Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy not Hillary? Not my first choice -- Al Gore is -- but I find all of the pro-and-con debate about Hillary Rodham Clinton to be beside the point. She is, as Barack Obama said, likable enough, and the Dems are not likely to pick anyone better.
It is certainly a great asset to have a formidable female vice presidential candidate, whose victory would further a legitimate aspiration of many of the nearly 18 million people who voted for her in the primaries. Nor is there a more progressive woman who would likely be added to the ticket. Clinton is about as good as the Democratic Party leadership will accept in their insistence on a right-of-center balance to Obama's purported liberalism.
Right of center she is. Just take the three major legislative accomplishments of the Clinton White House, whose record Sen. Clinton has trumpeted. First was President Clinton's so-called welfare reform that wiped out the federal obligation to deal with poverty. When Democrats claim to be the party of concern for the underdog, they must often refer to the federal welfare programs originated under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It was Clinton's mandate to gut those programs and devolve concern for the poor, including the 70 percent previously on welfare who were children, to the tender mercies of the states.
Add to the list of horribles from the Clinton years the Financial Services Modernization Act, passed at the president's insistence, and his refusal to even threaten a veto of it if a strong privacy provision that he half-heartedly requested were not included. It wasn't, and as a result, your private financial, health and other records held by previously segregated stockbrokers, insurance companies and banks were merged, along with those respective corporate entities. This law represents the dismantling of the major market regulations instituted by Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression, but don't look for Democrats or Republicans to be bragging about their vote for that one, in this time of the subprime mortgage meltdown.
Finally, there is the Telecommunications Act that permitted media merger mania; and all one needs to say about that assault on the diversity of ownership needed for a free press is that Rupert Murdock is a big buddy of the Clintons. And that's hardly just because they both shared an enthusiasm for the now widely discredited invasion of Iraq. Nope. Hillary Clinton, as she brags in her meetings with her financial backers, has faithfully carried water for the corporate elite while making appropriate noises about the little people.
But that is a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party, and while I remain hopeful that Obama will break the mold, I never expected him to do so in his choice of a vice president. Despite being a moderate centrist, Obama has been tagged as something of an egghead in the mold of Adlai Stevenson. No match as a demagogue for John McCain, who has proven in the primaries that for the sake of election he will readily disregard logical consistency or factual accuracy.
That is particularly true in McCain's positions on the reckless expansion of the American empire, beginning with, but certainly not ending at, the ambition to colonize Iraq. So intent is he on waving the flag of mindless militarism that he will even betray his own experience and undermine the constitutional safeguards against torture. In his 1974 paper for the National War College on his prisoner experience, McCain wrote of "prisoners being ordered to sit, kneel, or stand for long periods of time deprived of rest or sleep" as "torture."
Yet, praising Chief Justice John Roberts for his dissent from the Supreme Court's extension of habeas corpus protection to Guantanamo prisoners who have experienced much worse, McCain dismissed the pleading of the tortured: "These are people who are not citizens." Well, neither was he a citizen of Vietnam when he attacked that country, and wouldn't it have been a good thing if his captors had been held accountable by an independent judiciary? Although McCain has in the past condemned torture, Whatever he thought then, he does not now believe that judicial due process is a human right to be universally honored. Obama, who strongly supported the court's 5-4 majority decision, clearly does.
Whether he picks Clinton or not, the push is on for a Democratic ticket that can win-a victory critical to the honor of this nation, given that one-vote Supreme Court majority.
Robert Scheer is the author, most recently, of "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America," published this month by Twelve Books.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
77 Comments so far
Show AllHillary has too much "baggage". Not only that, but she has an abrasive personality. Sen. Obama would be foolish to pick her as VP. Also, he'd have to hire a "food taster".
I can't picture Bill Clinton being in the Oval Office, trying to tell Obama what to do! That is what would happen if Hillary were VP. In fact, he'd be getting "advice" in STEREO!
