Politico: Clinton was never vetted.

by canadian gal, Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

The Politico is reporting Hillary Clinton was never vetted for the role of VP.

Obama has often said, most recently on NBC's "Meet the Press" on July 27, that Clinton "would be on anybody's short list."

But apparently not his.

"She was never vetted," a Democratic official reported. "She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she'd take it?"

The official also said Clinton never met with Obama's vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.

And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.

"This would be the biggest leap of faith ever," the official said. "She's waiting for the text message like everyone else."

So I guess we can cross this one off potentials?




Tags: clinton, obama, vp (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 144 Comments :: Post a Comment


when is that text coming already???? (1.80 / 5)


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST

Re: when is that text coming already???? (1.00 / 1)

As usual you left out the last line in Mike Allen's Politico report

An Obama aide said "Absoulutely Exhaustive Research was done on her over the course of the 16 month primary. She was researched more closely than any candidate in History"

WHY DID YOU EDIT THIS OUT?????  Do you really support the Democrats or THE REPUBLICANS Are you trying to cause trouble between supporters. Please ammend immediatly.


by canadian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 08:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ahem. (2.00 / 2)

confirmed by wolfson.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 708/Wolfson_Clinton_not_being_vetted.htm l


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 08:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ahem. (1.00 / 1)

If you go to the Politico link that you provided
 in your diary it shows the Mike Allen article that you edited. Please amend.
by canadian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ahem. (1.00 / 1)

Please explain why you EDITED the Article.


by canadian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FOR THE LAST TIME.... (2.00 / 4)

YOU ARE STALKING ME - YOU CONTINUALLY SPAM MY DIARES - WE ARE NOT FRIENDS NOT COLLEAGUES - I FIND YOU UNINTERESTING AND INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT VETTED MEANS? SHE.WAS. NOT.VETTED.  THE LAST LINE OF THE ARTICLE MEANS NOTHING....  YOU SOCKPUPPET MY NAME AND STALK MY DIARIES.  WE KNOW YOU ARE ZEROSUMGAME AND TRYTOBEREAL.

AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY HISTORY AT MYDD PERSONALLY - I WILL TELL YOU TO FUCK OFF.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FOR THE LAST TIME.... (none / 0)

You left out part of the article as you just admitted. What was your purpose in writing this diary? In the future let us decide what is important Don't EDIT and present it as WHOLE.

The July link by Wolfson is worthless.


by canadian on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hah? what's your point? BTW when you know (2.00 / 3)

you are making a meaningless point what do you do?
Are you really a Canukh?
by louisprandtl on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hah? what's your point? BTW when you know (none / 0)

Editing an article is not meaningless when you EDIT an important point. Yes I am a Canuck.


by canadian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ok can you please edit yourself too? (2.00 / 1)

thanks for the help...


by louisprandtl on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

Not news to me.

I already made that case months ago , she was never considered.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST

Don't trust any leak in the press. (2.00 / 3)

Lotsa head fakes out there.


by Geekesque on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:41 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 2)

She was vetted by 18 million voters.


by alamedadem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

I guess that wasn't enough.


by venician on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She was? (2.00 / 3)

18 million voters were given full and total access to all her and her husband's financial, political, and personal lives in order to determine whether there are any skeletons in her closet?

Where are these voters?  I'd like to meet them.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She was? (none / 0)

Um, the Clintons have disclosed more of their financial records, political, and personal lives than any family in American history.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except for the.... (2.00 / 1)

...$500 million or so in contributions to the Clinton Library.  Both of them refused to disclose the contributors and the amounts given.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Instead of making snotty comments ...... (2.00 / 2)

Why don't you come out and admit that you are a "Clinton hater" at least that would be honest and not hypocritical.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So pointing out inconvenient truths... (none / 0)

...now come under the heading "snotty comments".  It is also duly noted that you did not try to refute my "snotty comments"


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 05:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So pointing out inconvenient truths... (none / 0)

Just as you did not try and refute my point that the Clintons have endured and survived more scrutiny than Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party combined.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 05:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hate to repeat myself (none / 0)

but Except for the $400 million or so in unvetted donations to the Clinton Library fund.  There was no scrutiny on these funds, since the Clintons both refused to divulge any information on them.  

