Obama supporters: Is Dan Abrams right about us (re: Clinton as VP)

Dan Abrams (MSNBC) continues to say we're being overly-intellectual, stubborn, and hateful with regard to including Clinton on the ticket.

I actually was a Clinton supporter up until around early February of this year, but now, I truly do not want Clinton to be president or VP (or even in the Senate anymore to be honest).

However, I don't want to be blind or foolish about this. If it's *really true* that HRC would somehow help the ticket, then I suppose I would have to find it in my heart to accept and support that ticket.

Would putting Clinton on the ticket GUARANTEE a win for Obama, and, if so, is it even worth it?

But I actually believe in Obama and the party to make the best choice here.

I'm on board either way.

Someone who lies so much and who will say or do just about anything to get what they want!

I will support Obama either way but if there's a way for us to win without HER I would be so elated.

i know what ot expect...


with Obama, I have no clue... i mean, this is a guy that did very little in the senate, has shown zip on the bi-partisan front, has some VERY questionable people as associates and is from the most corrupt machine in politics today... Chicago. Even on SCOTUS, he frightens me a bit... he almost voted in ROBERTS.

She motivates the very voters that McCain is having trouble connecting to.

and looking at what she did to gore and kerry i fear she would undermine Obama (even if not on the vp ticket) for the sake of her chances in '12

A Presidential ticket with both an African American and a woman on it would SCREAM change much louder than any association with old politics. Hillary Clinton is not the only potential female VP candidate, but if Obama chooses her to run with don't worry about that change message getting lost. And Hillary has shown some ability to reframe herself closer to a populist now anyway than as the cool Washington insider she started out this race being more of.

Wouldn't that go against his whole message about Change and how Clinton is CLEARLY old politics...

Yes, especially since Hillary is an officer of the DLC, the conservative/corporate-backed end of the party. It would make a complete mockery of everything Obama has claimed to stand for, and he'd never be certain where her true loyalty lies.

:headbang:
rocknation

I'll never understand how Obama, who has the endorsement of a whole lot of OLD POLITICIANS is considered a candidate of change.
Weird.

Nothing to understand. The men behind the curtain run the show. Rich. white. men. Just because their voice is coming out of Obama's mouth doesn't change the fact they have always been, they are now, and will always be running the show.

George Washington, big hero? Huh-uh. Wanted to be a wealthy landowner. It's been downhill ever since. :)

are Republican cross-overs who have not intention on voting for her but want McCain to run against her.

anything.

After decrying the "old politics of Washington", he's going to put one of its finest practitioners on the ticket? Let's not even get into her anti-Democrat behavior during this campaign.

I give that idea two thumbs DOWN.

Duke

I trust them to continue to do so. No chance Clinton is on the ticket.

along the lines of Wes Clark (though he's a Hillary supporter) or Bill Richardson (though he might put "too many minorities" on the ticket).

:headbang:
rocknation

I can't imagine any single issue capable of rallying Republicans around McCain more than the opportunity to vote against Hillary. I'm not sure we'd gain more of her supporters that would otherwise sit out the election than we would gain opposition votes.

I can't. :patriot:

If she wants to attend funerals of foreign dignitaries, for chrissakes, let her!

I have to admit. He had like 8 or 9 guests on, and of all of them, only him and Tucker Carlson thought that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a good idea. Isn't that telling? All of them gave pretty good contributions on why Clinton wouldn't be a good VP choice (Lawrence O'Donnell: "You don't match an inexperienced senator with an inexperienced senator" or Ron Reagan: "Obama supporters don't want to deal with Bill Clinton's baggage over library donors and foreign investments, etc"). Dan's only analysis was "Well....hasn't she earned it?" Tucker had basically no analysis to bring to the table as usual. When one of the guests (sorry, I don't remember her name. She was funny though) brought up that no one is talking about the problems that McCain has been having in Republican states where he CONTINUES to lose votes to Huckabee and the like, and Tucker's brilliant response was "Uh...it doesn't matter, because Obama is the unity candidate! McCain is not, he doesn't like some Republicans and they don't like them! It doesn't matter because he's not the unity candidate!" Ok, Tucker. As if McCain hasn't been blowing the right wing trying to get their support all year long. Most of the other guests acknowledged the strengths of Clinton, but ultimately said that other VP choices would do more to put states in play.

Remember that jewel over at the HuffingtonPost?

I don't know who Obama should select. I know that the rest of us need to be vetting him aggressively before the convention rather than waiting to see what the Repubs have found. We know Obama has stretched the truth past breaking on a lot of things (e.g. his father and JFK), we know he has been too close to some questionable people (e.g. Rezko) and some controversial people (e.g. Wright), we know he comes out of the most corrupt political machine in the country, and we know that the Repubs do opposition research more aggressively than Dems have.

