Does Hillary Want It

Armando says: "I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party — unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate — the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity."

I think Kevin Drum raises the right issue about this, namely the near-total lack of evidence that Hillary Clinton (as opposed to some number of her retainers) has any interest in the vice presidency. It's certainly true that if Clinton has a strong desire to be vice president, she arguably has it within her power to make a "I'm on the ticket or there's no unity" play. But if she doesn't want to be VP, then how disgruntled can her supporters really be about that?

Comments

I'd like to interrupt Armando and tell him he is a hack, a sycophant and a spineless joke of a blogger. This is not about Hillary Clinton, it's about fixing our country.

Posted by bjd | June 8, 2008 1:33 PM

I didn't know Armando was still considered a sane and relevant political commentator.
I guess this primary is going to be like the Iraq war.
Analysts whose prediction and assertion were proven to be laughably false, disingenuous and at times purely and simply mendacious will be rehabilitated in no time and everyone will act as if they had not proven themselves to be hacks.

Too bad.

Posted by Benjamin | June 8, 2008 1:34 PM

I'm skeptical too. I suspect she'd like to be majority leader, although I doubt that's in Obama's power to give her. My guess is the Clintons don't want to deal with the all that vetting (especially Bill's business deals) if the prize is second place. They'd also take a big hit, income-wise, if Bill had to curb his speech making (and surely he'd have to, right?).

I'm not saying it's obvious she doesn't want the veep job, only it's not obvious she does, either.

Posted by Jasper | June 8, 2008 1:37 PM

I guess "My dreams for my career require Clinton in the Executive" didn't seem sufficiently compelling on first draft.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM

To anyone saying that bullsh*t, empty threat, go f*** yourself.

If you want to make a rational case either that Clinton would aid Obama in the general election, or in office, or even that the VP slot really is in Hillary Clinton's best interest (all of which I find completely unconvincing so far), then go ahead.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2008 1:40 PM

Keep head tucked in sand. Keep head tucked in sand. Listen and read only people from "the Movement".

By the way, the irrelevant ones are the embedded cheerleaders of the Obama campaign, who sold any ideals they may have had, for the orgy of the love of "the Movement".

BTD kept his integrity throughout. Something that I must say, integrity, is lacking in the netroots addicted to hits. MSM and netroots, are now the same.

Posted by stellaa | June 8, 2008 1:42 PM

The VP pick is a pretty big story. I'm not sure the Clinton irredentists will be able to create much of a fuss on that day. And they'll look pretty bad trying.

Posted by southpaw | June 8, 2008 1:47 PM

Just posted this at Ezra's blog:

Why WOULDN'T she want the job? Being the first female VP would put her in the history books in a way that simply being a losing presidential candidate would not. And I never bought this whole "VP is a step down" talk. She's one of a hundred Senators, and even if she were to become Majority Leader one day (doubtful, I think), that's really not the high profile job some make it out to be. The VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone? And finally, Obama's not going to lose the election -- the Clintons may have made that argument in private but they're not morons. Languishing in the Senate under an Obama presidency is probably the worst of all worlds for Hillary.

Posted by Ryan | June 8, 2008 1:49 PM

Armando has always been an Obama supporter.

But, he has been willing to be critical of the bone-headed actions and destructive (dis-uniting) attitudes of many other Obama supporters in the media, on the blogs and at times in the campaign and among the party establishment.

Obama's failure to win a genuinely decisive victory (one that did not rely so much on DNC manipulations and Super-delegates) has be be laid at the door of the Obama campaign and those actions and attitudes.

If Obama's campaign is as reluctant to criticize itself, and unwilling to come to terms with its own mistakes, as the posters here, it does not bode well for success in the general election.

As for whether Clinton wants the VP spot, I don't think she does -- but I think she will take it if Obama's poll numbers don't improve over the next few weeks and polling continues to show that the ticket has a stronger chance if she is on it.

I think she was more than totally sincere yesterday in stating that her commitment is, first and foremost, to the issues she ran on, and that she believes we MUST have a Democratic administration to make progress on those issues.

For her personally and for her political future, the VP slot would not be beneficial. If the ticket loses, the Obama forces will blame her. (But, it looks like they are ready to blame her even if she is not on the ticket.) If she wins, she will likely be too old before she again has a chance to run for the presidency. But, nonetheless, it may be the best thing for the party -- not simply to in some way appease her hard core supporters (which I don't think it will do much to do) but to reassure people in the broader electorate who are worried about the economy and associate the Clinton name with better economic governance (than we've enjoyed under Bush).

I have read that the Obama campaign is waiting to see how, and if, his numbers improve over the next few weeks before making a decision about whether they need her on the ticket.

I don't think she wants it. But if it is presented to her that she is needed, I think she will have no choice but to accept.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 1:52 PM

Armando has always been an Obama supporter.