And as for survival, under the Clintons the Democratic party lost control of both house of congress which were only regained under the leadership of Howard Dean.  Somehow surviving at the cost of 14 years of GOP congressional rule does not seem to be a good thing


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hate to repeat myself (none / 0)

It'd be repeating yourself if you could get your story straight... Where is your source?


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hate to repeat myself (none / 0)

Lets see for the $500 million and the refusal of the Clintons to reveal donors, there is the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20clinton.html?ei=5124&en=6551 dc1319d1e2b9&ex=1355893200&partn er=permalink&exprod=permalink&pa gewanted=all

And for further fun, the Time article where we find an apparent link between a $400,000 donation to the library, and the Rich pardon

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,98756,00.html

And if you think the right would let this pass by in an election year, you have not been paying too much attention these last few cycles


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hate to repeat myself (none / 0)

Thanks for the links. I figured you would have posted a Don Van Natta piece. Here's a swift debunking of all of the innuendo by Media Matters. Van Natta was clearly trying to resurrect interest in his flop-book with Whitewater Scum-Artist Jeff Gerth. Even so, I'll make a quick couple of points.

As with any presidential library, private fundraising is just that: private. There is no basis for suggesting that funds coming from anywhere toward  private property would have any impact on Hillary's policy positions. As a case in point, she was one of the most visible senators in 2004 denouncing the Dubai ports deal.

Give some credit where credit is due. If you want to fault her as some kind of maniacal, power hungry , former corporate lawyer at least use a little bit of common sense to know that as a former corporate lawyer (and someone who was subjected to an unprecedented amount of financial probing, thanks to Van Natta's bff), she wouldn't be caught dead submitting to bribery, which that article alleges.

As for the Rich story, big whoop. Do you think that would be an issue today if HRC was the VP pick? You have to be kidding me. You know, Kenneth Starr donated to her presidential campaign this year: maybe she set herself up on purpose just get him famous so that he could become a wealthy-enough lawyer to contribute to her campaign.... yawn

It's a pretty deranged suggestion, but I wouldn't put it past some people.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are serious. (none / 0)

After what the party has been through before, with the Ferraro mess about her family finances in 1984.  You actually believe that the fact that there are hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in to the Clinton foundation without anyone know who and how much would somehow be overlooked in the general election.  That smacks either of ignorance of the last few election cycles or an incredible amount of hubris.  Right now we are slamming McCain for his houses comment.  How much traction can we have if we have to answer for the amounts flowing in from the House of Saud and other foreign sources.  That we have the Clintons word that it wont effect any decisions.

And as for the "big whoop" Rich pardon.  Selling a pardon to a convicted felon for $400K actually seems to indicate that yes money can influence decisions.

I suggest you start dealing with the realities of General Election upcoming, and forget about slights against the Clintons.  

She lost.  Deal with it


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:50:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are serious. (none / 0)

No one is contesting that the Clinton Foundation raises millions of dollars. But try and find one iota of evidence that it has anything to do with either of their politics. It's about as palpable an association as Obama being a Muslim.

And as for the "big whoop" Rich pardon.  Selling a pardon to a convicted felon for $400K actually seems to indicate that yes money can influence decisions.

Dick Morris, is that you?

I am dealing extraordinarily well with the fact that Hillary lost. I see already the Obama has traded hope for good old Bankruptcy Bill writing, MBNA backing, RAVE Act dumping Biden.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Rep Waxman's comment (none / 0)

on the pardon when he said

"The Rich pardon is a bad precedent. It appears to set a double standard for the wealthy and the powerful, and it is an end run around the judicial process. Think about it for a minute: One week Marc Rich is on the Justice Department's list of the 10 most wanted; and the next week, he's given a presidential pardon"

The iota of evidence.  $400K donation to fund equals Presidential pardon to felon

Perception is reality in politics.  And the perception is obvious on both sides of the aisle.

your last comment belies your comment that you have moved on.

we have a nominee and a vice presidential candidate.  Time to move forward to the White House.  Getting a Democrat in there is the goal of the exercise, even if the last name is not Clinton.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (none / 0)

Perception is reality in politics.

You might as well have stopped there, since you continue to repeat an unsubstantiated claim. Rule #1 in any kind of rational argument is that someone else's opinion is not a fact. Enjoy your highly unlikely, conspiratorial view. I wouldn't dream of altering its position in your firmly myopic point of view.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:31:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting.... (none / 0)

that you skipped over the Waxman quote.  And the mess of the Ferraro finances in 1984.  And if Post hoc ergo propter hoc, refers to the Rich pardon.  I would say that if a politician receives $400k, and he then gives that person's husband a pardon, there is a pretty good case for causation.  At least Waxman thought so.

