I watched Larry King for awhile tonight - 90 minutes is about all I could stomach. He hosted various guests - representatives from all the candidates, including some of the usual suspects (Huffington, for example). I was most interested in the continued oppositional quality of the discussion, and the continued hostility towards Hillary; most (not all) of the Obama supporters (and a very vocal Arianna Huffington) accusing her of a graceless non-acknowledgment of Obama's victory. Obama surrogates expressed open resentment of her attempts to "strong-arm" her way into the VP slot.

Quite interesting was one of the McCain supporters, who seemed of all parties, most invested in portraying Hillary as a graceless loser, and someone undeserving of consideration as the VP candidate.

What I take away is this:

Obama, for all the grace he demonstrated in his victory speech, is using third parties to do his dirty work. Just like every other politician these days. Politics as usual at work.

Confirmation, in the form of Hillary's public announcement that she's interested, that she's really been campaigning for VP over the course of the past month or so.

Confirmation, in the form of his surrogates' statements, that Obama would prefer he not share the ticket with Hillary.

Confirmation, in the form of a vocal McCain supporter, that McCain would much prefer Hillary and Obama not share the ticket (there's method to her attempts to exacerbate the division between them).

Confirmation, in the form of contrasting election and poll results, that the McCain/Obama race is very, very close indeed.

Confirmation, in the form of a non-concession and continued defiance, that Hillary is, indeed, still attempting to campaign her way into the VP slot.

So, this is where it comes down, for Obama. Obama has campaigned as a great conciliator - someone who can unite the party, and then the country, and abandon old-style politics. Obama, who purports to put the welfare of his party, and the country, above personal and political considerations. Obama, who could all but guarantee victory in the general election by making one, decisive move to unify the Democratic party - even though it will offend certain party leaders who've been instrumental supporters to this point.

Here is the litmus test for Obama's integrity. Will he appoint Hillary as VP, or will he reveal himself as in the end, not such a unique political figure after all?

She won the popular vote. She narrowly lost the delegate count. She appeals to voting constituencies Obama does not. She's the VP candidate McCain and his supporters most fear.

I will vote for Obama regardless of who he chooses. But as Hillary could tell him now (as could Gore and Kerry), it matters little enough how close you come, if you can't propel yourself over the hurdle. If we've learned naught else, it should be to never underestimate the Republican party, regardless of the seeming weakness of their candidate (and McCain is not weak).

It's going to take some time, if I'm ever to lost the bitter taste in my mouth left by Arianna Huffington, various Slate contributors, Howard Dean, and members of the supposedly liberal media. Seeing some rational pressure exerted on the Obama campaign now (instead of ridiculing Hillary for engaging in the only tactic that might win her the VP spot she's been campaigning for) would make good mouthwash.

But it's really all up to Obama now. This is the moment we've been waiting for.

I hope he makes the best, most rational decision and unifies this party in the face of what otherwise looks to be a difficult run for the white house.

suspected about him all along. He has the words, he has the presence and he has the ambition...but he is a ruthless cut throat...and maybe Hillary is too....it's just that OBEE is a little better at it.

On the flip side...I'd really love to seem him deliver on his promises...that will be some tall order me boy, a really tall order.

That Barak Obama is a [-gasp!] politician after all?

Uhm, glad to have enlightened you. I guess.

Personally, I'm somewhat relieved at (further) evidence that Obama is a politician. The Democrats managed to get one honest, idealistic, non-politician type elected awhile back. Remember Jimmy Carter?

I just hope he's a good politician.

He has a golden opportunity to prove it right now.

What Obama has been given is the stage...soon he will also be handed a script. Mark my words. He will either play ball or he will be out..or....OR he will defy the norm, rise above the expectations that he as dragged into office like ankle irons and face down the century old passge of power to become the very first real leader in some 70 years, FDR being the last one...hmmm maybe that's a little unfair to JFK but he didnt make it all the way and was more of a stage hand and less of a legislator.

Seriously, FB. Obama wins a historic nomination, and Hillary refuses to concede. She lets it be known that she'd be interested in the VP slot. WTF? There is a time and place for everything - now is not the time to decide the VP slot, certainly not the way she did it - and yes, it did appear that she was strong-arming her way onto the ticket - while still not acknowledging his victory. It was completely graceless of her. Obama did not steal the nomination away from Hillary, but damn, it sure seemed to me that Hillary was attempting to steal his thunder.

Just as this nomination would have been equally historic had Hillary won it, last night Obama deserved his moment in the sun. He deserved to celebrate, to savor this moment for being the first black candidate to ever win a major party nomination for President. Hillary could've been so much more graceful. Yet she still refuses to concede. This is the person you want negotiating for us, with other world leaders? Or are we still crediting her refusal to face reality, her refusal to admit what is staring her right in the face - with tenacity? I don't think so. It looks more to me like obstinate stubborness and bitter resentment.

Obama's supporters are confused and rightfully angry with her. Hell, Hillary's supporters are confused too. This can't be attributed to sexism or a case of villifying Hillary. No one is doing Obama's "dirty work" for him - it's a natural and normal reaction to her non-reaction - and to me, only a continuing sign of her lack of integrity.

I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you’re trying to be a hack, not an idiot. Why anyone would try that in an inconsequential outlet for anonymous opinion is mysterious, so brain damage must remain a lurking possibility.

