Should Clinton admit defeat?

[Bob Hubbard]

Don't expect Ron Paul to support McCain.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

John Edwards impressed me alot when he was running for VP before, and might be a good choice for Obama. That combination might be a good one.
Hillary though, no. She's too much a "gotta be first" type, and that's not what makes a good VP.

 

[arnisador]

John Edwards has the baggage of having lost before. I think they'll take a different tack.

Bill Richardson is an intriguing choice!

 

[CoryKS]

Here's an interesting take on Hillary's "concession" speech:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/06/night-of-living-dead.html

My guess is that she will threaten to take her voters and go independent if Obama doesn't give her the VP slot. And if he does give it to her? Well, I wouldn't sleep too deeply if I was him.

Update: More in the same vein from James Taranto of WSJ:

The Associated Press reports that Mrs. Clinton "has told congressional colleagues she would be open to becoming Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee," and Maureen Dowd speculates on her motives:

Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra "I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too black, too weak and too elitist--with all his salmon and organic tea and steamed broccoli--to beat her pal John McCain. But she has to pretend she'll do "whatever it takes," even accept the vice presidency, a job she's already had and doesn't want again, so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she can power on to 2012.​

Theory No. 2 is that it's a "Bad stuff happens" maneuver, exemplified in her gaffe about the R.F.K. assassination, that she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she'll be a heartbeat away from the job she's always wanted.​

Actually, though, these are not competing theories, just multiple contingencies. Mrs. Clinton wants above all to be president. The easiest way to accomplish that would be for her to get the nomination this year. She has more or less blown her chances--but any small hope she still has rests in the possibility of Obama's being so damaged by the time of the convention that superdelegates, whose votes are decisive, switch back to her. This would be consistent with planting the Nation of Islam stories, and who knows what else to come.


If Obama is the nominee, Mrs. Clinton's prospects of becoming president would be greatly diminished if he won the general election. If Obama loses, then in 2012 Mrs. Clinton will be able to compete in a wide-open field to challenge President McCain: the oldest major-party presidential nominee in history, seeking his party's fourth term.

If Obama wins, things look much worse for Mrs. Clinton. In 2012 President Obama would be sure to seek re-election: The last incumbent president to pass up a run for a second term was Chester Arthur in 1884. Mrs. Clinton could mount an intraparty challenge to Obama, but even unpopular incumbents (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter) generally win such fights.

If Obama wins re-election, the field would again be open in 2016. But if past is prologue, Obama's vice president would be the favorite for the Democratic nomination. Thus if Obama does win this November, Mrs. Clinton is more likely to become president if she is on the ticket with him.
What's more, Mrs. Clinton's open quest for the No. 2 spot is harmful to Obama whether it succeeds or not. Whatever he decides, someone is going to be unhappy about it.

To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.

Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

 

[Tez3]

Just been announced on our news that Obama is declared as the winner and has appointed a VP commitee. The news is concentrating on the fact he's the first black candidate for president and what an achievement it is.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting. I suspect she will not go quietly away, and will if denied do as she always has, "what is right for Hillary".

 

[FearlessFreep]

Here's an interesting take on Hillary's "concession" speech:
My guess is that she will threaten to take her voters and go independent if Obama doesn't give her the VP slot. And if he does give it to her? Well, I wouldn't sleep too deeply if I was him.

My guess is she doesn't have *that* big a constituency of people who would honestly vote for McCain over Obama. Many (Democrats) will close up ranks behind the nominee. Most Dems will vote Obama and most Reps will vote McCain and it's all the undecideds and independents that they now have to reach and I think she brings too much negativity to attract much of that group.

And if she splits the party with an independent effort and gives the whitehouse to McCain out of spite and ego, she just ended her political career in the Democratic Party

 

[Tez3]

Your elections take front page news in our media!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7436811.stm

How it's presented to the British. I suppose though that while it's more important to you than us it does affect us in many ways.

 

[Empty Hands]

The news is concentrating on the fact he's the first black candidate for president and what an achievement it is.

Not true actually, there have been many black presidential candidates. There have been several this year alone, besides Obama! The difference is that Obama is the first presumptive nominee of a major party, and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning.

 

[Tez3]

Not true actually, there have been many black presidential candidates. There have been several this year alone, besides Obama! The difference is that Obama is the first presumptive nominee of a major party, and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning.

I think they are probably saying that as he is the first one they've heard of, we don't get any election stories here until about now when they can concentrate on just a few candidates who are usually known to us at this point. The media won't cover your elections until it's more 'exciting' and glamourous seeming. Our elections are never exciting and we get very very bored of them!