Your candidate lost, and is not on the ticket.  Deal with it.  And if you cant support the ticket, get your butt out of the way to let people who care about this election to get the right person into the White House

There are some of us who care about who will be selecting the judges for the SCOTUS.

thanks for playin


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting.... (none / 0)

I did not skip over the Waxman quote. Hate to repeat myself, but presenting somebody else's personal opinion as fact isn't really useful. He didn't investigate this matter, neither did you. All you have is your perception, which you tellingly mentioned, is reality.

I would say that if a politician receives $400k, and he then gives that person's husband a pardon, there is a pretty good case for causation.

I think you should read your article again:

The timing of the library contribution and its proximity to the pardon were not immediately obtainable.

Whoops, there's another assumption of yours that will have to rest only on your perception.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 4)

Well, if you were obsessed with keeping this secret, would this "democratic official" unamed, be in the loop?

It's all grist for the mill at this point....


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (1.00 / 9)

The arrogrance of Obama is amazing. The minimalist hope monger can get himself elected. I want no part in this anymore.


Obama/Biden 08
by W126 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 5)

I was waiting for a comment like that.  Do you just keep them in cold storage somewhere for use whenever you need them?


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 2)

I think they keep Notepad open in another window with all the standard lines, so they can copy and paste them instead of having to go to all the trouble of typing them out.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 3)

I couldn't help noticing how much the McCain camps flailing response to the house issue echoed both the style and substance of the puma trolls running around this site and others.

It's pretty obvious they all get their orders from the same place.


"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change." -- Nov. 4, 2008
by BobzCat on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lemme guess--you never supported him. (2.00 / 2)

Go cry on someone else's shoulder.


by Geekesque on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 2)

You're so silly. As if we believed you came here to support the Dems. Meet one of our newest McTrolls folks. Sadly, W126 is just as bad at trolling as the rest have been.


by venician on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 2)

An article based on an unnamed democratic official.   sorry if i find this hard to believe.  


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM EST

I wonder if the unnamed official is Ms Donna B. (none / 0)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 diaries at the same time linking a right wing (none / 0)

hack site with "knowledge" of what Obama has done...um, OK, do you want to by my bridge too?(this is neither a confirmation or denial of whether I believe it will be her though)


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST

since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

a right-wing site?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 3)

Politico is funded by rightwing sources, though their reporting is decent.  I doubt they have any more insight than anyone else, though.


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (none / 0)

beat me to it, except often times I find subtle things that make me wonder how "decent" their reporting is!!


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

rfahey,

Got a link for that?  I'm not being pugnacious here, I'm just curious.

I read Politico, and while I do think some of the writers are biased toward the right, I wouldn't have referred to them as a "rightwing" source.

That's a pretty broad brush.


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 1)

i read about it somewhere ... i suggest you google it.


by Lolis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

Lolis,

rfahey knows that if he's going to make that kind of claim, he needs to back it up, if challenged.

It isn't my job to prove his point for him.

-Stipes


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

Here's one that lists the site's various connections:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2 007/05/04/politico_funding/


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

rfahey,

I respect Glenn's work, but that link didn't work for me.  Do you have the text link?


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 3)

So the President and CEO of The Politico worked in multiple positions in the Reagan White House, and was continuously promoted until he rose to the level of Assistant to the President. And his close connection to the Reagan family and the Reagan presidency continues through today.

...

The Politico's primary (perhaps sole) funding source is the Allbritton Company, of which Frederick Ryan is an employee. The Allbritton family's leader, Joe, was CEO of Riggs Bank when Riggs pleaded guilty to a series of illegal financial transactions with right-wing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and his brutal military that took place throughout the 1990s and into 2001.

...

In addition to his long-time Reagan connections, Politico CEO Frederick Ryan was also (along with Jonathan Bush and Joseph Allbritton) himself a Board Member of Riggs Bank (h/t EJ). And Ryan, in addition to serving as Politico CEO, is also President of Allbritton Communications (a subsidiary of Allbritton Group, Inc., which in turn is a subsidiary of "Perpetual Corporation").


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 3)

Thanks rfahey!

This gives me something to think about...

