Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is conceding the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, as party leaders and strategists began to openly oppose the former first lady’s aggressive efforts to join the ticket.
“Senator Clinton will be hosting an event in Washington, D.C., to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement Wednesday night. The event is set for Saturday.
A series of other events Wednesday consolidated Mr. Obama’s power over the party as its de facto nominee – a continuing surge of superdelegate endorsements, statements by party elders that the race is over, and his naming of a vice-presidential team, which brought about the inevitable debate over Mrs. Clinton as a running mate.
Former President Jimmy Carter told a British newspaper that choosing the former first lady, who has refused to concede defeat, would be “the worst mistake that could be made.” He told the Guardian that since half of each Democrat’s supporters don’t like the other, Mr. Obama would run the risk of “the worst of both worlds.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses a pro-Israel group on Wednesday in Washington. The Democratic presidential hopeful is expected to concede defeat to Mr. Obama later this week.
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Clinton supporter, disputed the notion that Mrs. Clinton’s strong second-place finish gives her leverage on the all-but-certain nominee.
It’s absolutely unthinkable that Hillary would WANT to be vice president — a position that would silence her, deprive her of any meaningful political influence (quick, what was the name of Jimmy Carter’s running mate?), and make her risk co-liability for the disasters Obama will preside over. She needs to keep open her options for 2012 in case Obama goes down in flames.
What she wants in exchange for her endorsement is support from him for her legislative agenda in the new Congress. Also, as part of the backroom wheeling and dealing, look for some of her key advisors and friends to end up in strategic posts in an Obama administration.
w.w.
The black democratic community in my area actually fears for the life of Obama — perhaps that is why Hillary is interested. I know this sounds awful …. but ??????
I don’t for the life of me understand why anyone would think that adding Clinton to the Obama ticket would possibly have more positives than negatives. Too many chefs spoil the broth.
Clinton won’t be the VP candidate for many reasons, including: 1. She’s from NY, and doesn’t balance the ticket geographically; 2. Obama needs a male, white, and grey-haired ’eminence grise’ to balance his total lack of foreign policy experience; 3. Clinton will be far more effective and have much more power in the US Senate than as VP; 4. She can continue her solid work in the Senate and who knows, perhaps run again in the future. And let’s face it, Obama would not be the nominee if it were not for the color of his skin and that he fired up college kids and blacks to go to the state caucuses to support him. The entire caucus system stinks, it is rowdy, very public (no secret ballot), confusing and can easily be manipulated. It seems too often that the loudest group willing to stay all night ‘wins’ (which is why college kids are so good at it — no job to go to the next morning.) Most important of all, it does NOT reflect the candidates people support when they are in the privacy and calm of the voting booth. Clinton won hands down in the large ‘swing’ states that either party MUST carry in November. Obama is a product of our celebrity-crazed youth culture, and the racism and sexism of our society (surely no one honestly believes that anyone with his shallow experience would be where he is today if he was a white male.) Go ahead, label me ‘racist’. It’s what everyone is thinking to themselves! 🙂
The Democratic Party has again been served poorly by the caucus system, and it will tell in the general election. Hopefully, primary system reform will follow.
Again, knowing the Clintons, Obama would be wise not to let his heartbeat be the only thing between Hillary and the presidency.
I will say in the black community, there is increasing discussion that Obama is simply being used to get the person who the “powers that be†really want in the White House. He’ll become president and then be removed from office, making room for his veep to become president.
-Vincent
It is sad to me that there is so much fear in the black community that Obama will be an assassin’s target if he is elected. Doesn’t say much for the progres of race relations in America.
I ain’t black and I wouldn’t give a nickel for Obama’s chances of living 4 years, a heartbeat away from a Clinton presidency. There are way too many dead people connected to the Clintons. (Remember Vince Foster?). I don’t want Hillary as Veep. Heck I don’t want Chelsea as Veep.
Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing about the Clintons. What does it take to get rid of these scumbag, sleezy, “I’m waiting for the DNA evidence to know if I had sex” creeps? Obviously they have no trouble “dodging sniper fire in the Balkans” so sending them to Bosnia to accept flowers won’t get rid of them. What does it take to get them to stop campaigning? A stake through the heart in the middle of the crossroads?
