Hillary asked not to be vetted unless she was the pick

This should put to rest the complaints about Hillary not being considered as VP. Even though I never supported her as a VP, it seemed to me that it was an odd choice not to consider her or vet her. Well, I think we're all relieved that this wasn't Obama "dissing" Clinton as Drudge would like us to believe.

In fact, Clinton merely asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be the pick.

NYT:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary, was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked, the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.

Now, I know the first part of the quote may seem to reaffirm the idea that Obama just dismissed her, though I don't think that is what the source means. I suspect that Obama did in fact seriously consider her personally, but made his decision independent of the committee not to put her on the list to be vetted.

Hillary Clinton will have a major opportunity to make an impact on this general election campaign on Tuesday (and hopefully after that as well), but I hope we can finally get passed the idea that Obama deliberately insulted Clinton, doesn't want her support or that of her voters, or doesn't care about whole parts of the party.

We need Hillary Clinton supporters to win this election. I hope this convention, Obama, Biden, and Hillary herself can help change the minds of the 9 million or so people that are reluctant to support Obama.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Vice President (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

Wait.

Not to be vetted unless she was the pick?! How is that not a clear message saying "DON'T PICK ME!" I can't think of anyone in the world who would agree to a deal like that.

by vcalzone 2008-08-23 04:56PM | 0 recs
The reason Hillary wasn't on Obama's Short List

She didn't want to be part of a Short List

by Lefty Coaster 2008-08-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
"I'll send you my resume,

if you first agree to hire me."

They never acted very serious about a veep slot.  I think all they ever really wanted was the "buzz" of a possible running-mate position.

by Dumbo 2008-08-23 07:38PM | 0 recs
DUH!

She knew Obama wouldn't pick her.

So why get vetted? All that would do would give Obama access to all of the sketchy Clinton foundation donors/Bill's sex life. Then they could potentially make her behave in the future because they'd have an oppo dump in their back pocket.

This is all pretty obvious...I don't blame her.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-23 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary asked not to be vetted unless she was

This was a non-issue when this "story" came out, and now it's completely irrelevant.

by LakersFan 2008-08-23 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary asked not to be vetted unless she was

No, it is relevent.  Look at the top story at CNN.  It is that millions of Hillary supporters are outraged that Biden got the nod and Hillary was not even vetted.    They aregue that Obama should have honored Hillary by vetting her.

If Obama 'honored' her request to not vet is she wasn't guaranteed the spot, than this story needs to get out, if only to keep some fence sitters from being swayed by the PUMAs.

by gavoter 2008-08-23 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This makes sense

I think it also implies that she may have declined it if asked. There's a definite hint of "Don't ask me for this" to it

by vcalzone 2008-08-23 05:01PM | 0 recs
Try...

"Don't come to me unless you're ready to beg on your knees."

by Dumbo 2008-08-23 07:40PM | 0 recs
So Mike Allen's source should be disregarded

but this source should be believed?  If true, the story probably should have been put out there sooner and the Friday shenanigans by Begala and Carville on CNN may not have occurred.  Matthews pretty much accused CNN of pushing the HRC-Obama storyline this afternoon.

Biden is a pretty good pick judging by the reaction of the older folks in my family; they don't think highly at all of either Obama or McCain but they saw some similarities between HRC and Biden and hopefully the 11% of undecided HRC supporters that are the only thing separating Obama from the White House will see that connection as well.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-23 05:03PM | 0 recs
exactamundo!

sorry the media is a big fat fail!  i believe that she wasnt vetted.

by canadian gal 2008-08-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: exactamundo!

oops - that went off to quick - i believe she wasnt vetted because - well wolfson admitted it.

by canadian gal 2008-08-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: exactamundo!

But this story would indicate that she wasn't vetted because she asked not to be. Wolfson just wants to make Obama squirm. So while saying Hillary wasn't vetted would have been technically correct, it would also have been pretty deceitful.

by vcalzone 2008-08-23 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: So Mike Allen's source should be disregarded

It's what sounds credible. Obama not even considering to vet Clinton would be profoundly stupid. This scenario actually makes sense. Not only that, this one doesn't have two jabbering heads going on message with it.

