Joan Ganz Cooney | 09/16/2008 2:00 pm

Joan Ganz Cooney on the Real Reason Obama Didn't Choose Hillary

I’ve been reading a lot of complaints that Obama did not choose Hillary as his vice president. And I have been moaning about it for days. I spoke yesterday with someone who knows a lot about it all who told me that Hillary was high on the list but the vettters couldn’t get past Bill’s very complicated philanthropy and business life because the two were so closely tied together. It was almost impossible to know where business stopped and philanthropy began. And of course a lot of foreign governments had donated to his library and other entities with which he was involved which would have become another story.

What they faced when considering her was that the press (it was rumored and was probably so that the Times had five reporters ready to go) would have a field day investigating Bill’s very complicated financial history. And what they became certain of was that Bill would become the story day after day and week after week and that they would never be able to get back on message. This all rings true, so I think those of us who support Obama should try to be happy with Joe Biden.

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

Maybe political science 101 or introduction to psychology would help you understand why Obama did not pick Hillary as his running mate.

By Eve R. on 09/18/2008 8:36 pm

e-mail alert

I feel certain the main reason Hillary was not chosen was very simply She didn’t want to be VP and made her feelings very clear to those making up the VP list. Nothing at all about her being a Victim. The phony Hillary followers are choosing to believe this garbage so they can vote for McCain. If they vote for McCain…………..they never believed in anything Hillary wanted for our Country in the first place………… They just wanted a Woman President………….. It seems it didn’t matter at all whether the woman is QUAILIFIED or not. Obviously since they like Palin………….. I wanted Hillary Clinton to be Our First Woman President Not just because she was a woman, but because I thought she was best quailified. She didn’t win the primary…………so now I’m voting for the Next best, OBAMA…………… He’s the Best NOW………………….

By Dona Howlett on 09/21/2008 1:25 am

e-mail alert

My Alias: I don’t agree that the Obama campaign “victimized” Senator Clinton. I do, however, believe that the Democratic National Committee in the leadership of Howard Dean did. The Palinites cry sexism at every turn now, but let’s face it, the bottom line (to me) with regard to Senator Clinton is and was s-e-x-i-s-m on the part of the Big Boy Dems. As to whether or not Senator Obama was in on the discussions, we’ll never know. I, for one, donated tons (for me) of $$ to Senator Clinton’s campaign feeling all along squeamish about President Clinton’s shenanigans and their collective troubles with Whitewater, the Vince Foster murder/suicide(?) and all that. The Repubs would have had so much ammunition to shoot down Senator Clinton’s run that it would have sunk the whole effort. In the end, I believe that history has taken hold of this election and it is time for an African-American of Senator Obama’s credentials to step in. If experience is the issue for some: take a look at Ws record. We have a saying in the south about a father with two sons: the smart one takes over the family business and the dumb one runs for political office. This proves that, truly, anyone can be in a position of high elected office. Bumbling Bushie has got us into these shark-infested waters. As Harry Truman said (and Ronald Reagan used his sign at his presidential desk): The Buck Stops Here.

By Bonita Caracciolo on 09/20/2008 10:41 am

e-mail alert

Respect your views, Bonnie. Mine differ. Simply stated: corrupt election = corrupt administration. The Bush presidency is clear proof of such. Same will fare if Obama is elected. Corruption does not evaporate once the culprits take office. Quite the opposite. I do agree however that Howard Dean and his merry men have some serious accounting to do for themselves. Of course, just like the fleecing of the market, it will all eventually correct itself, or fall like a house of cards. Maybe a third party will finally become a reality.

By Buh- Bye on 09/20/2008 3:26 pm

e-mail alert

My Alias: okay, so we have slightly differing viewpoints on what you call the “victimization” of HRC. Did I say it too? Eek. At any rate, I think you can only be a victim if you accept that role. I don’t think she did. I think she’s handled herself with dignity. I am not as cynical as you are, although, Lord knows I have my doubts. It’s way too late in the game (or too early?) to be talking about a third party, for godsake! We’re at the eleventh hour in this particular election. Yes, there are some third party candidates but there is just no real, credible, supported third party yet! Until one really coalesces and gets membership of large, large numbers they will not be able to compete and they always seem to draw important votes from the two sickening existing parties because the votes are so close AND our nation is so divided! Phew! That could be in the William Faulkner longest sentence without punctuation contest. Anyway, you get my drift. And, ultimately, I think we share many of the same views. E Pluribus Unum

By Bonita Caracciolo on 09/20/2008 3:53 pm

e-mail alert

Horseshit! Aliaas

By Frank Peterson on 09/16/2008 10:11 pm

Hi My Alias! I want to thank you for being so gracious about the way I have weighed in on other posts about your vote. I meant to do so elsewhere, but I have commented on so many posts, and the comments get so long, that I lost my place. Anyway, thanks. But as you know, there is always a lot that goes on behind the scenes, and there is a whole conflict swamp that could have been very treacherous for HRC, due to the fact that Bill often lobbied for foreign governments on one side of an issue (e.g., Columbia’s special trade status) and Hillary took the opposite position in the Senate and/or in her campaign. This allowed the Clintons to take $, through Bill’s lobbying fees, on one side of an issue, while HRC obstensibly took the opposite issue in the public eye for policitical advantage. This was a key reason why I could not vote for HRC — not to sugar-coat it, it is highly unethical conduct and left HRC extremely vulnerable to attack from the GOP. Again, her Dem. opponents did not raise this issue against her so that they could support her had she won the nomination. But Obama knew that she was—and is—vulnerable to very viable charges of taking $ from foreign governments (through Bill) while appearing to “talk tough” against the very policies Bill was on Capital Hill arguing in favor of.

