He Said No

-->
Democratic Party, elections

Al Giordano writes for The Field

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn’t say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August.

If it’s true that Obama has ruled out Clinton as veep, this is great news, for reasons I gave in the last post.

Earlier today, RJ Eskow wrote,

Hillary’s rhetoric of the past 24 hours has gone from conciliatory to cataclysmic, turning on a high-speed dime like some UFO over the Florida swamps. An awful lot of Democrats are shocked and outraged at her use of civil rights rhetoric over the primary dispute, especially after winning two primaries with the help of some white voters who admitted their choice was influenced by race.

Some are suggesting a personality shift explains the change of tone, but she’s cooler and smarter than that. It’s more likely that this sudden transformation is premeditated, brought on by a simpler and more ruthless motive: She’s demonstrating to Obama and the superdelegates what she’s capable of doing if she’s crossed.

Think about it: She’s showing that she is willing to ignite a firestorm, amplify the misguided rage of her supporters, and split the party in two if her demands are not met. She no longer expects to get the nomination. She has another list of demands, which might include the vice presidency but definitely involve high-level appointments for herself and/or her supporters. She spent a couple of days showing how good she can be for the party. Now, the purpose of her recent comments has been to show how much damage she can do.

I’d call it a “hissy fit,” but I’d be accused of being sexist. I agree with Arianna — it’s time for the superdelegates to step in and put an end to this nonsense before Senator Clinton does any more damage.

Also, here’s a video with clues about why Obama didn’t bother to campaign in Kentucky.

Share Button
7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Judy  •  May 23, 2008 @1:54 am

    I think she’s willing to make the party face the logical gaps in its primary rules, which were put in place to deal with the current situation of having two strong candidates. And she’s banking on being able to persuade delegates that she can achieve a stronger victory in November than her opponent. Current polling suggests she’s correct in that view. I’d like to see the process through to the end rather than seeing her end her candidacy. Let all the delegates shoulder their responsibility to select a candidate. The person most responsible for the Fl/MI controversy is Howard Dean, who thought he could just stand on the “rules”, not realizing how crucial it would be later. Too many people thought Hillary was inevitable, especially Hillary herself.

  2. maha  •  May 23, 2008 @6:11 am

    … she’s banking on being able to persuade delegates that she can achieve a stronger victory in November than her opponent. Current polling suggests she’s correct in that view.

    Well, no, it doesn’t. He’s at least 11 points ahead of her in nationwide popular polling and leads her in every demographic except women over the age of 50. Her argument for being more electable is based on current polling that suggests she would beat McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, and Obama wouldn’t. But such polls right now don’t mean much.

  3. c u n d gulag  •  May 23, 2008 @7:30 am

    While you have to admire her tenacity, you have to question her judgement. Is she really willing to split the Democratic Party apart and possibly help lose an election? What’s the end game? A VP slot? A run in 2012? Only she and Bill know.

    She does have a point,though, about the popular vote (not that she has it). In 2000, she spoke about eliminating the Electoral College and letting the popular vote decide. She was right then. But, instead of sticking to her principles and trying to change the rules before 2008, she agreed to the caucuses and sanctions of FL and MI. Now, she returns to her popular vote message. Again, she has a point. But, the question we need to ask her is, “Why now? Why not earlier?” And I think the answer is that she thought she would win under any conditions – the inevability that she ran on earler.

    While it’s sad to watch a politician lose because she turned on her priciples, what’s sadder is watching her turn the nominating process into a possible fiasco that loses an election for the party she says she cares about.
    Democrat’s, before the Convention, I think we need an intervention.

  4. Dave  •  May 23, 2008 @9:56 am

    I look at Clinton these days and I see Joe Lieberman. After the 1990’s I can’t see her crossing over to the dark side like Joe has, but she could go independent and make an independent run…? That could get ugly. Rather than getting her less rabid supporters back into the fold, we’d have a real party split in McCain’s favor.

    Somebody convince me that this isn’t feasible, please. I’m starting to have nightmares.

  5. justme  •  May 23, 2008 @11:52 am

    Maybe she will run with nader

  6. Kevin K.  •  May 23, 2008 @1:09 pm

    “Somebody convince me that this isn’t feasible, please. I’m starting to have nightmares.”

    Sorry, good luck with those nightmares. 😉

    No, fortunately, I don’t think she could *afford* an independent run when it comes to money (predominately) or timing. Also, Hillary and Bill (I still can’t use “Billary” — makes me feel like Dan Riehl) want ownership of the party. They’re not happy with Gore’s stature, which has eclipsed Bill’s, Dean’s dominance or Obama’s ascendancy. They’re going to latch onto the party’s pant leg all the way to Denver and probably beyond. They’re fighters, remember?

  7. Bananaphone  •  May 24, 2008 @11:25 am

    People like those in the video make me want to stab myself in the eye with a pencil: the pain would distract me from my frustration. I suppose it could have been worse, however: at least they didn’t believe Obama was Muslim.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile