And I quote …

(Hillary) is not taking this to the convention, and she’s not suing the DNC. I’ll put money on it. She’s going to keep running to try to get her campaign out of debt. She’ll tone down the venom to try temper the party’s divide and will end her campaign gracefully after all the primaries have been held. At which point Florida and Michigan will be meaningless – because Obama’s lead will remain too much to overcome (the margin grows wider with each round of primaries) and the superdelegate snowball effect will continue in his favor. Then the DNC will seat all the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention so as not to alienate voters.

– Shane Bertou, commenting on the post “Is it over for Hillary?” on May 08, 2008.

Pretty much spot on thank you very much. Just eliminate the word “gracefully” and change “all the Florida and Michigan delegates” to “half” and I nailed it. (Although, I’m still holding out on FL and MI. I think that ultimately they’ll decide to seat them all.)

Now for the next round of predictions:

When she gives her speech on Saturday, she will put to rest the speculation regarding her and the VP slot. She’s going to get pressure from senior leadership in the party to stamp out that fire immediately. If that cloud is still looming over this process on Saturday it won’t do anything to help unite the party – it will only make things worse.

If she wants to continue to have a career in politics, she’ll be the ultimate team player now. She’ll tell her supporters that she and Obama spoke about the possibility, but she has decided she can best serve the party by fighting for New Yorkers and the best interests of the country by focusing her attention on her role in the Senate. And she looks forward to working with Sen. Obama in whatever capacity he asks of her during the election process and after he’s sworn in as President of the United States. (*cough* Cabinet position *cough*).

Obama won’t, and shouldn’t, select Hillary as his VP for the following reasons:

1) He’s running as the “Change” candidate. Having someone who has been working in Washington for the past 16 years – behind the scenes and as an elected official – as his running mate is a huge liability.

2) She will constantly try to upstage him. For example, her speech on Tuesday night. That was a historic night for Obama and America. That was his night, and his moment to shine. And yet, instead of conceding and being congratulatory, she instead was still carrying on like she had a shot at winning the nomination.

3) The last thing a first term President wants, especially having won on the platform of “Change,” is a former President sniffing around the White House. Especially when that ex-President is Bill Clinton. That would be a tremendous distraction.

4) The way she chose to run her campaign has made it nearly impossible for her to be on the ticket. How’s she going to be his running mate when she was so critical of his “lack of experience?” How will the Clintons put the race card back in the deck now that it’s been played so often by them? How does Bill take back all the damage he tried to do to Obama’s campaign and then go out and cheer lead for him?

In my opinion, Obama’s short-list should be (in no particular order):

1) Bill Richardson – A Hispanic border-state governor who could be a great asset in bridging the black/Hispanic divide. He would also fit the “Washington outsider” mold better than others.

2) John Edwards – Great on poverty, a Southern Democrat and blue-collar favorite. But he could be damaged goods after losing the VP bid four years ago as John Kerry’s running mate.

3) Kathleen Sebelius – Could be a bit too new to the national political arena, but another rising star in the Democratic party and a blue-collar fave. Her selection could diffuse the hostility Obama is facing from Hillary’s feminist supporters. Or it could enrage them.


14 thoughts on “And I quote …

  1. If you’re next prediction of her bowing out of the VP consideration then I will bake her a cake of appreciation.

    I called Richardson the minute I saw him endorsing. (on Twitter though)

  2. Richardson appears to be the logical choice IMO. The hispanic population should be a major factor in this race. And the southern border will be a big issue. He’d be a huge asset on both accounts.

    Also, a move like this could solidify the Democrats as the party of choice for blacks and hispanics for a loooooong time to come. And given all the reports that the white population will be the minority in the next 30 years or so, that should be a major strategic consideration.

    There’s alot of talk that some of the “Change” that Obama represents is the changing face of America. Besides being the first post-Boomer president, he also represents the changing cultural mold as well. A multi-ethnic/black president with a Hispanic VP? I really didn’t think we were quite there yet, but it sure as heck looks like the old-guard (aka whitey) is about to get shaken up in a pretty major way!

  3. you left out “she’ll have him whacked” as reasons why not to have her as running mate.

    and i am in no way kidding. jim, where’s that link?

  4. Hilary as VP would also break the location law.

    A VP is usually chosen as someone in an opposite locale to the person running for President. Example… JFK was from Massachusetts while Johnson was from Texas. Sibelius’ Kansas may be too close to Illinois (which outside of Chicago is pretty much heartland).

