Hillary Clinton plans to announce her support for Barack Obama on Saturday. Meanwhile, Obama announced a three-member vice presidential selection committee that includes Caroline Kennedy. His aides said the search would proceed slowly. Will Clinton be the pick?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
40 Comments
“Clinton to end campaign; will veep move be next?”
First, it’s about time. Second, no. She doesn’t want it, he doesn’t want her to have it. But she wants to be asked, so she can publically turn it down.
So the dance will be carefully planned and correographed: his gracious offer, recognizing her strong competitive run; her declining the offer, pledging her support both in campaigning and in enacting a democratic agenda in the Senate.
It’ll be great theater, but it will be just that- theater. But then most of politics is just theater.
And BTW – it’s too bad. I had so hoped for the theater of a convention fight. One can only hope it may still happen . . . it’s not as far-fetched as one would have thought prior to this campaign season.
And let’s seriously think about some sanity in the primary schedule in 2012, shall we?
I dunno GMC, there have been rumors Hillary has been sizing up the old Superintendent’s house for the Naval Observatory for curtains.
I have given my reasons already of why I do not think she will be the VP pick. We shall see.
I think there are more powerful positions available for Hillary Clinton. And I hope she gets them.
“GMC70″ –
Theatre?
Nah. As someone said, “Washington, D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people.”
Reports last night indicated the Obama campaign people approached Clinton and said for her to get the offer of the Veep nomination, they’d want to vet Bill’s finances over the past eight years, included contributors to his presidential library.
She probably would have won the nomination this year if she’d divorced the cad after she was elected to the Senate and run as Hillary Rodham. And the only way she could prove to be as Machiavellian as her harshest critics allege is if she gets a quickie divorce before Saturday. Not gonna happen.
Hillary Clinton is a superb United States Senator. Even Republic Party Senators admit that when no one is looking. She stands ready to accept the torch from Teddy Kennedy as the liberal giant in the Senate and, with enough gains in the Senate she’s not unlikely to be a future Supreme Court justice.
Save this post so you can all bow down to me when it proves to be true:
Barack Obama’s Vice-Presidential candidate will be Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. He is a former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He got so disgusted with what the Republic Party has become he became a Democrat.
A 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Webb served as a Marine Corps infantry officer until 1972, and is a highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran.
Bet on it.
“Regular” lies –
“…there have been rumors Hillary has been sizing up the old Superintendent’s house for the Naval Observatory for curtains.”
Once again the Cons sometimes spew lies in this forum just to keep in practice.
I’ve just returned form a week-long trip to Boston. The consensus there is the spirited and highly-competitive presidential election just ended. No one seemed worried about when Hillary would congratulate Barack on his victory or how the future would unfold. Sure was great to be among such positive people!
“Barack Obama’s Vice-Presidential candidate will be Senator Jim Webb from Virginia.”
I hope so. This country won’t stand for two defeatists.
It appears that MonkeyHock’s crotch fungus has returned as he starts outh the day with a cranky post.
I had no idea, “Regular” –
…that you were obsessed with my crotch.
But once again, you’ve got nothing but name-calling when you attempt to deal with me.
“MonkeyHock.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You’re so clever in an 8th grader way.
Oh, and BTW –
“He was selected, not elected” was coined by Democrats in December, 2000, after George WMD Bush stole the election by a 5 to 4 vote in the Supreme Court.
At least try to come up with original material.
If the referees make a bad call against your opponent Monkeyhawk, it’s part of the game, not stealing. Not that the Supremes made a bad call.
I just wonder if the Demobabies will ever man up?
MH – I won’t bow down – I have been saying the same things.
“Justice Clinton” … has a nice ring to it …
Welcome home, Linda! Good to see you’re back again and in fine spirits. :)
Linda – did you go over to Cambridge? Visit Charles River Trade School at all? Or just Cambridge Arts and Crafts?
Good God I hope that lying POS isn’t VP. Haven’t you had enough of both the Clinton’s? First BJ Bill wouldn’t let them drill for oil and then Hillary couldn’t get her lies straight.
There’s word that Senator Clinton will hold on to her delegates and will NOT rule out a nomination call at the convention.
I won’t count her out yet.
As to VP? Obama HAS to offer it. If he dosen’t, or in any other way disrespects her, her supporters will take it out on him and he will lose in a landslide.
She’ll turn it down and she should. Obama has shot his wad and if he is the nominee he will lose. She doesn’t need hitched to that.
BlueJay – you AND Clinton better hope Obama wins. A loss by Obama would diminish Clinton’s position in the Senate. With a win, however, she will be in a position of power.
Andm who know … Justice? I’d love that – 20+ years to piss off the Righties.