Oh bullshit.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 8, 2008 1:56 PM

Senate Majority Leader can be a very powerful position -- look at LBJ -- read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. Whoever has that job next year can be a prime mover of the Obama agenda -- much of it cannot get done without that person's leadership.

Then there's the Supreme Court. There will be some age and health related resignations within the next couple of years -- sooner if a Dem is elected. She could have a lasting, powerful effect on the country from the bench. Plus, it would drive wingnuts (further) insane, always a plus.

Posted by Bat of Moon | June 8, 2008 2:02 PM

Note to Pup Tent Democrat: blackmail really doesn't work when you've got nothing to offer. Hillary Clinton has something to offer, but Armando doesn't.

The VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone?

Not this year. There's not going to be any enthusiasm for a Veep candidate who has Cheneyesque ambitions for sequestering executive power in the 'fourth branch'. That's why I think Brian Schweitzer's an interesting candidate, because he's very not Cheney. I'd even be content with a Veep choice who gets up and says 'John Nance Garner said this office was not worth a bucket of warm piss, and I will work hard to return it to that hallowed status.'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 8, 2008 2:02 PM

The larger issue it seems, to me, is when a candidate or her supporters threaten the party they don't do their candidate any favors. What Obama and many of his supporters have always wanted since it was obvious he was going to be the nominee was to show support of the Democratic party, rather than divide it in an attempt to win the nomination. Clinton's supporters have this view of holding the party hostage until their demands are met. There's a reason Hillary and Barack are part of a political party, it's to advance the PARTY, not the individual candidate. The Democratic party has elected their leader for the next 4 years, if you're a Democrat you support that person, otherwise why are you a Democrat?

Posted by tom.a | June 8, 2008 2:04 PM

She wants it. No way does she let people like her husband and Ickes and Rangel and Feinstein get so far out there if she didn't want it.

Posted by evie | June 8, 2008 2:05 PM

Hillary must not be on the ticket with Obama. She redefined the politics of personal destruction by running a venomous, despicable, deceitful campaign based on fear-mongering and race-baiting. Hillary proved her disloyalty to the Democratic Party when she said McCain was more qualified to be President than Obama. Hillary never missed an opportunity to denigrate or demean Obama. Hillary is the patron saint of toxic sludge politics and is a cancer within the Democratic Party.

Hillary would make a good ambassador to Bosnia because she's such a hard working white person, as far as I know.

Posted by Floyd | June 8, 2008 2:06 PM

The VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone?

No, the VP spot is what the president makes of it. The only reason Dick Cheney has any authority is because Bush allows him to. If the vice presidency were "what you make of it," then talented politicians like Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush, and Al Gore would have made a lot more of it than they did.

As vice president, Hillary Clinton would have exactly as much power as Obama let her have, and no more.

Posted by John | June 8, 2008 2:07 PM

1. Armando is a dumb asshole to whom no sane person pays attention.
2. Prediction: financial vetting of Bill will kill any Hillary for veep possibility stone cold dead. (But we'll likely never hear about it, we'll just hear that Hillary turned out not to be interested after all.)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 8, 2008 2:11 PM

The VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone?

The VP spot is what the president allows you to make of it. It's ridiculous to expect Obama to follow Bush's example of letting Uncle Dick run things so much.

Armando has always been an Obama supporter.

Sure, just as Mickey Kaus has always been a liberal, Joe Lieberman has always been a Democrat, and John McCain has always been a moderate.

Posted by KCinDC | June 8, 2008 2:14 PM

John beat me to it (re: the VP spot being what the president makes of it). But he says one additional thing that I have a slight issue with:

The only reason Dick Cheney has any authority is because Bush allows him to.

Technically true. But I think it would be more accurate to say that Dick Cheney has so much power because he has fooled the weak-minded Bush into giving it to him. I still believe the past 7.5 years have been 90% Cheney's doing and 10% Bush's. Bush is a puppet.

Posted by Cello | June 8, 2008 2:15 PM

ANTI - HILLARY PETITION
Help spread the word and this link to your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc!!!!

Friends don't let friends support Hillary as Obama's running mate.
Don't let Hillary get away with it by having her supporters force Obama to put her on to the ticket.

DON'T LET CLINTON HIJACK THE VP SLOT
http://renymonk.com/2008/06/05/my-pettiion-dont-let-clinton-hijack-the-vp-slot.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reny-monk/my-petition-dont-let-clin_b_105070.html

Obama/Anybody but Hillary 08

Posted by Seth | June 8, 2008 2:18 PM

Someone said BTD kept his "integrity" throughout? What? I guess he didn't lose any integrity, because he had none to begin with.

esmense,
Your narrative about Hillary - she doesn't want VP, but she'll put her wants aside for the good of the party if she's *needed* to bail out poor incompetent Obama - tests the boundaries of the word 'absurd.' Your analysis is silly - the only conceivable reason to put her on the ticket would be to appeal to her hardcore supporters. But if you say that won't do the trick with those immature sore losers, then there's no point. The name "Clinton" on the ballot does not automatically mean the band should crank up "Happy Days Are Here Again." Only a child would think that.