    I think it’s wise for a Senator to choose a Governor as a running mate. Richardson is a good pick. Not to mention his state’s proximity to McCain’s state.

    Not like I care anyway…I want the old geezer to win.

  5. @Justin Mayfield: Well, let’s just see if I’m even close to right before I go ruining someone’s hopes of getting into office! 😆

    I’ve worked on a couple of campaigns in the past. When I was in high school I worked for both State Sen. Mike Nozzolio and our county District Attorney Rick Healy. That was back in the early 90s and they’re both still in office today. I’ll gladly take credit for that!

    @Cricky: That’s a good point about selecting a Governor. Another plus for Richardson. If Obama truly does need to overcome the “lack of experience” factor, having someone on the ticket with executive experience would be a smart move.

  6. clinton is going to poisen the well…i’m telling you, she will not sit back and let this happen to her.
    she will help mccain get elected and then she’ll run in 2012.

  7. well, Edwards is out. He could end up as Attorney General.

    Also, why do you think Richardson is a Washington outsider? He served in the Clinton administration as Secretary of Energy before becoming a governor. Hillary was pretty angry with him for supporting Obama, I wonder how her supporters would react to him on the ticket. That said, I think he’d be a great choice.

    To combat McCain, I think his best strategic move would be Chuck Hagel, but he’ll probably end up Secretary of Defense.

    I also wouldn’t rule out Rendell, Bayh or (darkhorse) Bloomberg for VP.

  8. @Stem: You’re crazy because you fail to recognize the power of the Democratic party over her chances to run in 2012.

    The Dems are poised to win back the White House, and they’re gaining inroads in once staunchly Republican parts of the senate.

    They’re about to hit the Trifecta in November. If she “poisoned the well” as you claim, and it costs the Dems the White House (with a potential trickle down effect into the other branches) she will never be forgiven.

    Obama has nearly every prominent Democrat in his column, and those were still supporting her at the end were pressuring her to concede and stay down.

    The mere fact that she couldn’t win the primary outright, couldn’t convince the majority of super delegates to back her, couldn’t bully the DNC rules committee to seat all of Florida or Michigan, kind of proves that she doesn’t hold nearly the sway you give her credit for.

    To run for President in 2012, against an incumbent, she would need the Democratic party’s help. If she ruined their chances in 2008, she’d never get it.

    Obama wrestled the party away from the Clintons. That’s Change I can believe in. 😆

  9. shane, if you’ll take a breath in between those long swigs from the koolaid keg, i’ll be happy to help you see it from my pov. 🙂

    1. clinton will have to poisen the well from a safe distance so no one in the party will do everything you outlined. don’t underestimate the clintons when it comes to subterfuge and deciept!

    2. the media was so busy worshipping obama through february that clinton didn’t stand a chance. all of his

  10. oops! let me continue:

    2. the media was so busy worshiping obama through february that clinton didn’t stand a chance. all of his negatives happened after his big sweep of the primaries. if those had been reported on prior to february, i think he would have won half of those states…which would have TOTALLY changed the race.

    3. point 2 is moot…except for the fact that you stated that obama wrestling the party from the clinton’s was change you could believe in. to me, it seems eerily familiar to 1992 and bill clinton’s original teflon campaign. which i guess makes obama “clinton 2.0”

  11. Yes Stem. She’s going to plot the complete demise of the Democratic party under the cloak of darkness in her secret hidden underground lair. 😆

    And not that I want to get bogged down into this sort of silliness, but you said it …

    I’ll take Clinton 2.0 over George W. Bush’s 3rd term any day of the week! 😉

  12. @Tim: You’re probably right about Richardson not being that much of a “Washington outsider.” (To my credit I said he fits that mold “better than others.” And by “others” I meant John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel.

    While I knew he was Sec. of Energy (and also an Ambassador to the U.N.) under Clinton – when I think of “Washington insiders” I tend to think only of elected officials.

    That being said, imagine my shock when I learned that he had been a Congressman for 14 years prior to his Clinton appointments.

    Wrong about his state. Wrong about his political history. Sheesh, you’d think I’d fact check a thing or two before I run my mouth!

  13. shane, you’re doubting that hillary has a deep dark hole of deciet from which to spin her wicked webs?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s