is an opportunity for him to attack Bush on Iraq. To attack Bush for failing to catch bin Laden.

Hey, now there's a great idea. Perhaps he could ask "Where was George?" after each item in his list.

chickenlittle said...

Ha ha you wrote "Obame" in the headline.

D said...

Don't forget the roughly 20% of democrats who will never, ever, even anonymously admit to a pollster that they're going to vote against a black democrat.

Oh please, everyone knows that all racists are Republicans. It's science.

Fen said...

striking evidence that Democrats minimize the Commander in Chief role of the President.

At the very least, Bill can warn Obama on the danger of diddling with his employees while Al Queda plots a nuclear 9-11.

Fen said...

To burnish his credentials on foreign policy and international diplomacy.

Ha. Maybe he can critique his administrations law enforcement approach vs terrorism.

Fen said...

gays in the military as the most important issue on his agenda).

DADT was the most important issue? What a legacy.

Spread Eagle said...

Is the insult that he didn't vet her? How much vetting do the Clintons need at this point their careers? It'd actually be more of an insult to suggest that they're people who need to be vetted at all. No, the insult here is that he was so perfunctorily dismissive of her.

Fen said...

some of Clinton’s lieutentants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.

In this, I have to agree with Team Clinton. If the Uniter[tm] can't mend fences in his own party, then his words about uniting the country are empty.

chickenlittle said...

The Miracle of the Fish and The Bicycles
14And Obama went forth at the party convention, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their [sic].
15And when it was evening, his bicycles came to him, saying, This is a rocky place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
16But Obama said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them something to eat.
17And the bicycles said unto him, we have here only five loaves and one fish.
18He said, Bring them hither to me.
19And he commanded the multitude to sit down together on the grass, and took the loaves, and the seething fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave tacos to his bicycles, and the bicycles did to the multitude.

SteveR said...

Did they keep the other fish for themselves?

AlphaLiberal said...

Republicans and their friends and the press are trying to make a big story where there is none.

Politico is a McCain-fawning GOP leaning operation. They're just regurgitating their talking points.

Anonymous said...

Blogger chickenlittle said...The Miracle of the Fish and The Bicycles

It's like the Gates of Hell have opened and the little devils come riding out...........

former law student said...

1. Being Commander-in-chief makes your critics unpatriotic. Do you really want to keep our brave men and women from winning in Iraq? Bill will have to pick his words judiciously.

2. Bill's resume is infinitely stronger on domestic policy. A domestic policy speech would leave the convention -- especially Bill -- in a rosy afterglow of satisfaction.

Spread Eagle said...

I suspect this has to do with is the fact that the economic successes of the Clinton years were achieved with several key policies that are opposed to what Obama is running on.

That may be true, but the usually ignored fact is that it was the IT industry that almost single-handedly drove the economic successes of the 90s. We began the 90s with a desktop on some intermittent desks, and by 2000 we not only had one on every desk, but one in most every home too. We went from Windows to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to run on all those machines.

With the whole Intel and AMD push for faster chips, not to mention ever-increasing clock speeds, we went from 286sa nd 386s to Pentium 1,2,3, and 4, and not to mention more and more memory capacity, larger hard drives, more and more peripherals, other hardware, all manner of software, games etc.

This whole dog chasing tail economic scenario played out everywhere with everybody almost entirely in the 90s, and much of it with American manufacturing and American industry, and the sheer power of it alone drove the economy up, up, and up. And there were also greater efficiencies and increased productivity throughout the economy as businesses became computerized and used these resources in their routine activities.

The Clintonistas think he had something to do with all that, and he gets the credit for it.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: Republicans and their friends and the press are trying to make a big story where there is none. Politico is a McCain-fawning GOP leaning operation -

spin blah blah blah partisan snipe

Go read TalkLeft. They are saying the same thing.

For bonus points, explain why TalkLeft is a McCain-fawning GOP leaning operation

Sheesh.

Fen said...

The Clintonistas think he had something to do with all that, and he gets the credit for it.

I would add that "peace" was only a result of Clinton kicking the hard choices down the road [and allowing them to fester] for someone else to handle.

Its easy tobe popular when you don't have to worry about making hard choices.

Peter V. Bella said...

Awwww mannnnn! Chicken Little, I was waiting for the happy ending; the fish tacos road off on the bicycles.

Its easy tobe popular when you don't have to worry about making hard choices.

But then one cannot be popular and bask in the in a rosy afterglow of satisfaction.

integrity said...

