Jackson Free Press

It comes as no surprise to me that polls are showing a mixed blessing were Barack Obama to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, as her supporters are pressuring him to do—in part by saying that he needs her help to win. An Associated Press story today begins:

Lots of Democrats love Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yet plenty of Republicans, conservatives and all-important independents can't stand her, suggesting possible pitfalls for Barack Obama should he make her his vice presidential running mate. The intense dislike for Clinton suggests that besides support from women and others she could bring to the ticket, she might make it harder for Obama to win over some independents, a pivotal swing group in the November election against Republican John McCain. It also means she might push some Republicans and conservatives to vote against the Democrats - or donate money to the GOP - who might otherwise lack motivation to do so because of tepid feelings toward McCain.

A substantial 32 percent of independents strongly dislike Clinton, 10 points more than say so about Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll. Independents, a group that both Obama and McCain won during their party primaries this year, comprised a quarter of voters in the 2004 election and have been closely contested in every presidential election since 1992.

In addition, 67 percent of Republicans have very unfavorable views of Clinton, 24 percentage points more than feel that way about Obama. Among conservatives the spread is similar - 58 percent say they feel very negatively about her, 18 points more than say so about Obama.

I believe strongly that Clinton is the wrong choice for Obama's running mate, and I don't think he'll choose her. Besides, he'd have to put up with Bill Clinton starving for the spotlight at any cost.

Previous Comments

ID

130649

Comment

Bill is probably the deal breaker. The justifiable fear is of the husband being a spoiler as Ferraro's was. Something is wrong with Bill. The poll confirms a lot of the other negatives I suspected --- especially with independents. I don't think he has to worry about Hispanics (except Cubans) when November rolls around.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-09T15:35:47-06:00

ID

130651

Comment

donna i get what you are saying, but if he loses won't he bear the burden with the Clinton's saying "told you so." At least if she's on the ticket, they get to share the blame. Just a thought.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2008-06-09T16:20:00-06:00

ID

130653

Comment

That is logical, but I believe she is going to be ready to say, "I told you so" even if she is on the ticket. I would if I were her (lol).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-09T16:23:50-06:00

ID

130655

Comment

I somehow doubt that Obama is most concerned with who to blame if he loses. As he shouldn't be. That is certainly no basis on which to choose a vice prez. The Clintons are going to crow about what they want anyway. I would be the most worried, were I him, about the Clintons doing something really stupid to screw it up for him. They've shown they want the limelight regardless, and that isn't the role of a vice president.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-09T16:27:25-06:00

ID

130657

Comment

Bill Clinton neutralized Jessie Jackson's prowess when Jessie was a power broker although not to the level of the Clintons. Dukakis and other didn't know how to neutralize or silence Jessie. I always suspected Vernon Jordan, Jessie's fraternity brother, and newly annointed best friend to the Clinton, told the Clintons how to do it or played a role. Obama needs to keep Hillary off the ticket to neutralize the harm or fallout she and Bill bring, but he needs to know how to use their influence in some special way other than placing them out front to speak for him or question his decisions. There is no way I'd trust or let Hillary and Bill sabotage or influence my run for the president. Obama can't trust them. Obama and his staff have to figure out a way to use Hillary and Bill for whatever positive imput he can get from them yet keep them out of the spotlight and neutralize their negativity to his cause. Not an easy thing to do but it can probably be done with the right advice and plan or recompense even if not really money. It irks me to no end that the Clintons have been president once largely due to black support, have lost their planned second term, and have gotten rich; but refuse to take their bothersome, self-annointed and entitled asses on into the sunset like other presidents do. They're doing to Obama what they didn't want done to them.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-09T16:50:27-06:00

ID

130659

Comment

How about Caroline Kennedy! Bush appointed Chaney to select a VP and he selected himself. Why can't a woman select herself? Obama/Kennedy 2008!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-09T17:02:20-06:00

ID

130662

Comment

As an independent, I would prefer that Obama did not choose Clinton as his running mate because to me that goes against his message of change. I don't like how she ran her campaign; mudslinging is a major turn-off for me. I want him to pick someone who has never been president, vice president or first lady before. Plus, during the rest of the campaign, we'll have to keep hearing about Bill's past shenanigans. However, if he did pick her, I would still vote for him because I can't bring myself to vote for McCain at this point. I initially thought that if a Republican happened to win the election, I would be all right with McCain, but the more I hear him speak lately, the more out of touch he sounds to me.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-06-09T17:53:51-06:00

