Conversation | 06/06/2008 6:26 pm

Liz Smith on Hillary: 'A Lot of Obama's Supporters Would Just Die if He Chose Her'

With Jane Wagner, Judith Martin, Liz Smith and Mary Wells

Editor’s Note: Sen. Clinton announced this week that she is going to give her support to Sen. Obama and give up the race. What happens to the vice presidency now? Who do you think Obama will choose? Do you think he, in order to unite the party, will choose Hillary as his running mate? These are the questions we posed to Liz, Mary, Judith and Jane.

LIZ: I just had lunch with one of Hillary’s backers, a person who is an aide to Hillary. And she says that she always encouraged her to try and get the vice-presidential slot if she couldn’t win the presidency. But now she feels that Obama probably won’t offer it, because they really don’t want her. They just want her to campaign for him, but they don’t want her to be vice president. Imagine the baggage she would have as the vice president – she and Bill. The vice president doesn’t have very much to do – just serves at the will of the president; presides over the Senate. And, while it’s the second most important job, it’s kind of a nothing job. It’s a strange thing.

MARY: But the current vice president has been very powerful.

JUDITH: You haven’t pointed out that it’s second in line to the presidency.

LIZ: That’s right. That’s the advantage.

JUDITH: I think she should go for a good job. She’s got a bargaining position, and the Supreme Court would be ideal for her. But when Sen. Obama gave his victory speech, it sounded suspiciously like he might offer her something terrible, like being head of H.H.S.[Dept. of Health and Human Services].

LIZ: This person, the one who’s her aide, doesn’t believe she would want to be in the cabinet.

JUDITH: I would think not, especially H.H.S., which is such a difficult position.

LIZ: Well, I think she’d make a dandy secretary of state. I can see her traveling around the world to restore the reputation of this country, at the will of her president. Or, she can remain the senator of New York and bide her time and see what happens. My friend believes that whatever her faults were in this campaign should be blamed on Mark Penn who refused to set up any kind of grassroots thing for her and didn’t use the Internet properly. So Obama took all of that away from them. Most of Hillary’s people now really blame this guy. And for all of her faults in the campaign, she remains a very dedicated and capable and driven kind of person. And we’ve got to remember — 18 million Americans wanted her for president.

Look at Hillary’s enormous support among these older, uneducated women in America, and how marginalized they are by everybody else – like they don’t count. And she really made them count. And I don’t think there’s any way they can vanquish her. I think she’ll come back in one way or another. And Obama’s not ignoring that. He’ll do something, I think. He’ll offer her something – maybe something she really wants.

JUDITH: The things on her list of what she wants were on the domestic side — not on the foreign affairs side. What would be more powerful than the Supreme Court?

LIZ: I don’t know, though. I feel, Judith, it’s too sort of sedentary for her.

JUDITH: Really?

MARY: Don’t you have to have some legal background?

JUDITH: You don’t have to have been a judge, no. You have to be a lawyer, which she is.

LIZ: She’s a good lawyer.

JUDITH: Yes, she’s a lawyer. And if she wants to advance those issues, which were all domestic issues, I would think that that would be the place. And it’s a much better job than being president, much less vice president.

LIZ: Well what do you think, Mary?

1157 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Star I keep saying this”you are the best” lol It is all about the Cabal Cash!! That is why i can’t afford to spend too much time on sites!!!! The Cabal has every one running! EVEN OBAMA IS LEARNING HOW TO BOW !!!! LOL

By sibelle daubigne on 06/08/2008 12:39 pm

e-mail alert

Yes do LOL—-the Cabal Cash=Fool’s Gold.

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 1:47 pm

e-mail alert

The Iraq War Vote. Trying to establish her toughness she didn’t do her due diligence on Iraq. Neither did Edwards, for that matter, but he acnowledged his mistake. Sexism was real, but certainly no more so than racism - and the Clintons exploited BOTH. The Obama Campaign chose NOT to. To paraphrase a great Clinton bon mot: It’s the war, stupid. Bill. The greatest pol of his generation turned out to be an albatross around her neck. Never mind the ham-handed remarks about race or the explosive temper. The thought of him being back in the White House pontificating and embarrassing everyone with his unstable personal behavior was more than most stomachs could take. The Senator decided she did not want a divorce. The rest of the country decided they did. Now, New York will be making the SAME decision.