Talk about a purly political hack for the Supreme Court!
When was the last time Hilary actually practiced law?
Has she ever even been a Judge before?
Yet you liberals rally around her for a place on the Supreme Court?
How much more ludicrous can you get?
Thanks nathan – you just made my day!
Ben,
It is farily obvious that it would annoy the crap out of the Republicans.
However, that only shows that your motivations for the Supreme Court have nothing to do with intrepreting the law, rather pushing an obvious political hack into the job just because.
“Justice Clinton” … has a nice ring to it
She is a crap lawyer and would not be the best pick. As I said before, I think her best spot would be senate majority leader.
“Nathaniel” bleats –
“Talk about a purly [sic] political hack for the Supreme Court!”
Yeah. Let’s talk about Clarence Thomas!
“When was the last time Hilary actually practiced law?”
Oh, we all know (or can assume) the high regard you have for practicing attorneys. Would you prefer Justice John Edwards?
Thought not.
“Has she ever even been a Judge before?”
And that’s a job-requirement?
Why, in your opinion?
“Yet you liberals rally around her for a place on the Supreme Court?”
Not me, necessarily. I’d just as soon have her spend the rest of her life as a leader in the Senate.
“How much more ludicrous can you get?”
Well, to get more ludicrous, we could threaten to kill anyone who shot our dog. Or we could respond to a question about Biblical inerrancy by accusing (without basis) the questioner of pedophilia. Hell, to get more ludicrous we could admit to never leaving the house without a side-arm strapped to our sides. We could even get more ludicrous by setting ourselves up to judge just who is and who isn’t a “real” Christian.
Hell, yes, “Nathaniel.” We could get more ludicrous.
But you’ve already monopolized the job.
Like I said, the more time MonkeyHawk spends responding to me, the less time he has to fondle little boys.
If Obama chooses Webb, there is NO DOUBT I’ll stay home. I didn’t like Webb when he was running for his homestate.
Pheh. You watch, him not choosing Hillary will be the death blow to him. She won’t turn it down. That would be stupid.
Why are the republicans commenting on who they want OUR party to choose? Get back on your own side.
Obama’s gonna find out that reaching out to republicans is gonna get his arm bit off.
According to this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_74
Clinton will offer her congratulations and support for Obama’s candidacy on Saturday.
Webb would be an excellent V.P. choice – being a realist (that occupations, especially long occupations with no end date, have many undesirable effects) does not equal being a defeatist.
Does anyone with a cerebral cortex (which would obviously exclude fleetie) think that a government can be formed in Iraq while our occupying military is there? The people will see any of their leaders who work with the occupation forces as traitors. Let us get out of Iraq and allow them to rebuild their country. We will no doubt continue sending them money.
The whole Obama “let’s get out [of Iraq] as carefully as we carelessly went in,” is either disingenuous or uninformed. We went in carelessly, but getting out does not require careful consideration. We need to just get out. The sooner we fix this tremendous blunder, the better.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/13/defeat_british_journalist_jonathan_steele_on
Hillary as SC justice. . .
It’s a thought. Is there anything in her experience which would make her suitable for such a position (aside from pissing off conservatives)?
Didn’t think so. While same is not a requirement (see Earl Warren), it’s manifestly a good idea (again, see Earl Warren).
It would prove, however, that the Democrats have not a non-hypocrital bone in their body in putting up such an obvious political hack. Isn’t that exactly what they accuse (without any substance) Thomas of being? Of course, Thomas pisses liberals off simply because he dares to disagree with them (How dare a black not genuflect to liberal orthodoxy!) and the one thing liberals can’t stand is disagreement. They’re tolerant of everything except genuine tolerance.
Justice John Edwards
Hmmmm.
Of course, he could simply channel the Founders (he’s got practice at that, apparantly).
That assumes, of course, that liberals are remotely interested in the thoughts of the founders . . . given the debate over Heller, I suspect not.
I dont know who keeps making the SC comment, but as a dem, that’s truly dumb and I WOULD CONTEST THAT. She doesn’t have the experience nor the qualifications.
(see Earl Warren),
“the Warren Court became recognized as a high point in the use of the judicial power in the effort to effect social progress in the U.S. and Warren himself became widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and perhaps the single most important in the 20th century (and certainly its most controversial).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
Clinton? Clinton who? Bill? Hillary?
Never heard of her.
Gone like a freight train,
gone like yesterday.
That would be Hillary Clinton there “American way”
The woman who got more votes than any other Democratic candidate in history?
The (for now) junior Senator from New York who will be a stick in the eye of cons like you for the rest of her life?
Oh some of my fellow Democrats think you cons should be worked with and coddled.