Of course, remember that before the WSJ was sold, the owners were of a substantially different political stripe, than the folks running the editorial page.

Food for thought...


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 3)

Generally the Politico's reporting is pretty accurate, don't get me wrong, but on "truthy" articles like this I could see where their bias would creep out.


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 3)

I will say that Mike Allen rubs me the wrong way.  He's a slimeball, in my opinion.

With that said, I don't put them in the same category as the Washington Times, or the National Review, (I get sick just typing those names).

The funding thing is something that I didn't know about.  Thanks for giving me something to ponder!


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 2)

I think it was conceived as the rightwing response to Slate - I forget where I heard that.


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 1)

Interesting.  I could see that, in a way.  Learned my "new" thing for today.  

BTW, how did this turn into a flame war below?  I thought that we were being civil, and productive with this discussion.

Some people can't resist, can they?

;-)

Thanks again buddy.


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (1.66 / 3)

Ben Smith??? Come one, I'm surprised this wasn't better public knwledge among you "enlightened". Of course, I point it out and get questioned, RFahey does and gets mojo'd, this place amuses me, especially CG's usual sky is falling dramedy that we get to play out again, what a joke


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry dude TR. (none / 0)

for usual dramedy.

there were 3 other diaries on this topic, a front page on politico and other sites.  methinks someone is being antagonistic for the sake of being this way.  funny i never heard anyone here question politico before - why now???


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry dude TR. (2.00 / 2)

Whatever, won't be my first, won't be my last most likely. I just thought everyone knew the Politico, heck there own message boards discuss it. Weird how all the PUMA trolls enjoyed this lots, what does undocumented speculation like this actually do. hey, I prefer the rec listed diary calling this gullible better than my comment anyways;)


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry dude TR. (2.00 / 4)

FWIW, I've been told this about Politico myself, and it wasn't about Clinton. Even before I started using them for political news, I knew they were leaning further to the right than most. The one thing I actually like about them is that their GOP blogger, Jonathan Martin, can actually be fairly hard on the Repubs sometimes.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry dude TR. (2.00 / 1)

That's true, but he saw as his Democratic counterpart rose to fame ( Chuck Todd, Poblano and Ben Smith are the biggest winners of the primary season) as he got barely 2 or 3 comments on his blog.

Ben Smith helped push the "Bittergate" bullshit and the "White ni@#ers" crap before Indiana. I have no idea why he tries to pass himself off as Democrat. Getting linked to Drudge is the only reason he writes.

As you can tell, I have a very low opinion of that douche Ben Smith.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (2.00 / 1)

Got hair up your butt today, dontcha Dog?

Chill, my man.

;-)


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: since when is politico... (none / 0)

Politico is a well known site for Republican talking points. Very sophisticated and effective.


by canadian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:48:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sticking by my diary yesterday. (2.00 / 1)

It's going to be Hillary.


by Bob Sackamento on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST

Re: I'm sticking by my diary yesterday. (none / 0)

I hope when the news break and its not her , it won't be a pick deal for you.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fruck no! (2.00 / 2)

Obama's been my candidate for years now. He could punch me in the stomach, and I'd still enthusiastically vote for him. What will be a big deal to me is if he loses in November, regardless of who he picks.


by Bob Sackamento on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fruck no! (2.00 / 1)

He could punch me in the stomach, and I'd still enthusiastically vote for him

Now that might be fun to watch. Can we invite Cynthia McKinney to se if she wants to beat someone up? :-)


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe true, Maybe not (2.00 / 4)

Why do we only believe news articles with "Democratic Sources" when they are bad?

There have been Democratic source articles for Bayh, Biden, Kaine, Sebelius, and even Clinton for VP.  They are all bullshit.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST

Time to name the veep (2.00 / 2)

and get this story off the front page of drudge.


by Blazers Edge on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST

just went to the site... (none / 0)

yeah that's pretty bad - maybe the GOP did this on purpose?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

source: lieberdem? (2.00 / 2)

just sayin'


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

Seems like Obama was disingenuous about considering Clinton. A clear, although, not fatal mistake.


by blueflorida on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

Sorry, but not once did Obama or his campaign claim to have considered her. It was all pundits.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

actually, he did say she would be on anyone's short list.


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0)

Obama isn't just "anyone," though, now is he?

