9 days after the historic election of President-elect Barack Obama, the favorite game of the pundit class is to guess who will be in Obama's cabinet. One of the most important posts is that of Secretary of State, and speculation has centered mainly on Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Either Kerry or Richardson would be a solid diplomatic asset to the Obama Administration, but neither is an exciting pick and both are known for their verbal missteps.
Now, both the Washington PostandNBC bring a new yet familiar name to the mix: New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Both news outlets report that Obama transition officials have said that Clinton is under serious consideration, and Clinton was in Chicago today on "personal business."
During her campaign for the Presidency, Senator Clinton counted her international work as one of her greatest strengths. Foreign nations remembering the 'better' times of Bill Clinton's time in office will welcome her selection with open arms. Also, Clinton will be in her late 60's in 2016, so barring a decision by Obama to run for only one term, becoming Secretary of State would be a great capstone for Clinton's historic career.
There are potential downsides to Clinton becoming Secretary of State. First among them, she is a strong person with an even stronger personality. There is a fine line between conducting the president's foreign policy and creating your own in his name. With foreign policy heavyweight Joe Biden sitting second-chair, Clinton may be too much personality for the SoS role.
I personally feel that downsides aside, Clinton would be a fantastic choice to be America's next Secretary of State. It would go a long way to bridging any remaining divide in the party, and it would allow Hillary to have an even more prominent role in national politics for the next 8 years.
[UPDATE] It has been confirmed by multiple sources that Clinton met with Obama while in Chicago. Unlike in the campaign, Obama has no need to feign interest in Clinton as a choice. This is the real deal. He wants her in his administration.
"I also know that there may be a few people from Indiana here, and I see those hands and those signs, well, we have a chance just right across the river to have a big victory. We've got a close presidential contest there between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, and if we work as hard as we can between now and Tuesday night, I think we could see Indiana in the blue column in victory for the Obama-Biden campaign." - Senator Hillary Clinton at a rally in Louisville, KY for U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford, 11/2/08
Clip courtesy of Hillbilly Report and the emailer who sent it along.
In the second ad in as many days, John McCain is using Hillary Clinton's namesake to poach Democratic votes. This ad features a Clinton delegate.
Dear PUMAs,
The Supreme Court is at stake and you are seriously supporting John McCain? Seriously? The same McCain who laughed when one of his supporters called your girl a "bitch"? Seriously? The same McCain who has pledged to appoint anti-choice judges to the courts? Seriously?
I hope the woman in this ad is denied her seat at the convention.
It's clear from the comments in the thread celebrating the opening of Obama field offices in the state that some people haven't flushed the primary wars out of their system. I thought I'd share my thoughts on the primary, and explain why in my view Hillary Clinton's campaign team squandered the advantages she had.
From the start, Hillary Clinton's campaign was awful. She was a strong candidate and everyone expected her to win the nomination. She was 30 points ahead of Obama in February 2007. She had more money than him. She had the "best minds" in the party and most of the party aparatus behind her (see as evidence that she led in superdelegates until the last 6 weeks of the primaries).
Was Lake County to blame for Clinton's loss of momentum in recent weeks?
That's what the New York Times is saying, but is it true? The argument revolves around the characteristically late reporting of vote totals from the northwestern corner of the state, and the long, arduous wait that the Clinton campaign -- and the rest of the country -- were forced to endure as they waited to hear whether they were victorious in the Hoosier state.
Whispers of wankery weren't taken well by some Lake County officials, including those in the Obama camp, but even if such claims were true, would a different outcome have changed the dynamics of the race?
Obama's Indiana Campaign manager, Kip Tew, scoffed at that theory.
[...]
Tew also disagrees with The Times' contention Indiana was the end of the line for Clinton. The inexorable move toward Obama as the Democratic nominee came much earlier, he said.
"The tipping point was in February, when Barack Obama won 11 contests in a row," he said. "Indiana was the exclamation point."
