Meet the Press & Newsweek: Obama Hints at Naming Clinton to His 'Team of Rivals'

Newsweek: Obama Hints at Naming Clinton to His 'Team of Rivals'
Source: http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/22/Obama-Hints-at-Naming-Clinton-to-his-_2700_Team-of-Rivals_2700_.aspx

BOCA RATON, Fla.--When we first mentioned the possibility on March 5, it seemed impossible. For months, many Democrats simply laughed it off. She'd never accept, some said. He'd never offer, others replied. But near the end of his town hall at B’nai Torah synagogue this afternoon here in Boca Raton, Barack Obama dropped his strongest hint yet that he'd consider asking Hillary Clinton to--gasp!--join his ticket.

It came in response to a question from a man named Mike, a "50 year" resident of Pompano Beach. "I want to know if you'd consider everybody who is a possible help to you as a running mate," he said. "Even if his or her spouse is an occasional pain in the butt." Obama laughed. No names necessary; he seemed to get the drift. "Ah," he said. "I'm... well, look." Pause. Smile. Applause. "Look, look, look," he said, quieting the crowd. "We've got more work to do. Two more weeks to go. So I don't want to jump the gun." Then, suddenly, he warmed to the idea:



If the "Lincoln in 'Team of Rivals'" reference sounds familiar, that's because it is. In a much-discussed London Times op-ed from May 4, prominent libertarian-conservative writer Andrew Sullivan made exactly the same comparison in support of a Democratic dream ticket. "There's... a way for Obama to explain this choice in a way that does not violate — and in fact strengthens — his core message," he wrote. "His model in this should be Abraham Lincoln. What Lincoln did, as Doris Kearns Goodwin explained in her brilliant book, "Team Of Rivals," was to bring his most bitter opponents into his cabinet in order to maintain national and party unity at a time of crisis. Obama — who is a green legislator from Illinois, just as Lincoln was — could signal to his own supporters in picking Clinton that he isn't capitulating to old politics, he is demonstrating his capacity to reach out and engage and co-opt his rivals and opponents." Incidentally, Sullivan is widely recognized as the mainstream blogosphere's most vocal Obama cheerleader--and Clinton's most vociferous critic. Obama is aware of his work. That the Illinois senator would describe his vice-presidential selection process by spouting the same argument as Sullivan--and citing the same book--strikes me as sign that Clinton is (at the very least) under consideration. (emphasis added)

---

From Meet the Press, Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, says:



"Lincoln took all of his chief rivals into his cabinet.
He also took Stanton in who had called him an ape,
who had said terrible things about him much worse
than Clinton has ever said about Obama.

But what it showed, and I think that is what Obama is
suggesting, is that he was big-hearted enough, he was
confident enough, not to have just people who would
be his personal supporters and not question his authority
and I think what Obama is saying is if this person can
help me win this election, fit the jigsaw puzzle pieces together --
she has one part of the map, I have another -- I can rise
above those personal feelings.

And Lincoln put it in noble fashion -- he said, "look people
are wondering why have I done this. First of all, the country
is in peril, these are the strongest and most able men in the
country. I need them by my side."

But perhaps my old buddy Lyndon Johnson, might have put
it in a less noble fashion: 'Better to have your enemies inside
the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.'"

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:

However I don't like the idea
Lincoln, took oppnents into his cabinet
Lincoln was shot

JFK was forced to take LBJ
JFK was Shot
Strangely LBJ implimented a lot of JFK's plans
but no one came after him hmmmm

Reagon took his Oppenant Bush
Reagan was Shot at


Now I am not suggesting SHE would do anything, but in light of recent comments by her
and Historically, it's not a good Idea

and he seemed to hint at adding her to his cabinet, but not to the VP slot. I think that would be a very good idea.

I don't know where else she would fit in. Maybe Attorney General, but I think Edwards would be better in that position.

(edited for bad grammar)

That would be a very good fit in the cabinet also.

Put her on the SCOTUS. Out of the way for the rest of her life.

:evilgrin:

does she ever address this in her work? (I know of her but I've not read her.) I heard a Charlie Rose interview the other day (from archives) from a guy who wrote a book about RFK and LBJ's hatred for one another and the guy was oblivious to things that are on tape (!!) that LBJ and RFK said - based upon the things the author said.