ID

130663

Comment

Hillary's high negatives is what worried me about her running for president in the first place. Remember when all the polls showed her to be the presumptive frontrunner? I was saying to myself at that time, is there anyone who would be better? Also, keep in mind that some voters, particularly in West Virginia and Kentucky, had race in mind when it came down to Clinton and Obama. If they wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black, then what difference would it make if Clinton's on the ticket? At the end of the day, it's a black man who's name is front and center on the ticket.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-06-09T17:56:57-06:00

ID

130666

Comment

I think Clinton's chances of being Obama's running mate at this point are less than 40%. Her negatives, or more accurately her AND Bill's negatives, combined with Obama's negatives would be difficult to sell. More than likely his choice will be a sitting or former governor. I suspect the final choice will be 1 of 3 people already hinted as possible picks: Bill Richardson Kathleen Sebelius Tim Kaine

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-09T21:00:42-06:00

ID

130672

Comment

How about Jim Webb? But can he get away with using the "R" word as he did: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/possible_vp_jim_webb_speaks_on_obama_rednecks.html#hp

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T05:40:15-06:00

ID

130673

Comment

I saw Webb's name come up over the weekend on MSNBC, but I'm not sure how serious of a chance he has.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-06-10T07:37:30-06:00

ID

130674

Comment

At some point Obama has to pick someone and head East toward the White House, no matter the forces circling to derail him. Those haters, racists, republicans and others will do what they're born and socialized to do. I don't expect any Damascus Road experiences to occur for any of them. Either way, win or lose, the story about America and who Americans still are will be told. All kinds of lies will be put forth as valid evidence of something other than race. I will be watching and deciphering like an abled computer. If America was just, any decent Democrat could probably run and win at this point considering the pitiful, embarrassing and pathetic performances of republicans. Apparently, your record doesn't matter unless you're a Democrat because republicans will be republicans no matter their gross failures and malfeasance, unnecessary wars or excessive gasoline prices, etc.. And , sadly independents will be independents with little or no criticism of republicans (no matter the performance of republicans), and will denounce Democrats as an unworthy, inactive, spineless and dumb no matter the positions Democrats take on hardly any issues, as if it's the Democratts' fault they're bias toward republicans. My next personal journey is the study of independents to see what they are and wheteher they are in fact real independents, or are instead republicans loyal to republican causes but ashamed to claim allegiance to their republican upbringings and leanings. I'm doing this because it seems to me that independents show great vitriol and criticism toward Democrats and SO MUCH LOVE toward republicans, no matter the indisputable facts. I want to make sure I'm right. No one can convince me that republicans have justly earned any love of late or of the last couple of scores. Yet I welcome all independents, so-called independents and others to come to the right side and let's do the right thing for the country right now before it's too late. I am a real independent dedicated to doing all I can to harm and defeat whatever side is harming the country. I don't even have to say who it is right now.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-10T08:04:58-06:00

ID

130675

Comment

Webb is coyly talking around it as though he is interested and he has been a staunch defender of Obama. He is from a large swing state that is tailor made for Obama to pick off: large African American population, larger than average below 40 population and better educated than your average southern state and Webb has the military background and the roots that make him a good campaigner in the Applaichan part of the state. If the Dems pick off Virginia or Missouri, I predict they win. Ohio is crucial. My top six are: McCaskill Kaine Webb (military background a big plus) Strickland (of Ohio/would appease Clintons) Rendell (of PA) Not necessarily in that order.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T08:05:54-06:00

ID

130676

Comment

The latest polls indicate that independents are trending strongly Democratic because of their disgust with the Republicans. They are fertile ground for someone who can convince them that he/she represents a new, positive direction that is well thought out.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T08:12:45-06:00

ID

130690

Comment

Kathleen Sibelius looks promising... (from her wikipedia entry): In November 2005 Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.[37]

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-06-10T11:20:17-06:00

ID

130692

Comment

Someone like Sebelius might be an attempt to signal to moderate Republicans that he will work with them. Kansas may be unlikely to switch parties although he is somewhat of a "ative grandson"