I ain’t voting for Obama. He is a likely lad, but his tax returns (“No 401k’s for me,thank you”) make it clear that his solution will be to increase taxes (including on retirement accounts) rather than to cut spending.
I will reluctantly vote for McCain, not because I like “borrow and spend” any better than “tax and spend”, but because McCain has a son in Iraq and is therefore likely to take the war seriously, rather than simply cut and run for the sake of getting new domestic spending programs through.
Neither Clinton nor Obama have skin in the game. Not in balancing the budget (as is made abundantly clear by their tax returns) and not in executing the war.
Shari
“There are way too many dead people connected to the Clintons. (Remember Vince Foster?)” —Clueless [#8]
This is a Big Lie.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
Repeating it flies in the face of the Ninth Commandment and warrants a retraction.
snopes is scarcely an independant and unbiased investigator.
I find Snopes’ challege interesting. He lists a long list of deaths and then asks us “how many people we know who died mysteriously or violently in the last 10 years.”
I don’t know about you Irenius, but for me, the number of folks personally known to me who died violently or mysteriously is zero.
I must lead a very boring life.
For more information regarding Vince Foster I refer you to the following:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
Personally, I think now, and have always thought that there should be a full scale investigation into the affair, and that these should be published freely and openly.
what really happened seems like a conspiracy site. Clueless, whatever floats your boat. I’ve heard people connect Bush to the Illuminati and that 9/11 was caused by the US government. And yes – people get stressed in national politics and anyone who dies will bring suspicion on other powers. Look at Princess Diana, for example.
As far as cutting spending, the Republicans have sadly learned that the public likes their programs, and that the Republicans share with the Democrats an enjoyment of feeding at the trough. the only difference is that the Democrats don’t mind paying for it. The Republicans take it on credit.
I seldom agree with Irenaeus and John Wilkins on politics, but I do agree with them about Vince Foster. Attorney General Reno asked Kenneth Starr to investigate the case, and he did so. Starr concluded the Foster committed suicide, and I believe him.
Starr was not asked to determine if Foster killed himself where he was found, or whether Hillary’s staff removed items from Foster’s office before independent officials got there. On the second point, I think the answer is almost certainly yes, but that is after the suicide, which I take to be a fact.
On the upcoming election, we have a choice between a President Obama who will sign any spending bill and ask for more (Bush redux) while raising taxes or a President McCain who may very well veto some spending bills and probably won’t sign income tax increases.
I was not suggesting in my comment #2, that the Clintons would have any part in fulfilling the fears of the black community — but that she perhaps would calculate her chances of becoming pres during Obama’s term as being more of a possibility than the normal odds would bear. I would describe her as “calculating” — not “murderous”.
“As far as cutting spending, the Republicans have sadly learned that the public likes their programs, and that the Republicans share with the Democrats an enjoyment of feeding at the trough. the only difference is that the Democrats don’t mind paying for it. The Republicans take it on credit.”
Would that the Democrats did pay for them! However I agree that Democrats tax more and borrow less, while Republicans borrow more and tax less. Both spent more than they brought it.
However Ron Paul, who actually would (painfully) slash government spending, and get us back onto real money is not a viable candidate. Thus all choices are bad.
The Clintons showed their true colors during the campaign and Hillary has a lot of fences to mend. The establishment knows how ruthless the Clintons are and that’s probably the main reason the Democratic establishment has be supporting Obama instead of Clinton who is much more electable than Obama.
Speaking of the Clintons death list, I’m reminded of a scene from one of the Godfather movies where Corleone reflects on his father and how his father was no different than a senator or president. Kay says, “You know how naïve you sound, senators and presidents don’t have people killed.†Corleone responds, “who is being naïve, Kay?â€
I really hope the very best for Obama, even though I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I disagree with Obama on nearly every issue. Yet, I stood in line with friends for 3 hours Tuesday, to hear him speak for roughly 25 minutes in St. Paul. The presidency of the United States is the last obstacle for African Americans in this country. If Obama becomes president, then you can truly say you can be anything you want in this country!
-Vincent
Hey, Vincent, send me a candidate of African ancestry whose policies I support and I’ll vote for him and campaign for him and send him money. Look at how many close associates Obama has repudiated recently and how many policy statements he’s repudiated depending upon his audience. Sad to think that the historic “first black President” could be someone unreliable and untrustworthy.