By Renata on 06/08/2008 12:19 pm

e-mail alert

We have all heard of Bill Clinton. What will you do without those two to kick around? Having withdrawal pains? Sen Obama gave a speech against the war. So did I in my family room. I believe I said to my dog Spencer (now dead), “The country will go to hell for this.” Well—was I right? Now it remains to be seen if this gentleman will get elected and if he does, can he stop it—or will those wonderful generals on the ground tell him things that will give him pause? I don’t know. You don’t know. So we are pending.

By Star Lawrence on 06/08/2008 12:45 pm

e-mail alert

The difference is that Senator Obama is not insane and he will listen to the Generals. His speech in 2/2002 PRECISELY predicted where we would be because it wasn’t hard for anyone thinking in terms of the history of that are and international and US Constitutional law, and not trying to triangulate, instead of taking a clear moral stand, to appease their Zionist lobby. SHe made that speech, admitting that she hadn’t even read the Iraq military assessment. SHE WAS WRONG ON THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF THE TIME. Obama was right. Obama also clearly assessed where the winning strategy would be. Primary Colors was right. Too think I ever supported those two. The world and the youth of this country and the anti-war demographic are right. Just as they were right in 2/2002 trying to prevent this disaster that HRC voted for. So cry about your $60 tanks of gas and support for McCain/HRC and don’t draw a straight line from cause and effect. What fools.

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 1:55 pm

e-mail alert

Have I called you any names, Ms Heart? What if the generals tell your candidate that withdrawing “too fast” would endanger the troops left behind?

By Star Lawrence on 06/08/2008 2:20 pm

e-mail alert

The Pentagon Institute already wrote a report about the debacle, plenty of generals and former Reagan-Bush #1 administration honchos have said we need to put together a exit plan, in conjunction with UN Peace keeping troops, and exit ASAP and appropriately seeing that we ‘wrecked it and bought it,” and can’t FURTHER endanger our troops who shouldn’t have been sent there in the first place. Senator Obama is NOT going to act alone, act in CONTRA to the military planners, or against world opinion, or humanity and international law AS BUSH INC did from day one. He has all the military heroes/brains, all the Senators and House members who have served on military and appropriation committees on his side; ie Chuck Hagel, Senator Kennedy, Kerry, Jim Webb et al….Dr. Robert Bowman who was Reagan’s chief of Star Wars and flew over 100 sorties in Vietnam as a USAF Col, etc etc ad infinitum. Anti-war people aren’t for imbecilic unlawful, unthoughtful, unstrategic, inhuman, mass murdering recklessness. We’ve seen enough of that in the last 7 years—and predicted it in 2002 when most people were waving their #1 GO USA foam finger.

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 2:58 pm

e-mail alert

I read this morning that the Iraqis are trying to see when we will leave—they say, OK, the violence is down, time to go. But the admin is trying to lock in 50 bases the incoming president will have to deal with. I am not sure what the above means—you say the senator will not act alone if he’s elected—are you saying now the UN will take over? Are these “heroes/brains” going to have all the answers? I wonder. I don’t think either of us know. I do know once a president becomes privy to “classified” info, they often change their tune. Bush’s problem was he made UP the classified info. But even if that isn’t done again, I wonder if this is going to be so easy.

By Star Lawrence on 06/08/2008 3:09 pm

e-mail alert

It’s isn’t going to be easy, but it is going to be right. Nancy Peolosi et al have had all the info they need to act in accord with their Constitutional responsibility and impeach Bush Inc. Holding them accountable for war crimes, making up ‘intelligence’ and causing this monstrous disaster, would define the real America, ie one standing on justice, from these war profitteers. If not us, hopefully The Hague will start the trial. I am confident that Senator Obama will assemble all the brains and in conjunction with the International community resolve this 7 year blood and treasure draining nightmare. He is not going to ‘go it alone’ and he is not going to stuff a plan down the world’s throat. General Odom, for one as an outspoken critic from the start of this illegal, immoral invasion worked himself literally to death in the last 5 years speaking out, as he said he was shocked to learn the depths of corruption. There are a lot of people and organizations with much to lose when their mulit-billion dollar no bid blood money contracts dry up, ie Blackwater was created by this debacle, we have more paid mercenaries than US troops in Iraq. General Odom: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/19/odom-military-analysts/ As JFK said,” it is in your hands more than mine.” People have to want change, be responsible for becoming as informed as possible, and then take action. The world is not changed by apathy and cynicism.