Just kidding.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 1)

It was a compliment to her, not a promise she would be vetted. That said, I think she was vetted. I think we need more than one unnamed source outside the campaign to verify it.

But if she wasn't, I for one wouldn't care. I would'nt want a VP who couldn't even convince her own loyal voters to support the Democratic nominee in 2 months.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

Once again, not her job to convince them, it's his.  He will win or lose all on his own. It could just be that they don't like the man.  No amount of talking can change it.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it could be that they are proven racists (pumaonly (2.00 / 1)

I come from Clinton Country. We're voting Obama round here, and doing so proudly. Don't matter the skin color, this is a union state, and we like 'em colored blue.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

But what about the 18 million voters she "owns". If she can't lead them and convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate, well then does she really have any power or the ability to lead?


by venician on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 1)

She does not "own" anybody.  They voted for her for lots of reasons, because they liked her, because they didn't like him.  Either way she stopped having any influence over them when she suspended her campaign.  Now they are just plain voters and if he wants them he should fight for them. It's his job to win, not hers.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 1)

Interesting take but your short sightedness is a little sad. Clinton has a vested interest in getting her "supporters" in line, if not, her political future is as vulnerable as his. Everyone mentions her 18 mill, no one seems to mention his...I don't think she has done anything to show she won't do her best, but they are now tied together because there will always be ardent supporters ON BOTH SIDES that will ink the events and cause havoc for either of their future ambitions.


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

I do understand the risk to her image in the future. I also know that if he loses she will be blamed no matter what she does now.  I do think they are linked and I do think that she is working her ass off.  In the end however it's still up to him to bring it home even if she will get the blame in the end if it goes bad.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She won't be blamed if he loses (none / 0)

unless people claiming to be Clinton supporters make a very public spectacle of trying to throw the election. Best case, that is hugely embarrassing, since (as we know from the primaries) politicians are so often judged by their supporters.

If the PUMAs had a shred of decency, they would have disassociated themselves from her, THEN gone after Obama.


by Neef on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 05:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

I wouldn't trust this one source, but if she wasn't, I'm not surprised.

She would be a horrible choice. She hasn't even been able to convince her own voters to support them Democratic candidate for president.

The only reason the media has jumped on this possibility so much is because they want to cause chaos. They want to manufacture a controversy when she isn't picked. A week ago, no one thought she was a possibility. Then everyone talked about how "shocking" it would be if he picked her, and suddenly pundits are making wild, baseless claims that it came down to her and Biden??

This is bullshit.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST

It's a set up (none / 0)

None of it surprises me.


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a set up (none / 0)

None of it surprises me.


by Dog Chains on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 1)

It isn't her job to convince her supporters.  He is failing all on his own and to blame her for his shortcomings is silly. He and he alone will win or lose this election.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes and no. (none / 0)

yes you are right.  and no you wouldn't be if she wasn't stumping almost weekly for him (as she has)...  yet these type of people, and in fact the NYT this isnt enough.  the clinton hate is strong.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she's playing her part (none / 0)

compliments to a good loser!


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes and no. (none / 0)

I appreciate Clinton setting up the whip operation for the convention.

And after the convention, she should be doing far more than making weekly campaign appearances.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes and no. (none / 0)

great!  appreciation noted.  now how many times a week would satisfy you after the convention?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 2)

It sure as hell is her job, especially if she wants to be VP. She is the one that convinced them in the first place that he was unfit for command, inexperienced, and untrustworthy. If she wants to be VP or have any future as a leader of the party, it is her responsibility to bring her voters to support the nominee.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stop it. (2.00 / 2)

HRC lost the semi-final.  she has stumped for obama 10 times in 2 months and asked her financial backers to support him.  if god forbid he loses in the finals - it is not on her.  you sound like a mctroll.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (none / 0)

But she DOES need to own up to the fact that she didn't want it. If she wasn't even vetted, I'm guessing that was something he was told early on.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (none / 0)

if in fact it was offered to her and she turned it down - she should.  but she certainly shouldnt lie for the sake of unity...  here's what i know - clinton said she was open to vp (much to my chagrin) and now a report (who knows how accurate) is saying she wasnt even vetted.  if true - not v. nice.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (2.00 / 1)

Not nice at all.  If anything it's bad politics.  If he wants to convince the people who are not on board he should have vetted, and made a big deal out of it.  A token yes, but one that might have helped.  I for one don't buy this article. I just don't think he is stupid enough to have publicly shafted her like that.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (none / 0)

She said she was open to her supporters, many of whom were asking and begging her to be VP, while she was trying to retire a great deal of debt.

