Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

12 Responses to “Why the Obama-Clinton speculation is nuts”

1. JohnKonop says:

   May 9, 2008 at 8:03 pm

   Kennedy: No veep slot for Clinton

   Politico-It’s fun to think about, but there are so many obstacles, and Ted Kennedy isn’t buying, he said on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” which airs this weekend.

   “I don’t think it’s possible,” he told Hunt of the joint ticket, continuing that:

   Obama should choose a running mate who “is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people,” Kennedy said. “If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it’d be enormously helpful.”

   Ouch.

   UPDATE: Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley says in a statement:

   Senator Kennedy thinks Senator Clinton is more than qualified to be Vice President, but doesn’t think it’s likely given the tenor of the campaign in recent weeks.
2. JohnKonop says:

   May 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm

   Michelle Vetoes Hillary
   By Robert D. Novak

   Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

   The Democratic front-runner’s wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party’s nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.
3. JohnKonop says:

   May 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm

   Feminists Divided Over Democrats as Race Heads Toward the Finish

   FOX-No constituency is more eager to see a woman win the presidency than America’s feminists, yet — despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s historic candidacy — the women’s movement finds itself wrenchingly divided over the Democratic race as it heads toward the finish.

   At breakfast forums, in op-ed columns, across the blogosphere, the debate has been heartfelt and sometimes bitter. Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton’s feminist backers mired in an outdated, women’s-liberation mind-set?

   Ellen Bravo is a Milwaukee author and activist who advocates on behalf of working women — and is an Obama supporter. She faults Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war and believes the Illinois senator would be more supportive of grass-roots political action.

   At times, Bravo, 64, has been dismayed by the harsh criticism directed at women like herself from pro-Clinton feminists.

   “I felt it was an ultimatum — vote for Hillary Clinton or you’re betraying the women’s movement,” Bravo said. “It’s very self-defeating and alienating, particularly to younger women who, regardless of who they support, don’t like to be told, ‘Do this. Do that.”‘

   Clinton supporter Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accepts that the women’s movement is not single-minded, yet worries that the Obama-Clinton rift is eroding whatever clout it might have.

   “We’re squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections,” Feldt said. “Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome.”

   Overall, Clinton’s now-endangered campaign has survived largely because of her 60 percent to 36 percent edge over Obama among white women voters in the primaries to date. But among college-educated white women — the demographic of many feminists and of Clinton herself — her edge is much smaller, 54 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

   One factor in play is generational. There is a widespread perception in the women’s movement that younger feminists tilt more toward Obama while most of their elders favor Clinton.

   Clinton frequently mentions the elderly women she’s met on the campaign trail who were born before women were able to vote and have confided to her they thought they’d never see a woman elected president.

   Indeed, 74-year-old Gloria Steinem, a Clinton supporter and icon of the women’s movement, riled some younger, pro-Obama feminists with a New York Times op-ed suggesting that they were in denial about America’s persisting “sexual caste system.”

   Ariel Garfinkel, a sophomore at Mount Holyoke College, wrote one of the many counter-arguments in an online column. She and many other young feminists supported Obama because they perceived the Clinton campaign as trying to capitalize on racial divisions and to impugn Obama’s patriotism.

   “This pattern of old-style politics and adherence to un-feminist values is part and parcel of the campaign Hillary Clinton has run,” Garfinkel wrote. “In this race, Barack Obama is the true feminist.”

   New York-based author Courtney Martin, also an Obama supporter, wrote on Glamour magazine’s blog Glamocracy last month that she was not backing Clinton “in part because she reminds me of being scolded by my mother.”

   But the 28-year-old Martin has joined in appeals for activist women in the two camps to tone down their hostilities and prepare to work together on behalf of the eventual Democratic nominee.

   “I deeply respect what Clinton has endured as a woman painstakingly unknotting gender and power,” Martin wrote for The American Prospect.

   Another young New York-based feminist writer, Hannah Seligson, backs Clinton and feels somewhat isolated among her mostly pro-Obama peers.

   “I shy away from conversations with them,” said Seligson, 25. “They’re so passionate and there’s so much vitriol toward Hillary.”

   For all the divisions among individual women, there was little dissension at the best-known feminist group — the National Organization for Women — before its political action committee endorsed Clinton in March 2007.

   NOW’s president, Kim Gandy, sees Clinton’s determination and combativeness as among her strongest attributes.

   “The women who’ve had to struggle the hardest and run into the most difficulty because they’re women are clearly gravitating to a candidate they identify with,” Gandy said. “They see her fighting.”

   Gandy knows some feminists dismiss Clinton as a woman whose political ascension depended on her husband’s career, but she rejects that thinking.

   “She might have been president instead of him if things had gone a little differently,” Gandy said. “No one will ever know whether her marriage to Bill Clinton held her back politically as much as it moved her forward.”

   While still holding out hope that Clinton can win, Gandy suggests that her defeat would be a huge blow to some feminists. “It’s hard to imagine that anytime soon there will be another candidate as extraordinary as Hillary Clinton,” she said.

