The Brilliance of the Edwards Endorsement

I joked to some folks yesterday that Will Rogers is probably rolling over in his grave about now. Between Obama’s insistence on running one, unified message and party and Obama’s masterful implementation of the Edwards endorsement yesterday, we Democrats may no longer be able to quip–at least for the next several months–that we "belong to no organized party."

That sentiment was widely shared among a bunch of local political types in MI with whom I just had beers. It wasn’t just that Obama (and David Bonior, surely) had managed to headline Obama’s first MI event with the guy in the race who spoke most about the crappy economy. It wasn’t just that it was MI where he chose to get the endorsement–making up for a lot of the bad things some Michiganders have been told about Obama. It wasn’t even just the nice touch of keeping the Edwards endorsement a secret from the thousands who showed up in Van Andel arena to see Obama until Obama got to announce it himself on stage–magnifiying the specialness of the Edwards endorsement. It was, obviously, also the way Obama managed to pre-empt Hillary’s biggest win since Arkansas with the news that both of them have been chasing since February.

But the more I think about it, Obama’s management of the Edwards endorsement was even more brilliant than that.

Consider, for a moment, Robert Reich’s explanation of why Hillary remains in the race (h/t Jane).

She wants the best possible deal she can strike with Obama. She wants Obama to agree to pay her campaign debts, to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations (so she can claim a moral victory), and – the quietest deal of all – a personal commitment from him to appoint her to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs.

Just as a picky point, the Edwards endorsement simplifies any resolution of MI. If the MI compromise proposal goes forward, it’ll make it a lot easier to award Obama 59 delegates now that the other major candidate who took uncommitted votes has endorsed Obama–Edwards isn’t going to complain that "his" votes from uncommitted are awarded to Obama. And even if Obama does feel generous and gives Hillary her MI "win" (which will piss me off, but I’m willing to be used once again for the sake of party unity)–having the Edwards endorsement will make it more likely that the roughly 5 elected delegates who support Edwards and the At Large delegates yet to be assigned to uncommitted will support Obama. (Obviously, that’s true of FL as well.)

But that’s a picky point. What I’m really interested in, with regards to the timing and implementation of the Edwards endorsement, is that it happened just as Hillary’s team had intensified its lobbying to secure the VP nomination for Hillary. A few days ago, everyone was talking about the dream ticket Obama-Clinton. Now, after last night’s endorsement, everyone is talking about the dream ticket of Obama-Edwards; talk of a Obama-Clinton ticket now seems dated, flat.

Consider the pressure that puts Hillary under. Whether she wants SCOTUS or VP or some other prize for a concession, everything she might be a good candidate for, Edwards would also be an excellent pick for. VP? AG? SCOTUS? Yup.

Yet Edwards, of course, jumped in when the concession prizes were all available–and jumped in in a way that made Hillary’s concession less necessary (though still pretty important) even as it isolated Hillary further in her opposition to Obama. If Hillary holds out much longer, it’ll be easy for Obama to give Edwards whatever prize Hillary might have wanted as a reward for Edwards endorsing to bring the party together.

By bringing in Edwards when he did (and mind you, I don’t imagine that Edwards is missing this significance either), Obama takes away much of Hillary’s bargaining position. That’s not very nice, mind you. But it is effective politics.

Will Rogers. I’m sorry, but you may have to take a pass this year.

image_print
63 replies
  1. cbl2 says:

    well good evening Ms Marcy – can’t believe I have ya all to myself –

    have been admiring the Obama machinery and discipline for some time but admit to now having concerns with this 527 business – looking forward to going back to your links and reading your take on this –

    thanks

    • emptywheel says:

      I have mixed feelings. I’m worried that Obama won’t permit negative messaging. But hell–if he won’t than I will.

      I’m worried about keeping Obama tracking left. Again, I will do my best to force that hand.

      But for the moment, I’m perhaps naively willing to relax, knowing that Will ROgers is losing sleep tonight.

  2. cbl2 says:

    phew! – Like I said, have admired his campaign’s execution for some time before I decided on him, but sometimes worried he was gonna turn out to be Damien – so when I saw pan-blogispheric concern about his centralization . . .ya know, but will wait to see how it is to play in the down ticket races but will relax myself for now

    he doesn’t have anywhere to take this country but left – but yes I know what you mean and share your concern

    and may I blather on for moment longer –

    an obvious point, didn’t really hit me till last night – all that he’s done – engaging the electorate at a level not seen in decades, the donors, the volunteers, hell yes the voters! and he’s done it honestly – no caging, no ‘voter fraud’ charges, no diebold, no phone jamming, – am relieved to know it can still be done – something most of us thought we’d never see again

  3. Tross says:

    I would LOVE an Obama/Edwards ticket.

    I thought it was brilliant how Edwards went from saying “Yes We Can” directly into his “One America” theme. I think they would make a compelling team.

  4. freepatriot says:

    same thought, different reason

    What I’m really interested in, with regards to the timing and implementation of the Edwards endorsement

    sure did knock hillary’s West Virginia win off the front pages, dinnit ???

