Question? Why is everyone here so concerned about Hilliary's Supporters approving the VP

Barack won the nomination and he has every right to pick his own VP. Hillary's feelings and her supporters should not be a deciding factor. I say to all Hillary supporters the game is over let's all get together and take home the prize in November. Anything else is consider bullshit and the end results will not be what you want.

I just don't care for the accusations of abuse.

I would like to think we are better than to have the attitude, "We won, you lost, so who cares what you think!"

I would like to think we recognize how close the whole thing was, and acknowledge how feminists feel at another woman having to step aside for a man who may be considered less qualified.

Republicans play winner take all - Democrats try to give voice to more people.

That being said, I certainly don't think Hillary's feelings should be a major consideration. She's a big girl, a tough woman and she can deal with it. However, I do think a running mate who will help unify the party and country should be a deciding factor (although not the only one). Not considering the feelings of Hillary's supporters will be at cross purposes.

This from some one who never wanted Hillary to be our nominee.

I disagree. The Clinton's should not have the right to dictate who the VP will be that is Barack's right he won and has earned that right. The Clinton supporters are not showing any respect to the party with this behavior.

I never said the Clintons should get to dictate to Obama. I do think if Obama is truly interested in uniting the party and country, he should listen to and consider the opinion of a former President and a primary opponent who came very close. The thing is, I bet Obama is being considerate in that regard. He is far more a gentleman, and far shrewder than many of his supporters. Too many just want to crow "We Are the Champions" or the chorus to "Kiss Him Goodbye" (although in this case it would be her). I for one haven't forgotten how devastating it is when your candidate loses. It is easier to recover when your nose isn't being rubbed in it.

I never denied that it is Obama's right to chose his running mate. Although, now that you bring it up again, I must point out that historically it has not always been the right of the nominee to choose a running mate. For many years it was the party who did so. Nowadays, the presumptive nominee picks a running mate and the convention has become a rubber stamp. Technically the convention could refuse to ratify Obama's choice. When you consider how many loyal delegates Clinton has, it is not impossible for such a thing to occur - just highly improbable. I believe most Clinton delegates are too sensible to the consequences of such an action to make too big a fuss.

The person most mentioned (Bayh) really hasnt established himself as the consumate Hillary supporter outside of a narrow region in the country.

The Hillary supporters in California or New York arent going to see Bayh and instantly recognize a fellow Hillary supporter.

...with half the votes. Hillary got the other half. He can't win in November without all the votes! THAT IS why he has to be considerate of Hillary supporters.

The other 15% are PUMAs with an agenda that doesn't put the party first.

Those who will now vote for Obama...and Republicans. I'd say the same of Obama supporters had Clinton won the nom.

Considering what Republicans want in a Dem VP is bullshit.

I agree

says something should happen -- but what ever.

The PRIMARIES are over. She lost. For whatever reason(s), SHE FUCKING LOST.

The primaries are OVER. ANY vote she garnered has been CAST AND COUNTED.

She lost. Get it?

do the things that are required of being a leader.

Is this how you teach your children to act? Take your ball and go home if you don't get your way? Good heavens!

We have been fighting this administration since before they were in office. Look what they have done to this country. You want to vote for McCain and continue on down the road we've been traveling?

I hope those who threaten to vote for McCain wake up before it's too late. If revenge is the most important thing to you, how sad. Think of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When they are paying the bills we leave behind, will they even know who Hillary Clinton was and what this silly battle was all about?

Wake up. You're smarter than this.

I want the VP to be loyal to Obama, someone he can depend upon to have his back, someone who will help him win the election.

That's why I like Biden, Richardson, Kerry as three top choices. They're solid. They're up to being president. They'll back him up. They can help him win the election.

I'm sure there are others, but these three have appeal to me.

The beginning of political wisdom.

The vote between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton was very close, close enough that the victorious faction cannot claim a decisive preponderance. The victor has not sufficient numbers behind him to over-awe, and has no power to compel allegiance from the defeated faction. Party associations, after all, are purely voluntary: it is not quite the same as in a general election, where the first past the post takes the office and all must acquiesce to his or her filling that office because that is the law. The first past the post controls the Party machinery and the convention, but does not control the membership, and the party's voters, and cannot require anything of them. The situation is fairly unique in modern history: typically national primaries have produced lop-sided results fairly early in the process, sufficient to sweep along defeated factions in a band-wagon effect. Absent this, the victor must pay court and play the suitor. It clear enough from his public statements and actions that Sen. Obama understands this very well, though obviously some of his supporters do not. The latter would be wise to take their cue from the man they claim as their leader.

Or at least, sees it the way I do. I can't blame Hillary supporters feeling they got the fuzzy end of the lollipop. I have no tolerance for those who think there were was some sort of dishonesty or conspiracy, but if they are frustrated or feel cheated by fate that's not the same thing. I think especially for women who came through the Women's Lib movement of the 60's and 70's they feel something was (once again) tantalizingly within reach and then snatched away.

I think most of them realize that expressing their frustration by voting for McCain is cutting off their nose to spite their face (pardon the cliche). But, they need more than smugness from Obama and his supporters. Yes, Obama is wise enough to recognize this. They need to feel that Hillary is respected. They need to feel reassured and respected as well.

