Why Clinton Will Absolutely NOT Be VP >

ABC - Hillary still telling friends in private that she doubts that Obama can win

Say no more. She's OUT.

Hopefully it will sink like a rock.

:shrug:

Would you choose as your running mate someone who's still griping behind your back?

You can post as many threads as you please.

Ha! No wonder we haven't heard much from you lately!

NT!

Sorry, you lost me at hello.

Motives for what? I'm saying that the simple fact that she is still going around saying to people that Obama can't win is enough to rule her out. Isn't that obvious?

that some of your friends are telling people that you are a GOP plant and come to DU to create friction.

This is what people who know your friends are telling other people. Privately, of course.

It took a genius like you to find me out.

that you are very good at what you do.

She does say she wants the convention to end with everyone unified and backing Obama, but where does she say he can't win?

She's been quoted saying it, but I haven't seen it on tape.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/candidate-clint.html

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Richardson, who served in President Clinton's cabinet, disagreed.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4481224.ece

Privately however, the Clintons remain sceptical that Mr Obama can win the White House. Although most voters will not focus properly on his race against John McCain until after the conventions have ended in early September, Mr Obama has stalled in the polls. A new survey also diagnosed a fresh concern for the Democrats — “Obama fatigue”. Nearly 50 per cent of voters feel that they have been “hearing too much” about Mr Obama.

The Clinton camp is also irritated by what they perceive as Mr Obama’s failure to work harder to help to pay off her campaign debt and to reach out to her supporters.

The first link is from April, and this is August.

The second link gives no source, and in any case alleges only doubt, not a flat declaration. Many observers of the political scene here have doubts. Viewed in the coldest light, this election is going to serve as a measure of prejudice in our society, and turn on the proportion of bigots it contains. We all know they are numerous, but we do not know just how numerous. We are going to find out.

And it certainly rules her out as a running mate. And don't call me "Ma'am."

or at least that's what sources overheard your friends telling ABC news.

And Obama certainly doesn't need one on his ticket.

Your conduct is a violation of DU rules. Hers, however profane, is not.

that your friends have been heard to remark, privately, that they have overheard others criticizing your lack of a basic understanding of satire.

And there remains a reasonable prospect she will be selected by Sen. Obama as his running mate. It would be quite popular with the Party rank and file, most of whom like both these two pretty well, and it would certainly open a useful source of funds. It is hardly a lead-pipe cinch, but a wager on it paying seven for three would be worth taking.

And never were. And you demand that I prove that published news reports are true while you make unsupported statements yourself. I hope you will refrain from abusing your power to win the argument.

Nor does it indicate any source for it.

Statements from April carry little weight, set against current statements in public by the same person.

And what are YOU talking about? Are you calling ABC News LIARS? Time Magazine? Do you think they just Make Shit Up? or do you think editors and fact-checkers and publishers and producers weigh very carefully before they release such a report.

p.s. If you persist in calling me "Ma'am" I am going to have to call you "Fartsicle." Because I just like the way it sounds.

That question answers itself.

You provided two links in a post above. One dates to April, and does not establish anything about the present. The other states, without giving a source, that Sen. Clinton 'continues to express skepticism'. That does not bear the weight you would rear upon it.

Please reference that ABC News report, and the report from Time also linked in that thread. My links above were to provide context. Willful ignorance is not an attractive quality, Fartsicle. And, "does not bear the weight you would rear upon it"? Ouch. That one hurt my ears.

But you are beginning to provide real amusement, and your next foray into the wilds of witticism is eagerly awaited....

"I'm never lost: someone always tells me where to go."

Remind you of anyone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6606343

Strike out for fresh pastures; venture afield towards new horizons: be bold!

You've been playing the same schtick for years. Get a new act. Good night!

Off topic, but :hi:

Until someone steps forward willing state his or her name and provide a direct quote, the matter does not interest me much. My views of both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are favorable ones, and have been throughout this campaign.

some say ignorance is bliss...

"If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy?"

Get real.

Any historian writing of this period would strongly condition any citation of Mr. Suskind's work unless he or she had available the names and assignments of the persons he claims told him this. Absent that, and some assessment of whether the persons were actually in a position to know what they said, those statements would not be cited as facts by a competent historian. They might be true, but they are not proved. They are certainly useful at present, in the battle for public opinion, as weapons against the administration and its supporters. But that is not quite the same thing.

"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

-Mark Twain

There will be no way to tell how many people voted for or against either candidate for reasons of bigotry, so saying the outcome will show how much bigotry there is in this country is an outright false presumption, therefore, a false argument. Projecting racism and bigotry onto all voters who choose one candidate over the other is bigoted and racist in and of itself.