Between that and your "Armando has always been an Obama supporter," I'd like to thank you for the Sunday morning laughs.

Posted by Woody Bombay | June 8, 2008 2:23 PM

The Clinton campaign is running a passive-aggressive campaign as it relates to VP. On the one hand, it's solely up to Barack Obama. On the other hand, if Obama picks somebody other than Hillary Clinton it's an insult.

VP is a pretty important job. Actually WANTING THE JOB would seem to be a prerequisite for consideration. I doubt Sen. Clinton will ever tell Sen. Obama "Yes, I want the job" at any point in the vetting and instead will rely on "I'll serve if asked" and "anything for my country" platitudes.

Why wouldn't Obama pick a VP that answers "Do you want to be VP?" with a simple "Yes!". When Obama picks Sebelius it will be portrayed as some kind of betrayal from Clinton supporters who are apeing the passive-aggressive stance of their candidate.

Clinton isn't getting picked because her judgement is horseshit on Iraq. Same goes for Kerry, Dodd, Edwards, etc.. If you voted for the Iraq War you get a set of steak knives, not VP.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 8, 2008 2:29 PM

tom.a.

The Obama movement was/is based on challenging the Democratic party. It was based on creating "change" with a "new" coalition in which many of the party's traditional constituencies would be out-numbered and have less power. It was/is about generational "change." And about institutional "change" -- running the "Clinton" wing of the party establishment out of the party or at least greatly weakening it. None of that is in anyway "uniting."

The problem for "the movement" -- and Obama's candidacy now -- is that it failed; it did not prove strong enough to provide Obama with a DECISIVE win. Instead of defeating those traditional constituencies, over-powering them with an influx of "new" voters (younger people, independents, moderate Republicans), it simply divided the existing party coalition right down the middle, along generational, class, racial and gender lines.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are part of "a party." But one of them set out to radically change who had power in and who would be most represented by that party. Having failed in that effort, the Obama movement has no choice but to now try to make friends with, and gain the votes of, those members of the party that it just a few short weeks ago was running against, and to running to disempower.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 2:29 PM

By the way -- I thought that the preliminary empirical evidence trickling in put to bed this ridiculous notion that all 18 million people who, say, voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries are now hiding in their basements, refusing to support the actual Democratic candidate?

The reason the VP push is being made so hard right now is because the most fervent candidate obsessives realize that what is happening right now is that signs indicate that all those Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are now shifting to back the actual Democratic candidate, and the only place that isn't obvious is among candidate obsessives.

By the time the VP selection time rolls around, it will be pretty close to a non-issue, and this bugs the sh*t out of a lot of people.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2008 2:32 PM

he VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone?

This is entirely incorrect. Absolutely and completely. The VP position is what the President allows it to be. No more and no less. The VP has no power that the President does not allow him or her to have. What that means in sane administrations is that whatever power that person is given will be meted out carefully and with a very short leash. That is because whatever power the VP is given, the responsibility for whatever decisions are made will fall upon the President. No one who does not happen to be as stupid and feckless as our current President is going to let anyone run around in that office doing their own thing based upon tehir own agenda. That is absolutely a recipe for disaster, whomever the VP happens to be.

Posted by brent | June 8, 2008 2:37 PM

Over the last few months Hillary has been a gaffe machine, a VP candidate needs to be very disciplined and stay on message. Hillary does not seem like the right person for that job. When you throw Bill into the mix it seems even worse.

The Clintons' finances would also be a great talking point for the right-wing, whatever "unity" that would be gained from putting Hillary on the ticket would be lost in ammunition she would give to the Republicans during the campaign.

Posted by John Rove | June 8, 2008 2:44 PM

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are part of "a party." But one of them set out to radically change who had power in and who would be most represented by that party. Having failed in that effort, the Obama movement has no choice but to now try to make friends with, and gain the votes of, those members of the party that it just a few short weeks ago was running against, and to running to disempower.

I agree with you up to a point. I think "disempower" is a bit of a strong word to use for the type of transformation that Obama is attempting here. Nonetheless I think he would agree that it is important to reach out more to the branch of the party that isn't the new hotness. I think he is already doing that. I just don't think Clinton as VP is the only effective means of doing that. More than that, I think it could be counterproductive in the end.

Posted by brent | June 8, 2008 2:47 PM

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are part of "a party." But one of them set out to radically change who had power in and who would be most represented by that party. Having failed in that effort, the Obama movement has no choice but to now try to make friends with, and gain the votes of, those members of the party that it just a few short weeks ago was running against, and to running to disempower.