I'd like to see an Obama/Kucinich ticket.
he's too conservative. he's too liberal. he's too black. he's not black enough. he's not progressive. he's a christian zealot, secret muslim, lifelong atheist. he's a black separatist militant with radical connections, in bed with the corporations and hell bent on expanding neoliberalism. he's a neocon.
he's related by blood to the thirteen bloodlines of the illuminati. he's been tapped by the royal cabal to conquer the middle east via afghanistan and restore their rule by divine right. he's in bed with the CFR and Bilderbergers. He's a CIA experiment... a Manchurian candidate...
he's an alien.
jesus fuck... this place is infested... scheer's lost his marbles and if you think clinton's a good pick for VP, you need to unplug and take a vacation... have a nap.
i'll wake ya when the shootin starts
Well, Mr. Obama is off to a roaringly good start. Hope Obama can maintain his double digit lead through at least next week!!
One respondant noted the following:
"The Reverend Wright and Obama's other pals from Chicago days represent the true Obama. But that "true" Obama is falling away and behind as he climbs the heights"
Right on the money. The question the rhetorical progressives don't want asked (and the above aptly notes) the man DOES NOT change the system, THE SYSTEM changes the man. Everything Obama has done demonstrates this. Get ready for four years of Bush Light no matter who is elected.
Ticket? Ticket to what? Ticket to where?
You're a ticket!
Hillary would never be a true second to Obama. She would constanly be working to undermine him.
How about Ron Paul?
Democratic candidates court the "left" (somewhere to the left of the extreme right) during the primaries and then run right into the arms of Republicans for the general election.
The Reverend Wright and Obama's other pals from Chicago days represent the true Obama. But that "true" Obama is falling away and behind as he climbs the heights. Nor is it unreasonable to wonder if he would have voted against the Iraq war if he had been in the US Senate in 2002/3? After all, he was backed by his constituents in Chicago when he opposed the war. And it may not have taken much courage then to do so. But had his presidential aspirations been awake with a reasonable expectation would he have voted against the war?
The higher Obama has gone the more to the right he has shifted. If he becomes our president let's hope Michelle becomes his conscience, ala Eleanor Roosevelt. And let's pray he doesn't "triangulate," ala the Clintons. If he does then all we have to look forward is a relative period of sanity compared to Bush and the far right. Which isn't much considering what needs to be done.
Is Hillary right for Barack? NEVER! ! ! The prime reason is that she is too close to the Disaster Capitalists who already have this country on the road to degradation - -
she is too far right of center and would be (with the assistance of Bill) a privatization thorn in the side of the kind of "Change" we hope Barack will manage to push through the Congress - - -but he will need all the help he can get from us "common folk" and not the greed-heads!
First, I'm disgusted at those who call Senator Clinton "bitch, whore, etc." That is sexism at its worst.
Second, I also have qualms about Obama. His foreign policy statements are better than Clinton's or McCain's, but far from good enough. I can only hope that he is sufficently flexible to move in the right direction after he is elected.
Third, the media have done a hatchet job on Hillary. They seem to hate her, probably mainly sexists, even the woman commentators. The media thinks she would be a poor choice. As the media is always wrong in its analysis because they are out of touch with real people. So if the media says no, I say a strong YES! She should definitely be the pick.
How about Hillary Clinton as the Health Minister? I think she could pull it off, getting the US to finally accept 'socialized' medicine.
Hillary? Obama can win and he doesn't have to stoop so low as to include Hillary. He is very popular and should consider Kucinich. People want justice and the more that is aired about torture and the scams of the VA, the secret meetings and the plunder, Obama will have to stand up for our principles and choose a running mate like Kucinich if we are to believe that he is true to American principles and holds to the rules set down by the Geneva Convention. He doesn't need Hillary. Let the snot nosed supporters of Hillary realize that their foolish agenda to following some rather unbalanced mate like Hillary with her sleezy husband hanging around in the White House would be a disaster. Why are people so foolish?
I just lost every last speck of respect I had for Obama and his campaign. Go to http://www.freep.com (Detroit Free Press) to see how he treats minorities in this country.