The Republican party hitched its star to conscious exploitation of racism with Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' in '68, and it has never let go, and now cannot let go. In a contest between a Black Democrat and a Caucasian Republican, the Republican vote is a rough indication of the proportion of bigots in the voting public. Whether this discomforts anyone in particular does not concern me.

People can post trazillon messages and still be fools.

You've done a lovely job at that.

or did Karen Tumulty tell you that some Democrats are saying that she was privately telling "friends"....

if he wants to win. Obama badly needs Hillary to be VP.

And you know it.

and complete the federal and military government biography and autobiography in development in Eye Spy Community-Military Intelligence (All Three) Business and Commerce Intelligence Education across the board National and International.

a vast majority of her voters have already switched to obama, he's taking in great numbers from the bigger states she won during the primaries.

so who exactly is he going to get that he already hasn't, if she's on the ticket? some dozen or two hairball PUMAs?

It's bizarre. It's over. Let go. Walk toward the light.

;) OTHER democrats on this board who are promoting Hillary for VP are not saying hateful things about fellow democrats but are saying something positive about one of the most respected members of the democratic party. Polls have shown that the majority of democrats would favor Hillary as VP... thus it is normal to expect to see such positive discussion of a fellow democrat on a democratic message-board. What is disturbing are the people who seem to want to discuss members of the democratic party in a negative light.

NT!

Given in 2002? This is how OBAMA wins?

A majority of registered voters have been polled, and they DO NOT want her on his ticket.

Keep dreaming.

there were so many anti-Clinton threads. Just wondering why you felt you had to add one more.

Watch out! She's got her fingering wagging! Stand back. She disapproves!!

Perhaps if your heroes would act like adults, we wouldn't be upset with them. But when they consistently sell out the party, your weak defense of them is not going to convince anyone not already wearing that Clintonian head gear.

:thumbsup:

remember when the primary race started getting close, with Obama picking up speed and making some amazing headway.... the sweatbeads started popping up on the foreheads of the Clinton machine.


.then
.
.
.
.
Hillary offered him VP if he would just cut it out with this winning already, quit and let me be queen.


:rofl:

I guess that must be at least the 10th, 12th, hell, who knows how many for the day.

This board has become so much fun!!!

:applause:

for 2 months it was relatively quiet around here.

That is no coincidence.

you just glommed onto it.

Drudge didn't bring up the Race Card again right on McCain's heels, Bill did.

Drudge doesn't hold the power to quash a "convention contention" by removing his name from the ballot, Hillary does.

The Clintons are the ones making moves here. Drudge is just going along for the ride. Just like he did when Hillary fed him info during the Primary.

How many Clinton bashing posts have you started in the last few days????????

:crazy:

some of us just cannot ignore their actions like those of you who feel they are above reproach.

When Bill launches his negative comments almost contemporaneously ...

When Hill's troops leak a tape of her speaking to 8 diehards in a backyard ...

We know they're behind it. No rational, informed politico on the national scene would even pretend otherwise. It's a Clinton operation from start to finish, all these events. They are behind every one of the stories. They used their typical toads, like Bill Press, to get the stories out they wanted out.

Because Obama hasn't reached out since the first phone call to Bill a few wks ago. They want their rings kissed and Obama won't do it.

Bill needs to realize he's not the show any more. He hasn't been in years, and if he really cares about the issues important to Democrats, he'll stop making this all about Bill.

Just like the good ole days.

I like the fartsicle subthread myself.

Couldn't happen to a nicer "democrat".

Ya got that right.

Why don't we just change the name to the DLC Party and then you guys can make the rules here at the DLC Underground.

And it ISN'T coming from Hillary. It's coming from sore winners.

how are you going to feel when Hillary is named VP???? How many posts will you make?

Very clever. And your friends get to insinuate that I'm some sort of freeper by calling me a "democrat" - I think that's against the rules, but whatever. All because I don't believe HRH Hillary Rodham Clinton will be Obama's VP. But seriously, Obama asking HRC to be his running mate would be a little like me asking YOU to be my running mate, don't you think? Your attitude is a lot like hers.

And you thought I was talking about you?


I am sorry if you took it that way, Ma'am.

And I'm sorry your candidate lost, Rumproast. Well actually, I'm not.

NT!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Right...

Actually, I just enjoyed watching someone show up to a gunfight with a letter-opener.

The facts are facts, and I can't believe someone has to even question this, coming from Hillary.

It was reported by ABC, if these guys don't like ABC, then let them complain to ABC.
But, this TIME article was written by McNulty, and she has been on the campaign trail all year long.
So, I don't think it is disingenuous at all.
McNulty is not the type of "hitman" journalist some here think she is, she's been pretty fair this year to all the candidates.

