Opening the Day: Clinton Doesn't Want VP! Yes She Does!

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:32


Ah, airport wifi.  Love it.  Love it.

  • Hillary Clinton does not want to be VP.

    "She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her," communications director Howard Wolfson said. "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

    She is also encouraging her donors to get behind Obama.  Clinton's a pro, she's going to come out of this race stronger and more powerful.

  • Andy Stern writes about Barack at the Huffington Post.

    The morning after Senator Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, he didn't speak to Wall Street. Instead he spoke to more than 4,000 SEIU members, guests and delegates in San Juan, Puerto Rico at the SEIU 2008 Convention.

  • McCain now thinks warrantless wiretaps are legal.  Six months ago, he didn't.

  • The American Conservative Union is threatening legal action against a supporter who started a facebook group to promote CPAC, the preeminent conservative conference in the country.  The Next Right has his letter.

    It is with a genuine sense of concern that I ask whether you threatened the same against unofficial CPAC 2008, 2007, and 2006 groups? Perhaps the reason you are threatening me is because this group has had more members than yours for several months now.

    I don't know.

    But what I do know is that I find it doubtful that ACU members and donors would be pleased that you and Mr. Keene are so quick to spend their well-meaning contributions on what would be an expensive DC lawyer for such a sue-happy endeavor.

    Speaking of frivolity, your demands do illustrate a much larger point.

    What are you doing when you are not threatening legal actions against fellow conservatives?

    Certainly not spending that time in trying to get a real conservative as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Perhaps if you had done more of that then there would be less of a chance we would be stuck with a nominee who led the Amnesty for Illegal Aliens effort on the floor of the United States Senate.

    Ha ha ha.

  • Here's what Obama did in his campaign.

    Myers was struck by how closely Obama had studied the two campaigns of George W. Bush. "He said he wanted to run our campaign like a business," says Myers. And in a good business, the customer is king. Early on, before it had the resources to do much else, the campaign outsourced a "customer-service center" so that anyone who called, at any hour of the day or night, would find a human voice on the other end of the line.

    The campaign is well-run.  What I don't know is if this is a charismatic dude floating on a larger trend of internet fueled change hunger, or a smart and efficient campaign strategy.  Or both.  Amy Sullivan wrote about consultants a few years ago.

    Republicans, of course, don't have any natural monopoly on strategic talent--they just give their best young strategists chances to run the biggest national races. In all likelihood, there is another Karl Rove or James Carville out in the Democratic hinterlands, who ought to be playing essential roles in the most important races. It might be David Axelrod in Chicago, who developed the media strategy for the then-unknown Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) primary campaign; West Coast strategists Paul Goodwin and Amy Simon, who helped Democrats regain the legislature in Washington state; or even unconventional D.C.-based consultants like Anna Bennett, the pollster who engineered Melissa Bean's upset of veteran Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.) in November. But any new talent will likely remain on the national margins--running races for Congress and judgeships--until someone breaks up the consultant oligarchy.

    Judging from what I've seen, consultants are much weaker than they were, competing heavily with bloggers and activists for influence.  They aren't done, but their guru-like wisdom is heavily constrained by other forces.  Shrum, for instance, held his power through his connections to politicians and large dollar donors.  The personal link to politicians remains, but the donor link has been partially severed.  Small dollar donors can now make a candidate 'viable' and win open seat primaries, and there's actually micro-press focusing on the ads and campaign activities of candidates (and consultants).  They are still making a bundle with flawed pricing models (15%), and they are still keeping good talent out, but it's not as bad as it once was.  

  • Most people don't want to go to war with Iran.  This makes Obama's bad statements on Israel significant.  More on this soon from Karl, our intrepid researcher.

And we're taking off, next stop Detroit layover, so I'll see you then.  Meantime, what are you reading?

Matt Stoller :: Opening the Day: Clinton Doesn't Want VP! Yes She Does!

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NC as pink state (0.00 / 0)
Paul might like to see this story about Obama's chances in NC, although I'm not sure it says anything all that new.
VA is obviously getting more immediate attention from the Obama camp.