I agree with you up to a point. I think "disempower" is a bit of a strong word to use for the type of transformation that Obama is attempting here. Nonetheless I think he would agree that it is important to reach out more to the branch of the party that isn't the new hotness. I think he is already doing that. I just don't think Clinton as VP is the only effective means of doing that. More than that, I think it could be counterproductive in the end.

Posted by brent | June 8, 2008 2:48 PM

To anyone who has seen the inerview on ABC this morning with Senator Feinstein-it is clear Hillary wants the VP slot. Feinstein, related to hillary through a marriage, passionately insisted that Hillary didn't merely have a base of support, but she has a 'movement' and has earned to be atleast a VP. Check this out 5minutes into the interview.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5024441

Posted by Clear | June 8, 2008 2:52 PM

EMENSE,

You are acting as if HRC had an edge in pledge delegates when in fact she didn't. The only way she was going to get the nomination was through the superdelegates.

Posted by Micheline | June 8, 2008 2:52 PM

EMENSE,

You are acting as if HRC had an edge in pledge delegates when in fact she didn't. The only way she was going to get the nomination was through the superdelegates.

Posted by Micheline | June 8, 2008 2:53 PM

Esmense, Obama wasn't running to disempower women or old people or working-class whites, or any of the other groups that make up the 18 million Clinton voters. The people who will be disempowered by an Obama win are the DLC and the consultants who've been enriching themselves off Democratic candidates for years and some of the big-money donors, and there aren't 18 million of them.

Posted by KCinDC | June 8, 2008 2:57 PM

Another day, another threat from Concern Troll Democrat, a man who thinks Alan Colmes is just fine as long as Hannity's there for 'balance'.

Of course Hillary wants VP; she has a better chance of running a shadow government from the bowels of the White House than she does accomplishing anything as Senator. Just as obviously, she won't get it, for the following reasons:

1. As long as Obama gets 20 death threats per day, he'll be looking for the most ideologically-compatable VP possible. The Clintons claim to be similar on domestic policy (given their actual history, it's possible to dispute this), but in foreign policy, they couldn't be more different. A big chunk of the neoconservative takeover happened in 1992.

2. In addition to the Bush moles who'll need to be rooted out of the government, there's also a Clinton cabal, and the No Quarter business should remind us that Clintonites in the CIA and Pentagon have been especially active recently. If these people are coordinated from inside the White House, the Obama team will struggle to access even basic foreign policy information.

Seriously, if Obama's going to be dropped neck-deep in the shit in January, why back up the truck and dump another load in? Why throw himself down the well trying to compete in Arkansas and WV when there are 20 other battleground states that will be more receptive to him?

Posted by Sean | June 8, 2008 2:57 PM

There's only one reason Hillary would want to be VP, and that's to set up a run in 8 years. 8 years from now Hillary will be 69. That means for 8 years she'd be in the number two seat to a guy who, unlike GWB, seems to know his own mind about the details of policy. Obama's VP will be no Dick Cheney. The VP effect on Obama policy is going to be limited to representing the President, not puppeteering him.

As Senator from New York Hillary has her own power base (New York voters) and thus a seat at the table to negotiate policy details to her liking. Moreover, Obama then has a reason to accommodate her on policy specifics: to get her vote in the Senate.

Look for Hillary to retain her powerful seat in the Senate, much as Ted Kennedy did. She'll have far more effect on America there than she would as VP.

Posted by west coast | June 8, 2008 3:06 PM

Clear:

HRC isn't related to Feinstein by marriage. She used to be related to Sen. BOXER by marriage, but that did not end well. Her brother is now divorced from Boxer's daughter and it wasn't so amiable. There was controversy over child support etc.

Feinstein IS a strong supporter of HRC however, so your larger point that HRC probably is interested in the VP nomination is not off-base in my view.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | June 8, 2008 3:14 PM

oh just ignore Armando. he's a total and complete hack.

Posted by cleek | June 8, 2008 3:17 PM

What will you people do with your lives when Hillary is not an object of your hate. Just erase, 18 million people in swing states for convenience.

Wowzers, I have avoided these sites since I saw what psycho loonies you all are. Thought I would randomly read one of your gurus, but I guess the mob is still out there. All the castrati singing in unison the Axelrod inspired Clinton hate. You are such a comic bunch to behold.

For a bunch of post partisan transcended people, you certainly act funny.

Posted by stellaa | June 8, 2008 3:20 PM

The fact Dianne Feinstein still peddles the popular vote win BS makes me think she has not really thought hard on how to convince Obama Hillary should be in.
The more the keep repeating that bull trying to delegetimize him, the less likely he is to want to make them a favor.

All these people from McAuliffe to Hillary to Feinstein seem to have lost any political sense and talent in this mess, have they ?
They should know better.

Posted by Benjamin | June 8, 2008 3:22 PM

Also the title of this post shows that Matt is a sexist pig! I'm writing Hillary in in November, that'll show you all!!!