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh yeah, I said that. My point here though is that, while people are admiring the brilliance of the tactics, they’re missing it’s value for Obama’s strategy.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Good feedback from your beers with the local politicos. I think Edwards would be an effective VP. I bet Obama does too. Which means HRC’s leverage could be waning fast. She better make a deal for whatever she wants.

    Edwards is better at progressive economics across the board than HRC, and as good on health care. He has a history of opposing corporate interests that Hillary lacks, especially now that she is beholden to heavy hitter donors from NYC, especially financial houses. He brings in Southern progressives that might be lukewarm to HRC.

    Edwards is likely to be more collegial, to accept the discipline of being number two in the White House and in public affairs, even as he and Obama define a new role for him as deputy to, not cuckolder of the president. He isn’t likely to forget himself and tell Obama where things are in the Oval Office or the WH bunker. He is likely to regard the job as a once in a lifetime opportunity – not a missed chance – which could set him up to replace Obama in eight years. He and his wife are probably a better fit with Michelle O., too.

    All of which would be important in serving as a secure political base inside the WH for Obama, who will face an exceedingly tough transition, not to mention an Oval Office full of problems Bush has ignored or worsened in the eight years that Dick Cheney has ruled the WH.

    HRC, on the other hand, needs her own field of maneuver. She has the chance to be a powerful senator, a position not subordinate to or dependent on the president. Any cabinet post would be awkward. The S.Ct. seems an elegant solution if she no longer wants to be in the Senate. It’s suitably independent. She has the academic distinction for it. She had adequate, but not stellar legal practice (compared to those few top contenders for S.Ct. slots), but now has considerable political experience from her time in the Senate. A good combination that will be essential, given the hostility she is likely to face on the Court.

    As for AG, I think that will be the toughest assignment in Obama’s Cabinet, or as tough as being SecDef. The usual academic distinctions and high-level legal management experience won’t be enough. The DOJ will have to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

    That will require a professional athletic coach’s ability to motivate a disparate team, to inspire confidence, to convey a sense of unqualified support for those going out on a limb to make changes, some of which the WH or Congress won’t like. It will require someone who is an exceptional judge of character as well as the law. Someone who trusts his people because he’s street smart, not naive, who allows them to make mistakes so long as they quickly learn from them and have their priorities right. Those are needle in a haystack qualifications. But they’re essential if Obama is to rebuild a severely impaired DOJ.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Sheldon Whitehouse? We need a heavy hitter, as well as a team player. But we can’t fill too many Cabinet posts from Congress. Who’s experienced, reliably progressive and hasn’t sold out to lobbyists like several otherwise top candidates from the Clinton WH?

        Who on Obama’s staff gets to make these picks? Getting to know them is as important as the names they come up with.

        • PetePierce says:

          Sheldon pussied out on FISA–that disqualifies him exponentially in my book. Sheldon talks a very good game but when the rubber hits the road he can be a real pussy.

    • Minnesotachuck says:

      The S.Ct. seems an elegant solution if she no longer wants to be in the Senate. It’s suitably independent. She has the academic distinction for it.

      She would partially fill a gap on the SCOTUSs of recent years that has been remarked upon quite widely. Namely the small number of justices who have had any experience in elective politics. IIRC, since the retirement of O’Connor there is no one with such experience on the current court, and that may be unprecedented. Some of the lawyers here may have more insight on this.

  6. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    If Larry Johnson is correct, this spells serious trouble for Obama (and the Dems):
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2…..the-train/

    IF Larry Johnson turns out to be accurate, then this is a big deal. Michelle O seems too smart to be caught saying anything that could be used against them, but I’d sure like more info before the champagne corks start popping.

    Hope that there’s some confusion about Larry’s info.

    • cinnamonape says:

      Hmmm! Former CIA operatives are supposedly the ones behind the “viral internet” chain-mail assertion that “Obama is a Muslim and attended a radical madrassah” tale, too. The Wash Po claims that their source has said he’s been doing this, with the help of other former agents in a group he called “The Crusade”.The source lived in Virginia, so it isn’t Johnson (unless this is an intentional distraction). But it’s almost impossible given his constant pushing of such things as a “concern troll” for the Hillary campaign that he doesn’t KNOW who these people are!

    • PetePierce says:

      Thanks for the grin. The late nite shows were pretty bland tonite.

      Does Barack have an obligation to tell the Democrats, super delegates in particular, about this tape? Did Barack and his campaign do their basic homework and identify this tape as a potential problem? And, more importantly, do they have a copy?

      More importantly beyond his delusional scheme does Larry Johnson have a scintilla of evidence for his breathless hyperventilating bullshit???

      I’d read some more tea leaves. Larry Johnson is one of scores of ex-Military CIA types who are right wing breathless pending scandle mongers and somehow the scandles just never break through their little delusional world. You might want to consult Ashleigh out on Route 32 take the second winding road by the old tires and stop in front of the Pink Flamingo. She lapdances on the 7-3AM shift, and reads fortune cards M W F.