Some of us are aware of several more problems the Repubs are already working that might have a negative impact equivalent to Rev. Wright. My fear is that the Repubs have found _something_ they believe could torpedo Obama in the fall. Maybe it is this alleged video of Michelle that is on the RW blogs, maybe something else.

BTW there have been persistent rumors since last year that several of the Dem candidates had information on Obama that they were not and would not use against him. A few of us have discussed whether knowing of that possibility could be a factor in Clinton continuing her campaign? Obviously, her campaign can not be involved in any way now in exposing a problem for Obama because the blowback would kill her candidacy even if the problem were serious enough to destroy his.

I supported Edwards. I will vote for our nominee and against McCain or any Repub. I have rarely voted for the winner so I worry a lot -- Carter and Clinton both won, but only Carter carried my state.

What is your contribution here? Saying that Lawrence O'Donnell sucks because of something he said about Edwards and that the Republicans have something on Obama? I don't really give a fuck what "Larry O'Donnell" said in the past that I would disagree with, he is right on the mark with this. You don't match an inexperienced senator with an inexperienced senator. And I would argue that there's precious vetting of Hillary Clinton that hasn't happened yet. I don't really believe most of the shit about the Clintons that appear on right wing blogs, because I'm not gullible. .However, I do think that there are skeletons in the Clinton's closets . And that's one of the reasons why I'm convinced Hillary will not be VP. The Obama campaign is supposedly thoroughly vetting VP prospects, and they would ask her to surrender documents that she does not want to give up, like library donors. It's a legitimate issue. Your reply seems to just be "Well, Obama has baggage!" Does that mean he should have to glom on to the Clinton's baggage that the RNC has been gathering new opposition research on for the last eight years?

O'Donnell has been among the loudest alleging racism as the reason Clinton and her supporters have not cleared the way for Obama. This was the same tactic O'Donnell had used against Edwards, and MSNBC immediately afterward had O'Donnell on as an analyst to discuss Edwards -- it was so blatent a conflict of interest that KO was force to apologize on air to Edwards the next night. But MSNBC continues to use O'Donnell while rarely disclosing his campaign connections.

No, I don't have much to offer on the question of VP choices. Hell, I don't really care that much whether Obama or Clinton is our nominee. What I care about is that we defeat McCain in November. I worry about anything that might increase the risk of such a defeat. (I don't see much advantage combining Obama and Clinton on the ticket; I see problems with many of the other possible VP choices, don't have any suggestions.)

I concur that additional vetting of Clinton might well reveal something. The difference is how much effect would it have on her candidacy. Nearly everyone has formed their opinion of HRC over the last fifteen years and almost nothing will change the opinions of lovers or haters. Outside of Illinois and a few political junkies, most people have only started forming their opinions of Obama over the last fifteen months or maybe even the last fifteen weeks. Most people still don't feel they know him well enough yet, so any new revelation will have a far-greater impact on him. As always, negative news would have a far greater impact that positive news.

So do the vetting on each of them, double check everything we think we know, dig into anything we find, and do it as if our very lives depended on our efforts -- they do. Do it now so we don't have to do it in October when it is too late. There can be no doubt that the Repubs have been hard at work for several years and anything they have found will be used.

But again, I don't really care about what O'Donnell has said in the past. He says things that I disagree with all of the time. I just agree with him on that particular point he made last night. I also agree with you about how much more vetting of Clinton will have an affect on public opinion, I'm just not sure what some of the reply about Obama's "baggage" had to do with my original post about different points that commenters made. I don't think that Obama is perfect by any means. And while I'm conflicted about Clinton being the VP, I ultimately think that the potential downfalls outweigh the potential strengths. But of course I would work my ass off to get either of them elected, whether or not they were on the ticket. But at least we can agree on a couple of things.. .A McCain presidency is a dreadful concept, and most commenters are jackasses who do not disclose the reason for their biases! Haha. I just agree with him on this one point.

:thumbsdown:

then I would accept it.

I trust his judgment to review the situation and options and make the best decision. Do I think that it would create a bunch of complications, yes. If it is necessary, I'm fine with it.

If it was just Hillary it would be easier. Bill looming in the background makes it much more cringe-inducing. Hillary can't control Bill. Bill has undermined her quite a few times. I can certainly see him undermining Barack to an even greater degree.

You want to lose in November, and I guess Dan, Pat, Tucker, Joe and all the other idiots who push this idea must want that! In order to help McCain Hillary would have to be on the ticket one way or another. President or VP, it will bring out the republican base, and McCain can't do that my himself!

Hill on the ticket.

Perhaps Abrams believes running as a Washington Insider would serve Obama well.

I don't believe it.

I think his message of change is a good one and is working very well.

I think putting Clinton on the ticket would guarantee a loss.

precedents here to predict voter turnout in the fall.
It's just a big question mark right now, so any argument can be made to look valid.