If anyone has $10,000 to wager on Hillary's future if Obama loses, I'm in.

Hillary is over. The Clintons have no future if Obama loses.

For Christ's sake, liberals like me will never let them near the place. The sooner you realize this, the quicker you can move on to new topics.

Do all these or you people have an unhealthy obsession with Bill & Hill or what?

They are over.

Why don't republicans recruit them, please take them. These two are corporate stooges, not democrats.

To watch Hollywood put more money into Hillary and watch her lose again in 2012 would give me great pleasure though. The on the floor laughing hysterically pleasure that only ignorant establishment morons can provide.

Peter V. Bella said...

Fen said...
AlphaLiberal:...
spin blah blah blah partisan snipe


Fen, you are talking to a guy who thinks that Media Matters and Wikipedia are legitimate sources of relevant information; sort of like talking to a wall while the paint is drying.

Henry said...

The saddest aspect of Bill Clinton talking on foreign policy isn't the striking evidence that Democrats minimize the Commander in Chief role of the President.

It's the fact that the greatest achievement of Clinton's foreign policy -- his ability to move forward complex free trade negotiations -- has been completely trashed by this year's candidates.

No wonder he doesn't want to talk about foreign policy. Why should he talk to people who don't want to listen?

garage mahal said...

Fen
Good thing we didn't have a bunch of voyeuristic Republicans that demanded millions of documents and spent millions to investigate every last detail of a hummer. Eh?

The Drill SGT said...

Fritz said...
I'd hope by now, Obama recognizes why appeasement of an adversary doesn't work.


Obama should have read "The Prince". In it, Niccolo gave some good advice on how the winner should treat with the defeated.

I'm doin this from memory but it went something like:

- Either treat the defeated graciously or with great violence.
- Men remember small slights and seek revenge, if they are destroyed already?
- not a problem :)

vbspurs said...

"Obame"? I like it! Sounds like O'Lame.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TmjUtah said...

"In this, I have to agree with Team Clinton. If the Uniter[tm] can't mend fences in his own party, then his words about uniting the country are empty."

Uh. What campaign have you been watching?

The Democrat Party is not a unifiable organization. It is an umbrella covering at least four (maybe even as many as six) powerful identity groups rigidly defined by race and ethnicity, with a certain amount of blurring across economic and ideological lines.

Unify for what? "America" is way, way down on any Democrat priority list. Hillary wanted the power back; she and her horndog husband saw the moribund Party of 90 the same way a car thief would look at an older Caddilac left running and unlocked outside a liquor store. Not really theirs, but convenient... they cost the party the House and the Senate and the Presidency.

And according to all the best and brightest, including legacy media, that made Hillary the no-brainer choice for 2008. Hmmmm. Just how did that work?

The only fly in the ointment was that Obama landed in the game equipped out the gate with a dream dealer's hand of liberal identity politics cards - nearer a four of kind, jacks high, than a full house.

And now people wonder why the Clinton people are hard to mollify? The problem isn't dumpy old NARAL feminists feeling disrespected - the real losers are the forty and fifty year old suits and skirts who have spent the last decade (or more) finishing their poli sci masters degrees or sitting on state party boards doing the grunt work for Hillary and now see a huge brick wall speeding toward them.

Obama may dip into the Senate for an establishment bloviator out of lack of any better ideas, but he's already got his patronage lines drawn and they don't include the Clintons.

He still screwed up by thinking that letting them have a few hours of camera time AND a floor vote. What a f****** maroon. He is truly a dim bulb surrounded by candles, apparently. Ms. Obama should have put the kibosh on that; of all the people I've seen around him, she's the one who would get my bet in an axe fight.

This man won ALL his elections using technicality jiu jitsu. And he let Hillary have a floor vote?

He should have given her an orange. And wished her luck with her senate career.

There's no common fence to mend here; there no "good neighbors" looking for peaceful coexistence or a common cause. Just two sides looking to pile up their beaten opponents, smother them with diesel fuel, strike a match, and move on to the halls of power.

This is what kills the Democrats in national elections, btw, and hurts them badly when they blunder into control of big states. The mistake is right there in that last sentence - the word. Look at it. Think.

"Control". It's the last thing an elected representative" should presume to do... but it's the pivot of the Leftist/Liberal/Progressive identity. They have the plan... and they can make it work after they make sure that everyone knows their place in the plan.

Or else.

Hmmm. Che and Lenin and... the Weathermen. And Joe Biden.

Change that doesn't pretend to be Change for 2008.

Have a fine day.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

Well, we all know how much Hillry hates to give up documentation....