With grace and class, Sen. Hillary Clinton has exited the Democratic presidential race, pledging her full support of Sen. Barack Obama. From the New York Times:
For 28 minutes, standing alone on a stage in the historic National Building Museum, Mrs. Clinton spoke not only about the importance of electing Mr. Obama, but also the extent to which her campaign was a milestone for women seeking to become president. She urged women who had followed her campaign - who had turned out at her headquarters, flocked to her rallies and poured into the polls to vote for her - not to take the wrong lesson from her loss.
"You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States," she said. "To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours."
At that point the cheers, mostly from women, swelled so loud that Mrs. Clinton's remaining words could not be heard.
"Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another...Because of you, I can stand here tonight and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President"-Barack Obama
Obama picked up a slew of superdelegate endorsements on Tuesday. Those endorsements, combined with the delegates he's projected to receive from South Dakota's primary, will put him past the 2,118 threshold, according to CNN estimates.
Obama will claim victory during a speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, according to prepared remarks released by his campaign.
"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States," he's expected to say.
His remaining rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, does not plan to concede the race Tuesday night, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told CNN -- but one of her leading supporters said "a moment of truth" was at hand.
Earlier: Sen. Barack Obama is only 107654 0 delegates away from victory, at least according to CNN. As we wait for the results from South Dakota and Montana, and a steady stream of superdelegates come out from whatever hole they were hiding in, it looks to be an interesting finale for political junkies far and wide.
I'll update this thread as the night goes on.
Thoughts? Predictions? Hillary as VP? If not, where are we looking?
Bad taste does not begin to describe the remarks made yesterday by Hillary Clinton when she reminded everyone that Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination in June 1968 after Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Dog whistles like this have been occasionally used by the Clinton campaign by Hillary herself and occasionally surrogates such as Bill Clinton and others.
I'm tired of this desperate measures campaign that Clinton is running. It shows seriously poor judgement and makes me deeply question her ability to run our government. The insensitivity of raising the specter of assassination in the week we discover yet another Kennedy tragedy in progress with the word that Senator Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor by referring to his brother's tragic death 40 years ago in such a manner is really bad form.
The chorus of condemnation that has formed from all corners of the blogosphere because of these remarks are completely justified. I will add my voice to that chorus too - Hillary Clinton should immediately be disqualified from receiving the nomination should anything happen to Senator Barack Obama between now and the convention in August.
The debate has been raging in the comment section of yesterday's open thread, but today's Star elevates the discussion to above-the-fold status, so I suppose I'll stoke the fire. Via Andy Gammill:
Nearly three weeks after Indiana's primary election, Indiana University is still trying to recover setup and security costs from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for events on campus during the campaign.
Clinton owes IU $55,000 for several events that featured her, former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton before the New York senator's ultimate victory in the state May 6.
In spending reports filed this week, Clinton listed $19.5 million in debts, including $10 million she has lent her presidential campaign.
IU wants to be paid for the services already provided but is being realistic about how quickly a check might come, university spokesman Larry MacIntyre said.
"We know the situation," he said. "We're one of probably hundreds of people with their hands out. We hope she's going to find a way to pay her obligations."
Obviously it is not all that unusual for large bills like this to float around for a few weeks after an election such as ours, and I believe this wouldn't be an issue at all if not for one simple fact:
Sen. Barack Obama, who narrowly lost to Clinton, already has reimbursed the university $108,000 for two events his campaign held on campus.
And that, ladies and gents, is all that it takes to start your standard, run-of-the-mill political flare-up.
For a red state, we sure are producing a lot of green for Democrats this year. Maureen Groppe breaks down the numbers.
ince the presidential race began, Obama has raised $1.1 million in Indiana compared with $775,599 raised by Clinton.
Obama, who narrowly lost Indiana's May 6 primary, leads in delegates but Clinton has said she is staying in the race through the final primaries on June 3.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, has raised $451,500 in Indiana, including $67,638 collected in April.
All told, the Democratic presidential candidates have outraised their Republican counterparts in this state by at least $800,000. Is this a sign of things to come, or just some fuzzy math?
