Is this the right moment for Hillary to return back home and allow Obama to focus on the big cake?
Is this the right moment for Hillary to return back home and allow Obama to focus on the big cake?
You guys might like this:
It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it’s a hell of an idea!
Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life. They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama, but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama’s connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama’s links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn’t follow her into Obama’s camp just because she was on the ticket.
Obama’s key need in the election is to demonstrate his experience and ability to do the job despite only minimal federal experience. Running with someone whose experience he, himself, derided will hardly solve this problem. Voters only credit Hillary with having experience when her record is compared with Obama’s almost total lack of a record. Against McCain, she would do nothing to close the experience gap. Better for Obama to choose a senator with long tenure — a Chris Dodd (Conn.) or Joseph Biden (Del.) — just as Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bush chose Cheney, and Kennedy chose Johnson.
If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill’s income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra — the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan — and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?
Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare. There is no way that Obama could trust her. She would be a throwback to the old days when the president did not consult the vice president on anything, a situation which led Vice President John Nance Garner, FDR’s VP during his first two terms, to call the office “not worth a pitcher of warm piss.”
If Obama got into trouble, he would have to look over his shoulder at Hillary and he would always have both Bill and Hillary around to show him up, hog the limelight, generate controversy with ill-considered remarks, and make life difficult. Would Bill stop giving speeches and making money? Would his ties with Arab nations and questionable American and Canadian businessmen end? Or would Obama have to explain his VP’s husband’s business dealings over and over again.
And, the ultimate question: Can Bill Clinton be put back into the bottle? Is this recent spate of angry, finger-wagging bursts of inappropriate outrage a permanent fixture of his public persona? Does Obama want to take the risk of having him on the team and having to account for his conduct?
Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.
From Dick Morris Blog.
I love Obama, but I hate to admit that this Mr.Frando29 may be on point with his post.
When it comes down to it (between Obama and McCain), Americans might take it as a fight between a blackman and a whiteman; which will never be advantageous to OBAMA (black folks only make 15% of American population).
Americans are gullible and mostly very very difficult to predict their state of mind at any moment.
This is also why Mr.Bush was able to ride them twice (for 8 years).
(I do not think one has to be a scientist to figure that Mr.Bush does fit to manage a single Burger King location). But of course Americans voted for him twice.
Therefore, Obama must be very careful and upgrade is political strategy immediately (Americans do not like sincerity). All that nice guy image might not get the job done in November.
I still think Obama and Hillary Clinton ticket is the key. They have a perfect chemistry to take it to the next level.
Obama is bright, cool, competent, and full of natural wisdom to unify the nation; but I'm sorry, he needs a little bit more than that to knock Mr. McCain down. Without Hillary as his running mate, I think he will be playing with Unclad fire.
Yes, he (Obama) stands for "CHANGE", and keep in mind that Hillary as his running mate doesn't affect his stance. As the number one man the slogan (CHANGE) remains; Hillary as the first female VP also means "CHANGE".
It's time for them to let go the past and come together before it's too late. The Merging of the two will immediately kill the REPUBLICANS and unify the nation.
Yes, I think it is over for both Clinton and Obama, Because I don't really see a black man being president of the united states of america and a black lady being the first lady. The bushuals will fight to their death to prevent this from happening. Obama may win in the polls, but believe me, Mccain will be the next president of the US.
Me thinks she might be trying to re-coop her money between now and June 3
U know campaign for online funding and spend less. Bingo $20 million dollars in the coffers, she tells everyone how patriotic she is, how much of a loyal democrat she is and how Obama is a wonderful guy and drops out.
She may be ambitious, conniving but certainly not so silly not to understand the maths or notice the wave of super delegates moving in opposite direction.
While it may be 'wise' for Hillary clinton to bow out gracefully, at the same time, it's her prerogative to forge ahead. For those who have qualms on the perpetuation on the Bush and Clinton's dynasty, is there any law that forbids people from those political families from nurturing a political ambition. I really dont care if Clinton wins, thereby ushering in another Clinton era. That's her right to contest, even if I am for Obama
Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama,
This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.
One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.
I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.
Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.
I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Above is a letter written to OBAMA, by Hillary Clinton. It was delivered a few hours ago.
I really wonder what kind of state she is at the moment. And, I really feel for her husband who may have persuaded her to run for the election after a night of "Monica Liwinskining" him all night long.
PLEASE LETS FOCUS ON OUR OWN HOUSE PROBLEM, CLEANING UP OUR GREAT NATION, NIGERIA!!!
The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because:
4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on Time.com
Must it be from bush to bush,
from clinton to clinton in america?
is presidency a family heritage in america?
when will chelsea become the next president?
no wonder we say we are practising american democracy.
the clintons should know it is over for them.
they have brought the world's largest democrasy to ridicle.
it's now all about race, class and gender.