Exactly.

This is what I told my Democratic neighbour when she was bereft that Hillary wasn't picked for Veep. She was particularly PO'ed that Obama didn't even vet her.

I said, Do you really expect her to hand over requested documents like she's some little nobody?

Would you ask Meryl Streep to audition for a role?

Honestly, if I were Hillary, I'd be the one asking OBAMA to hand over documents and go through the vetting process, to be HER running mate, not the other way around.

Roger Sweeny said...

Several years ago, a professional football team was in the process of hiring a new coach. Everyone knew they had one particular person in mind.

But the NFL requires that all teams consider non-whites when there is a coaching or management vacancy. So they flew in a black coach, interviewed him, and said, "Thank you very much." A few days later, they hired the guy everyone knew they were going to hire.

Hillary decided not to be that black coach.

Bill said...

Spread Eagle: How much vetting do the Clintons need at this point their careers?

That occurred to me too. The point of vetting is to identify the running mate's problems that might get uncovered before the election. After the last sixteen years' scrutiny, whatever skeletons are left in Hillary's closet weren't likely to come out in the next ten weeks.

reader_iam said...

Sorry: I posted my latest comments on the wrong thread. Once I transfer them, I'll delete them here.

vbspurs said...

The Drill SGT sagely mentioned "The Prince", regarding Obama-Hillary. I went in search of some pertinent quotes.

III:253-254) a war is never avoided but merely postponed to your disadvantage.

It seemed pertinent, given that the Clintons both relish a good fight, but Bill, at least, was so dilatory as to be treasonable.

XXIV: 4-9) For the actions of a new prince are much more closely scrutinized than those of an established one, and when they are seen to be intelligent and effective they may win over more men and create stronger bonds of obligation than have been felt in the old line, inasmuch as the minds of men are wrapped up in the present and not in the past.

So what does Obama do? He caves into the past, in the form of BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The New Prince is very wet behind the ears.

Cheers,
Victoria

Kev said...

Ha ha you wrote "Obame" in the headline.

I noticed that too. Simple typo or Freudian slip?

"Obame"? I like it! Sounds like O'Lame.

I read it as Oba-ME. As in, "It's all about me."

"Control". It's the last thing an elected representative" should presume to do...

This sentiment wins the thread (serious division), IMHO. And chickenlittle's fish/bicycle parable runs away with the prize in humorous division, of course. Well done!

The Drill SGT said...

The Drill SGT sagely mentioned "The Prince", regarding Obama-Hillary.

"The Prince", "On War", and "The Art of War" are timeless classics of political-military art.

OT: What is with the color scheme on the DNC Podium? It looks like a game show. All those off hue colors.

Comparing the DNC Podium to the RNC podium reminds me of one of those "artistic and interpretative" versions of the "Star Spangled Banner" that one hears too often at sports events these days.

Give the Anthem to me the way Key wrote it, and give me a podium drapped with prmary colors, Red, White, and Blue.

I'm just an old soldier, but those fancy colors will turn some people off.

D said...

If anyone has $10,000 to wager on Hillary's future if Obama loses, I'm in.

Hillary is over. The Clintons have no future if Obama loses.

For Christ's sake, liberals like me will never let them near the place. The sooner you realize this, the quicker you can move on to new topics.

Do all these or you people have an unhealthy obsession with Bill & Hill or what?

They are over.


You wish. Fact is you got no one else to go to. Look how thin your VP list was this time. You think it is going to be any better for a presidential nominee in 2012? Is Gore coming back?

The GOP, on the other hand, has some really good up and coming people - Palin and Jindal to just name two.

Then again, you guys were stupid enough to dump Hillary for Barry this time so why not again in 2012?

D said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
integrity said...

D said...
If anyone has $10,000 to wager on Hillary's future if Obama loses, I'm in.

Hillary is over. The Clintons have no future if Obama loses.

For Christ's sake, liberals like me will never let them near the place. The sooner you realize this, the quicker you can move on to new topics.

Do all these or you people have an unhealthy obsession with Bill & Hill or what?

They are over.

You wish. Fact is you got no one else to go to. Look how thin your VP list was this time. You think it is going to be any better for a presidential nominee in 2012? Is Gore coming back?

The GOP, on the other hand, has some really good up and coming people - Palin and Jindal to just name two.

Then again, you guys were stupid enough to dump Hillary for Barry this time so why not again in 2012?


I may be a partisan, but I am sane.