I don't see anyone else that can match Hillary with the gravitas, the chutzpah, and the "going for the jugular" that she will bring to the ticket.

Polls are too close for comfort, and I don't want to chance that insane man in the White House.

Who needs that?

I don't even know why we have to accept the runner-up as a viable option. She should focus on retiring that debt of hers and letting the Party move towards getting Obama elected. She's more of a liability than an asset and I have a hard time believing that she isn't aware of the lunacy that makes up a part of her base.

I've read a lot about the bad blood between JFK and LBJ and their supporters. There was complete contempt for one another. If JFK can put LBJ on the ticket, despite the animus between Bobby and Lyndon, Obama can surely put Hillary as Veep.

I can't think of anyone else that can bring the sort of votes that Hillary can. She is the queen of the low-information voters, and she can spin Romney's wheels (assuming he is McInsane's Veep).

Look, I don't like Hillary or that husband of hers, but this is a political calculus not a personality contest.

It comes down to how many "sorts of votes" you think Hillary can bring versus what we lose.

How many PUMAs will still be OK with her at #2?

How many of those "hardworking white voters" just don't want a black man on the ticket?

How many voters do we lose who don't want HER on the ticket? Everyone's in a tizzy assuming the media-hyped polls are telling gospel truth, and people seem to be falling for the idea that her holdout supporters are the tipping point.

Either they're a marginal fraction or they aren't...but what about those Independents and the majority who don't want her on the ticket?

The calculus is more complicated than "placate 18 million voices or else".

And isn't just JFK/LBJ. Bill's part of the package deal.

And frankly, if these PUMAs are such a threat to throw the election, if I were Obama, I'd also be very concerned about the more fanatical mouth-frothers on the dead-ender blogs who think their queen was wronged.

Face it...Obama has enough people who don't want to see him in office, to wit, Raymond Hunter Geisel and his ilk. The way some of these more rabid followers talk on these blogs, Obama should not rule out the notion that they just want to get Hillary in there so just one sufficiently gung-ho "supporter" can help her take her rightful place. Don't act like someone might not be off their rocker enough to be thinking that.

but there is no denying that Hillary may bring people on board that would never vote for a non-white, no matter the gender. Besides, I am a firm believer that the role of Vice-President should be reduced to its historical Constitutional role. Dick Cheney has shown how dangerous it is to stray away from Constitutional limits.

I'm surprised you fell for the lie that he needs a proven liar like her.

He doesn't.

At all.

I don't share that view, but there are many that do. Put someone like Clinton on the ticket, and it just might allay those fears, enough to seal the deal with the voters.

you want to see Obama win? His few supporters who keep peddling Clinton hate stories should really rethink what they're doing.

If you don't like what your candidate is saying, don't blame me. She's YOUR girl, not mine.

I hope you are too. Don't make the mistake of assuming Obama has already won the election and that you have the freedom to entertain yourself by engaging in party infighting. No party has ever been able to both conduct its own civil war and win the presidential election.

If you want Obama to win, start acting like it. Start believing it. I have faith in you, you can do it.:)

She's the one who's doubting Obama, not me.

you're doing more HATE HILLARY garbange and it STINKS :thumbsdown: AND DON'T TRY TO CALL HER MY GIRL - I HAVE NEVER BEEN A SUPPORTER

It is the only way to silence the nastiness that is occuring in some corners...

I have a question. And this is with all my love in my heart.

Other than posting negative things about the zesty Mrs. Clinton, what DO you contribute in the forum.

Just asking, dear.

I've posted various things here from time to time on other topics, but at the moment I'm interested in Why Mrs. Clinton Won't Support Our Nominee.

How about you? What have been your contributions?

Sister is most impressed about your lovely little posts. But it seems that the majority of you charming contributions are very negative.

Sister is very much supportive of the wonderful Mr. Obama. But Sister must point out to you dear that you to take up much of your time posting "threads" as you say attacking the zesty Ms. Clinton.

Shant you "let it you" as people say? Sister feels that you do not project a positive image for the wonderful Mr. Obama while you seem to so "hell bent" on taking Ms. Clinton to task. Don't you agree, dear?

Isn't it time to let it go, darling?

I say that with much love in my heart.

Funny, I've never heard people say that. What planet do you come from, Sister?

her.

not to mention this thread is a dupe.

Fuck Hillary Clinton
Fuck Bill Clinton
Fuck John Edwards and last but not least:
Fuck the Monkey$hineMedia

We'd all be better Democrats for it.

Why the hell would I believe anything they say on second hand info and rumors?

And it's only about the millionth time the Clintons have been quoted as saying this about Obama.