Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

It's Coming: Obama/Clinton

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

pp

This comes from a gut feeling and scattered anecdotal evidence as much as hard facts, but I think the eventual denouement to the Democratic bloodbath is finally coming into focus: Well before the convention it will be Obama/Clinton -- assuming that, in the interlude, Hillary doesn't overplay her losing hand even more egregiously than she already has.

At first Clinton's inevitability-campaign was realistically grounded. It didn't seem that anyone could possibly compete in money or name ID or party-insider connections. Those were her halcyon days of wine and roses; nary a worry in the offing on the road to the nomination.

But someone did compete. Boy, did he ever. So after being outvoted and out-moneyed for weeks on end, the Clinton campaign recently resorted in desperation to a laughably transparent, faux inevitability -- dropping unsubtle hints that sure, it would be happy to ponder a Clinton/Obama ticket. Nothing has changed, to hear the Clinton camp tell it, except Hillary's newly inflated willingness to embrace this pesky upstart.

For a few days Clinton's tactical chutzpah nearly smothered the indelible reality. But gradually, like an aggressive antibiotic, the imposing reality began to kick in again among the pace-setting, television-network commentariat class. One now hears it with increasing frequency: Wait a minute. Obama is ahead. Sorry, folks, we sort of lost ourselves in all the spin, but both feet are now back on Earth.

Wyoming was the first cold douse of reality revisited; Mississippi in two days will be the next. And Pennsylvania -- six long, grueling, agonizing weeks away -- will put a bow on it, but not until its intervening and needless agony causes sufficient superdelegates to finally and preemptively announce that enough is enough. Between now and April 22, look for the Obama train to take on a lot more superdelegate passengers.

For they really and quite simply have no choice, both realistically and politically speaking.

Numbers are numbers. Already more than two-thirds of the states have cast primary or caucus ballots, and Obama not only possesses but is sure to maintain a decisive lead in derived pledged delegates. There aren't enough states left for Clinton to compensate, and that's an insurmountable fact of the electoral future.

Moreover, and just as critical, Obama maintains a lead in the amassed popular vote. If anything could have done lethal harm to Obama's argument -- and it is just an argument, by the way, not any attempted "change" in rules -- that whoever leads in pledged delegates should properly secure the loyalty of superdelegates, it would have been an offsetting popular-vote plurality by Clinton. But she's been unable to produce one, and the history of the past two-and-a-half months strongly suggests a continuation of the popular status quo.

Those are the realistically speaking parts. And politically speaking there is no way -- absolutely no way, so we should all just put it out of our minds right now as part of our tough-love reality check -- that several hundred tuned-in superdelegates with a self-interested eye to the future are going to defy both the popular and pledged-delegate will.

Furthermore, and perfectly aside from the numerically ethical argument, superdelegates are worried about more than just who captures the nomination per se. They worry, of course, about their own turf. And the Obama campaign's selling point that it will "provide a better climate for down-ballot candidates" is as profoundly persuasive as it is self-interested itself.

So as Clinton and Obama needlessly spill more blood in Pennsylvania, watch for an announced-superdelegate shift meant to signal to voters that though blood there may be, it is, in reality, all over.

And watch as well for a corresponding sales pitch from the Obama camp: It's true that Clinton is conducting a scorched-earth campaign of GOP design and dimensions, calling into question Obama's experience, trustworthiness and, most squalidly, his fitness as commander in chief; and it's further true that for at least the past several days John McCain has had no better friend than the Democratic senator from New York. But politics is about bending and moving on, and the best possible bend at this point is that sure, he'll stoop to embrace Hillary as veep.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at
fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter




Obama's running mate

i personally would prefer an Obama/Edwards ticket,but nobody asks me..like it or not there is an irrational hatred for hillary in the heartland,that surpasses Bill's ball busters..Besides which she doesn't appear to be a willing teamplayer lately......? i would and will vote for whomever wins the democratic nomination and it appears to be Obama's to lose...i seriously believe that obama/clinton or clinton/obama could win with a landslide if they pledged to get outa iraq pronto (permanent bases and all) and commited to a full-on singlepayer health plan & jumped up taxes on oil companys..these are issues which a solid majority of voters agree upon,if only we could find&elect politicians to implement them...unfortunately we only have beholden corporate puppets to chose among...my favorite is Obama now.

