"The Rev. Jesse Jackson said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton has made "a powerful case” for her candidacy for vice president.
Sen. Barack Obama should take his time choosing a running mate, Jackson said in an interview with the Associated Press today, but Clinton offers some major advantages.
"As he surveys the field, it must be someone who is compatible with him philosophically, someone who is loyal to his agenda and someone who brings a constituency that matters and the capacity to become the next president, as the Constitution requires should disaster strike," Jackson said, and Clinton meets those requirements. "She may not be the only one who does, but she certainly does.
"She starts with 18 million votes," he said. "She starts having gained a following among Latinos and she has substantial support among African Americans. … Women will be looking to her place in the scheme of things." " Baltimore Sun
—————————————————————-
Well, there you have it boys and girls… The Reverend Jesse has spoken. If you think this man is sticking his neck out for Hilary for altruistic reasons, you haven’t been watching him for the last thirty or forty years. The Reverend Al Sharpton will probably be next, and then Bill Richardson maybe? What a great chance to jump back into the good graces of his old friends.
These are practical politicians who are looking ahead to what the next four years will bring. Firstly, they want their party to be in office. Without that there will be no patronage, the coin that Washington really runs on. They calculate that Obama needs her to win. Then, there is the issue of whether or not as practical political men they can really trust him once the speechifying dies down and the "goodies" for constituents and selves start being passed around.
For them, "change we can count on" means change that brings power and the rewards that go with it. Jesse Jackson’s statement in this matter has nothing to do wth race and everything to do with political realism.
Jackson is a clever man.
Bill Clinton will make an admirable ambassador somewhere. pl
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/jesse_jackson_clinton_powerful.html
Somehow I don’t think “Change you can believe in” is credible with another Bush or Clinton on the ticket–or maybe the corporate press will make sure we don’t notice. And maybe McCain will select Jeb as his running mate, so we can be guaranteed of having an alternating monarchy.
This is the first true election of the 21st century.
All of the personalities connected to the Clinton’s want her to be a player so they can get have a position of influence(i.e. non-working but pontificating).
The Clintons are history!
Obama needs a VP nominee with strong foreign relations and national security experience. Ms. Clinton has some of Obama’s strength’s but many similiar weaknesses. Interestingly, McCain’s problem is the reverse. He needs a VP with strong domestic and management credentials. At least theoretically he can handle the National Security portfolio. VP selection the first really big real world decision for both McCain and Obama. Election could well be won or lost based on that decision. Given the depth of the country’s problems a moderate with right credentials could even come from the other party. Just needs brains, competence, solid credentials and strong politically. Say a C. Hagel for Obama and Ed Rendel for McCain. Just supposing of course.
jesse is not a politician
he is a public operator, an influence peddler, preacher, social organizer and comprimise negotiator
a left wing “evangelical” -an opposite of angelicals” of the right wing
but he is only one of many public figures, influence peddlers, social organizers advocating a hilary vp slot
change of power disrupts the established relationships between elected officials, public figures, influence peddlers and social organizers
let’s see what kind of
statement obamma makes with his vp choice
but let’s not forget that while it has become customary to view the veep as the candidate’s “choice”, the veep must be approved by a vote of the delegates
so his choice will be influenced by his political capital – what he can sell to those whose support he needs and those whose support he has
One quote:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”
Mr Webb for VP.
Just FYI, Obama does not need Clinton on the ticket to win the Latino vote:
“A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,3606654.story
I would never presume to know what motivates Jesse Jackson, and I rarely (probably never) agree with George Will, but I think he has it right:
“Behind the idea that Obama should run in harness with Clinton is this wobbly theory: Because the Republican Party is in such bad odor, if you unify the Democratic Party, that will suffice to win the election, and she is a necessary and sufficient catalyst of unity. But she is neither. She would be a potent unifier of John McCain’s party, thereby setting the stage for exactly what the nation does not need: another angry campaign of mere mobilization rather than persuasion.”
The 2008 electoral map will look different than 2004. Obama will get to 270 via Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri. He is in no danger of losing Pennsylvania because the Rendell/Nutter machine will win it for him.
Also, Webb, Warner and Kaine will deliver Virginia whether any of them are on the ticket or not.