Here's a direct link to the article:
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS06/806190376
Here's an excerpt that summarizes the hypocrisy:
"They were barred from prime seats behind the stage because of their traditional Muslim head scarves, after campaign volunteers had invited their non-Muslim friends to the seats."
Well, I am open to any Third Party candidate not in bed with CEO's. Nader has my attention.
Here is what Obama thinks of his campaign promisses:
"On Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama announced that he was opting out of the public financing system, in the process forgoing "more than $80 million in public funds" for the more bountiful loot that could await him later."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/obama-opts-out-of-public-_n_108...
Kucinich as VP would bring some hope to the progressive causes, Obama and his corporate handlers will bring more of the same old shit.
Maybe it would be the smart move to vote for Nader once again?
More on the Bio Fuel and Nuclear issue:
The Democrats along with the Republicans have functioned in concert and are culpable of our state of affairs from everything to the demise of the Earth, to Iraq, the economy, to loss of our freedoms, to supporting torture by their silence, to criminal activity, and perhaps most egregious is Obama's environmental plan which is written by the Nuclear and Bio Fuel industries. Why not do some research on both? Bio fuels are has harmful to climate as are fossil fuels. Bio Fuels reduce airable land for crops thus increasing food prices world wide. As more land transitions to higher paying crops for bio fuels, food prices will soar. Nuclear has never addressed spent nuclear fuel. Obama's plan on nuclear calls for burying spent nuclear fuel in containers that will not outlive the radioactive life of the fuel. Radioactivity of the fuel lasts over 500 years and the current political solution is to bury it in Nevada where it will eventually seep into ground water supplies. If that is what you call enlightened environmental policy by Obama and his corporate handlers then by all means vote for him. Obama is OWNED by special interests to the same extent as McCain. A disturbing little fact that Flanders and her corporatate handlers inside the belt way don't want all the sheeple to hear.
Many responders are pushing Obama/Kucinich. Kucinch is the last true progressive left in the Democratic Party that is not bought and paid for like Obama is. But, with all due respect, if you think Obama is going to pick Kucinich then you people are bigger dreamers than I suspected. Check out the VP list circulating by the Obama camp: everyone on it is right out of the inside the beltway sentiment, and it includes John (every vote will count) Kerry: you remeber him, the guy folded in Ohio despite reports of widespeard vote fruad. Hillary Clinton, Biden, Buckovich, Nunn, Webb, and two governors from Virgina, a couple of other women mentioned like Sibilous of Kansas and the woment Gov from Arizona (my guess tokens to appease women.) The fact is Obama will likely choose a white guy with strong credentials in security issues like Nunn, or perhaps Republican Senator Hagel is often mentioned. Obama is clearly running to the middle, white inside the beltway, corporatist, centrist, corporations will rule, and military might will flourish under an Obama presidency. The truth is Obam will NOT WITHDRAW 100% of the troops from Iraq (a point made by one of his advisors who was dumped), most likely he will continue US agression with Iran to appease his Jewish money changers and expand the war to Iran. Obama's environmental plan is written by the Nuclear and Bio Fuel industries and both are inimical to the Earth.
Get ready for the next Bush presidency no matter which corporate clown gets elected. In Obama's case it will be Bush light.
Looks like America as a whole, left as well as right, needs to hit bottom.
Joe-mentum! Wouldn't it be great if Lieberman were the Veep on both major party tickets?
All seriousness aside, wouldn't Dennis be better assassination insurance for the Black guy?
How many who have come to glimpse a need for action will go peacefully back to sleep when Prez O takes the oath?
By Obama's own admission, he considers Joe Lieberman his mentor.
Obama also has appointed Furman as his economic advisor, who formerly was an economic advisor to President Clinton and who also represented Wal-Mart in its anti-union court cases.
Obama, again by his own admission, says he is a pro-growth, free market kind of guy who loves the market. He hails from the University of Chicago ala "Dr. Strangelove Friedman" and his gang of "Chicago Boys".
Obama's going to send more troops to Afghanistan, maintain Fortress Baghdad and keep mercenary armies like Blackwater and Dynacorp in the field.
