Friday, May 23, 2008
Terms of surrender
There is endless speculation, including on Drudge's front page, about Hillary Clinton's terms for ending her campaign. Rumor has it that Bill is pushing for Veep.
The latest round of calls was a tacit admission that while the battles aren't over, the war has been lost. It also raises the question, What will Clinton's terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend.
While I believe -- on little more than gut -- that Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Barack Obama, I also believe that Obama would be insane to let the Clintons -- they come as a pair -- into his campaign or administration in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, nothing would more completely prove that Obama lacks the judgment necessary to be president than selecting Hillary as his running mate. Whatever one thinks of the Clintons, this much is virtually incontestable: The Clintons are too powerful to control, too ambitious to control themselves, and too untrustworthy to appease.
MORE: Heh.
26 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri May 23, 09:54:00 AM:
I wouldn't let the Clintons anywhere near me. Clearly she needs her bills paid, and Bill wants back on the stage. I wonder how it'd work with the VP's husband being an ex-President, and high roller in parlaying that to payola, er Speaking Fees. And if I were Barack, half-black and unprepared, I'd be thinking about threats to my life so she could ascend, manipulation and undermining by extremely ambitious politicians, and the overall meddling cited by so many more knowledgable on these things.
I remain intensely interested in the VP's Obama and McCain select.
By , at
Fri May 23, 09:58:00 AM:
This is all classic Clintonian diversion! She isn't going to quit, there is too much at risk. She has several key tactics left. Her sewer dwellers certainly have several things on Obama; the Michelle-whitey tape is a posibility. It/they would have to be launched close to the convention to minimize Obama's recovery time. She still also has the FBI files and has raw data on many senior democrats. I see a guy like Dollar Bill Jefferson or Alcee Hastings getting thrown under the bus over the four to six weeks as a demonstration project.
Bill Clinton wants Hillie as VP because that economic leverage would be far greater than her in the Senate. Think the sale of pardons, sale of technology to the Chinese etc. Finally, Obama, already a damned fool, would confirm that conclusion by selecting Hillie. The Clintons have been able to move many folks who were in their way from Vince Foster to Paul Wellstone. The personal risk to Obama with Hillie at his back should be more than a prudent man would accept.
By , at
Fri May 23, 10:11:00 AM:
Any polls whether Obama with Clinton as VP would beat McCain? It might stop some voters from leaving for McCain.
So from the point of view of the party elders it may make sense to force Obama to accept.
By , at
Fri May 23, 10:29:00 AM:
Clintons are too powerful to control, too ambitious to control themselves, and too untrustworthy to appease.
I agree completely. ABH -- anyone but Hillary! And would she really be much of an asset in getting elected compared to the alternatives? I think Barack would get just as many additional votes using some establishment-old-white-guy VP candidate. I keep thinking Biden would be a comfortable match, but two other names often mentioned are Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel. I'm curious how Hagel's inclusion on the ballot would be regarded by those on the right. Would it garner any right-centrist votes?
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Fri May 23, 11:34:00 AM:
HRC for VP; WJC for SCOTUS...Bill drives a hard bargain.
By Escort81, at
Fri May 23, 01:42:00 PM:
The Clintons are done. The "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," which carried so much water for them in the 1990s, has literally "Moved On." There is incredible animosity toward HRC is some segments of the party, and Bill's legacy among AA voters is ruined. Depending upon how HRC exits now, she might even be vulnerable in four years for her NY senate seat. I don't believe her Senate caucus colleagues will give her Harry's Reid's job (although she could certainly do no worse). Bill's speaking fees per pop also took a hit, at least domestically, though he can probably still make lots of money overseas. A consequence of the spectacle of the drawn out Democratic race has been the fall of the House of Clinton, and that this country is effectively rid of what many people on both sides of the aisle (and in the media!) now believe are a calculating and mendacious couple. Watch out for Chelsea in 2028, though!
I would be amazed if Obama and Axelrod promise anything to them, beyond saying that they won't exclude Clinton people from government and cabinet spots, and will consider someone as VP who has previously endorsed HRC.
Obama will pick someone who helps him in key swing states. A female would be a consideration, to reach out to female Clinton supporters who liked her because of her sex. He will look at OH and FL and keeping PA nailed down. Squealer - Webb (who wrote a book about the people Obama referred to as "bitter clingers") might get him VA and help him with his white working class voter problem. Hagel as a crossover would bring Obama less than Joe Lieberman would bring to McCain, but it would be entertaining to see that happen simultaneously.
By , at
Fri May 23, 02:33:00 PM:
The SNL skit that sums up this whole primary season
Get These Latest Designs
Bill wants Hill as Veep
This and more on...
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
By , at
Fri May 23, 02:40:00 PM:
Unfortunately, Obama seems quite convinced that appeasing power-mad megalomaniacs is a brilliant idea.
By , at
Fri May 23, 02:56:00 PM:
I agree with the original posting: It would be poor judgment to have the Clintons as the spares in an Obama administration.
But I also have a separate concern: While it is certainly true that adding Clinton to the ticket would increase the Democratic vote to some extent, I think it would also increase the Republican anti-vote by a huge amount. My impression is that there is so little enthusiasm for McCain on the Republican side (partly because of his non-right-wing postures, and partly because of disappointment with the performance of the Republicans in the White House and the Congress) that Obama is likely to be elected due to the great difference between the enthusiasm & morale of the two parties. But if Clinton is on the ticket, the Republicans will turn out in force: Not to support McCain, but to prevent Clinton from being in the administration.