With Bob Barr on the ballot in Georgia, he’s got a shot at that state too.
McCain can win Florida and Ohio and still lose the election.
The Dems need Michigan, and the dismal economy will put it into their column.
I think Frank Rich may have something:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08rich.html
Neither Jesse Jackson nor Webb or Clinton fit into this.
The trouble is that many of Hillary’s supporters won’t vote for the Democratic Ticket even if she is on it. They have become the modern equivalent of the “Barn Burners”–19th Century Democrats who wanted to burn down the barn to cleanse it of rats. They are eagerly devouring all of the Conservative name-calling against Obama without a shred of proof. They may soon accuse Hillary of “betraying us” and become fully invested in that feminist bastion the Republican Party.
Among the Marxists this is known as a “May Error,” in honor of the Polish Communists and Socialists who foolishly supported Marshal Pilsudski’s May, 1926 military coup–which overthrew the properly elected Polish government. Pilsudski instituted the archtypical “government of colonels,” who were less than sympathetic to Marxism. Well, live and learn I suppose.
I would argue there is more than a bit of generational angst at work here too. People want to stay ‘relevant’, for emotional, as well as practical, reasons.
We may be entering new territory, or it may all just be happytalk. But Obama may not believe he needs her to win. Or he just can’t process the prospect of Clinton as VP. Or she can’t – you folk know better, could Clinton even stand to be VP? Where would they lock up Bill, and why would he sit still for the vetting disclosure for anything less than the Presidency?
I mean, Jackson, a black religious leader, whose actual political clout is unknown to me, shills for the losing woman rather than pitching to the black man who just broke with his pastor. That just doesn’t sound right, but it sounds like things have, and have not “changed”. I suspect the demarcation betwixt old and new may be a considerable plank of the election, and an inoculation, even weapon. of sorts, against the former.
Surely Obama will not want to succumb to the mad scramble for position now that the race is truly joined, and give anything away to anyone he doesn’t wish to. I saw a poll reporting one in five Clinton voters will vote for McCain rather than Obama. Hopefully he gets the rest, continues to use the internet for leverage, and frustration delivers many a Reverend Wright moment to the Republicans. I can’t see how Clinton on the ticket could sell with the change campaign, and I don’t belive it’ll happen.
Will Bill Clinton release his Presidential Library’s donor list?
Will Bill Clinton release all his current client’s list?
Does Obama need to see Republican attacks ads quoting HRC?
Folks, this election is in Tim Russert’s famous quotes, “Ohio, Ohio, Ohio”.
Unless Obama realizes it’s also about “Virginia, Virginia, Virginia” or “go West young man.”
IMHO, HRC adds more problems than she solves.
IMO, if Obama selects the twofer Billary for VP all it will demonstrate is his weakness.
I believe it is time to pass the torch to the next generation. The generation that is going to be saddled with all the debt. My generation screwed up big time by eating up the seed corn provided by my parents and grand-parents generation.
And, do we need more drama? We’ll get plenty of that with the Clinton’s on the ticket.
Yes, Bill can become the point person to drive a stable and peaceful Middle East or developing a deeper connection with the new tigers in Asia. Hillary can become the point person in the Senate to get a new healthcare legislation that will cover all Americans with at least a minimum basic care. There’s many ways the two can help us.
Obama needs to bring in some fresh blood. We really need a changing of the guard.
If Obama is elected, it will be interesting indeed to see how operatives such as Jackson and Sharpton redefine themselves as black leaders.
While Obama imho has no intention of governing as a “black leader”, his presidency would take much of the focus from both Jackson and Sharpton.
For those of you who have posted that Obama should not pick Clinton as veep, I wholeheartedly agree.
Obama has his Rev. Wright baggage, fair enough, but the Clintons’ baggage is far, far heftier. And the Gop will go back to the 70’s to dredge it all back up.
I believe Rev. Jesse Jackson is right.
I am of the opinion that the blogosphere, particularly that of the liberal bent, is pretty far removed from the majority of voters of it’s party. In the blogosphere, Kucinich had a so so chance. And John Edwards would have made a much stronger showing.
While I like and respect Jim Webb,(I contributed money) it was a tight race and he barely won. Despite all the heavy guns of the Dem surrogates, he essentially eked by. Had it not been for the maccaca monent, I seriously doubt he would have won.
The so called East coast liberal elite has always despised the Clintons. Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, for example have always hated them. No love for Al Gore, either. I also would not take for granted John Kerry getting past his challenger from the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. The voters of Massachusetts did not follow their senators’ lead in their endorsement of Obama, not by a longshot. I think in TX, an Obama/Clinton ticket could carry the state and may truly be more of the Howard Dean’s ‘fifty state’ strategy than anyone ever envisioned. KY, OK, WVA, PA, FL, MI, OH, TN is much more in play if Sen. Clinton is to tilt Dem. on the ticket. If not Hillary, I think Wes Clark would be the strongest choice for Sen. Obama. He was on Fox for whole year as an analyst and took on O’Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the crew in front of millions of people. He has very serious credentials and has been a quick study since his foray into the world of politics. Despite some early missteps. Not to mention he was an ardent Clinton supporter who campaigned for her tirelessly.
Zbig, McPeak, Powers and Lake – (the latter two part of the B team of Clinton’s diplomatic corps) were what Sen. Obama had to work with. Surely he can do better now. We shall see and I’m sure more will be revealed.
I for one as a Democrat -would like to see Pelosi and Reid removed from their leadership positions. Definitely Pelosi if not Reid.
Dear COL Lang,
I just think it’s a bit premature for Obama to take HRC as the VP (assuming that’s what she wants). A lot can happen in the next two months obviously. While many including Larry Johnson are expecting an October surprise for the Obamas, I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if something emerges on the Clintons. If I were to give odds, I’d bet that it would be the Clintons who probably have more skeletons given the behavior of Bill Clinton after the presidency. It wasn’t an accident that a year ago Roger Stone was publicly chomping at the prospect of facing HRC in the general election. The Vanity Fair article just started to scratch the surface IMHO. IF Obama has trouble reengaging HRC supporters then the problem lies with the candidate and the campaign. IMHO they shouldn’t have problems attracting Democrats who vote in closed primaries if they do their job. The differences between Obama and McCain are stark and assuming rationality of voters (I know it’s a dangerous assumption given that there are some who have told me that Obama is a Muslim who subscribes to black liberation theology), I think the Dems probably will come back to the fold in November.
I still think Jimmy Carter hit the nail the other day when he said it would be the worst possible ticket. It would mobilize those who can’t stand the Clintons and those who probably supported George Wallace. In addition by choosing HRC, Obama probably would lose his “soft” supporters like me who had enough of the 1990s. Obviously the gotv operational execution is the key, but given the voter anger (my friends who had been active in 1980 campaign keep reminding me of this comparison) is substantial, I just think McCain’s facing a very steep uphill battle even though the current polling is a tie. I think you were absolutely right about the “comfort level” of white voters. I suspect there are many in the middle who are looking for a reason to vote Democratic this year. The key question is how high is the threshold level when it comes to how Obama can introduce himself to the general electorate.
BTW, I don’t think anyone in the Obama campaign’s top leadership position had either military or executive experience. However, it’s interesting that Obama and his staff knew the lay of the political landscape and matched their skillsets to run an extraordinary campaign. When I read this in this week’s Time lead story, the first thing I thought of was “directive control” or Auftragstaktik. I happen to believe that mission type tactics were the key factor in the early success of German blitzkrieg. I wonder if the GOP can successfully deploy a viable defense in depth. Citing Chuck Spinney, James Fallows who was a John Boyd groupie had mused earlier that the Obambis had gotten inside the Clintons’ OODA Loop in terms of handling media coverage. I don’t think these people are as inept as some of the former Democratic operatives have tried to portray them (most of who were Clinton retainers)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811857-2,00.html
Obama uses a different frame of reference. “As somebody who had been a community organizer,” Obama recalls, “I was convinced that if you invited people to get engaged, if you weren’t trying to campaign like you were selling soap but instead said, ‘This is your campaign, you own it, and you can run with it,’ that people would respond and we could build a new electoral map.” The chum stores, the e-mail obsession and the way Obama organizations sprang up organically in almost every congressional district in the country meant that by the time Obama’s field organizers arrived in a state, all they had to do was fire up an engine that had already been designed and built locally. “We had to rely on the grass roots, and we had clarity on that from the beginning,” says Plouffe.