LBJ, it seems, was the biggest scumbag democrat to hold office in the last century.

years.

LBJ must accept the consequences of his choices on Vietnam.

But on domestic issues, LBJ continued FDR's social programs. LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act, which gave the vote to African Americans, as well as programs like Head Start, through Congress. Martin Luther King Jr. deserves credit for creating the climate for this change, but LBJ deserves credit for twisting enough arms to get the bill signed.

Or, are you one of those Reagan Democrats who benefitted from FDR's programs, but once you "got yours" didn't want anyone else to "get theirs"?

No, I have never been one of those "reagan democrats." You don't know me at all. I vote with the democrats but I think social democracy is the best form of govt at this time, based upon the higher standards of living for ALL ppl in those democracies that do not pander to nutcase right wingers.

I tend to think that conspiring to murder the sitting president undermines anyone's value, especially considering that LBJ was then responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of U.S. men and women because he changed JFK's Vietnam policy four days after JFK was murdered and thus set the stage for escalation after LBJ lied about the fake Gulf of Tonkin attack.

Martin Luther King and then Robert Kennedy were out in the streets for civil rights. LBJ did what he had to do because the people of this nation were no longer going to accept white southern racist policies. His famous statement about losing the southern vote for the next generation was so true, wasn't it? We still have to deal with the same assholes today.

RFK went to South Africa in 1966 to speak out against apartheid when few would oppose that racist regime.

so, no, you really don't get me at all if you think the choice is between assassination and civil rights.

???????

LBJ did the right thing in pushing the Civil Rights Act through Congress. But he knew that the South would then turn against the Dems.

Nixon exploited that fact as did almost all Republicans ever since.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3339352&mesg_id=3339905

the thread above links to the footage.

Jack Ruby, LBJ's 20-year long mistress, a partner in LBJ's law firm, E. Howard Hunt on his deathbed -- all claim LBJ was involved in the JFK assassination because they either worked for him, he told them, or they, too, were part of the conspiracy to commit murder. His mistress has documentation to prove her status as his mistress (he supported her for decades, even after he died.)

An associate (hit man) of LBJ's, Malcolm Wallace, who got off on 1st degree murder charges in TX via LBJ, was in the Texas School Book Depositiory, based upon his fingerprints found there. His were the only prints unaccounted for for years. Then the print was sent to an expert who didn't know who he was identifying who matched the print via 34 points. This is a dead certain match, according to experts. The FBI took the information and buried it. Those who did the work, however, continue to tell about this odd response to evidence.

So, yes, I think that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JKF. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, opened in the 1970s to help answer many of the unsolved questions about the assassination, determined that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. The House Committee determined, based upon available evidence (much evidence was destroyed or "lost" too) that more than one gunman killed JFK.

Again, LBJ reversed JFK's position on disengaging from Vietnam 4 DAYS after the assassination. If you want to know LBJ's motive (beyond the fact that LBJ was Machiavellian from the gitgo - the Kennedys and LBJ HATED one another - they didn't want him on the ticket - RFK called and screamed at LBJ to get off the ticket after he was extended an obligatory place and JFK's secretary is on record noting how much they hated him.)

At the time, the powers-that-be hated Kennedy b/c he wanted to end the cold war. This is common knowledge now. Are you aware of "Operation Northwoods?" An NSA agent (Baer, iirc, in Body of Secrets) revealed that one a few years ago - the joint chiefs of staff during the Kennedy admin. had a plan to attack the U.S., sink a ship, commit acts of terror on U.S. soil and blame it on Cuba to justify an invasion. The Gulf of Tonkin was another such manufactured provocation to justify the Vietnam War. Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, was fired by Kennedy b/c of the Bay of Pigs mess that the CIA did extra-constitutionally (like they/Ollie North, etc. did Iran/Contra). Dulles wasn't too happy with Kennedy over that one, either.

Like I said at the linked post, I always thought a lone nutcase killed JFK until I started to actually hear the arguments against this from those who weren't trying to dismiss evidence.

ymmv. but, yes, I think LBJ was a scumbag.

there are a lot of posts that would be good for her..