Me I feel differently. And I am not going away. Neither is Senator Hillary Clinton.
BlueJay,
Nobody says she has to go away. Your hatred for Obama is far and away beyond what most of us feel for Hillary Clinton. McCain would be a much better target for you, but somehow you’ve made this a personal crusade, and you can’t see how destructive that is.
“Your hatred for Obama is far and away beyond what most of us feel for Hillary Clinton”
I don’t hate Obama. I don’t like him either.
I also don’t know him. Neither does America.
He is the least explored and understood candidate for President in my lifetime. And I’ll afford that it’s just a sign of the times. We live in a sound bite country and culture.
THAT is what I hate. I hate that he gets a pass. I hate that the election of 2000 is being repeated over again in the Democratic nomination and so many offended and hurt earlier are ok with that NOW.
“McCain would be a much better target for you,”
And for YOU and Obama supporters.
But what do the editors and SOME of the Obama supporters do here?
There have been several hit Hillary threads I have tried to redirect to John McCain. What is it I say of Obama and his supporters but that they fight in the wrong direction?
SENATOR BARAK OBAMA + GOV. BILL RICHARDSON = LANDSLIDE FOR DEMOCRAT PARTY
Obama is too smart to choose Hillary because he knows that the country is so sick of the narcisstic Clintons. Nerdy Hispanic Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico would make the perfect running mate for Obama. He’s highly qualified & experienced on defense & foreign policy issues & he’s not an egomaniac. 2008 will be a repeat of 1980 when the Reagan Democrats switched allegiances. In 2008 many white males disillusioned with GOP corruption will vote as “Obama Republicans” with the rationale that the country is so screwed up that the “minorites” should have a chance to govern for 4 years so that they can no longer complain that they are not in power. In 1980 loyal Democrats were disgusted iwth the incompetence of the Carter-Mondale white house. After getting elected Obama & Richardson will pivot to the center to appear as moderate as possible although Obama will appoint the most liberal Supreme Court justices in history starting with Hillary who will receive unanimous Senate confirmation as the bipartisan Good Old Boys always take care of their own. Bill Clinton will be able to hang out in Washington DC like a washed up rock star hoping to get laid by a groupie, and every one’s dreams will come true.
Bill McKean kiakahahaha@yahoo.com 316 293-6079
bth
Posted June 5, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
(see Earl Warren),
“the Warren Court became recognized as a high point in the use of the judicial power in the effort to effect social progress in the U.S. and Warren himself became widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and perhaps the single most important in the 20th century (and certainly its most controversial).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
—
Exactly, Ben.
You may think that’s a good thing; on balance, I do not. A court’s job it NOT to enforce it’s view of “social progress,” it is to interpret and apply law made by others; legislators, administrators, regulators, or Constitutions, as the case may be. The Warren Court had a disturbing habit, since vastly reigned in, of making it up as they go along in order to impose its particular view of social progress. I may even agree that the particular progress made was a good thing. But just as ends matter, the means to that end also matters, and the courts, in and after the Warren era, became a means for activists to win through sympathetic judges what they could not win at the ballot box or in legislatures.
And that is not a good thing. And it happened, in part, because Warren was not of “judicial temperment,” and saw the courts as simply an extension of the political branches he was used to. We are still paying the price for that.
GMC – valid position. I’m not really certain whether I agree with you or not. My point is that the other position is equally valid. I think that the potential of Clinton on the Court would definitely spark discussion of the Court’s role as a “co-equal” branch.
As for “making it up as they go along in order to impose its particular view” how about 2000 and issuing a decision that they acknowledged was so flawed that it should never be used as a precedent?
ben –
“My point is that the other position is equally valid.
With respect, I don’t think so. Be careful what you wish for; a liberal court without contraints can become a conservative court without constraints. And ALL government needs constraints. Even the founders recognized that the fly in their ointment of checks and balances was the independent courts, and that judges must exercise self-restraint for the system to work.
As to Bush v. Gore; and no, I will not end up involved in a long discussion of it; it’s over:
That a decision has little or no precedent value, or is even acknowledged by the issueing court to have none, is exactly ZERO evidence that the decision is “flawed.”
You may well disagree with the decision, and that’s fine. But it is, it’s lawfully made and valid, and it’s basis is clear. And as Scalia has recently noted, the equal protection basis for the decision was not even a close vote (7-2). It was only remedy that so divided the court.
Further, all that said, “oh, yea, what about _______” does not challenge my position; on the contrary, it reinforces it.
GMC,
Not much is brought out about the 7-2 decision on the equal protection clause argument. It is woefully inconvenient to the contrarians to the eventually ‘evolved’ solution.
The picture used for this topic looks like it has been put together.