Posted by stellaaack | June 8, 2008 3:29 PM

Micheline --

Obama's lead in pledged delegates was miniscule -- he did not and had no chance of winning the actual number of pledged delegates required to win on pledged delegates alone. The only way he could get the nomination was with the Super Delegates.

You are correct to imply that if the Super Delegates had gone the other way, Hillary would have won only on a technicality. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's win was equally earned on the basis of a technicality. In terms of actual votes cast, it was a tie (with a slight edge in Hillary's favor).

That is not a dicisive victory (for Obama), and it is indicative of a party split down the middle. If the Super Delegates had gone the other way, Clinton would be faced, of course, with the same problem Obama now faces -- uniting a fractured party.

KCinDC --

Many of Obama's early primary backers and funders are DLC Democrats, Wall Street big wigs, etc. People like Daschle, Durbin, etc. have long been deal makers and compromisers. Same old neo liberal politics, now perhaps under a new name.

"Change" is always inherently a divisive appeal because it must be based in creating and intensifying divisions and dichotomies; between good and bad, young and old, past and present, pure and unpure, those who are "in" and those who are "out," etc.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 3:34 PM

The slim victory by Obama in the nomination fight is only the sign of a "split party" if there is evidence now that Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are not likely to vote for Obama in the general election.

I haven't yet seen that evidence. Has anyone else?

It is not a "split party" now simply because the primaries & caucuses before there was a Democratic candidate as there is now were split between the two main rivals.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2008 3:43 PM

That argument assumes HRCs supporters are rational when all available evidence says otherwise.

Posted by joeBlithe | June 8, 2008 3:44 PM

That argument assumes HRCs supporters are rational when all available evidence says otherwise.

Posted by joeBlithe | June 8, 2008 3:45 PM

God, my state deserves a senator far superior to Dianne "PG&E" Feinstein.

Posted by Jim Dandy | June 8, 2008 3:48 PM

Polls of Dems and Dem-leaning Indies right now show 75% of Dems don't think Obama should pick Hillary if he doesn't want her, i.e. shouldn't be forced into it. There are undecideds in there as well, so we're talking about 1 in 5 left-leaners right now who think Obama should be "held hostage" so to speak, on this.

That number has -0- room to grow and, in actuality, will most likely shrink. El Cid is right: who really thinks that will stay steady for another 6 weeks, when VP selection actually happens? I'd guess we're talking about 10-12% of the party, max. And then, what portion of that group will nurse those hurt feelings all the way to Nov, after getting to know Obama's VP choice (who, likely, will be very good, if his team displays the type of sound judgment they've shown throughout this campaign), and watching Obama as-contrasted-to McCain and his VP choice, rather than contra Hillary?

We're talking, in the end, about probably max 5-7% of Dems and Dem-leaners. mind you, we typically lose 12-17% of registered Dems to the GOP candidate, depending on the year, and still have legit shots at the popular vote (if not winning it, e.g. 2000). This is a non-issue. El Cid is right: the most ardent Cinton backers are making hay of this right now b/c they know that their leverage decreases as time goes on, and this is really their only shot.

Posted by Michael | June 8, 2008 3:54 PM

The above-named "Jim Dandy" is an impersonator.
Give it up. Be more imaginative. Choose another name,please.

Posted by (The Real) Jim Dandy | June 8, 2008 4:18 PM

Kevin is arguing that Hillary *should not* want to be veep but not addressing the evidence that she either does or wants pressure in that direction as leverage for something else. The proof is simply that surrogates like Johnson and Davis are openly pushing this, and if Hillary did not want Veep, or even did not want public pressure to make her Veep, she would tell them to knock it off, and they would. Does anyone seriously think Bob Johnson and Lanny Davis would be pushing this contrary to Hillary's will?

Posted by Martin Bento | June 8, 2008 4:24 PM

That is not a dicisive victory (for Obama), and it is indicative of a party split down the middle. If the Super Delegates had gone the other way, Clinton would be faced, of course, with the same problem Obama now faces -- uniting a fractured party.

fractured at least in part due to people like yourself who keep pushing the idea that Obama's victory is illegitimate.

but you just keep on pretending it's Obama's fault, cause McCain needs all the help he can get.

Posted by cleek | June 8, 2008 4:26 PM

No disunity! As long as O keeps pushing the meme 'All VP candidates will be vetted!', O has nothing to worry about. Bill and his post-presidency financial dealings and library donors are going to take care of all of this for O. No worries!

Posted by eaglecapri | June 8, 2008 4:30 PM

No disunity! As long as O keeps pushing the meme 'All VP candidates will be vetted!', O has nothing to worry about. Bill and his post-presidency financial dealings and library donors are going to take care of all of this for O. No worries!

