This is very interesting, from the Los Angeles Times via the New Hampshire Union Leader: ["Donor: Hillary on VP list but Bill presents 'complication'"].
I'm forever reminded about "party loyalty" thing and how the Democrats are always all supposed to stand together, come together, for the betterment of the nation and party ... even if that unity can be to the detriment of many in the nation [think NAFTA, the dot-cons, and the fact that Jerry Brown would have been a much better president than Bill Clinton]. This unity is demanded it seems, unless you are with the Clintons and you don't do what the Clintons want. And then, as we see with Ms. Iscol, you can use political blackmail and personal phone calls to try and get your way or in this case, the Clinton's way.
I sense though from this article and the third-hand reporting of the conversation, that Barack Obama is not going to pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. As I have joked on this site, if he did pick Hillary and won, he better make sure he has someone in the White House checking his food before he eats it. That said, it isn't an easy decision. I mean, with Clinton folks blackmailing you for their support, what is a candidate to do?
This isn't the first time this has happened inside the Democratic Party and it won't be the last. But, like the other times, I as a voter will remember and decide accordingly. As well, I will do everything I can to convince people that we need to be voting for the candidate and the health of the nation, and not the party. Blind loyalty to party politics is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Update: I want to add a couple of additions here. First, it is important to remember that this belligerence is not just within party circles but outside as well. Let's not forget what has happened to folks who decided that Ralph Nader had earned their votes or those people who wanted - or want - to form Green Parties across the nation. Those people [me too] were pilloried for "costing" their people elections here and there. Well too effing bad. Clinton cost millions and millions of hard working, decent wage, low skill workers their jobs and he, along with Bush 41 and Bush 43, have brought this nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Enough already.
Obama would be smart to not put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. It is the best way to go. She is too divisive. Frankly, like many, the Clinton people have nowhere else to go. They aren't going to go to McCain or, if they do, many will use this against them in the future, especially when issues like abortion come up. If Dems go with McCain then they can go to progressive indies or Greens without future fear of retribution. That will be my talking point.
If Obama needs a woman, there are others to pick. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is one stellar choice from a swing state. In addition, John Edwards should be in the cabinet, specifically Attorney General, although, admittedly, Edwards supporters have nowhere else to go either. That would just be a good move on Obama's part.
I'm forever reminded about "party loyalty" thing and how the Democrats are always all supposed to stand together, come together, for the betterment of the nation and party ... even if that unity can be to the detriment of many in the nation [think NAFTA, the dot-cons, and the fact that Jerry Brown would have been a much better president than Bill Clinton]. This unity is demanded it seems, unless you are with the Clintons and you don't do what the Clintons want. And then, as we see with Ms. Iscol, you can use political blackmail and personal phone calls to try and get your way or in this case, the Clinton's way.
I sense though from this article and the third-hand reporting of the conversation, that Barack Obama is not going to pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. As I have joked on this site, if he did pick Hillary and won, he better make sure he has someone in the White House checking his food before he eats it. That said, it isn't an easy decision. I mean, with Clinton folks blackmailing you for their support, what is a candidate to do?
This isn't the first time this has happened inside the Democratic Party and it won't be the last. But, like the other times, I as a voter will remember and decide accordingly. As well, I will do everything I can to convince people that we need to be voting for the candidate and the health of the nation, and not the party. Blind loyalty to party politics is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Update: I want to add a couple of additions here. First, it is important to remember that this belligerence is not just within party circles but outside as well. Let's not forget what has happened to folks who decided that Ralph Nader had earned their votes or those people who wanted - or want - to form Green Parties across the nation. Those people [me too] were pilloried for "costing" their people elections here and there. Well too effing bad. Clinton cost millions and millions of hard working, decent wage, low skill workers their jobs and he, along with Bush 41 and Bush 43, have brought this nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Enough already.
Obama would be smart to not put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. It is the best way to go. She is too divisive. Frankly, like many, the Clinton people have nowhere else to go. They aren't going to go to McCain or, if they do, many will use this against them in the future, especially when issues like abortion come up. If Dems go with McCain then they can go to progressive indies or Greens without future fear of retribution. That will be my talking point.
If Obama needs a woman, there are others to pick. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is one stellar choice from a swing state. In addition, John Edwards should be in the cabinet, specifically Attorney General, although, admittedly, Edwards supporters have nowhere else to go either. That would just be a good move on Obama's part.
No comments:
Post a Comment