Obama has boldly stated to AIPAC that he will do "Everything, EVERYTHING," to ensure that the Jewish Stdate remains a pure Jewish state with an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State
Why shouldn't Obama pick as his VP Hillary Clinton often touted as "Corporate America's and Zionist Isreal's poster Democrat"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j19.shtml
The essence of Obama's approach to economic issues, as with his candidacy as a whole, is the attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. He voices sympathy for the plight of the unemployed, those without health insurance, those paying record high gas prices, without expressing the slightest hostility to the financial parasites responsible for creating such conditions: the highly paid corporate CEOs, hedge fund operators, investment bankers and commodities speculators.
The reason for the gross disparity between reformist rhetoric and actual policy is plain: Obama, like McCain and Clinton, is a capitalist politician who defends the profit system. He will propose only those measures which are compatible with the interests of the giant corporations and billionaires who are the real rulers in American society.
No, she is not.
Al Gore wouldn't want to play second fiddle again (plus he has been branded as a loser) but would be an obvious choice for heading the EPA. Besides, he tried to play it both ways, and to his astonishment came across as fake and ingenuine.
Hilary came across (to me anyway) as just as cowardly, steering far clear from specifics in order to "play it safe". Guess what? She also ended up looking insincere. She had her chance and blew it. Besides, she is a hate magnet for countless voters across the south (west, east, and north as well. She would be far more effective as a Supreme Court justice anyway and could have a much deeper and longer lasting impact on important issues that face our nation.
I would suggest Obama continue down his consistent path of speaking his beliefs in detail and giving clear explanations for them (which he almost always has done) and picking a suitable runningmate who shares, speaks, and practices these same ideals). This would disqualify anyone who holds a record of putting the interests of big business and the powerful in front of the interests of the "common" individuals of this country (see all "classes" other than the mega-wealthy), meaning pretty much all of congress regardless of whether or not they think it is their "turn". A lot of these perspective candidates feel that they have earned it by "towing the line" for all of these years and by not taking any firm stand on issues that have a vast impact on millions of people living in this country. Obama got where he is by offering something new and by taking risks that many of his coleagues would never even dream of taking. I would suggest Howard Dean, but his own party has already tarnished his reputation with "The Scream" event, which had even less relevance to his abilities as "The Preacher" event did to Obama. Don't waste credibility that has been earned on those who have demonstrated that they have none.
This about the point where Robert Scheer starts losing credibility. He used to write for The Nation. I stopped reading the Nation too.
While I haven't made up my mind yet, I am considering voting for Obama in November, though I don't consider him progressive at all. One thing's for sure: If he's stupid enough to put that conniving, war mongering corporate whore on his ticket, I'll most certainly vote 3rd party.
I just wish Barry Bam could get this over with, as it's hurting his campaign. He'd have to be insane to choose Hillary as his running mate. He probably can easily get elected on his own, no matter who comes with him on the ticket. Unless it's a convicted child molester, or O.J. Simpson (Although Homer Simpson would do nicely).
Why then, on God's Green Earth, should he want to take the Clintons with him to the White House? They know the game too well, and would undermine & double-cross him every chance they'd get. Hillary's comment in late May, seemingly hoping some lunatic would turn up & shoot Obama a la RFK, hardly makes her a trustworthy VP.
Obama should quickly choose as running mate someone with at least 25% of the Clinton's fame and the same percentage of their deviousness and dishonesty.
Obama is already beating McCain in the polls, especially women, and although it is not a given that the situation won't change, at the very least it proves that he doesn't need her physical presence on the ticket to tap into her supporters. He is not half a candidate.
clinton: what change that would be.
that obama can even consider clinton exposes his "change" slogan for what it is -- a bogus and vacuous platitude without any substance whatsoever.
Don't waste your vote on the same-old same-old duopoly BS. Vote Nader!
Obama /Kucinich sounds the best
not that bilary bitch again
usa 'sheeples'
ask them/her and Bush sr re: Mena Ak and Barry Seal
the cartels so called are not the only ones in dope biz
legalizarlos
todo
Obama would have to avoid standing on high balconies next to Billary too.