P.S. More Fossella seat insanity!! (0.00 / 0)
  The son of the likely Repug nominee for the seat, Frank Powers (the dude from nowhere), is now announcing a run against his father:
http://www.silive.com/news/ind...
Too funny!

[ Parent ]
Obama's statements on Isreal (4.00 / 1)
about as significant as his appearance on Fox. Obama has so much good will built up as being a "reasonable person" that he has the flexibility to get hawkish without it raising concern with the vast majority of supporters.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Iran (0.00 / 0)
Despite the rhetoric, I don't see him invading Iran unless they committed an act of war against us or our allies... THIS seems to be what he was saying at the time.  1) He is not going to pull a Bush and do a pre-emptive invasion... there is nothing in Obama's character or past to indicate he would do this.  2)  If for some reason Iran does start a war, you can bet it will be a hell of a lot better planned than Bush's Iraq fuck up.

[ Parent ]
so the lesson from iraq is that... (4.00 / 1)
imperialism is okay as long as it's well executed?

[ Parent ]
What did you expect? (0.00 / 0)
Not like anyone's likely to start thinking that Imperialism is bad.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
well i do (0.00 / 0)
and most of the world does and i was hoping other people on a progressive blog would start too.

[ Parent ]
I meant in the halls of power (0.00 / 0)
where its still "good ta be da King", as Mel Brooks might say. I don't see much change in the imperialist midset among the ruling class.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
nor do I (0.00 / 0)
but I think it should be called out when it's seen, as frequently and coherently as possible.  At minimum, a decrease in the American ruling class's legitimacy might force them to make more consessions to people in the developing world that really shouldn't trust them at all.  At best, it might get the American people more informed and to tell their leaders to stfu, and push them to oppose the imperialism that's conducted in THEIR name.

[ Parent ]
Good Luck (0.00 / 0)
See you in the streets

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
oh we're not up to the streets yet :) (0.00 / 0)
though i do wish something had come of the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up to oppose the war in iraq in the direction of building an anti-imperialist movement.

anyway, the internet is the new street :)  until we're ready for the real ones :)


[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)
yeah, and he has the flexibility to say nice things about Reagan and Bush too, but that doesn't make it a good thing.  Of course he's going to move to the "center" for the general election, but the center sucks.  Reinforcing bad discourse is a terrible terrible thing and should be kept to a minimum; if he's not smarter than that, then what is the point of supporting him?

[ Parent ]
IAEA Board met this week (0.00 / 0)
I hate to be this guy, but. . .  

It seems untenable that Obama could go before AIPAC saying anything other than "all options are on the table."  two days after the Director General of the IEAE published a critical report calling on Iran to "demonstrate the necessary transparency and provide full disclosure to allow the IAEA to reach a conclusion on the nature of the Iranian programme as soon as possible."

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.


[ Parent ]
yeah no doubt (0.00 / 0)
two things: i was objecting more to the specific statements he made on israel/palestine which alienated most of the palestinian leadership and (rightly) convinced them that an Obama administration is no more committed to undoing the absurd bipartisan consensus that the U.S. pursues towards Israel/Palestine than a Republican (though I don't doubt it would be less bad).

Second, I was making it a point that my vote and more importantly support are withdrawable.  I hope that no one has supported Obama primarily on behalf of Palestinian rights, but if they have, I hope that they consider doing so and looking for other strategies that don't focus on electing the "right" President as a cure all.


[ Parent ]
also, remind me again (0.00 / 0)
why Iran doesn't have a right to have nuclear weapons given the fact that it might be the only thing stopping Iran from getting bombed, invaded, or nuked sometime in the next 15 years and the United States and Israel are both unwilling to abandon their nuclear weapons, among many other kinds?  That's why a stronger departure from precedent might make more sense, but it's probably not possible in the context of domestic politics.