Neither of these party have any good candidates now or up and coming. It speaks to a truly broken system that appears to have broken down on all sides by race, religion, region and most importantly philosophy.

We all appear to not like anyone being generated by the system.

Jindal is one of the least attractive people both physically and philosophically that I have ever seen. You must be kidding.

I don't know enough about Palin to comment.

Hillary is loathed by many people on both sides of the aisle, and is over.

integrity said...

I forgot the biggest divide in both parties-social class.

chickenlittle said...

Kev said: I read it as Oba-ME. As in, "It's all about me."

Ann could just be being snooty- as in "le Obame".
On second thought, that would make the messiah feminine, as in "l'Obama"
(cue Ritchie Valens)

(I know wrong language)

Peter V. Bella said...

To all the Hillary adherents; she was never in the running. Obama may not be the brightest political bulb, but he is not totally stupid. The last thing he needed was to have the Clinton dirty laundry rehased over and over again. Though they may have been legally vindicated, their ethics, integrity, and morals leave a lot to be desired. And that would kill him in the election.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
reader_iam said...

We all appear to not like anyone being generated by the system.

Gold.

AllenS said...

integrity--

No matter what you say about Hillary, not matter how much you despise and minimalize her, here are the totals from the primaries:

Clinton 17,564,254
Obama 17,148,898

Caucuses:

Obama 123,622
Hilton 52,248

I'd say she's still quite popular in the Democratic party. She'll be around for quite a while. You may not like it, but it's the truth.

Palladian said...

"Obama 123,622
Hilton 52,248"

Wow, I knew Paris was popular, but...

Revenant said...

Bill Clinton is an idiot. This is an opportunity for him to attack Bush on Iraq. To attack Bush for failing to catch bin Laden.

He'd have to *really* be an idiot to try that line of attack. Out of the 6+ billion people on Earth there are exactly two who can't utter the sentence "the President hasn't done enough to catch Osama bin Laden" without being met by raucous laughter. One is George Bush, and the other is Bill Clinton. He can't credibly attack Bush on Iraq, either; he's got too many military and terrorism-related fiascos of his own.

Domestic issues are the area in which Clinton can compare himself favorably to Bush. I can see why Clinton's annoyed he isn't getting the chance.

D said...

Jindal is one of the least attractive people both physically and philosophically that I have ever seen. You must be kidding.

Well, if it is looks you are going on you will love Palin - she's a babe.

integrity said...

AllenS said...
integrity--

No matter what you say about Hillary, not matter how much you despise and minimalize her, here are the totals from the primaries:

Clinton 17,564,254
Obama 17,148,898

Caucuses:

Obama 123,622
Hilton 52,248

I'd say she's still quite popular in the Democratic party. She'll be around for quite a while. You may not like it, but it's the truth.




As the polling is showing, you have to be popular with the whole party and then try to build on that.

If Obama loses we will know that both of these politicians are too polarizing within their own party, and are therefore useless to run in another national election. It is really the exact same thing that happened during the republican primary with Huckabee and Romney both polarizing people within their own party, neither could win nationally because their own party is divided on them and each side really dislikes the other candidate.

If your whole party does not or will not support you there is no way to win an election.

While many republicans I know do not like McCain, they look at him as preferable to either Huckabee or Romney because they tend to either love or hate each of those men. McCain splits the difference.

As you can see from many people online and I'm sure from many republicans you know, Romney and Huckabee as V.P. seem to be dealbreakers if McCain chooses either one.

In my family everyone except myself and 2 cousins are right-wingers and they are completely polarized by their love or hatred of Huckabee and Romney. At a family gathering for a funeral in January the visceral hatred for one or the other was astonishing. It all seemed to break down by social class-with the farmers and religious people in the family loving Huckabee and the urbane rich people in the family loving Romney.

Go figure.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Integrity said:
Re: Clintons if Obama loses: For Christ's sake, liberals like me will never let them near the place

Liberals like you are why Obama is going to lose.

AllenS said...

Palladian--

What was I thinking of?

Anonymous said...

A prominent Obama backer said some of Clinton’s lieutentants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.

Um, do you want them to vote for you? Do you want them to work to get you elected?

Then you need to suck up to them.

Duh.


Why Clinton doesn't want to talk about Obama and National Security:

Clinton likes to give long speeches. A speech on Obama's National Security / Foreign Policy competence takes about 10 seconds.

Roger Sweeny said...

Obama choosing Hillary for vp would be like LBJ choosing Bobby Kennedy. Right, Ann?

integrity said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
Integrity said:
Re: Clintons if Obama loses: For Christ's sake, liberals like me will never let them near the place

Liberals like you are why Obama is going to lose.