(Bumped from the user diaries. - promoted by Thomas)
The freshman Congressman from Evansville has informed the press that he cast his individual ballot last Tuesday for Barack Obama - but would submit his superdelegate vote at the Convention for Hillary Clinton should she continue her campaign until the convention.
"In the booth, I voted for Obama," said Ellsworth, who announced after the Indiana primary that he planned to use his vote as a superdelegate to support New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unless there was a compelling reason not to back her.
But Ellsworth was quick to point out that this is not necessarily an endorsement:
That was taken by many observers, most notably the Clinton campaign, as an endorsement. But Ellsworth's office quickly sought to clarify that, saying that the commitment of his superdelegate vote was contingent on the race going all the way to the convention and was not tantamount to an endorsement.
Instead, Ellsworth notes that he is following the wishes of the Democrats in his southwestern 8th District, who overwhelmingly favored Clinton and helped her to a narrow win in the Hoosier State.
I think its clear that many Democrats not fixed in Washington for many years are discouraged by the Superdelegate designation. Ellsworth doesn't feel its his position to determine this race outside of the vote of the people.
I see Ellsworth's position as part of a larger movement to give a vote of no-confidence to the current Superdelegate system - and probably more so on how its being manipulated.
As to why he voted for Obama, Ellswoth gives no details:
"It's just my personal preference in the primary," he said.
As expected, CNN is predicting-- based on exit polls--that Sen. Hillary Clinton has won west Virginia decisively. So decisively they're not even waiting for the numbers to call it.
The big issues for voters: the economy, gas prices (gas here in Indy just hit $3.95 a gallon)and Rev. Jeremiah Wright (65% of voters answering exit polls felt that Obama, inspite of denouncing his former pastor of late, shared Wright's views). This is bad news for Obama in a general election: the Wright issue isn't going away and he'll need to fight to appeal among blue-collar, white voters especially with the economy looming as the primary issue in the campaign.
At this point "The Dream Ticket," really is looking more like a nightmare no matter which one wins the nomination and may choose the other as VP. I really don't think it will ever happen nor would it succeed.
As Howard Wolfson noted on CNN no one has won the presidency without winning West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson. And does anyone remember the last time a president was elected without winning Ohio? Wolfson also brought up seating Michigan and Florida when the DNC rules committee meets on May 31st. Obama is, according to CNN, going to Michigan tomorrow followed by Florida presumably to appeal to the voters there where declined to campaign before in support of the DNC decision to unseat delegates in those states for violation of party rules.
"After tonight, we will have one more proof point, if you will, that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate Democrats can nominate. We're going to go back starting tomorrow and talk to those superdelegates who are still uncommitted and say, 'You know what? She is the candidate who expands the electoral map.' You look at West Virginia, you look at Kentucky, you look at Arkansas, you look at Tennessee. You look at what's at stake and that's a very powerful argument."
Still, people like Democratic Party chairman Roy Romer, are calling for Clinton to bow out gracefully,
"This race, I believe, is over. There is a time we need to end it and direct ourselves to the general election. I think that time is now."
Clinton spoke with renewed determination to a cheering crowd in West Virginia,
"The Bible says faith can move mountains. Tonight, the faith of the mountain state has moved me. I am more determined than ever..."
For the most part she made an appeal to superdelegates and voters in the next primary,
"I want to send a message to everyone still making up their minds. I am in this because I believe I am the strongest candidate to lead our party in November and to lead our country as president."
She spoke briefly about Florida and Michigan:
"They're are those who wanted to declare a nominee before the ballots were counted or even cast. Both Sen. Obama and I believe the delegates in Michigan and Florida should be seated."
Which, of course, changes the delegate count needed to win, she noted, and neither she nor Obama is close to that number.
She also spoke passionately to those who have counted her out:
"The bottom line is this-- the White House is won by winning the swing states and I am winning the swing states. You know I never give up. I'll keep coming back. And I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me."