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 4:48 pm

e-mail alert

have you seen him dance? not a pretty picture

By Buh- Bye on 06/08/2008 3:12 pm

e-mail alert

Of course, the irony here is that anyone in Congress in 2002 was being fed a bunch of lies by the Bush administration. So in the sense that Clinton lost because of her Iraq vote, one can draw a clear line to the lies of the Bush administration. See http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm I know that these daily briefings were essentially boiling Congress into one giant paranoid soup, because someone I knew received similar briefings. Anyone who is angry that Hillary lost may want to direct their energy to making sure that Bush and his ilk are barred from power for the rest of our lives. I knew the war in Iraq was a mistake. Like Star who told her dog that the day it was voted on, many of us mumbled to our dogs or cats, even marched in the streets. It was a different matter for people in Congress who were being fed such believable lies that only those who had been there a very long time were able to resisit [Byrd, Kennedy, etc.]. So Bush beat Clinton. In truth, that is what happened.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 06/08/2008 3:20 pm

e-mail alert

Elizabeth-“So Bush beat Clinton. In truth, that is what happened.” Sorry Elizabeth…that’s just not true. HRC had all the same information we all did, she heard Byrd’s floor speech, mroal courage is doing what is right, not what is politically expedient. HRC beat HRC with the vote; then with her refusal to take responsibilty for the vote, then for her saber rattling on Iran. It was her election to lose and the 15M+ member sites like Huffington post, created in 2004, are in effect a constant, building anti war virtual march that she dismissed. And then when she finally saw made a last minute effort to undo….ie running to the Daily Kos convention, spending $ on blog advertising that Obama did from the start because he rcognized where the anti war contingent was. If she could listen to all the heads of world religions, the long list of heads of state, the UN, the Pope, the 80M+ global marchers on Feb 15 2003, etc etc etc and still vote yes stating “I trust this president” she deserved to lose. and now she is hedging her bets again with the “suspending” of her campaign. When in political primaries has that happened? “Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge himself — on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.” Robert F. Kennedy

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 5:02 pm

e-mail alert

The Senate was being briefed erroneously, lied to, misled, call it what you will, but in a totally paranoid fashion about the dangers presented by Saddam. Obama had the advantage of not being in the Senate in 2002 in forming his opinion. I shared his opinion at the time and support him now. But it is ironic that Bush’s lies did lead directly to Clinton’s defeat. It is not just the information she lacked, it is the information she and other Senators had, which the rest of us did not, combined with Bush actively withholding from the Senate the contents of his intelligence briefings. Those briefings plainly stated that Saddam’s only connection with Al Qaeda was in trying to find them and arrest them. Had the Senate known this, there might have been no war. Had the Senate known this, Clinton would be the nominee. Just calling it as I see it.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 06/08/2008 5:31 pm

e-mail alert

Unless you can tell me who that candidate is, Not this New Yorker. But I have a personal question for you. Do you do this blogging full time? I have never seen anyone take up space and pages the way you do only to say the same thing over and over again. And, your thoughts are never your own—always Huffington and the rest. Now, where is the Mugsy Cabal meeting? I’m bringing a bottle of wine and a cake with a Frenchie/Renata post written on the top so we can cut into it. On second thought, if the baker charges by the letter, I will need Obama to pay it off.

By Brooklyn Gal on 06/08/2008 12:56 pm

e-mail alert

Yes my guess is that The Clucking Hens can really use all of that non-nutrient alcohol and sugar and sitting around on their behinds stuffing their faces and being self-congratulatory and ROTFLMAO when they are doing their victim cry. Yes, what a joke. The Democrats will have to pay for HRC’s financial irresponsibility when they need the $$$ to win.

By To the beach ~~~ on 06/08/2008 1:59 pm