But beyond that, the two facts are compatible with one another. If this above is true, then it explains why Obama didn't vet and didn't look too hard. There's only one person taht can settle it, though.

by vcalzone 2008-08-23 05:19PM | 0 recs
Both scenarios sound plausible

and credible.  Obama may have been profoundly stupid by not considering vetting her and she may very well have been hanging Obama out to dry by issuing such a demand without letting people know about her conditions for vetting until after the fact.  I don't know who to believe but I suppose who we believe depends on what we think we know about two people we have never met.

Politico's story today about HRC still pushes the "ego" angle about why she was never contacted, which is credible to me as well as it also cites "sources."  HRC and Obama should just come up with some story, whether truthful or not, and let it be.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-23 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: So Mike Allen's source should be disregarded

I agree.  Sources within the search...you mean sources on the Obama campaign?!  NOT from Hillary or her aides.

I think this sounds like a case of CYA...

by TxDem08 2008-08-23 08:39PM | 0 recs
We are all Democrats

I will repeat it for the 18th thousand time on her, I love Hillary for what she stands from and if she was the nominee, I would have done anything to get her elected, even if I didn't agree with her as much during the primary. If you claim to be a Democratic supporter and are considering that dangerous person being put up by the other sid, may god, allah, jehova or whatevr have mercy on your soul!!!

by Dog Chains 2008-08-23 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: We are all Democrats

Don't forget about the Flying spaghetti Monster.

by gavoter 2008-08-23 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: We are all Democrats

Mojo to counter ZSG's ridiculous TR.

by bottl4 2008-08-23 06:29PM | 0 recs
Yes, I noticed that, too.

by Dumbo 2008-08-23 07:43PM | 0 recs
Can we stop

caring about the PUMA's?  

by hocuspocus 2008-08-23 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Can we stop

no

by vcalzone 2008-08-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
yu are assuming...

we ever cared about them.

I care for them about as much as they care about defeating McSame.

Not one damn bit.

by IowaMike 2008-08-23 09:53PM | 0 recs
Please, lets

by Lefty Coaster 2008-08-23 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary asked not to be vetted

PUMA members are bitter and irrelevent. They can kiss John McCain's ass in November for all I care.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-08-23 06:38PM | 0 recs
"We need Clinton supporters to win"
"We need Hillary Clinton supporters to win this election." Sweet dreams, kid...
  1. who are "we"?
  2. you will not get Hillary's supporters - at least 20% of them (some say, like you in your diary, even 50%) will not vote for Obama and will vote for McCain
  3. even 20% is enough to defeat Obama
  4. Dems deserved this defeat
  5. Dems will never learn and they will never acknowledge their stupidity.
by engels 2008-08-23 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: "We need Clinton supporters to win"

Yay engels!

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-23 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: "We need Clinton supporters to win"

Glad to have The engels back!

by January 20 2008-08-23 09:06PM | 0 recs
He never considered her? hmm...

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ Hubbys-vetting-problem-may-spoil-Hillary s-VP-chances/335386/

London, July 14:  The reluctance of former US President Bill Clinton to undergo vetting procedure linked to his financial and personal details, including concerns about "possible extra-marital affairs", may scuttle Hillary's chances of becoming the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, a news report has said.

Sources close to the Barack Obama's campaign for the White House indicated that former President's reluctance to reveal the names of the donors to his presidential library and "even concerns about possible extra-marital affairs" mean that his wife would not pass the vetting procedure all potential running mates have to undergo.

"It is absolutely standard operating procedure that vice-presidential candidates today must be fully vetted," a Democratic official close to the Obama campaign was quoted as saying by the The Daily Telegraph of Britain.

"That means their finances and everything about them...There's a questionnaire. It covers everything, including, 'Have you got any girlfriends?'"

A Democratic strategist aligned with the Obama campaign said before Hillary could be considered a VP candidate, the Obama campaign would have to see those records to know how the money was raised and "whether there are any ticking time bombs in there."

"The Clintons were pretty adamantly against it when her candidacy was on the line so it's hard to see how they'd be for it for Obama's candidacy," the strategist noted.

Someone please square that with Obama "never even considering" her. Because I can't do it.

by Neef 2008-08-23 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: He never considered her? hmm...

Easy.  It would seem necessary to have Obama ask, before one could turn the offer down to be vetted.

It's an essential communication process.  Ask/Answer.

No Ask/No Answer.

They are all congruous.

by TxDem08 2008-08-23 08:44PM | 0 recs
But the original "insult"

wasn't about asking. It was about the fact that her not being vetted means he never considered her. That it didn't cross his mind.