By Fat Man, at
Fri May 23, 03:03:00 PM:
"WJC for SCOTUS"
Not likely. He was disbarred. Besides there is a difference between Judicial temperament and a Clinton temper-tantrum.
By , at
Fri May 23, 03:07:00 PM:
Obama must choose a running mate who is a 'blue-dog' Democrat. Hillary is too far left (like Obama), and that makes the ticket too far from the center. Just look at how close McCain is to the center vs. Obama/HRC, on this ideology map.
By Kathy, at
Fri May 23, 03:31:00 PM:
I also believe that Obama would be insane to let the Clintons -- they come as a pair -- into his campaign or administration in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, nothing would more completely prove that Obama lacks the judgment necessary to be president than selecting Hillary as his running mate. Whatever one thinks of the Clintons, this much is virtually incontestable: The Clintons are too powerful to control, too ambitious to control themselves, and too untrustworthy to appease.
Tigerhawk, mark today's date down on your calendar: I agree with you. :-)
By kadycee, at
Fri May 23, 03:44:00 PM:
Since when does the loser get to dictate the terms of surrender?
By , at
Fri May 23, 04:17:00 PM:
I will be surprised if Obama picks Clinton. Leaving aside the current contratemps, she is too well-known on the national stage. The absolute requirement for a veep is to pick someone who is simultaneously credible yet who doesn't have a firmly-set national identity.
The reason for this is that the nominee's campaign can then mold the running mate for its own purposes. Nixon was the best at this, when his campaign used Agnew as an attack dog. Clinton used Gore as the "reinventing government" guy. Quayle was Bush I's impeachment insurance and emissary to the far right wing. And so on.
Hillary has too much baggage, both negative (the obvious stuff) and the positive (the working class appeal). She's too much of a presence in her own right, not to mention Bill, so naming her would steal Obama's thunder. Plus it would be too much of a retreat from his "change" theme.
I think the current "negotiations" are really Obama's way of telling her that it's her last chance to get with the program. He's not likely to dis' her in public, but if she continues to sit on the supermarket floor and scream her head off, I suspect dad's just going to walk away.
There's an awful lot of downside for both Clintons if that happens, so I suspect they'll reach some face-saving accommodation that does not include putting her on the ticket.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Fri May 23, 04:26:00 PM:
The Clintons in an Obama Administration would be like the LBJ/JFK mafias going after one another during the Kennedy years (and after his assassination).
Times ten.
Would be fun though.
By , at
Fri May 23, 04:54:00 PM:
HRC brought up Robert Kennedy today and his fate. That certainly unsealed any deal. Anyway, even BO knows who Vince Foster was.
By , at
Fri May 23, 05:04:00 PM:
Hasn't Bills disbarment elapsed? I thought it had either a fixed duration or he could petition for reinstatement to the bar after a "decent interval". But if the Supreme Court is out for Billy Jeff, why not either the UN delegate for the US, or even the Secretary General of the UN...He'd think he was King of the World and Stud of the Century if he could head-up (metaphorically speaking) the Turtle Bay Mafia.
By , at
Fri May 23, 05:09:00 PM:
Ah...here it is:
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor.
Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
© Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
By , at
Fri May 23, 05:29:00 PM:
The joke in the LEFT wing blogosphere is that if Obama picks HRC as running mate, he had better hire a food taster.
By A Jacksonian, at
Fri May 23, 05:49:00 PM:
Yes, food taster would come back as a job category...
It is humorous that the Democrats may have a situation where one candidate wins the popular vote and another gets the delegate majority. Something about 'arcane or archaic way of selecting a winner' comes to mind. Like in 2000... and since much of that is on the internet it will be much fun going through articles to see who vehemently wanted it one way in 2000 and just the opposite in 2008. Amazing how a place like Puerto Rico just might do that...
By , at
Fri May 23, 05:53:00 PM:
Please Obama, don't appease the Clinton's by giving them the vice presidency. Heed Bush's warning.
Remember what happened after Chamberlain gave Hitler part of Czechoslovakia. If you give the Clinton's the vice presidency soon they take the whole thing.
By , at
Fri May 23, 05:54:00 PM:
re: Bill Clinton's disbarment affecting appointment to the Supreme Court.
I just went through the Constitution and I can find no requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be a lawyer. In fact, there are no requirements at all other than that the President nominate them and the Senate approve them.
There do hold their office during "good Behavior" so he probably wouldn't last...
By , at
Fri May 23, 07:46:00 PM:
The GOP has been fortunate that in the last two elections, the Democrats couldn't deliver the home state of the red-state representative on their ticket. Had Gore won TN in 2000, he would have won. Had Edwards delivered NC in 2004, Kerry would have won (I think). The Democrats know this. All the Democrats need to do to win this time is to poach a non-tiny red state. That's why I think it's going to be Webb. The nutroots won't be wild about it, but it will put Virginia in the O-Man's column.
That's why McCain has to go with geography, to balance out Virginia, even if he takes a RINO or Lieberman.
By Ben (The Tiger in Exile), at
Fri May 23, 07:51:00 PM:
Am looking forward to Reunions talk about all this stuff...
By joated, at
Fri May 23, 08:53:00 PM:
The Clintons are too powerful to control, too ambitious to control themselves, and too untrustworthy to appease.
Sounds like it would be good practice for when BHO meets with the Iranian leaders.
By , at
Sat May 24, 04:21:00 AM:
Hasn't Bills disbarment elapsed?
No. The time Bill had to appeal being disbarred has lapsed.