      If such a video existed, Republican Hillary Racist Clinton would have flung it in her kitchen sink that is now buried along with her.

      I already popped some champaign corks.

      How about issues in Miley Cyrus America instead of this pending smear shit that has been ubiquitous from the firepuppies for so long?

      I still remember LHP’s blog that got her the first real recognition she has had on the web where she jumped up and down drunk with visions of Rezko and sugar plums in her head while ignoring the three large contributors to Hillary who were indicted–one who did a piss poor imitation of a fugative (Bill pardoned one of those for $400,000 from Denise Rich).

      How’s Tony Rezko lookin’ now for LHP and the Hillary candidacy?

      Eye on Rezko–the big Fizzle Trial

      Unexpurgated unFitz Coded Rezko Indictment All da Names is Done In It

      Rezko trial: First jury question
      The 12 jurors in Tony Rezko’s trial just sent a note to Judge Amy St. Eve asking if she could give them a transcript of testimony from witness Michael Winter. Winter’s testimony is relevant to the first count in the indictment — though it is a lengthy count involving a complex scheme.

      The jurors in Tony Rezko’s trial have gone home for the day, following their full first day of deliberations.

      They return tomorrow for a half-day of closed-door talks.

    • BooRadley says:

      I don’t have any inside information, but this just doesn’t sound right. Larry Johnson has GOP sources and they tell him stuff that they think he will not tell Hillary?

      If such a video really does exist, Michelle can always do the tearful apology for the error of her youthful ways.

      • 4jkb4ia says:

        Also if there are any GOP sources they know that No Quarter will entertain any attack on Obama, so they can feed Larry Johnson all kinds of dirt.

  7. PetePierce says:

    She wants the best possible deal she can strike with Obama. She wants Obama to agree to pay her campaign debts, to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations (so she can claim a moral victory), and – the quietest deal of all – a personal commitment from him to appoint her to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs. (h/t Jim M.)

    None of this is going to happen. It’s part of the delusional system of a textbook Borderline Personality

    In the final analysis Hillary Racist Clinton is a spoiled little girl who is used to getting everything she ever reached for except for the many other women Bubbah continues to drag onto Ron Burkle’s plane when they aren’t swinging deals that the Clintons continue to hide (2007 Hidden Tax Returns and Hidden Libary Contributions)–what do they have to be afraid of? A shitload including criminal indictments.

    Meanwhile back to reality on the street as oposed to Jeralyn Merritt’s Delusions in Colorado about the significance of West Virginia and Kentucky–has Jeralyn ever set foot in Kentucky?

    H/T First Read, Domenico Montanaro and Chuck Todd’s Staff:

    As more evidence of the Democratic Party coalescing around Obama, the Illinois senator picked up four more superdelegates today. California Reps. Henry Waxman and Howard Berman and Washington state’s Jim McDerrmott all threw their support to Obama. Also endorsing Obama was the Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen of DC.

    (We noted earlier the steelworkers’ union endorsement of Obama as well.)

    Waxman is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Berman is the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    The NBC NEWS Delegate Counts:
    PLEDGED: Obama 1599 to 1447
    SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 291.5 to 276.5
    TOTAL: Obama 1,890.5 to 1,723.5.

    * Obama’s Magic Number: 135.5 to reach the 2,026 required to become the Democratic nominee.

    * Obama has gained 35.5 superdelegates since last Tuesday; Clinton has gained 1.5.

  8. PetePierce says:

    It’d be a good idea for Hillary Clinton to show that she can take care of a dog first and secondly to haul her ass into D.C. and sit for and pass the D.C. bar she flunked upon graduation from Yale Law School (Robert Reich and most people in Washington don’t know she took it and flunked it).

    And before Bmaz gets his hackles up I know damn well that litigation prowess or clinical medical skills have little corrolation with bar exams or medical board exams (docs do have to pass a national exam however, and lawyers in many states have their questions selected because when they take a national bar the flunk rate is off the wall–go figure–so they don’t have one mandated).

    My point is that there are thousands of people more qualified to be on the Supreme Court or for that matter Arkansas Municipal Court than Hillary Clinton straight up. It’s absurd to waste an S. Ct. appointment on someone as dumb as Hillary with such limited idea of constitutional law–precedents–how to apply them.

    I have a puppy who knows more case law than Hillary and Bill Clinton combined.

    I’ll bet anyone here seriously that you’re not going to see HRC on the ticket (McCain’s excluded because there is a viable possibility and it would be a delight to run against her and crush her again in the same year).

    I’m raring to bet anyone here you have more chance of seeing Madonna on the S. Ct. than Clinton. Not going to happen in your lifetime or hers.

    • MrWhy says:

      What were you saying when Clarence Thomas was being vetted for the Supreme Court? Being unsuitable for the position is not a barrier to nomination or confirmation.