Don't get me wrong, if she really was and Obama didn't vet her, it kinda pisses me off. But I don't know that I ever really believed she was clamoring for the job. I would have loved it if she was, and if they'd floated her name publicly, she might have been pressured into it. But I think she wanted to keep her Senate job.

And if so, after he makes his pick, she needs to own up to it.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (none / 0)

you may be right - but it certainly does not follow the news reports we have seen since the primary ended.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (2.00 / 1)

Honestly, I don't care what it takes. This idea that somehow Clinton was forced into attacking Obama after she had clearly lost and that it would have happened anyways is ridiculous.

During the Democratic primary, Clinton (a Democratic who has a lot of respect) unleashed attacks on Obama's readiness and honesty and sought to undermine his candidacy directed toward Democratic voters. Now, Obama has a problem with a certain segment of Democratic voters, and I'm supposed to just let this go and leave her alone.

She created this problem for Obama, it wouldn't have happened an other way. Democratic voters would not have listened to RNC and McCain attacks the way they listened to Clinton. It was her doing.

Call me a McTroll, but I feel I still have a right to be pissed off at Hillary Clinton. Sure, my chosen candidate won. And if everyone had moved on, I wouldn't care. Yet Hillary keeps getting brought back up. We would be winning if it were her, she should be VP, yada yada yada.

And I say no. If she had not unleashed those attacks after she had clearly lost, or if she had been successful over the summer in convincing her supporters that she was wrong, then you may have a point.

But so what if she stumped for him. Did she say she was wrong? Did she address those same concerns she brought up? No. She's being doing what she has to as a Democrat and nothing more. Clearly, she is in no place to be offered the Vice Presidency.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dude. (2.00 / 1)

you're walking a very dangerous line.  believe me - there are a lot of c4o who are just as pissed off about the primary as you are but for rather different reasons.  and in fact - since they were not quite as lucky to be in the same position as you, must instead swallow the bitter pill and vote for someone who "unleashed attacks' on a sitting senator and former president.

so, friendly advice - dont be a sore winner.  otherwise its easy to put you into the mctroll column.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dude. (none / 0)

I'm not walking a dangerous line. I'm writing on a blog with my opinions.

I'm sorry you don't respect my opinions, but will you please do me one favor?

Stop abusing the ratings system. I have gotten many troll rating from you in my time here at mydd and not one of them has met the guidelines for what is considered a troll rating.

If you don't like my "hillary hate" then by all means, write your opinion or ignore me. But giving me troll ratings because what I write pisses you off is inappropriate and childish.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

um no. (none / 0)

i gave you one TR in this diary since you are spamming it with your crap.  we get it - YOU HATE THE CLINTONS.  now please stop trolling this diary.  thank you.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um no. (none / 0)

You've given me two in just the last couple days. I haven't done any spamming. Each post has been different and written independently of the other.

I am making a legitimate argument about Hillary Clinton and why I do not believe she should be VP.

You have no idea what trolling is. You think that anything you don't like is trolling. It's not.

Let me quote:

Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user.

I have a write to post as many response to different comments as I want to.

And almost all of my responses came under a thread of comments I STARTED.

You abuse the ratings system, plain and simple. Stop it.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She never lost (none / 0)

Just because bullies stole the election does not make it a win.  Please save your whining.
She did not ATTACK Obama.
She gave her opinion that he was less experienced than her.  She did not imply he was a racist or a sexist or an evil person the way his campaign and bloggers attacked a stalwart for civil and women's rights.

And oh yea, this is an opinion bb and some of us have a whole different pov.
So if you are going to rag on her, then here's back at ya!


by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 05:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop it. (2.00 / 1)

It was a hard-fought primary, and Clinton was still in it all the way to the end. Trying to pressure her to drop our early was stupid then, now it's just an absurd attempt to rewrite history.

Obama's attacks on HRC also sought to undermine her credibility, honesty, etc. with Democratic voters. And if HRC were the nominee, she would have to win over the Obama supporters in order to build a winning coalition. That's what primaries are about.

