Hillary-Have You No Shame?

The latest speculation that Clinton will acknowledge Obama’s victory, but keep her campaign going is beyond bizarre.

Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.

Exactly what leverage does she have except being a skunk at the garden party in Denver? The stories on her husband advanced in Vanity Fair, which have been off bounds in the MSM for the campaign, will only increase now. She would be the Vice-President from hell and Bill would never stop meddling. As I’ve said before, the 76% of women who oppose an overturn of Roe V. Wade are not going to vote for John McCain (and make that nightmare a reality) just out of pique over Hillary’s loss.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Journalism, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Hillary-Have You No Shame?

  1. southernvoice says:

    You should be complaining because we are not given more choice or even a real choice rather than complaining that Hillary doesn’t just drop out.

    Let there be a huge fight. Who cares. The candidates have already sold their souls to the status quo or they wouldn’t be getting the nomination in the first place.

    votenader.org. You have nothing vested in the other candidates because they are already bought and paid for.

  2. Valerie Curl says:

    Just to turn things around a wee bit, Hillary did a fantastic job of gathering votes. She pulled off an historic milestone and shattered yet another glass ceiling for women.

    And let’s get clear, for all the hatred of the Clintons and their presumed political acumen, the space between the proposed policies of Obama and Clinton is really very small.

    While I ultimately chose to vote for Obama in my state’s primary, I still respect Hillary. She’s an amazing woman who is more than capable of being a national political leader. I can definitely see her working closely with Obama in the White House to turn our economy around and help this country to be more competitive in the world. I can definitely see her as the best follow up person to run the country and keep us on a safe course. I can also see her as the leader of the Senate, marshaling both Senate and House forces to do the right thing for the American middle class as well as working hard to increase the competitiveness of American businesses.

    We’ve a lot to do to make up for the stagnant last eight years…and Hillary can make a huge contribution in driving our economy, educational system, and competitiveness forward.

    To those who denigrate her for whatever they perceive through their own narrowed, prejudiced lenses, I respond with look at the remarkable achievement she has accomplished and the good she has yet to do. Give credit where credit is due and stop responding to old stereotypes that are not only just outdated but are absolutely mid-Victorian.

  3. Rick Turner says:

    A new troll! Welcome! And stuff it!

  4. Morgan Warstler says:



    Jon, I know I won’t get a real answer, but let’s go ahead and try:

    Q: Do you think a sizable minority/majority of women vote Roe v. Wade?

    I’m big on choice too, but I don’t know if you can just tacitly assume that a huge swath of pro-choice women voters carry this specific approach to the subject dear enough to their heart – to vote primarily on this topic. I get the “McCain is pro-life” thing, but many women are security voters, and pocketbook voters – and many women have jobs with healthcare, own small businesses, etc. And the married woman vote skews right as well.

    I just can’t imagine a large population of women during exit polls saying, this is about Roe. V. Wade. Isn’t in more likely McCain gets the pro-life vote, and then competes for the pro-choice vote accordingly?

  5. Hugo says:

    Three things: she hasn’t the grace to concede anything, ever; tomorrow or the next day will be unbearably ugly; the lazy press (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) has heard willfully and idiotically all day that the Clinton camp was saying that she wants the No. 2 spot, when all the Hillarists have been saying is that she’ll serve the Party as need be. “Apres le deluge, MOI!”

    Journalism is dead.

  6. Morgan Warstler says:


    On your journalism note:

    “Americans are hearing so much these days about how bad we are that we’re starting to believe it.

    In a recent Gallup poll, 68 percent said they are “dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today,” and 55 percent said they think that the rest of the world views us unfavorably.

    However, as I page through a publication called the Index of Global Philanthropy, which is produced annually by the Center for Global Prosperity at the Hudson Institute in Washington, it becomes obvious that these American feelings of self-deprecation are misguided.

    This is the just released third annual edition of this index. It produces a unique snapshot portraying the full extent of American generosity to developing countries, by amount and by source.

    Usually when the question of aid to the developing world arises, we think of government funds. But this index shows that, whereas it may be the rule in the rest of the industrialized world that most aid is government aid, in our country this isn’t the case. Most of the contributions that Americans make abroad are private and voluntary. And they are large.

    In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, the index reports that Americans contributed privately and voluntarily $34.8 billion to individuals and organizations in developing countries.

    Philanthropy is distinct from government aid in that it originates with private citizens and is voluntary, but also the recipients are private individuals and organizations, as opposed to governments. Private to private versus government to government.

    The $34.8 billion in philanthropy from private Americans exceeded the $23.5 billion in official U.S. government aid abroad by $11.3 billion, or 48 percent.

    This private philanthropy is flowing from foundations, corporations, private and voluntary organizations, universities and colleges, and religious organizations.

    Of particular interest in this year’s index is the $8.8 billion reported from religious organizations. According to Carol Adelman, who directs this work, the data was produced by commissioning “the first national survey of congregational giving to the developing world” ever done.

    The average contribution of congregations was $10,700.

    To put this in some kind of perspective, the $8.8 billion in giving from American religious institutions to developing countries was $1.5 billion more than the total giving from all private sources in 30 of the world’s major industrialized democratic countries combined.