Then you and many others here have reason to rejoice, right? Why be a bitch about it? Enjoy McCain. I'm voting for McCain anyway, not Obama. I want payback for the unpunished criminal behavior of the last 8 years, McCain is payback. Obama represents redemption. Why would I want 60+ million 2004 Bush voters redeemed? I'm italian, vengeance and payback are beautiful and poetic. Haven't you seen the Godfather films?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone ever notice that Alpha always mentions the phrase "talking points"? It's something that he seems to feel he has to get into the conversation. "Talking points" is the dude's favorite talking point.

Revenant said...

Integrity,

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. That's why she ran for Senate in the first place -- not because she gives a rat's ass about representing New York, but because it was the best available stepping stone to the White House.

If Obama loses, she has a good shot at the nomination in 2012. Maybe a divided Democratic Party will fail to support her and she'll lose, but she's at least got a shot. If Obama wins, on the other hand, he'll run again in 2012, and regardless of that race Biden will get the nomination in 2016. That means Hillary's stuck cooling her heels in the Senate until 2020 at *least*.

I think she'd rather run in 2012 and gamble that the Left will hold its nose and support her.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Then you and many others here have reason to rejoice, right? Why be a bitch about it? Enjoy McCain. I'm voting for McCain anyway, not Obama. I want payback for the unpunished criminal behavior of the last 8 years, McCain is payback. Obama represents redemption

Not being a bitch about it. Merely stating what I think is the case. The far left wing of the Democrat party and the extreme liberalism of Obama, not to mention the constant snarky name calling instead of addressing the issues by the far left is driving away the moderates (mostly Hillary supporters). The tired over the top repetitious rhetoric about criminal behaviour yada yada yada is exactly what turns people off.

When you alienate the moderates in your own party and are less likely to draw from the moderates of the other party you are doomed to lose.

I'm not supporting McCain and unless I decide to write in a name, am not voting for President this year......with the exception....If McCain puts Palin on the ticket I will vote.

You may want payback. I want to see the economy survive. Obama's plans represent economic catastrophe and a possible depression...not recession....depression. And a probable descent into full blown socialism.

integrity said...

I want to see the economy survive. Obama's plans represent economic catastrophe and a possible depression...not recession....depression. And a probable descent into full blown socialism.


Restoring tax rates to pre-2003 levels is now going to cause a depression. This must be some kind of joke. How come socialized medicine hasn't destroyed any of the european economies?

No rule of law in regard to politicians, unless they lied about a blow-job under oath, right? Bush & co. can do whatever they want without consequence.

You really are representing every reason why the democrats can't win elections. Sitting there passively as welfare is doled out to corporations and rich folks will never be an election winner for democrats, ever.

Funny how you never address what the republicans have been up to for the last eight years and don't blame them for what is going on economically in this country, when every single problem can be traced back to deregulation(a republican ideal that has failed miserably). Like I said, this is a joke.

Democrats will win national elections when they find the balls to climb down into the gutter with republicans and actually fight for their country, and fight nasty.

I have no reason to vote for impotent democrats even if I wasn't seeking revenge.

You seem to want a one party system where everyone is pseudo-republican. I want two parties, and I want my party to fight like junkyard dogs to win and leave the republicans bleeding in the gutter. Until that happens, I'm out.

Love liberal ideas, but hate the passive and inert democrats running the show.

Revenant said...

Restoring tax rates to pre-2003 levels is now going to cause a depression.

You're apparently suffering from the misapprehension that Obama merely wants to put tax rates back where they were in 2003. That is, sadly, not the case.

Obama has proposed three massive tax increases:

(1): A multibillion-dollar "windfall profits" tax on oil. This will, of course, be passed straight to consumers, making it an across-the-board tax hike on all of us.

(2): An additional 4% to 15% (depending on whether you believe his official plan or his speeches) increase in the top marginal tax rate via the elimination of the payroll tax cap.

(3): A direct increase in the upper marginal income tax rates over their pre-cut levels.

All in all, a massive tax increase on the investing class -- which is a good recipe for economic trouble. This is especially stupid during times of sluggish economic growth, and shrinking portfolios, i.e. right now.

TmjUtah said...

This is semi - off topic:

I predict that the political class of 2012 won't contain any of the people we are talking about here in 2008, with the exception of Jindal and Palin.

We are already well into fantasy land with the two offerings (assuming Hillary doesn't take out O! on Wednesday) currently before the electorate.