Abrams is trying to come at it from an historical perspective--previous seasons when the loser was taken on for the greater good--but this season has some very unknown variables. How great is the people's distrust in Republicans, and will that extend to McCain? Will identity politics get in the way of unity? Will Republicans be in heaven making anti Obama AND Clinton ads? etc.

But I do know this--he's partly basing his argument on the hardening numbers in the exit polls.
What he doesn't know about those polls is that a lot of people still won't vote for Obama even if Hillary is #2 and that on average 15% of Hillary's supporters won't even vote for HER in the Fall.

More importantly, Hillary and Obama both lose the White working class vote by the same margin to McCain, according to recent polling.

So what the heck? Why not choose a running mate that will actually be good for the country instead of choosing one based on polling, since polling has nothing meaningful to say right now.

End of rant.

But I will respect whatever decision Obama makes.

If Hillary helps him win, then I'm OK. If she's just hanging on, then she needs to go away. I see her hurting the ticket more than helping. She's got too much baggage. She's be like an anchor on a rising Obama ballon.

The Republicans have been salivating for the last few years, hoping to energize their base by having Hillary to run against.

He says she deserves it, even though she's not the one who has registered hundreds of thousands of new voters. She doesn't deserve it after using divisive Republican campaign tactics. Obama doesn't need a candidate with such high negatives on his ticket. He doesn't need a dynastic candidate on his ticket. I tend to switch the channel when he's on that campaign of his again because he just repeats his same assertions at a higher volume when his colleagues provide very sensible reasons not to have HRC as VP.

Being overly-intellectual is a negative? I'm sorry. But, dumb ppl make bad decisions. Example: Bush/Cheney for two fucking terms.

I'm hateful because HRC caused this shit to get worse. When I hear Republican pundits using her words to diss Obama. It makes me fucking mad.




Who says putting Clinton is a GUARANTEE win for Obama? Most of her working class supporters have issues with his race. They seem to be easily manipulated by using negative tactics. You remember when two of her supporters used that picture with him wearing the Kenyan outfit? I was hearing "I told you he was muslim" for weeks. WTF is wrong being muslim? I hate ignorance.

He's just looking for talking-points to keep his face on the screen. If he honestly thinks that Hillary has a place on an Obama ticket, with all the ideological differences between them, Abrams is a fucking moron.

but I would overlook the vitriol if they ran together. He keeps spouting about "unity", well then let him put it into practice!!

As an American, I think it would be a horribly bad idea. I'm not convinved Clinton would actually help the ticket in the election either.

I really hope that Obama doesn't fall for this meme that the corporate media is pushing.

If she had run her campaign differently then sure. But at this point she's got even higher negatives. I didn't hate her a year ago. Now I, and many many others do.

would be like the biggest flip flop in the history of political flip flops. It would be like taking a dump on his own supporters to maybe get a few Clinton supporters. Throughout the race, Obama has told us he's running for change and against the Washington establishment. Putting Clinton on there as VP links him up directly to one of the most entrenched established political brands out there. It also pumps up the Republican vote to hold their nose and vote against Clinton because of their irrational feelings about her. I also feel she'd be limp like John Edwards, instead of the attack dog you need in a VP. She'll fight for herself until her fingernails come off, but I don't see her doing that for Obama.

He is not totally stupid, so I don't think he actually believes this, it's just good business for him.

Makes my stomach turn.

:shrug:

and he doesn't owe it to her and neither does anyone else. It would seem also, if she really wanted to be VP, ahe wouldn't have run the type of campaign she ended with especially with the ABC debate. Democrats just don't say things like that about fellow democrats or show that much contempt except once in a blue moon.

just the question of vetting is a troublesome one.

Are we going to have to go back and go over all of Clinton's transactions with his foundation and library?

There are others who will help with her demographics without all of the complications.

But if the Obama campaign goes with it I am find.

Abrams is not a very sophisticated observer on politics and people in the media want a neat package but they don't think down the line.

Remember all of these really 'intelligent' observers had McCain in the morgue and Clinton in the WhiteHouse 6 months ago.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she violates my standards as to ethics, decency, fair play and conscience. When one puts her own political future ahead of a "no" vote against a pre-emptive war resolution, I cannot support them.

His judgment is very suspect.

Anyone who can watch Contessa Brewer and think "yeah, that's TV newscasting" is obviously a few bricks short of a load.

Dan Abrams gets on some point and wears it out, like some annoying, nerdy little kid. Politics is not his forte.

She's lost her "truthiness" among other things and wouldn't be beneficial to an Obama ticket.

but I'm gonna. And so are you.

After making comments along the lines of McCain being more prepared to be CiC then Obama and that the Change Obama suggest is really just "Change we can xerox," how can anyone think she has a chance in hell of being on the ticket? The Republicans would have a field day with it.