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T12:07:02-06:00

ID

130697

Comment

I see someone who will work with moderate Republicans as a bonus. It seems that partisan gridlock is a big time and money waster

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-06-10T12:45:33-06:00

ID

130698

Comment

Along that line, today there was a bill to rescind 2 billion dollars a year in tax breaks for oil companies and it was defeated mainly along party lines. I don't have to tell informed people which party voted which way (lol). The vote was 51 to 48. It needed 60 votes to move forward. This underscores how crucial the fall elections are on so many issues!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T12:51:41-06:00

ID

130699

Comment

The article below gives great historical background on how we got to the present level of partisan warfare: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer/

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T12:57:18-06:00

ID

130703

Comment

They are the devil dressed in christian attire.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-10T13:27:57-06:00

ID

130704

Comment

Let me guess, that was WALT! ?;-) eh? such a distinctive debating style! I guess partisan weight is needed on certain issues to break the tipping point. I'm interested in other's opinions on partisanship, also what do ya'll think of Sibelius? I'd rather see her win the nomination. I'd definitely rather see a female in office. And not because of her gender. Given equally qualified candidates I say let's GO FOR A WOMAN! hooray strong women in leadership

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-06-10T13:33:58-06:00

ID

130705

Comment

Laurel that comment was about the tax break, but I misinterpreted it anyway. The debate is long over. I'm merely into labeling now. My apology for misreading though.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-10T13:40:09-06:00

ID

130706

Comment

I'll go for a woman too (not Hillary if at all possible). Why not make this really historic?!

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-10T13:51:10-06:00

ID

130707

Comment

Along that line, today there was a bill to rescind 2 billion dollars a year in tax breaks for oil companies and it was defeated mainly along party lines. I don't have to tell informed people which party voted which way (lol). Actually I'm glad that bill was defeated. It was a piss on my leg/feel-good bill that wouldn't have done much to lower gas prices except in the very short term.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-10T14:04:20-06:00

ID

130711

Comment

Jeff wrote: "Actually I'm glad that bill was defeated. It was a piss on my leg/feel-good bill that wouldn't have done much to lower gas prices except in the" The point may have been missed. Of course, an insightful person would not think it would lower gas prices; however, what is the justification for two billion dollars in tax breaks per year for oil companies when we are borrowing money (indirectly and directly) from the Communist Chinese Politboro to finance the war in Iraq? Your part about the short term is most certainly true. That is the problem with this country. We want instant gratification. We did not get into this problem quickly and it will not end quickly. There were incentives in the bill for alternative energy investments. Alternative energy is where the future economic gains will be had. We are getting further and further behind European countries that are cornering the market on the development of alternative energy technology. If we do not begin to move to alternative and renewable sources, then we may not see the long-term consequences, but our children and grandchildren surely will. A short-term approach to long-term problems is idiotic. Wise up or learn to speak Chinese.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T16:14:42-06:00

ID

130714

Comment

I was an Economics major and for some reason it has stuck with me. One of the greatest factors on oil prices is the irresponsble deficit spending to finance the war. When you borrow money to finance a deficit it devalues your currency. When your currency is devalued, then everything that you import (like oil) costs you more in proportion to the amount of the devaluation. The only solution will not take effect until a year or two from now --- getting the "cut taxes and spend more" crew out of power. It is stupid if you reduce your personal income and spend more. It is treasonous to reduce the government's revenue and then spend more by selling bonds to China.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-10T17:16:36-06:00

ID

130715

Comment

I disliked this approach because it scapegoats and penalizes the oil companies for benefitting from America’s ignorant and inexcusable lack of a defined energy policy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil supplies. And while it may have made the Washington Demorats feel good to think that they *punished* Big Oil, it wouldn’t help us at the pump because any reduction in profits resulting from increased government taxation would have been transferred to consumers in pump prices.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-10T19:00:19-06:00

ID

130728

Comment

Every little bit helps. A mile begins with one small step.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-11T11:47:21-06:00

ID

130734

Comment

Whitley said: "[Ted] Strickland (of Ohio/would appease Clintons)" Stickland took himself out of play for consideration (not that I ever thought Obama was seriously considering him): http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/10/strickland_takes_himself_out_o.html