      HRC is not a legal scholar, but does have many qualities which qualify her for at least consideration for the SC. I don’t think it’s the best use of her abilities, but she’s a formidable woman, and she’s actually interested in serving her country, regardless of how self-serving her behaviour seems at times.

  9. cinnamonape says:

    I’m not really sure how this “seating Michigan and Florida” process really goes. I was under the misapprehension that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have to agree on the distribution. Obama agreed with the “Michigan Plan” brokered between the members of both faction in Michigan. Then Hillary torpedoed it.

    It seems to me that the Clinton supporters in Michigan would be quite upset with that…since it’s Hillary that is now preventing their participation…at least until the Rules Committee gets ahold of this at the Convention. I think Obama really needs to leverage that in Michigan. He might even start to say things behind the scenes like …”we’ll if enough Super Delegates balanced things then we might actually allow the whole delegation in as the Clinton Campaign wants. And then point out that it was Hillary that said “there is no such thing as a declared delegate…even elected delegates can change their votes”.

    • emptywheel says:

      The “both campaigns must agree” was first and foremost for a revote. I suppose if both had agreed to the compromise, that might have avoided a rules committee hearing on the complaints (which the MI compromise now becomes–MI’s proposed solution to the Clusterfuck). As I understand it, neither Hillary nor Obama has a majority on the rules committee, which makes it possible we’ll get the compromise minus supers.

      While I think you’re right that Hillary torpedoing the clusterfuck doesn’t help her with her supers in MI, I would be shocked if any of them–and understand, Hillary has a significant lead among them, though presumably more of the undeclareds will break for Obama as the presumptive nominee–flipped now. But it does make it impossible for those supers to join the Hillary campaign in posturing about MI’s votes.

      • PetePierce says:

        Actually, EW, the Committee has 13 HRC’s, 8 Obamas and 7 Undeclared although I think Brazille makes 9 for Obama and the Undeclared have hinted they are strongly leaning towards Barack.

        List of Rules Committe Members and their Candidate Affiliation

        This article in this morning’s NYT sheds some light on the composition of the Rules committee. I haven’t seen that many articles detailing it, but we will in the next couple weeks. Whatever happens I truly hope would make you happy, I believe that Ivy league lawyers signed an agreement as you know after the Supers screwed Michigan (and Florida) but there will be some deal and I hope it will make you happy.

        Camp Hillary knows she is dead whatever is done by the Rules committee and if she had been an honest campaigner without pandering and painting this monumental picture of experience where this empress has no clothes, building up McCain and tearing down Obama with false claims, this long quicksand sinking wouldn’t be as painful/joyful to watch.

        Party’s Rules Committee Has a Crucial Role in Clinton’s Hopes

        Among the 30 panel members, 13 have declared support for Mrs. Clinton and 8 have declared for Senator Barack Obama. Seven others are neutral or have not declared, although some of their fellow members perceive at least four as leaning toward Mr. Obama. The co-chairmen have not endorsed anyone.

        Thanks very much to Moron Golf Sacrificing Bush for Handing Obama a prime opportunity to go head to head in his speech this morning responding to the imbecile and show the difference between an Obama approach to the Middle East and the clusterfuck that Bush and Condi have left him.

  10. FormerFed says:

    I have been very favorably impressed with the Obama campaign. They seem to be on their toes. It gives me hope that they will be able to respond to the barrage of garbage that is coming and will come big time in the future from the Repugs.

    In regard to Oct surprises, it is hopeful that the Obama people are doing as diligent a research on possible surprises as the Repugs are doing. Question: Can the Obama blogosphere help on the research?

    I am impressed by one of the military advisors to Obama – MGen Scott Gration – grew up in Africa, not a ring knocker (Rutgers), and has an interesting career. I am less impressed with Gen McPeak – he is a sort of loose cannon, and still has some detractors in the Air Force (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

    In regard to VP choices, I don’t really care for either HRC or John Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards would be another thing. I have always thought that Bill Richardson would be his best choice.

    • PetePierce says:

      Obama would be a cretin to put Hillary anywhere near him. The reason all the Right Wingers have been salivating over her and bashing Obama was that they hoped to run against her.

      Those three Special Election defeats gave Buchannan and Scarborough and their ilk something meaty to chew on whether they admit it or not.

      Clinton has already been rejected by Team Obama and the Senators and Congress people who have influence with him including Gore who hates the ground she walks on and always has–with hundreds of good reasons.

  11. PetePierce says:

    It intrigues me how many bright insightful people think that Clinton has any leverage at all with Obama or voters needed. She does not and she will get no deals. If she wants to keep making a fool out of herself and her husband, so be it. It’s healthy that everyone sees her true colors.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I’ll have to disagree that HRC has no leverage. Obama can take the nomination, it’s true, regardless of what she does. He’ll have just the votes he needs to be named the party’s candidate for President. That’s not enough, not nearly, to win or to govern.

      Obama and the country need a united party and a movement behind him, with a strong progressive wing that will lean him toward doing things he’d rather not – investigate past wrongs while he “moves ahead”, which includes undoing most of what Bush has wrought. Those are high conflict tasks essential to reinvigorating our representative government. They would also add meat to the bones of his claim to be the standard bearer for the notion that Americans’ aspirations can sometimes be their reality.