I don't "feel reassured and respected" by coddling a party-be-damned, backstabbing, sour grapes, former candidate with an air of entitlement just because she happens to have a uterus. This 55-year-old has moved beyond that. The PUMAs need stroking, need to "feel reassured" because they've never developed their own sense of SELF-respect and power... always looking outside for signs & symbols that it's being GIVEN to them. And Hillary's latched on to their insecurity. Oh yes, I don't remember her being concerned with "I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore"... not until she was losing and flailing about in search of her "real voice."

I DON'T respect her after the way SHE ran her campaign, but it's no reflection on ME or my gender.

And I'm sick of people blaming Penn or her other advisors for misleading her. Who's in charge of Hillary? She's not a weakling or neophyte. She embraced everything they put forward. Hey, it worked for GWB/Rove!

Obama chooses his own VP.
He doesn't need Hillary's approval.

And if her supporters are willing to abandon their Party out of spite, then they weren't the kind of people you could count on in the first place.

What one has a right to do, and what is the right thing to do in service of one's own best interest, are not necessarily identical, and frequently are not. If Sen. Obama displayed the same attitude you are displaying, he would court a fracture in the Party, and diminish his chances of success in November. He will choose a Vice-Presidential candidate who can serve as unifying symbol to the narrowly defeated faction of the Party, in order to court them to stand solidly behind his standard in the coming fights of the final campaign. Politics is a game of addition, not of subtraction. Professionals do not write off sizeable chunks of voting strength they could attract at small cost.

making Hillary VP costs Obama everything. She is not change.

If you were, it is pretty likely the result of this contest would mirror the showing of Sen. McGovern in '72.

I am damn glad you aren't running any part of Obama's campaign.

The Clintons deserve no more respect or attention than any other Democrat. Yet you would bow to them like Royalty.

The thing at stake here is a question of enthusiasm, measured in actually trekking to the polling place whatever the weather or press of other business and sweating out the line, in talking up the Party's ticket to friends and acquaintances, in posting signs and stickers, participating in volunteer activities, and donating funds. People who feel the proper gestures have been made towards their feelings perform with more enthusiasm. The last several national elections have been very closely divided, essentially fifty-fifty races, and past performance being the best predictor of future behavior, it may well be that the shaving off of even a couple of percentage points of the Party's share of the electorate, owing to a lack of enthusiasm among a portion of the rank and file who feel triumphalists have more or less told them to 'fuck off, you're not needed and don't count', could lead to disaster. It is worth taking steps to head off the possibility of that outcome, and likely such steps will be taken, as it is certainly in Sen. Obama's own interest, as well as in his demonstrated character, to take them.

A course of unbridled triumphalism on the part of Sen. Obama, such as some of his supporters urge, does bear with it a real danger of many sitting on their hands, much more than simply not paying some heed to the defeated faction's feelings would. The McGovern episode did mark a genuine factional split in the Party, which the faction which had gained control of the convention machinery did press in full triumphalist mode, and their doing so did have serious consequences, including major defections to the other side, not only among the rank and file but even among Party officials and office-holders and cadre. The emotional satisfactions of crowing 'In your face! We won! Like it or lump it!' are not worth the risk of a repeat of this, even if the chance of it is small. The division among the primary voters and caucus-goers was so close as to leave the victorious faction in no position to ignore the sentiments of the vanquished, and certainly in no position to take the eagle walk as the template for policy regarding them.

if you sit on your hands, then you are a douchebag.
if you vote for Obama, then you are a Democrat.
very simple.

feel free to bloviate a few more paragraphs.

Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton seemed to me excellent potential nominees for our Party, and Presidents for our country, with little of substance to choose between them, so that the selection of either was, and remains, fine with me. It was my expectation in the early stages of the campaign that Sen. Clinton would prevail, but that is a different thing than support, and it does not bother me at all that Sen. Obama rendered that early expectation false. A partisanship pressed to such a degree that it regards neutrals as enemies is a poor basis for analysis and planning....

He can pick a cactus plant for all I care. The whole topic and the endless Clinton bashing posts have become a bore.

:shrug:

First of all, only her top money donors would want to be assured that Obama will pick a Clinton supporter for VP b/c that would mean business as usual (wow, that sure would help him sell his change message).

Secondly, would you really expect the Clintons to urge their supporters to urge Obama to pick a good VP that would actually help get him elected when 2012 is only 4 years away?

Thirdly, if Obama picks a Clinton supporter the media and RNC will say even his own VP did not think he was qualified (plus there must be some great dissing Obama footage out there somewhere).

Lastly, if a Clinton supporter is VP and something happens to Obama, most likely that VP would be expected to tap Clinton in return for their help in getting him on the ticket.

Here's the math. He already has 85% of those who voted for Hillary. Half of the remaining 15% of those who voted for Hillary were never going to vote for the Democratic nominee for president in November. The other half? We'll see how many flake, but even if they all flake, the voters Obama will pick up by NOT having Hillary on the ticket will more than make up for them.

You're not going to get the old, white racist vote, so all those type voters who pulled the Hillary lever in places like Kentucky and West Virginia are never going to vote for Obama, even if he put Jesus on the ticket with him.

It's like the religious right, a tiny minority making a whole lot of noise.

:rofl:

With that said I don't think they are trying to make anyones supporters happy. I think they are trying to find the person that will best help them win in November.