Hillary as VP if it helped him/us win the GE.


It may also be a way out. To pick someone like Gov. Strickland because he can deliver Ohio and help in MI&PA.


We shall see

glad that the only thing she killed was her chances.

He will prefer to repair Ohio after Taft gave all the coffers to *bush.

Because he could damage McCain in the west and could draw in a Hispanic voting bloc for Obama.

I'd really like to see the Democrats develop a strategy that can move them away from trying to woo the south. The south gets the most govt. asst. tax dollars and yet is solidly republican?

what a joke. don't know where they put it. it certainly doesn't go toward education.

we need a diplomat to stear our foreign course and Richardson would be the one IMHO

Obama would forever be looking over his shoulder for the knife that's about to stab him in the back.

it would be a disaster. anyone who cannot see that has not been observing Hill and Bill these last three months.

could be entrusted to her. And I would not trust her on the Supreme Court either.

and we'll never have to see either one of 'em again.

sound like freepers.

This kind of attitude does not reflect Obama's thinking at all.

And this kind of attitude means that you will probably say very negative things about Obama soon after he is in office.

that is just one of many reasons that people support HIM and not her.

Tired of defending these two miserable people against attacks from all my right wing friends and relatives, only to see them turn into a pretty good facsimile of what I defended them against.

And I'm not a candidate for sainthood - only a disillusioned American. I realize Obama probably does not share my thinking (or at least is too politically astute not to say so directly). If he handles the presidency as professionally as he has handled his campaign I'll never say negative things about him.

But you'll have to admit - aren't you just a teeny bit fed up with the never ending clinton soap opera?

To be honest, I take my cue from Obama.

Obama will be our nominee, so why not act like a class act the way he does?

I just ignore any negative comments from the Clinton camp. The less attention she gets the better it is for Obama.

I think too many DUers get so emotionally involved in hating Hillary that they forget that the real opponent is McCain.

Where is BigBearTed?

:shrug:

Then I would say, bring her in. But I don't see how that's possible.

The concept of bringing your rival candidates in, is a good one, in priniciple. He could have Richardson as VP, Edwards as Attorney General, Kucinich at HHS making HR 676 a reality. Biden would make a good Secretary of State, but so would Wes Clark, who is a long time associate of the Clintons (without being a disgusting sycophant like Carville/Begala/McUseless/Ickes/etc.)

Chris Dodd? I'd rather see him be the Senate Majority leader after he stood up to the FISA mess. Reid has got to go.

Not sure where Hillary fits in.....

I think she might be better suited for Secretary of State than VP.

Besides which, the Clintons are awfully well-entangled in global finance, the defense industry, foreign gov'ts & multinational corps, etc. The State department could really use some cleaner hands, imho (as could the DOD, of course).

I'd really prefer she were kept well away from foreign policy, at least for his first term.

Maybe Secretary of the Interior, where she could keep up her liberal bona fides by doing all kinds of good things for the environment, and hopefully do little mischief.

I'll be direct; I despise neoliberalism, I strongly dislike the Clintons and have disliked them since 1999, and I want the DLC to be utterly destroyed, and its fields sown with salt.

I can also respect ruthlessness, and believe that it is only smart to offer honor to one's enemies after a hard-fought battle. She should be given a position that affords her an opportunity to show off her skills and build up good will with the People.

However, I would never want to trust her as far as SoS, and that's the truth.

sw

She has a pretty good record on environmental issues, which is why RFK Jr., endorsed her.

Also possible would be a position where she could focus on things like health care.

advocate for.

I'd love to see her happily at work, contributing some good to the world.

I just don't want her ruling the world. ;)

sw

I would not be able to drag myself to the voting booth to vote for that in any way, shape, or form.
A Cabinet position? She needs a psychiatrist. She is a fucking NEOCON and a PSYCHOPATH. sheesh. so the secret of being appointed to something important is to act like a total lunatic, tell a lot of blatant lies, backstab your potential future boss, cause a huge rift in your organization, throw a tantrum like a fucking 6-year-old just to keep the attention on yourself, and just generally be a giant pain in the ass? Only a fake "feminist" who doesn't want to play by the rules could get away with that kind of sleazy behavior.