Obama and McCain. Imagine that as a little thought sketch. Combine that one with Reid and Pelosi, and then imagine that as a painting.

Now hang that painting up in the ruins of Pompeii. It looks... out of place, doesn't it?

Our economy is as far away from collapse as the number of wage earners who believe that their retirements and investments are still liquid.

Our national security is being challenged at home by a flood of illegal aliens threatening to overwhelm our social and emergency services while the national government looks the other way because the parties perceive different, but equally damaging and cynical temporary advantage from the current situation. Abroad, Islamism remains to be confronted while the Bear has begun a program of limited empire.

And as soon as China sweeps up the last of the confetti, they are going to be back on the road in pursuit of becoming THE controlling power on the Rim.

Energy policy - all of it, from domestic exploration to refinery capacity to clean coal to drastically overburdened generation and transmission structures to nuc - can't be ignored or yammerheaded any longer. Fuel costs NOW are not sustainable for a slim majority of businesses, and by extension the employees of those businesses. Fuel Oil and Ngas are both going to spike with the first frost (BEFORE the election - and that's a bomb waiting to go off) and on top of that increases of forty to sixty percent for food, transportation, and credit (if the last can be had at any price come winter).

Almost all of our coming pain can be attributed directly and unambiguously to government interference in pursuit of interest group support, failure of government to enforce its own laws and regulations, and a decades long "arrangement" that evolved between congress, the courts, and the executive that some time in the past morphed into a full blown conspiracy to contravene the Constitutional limits of government power.

One push will put us into the abyss.

And we've got Obama and McCain to choose between.

2008 is important, make no mistake. But 2010 is when the hard work of recovery will probably really begin.

Neither one of the candidates (okay, the three, until Wednesday) is inclined, but more importantly is not equipped to deal with what is about to happen.

And they could not give a rat's ass. Honestly. The media that camps their every move - that prides themselves on their connectedness and smarts and conventional wisdom - that media is covering the house kerfluffle then the experience kefluffle then the angry white biddy kerfluffle...

Russia has announced that their borders end where their armor stops rolling.

Iraq, with good reason, wants assurances that we'll be gone by 2011. That's to impart to their population, not ours, that the Americans are soon not to be trusted, and there isn't any time to sugar coat the situation. Media is covering that incorrectly, too.

And last, nobody is reading the financial pages, nobody is watching Bernanke daring the bank guys to blink.

We dance on an event horizon and look to cartoons to save us.

Oy. A knowledge of history can bring the sting, baby, and that's no lie.

blake said...

Good thing we didn't have a bunch of voyeuristic Republicans that demanded millions of documents and spent millions to investigate every last detail of a hummer. Eh?

Only a Democrat could leave a paper trail for oral sex.

You have to admire the dedication to procedural correctness, tho'.

blake said...

What's amusing, I guess, is that a Clinton/Obama ticket probably would've been well nigh unbeatable.

Now, McCain can pick Lieberman--oh, hell, let him pick Dole, why not, or Zombie Nixon--and we can keep ratcheting up the absurdity.

Fen said...

garage mahal: Good thing we didn't have a bunch of voyeuristic Republicans that demanded millions of documents and spent millions to investigate every last detail of a hummer. Eh?

1) I don't know why you're projecting "voyeuerism" over a sexual discrimination lawsuit. I guess your kind find ER rape reports titilating?

2) The judge who rightly/wrongly expanded Starr's scope was a democrat taught by Clinton. So "blaming" the GOP solely is dishonest of you.

3) Maybe if Clinton hadn't been so engaged in such elaborate and time-consuming deceptions to hide his girlfriends from his wife, he would have had more time and energy to disrupt Al Queda while they were plotting 9-11?

4) Your post exemplifies the hypocrisy of the Left. Under the 1994 Crime Bill, with language crafted by NOW, the plantiff has a right to any and all information that establishes a pattern of sexual predation in the workplace on the part of the defendant.

Lets break it down into something you can understand: your daughter is denied promotion because she refused to swallow her boss's cock. She sues. During discovery, her lawyers interview another female employee [boss's girlfriend] to determine if it was consenual or if she was also coerced into performing sexual favours to get her job. Boss and girlfriend lie under oath and deny any sexual relationship, obstructing justice and violating your daughter's civil rights.

Just about a hummer, eh? I have to thank Clinton for one thing: all the Leftist hyprocrisy over his "hummers" finally taught me The Left Doesn't Really Believe The Things They Lecture Us About.