      HRC won nearly half the votes and delegates, and won strong majorities in several must have states, New York, Ohio, California. Obama needs her to bring that support to him wholeheartedly. He needs to win as President, not just win the election, something Bush never accomplished. He needs to discredit the Bush philosophy that governing for the have mores, with a majority of fifty percent plus one, is effective or healthy or competent. HRC and Bill can and must help him do that. It’s worth giving her a seat on the Court or a Cabinet post.

      Half of America still thinks evolution is an atheist’s trick to rob them of certainty on earth and their place in heaven. A double digit percentage of Americans will always think Obama’s an uppity boy who needs to be taught a lesson. Obama can’t prevail against that, he can’t make our government barely function again, much less solidly rebuild it and its credibility with others in the world, with a thin majority and grudging support within his own party.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        The Republicans had to steal the past two elections in order to claim control of the levers of government, but have largely succeeded in subverting the Constitution via new definitions of ‘executive power’, plus off-books budget workarounds. (For the subversion of the courts, see: Cheney v. US District Court of D.C., 2004). There’s no reason to expect that national and international interests heavily ‘invested’ in the GOP will stop at anything in this election. They’re corrupt, ruthless, and desperate.

        Larry Johnson recognizes that fact, and castigating him for pointing it out strikes me as foolish. His predictions are often accurate.

        Count me among those skeptically watching Obama, as if we’re seeing ‘deja vu all over again’. More than once, I’ve seen a talented, bright-eyed idealist come along. The Backroom Boys love to pimp new political talent; it feeds their egos.

        But they’re up against people who have subverted the Constitution and who fear legal scrutiny. The GOP will smear Michelle Obama’s grocery list if they think it will gain them votes, or — equally important — discourage people from voting by persuading them that Obama (or Hillary, or Edwards, or any other Dem) is racist, corrupt, inept, or lying.

        Johnson’s assessing the stakes and the players. No point in killing the messenger.

        • PetePierce says:

          Larry Johnson is hyperventilating based on rumor for which he has not a scintilla of proof. If he had balls he would have demanded the tape he’s delusional about.

          • bmaz says:

            Man, you Obamatrons sure do know everything. Thanks for keeping us little people informed. I am sick of the Clinton bashing; you can stick that crap where the sun don’t shine bubba.

            • FormerFed says:

              BMAZ – sure agree with your sentiments, but I have found trying to discuss things with Pete is a waste of bandwidth – his mind is already made up.

              I don’t disagree with anything you say about the AG job and think Janet would be a great fit, but I just think having her in the Senate for the next umpteen years would be even better for AZ and for the Nation.

              • PetePierce says:

                My mind is never “already made up” on almost any issue here–that’s just not the case. I have had ample material and time to assess the Clintons. It might surprise you that although the Watergate $93 million was a collosal waste of time as was the Impeachment and focus on Monica because it involved sex or Clinton’s version/perception of it, the Clinton’s came within hours of being indicted during Watergate for tax evasion.

                And I don’t do what I see replete at FDL aka the “mother ship” where people just sling mud. I butress my arguments with fact.

                There are hundreds of men and women that should be considered for AG, and all the jobs that require confirmation at DOJ, OLC and the many divisions of DOJ, and all the jobs that don’t.

                The only way to go at Main Justice and with respect to several current US Attorneys like Christopher J. Christie, the hack USA in New Jersey, is up.

                Prosecutions like that of Siegelman and many others were clearly politically engineered. We have a reprehensible situation where people are now being held and denied legal representation or anything that is a pale shadow of it, and attorneys contacts with their clients are now being wire tapped with no legal basis for doing so and local attorneys I know with many years of high quality experience are saying the same thing. They have sought to volunteer to represent Gitmo and other defendants who are not terrorists but are being painted as terrorists because this administration badly needs scalps and this has been the subject of some of EW’s threads, and will probably be the subject of future ones as well as some of Christy’s.

                These attorneys have already launched litigation over this reprehensible situation.

              • bmaz says:

                Well, to be honest, I don’t really want Jan Brewer as governor either, so that is another point in favor of your argument I suppose. I still think Janet is by a light year the best choice for AG; but hey, it’s not up to me, so I’ll leave it go….

            • PetePierce says:

              You may be but that’s not my attitude, or intention and I think you know it.

              I have simply found fault with her 3 card monte–you’ve seen the game–played over her experience and qualifications. She went after Obama visciously and if Obama had not been the candidate and she had gone after someone else in the same way, male or female, white or black, muslim or Christian or Jew or any ethnicity or “color” whatever the hell color and religion have to do with this. Race has been injected into this primary in an egregious way in a country that is very racist with ignorant voters like many in West Virginia and Indiana that were featured all over TV during the last two weeks, and religion has absolutely no place in the government of the U.S. or campaigns to run help run it.