Almost as soon as the winner had been called in Indiana's presidential primary race, the chattering began: Was Rush Limbaugh to blame (or credit) for Hillary Clinton's victory?
The Obama camp thought so. They held a conference call on Wednesday that featured Sen. John Kerry and some pointed criticism of the GOP pill-popper's "Operation Chaos."
The Indianapolis Star's political team takes a look at the debate.
"Frankly, if it hadn't been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, (Obama) likely would have won in Indiana, too," Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, said in a post-election conference call with reporters. "Really, there's no masquerade now. Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary, and the GOP has clearly declared that they want Hillary Clinton as a candidate."
Clinton's No. 1 supporter in Indiana, Sen. Evan Bayh, doesn't buy it.
He said he talked to a number of Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary and said they did so because they preferred Obama or Clinton as president, not McCain.
Republicans scoff at the very mention. Wide-eyed optimists mention it at every turn. (Ahem.)
But is it possible?
Could Indiana really become a blue state in November?
Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker agrees, saying that for 40 years, the national party had pretty much ignored Indiana.
"If you don't ask somebody for their vote, they're not going to give it to you," he said.
And he points to the nearly 1.28 million votes cast in Tuesday's Democratic primary as reason for optimism.
That's more than 300,000 votes beyond what Democrat John Kerry received in the general election in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. It's even more votes than President Bush received from Indiana in 2000, and more than Republican nominee Bob Dole received in Indiana in 1996, when he won the state but lost the White House.
Exit polls showed that about 22 percent of Democratic primary ballots were cast by independents, whom Democrats would need to carry this state, and 11 percent by Republicans.
While the national media circus was in town, I spent time in almost every interview or conversation making my pitch that Indiana is already a very purple state. We hold a majority of the congressional delegation after our three pickups in 2006. We hold the Indiana House, albeit by a razor-thin margin. And aside from the last three years, Democratic governors have been the norm across the Hoosier heartland.
But could November put an end to the 40-year streak that the GOP has put together in Indiana?
If it's going to happen, you will need to see two things occur. First, Sen. Obama as the candidate will need to consolidate the Democratic and independent voters behind him in a way that the pundits don't seem to think possible. Second, you will need to see gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson run a campaign that is much stronger than the efforts put forth by her and her opponent during the primary. If McCain and Daniels are able to turn their friendship into a coordinated political machine within the state, this may very well be a tough nut to crack.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on... Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me...There's a pattern emerging here."
So she's basically saying, "Uneducated, underprivileged white people like me." As an educated, working-class white male, I find the comment a bit patronizing, but hardly worthy of such rabid condemnation. And there is an interesting pattern emerging here: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Wellesley Girl, finally discovers her own unique political voice among the rural and working class. Let's hope that if she loses the nomination (don't count her out yet) she doesn't lose sight of what she's/we've discovered about her.
Perhaps the statement can be construed as "playing the race card," but the press, with their Obama-worshiping, self-righteous indignation are really the ones showing their racial blinders. Peggy Noonan responded,
"If John McCain said, 'I got the white vote, baby!' his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical 'the black guy can't win but the white girl can' is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by."
Newsflash, Ms. Noonan: We are crudely divided as a nation by race, gender, sexual orientation, education, class and a host of other differences that are used to ensure that the status quo remains so long as we are unwilling to openly discuss and examine the issues that separate us. And why shouldn't issues of race and gender be open issues when they are such innate qualities of our personal identities? It is not the issues of race and gender that should not be discussed; it's that the issues of race and gender shouldn't be discussed with such shame that we want to turn off the discussion in mock distaste. As the New York Post observed,
"An analysis of racial breakdowns is always done behind the scenes by campaigns, but it's rarely discussed by a candidate openly."
"Quiet as it's kept..."
Yes, we are all no doubt aware that the press is hounding Hillary to just call it quits and give the presumptive golden boy his due. The political process and the will of the people be damned. The press will decide who's fit to be president. A decision so imperative should only be left to intellectual and culturally elite among us. The rest of you should just get back to work.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