Forgiveness : Obama/Kucinich--------IF ONLY!
Obama named his panel of foreign policy advisers today.
Who's on the list? It's a veritable "Who's Who" of the Democratic Establishment of the last 25 years. Madeleine Albright, Sam Nunn, David Boren, Warren Christopher, Lee Hamilton, Tony Lake, Wm Perry, etc etc.
How much "change" is likely to come, when the whole supporting cast is exactly the same?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20127.htm
Mr. Sheer, the two-parties have had their way with you. How will you feel when the F--- is over and you realize that that's all it was, just an ugly F---!
Robert Sheer was asked where he would draw the line in supporting Democrats (Nader/Sheer debate, last summer). Sheer said it was the occupation of Iraq, that's where he'd draw the line. Well, Mr. Sheer, I heard your candidate say, just today, that he never said he'd draw troops out of Iraq.
The ball is your court now. What are you going to do? Swallow the ball?
I've learned from experience ... good things can happen when you have someone on the team that is/has been part of the 'inside.' Who knows what Hillary will CHOOSE to do when her partner is Barack and not Bill. We must win this election and to do so we need a duo that can work the outside and the inside.
Not all that long ago Robert Sheer was asked where he would draw the line in his support for a candidate. (Ralph Nader/Robert Sheer debate last summer). Sheer stated clearly that it was the occupation of Iraq. that's where he'd draw the line. Barack Obama plans to increase military spending, he stated clearly that he will not remove troops from Iraq, he will maintain Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, he is not for the impeachment of Bush.
So what's up with this two-faced Sheer person? And why should anyone take seriously a man who insists on being lead around by the nose. Follow Sheer's advise and eventually you'll be dropped off a cliff. Could he be looking for a job? I mean, yu have to wonder what's up with these people. I hate to be cynical ... naaa, not really.
Not all that long ago Robert Sheer was asked where he would draw the line in his support for a candidate. (Ralph Nader/Robert Sheer debate last summer). Sheer stated clearly that it was the occupation of Iraq. that's where he'd draw the line. Barack Obama plans to increase military spending, he stated clearly that he will not remove troops from Iraq, he will maintain Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, he is not for the impeachment of Bush.
So what's up with this two-faced Sheer person? And why should anyone take seriously a man who lets an oligarchist lead him around by the nose. Follow his advise and you'll all be dropped off a cliff. Could he be looking for a job? I mean, yu have to wonder what's up with these people. I hate to be cynical ... naaa, not really.
"Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report for the Journal of African American Political Thought and Action have zeroed in on the making of the Obama bubble:
"The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience."
And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign's financial filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the Center for Responsive Politics, the Obama campaign has spent over $52 million on media, strategy consultants, image building, marketing research and telemarketing.
The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is to change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion and win votes" using "the power of branding – with principles rooted in commercial marketing," and Elevation Ltd., which targets the Hispanic population and has "a combined experience of well over 50 years in developing and implementing advertising and marketing solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political candidates, government agencies.""
lobster, you are incorrect. Only after the Denver convention in August will it be "impossible for her to win". Until then, Obama is simply the PRESUMPTIVE nominee. Get it ?
Obama will lose if he choses anyone but Clinton.
Scheer finally goes entirely senile.
Hillary will "rule the roost or tear up the nest" as she showed us by refusing to bow out of the primary when it was no longer possible for her to win. She kept hoping she could persuade Somebody Somewhere to set aside rules she had supported...before she started losing state after state.
She is the consumate Machiavellian princess...and I think we'd be very sorry to have her around.
Here's one of my bonafides: I also thought that about GWB and I'm from Texas.
My choice is Webb for VP.
Mordechai wrote: "Obama is most likely going to be defeated for one reason alone - the still virulent racism that is very much alive and doing quite well in this country."
This is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. If you blame Obama's loss on racism, then you are completely misunderstanding why the anti-Obama crowd find him so distasteful. It has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is half white. It has everything to do with lack of experience, lack of integrity, and lack of tact.