By Linda Mason on 09/16/2008 10:54 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Linda, I don’t think the voting public care about that stuff, nor Travel-gate, nor Whitewater, nor endless investigations about obscure money dealings, which everyone knows is politically motivated. They don’t care about Troopergate either. They simply can’t follow the endless minutiae of gotcha politics. The voting public are talking about hidden Muslim identities (yes there are, because I keep hearing it from people), abortion, price of gas, healthcare, guns, the war-in terms of the cost to them personally, jokes about hockey moms & pitbulls with lipstick, etc. The only people who care about these investigations are the insiders, the media and the political junkies. It is disingenuous of the Obama camp to try to make up this lame explanation about why Hillary wasn’t chosen. No one’s gonna buy it. Because it is b.s. I was watching some of his campaigning sound bites today and truly his campaign is starting to look petty. Obama is off the rails, and his attacks make him look pathetic. All these clips of him saying “He said this” and “He said that”…. I dunno… seems a little junior high. That’s always been my problem with his campaign, from the get-go. It’s sophomoric. At the moment Obama is preaching to the choir. He won’t get his edge back this way, but he is alienating many people. He’s starting to look a little *itchy, if you know what I mean. He has to stop the Mean Girls tactics. It doesn’t match up with the Hope and Change throughline.

By Buh- Bye on 09/17/2008 12:00 am

e-mail alert

My Alias — I, too, get discouraged by the low standards of many voters, but I don’t agree that nobody cares about allegations of questionable behavior. A lot of people do care about such issues. And we all have to make a choice — just because others are going to vote based upon personalities (“gee, Palin’s got spunk!), we don’t have to go along with them. Hope I haven’t misconstrued what you said. Go Cubs!

By Linda Mason on 09/17/2008 7:10 pm

e-mail alert

Linda, in the last election cycle I was appalled, APPALLED at what appeared to be voters voting against their own interests by giving us Cheney/Bush the sequel. Numbskulls, I thought. This time round, I am being lumped into that category. Yes, I am voting against many of my own interests, healthcare reform, a biggie to me and more. But I do not trust the Democratic candidate to bring anything but corruption to the system based on his campaign tactics and inexperience. So, I am putting my hopes in the old salt, McCain, a crusty old fart with integrity, stamina, true grit and experience. It doesn’t hurt that he was savvy enough to bring some estrogen aboard his ship. Apparently Obama is set on keeping the little sweeties in their place.

By Buh- Bye on 09/17/2008 9:45 pm

e-mail alert

Mother Jones McCain has 83 Wall Street Lobbyists Working for His Campaign That is the simple truth of who McCain works for. He is a good old boy, working for the good old boys. It is as simple as that.

By Deni G on 09/17/2008 11:30 pm

e-mail alert

My,”A crusty old fart with integrity,stamina,true grit and experience,and who brings some estrogen aboard his ship”! I go for that! Sounds to me like a good old “Madeleine” ! lol As far as healthcare reform,the cost would be so tremendous that it is a dream! (remember Hillary’s) and who wants all those bureaucrats between you and your doctor?

By sibelle daubigne on 09/18/2008 7:29 am

e-mail alert

Sibelle, the reality is this: there are 2nd and 3rd world countries that have managed to provide decent health care to their citizens without stripping them of their funds. Spain is an example I can use because I have been there, done that. There is absolutely NO excuse for this country, the wealthiest and purportedly most advanced medically to not be able to prodive basic health care to all its citizens. If we constantly refuse to work on tough issues and swirl around in the PROBLEMS instead of coming up with solutions, we will get nowhere fast. I, for one, am glad to see regulation becoming part of the conversation now that you and I have bailed out all these behemoth financial institutions…time to sink our teeth into Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Together, we can make the difference. Honestly, with Senator McCain we will get the same old wine in a brand new bottle. As far as bureacrats between me and my doctor? They are already there in the form of Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The bureacrats come i all guises.

By Bonita Caracciolo on 09/20/2008 10:30 am

e-mail alert

I’m for socialized healthcare Bonita.

By Buh- Bye on 10/05/2008 10:21 pm

e-mail alert

Hi My Alias! True Grit !! I love that reference! Where’s Rooster Cogburn when we need him!!!! Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, though not on the description of McShame as a crusty old fart. I don’t think estrogen is all the same, however. You know, with the creation of synthetic estrogen, a man can become, legally and “hormonally,” a woman. What would you do in that case — if McCain named a trassexual as his running mate? Go Cubs!!

By Linda Mason on 09/19/2008 6:34 pm