              And I agree with your AG assessment and I can think of hundreds of qualified people for many of the important criminal and civil division jobs at DOJ including AG, and so can you, and you and I know she has no serious qualifications for the federal bench. Politically having her anywhere in this coming administration is a terrible idea.

              I would add that all the people hyperventilating about 527 attacks on Michelle Obama’s grocery list, have not seen Obama get tough on McCain and Bush although some of that began this morning but you will see it in spades.

      • PetePierce says:

        Clinton has no method/guarantee to “deliver” her large base of poorly educated whites. The faster she is disappeared the better for the Democratic party and this country. The only impact Clinton has tried to have on the Obama candidacy, true to form of a very sick Borderline Personality is to try to destroy for him what she is going to never get close to.

        Any cabinet post or LOL S. Ct. nomination that she would have would make the nominations of Fortas, Lani Guinier, Kimba Wood, and Zoe Baird.
        Guinier was nominated for Asst. AG for Civil Rights and abandoned by the Clintons and thrown under the bus in quintissential chickenshit fashion, (Guinier hates the Clintons with justification and is a strong supporter of Obama), Zoe Baird (failed to pay social security tax for nanny yet wanted to be Attorney General (once again advancing the premise that DOJ employees are beyond good and evil and don’t need to comply with laws–hence the thousands of stolen laptops by AUSAs and FBI grunts), District Court Judge Kimba Wood SDNY who was photographed running from photographers after she fell on her face running to her upper East Side apartment when her affair was outted(a federal judge who broke the laws in paying taxes on her nanny and wanted to be AG).

        And what I mean by that is Clinton has never really been vetted for the many instances in which she broke federal laws. All of that would be aired out in any nomination process for her or if Obama were to be stupid enough and he won’t to have her on the ticket. Her best chance is to show her true colors and campaign as the Republican VP nomination for McCain for which she has been campaigning now for months.

        Much of the fault in not investigating past wrongs lies in your gutless Congress. The Senate and the House have done next to nothing with more material for investigation promulgated by the DOJ and Karl Rove than in history.

        Instead of the feckless litigation route when contempt of Congress is approved, Rove and Miers and Bolton should have their asses thrown in a room without air conditioning in the House or Senate as the law provides after contempt and treated in the same shitty fashion the DOJ treats prisoners in this country and at Gitmo.

        And if anyone forgets that DOJ has had huge input into the fiasco at Gitmo you’re dreaming.

        I disagree with you as to strong majorities in several states, and these will weaken and be clearly offsetted particularly when you see the black voter turnout starting in September with absentee voting when I’m going to vote because the lines are going to be huge in November. I have asked nearly every African American I’ve seen for the past month who they’re voting for and all of them can’t wait to vote for Obama including many who were in Camp Clinton before her remarks really turned racist and they were insulted by Bubbah Clinton’s racism and insulting Jesse Jackson comparisons.

        Vote Totals

        Obama won strong majorities in more states in fact–North Carolina, Missisipi, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, Louisiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Alabama, and South Carolina as to popular vote. And many large states were narrowly won by Clinton like Texas and she did not win the delegate vote which are what the rules count. Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine did not release their popular vote totals.

        It’s worth giving her a seat on the Court or a Cabinet post.

        Hillary Clinton has no qualifications for the Supreme Court, and neither does Clarence Thomas. The criterion for the S. Ct. should be an experienced outstanding federal litigator or a distinguished constitutional scholar like Lawrence Tribe or both. Clinton has no significant litigation experience whatsoever, not even with traffic tickets in a municipal court, and I’m not counting her research jobs with the Water Gate committee or her job in California researching for a law firm who defended groups like the Weatherman while her surrogates fanned beating up Obama because he was on a board with Ayres. Clinton did not take or pass the California bar and she would have flunked it at any time in her career. She flunked the D.C. bar and is afraid to take it again. I don’t want anyone on the S. Ct. who has no federal litigation experience nor do they belong on the court. Let me know how many physicians you want who have never seen a patient in residency or on their own after graduating med school if you ever get significantly ill.

        Obama is not going to put Clinton in his adminstration or on the S. Court–take it to the bank and he has already told many people that privately. He wants the Clintons out of the way. They have had their days in the sun and they have badly diminished their reputations by their behavior in the past 8 months.

        Clinton cannot keep any agreement she makes and all of them, including the daughter think the world owes them a living and they can break any rules they want. She clearly has tried to break the agreement she made on Michigan and Florida–and never mentions the agreement she signed.

        Half of America still thinks evolution is an atheist’s trick to rob them of certainty on earth and their place in heaven. A double digit percentage of Americans will always think Obama’s an uppity boy who needs to be taught a lesson.

        Obama is a 47 year old man so I’m not sure what you mean by the fact that many Americans can’t count.

        The pandemic of ignorance and stupidity in America does not butress Clinton being in the Obama administration and her being on the S. Ct. is laughable–not going to happen. Clinton has no grasp of constitutional law or federal case law whatsoever, and while law clerks research and write the opinions, Justices do shape and edit them.