Posted by eaglecapri | June 8, 2008 4:30 PM

Obama is the leader of the party now, and he needs to do whatever he can to stop being seen as a referent to Hillary. Continuing in that perception is a bad message, because he cannot reap the rewards of his victory while appeasing the politician he beat, and the nation cannot fully acclaim him as both the victor within his party and its new leader, formidably fit to defeat McCain.

The whole world is watching, too. Is he too soft?, some are wondering, while they know he seems big-hearted and free of pettiness. If you are widely perceived as being conciliatory, then you don't have to bend over backwards to prove once more that you are conciliatory. You need, instead, to show you know it's not always wise or necessary to conciliate, especially when some will think you've been forced into it. Successful conciliation is not about having a lemon and making a lemonade -- because there's pressure on you, and what can you do? If you do that, you may be responding to a tough situation, but you will not be seen as understanding the best use of power.

For Hillary to get invited onto the ticket as VP will undercut the meaning of Obama's win -- it will be a wavering moment that not even Hillary's supporters will respect him for, since it is far too large a concession to command respect. If Hillary can make him cave, then Ahmadinejad can make him cave, the logic goes. And if I were a Republican, I'd believe it.

Much of the respect many people who were not at first enchanted now have for Obama is based on his vanquishing the most famous and powerful political team in the country. Something very special and right can be done to canalize Hillary's fantastic talents in a way that even she will settle for -- for the nonce. But the woman who slips up and makes a hell of a remark about the timing of an assassination simply cannot be a heartbeat away, for that slip would be a spectral presence in the White House, dreadfully symbolic and ominous. And if there's a back door always open for Bill Clinton, who, like a vapor, fills any chamber he enters, then nothing has truly changed.

I think Obama understands power very well -- look what he's done. But caution and respect are the watchwords now, as he comes into his own. If he can show that he seeks unity without recklessness at home, and dialog abroad -- far, far abroad -- without handing out the keys to the kingdom, then he will be strong enough to defeat McCain in November and to push forward the progressive agenda for the next 8 years. Acts of deference, or worse, acts that look like deference, will not get him -- or us -- there.

Posted by Elatia Harris | June 8, 2008 4:30 PM

No disunity! As long as O keeps pushing the meme 'All VP candidates will be vetted!', O has nothing to worry about. Bill and his post-presidency financial dealings and library donors are going to take care of all of this for O. No worries!

Posted by eaglecapri | June 8, 2008 4:31 PM

Matt, contra you and Kevin, that many people in Clinton's inner circle wouldn't have pushed the idea this strongly unless she were attached to it herself in some way.

She may actually be looking for "leverage" than the VP spot itself. But, she's looking for something. Her staff didn't just throw this out as a random trial balloon.

Re Kevin’s post, it gave me a blog">http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/06/early-winner-on-kevin-drums-worst-post.html">blog post on a slow Sunday, all the people with weird ideas for Clinton’s future. (Not to mention the continued stupidity of the Jim Webb as VP idea.)

Posted by SocraticGadfly | June 8, 2008 4:35 PM

cleek --

I did not in any way say that Obama's nomination was "illegitimate." I said that his movement's victory was not "decisive."

Totally different point. But also a totally factual one.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 4:48 PM

The drumbeat for Clinton, especially when it's tied to claims that it's the only way to unite the party, really makes it almost impossible for Obama to put her on the ticket. He'd look weak, and as others have said, that's already a battle he has to fight. Making her nomination the price he has to pay to show 'respect' to her supporters looks an awful lot like extortion. The whole push puts him in a bind where he loses either way. He puts her on the ticket and he's weak; he leaves her off and he's disrespecting Hillary and all her women supporters.

Best thing for the party is to just stop talking about VP, focus on McCain, and come back to the question in a few months when things have settled.

Posted by Maggie | June 8, 2008 4:50 PM

Armando is an Obama supporter like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are Democrats. His whole schtick on TalkLikeme is to concern troll as an Obama supporter, giving some legitimacy to all the hatred the Clinton folks feel over there.

Last Tuesday, when the Clinton campaign sent out mixed messages about when/if/how Hillary would concede, the commenters were convinced that it was a nefarious Obama plot to depress the popular vote in South Dakota and Montana. Attempts at refutation were met with "prove the anonymous Clinton campaign official cited wasn't an Obama operative". Fucking crazies.

unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate — the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

Did the Kübler-Ross model ever include a blackmail step? Seriously, Clinton can claim 18 million votes, but threats like these carry the support of only a handful of bitter internet crazies (who have already declared that they would never vote for Obama based on anything but policy) and a couple of right-wing trolls.

Posted by ben | June 8, 2008 5:06 PM

Armando is an Obama supporter like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are Democrats. His whole schtick on TalkLikeme is to concern troll as an Obama supporter, giving some legitimacy to all the hatred the Clinton folks feel over there.