Hillary and Obama

I thought that when Hillary began losing, she began to talk about accepting Obama as her VIP.I think she was planting the idea that she should be VIP if she lost to Obama. Will it happen? I don't know. It seems to me there are quite a few bruises from each other.I do think it would be hard to beat that team tho.

Clinton's big "Republican" win in Ohio

Guys, did you see the story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer? Seems Hillary got by with a little help from her friends - in the Republican party. (She should take her partner McCain out to lunch to thank him. Probably should take Rush too.)

16,000 Republicans in one county alone crossed over and voted in Ohio's Democratic primary.

However, Ohio law stipulates that those switching parties to vote have to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

So what did the Repugnicans do? They mockingly scribbled messages like, "For one day only," and "I don't believe in abortions," yet they still were allowed to vote.

Oh, these Repugnican dirty trickters! You gotta love them ... in the pits of hell.

It appears we have quite a few of these guys right here in BuzzFlash, bashing Obama and urging us to support the Republican's favorite Democrat.

I say, if Republicans want Hillary, let's give her to them. We need to tell our party leaders to stop this disaster while they still can.

Let Hillary join buddy McCain on the Republican ticket, where she might be more comfortable. And if she's not, progressive democrats of America certainly will.

The numbers

Delegates: Obama - 1588 / Clinton - 1465 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html Popular Votes: Obama - 13,007,968 / Clinton - 12,415,286 *Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Total http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html If Hillary ends up being the nominee it would be because of '00 Floridian Bush style theft. Bottom line. Her sense of entitlement is damaging the country.

An example of Clinton Foreign policy

by Samantha Power Bystanders to Genocide Article Tools sponsored by: E-mail Article Printer Format I. People Sitting in Offices In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century. A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands. Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings? Did the President really not know about the genocide, as his marginalia suggested? Who were the people in his Administration who made the life-and-death decisions that dictated U.S. policy? Why did they decide (or decide not to decide) as they did? Were any voices inside or outside the U.S. government demanding that the United States do more? If so, why weren't they heeded? And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives? For the entire article follow this link. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide If Hillary wants to claim Bill's experience how 'bout this! If it were not for the success of the economy in the nineties...The Clinton presidency would be viewed as a disaster based upon these little facts, monica, china gate, vince foster, whitewater, Somolia, the USS Cole, The first world trade center bombing, and letting OBL go when he had the chance of getting him. If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past we are destined to repeat them.

this is exactly what I'm talking about

the ken starr/freeper view of clinton is fused with a demand that clinton do what was politically impossible/inconceievable at the time and would have resulted in a successful impeachment and/or no democrats in national office: no santions on iraq to contain Saddam, massive US intervention in Africa after the Somalia debacle, etc. Besides this completely unhinged view of recent political history, there is NO EVIDENCE for and ENORMOUS EVIDENCE against the idea that obama would have done anything different in similar circumstances.

You know, Slick..I'm pretty damn sure that the "freeper" here...

...is you.

yes this is my brilliant freeper strategey:

point out that clinton and obama don't differ by much compared to the repuglicans and urge everyone to support the dem over mccain. Then when Clinton, somehow, becomes the nominee (which she won't now barring a major change in the status quo) all the progressive obama supporters will be forced to stay home or vote for mccain. The republicans win! brillliant! diabolical! no one will be prepared to counter such a devious plan! Once thing is clear: the Karl Rove Faux news strategy of creating exclusively partisan history/ammnesia and poisoning political discourse in this country has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

No my friend...

...The "poisoning of political discourse, in this case, comes from people like you. Hillary wields the knife while you rail about "Clinton haters". I've defended Clinton in the discussion boards for years against the wingnuts. My man was Edwards, and when he went down, I didn't start whining about "Edwards haters" and "nice hairophobes". I chose Obama and I did so for policy reasons that had nothing to do with "Clinton hating" and Misogyny. But here you are, and your ilk, spewing your garbage just as effectively as any little freeper I've ever had to debate online. But go on and defend the indefensible. Your candidate has poisoned the chances for your party in 2008. We'll be lucky to win now. I wonder if Hillary will filibuster McSame's Supreme Court nominees. Doubt it, by her record.

you can't seriously be suggesting

that there isn't something "special" about the right wing relationship to the Clintons, in comparison to how they treat Edwards and the other Dems (although the MSM certainly did stonewall Edwards message) and the tolerance of it by a lot of the country. I know it's a long time to remember but a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional impeachment of a president was conducted over nothing that half the people in Congress weren't doing at the same time themselves and with no serious consequences for those conducting it. It is truly remarkable and disturbing how much of this has stuck, even among apparently fervent opponents of the Republicans. What are you worried about anyway, Obama is going to be the nominee, and supposedly every democrat AND every independent and some republicans will vote for him.