Obama can't win unless he picks Clinton as his VP. Do not forget that Clinton got just as many votes in the Dem primary as Obama did, and a full 25% of the Clinton supporters are ready to vote for McCain. That doesn't even count the many many more supporters who will either note vote or will vote for a third party candidate. Obama cannot win without a good chunk of all of these votes.
Obama Nunn (Sam)
Obama Graham (Bob)
If Scheer doesn't think la Clinton's comment about the "hard working WHITE people" of West Virginia isn't enough to disqualify her, he must be thinking of trying to pick up the hard core racist vote. Doesn't he know that McWetstart's got that locked up already?
Obama would be nuts to pick Hillary as vice president. Both she and her loose-cannon husband sold out the Democratic base long ago. Both of them should quit their hypocrisy and join the Republican Party.
No more Republicrats, please.
Where's my mallet and wooden stake?
The only way Obama can loose this election is to take on Juan Williams as his campaign manager.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
To LutherBrixton
You write "Like Bush, Hillary Clinton is a dysfunctional, emotionally immature, basketcase constantly trying to prove herself as a "leader", no matter how many disasterous decisions she makes, and no matter how many lives are squandered by her enormous short-sightedness in the process."
Man, that's cold. I'm no Hillary fan, but she's incomparbly more intelligent and intellectually curious than the oaf from Crawford, and it's insulting to compare her to Bush. Bush is smart, but he's a horse's ass. Immature frat boy who never grew up is the apt description accorded to Bush. Hillary is mature and intelligent, I just don't agree with her AIPAC ass-kissing.
Mordechai Shiblikov June 18th, 2008 4:24 pm
"Virulent racism that is very much alive and doing quite well in this country"
Darn it, its just not true any more. If Obama loses as he well might, it won't be because of his race. He would never have gotten this far if the above was true.
NO, NO, NO, an infinite times NO!!!
The last thing the Democrats need to do is put a Charter member of the very corporate-leaning Democratic Leadership Council in a position of power so close to the Presidency. All the work that so many hopeful people did to bring Obama the nomination will just be flushed down the toilet. If you must have a woman as VP, why not choose someone such as Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi.
Obama is most likely going to be defeated for one reason alone - the still virulent racism that is very much alive and doing quite well in this country. Should he select HRC as his VP, misogyny will make the avalanche even greater. Pray that McCain's thick-headedness and violent temper don't desert him between now and the first Tuesday in November. They may be the only things that will put Obama over the top.
canuckchuck June 18th, 2008 2:54 pm
I'm still laughing. Thanks! As stated before...brilliant!
No Hillary....please. There is no real difference between Obama and McCain so VP is most important.
Webb for me. Thats a ticket I would go for, though I'd sign on for Biden too.
Hail no.
Canuckchuck -- brilliant!
IF Hillary is VP, better keep the hunting rifles away from Willie...I can just see the inquiry after Obammas assasination.
"Well, Your Honor, it all depends on your definition of "someone shoot that negro"
Whether Obama or McCain wins, the US will still keep thousands of troops in Iraq.
Both of these men want to increase US soldiers in Afghanistan. It shows the two major parties rarely offer the voters real choices. Choices for VP change none of this.
Whoever wins, we have to build a big energetic anti-war movement to keep the heat on these corporate politicians. Remember it was growing numbers marching in the streets of the US calling to bring the troops home now that forced even the Republican President Nixon to pull out of Vietnam. The 10's and 100's of thousands of demonstrators' message spread to the US Army. We did it back then. We can do it again.
A great place to start is the June 28-29 National Assembly to End the War and Occupation meeting in Cleveland. It will be the broadest anti-war conference since the Vietnam war. For information- www.natassembly.org
As a rule Robert Scheer has good articles, but every rule has exceptions, and this article is one for Scheer, unless he's being very sardonic. But if serious, it might be entitled Sheer Fantasy--"The Way to Throw Away the 2008 election in One Easy Lesson" or "How to Lose the Shot at the Presidency and the Congress as Well in One Election." We have to wonder how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will like being minority leaders again if this tragedy should come true as many bad dreams do.