I think you can be anything you want in this country now. No need to wait.
I don’t know that Obama is more untrustworthy than any other politician. I was impressed that he opposed the Iraq war back when it was unpopular to do so. I was also impressed that he rejected a holiday gas tax break. Both Clinton and McCain couldn’t resist that obvious people pleaser/panderer.
I do think that an Obama presidency would go a long way to heal the nation’s racial scars. But I also think that if McCain were to select Condoleeza Rice or some such as Veep, that would help a lot also.
However, I vote presidents on the basis of character and policies, not therapy. I do not like either Obama’s or McCain’s policies, but I dislike McCains less than Obamas. As regards character, I think both Obama and McCain have significant character assets.
Obama is a domestic hero. He has overcome amazing handicaps to grow up to be an only-in-America extraordinary success, after a life that included abandonment by his Kenyan father in infancy, food stamps, and being raised by a single mother in a biracial home. My hat is off to him.
McCain is a war hero. My hat is off to him also.
Clinton is. . . “Well that depends on the meaning of the word is”.
Right on, Irenaeus! Enough of the ‘Big Lie’ re: poor Vince Foster. Let him and his loved ones rest in peace.
Clueless, you are certainly living up to your moniker….the GOP/Bushies have spent us into unbelievable deficits after inheriting a surplus! They did it by lying about Iraq, plunging us into a very expensive war with no end in sight, and also cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the country! Good grief! For the first time EVER, tax cuts were given during a time of war. The GOP is very much to blame for the lousy economy and the fall of the dollar. They CAN’T wiggle out of that one (though I’m sure they’ll try). The GOP/Bush/Cheney legacy is economic hardship for everyone except the truly wealthy (such as Bush & Cheney and their families).
“Snopes is scarcely an independent and unbiased investigator”
—Clueless [#10]
Snopes is certainly more independent and reliable than the right-wing paranoia rags in which you set such store.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“[Snopes] lists a long list of deaths and then asks us ‘how many people we know who died mysteriously or violently in the last 10 years.’ I don’t know about you Irenaeus, but for me, the number of folks personally known to me who died violently or mysteriously is zero” —Clueless
The list comes not from Snopes but from your friendly right-wing paranoiacs.
I’ve known more than a few people who died in the World Trade Center attack, succumbed to drug overdoses or ordinary murder, or dropped dead in midlife. But why stop there? I once met Ron Brown. I know people who knew Vince Foster. I know people who knew some of the dead law enforcement officers mentioned in the article.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“I must lead a very boring lifeâ€
Neither you nor I know nearly as many people as the Clintons. On a business trip to Arkansas during the early 1990s, while Bill Clinton was still governor, everyone I met knew the Clintons. That was true not only in Little Rock but in remote small towns. The Clintons had, and probably still have, an extraordinarily extensive social, business, and political network.
PS to #19: Shari, your references to the Snopes repeately confuse the analysis in the article with the wingnut quotations being analyzed. You cite the article for points that the article discredits. Sounds like you didn’t take the trouble to understand the article but merely let snippets their push your buttons.
Clinton presided over a gigantic stock market bubble which artificially increased tax receipts.
Despite this, not only did he NOT generate a budget surplus, but instead he presided over a major increase in the national debt.
So why did Slick Willie say he had a budget surplus? Like the meanings of the word “is” or “sex” or “sniper fire”, the word “debt” is something that is apparently extremely complex to a Clintonian mind.
The public debt went down during Clinton’s years. By contrast, the intergovernmental debt increased by a far greater amount, and in turn the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up.
So when Clinton and his supporters say that Clintn paid down the national debt this is an obvious lie, easily verified by refering to the treasury ledges given below. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt (to outsiders) while borrowing far more money in the form of US Treasuries.
Suppose I live with my daughter who owns her own home. If I pay off my personal credit card (my public debt owed to Mastercard) by taking out a home equity loan on my daughter’s house, and then take out an additional home equity loan above and beyond my credit card payoff needs in order to buy myself a carribean cruise, I have reduced my public debt. I have greatly increased my daughter’s mortgage debt, however.
This slick manouver is essentially what the man who has a thousand and one uses for a cigar did to the US. He reduced our public debt owed to others, and increased our private obligations owed to future generations.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16