Like I said...

I've defended Clinton for years. And yes the impeachment was illegal and unconstitutional and it infuriated me at the time. You can't imagine the rage I felt watching those little f*cktards walking the articles of impeachment down the hall to the Senate chamber. Of course I knew they were all going to especially enjoy the blowjobs they were going to all get from their mistresses that night. But Clinton was an IDIOT for doing what he did, and then lying about it, when he had a Congress that demanded an Independent Counsel investigation every time he picked his nose. Can you admit that? Can you admit that he should have been a little less stupid than give those bastards enough material not to only hang it around his own neck, but Al Gore's as well? Maybe he should have triangulated a little less and cared for his party a little more when it REALLY counted? Listen, maybe I jumped on you a bit hard, maybe you're not a freeper, although naming yourself as you do raises doubts, but I've got kids to take care of, so I'll do 'ya the courtesy of saying thank you, and signing off politely. Look for ya later.

Bill Clinton isn't actually running but...

while I admit he made some mistakes most of what happened was because, while he may not have been progressive enough for progressives, he was TOO PROGRESSIVE for Republicans. He did about all he could do and that was enough to get him impeached for private legal behavior, something which had NEVER BEEN DONE, or even seriously contemplated in the history of the country. The reason they got away with it, the reason the media didn't point out how completely unprecedented and illegal it was, the reason they didn't protect his privacy as they have done EVER OTHER of the MANY presidents who have fucked around was because he was a non rich, trailer trash DEMOCRAT. If a Bush or a Rommney had done EXACTLY what Clinton did there is no possible way impeachment could ever have happened. Bill Clinton was probably at least a little bit surpised that the country has two such completely different sets of laws, one for the "right" sort of people and one for the "others". He probably figured that getting elected president twice made him the "right" sort. How naive of him, and of the rest of us.

Hey Slick

You're about as slick as they come, Slick. But here at BuzzFlash, you don't get away with such transparent revisionism.

Clinton was NOT "impeached for private legal behavior." He was impeached for lying under oath about that private legal behavior.

Putting aside the legitimacy of impeaching a President for lying under oath on a matter that was NOT germane to the civil suit -- Bill Clinton didn't seem to learn anything from Watergate and the arrogance that brought Nixon down:

It's not the crime that will get you, it's the cover up.

not ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF THE US

has EVER been held criminally liable for lying under oath(which he may not have done anyway) about a LEGALLY IRRELEVANT MATTER in a CIVIL SUIT. You aren't obliged to tell the truth in answer to ANY question posed by an official. Only to questions which the official has a LEGAL RIGHT TO ASK, which Starr DID NOT. So in fact what Clinton did was NOT a crime. The entire Starr "investigation" and prosecution was riddled with many more clear illegalities and crimes than anything Clinton did if he did anything. In any case "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to behavior RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OFFICE. Which Clintons "crimes" in no way were anyway. Nixon was impeached for criminal interference with the elections process. Only a freeper could confuse the two situations.

the reason the hysterical reaction to clinton is clinton hate

is becasue obama and clinton are both centrist democrats, obama has less of a paper trail to demonstrate centrist compromise but the record is still there. The clinton obama campaign rivalry is no different that what happens in every contested election where lots of people care and the stakes are high. The obama supporters spew every freeper/ken starr lie of the last 20 years and fantsize that obama is different from other democrats and that clinton is a republican by pointing to specfic facts out of context and ignoring and distorting the records of both. That is why it is called clinton hatred.

No this is called subterfuge

"That is why it is called clinton hatred."

No, this is called Republican subterfuge.

Slick Willie says the reason so many democrats hate Hillary is because she is a confirmed centrist democrat, unlike Obama who's concealing his centrist membership card.

So how can he explain why the epitome of centrist democrats Bill Clinton was so vastly popular among the Democrats throughout the 1990s and beyond?

Nor does he explain why millions of long-time Hillary supporters have been turned into Hillary haters in the last few weeks.