By contrast, the Clinton campaign, which started out with superior resources and the mantle of inevitability, was a top-down operation in which decision-making rested with a small coterie of longtime aides. Her state organizers often got mixed signals from the headquarters near Washington. Decisions from Hillaryland often came too late for her field organization to execute. Obama’s bottom-up philosophy also helps explain why he was able to sweep the organization-heavy caucus states, which were so crucial to building up his insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. What was not appreciated by many at the time: while Clinton spent heavily in every state she contested, Obama’s approach saved money. Says Dean-campaign veteran Trippi: “His volunteers were organizing his caucus victories for free.”
Whomever Obama selects, he and his team will face the daunting task of wallowing through the debris left by the Bush cronies. They will be best guided by eschewing ideological narrowness, upholding an overall sense of civility and interagency cooperation, encouraging honest dialogue and differing opinions on important issues, and respect for the legal and administrative procedures and agencies established to provide reasonable checks and balances for processing important decisions. It is apparent that all of these factors were ignored in some way or another concerning the issue of the reliability of our intelligence and our decision to go to war with Iraq, and I believe all sides were at fault – the Administration’s Neocons because they intended to go to war regardless of the reliability of the intelligence, and actually set up an office to distort intelligence; the Congress, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton, because they apparently accepted what was fed them without serious scrutiny befitting the life and death, as well as resource depleting, nature of warfare – and the overall combined bully-wimp environment engendered by Neocon control of the entire government with key Defense Department officials in the lead and the State Department emasculated. This whole episode has been deeply degrading and disheartening to the extreme.
We sadly will have a very difficult time recovering from this truly catastrophic experience during which our entire system was emasculated by a combination of bullying ideologues and self-serving Know Nothings. Thankfully, one of the few who voted “no” when it meant something will compete for the Presidency, but he and his team will face a Katrina-like political-military-diplomatic-economic situation.
For those who think the disaffected Clinton voters will not vote for Obama, the number of McCain supporters who said they would not vote for Bush after the 2000 primary election was around 50 percent. We all know how that worked out.
Col. Lang,
I recall a thread of yours a few months back where you stated that an Obama/Clinton ticket – in any order would be a wise decision for the Dems. I still agree with your statement. You juxtaposed both Dems as ‘getting it’ on Iraq – as opposed to John McCain’s position.
While I believe Sen. Obama can win on his own, it makes it a much closer race, IMHO. Which Dem VP candidate could add the most votes to the Obama presidential campaign?
I believe Rev. Jackson has the answer. And to use a sports analogy… in Detroit’s recent winning of the Stanley Cup over the highly skilled Pittsburgh Penguins, I felt much better that our number two goalie was Dominic Hasek. He had won the cup before, (both Lord Stanley’s and the Olympic gold for Czech.) and is a guaranteed first round Hall of Famer.
Lina,
Are you saying the repudiation of Sen. Obama in KY and WVA was for racist reasons?
I’ve been accused of being a member of two hate groups, stormfront and the klan by over zealous Obama supporters in the blogosphere. (Yes, I know Hillary has ’em, too.)Simply because I wasn’t feeling their guy in the primary. (to coin a vernacular) Which I found somewhat ironic, because I would be denied entry because of my racial make up. Not to mention I’m the product of a bi racial marriage. A few years back, our windows were broken with threats left in our driveway – by a member(s?) of a racist hate group who disapproved of our inter racial relationship – prior to our marriage. It wouldn’t have been worth explaining to them, so I didn’t. Other than saying I’m sure I would be setting a precedent.
GWB lost to McCain in MI in 2000, Bush lost to Gore in the GE. Kerry won Michigan in ’04. While Sen. Obama will get my vote here in MI, I wouldn’t call Michigan a ‘gimme.’
Best,
Robert M. Murray
PS Congratulations to your candidate for winning. I’m assuming that was Sen. Obama, right? 😉
I beg your pardon, I posted too hastily and would like to clarify. When I stated, “It wouldn’t have been worth explaining to them, so I didn’t.” I was referring to the Obama supporters, not the mentioned hate groups.