Last Tuesday, when the Clinton campaign sent out mixed messages about when/if/how Hillary would concede, the commenters were convinced that it was a nefarious Obama plot to depress the popular vote in South Dakota and Montana. Attempts at refutation were met with "prove the anonymous Clinton campaign official cited wasn't an Obama operative". Fucking crazies.

unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate — the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

Did the Kübler-Ross model ever include a blackmail step? Seriously, Clinton can claim 18 million votes, but threats like these carry the support of only a handful of bitter internet crazies (who have already declared that they would never vote for Obama based on anything but policy) and a couple of right-wing trolls.

Posted by ben | June 8, 2008 5:06 PM

MY: I think Kevin Drum raises the right issue about this, namely the near-total lack of evidence that Hillary Clinton (as opposed to some number of her retainers) has any interest in the vice presidency.

Then you are as obtuse as he is.

Posted by Econobuzz | June 8, 2008 5:09 PM

Emense,

Yes his lead was miniscule but it was still a lead. He also leads her in the popular vote however you slice it. Another factor I think is the way the campaigns dealt,while her campaign was mostly heavy-handed and giving threats his campaign did the opposite.

Emense,

You talked about the Obama disuniting the various groups within the Democratic party. I don't think that is the case. Being an attendee of the some of the Democratic groups, one thing that I always find dismaying was the lack of young people involved in these events. It is as if there was no new blood. Well now we do.

Posted by Micheline | June 8, 2008 5:29 PM

Obama's lead in pledged delegates is 126. An election that turns out 52%-48% may be close, but we don't normally refer to the difference as minuscule or pretend that it's something that calls for a recount or coin flip. Yes, it was close for a nomination contest, but that doesn't make it indecisive.

Posted by KCinDC | June 8, 2008 5:50 PM

Obama's lead in pledged delegates is 126.

This is more than 13 times the pledged delegate lead that Clinton picked up from Ohio.

In a proportional delegate system, against a well-funded candidate with name recognition, this is about the biggest lead one could hope for.

Posted by ben | June 8, 2008 6:01 PM

Hillary Clinton “suspended” her campaign, retained her delegates, delayed her announcement, talked about herself 95% of the time; and Barack Obama will windup supporting her as vice president, and or with picking up her debt – while she formulates the appropriate venom. Like water, the Clintons seek their own level and generally find it – all 18-million of them. However, should Mr. Obama ever pick the black widow as his running mate, they will simply cancel each other out. Hillary summed up her “concession” by gesticulating and shouting, “god bless America.” The daytime temperature in Washington, DC was a balmy 96 degrees, with a heat index of 110 degrees. As Hillary’s sweltering supporters made their way to a veritable fleet of SUVs, many were about to discover the dearth of gas stations in the nation’s capitol. Not only is gasoline well over $4-dollars per gallon in the District of Columbia, stations are as scarce as hens teeth. But I have to credit the cabal for one thing, at no time during the primary process, did this come to light: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | June 8, 2008 6:54 PM

Oops! The sentence should read as
Another factor I think is the way the campaigns dealt[with the superdelegates],while her campaign was mostly heavy-handed and giving threats his campaign did the opposite.

Posted by Micheline | June 8, 2008 7:42 PM

Matt: "namely the near-total lack of evidence that Hillary Clinton (as opposed to some number of her retainers) has any interest in the vice presidency."

Based on what? The simple fact that she hasn't publicly announced "I want the VP slot"?

Who else has publicly announced "I want the VP slot"?

Is this how it's done? I don't think so.

So Matt's "near-total lack of evidence" ignores the numerous people senior in the Clinton campaign and this article just today:

Obama urged to bring in Clinton
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-urged-to-bring-in-clinton-842793.html

Dianne Feinstein, the Californian senator who hosted last week's cloak-and-dagger meeting between the two candidates at her home in Washington, appeared on ABC's This Week to repeat her call for the former first lady to be invited to stand for vice-president...

Asked about the vice-presidential post, Mrs Clinton's campaign director, Howard Wolfson, told CBS: "It is not a job that she's seeking, and it's not a job that she is campaigning for. But she has made it clear, during the campaign and now, that she will do whatever she can and whatever she is asked."

Sure, I believe him...

Meanwhile, we have this:

Clinton is willing to take No. 2 spot, but she doesn't have a lock on it
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-veep4-2008jun04,0,7053931.story

"She basically has always said she'll do whatever it takes for a Democrat to be in the White House come Jan. 21," McCarthy said in an interview. "And she said, 'I would be open to accepting the vice presidential slot, if that's what Sen. Obama wanted.' "

I'd say Matt's post is totally lacking in evidence. Big surprise.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 8:08 PM

Hillary is a moral and ethical degenerate. She is of poor character, little integrity, and likely has borderline personality disorder. But, she is not a screaming mimi pissing "I WANT IT. I WANT IT. GIVE IT TO ME!" in the snow. Not even a rhesus monkey would do that. Of course, she wants the VP slot. It's one-step removed from the Presidency. Obama could choke on an invisible avocado pit (that she hid in his salad). Anything can happen, for Christ's sake. Look at her. Is there a sentient being on this planet who does not know that she's clutching at straws now and that she WANTS IT WANTS WANTS It even if it's just the #2 spot? C'mon, Matthew - what are you kidding?