Stop being a sore winner, and recognize that Obama's job right now as the Democratic nominee is to build a winning coalition. He knows he needs the entire Democratic party behind him to win the GE, and give him a Congress he can work with, too bad so many of his "supporters" don't understand this.


by LakersFan on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (2.00 / 1)

I didn't say a word about VP.  She endorsed, she stumped, and she raised money.  People decide for themselves, she cannot simply tell her voters what to do.  The attacks she made in the primary would have been made no matter who was running against the man. The point is that they are sticking for a reason, and he is the only one who can convince people otherwise.  Blaming the CW about him on her is akin to saying she should never have run because it hurt his chances.  It's politics, people say things, get over it.  Either he is strong enough to overcome or he isn't.


by nyarch on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (1.50 / 2)

The attacks she made were unnecessary. The sought to undermine his candidacy. And she made them to those people who were already supporting her. And those are the same people that still believe her and are not voting for Obama.

Honestly, the fact that one of our candidates basically convinced almost half of their supporters to consider voting for the other party is really sad.

Obviously, Obama is going to have to work to win over these voters. But he never "lost" them. Hillary Clinton made sure that he would have a problem with these voters.


by BlueGAinDC on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (1.00 / 1)

Since Hillary Clinton kept the nomination so close but failed to win it is easy to argue that her attacks were necessary but insufficient.

She would have had to be willing to go as far as Obama was to win.


by souvarine on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And cheating at the caucus (none / 0)

events was not only unnecessary it is undemocratic and yet it happened and bullies intimidated voters...
so please save your sanctimony.

Saying your opponent is not experienced and not as good as you is much more fair than what happened in TX


by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

The only person that needed to be vetted was/is Bill to make sure none of his post Presidency financials come back to bite.

So not vetting her, careful what you read into this.

And since nobody seems to know anything how do these un-named sources know anymore than anybody else.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

You think she'd have the humility to hand over her and her husbands lifetime of records to the Obama campaign?

This was her decision, not his....


by True Centrist on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:06 PM EST

Re: Politico: Clinton was never vetted. (none / 0)

I wouldn't read too much into this.  Its clear that if Obama tabs her as VP, he wants it to come as a shocker.  In that case, I don't think its implausible that they would have excluded her from the list of people being "officially" vetted.  Its not like you can't vet somebody more informally as well.  Plus, vetting for her is much less involved because so much of her life and her records are already public.  

Biden is still probably the favorite though.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST

Come on (2.00 / 2)

First off, he only needed to vett one candidate.

Secondly, Clinton is a known commodity.  She was investigated thoroughly in the primaries.  The only question marks about her are about her husband.  Any talks the vetting committee would have had to have been with Bill, not Hillary.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST

Alternative Theory #1 (2.00 / 1)

1) Obama leaks to the NY Times that she isn't being very enthuisiastic on the stump in order to embarrass her.  Ambinder seems to buy this theory.

2) HRC has one of her people leak this story to the press on the very day that Obama will probably name a running mate in order to give him a stinger back for the NY Times "enthuisiasm" leak.

Of course, the GOP could be at work here to create havoc and chaos but then again, Obama and HRC could be tossing sand at each other.


by Blazers Edge on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST

Re: Alternative Theory #1 (2.00 / 2)

Ambinder is wrong about something on a daily basis.  The only possible conspiracy I see is a conspiracy by rightwingers to have us refight the primaries.


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 1)

Obama leaks to the NY Times

Actually if you read the article the Times was quoting people in the audience at yesterdays event. So not a leak from the Obama camp. Good grief get a grip.

It was good that she said my supporters need to now support Barack Obama," said Ms. Shaffer, 46, reflecting on Mrs. Clinton's speech before about 700 people. But, she added, "I wanted her to repeat that one more time.

Guy Montes, 63, a retired shift manager for United Airlines and a Clinton supporter in the primary, said later that Mrs. Clinton's heart did not seem to be in it.

"It was a platonic type of endorsement," Mr. Montes said. "It wasn't real love. She's just doing what she's supposed to be doing."

Even Cecilia Payne, 52, an insurance agent in West Palm Beach originally from Barbados, who declared that "the Clintons are the best thing that ever happened to politics," said Mrs. Clinton must work harder.

"She should have been a little more forceful and more convincing," Ms. Payne said.



Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ambinder and an operative (none / 0)

have a different opinion than you do; you are free to disagree with them but I would not be so quick to assume that either HRC or Obama is playing on the side of angels.