Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

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

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

Joan Ganz Cooney

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

Linda Mason
Marjorie — McCain/Palin 08 — is that their combined I.Q.’s?? Go Cubs!!
By Linda Mason on 09/19/2008 6:44 pm
Buh- Bye
Marjorie, I believe it was Indiana they were suggesting might be in play. What’s this stuff about Trump? Did I miss something? Interestingly enough I was looking at the website that delineates political contributions earlier in the week and noticed that Trump covers all his bases by giving donations to candidates in both parties. Rush Limbaugh however, doesn’t part with one red cent.
By Buh- Bye on 09/20/2008 3:39 pm
Agyness O
Joan, You are spot on and all minds who think know this or would if they tumbled it over a time ot two.
By Agyness O on 09/16/2008 2:25 pm
Dorothy S
Yesterday was at a bus drop-off point of commuters coming home from NYC. We are League of Women Voters trying to offer an easy way to register to vote by taking a moment and completing the form. Heard comments “:was Hillary supporter but now voting for McCain”. As LWR I do not offer my opinion…….but….now here on this site,I can ask…. were not the platforms and vision almost identical for Sen Clinton and Sen Obama? Therefore it has to be personality…………or some “other” difference. I do think Ex-President Bill Clinton was just too large of a hurdle for the Obama Campaign. Issues need to be discussed, not personalities.
By Dorothy S on 09/16/2008 2:26 pm
Chrome Toe
Great post Joan… I love “inside” information. That makes total sense to me. In truth there were a lot of things wrong with Hillary as VP. and most of them fell under the heading of “Bill”. Some of you will be interested to know that my very conservative sister in law sent me an ANTI-PALIN e mail today?! It was being passed around a group of republican women who don’t think she’s fit to be in the VP position! Crazy… although when I sent her an e mail back saying she was “preaching to the choir” she sent one back saying that she knew that but that Palin didn’t “scare her like Obama does”. So… one tiny step forward…
By Chrome Toe on 09/16/2008 2:33 pm
kenju kenju
I am so glad he didn’t pick her, as I couldn’t stand 4 more years of Bill - and I know he would be in the news more than she or Barack.
By kenju kenju on 09/16/2008 2:40 pm
Deni G
I have no problem with the idea of 4 more years of the kind jobs and prosperity we enjoyed under President Clinton. But we will never have that under McCain. This election is about Obama and our future, not about the past, not about endless carrying on about the Clintons and definitely not about McCain. We have had enough of the Bush/McCain policies. They have destroyed all the prosperity that we enjoyed during President Clinton. Enough! Love the rock pic!
By Deni G on 09/16/2008 4:12 pm
Barbara Taylor
We had prosperity because of the Internet boom.
By Barbara Taylor on 09/16/2008 5:17 pm
Deni G
During Clinton/Gore our country went from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses. We went from a triple dip recession during the previous 12 years, to a tripling of the stock market. During Clinton/Gore Instead of high unemployment, we had the lowest African-American and lowest Latino unemployment rates ever in history, and 22 million new jobs. Bush (that genius) believed in 2000 that you do: “Bush flatly rejected the contention from Clinton and Gore that their economic policies, particularly the 1993 deficit-reduction package that passed Congress solely on Democratic votes, had contributed to the nation’s boom times.” and he and the Republicans changed those Democratic policies. And look exactly where we are. Failure at every level of Republican policies. Complete and utter Failure to run the country.
By Deni G on 09/16/2008 5:52 pm
Lucinda Herbert
Deni, There are cycles. The economic boom that took place during Clinton’s tenure began before he took office and the economic downturn had already begun before he departed. Greenspan, who is a Republican, is generally credited for having managed the economy during that period. Take a closer look. You may find this article to be very revealing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm
By Lucinda Herbert on 09/16/2008 9:13 pm
DeBúrca obj
Funny how the cycles always seem to be at a low when the conservatives get in and try their hand at barnyard economics or “trickle down unemployment” those pesky cycles.
By DeBúrca obj on 09/16/2008 9:27 pm
Lucinda Herbert
I think there are those who would say that Carter ruined the economy and Reagan saved it … and laid the groundwork for Clinton
By Lucinda Herbert on 09/16/2008 9:40 pm
DeBúrca obj
Not true, the economy was already on a downward spiral when Carter got it. Reagonomics was the beginning of the end of the Middle Class.
By DeBúrca obj on 09/16/2008 9:55 pm
Buh- Bye
DeBurca we agree on something. Hurrah!
By Buh- Bye on 09/16/2008 9:40 pm
Deni G
Cycles? Regan and Bush Sr. both left huge deficits. Both had Greenspan and yet amazingly their econmics failed. It was Clinton and the Democratic congress who passed an econmic package that changed the economy. You can spin that way you like. But this mess we are in is once again the making of the Republican Big Business Economics. No Greenspan is not ‘generally credited’. In fact that article says Mr Greenspan backed President Clinton’s policy. It does say many people credited Greenspan. It didn’t say most. The Republicans blame everyone but themselves and when the facts show that the country does better under Democrats, they say, ‘oh it’s just cycles’ ; ‘oh it’s all in your head’ ; oh give us one more chance, we won’t screw you this time…really.’ Yes the great Clinton Democratic cycle and the Devastating Bush Republican cycle. Republicans need to grow a spine and take responsibility, instead of rearranging the facts or in John McCain’s case, throwing his honor in the crapper, so he can have his chance at wearing the crown and screwing the country. One of my most favorite people in the world is named Lucinda!
By Deni G on 09/16/2008 9:58 pm