I doubt he'll stick around to explain. He'll probably pop up with a different screen name to attack Obama supporters. Real slick.

Yeah?

Well at least they don't give the game over to the "freeper" side in some sick "scorched earth" policy of "no one wins if I can't". Talk about hatred.

Slick Willie must be a Repuglican plant

...The obama supporters spew every freeper/ken starr lie of the last 20 years and fantsize that obama is different from other democrats and that clinton is a republican by pointing to specfic facts out of context and ignoring and distorting the records of both.... Sure, we Democrats love having: NAFTA shoved down our throat; GATT stripping good paying jobs from us; and being brainwashed with monopoly Clear Channel's propaganda because Slick Willie's 1996 Telecommunication Act. All these accomplishments were performed under "Slick Willie's" presidency. Time to kick Repuglicken Ass and throw all the bastards in jail where they belong - starting with Dumbyass, "Dick" Cheney, The Donald Rumsfeld, Lying For George - Condi Rice and the rest of the criminals currently occupying the White House. The DLC sucks worse than Monica, just ask Bill.

look at obamas record and policy proposals

and compare them to clintons and compare both to the republicans to get the real facts. Thanks all of you for illustrating my point better than I could. I still can't decide though: do you really believe this or not?

Don't need to go much further...

...than comparing her policy of betraying her party's chances for the sake of personal ambition.

she hasn't done anything different than obama

has done or that any candidate running for a contested office has done. The fact that you believe otherwise is a complete demonstration of exactly the irrational hatred that I am referring to.

I've seen better rationalizations...

...from my six year old daughter. It ain't hatred, my little clintonite friend, it's anger, and it's well justified by her treachery. Sorry to see some one on this side with the moral caliber of the freepers he would claim to oppose.

the true test of which of us is either lying, crazy

or completely ignorant is: will you happily support the other dem candidate agains mccain if he/she is the nominee? I'd happily support obama over mccain. Would you happily support clinton over mccain?

No it's not the true test...

...And besides, if it was Hillary already failed it. Twice. In the front of everyone. If you're happy-crappy with that fine, you can yell about "clinton-haters" until you're blue in the face for all I care.

are you going to answer the question?

why not if it doesn't mean anything? You know and I know that if obama is the nominee Hillary will be supporting him.

ARE YOU HIGH??

She's already cut him down. Twice. What do you think people on this thread are talking about? Hillary's support at this point is laughable by her actions. This might be too subtle a concept for you though. But yes, I will vote for Hillary. And watch with dismay as her own words are used against her with as much effectiveness as they would be against Obama.

hillary will be supporting obama, count on it

are you too young to remember other nominating contests, becauise the obama/clinton fighting is nothing unusual when there is no early consensus over the nominee. All is forgotten after the nomination.

Really...

... OK, wise one. Cite a campaign where one candidate endorsed the republican opponent over his rival for the nomination in an area that would be a CRUCIAL point of contention in the general election (national security is going to be the main battlefield in this election, and this is exactly where she has backstabbed Obama). And I don't mean the hollow words: "my esteemed colleague", I mean a positive statement. Show us. Then explain how it aided that rival toward victory in the general election, extended coattails, etc. Show how it was helpful and constructive. The whole point of this thread was how HRC has crossed into uncharted territory with her behavior. Maybe everyone here is wrong. Show us. At any rate, Hillary's support at this point would be a laughingstock and suitable for a McSame commercial on it's own.

His name says it all

OK, it's time to stop feeding the troll. Slick Willie's name says it all.

bush called reagans supply side tax cuts "voodo economics"

(which it was) when he was running against him for the nomination and it didn't hurt them at all. Unfortunately for all of us.

Well, Slick...

...If GeorgeI had said: "I have economic experience and an economic plan for the nation, JIMMY CARTER HAS EXPERIENCE AND A PLAN FOR THE NATION, BUT MR. REAGAN HAS A SPEECH HE MADE IN '85", you might might very well be right. But that (the rough equivalent of Hillary's performance) is NOT what he said, is it? GeorgeI did not endorse Carter's experience OVER Ronald Reagan. And I guess I'm older than you take me for, because I'm old enough to remember that nevertheless that comment made a big deal at the time to the Reagan campaign, requiring a lot of damage control, to the extent that it is remembered to this day insofar as to be used as a specious justification for Hillary's conduct TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS LATER. No one would ever argue that it was helpful to Ronnie's campaign, God burn his soul. What Hillary has done is indefensible and you bloody well know it, so stop yelling about "Clinton haters" and accept some Goddamn responsibility.

calling it voodoo economics

meant it was uniquely bad, even by comparison with Carter; it actually DID amount to an equivalent criticism. Yes it caused a stir, but the Republicans kept it in perspective. Hopefully the Democrats can do the same now.