The dung gets deeper on CD with more white inside the beltway types like this Cat puppeting the status quo line. Obama asserts himself to be a "different" politican doing things outside the box. Then this dim wit puts forth the most egregious corporate candidate under a Democrat lable one can find for VP. Man, the more things change THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME.
The sheeple will continue to drink from any polluted well they are led to including this moron.
Hillary Clinton will plant Obama the same way that Lyndon Johnson planted Kennedy. Once she takes over as 'president' she will escalate the war the same as LBJ. Obama is a stooge if he takes her as VP.
The most critical VP question is:
Who will the Democrats chose for VP if Condi is the Republican VP candidate?
Maybe have the quadruple dream ticket - Obama, Bush, McCain, Hillary - after all that would capture most of the vote. And they support many of the same issues that brought you the war, increased gas prices, war economy.
You will see when Obama picks his vice president why I will not be supporting the democratic party yet again.
If you want continual war, lack of universal health care, increased bloated military spending, death penalty, unchallenged corporate corruption, then vote democrat.
There are other choices:
Ralph Nader/Gonzales for President
Green Party Cynthia McKinney for President
If you support peace and justice, don't throw away your vote, vote for third party.
There was more than a bit of irony in this piece; it's loaded with arguments against HRC and the Dems in general, so I am not sure if Scheer really supports her. Politically, however, the selection of HRC as VP candidate would be a disaster. You cannot call yourself the candidate of "change" with a straight face, then pick HRC. She is the human embodiment of the status quo he claims to want to change. Anyway it would be a brutal slap in the face to his many anti-war supporters and probably wouldn't buy him many additional HRC supporters. And getting the Dem Party inner circle onboard? F**k them! They have made and are making a horrific mess of things, as usual. Obama needs to (politely but firmly) put them in their place. Hasn't he read that Congress's popularity ratings are lower than Bush'?
I realize the Obama himself isn't much different from HRC in practical policy terms, but in his "narrative", he's the change-bringer. And in the simple-minded American political context, he needs to look strong and decisive from now on. Bringing in HRC will make him look "pussy-whipped". Yeah, I know, that's ugly but nobody ever lost in politics by underestimating American political culture.
Who cares who's on with Obama? I certainly don't. I wouldn't even be surprised if Obama put Joe Lieberman on just to deliberately thumb his nose at commentators like Robert Scheer (Silly) who want to be advisors for this corporate political party they are addicted to voting for.
McCain / Clinton '08 !!
Hard working white! Not bitter! Not Muslim! With flagpins! Ready to press the red button at 3am! And give away gas tax breaks! And totally Bomb-bomb-bombliterate the Antichrist ! Yippeee!
Why not Hillary? Because, like Sen. McCain, she "has proven in the primaries that for the sake of election [she] will readily disregard logical consistency or factual accuracy."
And then there is Bill, who was -- you failed to mention among his failings, Mr. Scheer -- also not very good on protecting civil liberties or Internet privacy. And then there were his failure to address AIDS in Africa, and there was that genocide in Rwanda.
But I think the biggest problem with your argument, Mr. Scheer, is your characterization of those 18 million Hillary voters. How many of those were mischievous GOP crossover voters? And how many were either ignorant, uninformed or misinformed about Barack Obama, if not out and out racists?
Sure, she finally gave a good concession speech. So help her pay off her campaign debt. But then let her go back to the Senate where her magnified national profile might serve her well. Because, as Sen. Obama surely must know, she may cost him as many votes as she gains for him. (On this last point, 'ditto' Al Gore.)
No, not Hillary.
There are better choices and more compatible choices with Obama.
I like Biden.
Having been subjected to the tedious horror of Clinton's protracted "She's Dead, But She Won't Lie Down" phase, I beg you to cease this wanton talk of exhuming and reanimating her to further complicate and degrade the campaign season.
Please, please let us Rest in Peace.
I hope and believe Obama is playing a stalling game on the VP slot until he knows what McCain is going to do on the same. If McCain picks a woman, Barack must (and will, I bet) pick Mrs. Clinton.