        Obama can prevail against the rampant pandemic of ignorance and laziness and self-entitlement that is your country.

        Recluse @ 34–what many of you are perceiving as “sexist shit” is not “sexist shit” at all. Clinton is a dishonest liar who is an empty pant suit with no experience, and much illegal baggate that hasn’t been vetted. There are thousands of women in this country qualified to be President of the U.S. Clinton is not one of them.

        You think it’s sexist that she’s hiding her 2007 income taxes and the illegal library contributions? You’re sweeping a lot under the rug that would never be swept under the rug if she ran in the general.

        There is no damn offer that Clinton is going to be given and that’s a plus for the country. She’s been told to get the hell out of the way and if she wants to make her demise ugly that’s her choice. So be it.

        Recluse I hope you revel in McCain’s campaign because as this country saw today, Obama is going to tear Bush and McCain a new one the way Congress failed to do with Bush and his cronies.

        • Recluse says:

          Thanks Pete. I’m such a stupid woman I don’t even know what sexism is. Thought after fifty years of it I’d recognize it, but you must know best, Pete.

  12. bigbrother says:

    John Edwards is a very very smart person. He is also a cool head. He will give momentum to an Obama administration, His wife is a wonderful addition as well. You have the Southern more gracious less vexatious folks on board. Blue collars will come on board.
    Wanted a progressive alternative enegry team…Roundtable of big money ready to roll out venture capital for tax credits, Research Grants for proven technology development to go mainstream. A Social safety net like the one that saved the Irish economy. Take the insurance burden of off employers and put America back to work with National single payer medical care. Oh so much more can be done.
    The Bush brand and the Republican brand has so tarred themselves by stealing our national treasury to enrich themselves. Roll back tax cuts and tax the those who war profiteered.

  13. prostratedragon says:

    OT: FOIA has yielded the (redacted, of course) FBI timeline on the 9-11 hijackers that the Commission sort of half-ass consulted. You can get a zip of the whole thing here.

    Recall that Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi were the two who were tracked from somewhere in the Penninsula to the Kuala Lumpur meeting, where their trail was supposedly lost days before they entered the US in early 2000, and that one or both of them was known as early as that to have connections to Al Qaeda ops, including possibly the Cole bombers.

  14. FrankProbst says:

    If this is the sort of deal Hillary is hoping for, I really hope Obama tells her to get lost. Given how bad her campaign has been run, I’m not sure how much her “support” even helps Obama at this point.

  15. Recluse says:

    “at least for the next several months–” Unity, you want? In months? Lol. No, it’s gonna take more than months to spit all the sexist shit out of my brain and even think about getting behind Mr.Unity. and his future republicon cabinet members. That’s just the way it is. There’s some timetable I can’t get on for some reason. Some over persuasion I always suspect and, of course, the uberpatriarchy on parade. Not months.
    JC

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m actually not referring to that. I’m talking about whether we’re going to be “an organized party” or not. You can join us or not–I’d much prefer to have you, but I understand if you choose not to join–but what we will have will be organized, by all appearances.

      • Recluse says:

        Sorry Marcy, I must have misread. Guess I’ve been a disorganized Dem for too long.
        Best to join the organization, eh?
        Take care, Jan

        • emptywheel says:

          Like I said, I hope you do whatever you feel you need to do. I’m just happy that whatever efforts I make to prevent the Republicans from taking us deeper into failures will be made more effective thanks to the organization I expect to see out of the coordinated campaign this year. I’ve donate too many free hours only to see them wasted by complete incompetence at that national level, I don’t want that to happen again.

  16. threegoal says:

    Regarding HRC for the Supreme Court:

    Can someone tell me what qualifies her, and how her legal career compares to others now on the Court or previously on the Court?

    I’m not trying to slam her — I’m just trying to figure out what qualifications beyond a law degree and bar membership are required / should be required to be on the highest court in the land.

    • PetePierce says:

      Clinton has no qualifications whatsoever to be on any federal bench or any state court bench. As to Bmaz’s comparison with Sandra O’Conner, O’Conner was on the state court bench and had significantly more litigation experience. O’Conner was Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952–1953 and practiced as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany from 1954–1957. From 1958–1960, she practiced law in the Maryvale area of the Phoenix metropolitan area, and served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965–1969.

      While there is no requirement to be an attorney on the Supreme Court, no one is going to ever be there who isn’t nor should they. The requirements that should be necessary for a job on the court are for someone to be an outstanding federal litigator and/or a constitutional scholar. That they haven’t always been met, is no reason for them not to be.

      Bmaz’s point as to age of any Democratic President’s nominee to the S.Ct. is a very crucial, correct, and important one, particularly in the light of the relative youth and good health of Alito and Roberts.

      I agree on AG, and I also have always maintained that Judge Mukasey was a piss poor and damaging choice for AG and we will begin to learn some of the implications of what he is doing many years in the future.