    When consolidating all assistance funds flowing from the United States to developing countries, the total is $129.8 billion. This is the total of government aid, philanthropy, and remittances — funds sent directly by private individuals to other private parties in developing countries, often family members. A far second in total giving behind the United States is the United Kingdom at $20.7 billion.”


  7. Hugo says:


    That’s always been our lot. After the War, France taxed us for every vessel that came ashore at Normandy to liberate their sorry asses. We’re a longsuffering international whipping boy. We even put up with the syndicalism of the UN on our own shores.

    We used to refer to the “working press”, but we can’t credibly pitch that phrase now. First, it ceased to work a long time ago. Second, ain’t nobody “working” hard enough than to do other than republish press releases and expensively crafted soundbites. The “working press” is now just a busy conduit.

  8. Jon Taplin says:

    morgan -it’s a reasonable question. I’m not sure Women vote on choice alone. But the Democrats have the “women’s issues” so strongly (the economy and Iraq) that Choice just becomes a classic micro-targeting technique for GOTV.

  9. zak says:

    Morgan, if you look at pro-child legislation, the bulk of legislators that vote against extended insurance coverage for children and against early education etc. are pro-life politicians. The ones who vote in favor tend to be pro-choice.

    Pro-lifers only seem to care until baby wails for the first time. Then it’s on its own to aspire to the American dream.

  10. Zhirem says:


    Too true. However. “Pro-Fetus” or “Pro-Blastocyst” just doesn’t have that marketing ring to it…

    – Zhirem

  11. Rick Turner says:

    Valerie, if I could believe that Hillary could work in the executive branch of government now without Bill being incredibly meddlesome, I’d go for it. However, Hillary carries very heavy baggage with her. I think the judiciary might be the right place to stick her…though the Repubs would have a snit fit if she was nominated to the Supreme Court. Now that would get ugly…but maybe, just maybe there will be such sweeping out of Repub legislators in November that they wouldn’t have the energy to fight her nomination.

  12. Hugo says:

    zak, you’ve accomplished the impossible, breathing fresh life into the hoary chestnut to the effect that traditionalists are hypocrites for arguing that babies not only should be brought to term but also should be cared for, not by The State, but by those who bore them. Gadzooks! Vote Democrat!

    Knock it off with the silly cant. The Democratic Party (alas, with my help) has done more harm to American schoolchildren than I suspect you could imagine. But anyone in earnest about changing the situation would see well beyond the degraded Democratic Party.

  13. zak says:

    My interest is in the absurdity of the “pro-life” movement, which is anti-feminist and wants to be a the moral compass of appropriate sexuality — despite 90% of Americans admitting to having sex outside of marriage (all the way back to those born in the 1940s).

    60% of women who have have abortions already have at least one child. So most women are making a decision to do their best by the children they’ve already brought into the world — it’s a choice, and a difficult one.

    Re: the education system in the US and any other major political change via the next administration

    Americans suffer from instant gratification syndrome. . . if Obama wins the White House, his biggest challenge will be getting people to support the idea of sacrificing in the present for long term change.

    Education has been long overdue for an overhaul, but it’s gonna take time, a whole lot of precious time, Its gonna take patience and time, ummm
    To do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it,
    To do it right child . . . sorry George Harrison moment

  14. Hugo says:

    zak you annoy hell out of moi. First of all, you beat me to the punchy Harrison-ismthing: just recently I won a contest among friends to see who might name the best campaign theme song; the Wilburyan winner was “Handle With Care”.

    Second, you very impressively outdo even Barack Obama himself with your fathomlessly vague allusions to “long-term change” toward something and “long overdue…overhaul” toward something that may or else may not be the same thing as the other “thing”…

  15. Morgan Warstler says:

    zak, I think NARAL et al should sell pro-choice to stalwarts as an anti-crime measure (see Freakonomics).

    I’m more than willing to help try and defeat the South Dakota thing, but the crime argument would take alot of wind out of conservative sails. They hate crime.

    On the conservative side, I think states rights is the correct argument. They ought to tie it to Gay Marriage – give and get a little. Let people stop fighting about it.

    Then finally, the technocrat in me says “artificial womb,” is a only real answer/policy solution to shut everyone up.

  16. Hugo says:

    Morgan, don’t you get it? That’s what our statist friend zak meant by an “overhaul” of “education”: the long, noble struggle to achieve Artificial Womb!

  17. Morgan Warstler says:

    I love articial womb! that way, no one is required to carry a baby they don’t want to term – and anyone who wants to keep a baby just has to pay for the carriage. it’s like a surrogate without the nasty emotional complications.

  18. Jon Taplin says:

    Morgan and Hugo- Are you guys planning to write Bladerunner 2?

  19. sensico says:

    hillary is going to drop out because she is a democrat and she wants a democrat to win.

  20. Hugo says:

    That’s funny, Jon. And I get it. I wouldn’t want to be on that writing team, frankly, but I’d sure like to be part of the production design crew!

    Did you ever happen to see any of Jefferson’s letters, the ones he wrote on his funky duplicator-invention-thing in the middle of the night, buzzed on sherry from his cask room, to which he sometimes had to repair, it—the cask room—being located directly next to the cell of the lovely Miss Hemmings? Those letters are full of dystopian musings, man. All true. Prophetic, and true.

Leave a Reply