   Gloria Feldt conveyed similar sentiment.

   “I’d feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders,” she said. “I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter.”

   The campaign has brought the women’s movement to a crossroads, according to Obama supporter Kate Michelman, the former head of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

   “We’re at a time and place where we don’t have to base everything we think about in terms of gender, and that’s a sign of progress,” she said. “This rigid view that when any woman runs, we have to all fall into line — that’s contradictory to what I consider feminism to be about.”
4. JohnKonop says:

   May 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm

   And why it isn’t nuts

   Politico-An Obama-Clinton ticket would definitely be out of the ordinary. But 2008 is not an ordinary year. Here’s why the skeptics may be wrong. Five reasons why Barack Obama should offer Hillary Rodham Clinton the vice presidential nomination — and why she would take it.

   1. It’s not his choice. Clinton’s support among her most loyal partisans, women’s groups especially, is as intense as Obama’s is among African-Americans and young people. The pressure he will be under to unite the party by selecting her may be insurmountable. Without Clinton, Obama would have to spend enormous amounts of time and political capital bringing blue-collar voters, Catholics, Jews and Hispanics on board. There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans.

   2. It’s a character test for him. Obama does not like Clinton. Who cares? Dwight Eisenhower did not like Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy did not like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan did not like George H.W. Bush. Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is.

   Multimedia
   The Deconstruction Zone – May 8th

   3. The Sicilian hug. If the Clintons have an independent power base — and they do, even in defeat — it is better to have Hillary Clinton under close watch in the White House than in the Senate (and, in Bill Clinton’s case, in foreign capitals around the world) making mischief.

   4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. Obama is nothing but disciplined in pursuit of victory, and he and Hillary Clinton might be, as Bill Clinton said, an “almost unstoppable force” (even if he was envisioning a different order on the ticket). The combination would align nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party around the same goal and would swamp Republicans with the most potent fundraising operation in history. The ticket would start off with a paid staff of approximately 1,500 people, and an organization from the national level down to precincts in every state in the country. While John McCain is recruiting county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.

   5. She’d take the job — and be good at it. People may make fun of the vice presidency but almost no one turns it down. Clinton, knowing that a spot on the ticket offers the highest odds of becoming president some day, would not turn it down either. And, with her self-described “responsibility gene,” she’d work hard and do well. As a candidate in the fall, Obama would not have to worry about what most presidential nominees do — that the No. 2 will somehow flub a debate or stray off message. As president, he could have confidence that she would be a smart and effective adviser, even if the advice sometimes came through gritted teeth.

   As in the companion piece to this story, our colleague David Paul Kuhn helped us survey reaction to the Obama-Clinton speculation. See below for quotes. And add your own thoughts in the comments.

   Democratic consultant Tad Devine:

   “I think Hillary would be the strongest choice for VP.”

   Devine said his reasons are that an Obama-Clinton ticket would instantly heal the party, she complements him by offering longer experience, women are the biggest component of the Democratic coalition, they would raise an unbelievable amount of money for the general, she is ready for the campaign and would not make big mistakes and they will be 10-15 points ahead of McCain within a week.

   Former Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.):

   “What he may need now, he may need to select her as VP, and I never thought that before. … The only way he can win in November is with Clinton’s base.”

   A senior Democratic National Committee official:

   “I’d love to see them on the same ticket. … When I get a chance to talk to these various people at the very top, I will certainly be one of thousands of people saying it. He really should offer it to her, and she should take it. He just says, ‘Listen, I need somebody who is so smart and so tough and really knows the ropes and who knows how to turn on the lighthouse.’”
5. Parker says:

   May 11, 2008 at 9:10 am

   I still believe the best thing the Dems can do is have Obama and Strickland head the ticket. Have Obama appoint Hillary to the AG post and then when a position on the SCOTUS opens up, nominate Hillary to the court.
6. Bill says:

   May 11, 2008 at 11:16 am

   If he really wants to get in touch with the American people why doesn’t he pick one of these “zero bundlers” candidates which got knocked out of the race early on? If he doesn’t he’s a phony.
7. Bill says:

   May 11, 2008 at 11:25 am

   http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/
8. JohnKonop says:

   May 11, 2008 at 7:56 pm

   Clinton’s Top Gun: “I Have Seen No Evidence Of Interest” In VP Spot

   (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign rejected suggestions Sunday that Sen. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in hopes of brokering some kind of agreement with the likely Democratic nominee.

   “I don’t believe that Sen. Clinton is looking for a deal,” Obama’s chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, told “Fox News Sunday,” when asked about suggestions she may want the Obama campaign’s help retiring her campaign debt.

   “I don’t think that’s what this is about,” he said.

   Last week, Obama sparked rumors that his campaign would pay off Clinton’s campaign debts once he secured the nomination.

   “I’d want to have a broad range of discussions with Sen. Clinton about how I could make her feel good about the process and have her on the team moving forward,” Obama told reporters Friday.