Not VP, and that's not going to happen anyway. But a nice prestigious Cabinet post could possibly go a long way toward ending all the rancor and destructiveness that's going on now.

sw

(edited for spelling)

Wonder if that would make her happy.

I would also note that Richardson and Edwards were rivals.

As Obama says, he is practical about it. And that means know knows that a CLinton on the ticket = kiss of death. Talk about taking the energy out of his campaign in one fell swoop, and simultaneously energizing the GOP. It would be a monumental blunder and this guy doesn't make blunders.

:spray:

:banghead:

????? Maybe you just THOUGHT he was a VP?

I was trying to make a point. Nevermind.

keep in mind that Andrew Johnson later got impeached, certainly not because he planned an assassination, but partially for his conservative views towards the Confederacy:

http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/02KeyPoliticalIssues/RadicalismConservatism.htm

and she's yet to concede that Obama has won the nomination, saying she's taking it to the convention. Even if an Obama/Clinton ticket didn't mean a certain loss in the GE, and it does and Obama must know it, were he to "offer her the VP slot" at this point he'd simply be attacked for his presumption.

2. she's still running a negative campaign. Even now McCauliffe is blaming Obama for the fallout from her assassination remark, claiming that the MSM (except for FOX, and isn't that a hoot? doesn't that alone tell a story?) has teamed with Obama to attack her unfairly. Even though Obama and his campaign has acted 100% honorably, not only here, but throughout their responses to Clinton's totally negative campaign intent on smearing him with Rev. Wright, "bitter-gate elitism" (good lord, what a reach that smear is!), and so on.

Those two points are enough for now. Why would Hillary's supporters, who are incessant in their claims that the Obama campaign spreads "hate", that there's nothing but "hatred" on DU, etc., why would they expect Obama and the rest of the Dem party to grovel and submit? To put Hillary above all the other good and *uniting* choices for VP. Just because otherwise Hillary will continue her negativity right to August? Because she hints about how her supporters will switch to McCain? Because - she offers only continued negativity otherwise?

3. Obama is in a very good position for the GE, a position that he defined, that he built. Why would Obama acquiesce to pressure from the most negative source, even more negative than McCain's campaign (I'd never have believed it if I weren't seeing it going on and on, right before my eyes!)?

His responsibility to the party and the country is not to acquiesce to that kind of pressure, from anyone, nor to pressure from lobbyists, or any other power broker, but to make his choices based on careful consultation with his trusted inner circle. Nothing more or less is required, and demands from Bill and Hillary or their supporters, or from the MSM or polling companies or etc., should take a back seat. By Hillary's own choice, this is still the primary and it's a primary where negative campaigning from her team is now expected, it is no longer a surprise. Talk about "Hillary for VP", esp. from her supporters, is totally out of sync with that reality.

If it makes me a "hater" in some peoples' eyes to point that out, well, what else is new?

:)

I mean that for her sake (NOT that she deserves it) as much as Obama's. Is anyone besides me old enough to remember a play called "McBird"? It was written a couple of years after JFK's assassination. From what I've read on DU, the suspicions against Lyndon Johnson STILL carry some weight after all these years.

I know Hillary-hating Freepers who would consider that their ultimate wet dream, especially if the unthinkable were to happen to Barack Obama.

I don't think she said it maliciously, and I think it's been overblown by the media. But what doesn't get overblown?

If Obama chose Hillary, I think the media would spend so much time rehashing the bitter primary that it would be tough to change the dialogue to issues helpful to the Dems in the ge. If Obama chose someone else for VP, we wouldn't have to hear much about the primary fighting anymore.

Team of Rivals.

He's already said it's the book he'd take to a desert isle if he could only have one besides the Bible.

He's studied Lincoln and especially admires that part of his governing style.

Sullivan is without any discernable principle nor moral. He is easily as bad as Dick Morris, though he admittedly is a better writer.

oh, that was their idea. :spank:

:rofl:
:think:

"It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

Although probably wouldn't have been a good choice of words for Obama in this case.

"SS" indicates a ship.