Despite Hillary's speech, the divisive message from Hillary surrogates continues

[ProSense]

Feinstein: Clinton won popular vote

By RYAN GRIM | 6/8/08 10:02 AM EST

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a backer of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) during the primary campaign, reiterated on ABC’s “This Week” that Clinton had won the popular vote — an assertion that is not accepted by Illinois Democrat Sen. Barack Obama’s camp and one that, if repeated often, could harm Democratic attempts to unify behind him. “Hillary Clinton is well known, certainly she had the popular vote in this election,” she said according to a transcript. “That is something and that is something tremendous. Now, I believe the nomination is up to him. I can't tell him what to do. Nobody else can tell him what to do. All I can say is I agree with Ed Rendell, that if you really want a winning ticket, this is it.”

<...>

Feinstein said that while she waited, she and Clinton “sat in the living room and we talked a little bit, and she expressed to me the depth of her concern and caring, the fact that she had 18 million people who put their hopes and dreams in her ability to create new opportunities for people. She wants to continue that. She recognizes that it's over, and I think every instinct in Hillary Clinton is to help.”

Feinstein said the meeting went well. “She wanted to have that meeting. She didn't want to have to go out and make a press statement. She didn't want to be followed to the meeting. She wanted one opportunity to sit down with Sen.Obama, just the two of them, and I think establish a sense of rapport between them,” she said. “They were both very relaxed at the end of the meeting and when they said good night. ... I felt good about it and I think they did, too.”

Feinstein went on to make the case for Clinton as Obama’s running mate. “I think she has a movement. Trust me, from the e-mails I've been getting and people in California have been sending me, trust me, there is a movement. And it's formed from a number of different perspectives. I would have to say the head of the movement are women. Women were really invested in this candidacy, and they believe she got treated poorly, and I don't want to go into that now. I think to a great extent by the press, yes, I think she did. I read column after column which was personal and malevolent and to some extents even venal, and I don't understand why that was necessary. Maybe one column, but column after column after column, and I think that played a role in developing this strength among women that saw this kind of thing form a candidacy,” she said.

more

(emphasis added)

CLEVELAND (AP) — One of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biggest boosters is now heeding the candidate’s call to support presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones said Saturday that she would join Clinton in supporting Obama. She says Obama cannot win unless Clinton’s supporters rally behind him.

Tubbs Jones had been an early and fervent follower of Clinton, who suspended her campaign on Saturday.

She says disappointed Clinton supporters will eventually come around and vote for Obama, who should consider Clinton as a runningmate. She also says Clinton ran a strong campaign and now deserves a breather.

(emphasis added)

Note: Obama won, it's his show.

HILLARY AS VEEP?....Big Tent Democrat is happy that Democrats are finally united behind a candidate, but warns of stormy weather ahead:

I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party — unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate — the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

....Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

BTD has been banging this particular drum for a long time, and I happen to think he's wrong about it. The party will unite just fine around any reasonable VP choice as long as Hillary supports the ticket and rallies her fans to the Obama campaign — and I think she will.

But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.

Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama's shadow. Anyone disagree?

I think that’s right, for the right reasons, but I’d add just one thing: when the President doesn’t especially care for the Vice President, the VP job can be pretty miserable.

Over the last 16 years, we’ve come to think of the Vice Presidency as being a great gig. The VP has power and influence, a key seat at the decision-making table, and is something akin to a presidential partner. Forget John Nance Garner and that “warm bucket of spit” stuff, being the #2 person in the executive branch is pretty sweet.

But it didn’t use to be, and it doesn’t have to be.

Put it this way: the VP has as much influence as the President decides to give him or her. If the President wants the Vice President to spend four (or eight) years going to ribbon-cutting ceremonies, then it’s an boring, mundane job. If the President wants to make the Vice President something of a co-chief executive (cough, cough, Cheney, cough), then it’s a great job.

And now apply this to Obama and Clinton. I think Kevin’s right about the nature of their relationship. I don’t know either of them personally, but my sense is they’re cordial towards one another, but have spent the last year and a half as fairly bitter rivals. Forget warmth and geniality, these two probably don’t necessarily trust one another a whole lot.

Now, I know what many of you are thinking: but JFK didn’t like Johnson! And Reagan didn’t like H.W. Bush! That’s true, and they made successful tickets anyway.

But what these responses miss is that Kennedy didn’t give Johnson anything good to do. And Reagan treated H.W. Bush like “the help.” No real power, no real influence, no policy initiatives to speak of. Just wait in the corner. Don’t call me, I’ll call you. You get to be heir apparent, but not until I’m ready.

If the President doesn’t like the Vice President, the Vice Presidency is hardly worth having. On the other hand, Clinton is a very successful senator, with influence and the respect of her colleagues. It’s easy to imagine Clinton taking the lead in the chamber, partnering with an Obama administration on major policies, most notably on healthcare. My sense of Clinton personally is that she actually enjoys the work — showing leadership in hearings, introducing legislation, working out compromises, etc. She is, in other words, an excellent legislator.

So why get stuck in the Naval Observatory without much to do?

link

edited to fix quote