Actually, there might be method in her madness

It just struck me (like a falling red wood tree) that there might be some amazing method in Lady Macbeth's apparent madness.

No pundit has come up with a plausible reason for such a seasoned, in-control campaigner like Hillary to poison the party's drinking well, with her shocking endorsement of McCain as having better Commander in Chief credentials than Obama. I think I see a method behind this madness.

The comments below, by me and others, paint a clear picture why there can be no plausible Democratic Obama-Clinton ticket. Hillary effectively aborted that choice with her denunciation of Obama as being unfit to command the U.S. armed forces. So that compromise is dead-borne.

But with a compromise putting her on top of the ticket, Obama's so-called inadequacies in handling national crises will not be problem. His "inexperience" cannot be used by the Repugnicans against the Democratic ticket. And in 8 years, Obama should then be "ready for the job."

So with a few fell whoops on the campaign trail, Hillary has made it clear that, 1) if she loses she will take the Democratic house down with her; 2) they can't give her the Vice President slot because that would make her attack on Obama's competency unassailable; and 3) the only way around the impasse is to place her on top of the Democratic ticket; point, game, match.

No one should ever underestimate the canniness of this woman. In her sleep, she can probably out Rove Rove.

it makes a lot of sense

anyone who says they would vote for obama against mccain but would vote for mccain if clinton was on the ticket is either a clinton hating freeper or one of the (apparently)sincere progressives who entirely endorses the freeper line about the clintons and justifiy it by living in a world where the actual historical and political facts have no connection to reality (most of those people HAVE to be republicans, I just can't believe that many people can be that crazy, although if their brains developed in the toxic atmosphere of the republican dominance of the last 30 years then I guess anything is possible). The point is that no one who is COMMITTED to either of the Dems will switch to mccain if the other dem is on the ticket and people who like one of the dems but have problems with the other and are therefore wavering between mccain and the dem will be more likely to support a ticket with the dem they like on the ticket, in either spot.

here's some more sense

You don't necessarily have to anger progressive democrats into voting for McCain instead of Hillary to lose the election (although I suspect quite a few will switch to McCain, because they view Clinton as the far greater threat to democracy).

All that's needed for the Repugnicans to win is for enough democrats and independents to stay home on election day.

Few probably doubt that the Democrats would lose millions of votes in November (along with the loss of many additional Congressional seats), if Hillary is allowed to steal the nomination from the candidate with the most popular votes and delegates.

There's no way in hell that I'd vote for her. I hope I won't be forced to decide whether to stay home or vote for McCain. I can't stand Sophie's choices.

"No way you'd vote for her"? Really?

Gotta keep the storyline straight, Askolnick. Just the other day, you said, "If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, I probably would reluctantly head over to my polling place, step into the booth, hold my nose with one hand, and vote for her with the other."
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/002

What a difference a few days can make. I'll check back with you in a few days to see if you're working for her campaign.

Putz, that was before Clinton joined McCain's ticket

Yman, ya putz, that was before Clinton joined the McCain ticket.

I won't vote for anyone who backs Crazy McCain for Commander in Chief even if she's also on the Democratic ticket!

You rethugs really think you're going to destroy the Democratic Party by coming here and beating the drum for the party's biggest embarrassment?

Democratic leaders are going to listen to voters, rather than a bunch of dirty tricksters in donkey suits.

You guys must think we're as dumb as those who vote Republican.

you attitude towrds clinton is completely irrational

or completely uniformed from any conceivable public policy perspective. Besides I think most people are assuming that if obama wins the most delegates it would be Hillary as vp.

No...

...Given her recent behavior, askolkinck's statement is completely rational. It's you who has gone 'round the bend. Assuming of course you're not a freeper plant.

It's Coming: Obama/Clinton

A ticket with the two of them is a nightmare ticket. The nightmare would continue for the four years, or until Hillary and her New World Order cronies assassinated Obama so that she could become the president. Even without that admittedly cynical scenario, how could Obama (and those of us who have supported him) trust Hillary?? She has proven that she is without scruples and that she would stoop to any level for power. Those who advocate this unhappy ending have not taken note of the real message for CHANGE!! from the Obama voters. And Hillary anywhere near the White House again would mean DNC "business as usual." Obama should choose his vice president ASAP and go into the convention with that alliance. Edwards would be his best bet.

Are You Insane!?!

Has anyone noted that the people floating this so-called "Dream Ticket" are REPUBLICANS?!!!!

Let's get down to basics - it's NOT who gets the votes that wins; it's who LOSES the votes who loses! (Don't believe it? Just ask Karl or note that with each election cycle, the percentage of voters DECLINES as the campaigns become ever more skillful!)

Amerika remains a racist and misogynist society. (Sorry, but we have to deal with reality here.)

Barak is non-white and Hillary is female; add in the fact that she brings Bubba with her and this "Dream Ticket" is a Republican WET DREAM of monumental proportions. (As in Republican super-majorities as well as a McCain presidency.)

Either one is going to have a far more daunting challenge than anyone seems to grasp - together, each will be a millstone around the other's neck.

Once again, the Democrats are poised to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory....

It's Coming: Obama/Clinton

Yesterday, I heard President Clinton make it sound like it would be Clinton/Obama, eventho the numbers do not add up. I felt like he was baiting (bribing) Obama supporters by dangling this in front of our noses. I found it insulting especially in light of how nasty she has played. Furthermore, if this was her game plan all along, why attack her Democratic opponent. She is desparate for the nomination and it shows! And anyone that thinks she would take VP hasn't been paying attention to her enormous ego. I would be surprised if she would accept it.

Hillary's personality

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the Clinton campaign strategy meetings. My bet is that the candidate is doing a lot of yelling and cursing and possibly even throwing objects around the room. No, I do not think that Hillary and Barack fit well temperamentally. I realize that this is speculation on my part, but there have been reliable reports of her having an extremely volatile temper, which,come to think of it, is a characteristic that she shares with John McCain. Perhaps she should be his running mate.

Absolutely...

...Let her fight it out with Liarberman for McSame's VP slot. It occurs to me that Hillary is DLC, unless I'm wrong, Obama is not. Could her behavior, teaming up with McSame over Obama reflect the attitude of the DLC: "If we can't be in charge, then we'll blow the whole works rather than lose control". I hope not, but wouldn't be surprised.

Now that you mention the DLC...

Yes, Hillary and Bill Clinton are the standard bearers for the DLC, which is, in essence, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. They have far more in common with corporate Republicans than they do with the progressive wing of their own party and stand to lose much if the progressives rise to power. I can see no benefit to Obama as candidate or as president that comes from forming an alliance with this bunch. They can only corrupt him and try to drag him down to their level.

It will not be Hillary.

Bite your tongue, P.M. Carpenter. The last thing Obama needs in his campaign is the highly polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton, who carries with her another highly polarizing figure, Bill Clinton. Hillary has shown her true colors over the past two weeks, and they are not pretty. She has been dishonest, ruthless, and disloyal to the party. She has shown poor judgement and poor decision making under duress. In other words, her true character has come through, and it is the exact opposite of what she has tried to project. It is hard to imagine a calm, cool President Obama trying to govern alongside the egomaniacal, super-controlling Hillary Clinton. Nope, it won't happen, at least not if Obama is as smart as I think he is. Oh, and one more thing. Having Hillary as Vice President places her one heartbeat away from the Presidency. The mere thought of that makes me break out in a cold sweat. She is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad!

I wouln't trust her...

...as far as I could throw her at this point. And even though I could throw her some distance, the expression still holds. What she did vis-a-vis McSame was absolutely beyond the pale and had Obama taken such an action, twice now, he'd be out of the race on his ear for it. Pure Clintonian triangulation. It's a big part of the reason Congress was lost to the repubs in the nineties. Hillary has handed McSame the best campaign commercials he ever could have hoped for, far better than his fixers could ever come up with on their own. We'll be lucky to overcome her damage, and I'm damn sure she knows it. Back to New York until she learns better.

Hillary sucks worse than Monica...

Just ask Bill.

Yeah, but

Yeah, but she gives good cigar.

Now that's experience...

...you can xerox.