  17. lllphd says:

    no doubt, this entire decision process goes beyond brilliant.

    however, i am SO hoping edwards prefers the AG slot to VP, as that is where he can be most effective in implementing his policy agendas.

    which would be win-win for all of us. and i still have doubts that hillary would give up her senate position for VP, under the circumstances. my sense is that her ambitions are too strong to allow her to remain quiet and loyal for four (or more) years until she gets another shot.

    and then there’s the ‘what if something happens to obama’ angle. so much venom still lingers out there about all those ‘clinton murders,’ we’d never hear the end of it.

    no, i’m actually surprised that she’s considering the VP slot. methinks it’s bill egging that one on. which brings up my biggest disappointment in hillary, namely that she has apparently allowed bill and other men like penn to dictate her campaign strategies. why, if she is such a strong woman, does she need to rely on those men?

  18. dosido says:

    I never thought that Obama/Clinton would be a dream ticket. But I gotta give HRC her due even thought I resent the hell out of her campaign tactics…I think she would be an awesome cabinet member. OTOH, I think putting her on the supreme court is a terrible precedent and a bad idea. She’s a politician, not a judge. I’d feel the same way about putting Edwards on the bench and I really like Edwards.

    • bmaz says:

      I don’t think the bench is historically what you think it is. There is plenty of precedent for putting someone like Clinton on the Bench (there is even precedent, and maybe sound precedent, for putting non-lawyers on SCOTUS for that matter). O’Connor comes to mind, although she did have some experience as a state level judge too, which Hillary does not. My only beef with HRC on SCOTUS would be her age. The Goopers have turned that into a prime concern for SCOTUS appointments and, like it or not, we must take that into consideration accordingly. Clinton may not be the choice you, or I, prefer; but to argue that she is not qualified is totally absurd.

      I think that both HRC and Edwards would be piss poor choices for AG; neither have any experience whatsoever in criminal justice, nor managing bureaucracies. It is not just about being a lawyer. If you are to believe the rumor, Obama has Artur Davis in mind for AG. Personally, I think the perfect choice, and by a huge margin over anyone else mentioned, is Janet Napolitano.

      • emptywheel says:

        Man, Janet Napolitano would be so cool as AG. Of course, I wouldn’t mind her for VP, though I understand that’s not going to happen.

        Me, I’d prefer Edwards for HHS.

      • FormerFed says:

        Janet N. would be a great AG (what is it with women named Janet??!!), but I would rather see her take McCain’s seat in the Senate.

        Artur Davis is a pretty savvy guy and he might be a good AG.

        • bmaz says:

          My preference for Napolitano over Davis is strictly in two items. One, she has actually run an USA office very successfully, and two, she has very successfully led several bureaucracies (AZ AG, AZ USA, and the State of AZ). The attention to bureaucratic detail, not just in DC, but in all of the 93 or whatever USA offices is going to have to be immense. There is a lot of wholesale institutional change that needs to be implemented and malefactors rooted out. I think she has this ability in droves over any other mentioned candidate for AG, including Davis. In my mind, at this point in history, that is far more important than trying to run for McCain’s seat, which, hopefully, he will still be in after November.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Wholeheartedly agree. The next AG needs criminal prosecution and top-level management and political experience. That puts a talented former state AG high in the running. S/he needs to understand that the government’s top lawyer’s job is to enforce the Constitution – which includes its first ten amendments, and the others, not just Article II on the powers of the President. That will sometimes put him or her at odds with the President. The job is to enforce the law no matter who’s breaking it, not to use the DOJ as the GOP’s cudgel in lieu of developing a winning electoral strategy.

            I also agree that the next most important task is to rebuild a badly damaged institution. Sadly, that’s true across the whole federal government, from Martin’s FCC to Doan’s GSA. That makes prior management and political experience essential. Bush’s “unlearning on the job” won’t cut it.

            Neither HRC nor Edwards has that background; neither would be a good choice for AG. I like your suggestions for AG They also reward a new, talented generation of players that ought to have national responsibilities.

            Edwards would be good at HHS, giving it the lead in implementing the strategy to overhaul how Americans gain access to the healthcare, not just pothole-filled health insurance, that the rest of the world considers a basic civil right.

            I think Obama has the self-confidence to fill his Cabinet with such people. That would give him and us a team of highly competitive players, each doing an different but essential task. Bush has prized only those who report back to Karl before zipping up their trousers or skirts. A good way to run a PR campaign, maybe, but a lousy way to run the world’s most complex and once powerful government.

            • bmaz says:

              And regarding your Constitutional concern comment, you should know that Napolitano is/was the hand chosen protege of one of the country’s great Constitutional scholars and authorities, John Frank. She is beyond well trained in this regard.

      • bmaz says:

        Um, just for grins, exactly why do you think that “judicial experience” is a prerequisite for SCOTUS? Before you answer that, and just so that you know, being a lawyer is not even a requirement for SCOTUS.

  19. maryo2 says:

    Reuters says that one hour ago Edwards said No to being Obama’s VP. A Cabinet position is still possible.

Comments are closed.