 

[FearlessFreep]

Not true actually, there have been many black presidential candidates. There have been several this year alone, besides Obama! The difference is that Obama is the first presumptive nominee of a major party, and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning.

Alan Keys and Jesse Jackson come to mind, but neither had a real chance

 

[tellner]

no idea what the Stormfront is.....

Stormfront is the grandaddy of neo-Nazi and Klan forums. It's all racism, all hate, all toten Jude all the time. To hell with them, and **** anyone who has a kind word for them including Ron Paul.

 

[Big Don]

Alan Keys and Jesse Jackson come to mind, but neither had a real chance

Jesse never had a chance because Jesse is too easily spotted as the race baiting shyster that he is.
Keyes, on the other hand, had a fair chance at the republican ticket, until, he flipped the hell out and decided the networks weren't giving him enough coverage and went on a hunger strike, a sure fire republican tactic...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Stormfront is the grandaddy of neo-Nazi and Klan forums. It's all racism, all hate, all toten Jude all the time. To hell with them, and **** anyone who has a kind word for them including Ron Paul.

What did Paul have to say about them? I missed that.

 

[elder999]

What did Paul have to say about them? I missed that.

I don't know what he has to say about them, but they think he's America's hope, and have gathered a fair deal of support for him....

 

[Sukerkin]

Even neo-Nazi's do or say something right on occasion - their 'support' doesn't necessarily invalidate the worth of the man.

I've seen some of Senator Pauls interviews on various subjects and he seems to have his head screwed on okay (from the perspective of someone from a long way-a-away ).

 

[elder999]

Even neo-Nazi's do or say something right on occasion - their 'support' doesn't necessarily invalidate the worth of the man.

I've seen some of Senator Pauls interviews on various subjects and he seems to have his head screwed on okay (from the perspective of someone from a long way-a-away ).

Oh, yeah-I agree. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, I like a lot that he has to say....unfortunate he didn't have a chance for the Republican nomination.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

From what I've read today, it seems that the owner of StormFront gave the Ron Paul campaign $500 contribution, and Paul didn't reject it. I've seen nothing attributed to him that ties him ideawise in with that group, but alot where they see his ideas as compatable with their own.

Some other comments on that
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/12/21/why-the-ron-paul-stormfront-issue-bothers-me/

Ron Pauls failure to reject them outright probably did cost him a few points.

Unlike Ron Paul, Bob Barr Rejects Stormfront Endorsement, Telling White Supremacists To Bugger Off

One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront. White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement, and Paul refused to return a donation from Stormfronter Don Black on the grounds that he'd rather the money be spent on the Paul campaign than spent by racists.

The Bob Barr campaign's taking a different approach to the same issue. Yesterday, James Buchanan posted a racist Barr endorsement at WhiteCivilRights:

A vote for Bob Barr would at least send a message to the Republican Party that conservatives and Whites won’t sit still as they are stuck with a liberal presidential candidate like McCain. Supporting Bob Barr might even pave the way for a Third Party to replace the increasingly repugnant Republican Party... If voting for McCain is a waste of time, since he’s never going to win (because conservatives hate him), then the best course of action may be a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. If Barr gets millions of votes, it will be a very strong sign that the neocons and their warmonger policies have failed and the Republican Party should change course and stop supporting wars for Israel.

Stormfront member "WhiteRights" posted the column in the site's message boards, which is where the Barr campaign found it. Barr campaign manager Russ Verney released this statement:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody equally under the law."

http://reason.com/blog/show/126790.html

 

[jks9199]

Interesting. I suspect she will not go quietly away, and will if denied do as she always has, "what is right for Hillary".

I'm certain she's not going to go away quietly. And I'd say that Obama would be foolish to have her as VP. First, I strongly suspect that the US won't elect another "legacy" President or VP; for many reasons, I think that we just don't want a continuation presidency. Second, Hillary Clinton as VP would mean Bill Clinton as the VP's husband. He's not going to quietly support her and the administration, anymore than he's supported any aspect of the current administration. No matter what, he's going to continue to work his own interests -- and maybe they'll coincide with her's but I doubt they'd coincide with Barack Obama's. Finally, Hillary Clinton has so far demonstrated that she will not look beyond her own ambition and recognize that her desires are negatively impacting her party's goals. That just ain't gonna change... Obama would constantly find her going behind his back and disrupting his efforts.

Aside: Obama is the first black candidate from a major party; I'm not looking it up at the moment, but I believe I recall reading of a black candidate during the Reconstruction Era.

 

[HKphooey]

Looks like she just did!