Clearly he considered it carefully. There is no way that article can be construed as his neglecting the possibility.

by Neef 2008-08-23 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: But the original "insult"

clearly what I mean by "asking" is, that the campaign "asks" for financials, and medical records, etc.  That is how you vet a candidate.  You also send your vetting team to talk/interview a possible candidate.  That is how you are "asking" them if they are interested in being VP.

And in the article it is clearly the opinion of the source that indicates that they don't think Bill Clinton would have done this or that.  But no one ever knows what someone will do unless they "ask".

by TxDem08 2008-08-24 04:26AM | 0 recs
This was fodder for the PUMAs

to begin with.  

No non-PUMA bought into this.

by Geekesque 2008-08-23 08:24PM | 0 recs
It won't put anything to rest.

People will just think that Obama should have picked her.

THe whole idea that the selection should come BEFORE the vetting is kind of the cart before the horse.  Clinton might as well asked not to be picked at all.

by DawnG 2008-08-23 08:26PM | 0 recs
unless she was the pick

Given that this is two anonymous sources from within the Obama campaign they would of course want to put Obama in the best light. I'm sure Clinton made clear to Obama not to bother unless he were seriously considering her, and these two oh so helpful sources decided to spin that as "don't bother unless I'm the pick."

So here we have the usual cast of Clinton haters taking the hint from the Obama campaign and indulging in more hate. And people wonder why many of us consider the Obama campaign particularly petty?

These are apparently two sources high enough in the campaign to know the details of the VP search, and rather than try to smooth things over they decide to take more pot-shots at Hillary. If this description were accurate and the Obama campaign wanted unity they would just keep their mouths shut about it. So regardless of the truth of this report it is clear the campaign does not want unity, it is more interested in twisting the knife.

by souvarine 2008-08-23 08:34PM | 0 recs
You literally invented this

I'm sure Clinton made clear to Obama not to bother unless he were seriously considering her, and these two oh so helpful sources decided to spin that as "don't bother unless I'm the pick."

And then took offense to it.

I mean, you actually assumed these sources were lying, and because of that assumed lie, they were bashing Hillary. Your expectation produced an insult.

Surely you see how irrational that seems?

by Neef 2008-08-23 08:47PM | 0 recs
Hmmm...irrational

was the wrong word. "hard to follow the logic" would be more apt.

by Neef 2008-08-23 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm...irrational

Yeah, I'm not the best writer. I hope you get my point, but let me try again.

Even if these two sources are accurately reporting what happened, all they are doing is feeding the division within the party. Since Obama had such a small and closely controlled group of people, reporting directly to him, involved in the search it is reasonable to assume that Obama finds it useful to put Hillary in a bad light and intends to feed that division.

It is also possible that AP reporters Christopher Wills, Beth Fouhy and Mike Smith are full of it, and "two officials involved with the search" means Joe Blow who has nothing to do with the campaign, but I doubt it.

by souvarine 2008-08-23 09:24PM | 0 recs
Fair enough

but I'd point out that the true division feeders were the ones who pushed this story in the first place. Unfortunately, since all we know was that it was a "Democratic official" (well THAT narrows it down), it's just bad vibes for no good reason.

by Neef 2008-08-23 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: unless she was the pick

"If this description were accurate and the Obama campaign wanted unity they would just keep their mouths shut about it"

So basically: while the Clintonistas are bashing them for not vetting Clinton, the Obama campaign should not explain that they were merely respecting Clinton's own wishes in this.

Nice logic there.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-08-24 01:58AM | 0 recs
The first line of the article

you quoted is: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary, was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the search." But the first line of your diary is: "This should put to rest the complaints about Hillary not being considered as VP." Huh?

by georgiapeach 2008-08-23 09:35PM | 0 recs
Ha ha...

your candidate lost. Mine did too, but I have moved on.

Try it sometime.

by IowaMike 2008-08-23 09:50PM | 0 recs
I've moved on Mike.

I've moved all the way on to that fork in the road where neither option looks good. I've moved so far on that I could give a shit less who wins in November.

by georgiapeach 2008-08-25 07:28AM | 0 recs
Obama is our nominee..

We need to get past all of this. It doesn't matter anymore. I repeat. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE. Obama is our nominee.

by zenful6219 2008-08-23 09:45PM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads