You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

The Politico is reporting Hillary Clinton was never vetted for the role of VP.

Obama has often said, most recently on NBC's "Meet the Press" on July 27, that Clinton "would be on anybody's short list."

But apparently not his.

"She was never vetted," a Democratic official reported. "She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she'd take it?"

The official also said Clinton never met with Obama's vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.

And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.

"This would be the biggest leap of faith ever," the official said. "She's waiting for the text message like everyone else."

You guys really believe this shit?  Seriously?  There are already diaries popping up and fresh comments with some Obama hate based on "Democratic Sources".

Stop and Think.

What is the biggest wedge that the Republicans can use to defeat us this fall?  The answer is continued primary warfare.  This "leak" comes out the day after McCain's biggest fuckup of the whole campaign and just a couple days before the convention.  Put two and two together.  Gullible.

Now go spend some energy writing about how McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns but still calls Obama an elitist.

Tags: clinton, obama, vetting, VP (all tags)

Comments

122 Comments

i appreciate your sentiments....

but its not happening.  everyone will be talking about one thing today....  and that is - who is obama's vp?

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

But why do you believe something that was so clearly written to sow dissent in the party?

by CAchemist 2008-08-22 08:24AM | 0 recs
why dissent?

if its true - why not report it?  that said - im not saying that my diary will be the story of the day - but rather who the pick will be.

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

CG you always give yourself away. We don't know if this true at all. REC

by canadian 2008-08-22 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

As you recently put it "GROSS" nice pictures though. Where's Spaceman?

by canadian 2008-08-22 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

I'm right here zerosumgame.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/8/18/2 11310/008/6?mode=alone;showrate=1#6

Wouldn't want you to keep playing the good folks here on MyDD.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

You really think you were safe by giving mojo to yourself in an old diary? Especially when accusing another user of supporting the opressive Chinese regime?

Your writing style (or lack of) gives you away everytime.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/8/18/2 11310/008/6?mode=alone;showrate=1#6

Oh yeah, the proof is in the ratings.

Concerned Democrats sockpuppet :

zerosumgame
trytobereal (Jeff)

Obama supporter (Hillary VP or we lose) sockpuppet:

politicalslave
canadian

I'm sure there are more. Piggybacking to get on top of a rec'd diary and stirring shit up is the M.O. REC

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?
You can try and smear opposition. But I stand behind all my comments and Diaries as Politicalslave and now as Canadian. I support Obama and I pray his VP pick will be Clinton.
Just because I won't join your group is no reason to lie and smear. But it is nice to know you and CG feel I'm so dangerous. Ha ha Cheers
by canadian 2008-08-22 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

Opposition?

Dangerous?

Trolling a blog is not warfare zero. You're taking yourself a bit to seriously here.

The post was great for laughs though. REC

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

You know CG and Spaceman. Republicans smear and get personal just like your doing now. What a coincidence.

by canadian 2008-08-22 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

Calling me a McBlogger? C'mon zero! You've been using that line on anybody that calls you out for months now.

Not the best way to "distance" yourself from your sockpuppet.


Re: So am I... (0.00 / 5)

you're the ones claiming you will take your ball and go home of you don't get what you want. so your HR only shows that not only are both of you a PUMA, you're a lying creep as well.

by zerosumgame on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

Wow! Now THAT'S a coincidence. Cheers. REC

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?
Poor Spaceman. When people are lacking health care
and our soldiers are getting killed. You waste your time doing this. Let's debate but no lies and no smears this election is too important. Cheers.
by canadian 2008-08-22 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: why dissent?

Hyperbole much?

So calling you a troll can adversly affect our troops and the healthcare system.

Wow. Talk about being a douche.

Pretty disgusting even by your usually low standards zero.

Cheers. REC

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

CAchemist: I've been voting for 40 years. Always Democrat. Called for Dems, fundraised, contributed my own $, served in party functionary roles, etc. Certainly, you must have been a bit overwrought to cast aspersions on someone because they "dissent?!?! If I misread or misunderstood your tone, I'm sorry. But...for me (who marched in '68 and then voted my first presidential vote for Humphrey and who now as a Denverite will be in the Pepsi Center as a guest one night of the DNC and also attending the Invesco Thursday speech) no political party is worth being told to hush up or be quiet for. Surely, we all know as Democrats that discussion and dissent and forward progress are all part of the same parcel. Lighten up; its ok. Another comment: Having been an occasional participant here, I sense some change toward conformity and a measure of intolerance growing here. In the long run, liberals are going to have to trust each other again. My perspective only.

by christinep 2008-08-22 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

Dissent is great.  If it is true that Obama did not ever consider the possibility, people can feel free to raise their concerns.  At this point there is little to no evidence that this has happened.

Furthermore, I am mostly making a point about the timing of this "leak".  It was clearly released today to squash enthusiasm for the VP (if they aren't HRC) and to reopen the wounds of the primary.

Maybe if this were released a week ago, it would just be news.  Today's release reeks of people trying to bring discord to the party.

by CAchemist 2008-08-22 01:53PM | 0 recs
I would submit

that if you do believe in multiple viewpoints, you can understand and respect the feelings of those who would like election-losing Democrats to zip it. It's a reasonable proposition, especially if the election is one they care about.

You don't have to submit, of course. But it seems as though you're dismissing the viewpoint of those who believe some sacrifice is necessary and good, in the name of Democratic goals.

by Neef 2008-08-22 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I would submit

Neef: A last thought on this subject....It is not me who is dismissing anyone. My only advice is to be aware of how far you are willing to go to win. I'll go a "far piece" (as the saying goes.) But, the shutting up/submitting for the good of the order is an area on which to tread lightly. There are many ways to persuade and discuss without using words as muscular intimidation.  It will all work out with some give & take and tolerance. Pushing with an "or else" motif tends to create blowback. Finesse often works.

by christinep 2008-08-22 02:31PM | 0 recs
100% agreed

on treading lightly. I think people who submit without question are as misguided as people who never submit. Moderation in all things.

It's funny you use the term "treading". Sometimes it feels like we're mice tiptoeing past a sleeping cat. Some of us are brave mice, or rebellious mice, or just fricking hate cats, and will NOT be silenced. Some of us are less brave, or have very strong reasons to want to pass, and so fret about our more vocal comrades. They have every right to their voices, we have every right to worry.

I do hope it all works out, for the greatest good.

by Neef 2008-08-22 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I would submit
We have no problem with debating or different view
points. The problem is giving life to a smear campaign. We will defend our Nominee. If you want submission the republicans have mastered it. Mojo
to Neef
by canadian 2008-08-22 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

I think you're off on this one.

Here's my bet.

IF it's not Hillary WATCH how many of the angry diarys say

"And she was not even vetted!!!"

Their source will be this article...

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 08:26AM | 0 recs
probably some very good reasons

for not vetting hillary.

They start with the Clinton Library.

Hi! I'm an Obama supporter, who was an Edwards supporter convinced Clinton was going to win anyway -- and I would have cheerfully voted for her.

end disclaimer.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-22 10:10AM | 0 recs
I've been saying this for months now.

The Clintons will never allow themselves to be vetted, because they cannot pass even the most cursory scandal check, especially Jolly Bill.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-22 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

There are plenty of people who have those angry diaries all prepared and the Republicans couldn't be happier. Our reaction to this one article shows how "jumpy" we are. Cheers to the diarist. REC

by canadian 2008-08-22 11:31AM | 0 recs
That's not entirely accurate...

While the VP selection is dominating the news, McCain did get some coverage today:

by TCQuad 2008-08-22 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not entirely accurate...

Excellent.

by Denny Crane 2008-08-22 10:56AM | 0 recs
Politico piece written by GOP troll

This piece is written by Mike Allen, a noted and known GOP troll.

FDL tagged him with the nick name, Karl Rove's "pool boy."

He's the guy who recently interview Bush in the WH, when Shrub said he gave up golf to honor fallen troops.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-22 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Politico piece written by GOP troll

Good catch Al.

Come on people, haven't you been watching the Republic machine for years?

This is what they do, they CAN'T Win on issues, so they play death and destruction games.

Just look at the timing of this article.

It stinks to high heaven, but, if your anger is already palpable, or soon will be, your logic is going to be pushed down a bit in the stack....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 08:56AM | 0 recs
CNN said the GOP was making a concerted push

Yesterday on "American Morning," Ed Henry said the GOP was actively pushing this, and low and behold, Fixxed News pushed it all day Thursday.  

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-22 09:02AM | 0 recs
Mark Halperin has been both

pushing the Hillary-as-VP meme, to raise expectations (i.e., increasing disappointment), and then pushing this story as well.

If it cames from Halperin, you know it's GOP b.s.

by RidleyGriff 2008-08-22 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Halperin has been both

Maybe you've been reading different Halperin items than I have, but he hasn't been mentioning Hillary as VP on his site (The Page) at all.  It's been all abut Biden, Kaine and Bayh.

by Denny Crane 2008-08-22 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Halperin has been both

I haven't noticed anything about Clinton on The Page. Denny is right on this.

by canadian 2008-08-22 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Politico piece written by GOP troll

That's right why are some people deceived so easily?  As WashintonStateBlue says this is typical Republican crap Great work Al

Now how many houses do I own? I will get back to you.

by canadian 2008-08-22 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: i appreciate your sentiments....

Canadian Gal Why did you edit the quote from the Mike Allen's Politico piece that you used in your diary? Please amend your last diary.

You left out An Obama aide said "Absolutely Exhaustive research was done on her over the course of the 16th month primary. She was researched more than any candidate in history"

Why did you EDIT this OUT????????

by canadian 2008-08-22 04:43PM | 0 recs
by canadian gal 2008-08-22 04:50PM | 0 recs
and...

in my v. last comment to you...  you are a suspect for sockpuppeting my name.  really - it was a super dumb move since you kind of proved that you are what spaceman states you are.  especially since you only disclosed this when i called you out on it.  weird weird intertube stalking....

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: and...

Why did you edit the quote in Mike Allen's Article in your Diary?

Smearing me does not answer my simple question.

by canadian 2008-08-22 05:10PM | 0 recs
What a perfect time to tear us apart.

Time to ignore the idiots.

If we were to believe every article with "Democratic Sources", then we would have no less than 6 vice presidential nominees right now.  Its bullshit.  

Fight Republicans not each other.

by CAchemist 2008-08-22 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What a perfect time to tear us apart.

Only 6?

Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Sebelius, Kaine, Kerry, Daschle, Hagel, Clark, Edwards (Chet, not John).

That's 10. One for each of McCain's houses.

by TCQuad 2008-08-22 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What a perfect time to tear us apart.

Yeah, this story is crap.  The Obama campaign has shown that they tend to think things through and consider future consequences before acting.  That makes it hard for me to believe that they would have just not vetted Clinton, even if they knew that she wouldn't be picked.  It seems to me that they would have just gone through the motions to avoid a story like this that pisses of Clinton supporters.

by mnl1012 2008-08-22 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What a perfect time to tear us apart.

I agree.

by nyarch 2008-08-22 11:03AM | 0 recs
I can't mojo this enough...

The Obama campaign is too politically smart to miss such an important caveat.  This is clearly some pandering to the disunity bunch.  They're hoping this will replace the story of the day which has taken hold famously.

From dailykos:

White House Contenders Trade Economic Attacks After McCain Home Gaffe (ABC)

McCain said that he wasn't sure of how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own

Obama doesn't let up on McCain's homes (MSNBC)

In nearly every speech in recent days, he has argued that McCain doesn't get what ordinary American are facing, reminding people of McCain advisor Phil Gramm's comment about America being a "nation of whiners" and about McCain's Saddleback quip defining rich as an income of $5 million.

Obama pounces as McCain unsure of how many homes he owns (CNN)

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pounded Sen. John McCain for his failure to answer a question about how many homes he owns

McCain Homes Flap Is No Joke (CBS)

Barack Obama was handed a gift-wrapped package from John McCain on Thursday.

Obama raps McCain for ignorance of his own houses (IHT)

Hours after a report that the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting didn't know how many homes he and his multimillionaire wife own, ...

The Danger of McCain's 'Seven Houses' Slip (Newsweek)

Asked yesterday in an interview with the Politico how many houses he owns with his wife Cindy, a beer heiress, John McCain was, well, not quite sure.

Does McCain have a Kerry problem? (KC Star)

Democrats Thursday ridiculed Republican John McCain for saying he couldn't recall how many homes he and his wealthy wife own

McCain not sure how many houses he owns (LA Times)

File this under "Problems most of us will never have" --

Obama Jumps on McCain House Comment (WaPo)

As part of an increasingly aggressive effort to redefine his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday morning seized on ...

It's true; McCain has seven homes in five cities and three states (Chicago Sun-Times)

In an interview with Adam Nagourney of the New York Times, Obama strategist David Axelrod suggested McCain's campaign can't succeed by portraying Obama as out-of-touch because it reeks of hypocrisy.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-08-22 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: What a perfect time to tear us apart.

Well, looks like the Politico is eager to take the place of the late not very lamented traitor Boob No-facts.

by zerosumgame 2008-08-22 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible

absolutely, look at some of those posters on CG's good diary on this (no joust at CG of course)

Some of those names look like flyers over from places unknown to me.

And, there is NOTHING more the RNC/McCain camp wants MORE then protests at the convention, angry faces filling up CNN.

Hell, if you want a ticket to Denver and free room and board to protest, just contact Larry?

I'm sure the RNC will help him add you to the list.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 08:24AM | 0 recs
As I said in the other Diary

The only person that needed to be vetted was/is Bill to make sure none of his post Presidency financials come back to bite.

So not vetting her, careful what you read into this.

And since nobody seems to know anything how do these un-named sources know anymore than anybody else.

by jsfox 2008-08-22 08:26AM | 0 recs
I bet Hillary wishes

she would have vetted her airplane under fire story.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I bet Hillary wishes

Anyone who thinks a gifted politician like Obama would pick Hillary is mad.

We don't need her.  We don't need the baggage.

by reebus 2008-08-22 01:38PM | 0 recs
You're right of course

This is why I've been trying to interject a little humor into the dialogue today.

We're all taking this far too seriously, and need to back off and let things happen.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right of course

We need to trust our nominee, dammit.

he knows best.

by reebus 2008-08-22 01:39PM | 0 recs
Obama set the trap himself

when he time and again expressed that "she would be on anybody's short list" and refusing to publicly name anybody else except for her.  There are alternative theories out there that I expressed in CG's diary, but did you notice that Rove and other GOP folks were in lock-step agreement this week about HRC as his best veep choice?  Regardless of whether that's true, it seemed weird how hard GOP folks pushed that angle this week.

However, Obama set his own trap and he should have gotten her to issue a Shermanesque statement.  The GOP just exploited it.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-22 08:31AM | 0 recs
Yeah

but did you notice that Rove and other GOP folks were in lock-step agreement this week about HRC as his best veep choice?

I mean, they were already pretty strongly for this, but they've gotten even more forceful about it this week.

That and saying that Obama should "stick to the inspirational" stuff that won him the primary instead of directly attacking McCain on his vulnerable points.

They're getting pretty desperate, it seems.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

It's amazing how much the Republicans have warmed up to Hillary Clinton since Super-Duper Tuesday.  It's all coincidence, of course.

by the mollusk 2008-08-22 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

They started saying nice things about her because she was no longer a threat and they were trying to syphon her voters away from Obama.  What they've actually managed to do is to GREATLY improve her image in GOP circles.

I have several rabidly repug cousins and uncles who used to hate her with every fiber in their being.  Of course, I've never been a "silent" democrat in my family, and my preference for Hillary in the primary was well known.  So they all knew how I felt.

Now at family gatherings, these people no longer avoid engaging me in political discussion, because they have come to LIKE Hillary.

So thanks, repug operatives, for repairing my favorite politician's creds!

by mtnspirit 2008-08-22 09:37AM | 0 recs
You don't necessarily

vet everyone that is on your initial list. Sometimes you choose to take them off for other reasons.

As she still regards him as "her opponent," I can see why she would be removed before any actual vetting is done.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 08:42AM | 0 recs
Shermanesque would have been terrible

Her hardcore supporters would have read it as she doesn't support the nominee and wants nothing to do with him.  She played it exactly right by saying she'd love to be on board.

by elrod 2008-08-22 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Shermanesque would have been terrible

Absolutely.  That's why I was pissed off at people who were getting on her case for saying that she'd love to be the VP; had she not said that, it would have been taking as a sign of no confidence.

As is, you still hear nutcases say that they somehow know that she wants nothing to do with this "sinking ship".

by Jess81 2008-08-22 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting
This is so funny! Obama has never been vetted by the Democrats - they are waiting for the GOP to do it!
And you talk about Clinton not being vetted? LMAO!
by Marjoriest 2008-08-22 08:35AM | 0 recs
The primaries were pretty good vetting

Aside from a few things, we got pretty much everything out in the open and dealt with for the two big primary candidates.

As for Obama's vetting... the major Chicago newspapers have been vetting him for years; if he weren't clean, he wouldn't have run in the first place.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 08:48AM | 0 recs
great point!!!

when people always talk about vetting of obama and the clintons, i wonder if people think they were on a suicide pact and keeping some big dark secret on purpose....

which is why the edwards is so so shocking.

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 08:51AM | 0 recs
Quite so

If John had made it further into the primaries, he would've been in pretty big trouble in that regard, yes.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 09:33AM | 0 recs
as a PO, 2 time

caucus chair for him, I'm damned glad he lost now.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The primaries were pretty good vetting

"if he weren't clean, he wouldn't have run in the first place."

Sure stopped John Edwards didn't it.  If you want to be president nothing will stop you. That comment was Silly.

by nyarch 2008-08-22 08:51AM | 0 recs
Not that silly

The difference is that, while Edwards supporters are generally great populists with an important agenda, Edwards himself really didn't have a lot going on except being a presidential candidate.  

Obama, while he has a strong drive to become president, is a hell of a lot smarter than John Edwards in this particular category.  He knows, and has always known, that scandals never stay buried forever and that he, being (shall we say) "different," would attract even more scrutiny.  He's discussed this at length before when dealing with all the people digging for Rezko dirt.

Also: Michelle would freaking kick his ass up and down the block if he were to do anything close to that stupid.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-22 09:32AM | 0 recs
That last thought may be the biggest inhibitor

But while her qualities may be very appropriate for keeping a husband in line and a family clean of adulterous hazards, I'm not sure her personality traits are all that appealing for a first lady in the eyes of the median voter.

by lombard 2008-08-22 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: That last thought may be the biggest inhibitor

Uhhh, what "personality traits" are you referring to?  By all means, elaborate.

by fogiv 2008-08-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
I'll pass

Like Louis Armstrong said about jazz, if you can't see it, I can't explain it to you.

by lombard 2008-08-22 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Reminds me of a comment I read this month on Ambinder's site:

The way to win an election hasn't changed. They're about contrasts. They're about dividing your opponent's base.

Sometimes there's a thin line between a PUMA and a McCain shill.

by randomscientist 2008-08-22 08:38AM | 0 recs
great comment!

AND i would add...

Sometimes there's a thin line between a clinton hater and a McCain shill.

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: great comment!

and a Clinton hater and one who just hates Clinton supporters?

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: great comment!

and a mctroll and users with the mike in their names...

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: great comment!

not such a thin line between a sense of humor and a lack of all sense.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: great comment!

careful.

by mikeinsf 2008-08-22 09:09AM | 0 recs
lol.

and i forgot iowa too!

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: lol.

You also forgot Poland!

by BishopRook 2008-08-22 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

One assumes that the Obama campaign is not within a cone of silence and would be in a position to deny this if it's untrue.

by Steve M 2008-08-22 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Come on Steve.

You know the LBJ story...

"I don't care if it's true, I just want them to have to deny it..."

Anything that can take the focus off of the pick, if it ISN'T Hillary?

Yeah, they want to spend the morning talking about Clinton, that's exactly what the RNC would like....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 08:58AM | 0 recs
It's almost scary how good

these guys are at creating divisions in this party; I'll give them credit, the pubs know what they are doing.  The culmination of their weeklong efforts led to this story.

Obama should have gotten her to go Sherman earlier in the summer; he set his own trap for the GOP to exploit.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-22 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Like I said, if it's not true, someone should deny it.

by Steve M 2008-08-22 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

For what earthly purpose?  So that if it's not her, they can say "yeah we vetted her, and she wasn't up to snuff."?

by Jess81 2008-08-22 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Because if a story is (a) politically harmful and (b) untrue, you should deny it.

Yes, suggesting "we considered Hillary, but ultimately went with someone else" is actually a lot better than "we never even considered Hillary," at least to people who think she was worthy of consideration.

More to the point, I don't really appreciate the approach of this diary, which is basically saying "you're an idiot if you believe this story, even though no one has any evidence that it's untrue."  Well, if no one can even be bothered to deny the story, I think it's pretty logical to assume it's true, actually.

by Steve M 2008-08-22 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Steve, as I pointed out above, if your Obama's team, you want to stay "On Message" today of ALL days?

What, you think they want to talk about Clinton if she is NOT the pick.

"Yes we vetted her"

"Oh, and what did you find? Is that why you didn't pick her."

"No she vetted great"

"Then what WAS the reason you didn't pick her..."

Get it, Round and round about Clinton...

Flip side...

"No, we didn't vet her"

"But you said she was on the short list?

Was she ever on the list or did you just dump
her recently...."

Again, round and round.

Clinton folks, like you, are already SO FRICKING READY TO BLOW A GASKET, that is why the Republics like Drudge want this front page news...

I know you are not a political neophyte, this is THE classic LBJ "made em talk about it" rumor.

Why would they want to answer about Hillary AT ALL today....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-22 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

They don't have to deny it today.  But they should deny it at some point.  Saying "you're an idiot if you believe a completely plausible story" is a bullying tactic that I don't respect.

by Steve M 2008-08-22 01:11PM | 0 recs
How COULD The Clintons have been vetted...

when it's a known fact they won't release their records -- or Bill's at least.

But any excuse will do for some to put another chip on their shoulder.

by Glaurung 2008-08-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: How COULD The Clintons have been vetted...

They released all the records requested by the Democratic Party.

by skohayes 2008-08-22 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: How COULD The Clintons have been vetted...

That was tax records. It wasn't "all records."

We're talking about vetting by the Obama campaign. That would entail complete disclosure of everything Clinton. There's no way that could happen since Bill doesn't want his business and library dealings scrutinized.

So Obama couldn't even vet TheClintons, much less ask her to be his VP unvetted.

by Glaurung 2008-08-22 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: How COULD The Clintons have been vetted...
Really? McCain is running for president and MRS. McCain won't even release her tax returns. From 2007.
As for business dealings, that would be evident in the tax returns, wouldn't it?
by skohayes 2008-08-23 02:12AM | 0 recs
This conversation is SO yesterday.

Time to move on.

by Glaurung 2008-08-23 07:29AM | 0 recs
It's aimed at the pitiful ODS'ers

like the crew at Corrente and Big Tent Democrat.

by Geekesque 2008-08-22 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Lets be real.

What are YOU suggesting?  That Mike Allen and 'The Politico' are working with McCain and his campaign to sow seeds of discontent within our party?   Are you serious?   Really?

If 'The Politico' says it was a Democratic official, I believe it was a Democratic official.  Now you can argue that official is wrong, ill informed, etc. etc. etc.   But don't push crazy conspiracy theories.

I am not surprised that Clinton was vetted.  The two hate each other.

by RichardFlatts 2008-08-22 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

It's stupid, but not for the reason you think.

You know what vetting is at the end of the day? It's opposition research without opposing the person.  It's looking for the avenues to attack the candidate.

You really think Obama's team doesn't already have the most exhaustive file on every negative pertaining to the Clintons this side of the Arkansas Project?  You think for a second he doesn't have an oppo research file detailing every business deal, shady contact, and high school transcript of Hillary and Bill's that could possibly come to the public eye?

Likewise, it's idiotic to suggest that Obama hasn't been vetted, either: Hillary's team would have the same file for him, and after she endorsed him, it would have been the FIRST thing her campaign turned over to his, even before the donor lists.

by Jay R 2008-08-22 09:32AM | 0 recs
I wish everyone could see this comment

It's just so damn sensible and logical. Two things in short supply.

by BrighidG 2008-08-22 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Wow, that's an excellent point.

EVERYONE, PAY ATTENTION TO JAY R.

by Jess81 2008-08-22 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Yep, she's also been vetted by the campaigns of  Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich (but in secret code) , etc, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Bush I, etc.  She's been vetted for years, so to say she hasn't met with anyone to be vetted is like saying, I've driven my car for years, but today I am going to take it for a test drive to see what it's like

by KLRinLA 2008-08-22 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

JR - I was searching for just this comment because (forgive me) it's so obvious.

You don't think in the 6 years of Ken Starr that  anything and everything about Hillary wasn't unearthed? She's gotta be the most vetted person alive!

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the person who really needs vetting is Bill (and Bill's zipper).

Loose Dicks Sink Ships

by Bob Miller 2008-08-22 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Well that's right Bob. If Senator Clinton isn't picked it could be that Bill has something we didn't know about. We don't know! Look at Edwards. I thought he was a wonderful guy?

by canadian 2008-08-22 04:18PM | 0 recs
I believe it completely

There was no way that Clinton would be Obama's no 2. The personal dislike and distrust is too strong. Of course, Obama was doing whatever a person in his position was supposed to be doing.

Does not come to as a surprise. The opposite would have surprised me.

by ann0nymous 2008-08-22 09:43AM | 0 recs
One small addition to my comment above
I think Obama can prove the story to be false by picking up
Clinton to be his running mate. But you and I know that is not going to happen.
by ann0nymous 2008-08-22 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

I have to agree with the diarist. I think the electorate is being manipulated. Does anyone honestly think HRC wasn't considered? Of course she was, the sad thing in her case is how much her husband's identity has to be tied up in her politics.  That two for one thing goes both ways.  Perhaps there are reasons why she wouldn't be chosen that have nothing to do with her.  I think the media just wants everyone to go batship and often we accept the narrative.  Just as an aside, there were court cases that have been put on hold here in NY.

by epiphany 2008-08-22 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Court cases?

by mashews 2008-08-22 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

yeah some bullshit campaign donor crap, but with Bill there is always some crazy donor fiasco.  I think these would have been on the front page of every paper after the convention if she won the nomination or was picked for VP

by epiphany 2008-08-22 10:18AM | 0 recs
I hope you are right

Cause if it's true I would be profoundly disappointed.

by easyE 2008-08-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
RIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT!

And the Obama campaign didn't run an 18-month primary against and didn't bother to do any research on her that entire time.  Oh, and she hasn't been one of the most talked about politicians in the media or in the crosshairs of Republicans for the last 20 years.  She obviously wasn't vetted.  Sheesh!

by mashews 2008-08-22 10:11AM | 0 recs
I think the story

about Hillary's brother campaigning for McSame will be a bigger deal. They will run ads showing Hillary where she Said McSame passes the CIC question, and then her brother supportring her summation.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the story

Oh yeah, like the Roger Clinton of the Rodman family is Walter Frickin Cronkite.

by Jess81 2008-08-22 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the story

Family infighting makes great tv/drama.

The question will be, is it really infighting. Repugs, who love the kitchen sink, would again tweak the Clinton supporters who have not come back into the party. Hillary would have to say something about it. It the phrase (my brother's commercial about my opponent" is somewhere in there (especially about the Obama being referred to as "my opponent") then we are in for some trouble.

by IowaMike 2008-08-22 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

DISS-OFF

That's the headline Drudge has up. The GOP hard at work trying to divert attention from McGaffe and divide the Democratic party.

Predictable.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-22 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

People have been trying to use Senator Clinton as wedge "forever" Thank you for timely diary. REC

by canadian 2008-08-22 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Look, the biggest issue right now is Clinton's crushing debt.  Her campaign raised less than $2 million to help pay it off.  Obama would have to pay this off quickly, and this leaves little money to go back to the DNC for other races.

I am not trying to use this to bash Clinton, but I think we can view this campaign debt as a major vetting item.   I have no doubts that she was vetted up to a certain extent.  If she were debt free I think the process would have gone further

by gavoter 2008-08-22 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

And why would Obama have to pay it off?

by Whash 2008-08-22 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Look, the biggest issue right now is Clinton's crushing debt.  Her campaign raised less than $2 million to help pay it off.  Obama would have to pay this off quickly, and this leaves little money to go back to the DNC for other races.

I am not trying to use this to bash Clinton, but I think we can view this campaign debt as a major vetting item.   I have no doubts that she was vetted up to a certain extent.  If she were debt free I think the process would have gone further

by gavoter 2008-08-22 11:23AM | 0 recs
Not sure I follow

are you saying that if Clinton becomes VP then her debt becomes Obama's debt?  That seems odd.

by JJE 2008-08-22 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

obama campaign senior advisor says hrc has been vetted since before primaries ended. talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN.  Also discussing media slants in today's papers.

by epiphany 2008-08-22 12:21PM | 0 recs
got a linky?

i will update in my diary!

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: got a linky?

no links just aired will check cnn for video later

by epiphany 2008-08-22 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: got a linky?

<iframe src="http://www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=dom&amp;vid=/video/politics/2008/08/22/sot.hrc.on.obama.news" height="393" width="406" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

HRC today

by epiphany 2008-08-22 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: got a linky?

if my embed doesn't work i grabbed it from cnn video

by epiphany 2008-08-22 03:04PM | 0 recs
not gonna update....

because wolfson confirmed this story today saying that she wasn't vetted.  so - not sure who isnt being truthful - but someone is...  guess we'll know tomorrow?

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 04:07PM | 0 recs
not gonna update....

because wolfson confirmed this story today saying that she wasn't vetted.  so - not sure who isnt being truthful - but someone is...  guess we'll know tomorrow?

by canadian gal 2008-08-22 04:09PM | 0 recs
&quot;not a single conversation&quot;

Riiiight.

Frankly, I get tired of the GOP slapping us around like we're some gullible, helpless, mildly-retarded child. You have to wonder, why do we never do this to them?

by Neef 2008-08-22 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

ok. probably it is a ploy. BUT then all the more reason for the Obama camp to consider going on the record and saying she HAS been vetted if she has indeed and this is a lie. If she hasn't and this is true then I don't give a shit WHO the source is --- this is serious.

by swissffun 2008-08-22 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: You Folks Sure Are Gullible: Clinton Vetting

Part of me wants to believe that this is the psychological prelude to the elaborate rollout of Hillary Clinton as VP.

The diary makes this seem like a Republican-backed "leak", yet the Politico clearly states that this 'intelligence' is coming from an anonymous Democratic official.  Either way, this kind of report is certain to rile up the PUMAs; and if HRC is not chosen, then the story will only gain steam among them.

by MMR2 2008-08-22 01:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------