There is a sage aphorism which says "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" I really don't know who would have imparted the ideas on the Clintons' attempt to approach the WHITE-HOUSE again. One thing I am happy about is the facts that they are able to spend all the money enriched from their previous WHITE-HOUSE occupations back into the American economy. The nefarious American dubious leaders thought they are the best at what they do governing a most super power nation, and attempting to control the world.
But, when does a typical American woman knows to quit anything at the right time. They always want to fight to finish, until they are reduced to nothingness. The political math at hand as at this day indicate explicitly that Mrs. Clinton cannot win the race against someone like Obama. She thought once that race would play a favorable role in her favor, having forgotten the facts that she was against a white woman's reproductive products. She ought to quit tonight, but I am very sure she would not quit the race in shame, but until her whole family would be bankrupt.
Surely, CLinton deserves the right to continue the race.
If the DEMS think she'll gracefully bow out, then they are mistaken. The remaining Supers need to push her out of this bitter race as soon as possible.
Since Super Tuesday, we have always maintained that this race is over. Hillary can choose to continue and destroy her political future or step down hoping to be VP for Obama.
Lets hope Clinton can use the dying days of her campaign to inform her supporters to join ranks with other democrats, else the Superdelegates should push her off the race. Wetin sef?
Meanwhile, Jeremiah Wright would end up being an asset rather than a liability to the Obama campaign. Remember, he gave Obama the second chance to denounce him. Is anyone in the spirit?
John Mcain would also have to denounce Rod Parsley and John Hagee, when the proper campaign starts for the general elections. He has been running for free in the past months, yet he cannot even move ahead in polls agaisnt Obama.
It is never a good look for an old man (like McCain) to be involved in a dirty political game; especially when his opponent is as young as Obama.
eg: Bob Dole tried to be dirty against Bill Clinton few years ago, and he fell big time. Today, the poor man (Bob Dole) is still paying for the failure.
Would he choose a running mate from the democratic party? I guess not.
I assume his running mate would be from the republican party. Why wasn't the running mate (whoever it may be) nominated as the flag bearer in the first place?
No matter who he chooses as his running mate, I think the winner of the next polls would be the democratic party; be it Obama or Hillary or Obama and Hillary.
Trust me, McCain is not a clean man. He's only throwing jabs at this time to stay in the mix.
When the real show begins, any jabs from him might back-fire.
He knows to be careful.
He's a very weak opponent; and the republicans know this fact too. This is also one of the main reasons he's taking his time to discover an attractive running mate.
FYI:McCain is not the key; his running mate will be the main key to the White House
But I think Obama has a chance.
Looking at things from other angle, I think Hillary and Rev. Wrong have done Obama a big favor.
Hillary has already exposed this man negatively; she vigorously dragged him on the floor for many months.
Rev Wrong on the other hand also came out early to flex his defective ego during the primary election.
It will be slow and a turn-off if McCain, at his old age tries to use any of these dirty strategies. I think Hillary and Rev. Wrong have already done the dirty job; nothing is new to the voters.
Furthermore, it is never a good look for an old man (like McCain) to be involved in a dirty political game; especially when his opponent is as young as Obama.
FYI: McCain hasn't really been touched negatively as yet; he had a pretty easy primary. And I'm sure that voters are curious to know more about McCain.
Hence, I think McCain and Obama will focus more on getting United States as a country back on track.
The man is very intelligent, but I'm not sure if his common sense is active.
He has pretty much disabled himself everywhere. The whites do not want him and the blacks want him to freeze Unclad and alive.
I'm sure that his mighty book will be hot may be in Pluto.
It is absolutely ridiculous and also amusing how "men of God" allow ego and money to block them from seeing the bigger picture.
He reminds me of a man that was placed in a beautiful mansion, but intentionally relocated himself into a public shelter.
The man is not God, he can continue to fool himself around the world.
Obama will be fine, 'because God is on his side.
HILLARY CLINTON= Selfish, Desperate, Equivocal, Vicious, Unstable and a Lier!
I wonder why Hillary continues to loan herself campaign money while at the same time asks others to donate their money?
i.e she wants me to donate my little $20 so that she can reimburse herself; it doesn't make any sense.
I guess, it is true that you can trick some people sometimes, but it is impossible to trick all the people all the time.
It is time for the vulture to return back home; the game is over!
This math does not add up for Hillary. Her whole campaign has been promogated by false and selfish ambition to return to the white house. there were new revelations this morning that she loan her camp another $6 Million. I wonder what happen to all the falsified funds she said she raised after she won Pennsylvania?
This is the best time for her to drop and let the Obama crusade carry on