[ Parent ]
Obama will use military force if necessary (4.00 / 1)
but only then.  Thats actually exactly what he said in the AIPAC speech.  He advocated diplomacy and only mentioned military force as

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

I don't understand how people think that is in any way inflammatory or "to the right of Bush".


[ Parent ]
re (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand how people think that is in any way inflammatory

You go in front of a major organization of the Zionist lobby and tell the world you have unconditional support for Israel and you don't understand why people who are not wholly invested in that agenda might find it inflammatory?  If our standard is "to the left of Bush" that's not saying much; there isn't much room to the right.  I mean the guy recently reportedly told the Israeli Knesset that they were appeasers - that's chutzpah.


[ Parent ]
Personally, I don't give a damn what his supporters think (4.00 / 1)
What the hell will he do if he is President?  That's the only thing I care about.  Right now, it looks like he'll be fiscally moderate, and more hawkish than Bill Clinton.  That gives me pause

[ Parent ]
And you are convinced of the hawkishness because? .. (0.00 / 0)
I have to believe he said that to counter the BS from Lieberman .. and those "secret Muslim" smears .. but what do I know

[ Parent ]
And the comment on unilateral action against Pakistan (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
And the praising of Reagan could be a hint (0.00 / 0)
and the long, long history that Democrats have for letting their base down

[ Parent ]
well this is part of a process of clarifying exactly how and where Obama is willing to be progressive and where he is not (0.00 / 0)
A lot of Sikhs after 9-11 (and other people) distributed cards that helped people understand the difference between Muslims and Sikhs.  This is tolerable as a survival strategy, but Obama's not trying to avoid getting shot for being perceived as a Muslim - he's only trying to win an election.  People have every right and some might argue responsibility to criticize him for kowtowing to nonsense rightwing talking points to the detriment of other people (statements that define you as "not the Other" implicitly reinforce that it's okay to think "the Other" is bad - which he did NOT do in the initial race speech, but you're saying he might have done here).

Anyway, it's one of many issues, but I don't think any of the criticism is unwarranted and if eventually the progressive support for him collapses, this should be one of several reasons why.


[ Parent ]
AP: Edwards Nixes VP Possibility (4.00 / 1)
Apparently it was reported in Spain's two largest dailies.  Is Edwards on vacation over there or something?

"I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again."


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

Musta been (4.00 / 1)
quite a privilege.

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
Hillary (0.00 / 0)
Well, Tuesday's speech by her really pissed me off, but she seems to understand the screwup there and since Wednesday has been pretty much fully behind Obama.  She is making all the right moves here.  I have to say, I am 95% sure Obama wins, but in the off chance he doesn't, I am a heck of a lot more comfortable with her in 2012 after her unselfish actions this week than I was before.  I'd probably support her, unless Gore runs.  

Edwards won't run on ticket! (4.00 / 2)
Breaking news:
John Edwards has ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, according to interviews carried by two leading Spanish newspapers on Friday. "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," Edwards was quoted by El Mundo as saying. El Pais, the country's other leading daily, carried similar comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

Hat tip to TalkLeft


At this point (0.00 / 0)
I think there's about as much justification for including Edwards in the straw polls as there is for Gore: "Would be great, not looking likely."

[ Parent ]
Well damnit (0.00 / 0)
Who next?

Sebelius and Clark seem like the strongest picks. Warner would not be a bad choice. If his health was okay I'm thinking Bob Grahm would be a very interesting pick.

Richardson, Clinton, Webb and Nunn would be horrible choices.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
nice choice for the NAFTA article (0.00 / 0)
I was just re-reading the John McCain article on NAFTA, and noticed this section:

His supporter Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator, also accused Clinton and Obama of practicing protectionism.

Gramm will be out in a huge scandal soon enough, but will live on here.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


taking into consideration how close this nomination was (0.00 / 0)
and how many people Barack owes things to, and how many people he's going to have to work with I'm readying Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln and his Team of Rivals.

And really enjoying this great blog about the photography of this campaign, being as how I'm a photographer:

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.co...







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search