Posted by Trevor | June 8, 2008 8:30 PM

"The drumbeat for Clinton, especially when it's tied to claims that it's the only way to unite the party, really makes it almost impossible for Obama to put her on the ticket. He'd look weak, and as others have said, that's already a battle he has to fight. Making her nomination the price he has to pay to show 'respect' to her supporters looks an awful lot like extortion. The whole push puts him in a bind where he loses either way. He puts her on the ticket and he's weak; he leaves her off and he's disrespecting Hillary and all her women supporters."

And this really does bring her political judgment into question. If she wants to be VP, her and especially her surrogates are going about it the wrong way. Holding the party hostage over 10%-20% of your supporters (while ignoring how having her on the ticket would help drive away independents and crossover Republicans while also boosting GOP turnout) just makes her look petty and egotistical. If she wants it, it's best to appeal to Obama and his supporters on how she can help Obama and the party win in November and how she can be an asset to his campaign. Instead, her current selling point is too reminiscent of that old Mad Magazine cover "buy this issue or this dog dies." When you have lost, you are not in the position of strength to make such demands. Also, if she really wants it, making sure Bill is willing to be vetted is an absolute requirement.

She is also overestimating the personal loyalty she has among those who voted for her. Several of those people have since switched to Obama. John Kerry at first was talking about running in 2008 by saying he had the loyalty of all the people who voted for him in 2004, but he eventually came around to realizing this wasn't true.

With that said, her concession speech was good. Supporters who will only vote Democratic if she is the nominee should have to ask themselves why they are more Catholic than the Pope.

Random factoid: Fidel Castro has been talking about how a joint ticket would be unbeatable. Somehow I don't trust his judgment.

Posted by Reality Man | June 9, 2008 12:43 AM

I can understand the deep disappointment of Clinton supporters over such a narrow and hotly-contested loss, but I think that the number of them who will vote for McCain is going to be substantially reduced by election day due to the lousy economic circumstances that the majority of these voters face. Clinton did better than Obama among lower-middle and working-class voters, especially older ones, and they have been especially hard-hit by manufacturing job losses and medical care costs. The dramatic escalation in gas prices has only added to the misery.

While the broadcast news media cheerleaders have done their best to apply huge amounts of lipstick to a very ugly pig, the grim truth is that far fewer jobs have been added to the economy than are necessary to stay even with population growth for 5 months running, and on top of that there have been substantial reductions in hours worked for those working full-time since March, and these reductions do not show up in unemployment figures. The only mass retail companies doing well are the Walmarts and Costcos, as strapped consumers gravitate with stimulus checks in hand to the lowest-cost sellers of basic necessities. As more and more consumers have access to home equity loans shut off, they're turning to credit cards as the sole remaining means of staying afloat, but this is at the same time that many CC companies are reducing the amount of money available to card holders. By September most Clinton supporters will face the option of voting for McCain — and the continuance of Bush's economic policies — with rapidly growing distaste, regardless of their antipathy to Obama. I certainly am not saying that Obama can take them for granted; on the contrary, he has to address the concerns and fears of all Clinton supporters with serious proposals and genuine concern in order to win. There is no reason to think he won't make the effort.

Posted by bluestatedon | June 9, 2008 1:29 AM

Apparently Hillary's supporters want the consolation prize more than she does.

Therefore, in a gesture of reconciliation, Obama should don a pantsuit and burn a cross on his own lawn. In the process, he should injure himself and then show up at the ER without insurance. Once there, he should loudly complain about the Mexican in front of him at the registration desk, and about the Indian doctor who treats him.

Then, he should go home, climb under his American flag bedsheets, get stinking drunk, and light up.

Posted by Gronk | June 9, 2008 5:54 AM

WTF was that?

Posted by El Cid | June 9, 2008 8:17 AM

Personally, I don't think she even wants it, but Armando is right: Putting Hillary on the ticket would mean that we win.

On the other hand, continuing to trash Hillary, who has moved up two or three notches in the nation's estimation, is really stupid.

Posted by John Petty | June 9, 2008 11:15 AM

But if she doesn't want to be VP, then how disgruntled can her supporters really be about that?

Plenty. A lot of them don't listen to reason. How close are Hillary and Obama on the issues? Pretty damn close. Those commenters on TalkLeft and Taylor Marsh who say that they would rather see McCain win than vote for Obama are idiots. Talk about a personality cult.

Posted by Gus | June 9, 2008 3:25 PM