Heather Wilson and Carly Fiorina (and maybe others) are waiting in the wings for McCain's call---which is a likely tactic for him to choose because he's a tad behind.
The notion that Barack will deny America's liberal women their chance to put THEIR woman in first over a choice from the Republican side is ludicrous. Not while battling the untimely gay marriage bugaboo in California, the untimely recent Gitmo decision that neocons are furious over, maybe a similar thing coming from the Supreme Court on DC guns, and the Bush fall surprise not even yet known.
We'll see. I'd say "stay tuned", but you already are.
Obama/Gore
Obama/Kucinich
Obama/Edwards
Obama/Anyone but Billary
How can Obama have Hillary Clinton as a running mate when McCain and his surrogates are already using her quotes against Obama that she made during the Democratic Primary?
Having Hillary a heartbeat away from a position that has unquestionably become a plutocracy, would put millions of lives at risk the world over. We've just had 8 years of a cowardly, snot-nosed, Harvard-pedigreed, little boy who never grew up, pretending he was a "tough guy", if we have a follow-up administration by a pro-war, champagne-and-caviar, Goldwater girl trying to prove she's also a "tough guy" (which her reckless vote for the Kyle/Lieberman ammendment last year, and her "obliterate Iran" comment this year, prove she would be), we can all just sit back and watch the USA and the world go up in a mushroom cloud.
Like Bush, Hillary Clinton is a dysfunctional, emotionally immature, basketcase constantly trying to prove herself as a "leader", no matter how many disasterous decisions she makes, and no matter how many lives are squandered by her enormous short-sightedness in the process.
Whatever else you can say about Obama, he's a man comfortable in his skin whose not trying to run away from who he is at his core like Bush (a gutless coward) and Hillary (a political opportunist).
Is Clinton the Ticket for Obama?
I hope not. While I believe the Dems are essentially as corrupt as the Reps, if Clinton is Obama's running mate, he better watch his back a la LBJ and JFK.
Imagine this scenario: Obama picks Clinton as his VP, and McCain picks Jeb Bush. Either way, the chances are high that we'd end up with another Clinton or Bush as president, ultimately (for reasons that should be obvious).
Seriously, there's no possibility that Obama will pick Clinton.
Also, a comment on Scheer's assertion that there is "no more progressive woman who would likely be added to the ticket" than Hillary Clinton. One cannot be "progressive" and also be "right of center."
Imagine this scenario: Obama picks Clinton as his VP, and McCain picks Jeb Bush. Either way, the chances are high that we'd end up with another Clinton or Bush as president, ultimately (for reasons that should be obvious).
Seriously, there's no possibility that Obama will pick Clinton.
Also, a comment on Scheer's assertion that there is "no more progressive woman who would likely be added to the ticket" than Hillary Clinton. One cannot be "progressive" and also be "right of center."
Oops.
Obama is going to have a hard enough time trying to hold things togethers without having the Mayberry Machiavellis and their clique up at the Naval Observatory figuring out how to use their contacts, their power, and Billy's position as ex-president to cut Obama's legs off.
The Clintons come as a a set and are all about power. It's all about them.
The only up side would be that the ensuing intrigue would be as entertaining as any Elizabethan-era court intrigue drama -- and we'd have a front-row seat.
Hill(Bill)ary merely "suspended" her bid for the pResidency. BHO better watch his back if he picks Clinton. I know Michelle can see right thru that Sh*t. Hell no! Go away Hillary and prove you care about America - not just yourself; like Kucinich did, for example.
Yeah, I can really imagine "Change You Can Believe In" with Madeleine Albright as one of Obama's foreign policy advisors.
The same Albright who was asked "was it all worth it" - in regard to the US embargo in the early 90's against Iraq by Bush and Clinton that caused 500,000 to 1,000,000 children, infirm and old people to die.
Albright's infamous response, "Yes I believe it all was worth it."
I wonder how Obama feels having someone like that as his foreign policy advisor. Probably the same as he feels about Furman who defended Wal-Mart against the unions while Hillary Clinton sat on its board of directors.