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-11T13:01:25-06:00

ID

130736

Comment

I didn't view the main purpose of the cut on tax breaks for oil companies as being to lower gas prices. I don't think they sold it that way. It is the principle that they do not need a tax break when they have record windfall profits. We can close that loophole and use those funds for something like early childhood education or bridges or you name it. The point is gas prices will continue to have upward pressure as long as there is an out of control deficit. There was also a clause that would have let the oil companies keep the tax break if they invested in alternative energy sources. The gas tax "holiday" is a better example of something that is being sold as a way to decrease gas prices, but will result in most of the tax break being gobbled up by higher prices with more profit going to the oil companies. Supposedly Strickland was on the "short list" according to Huff Post and MSNBC.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-11T14:32:48-06:00

ID

130738

Comment

I didn't view the main purpose of the cut on tax breaks for oil companies as being to lower gas prices. I don't think they sold it that way. It is the principle that they do not need a tax break when they have record windfall profits. Look, I’m no oil company mogul. I’m out here trying to scratch out a modest living like everyone else. And I really hate paying $4/gal for gas with no end in sight for increasing pump prices. But I hate even more the idea of the government telling a private business that it’s making too much money and needs to be punished by paying more taxes. Why in the hell does the government get to dictate when a private business that is setting prices based on supply and demand and market forces that it's making too much profit? Especially when the government is already collecting enormous taxes from that industry? Yes, the oil company profits are measured in billions. But the tax revenue the government collects on the oil industry is in the TRILLIONS, and they are collecting more money than before thanks to the spike in gas prices but no one really talks about that. The fact that we are importing the majority of our oil supply from foreign countries WHO HATE US is a huge problem, a national security level problem. Neither party seems to have a coherent solution for the problem, but certainly expanding programs for alternative fuel sources, increasing domestic drilling and refining capacity, construction of new nuclear power plants, reducing tariffs on alternative fuel imports, and a commitment to cut our fuel import rate to below 40% would be a tremendous step in the right direction.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-11T15:43:12-06:00

ID

130739

Comment

There were tax cuts and breaks for the wealthy and for the oil companies that were instituted and extended during the present administration. Why not transfer the cuts and breaks to the poor and middle class who really need them? This contributed to the deficit, which leads to a devalued currency, which leads to higher prices for EVERYTHING that we import. What is wrong with ending tax breaks that never should have happened in the first place? Extending that logic means we should also refrain from cutting the tax breaks for companies that take jobs to other countries. The tax code should encourage behavior that benefits the common interest. There is an assumed right to make a profit in a free market; however, assuming that markets are free is often just an assumption. If we assume that the oil markets are "free" then we would have to assume that there are no entities like OPEC or oil company consortiums that conspire to set prices. I guess I'm just paranoid. I am not really against higher gas prices though Jeff, because they encourage us to begin to conserve and higher prices will encourage conservation! I could never get elected to anything!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-11T15:59:27-06:00

ID

130746

Comment

Here's what Camille Paglia says about Veep Hillary in Salon: lary for veep? Are you mad? What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show? If the sulky bearded lady wasn't biting the new president’s leg, the oafish carnival barker would be sending in the clowns to lure all the young ladies into back-of-the-tent sword-swallowing. It would be a seamy orgy of scheming and screwing. Hillary could never be content with second place. But neither could an alpha male like Obama. The vice-president should be an accomplished but subordinate personality. An Obama-Hillary ticket might tickle party regulars, but it would be a big fat minus in the general election. Republicans have shrewdly stockpiled a mammoth arsenal of past scandals to strafe Hillary with. Only a sentimental masochist would want to relive the tawdry 1990s. I love the traveling circus line, and agree with it. I've never thought Hillary would do well in a general election, and I don't believe she would help Obama, and would most likely hurt him.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-11T17:50:49-06:00

ID

130750

Comment

They say Bill and Hill keep an "enemies list". Camille Paglia has to be near the top (lol) along with that guy from Vanity Fair!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-12T09:00:41-06:00

ID

130753

Comment

And Barack Obama should be on that list too. After all, he is one of the main reasons Hillary will not be president.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-06-12T10:21:18-06:00