   Axelrod on Sunday called the discussion “premature,” and said he believes Clinton “will have the capacity to retire her debt.”

   Axelrod said Clinton has “competed hard” and is “playing it out as she sees fit. I don’t think she’s waiting for a cue or a signal from us or an offer of financial assistance. And I think that would demean her to suggest otherwise.”

   He added, “I don’t think even under any scenario … that we were going to transfer money from the Obama campaign to the Clinton campaign. We obviously need the resources we have. We have a great task ahead of us.” He said he believes “there was a misunderstanding out there about that.”

   Axelrod said he believes Clinton “will have the capacity to retire her debt.”

   He also denied rumors that the Clinton camp may be in some kind of discussions with the Obama camp to make her his running mate. “There’s been no discussion about vice presidential nominees and this whole scenario,” Axelrod said. Watch the latest on talks of a joint ticket »

   Axelrod also denied reports that Obama’s wife, Michelle, wants nothing to do with the Clintons, presenting a potential obstacle to what some have called a “dream ticket.”

   “That’s false,” he said, emphasizing that there have not been “any overtures” about a possible Clinton-Obama ticket.

   Also on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton’s top strategist, Howard Wolfson, said that “We think Sen. Clinton is going to be the nominee,” and that he has “seen no evidence of her interest” in the No. 2 slot.

   “This isn’t about debt retirement or about the veep,” he said.

   “This is about winning campaigns in key upcoming states, making the case to superdelegates that based on Sen. Clinton’s track record, winning the big states — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida — running ahead of John McCain now nationally in polls and in those key states, that we would be the best nominee.”

   Wolfson said the Clinton camp is about $20 million in debt.

   Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, said Sunday said that Clinton is open to the possibility of loaning her campaign more money to continue in the race.

   Speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” McAuliffe said he spoke to Clinton about the possibility of contributing more money, and “she said that she would be willing to do it.”

   Asked if the Clintons will be able to repay all debts after the campaign is over, McAuliffe said, “We plan on it.”

   Both Democratic campaigns cite different polls to show the candidates’ potential nationwide standings against Sen. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

   Wolfson added that if voters in West Virginia “want to end this on Tuesday, they’re perfectly capable of it.” Both campaigns expect Clinton to win in the state, and polls show her ahead by a wide margin.

   But mathematically, Clinton’s chances of collecting enough delegates to clinch the nomination have shrunk to the point that many consider her presidential aspirations for 2008 virtually over.

   Both campaigns have broken fundraising records. But Obama has outpaced Clinton since January, outspending her in advertising by a wide margin in many states. The Clinton camp has large sums of money in donations usable only for a general election, if she were to make it that far.

   Wolfson and Axelrod appeared separately on “Fox News Sunday,” avoiding the head-to-head matchups they have often engaged in. They also limited attacks on each other to a minimum, in a noticeable change from the back-and-forth throughout much of the campaign
9. JohnKonop says:

   May 12, 2008 at 5:51 am

   Group pushing Clinton as VP choice tied to her campaign

   MC-A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.

   But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton’s — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton’s White House prospects alive.

   The group’s founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton’s campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.

   VoteBoth’s spokesman is Sam Arora. He’s a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman.

   VoteBoth’s Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.

   One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party’s 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out “Hillary for President” stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.

   A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians who’d endorsed her.

   VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group’s original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.

   On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s latest divisive remarks and Obama’s renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton’s name was on the ballot.

   Last week, as Obama’s strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.

   Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. “VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket,” he said. He wrote of friends who “believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary” and wanting to be inclusive “as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope.”

   On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn’t see Clinton as Obama’s pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, “We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a ‘Dream Team’ ticket that has won 100 percent?”

   On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.

   In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton’s campaign, and is “just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea.” Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn’t just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals’ historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.

   “There’s been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that’s where the conversation should be,” said Arora, choosing a word — conversation — that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. “If we’ve been able to help the discussion forward, that’s what we’re focused on.”

   “If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you’ve got a ticket that’s already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that’s turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November.”

   Obama’s campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
10. JohnKonop says:

    May 12, 2008 at 6:12 am

    Poisoning The Racial Wells

    DD-My Sunday Times column is on the Clintons and race:

    In the Clintons’ morphing into a crude version of racially angry Reagan Democrats, you can see an almost Shakespearian tragedy. Bill Clinton has a long and admirable record in civil rights; and was on the right side of the struggle in the South in his youth. He has an effortless rapport with black Americans, and they were his core final constituency of support in the darkest days of impeachment.

    But like any southerner, Clinton also knew how to navigate racial resentment.
11. Best Place To Retire In South Carolina 2006 says:

    May 23, 2008 at 7:35 am

    Best Place To Retire In South Carolina 2006…

    This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?…
12. Daniel says:

    May 24, 2008 at 9:30 am

    I read similar article also named le + ‘ – ‘ + basename(imgurl) + ‘(’ + w + ‘x’ + h +’), and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me

|