People realize politicians often resort to ventriloquism, but people also understand that supporters at large cannot be kept from speaking in a million voices, so alleging an orchestration carries some onus of argument. If I am to count Ariana Huffington (or whoever) as Obama’s sock puppet, I should also consider that obsessive crypto-racist justoffal just upthread as yours. Or, with way more justification, consider Terry McAuliffe’s embarrassing buffoonery as synonymous with Hillary’s own conduct. Anyway, it’s typical of the ceaseless wonder that is American politics that people keep attacking each for the express reason of attacking each other, without the slightest whiff of irony.

And isn’t it funny that you approve Hillary’s persistence as strategic positioning for VP (politics as usual), while loftily asking Obama to show “integrity” and cease being a mere politician (and immediately proceed to claim that it’s in his political interest to rise above politics!)? I know you’ve framed it as a test of consistency (with wild leaps of illogic and incoherence), but it amounts to adopting the low standard of exploiting an opponent’s high standard for political gain. Surely the person wielding the most influence over Hillary supporters is Hillary herself, so whatever the effect of any gesture coming from him, it cannot beat an unconditional plea from Hillary. You sound like a man haranguing his neighbors to avoid getting bitten by his dog.

And if I may suggest a better way of playing a hack: stop using dubious talking points hacks typically use (“won the popular vote” etc.)

I have come to despise the term. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but the overall effect of any supposed political "litmus test" is to condense the complexity and evolution of a person's experience and actions into an unrevealing snapshot of one particular decision-making instant. Choosing Supreme Court justices solely on the basis of an abortion-related litmus test ignores the fact that this could result in some justices with terrible judgment on matters of equal opportunity, workplace harassment, or any number of other areas.

So it is with this false litmus test. The idea that Clinton as VP is the only way Obama can unite the party is either the bluff of a desperate player holding no cards, or the childish pique of one who cannot swallow defeat. Clinton as VP would certainly help him in certain areas, but it is an open question whether that assistance would outweigh the effect of her high negative-opinion ratings and the carnival of distractions that seems to follow her and her husband around like a pack of hungry dogs. The decision on that - on the relative importance of these things - lies with the candidate who wins the nomination. If he feels that someone else can better fill the needs of the ticket, it is his prerogative to choose that person. And he or his supporters would be right to be irritated with Clinton for trying to manipulate him into choosing her; what exactly is the justification for allowing electoral strategy to be dictated by the wishes of a candidate whose previous strategies successfully changed her own status from prohibitive favorite to runner-up in a year? It is the expression of a sense of entitlement to office that has rankled many among us for a long time.

As for party unity, there are other paths to that goal if adults act like same. Obama already went some distance in his speech last night toward acknowledging how much he respects Clinton's assets and skills, and I don't see any rational reason why he couldn't build on that by establishing clearly and publicly that she will occupy some position of top importance in his administration - perhaps as secretary of State or Defense, perhaps in a role that would give her another swing at health-care reform. Mature Clinton supporters would recognize this as a gesture of respect and recognition, while also understanding that complicated political calculations make her anything but an automatic choice for VP. Clinton boosters who respond with "VP or nothing," who threaten to support an ideologically distant opponent by staying home or voting Republican, would reveal themselves as Democrats in only the most tenuous sense of the word.

i got the following from your rambling post:

• obama is even tricker/nastier than hillary, and is a sore winner
• hillary is right that a vast right wing conspiracy is out to get her - even to the point of screwing up her chances to be obama's veep.

um . . . do you ever consider that you might be a sore loser, rather than obama a sore winner?

and that hillary's (and the democrats') electoral difficulties are of their own making, rather than the result of the party that is in the minority in both houses of congress, and has the most reviled republican president since lincoln?

just a thought. you might want to ponder this

Thanks for making the points on ventriloquism and on the popular-vote smokescreen. I had wanted to hit those, but they were beside my (overlong) main point, so I was glad to see someone voice them.

means nothing to the Democratic Party why should it mean anything to a verbose meat sack?

FB raises some logical and I think worthy talking points but then again this is an anonymous forum where Ted Bundy's Ghost could garner some measure of respect.

As for you my dear loquatious high priest of Academia...I say pufi!...Stuff...nonesense and talk to the hand!

At first I thought her speech was fine until I thought about it some more and then listened to Obama give her all the credit in the world. Then I realized yet again why I am not a Hillary supporter and why she lost an election that was hers for the taking.

This has always been about her. Obama will offer her something, perhaps the VP slot but he owes her nothing only an audience. Some of you anti-Obama folks think he was naive and inexperienced. I think he knows exactly what he is doing and so does his staff.

The both of you are spot on. His top post was childish and wrong, dead wrong.

gregor:

The same tactics you chastise Fielding in using, you pull out and use on him. I am pretty confident the battle could have been won in a much more civilized manner without referring to brain damage or idiot. He was not attacking you or accusing you of something. And you are right, I do wonder why people keep attacking each other over opinions.

I am not so sure if upon losing an already losing battle and watching the means to succeed slowly evaporate, I would have been gracious enough to concede either muchless remain in utter silence. The magnitude of the moment, when all is said and done, certainly gives Obama his moment to shine and Clinton's moment to speculate on what could and should have been done. He needs no promenade in review by Clinton or anyone else right now. The battles for the nomination have been fought and the war is won. The victory is his. It is time to pull the party together and hopefully move forward.

I can speak for Michigan in that it will not be easy for Obama to pull the state together and eek out a victory. It never has been easy in the past and in particular this time it is not his fault. The DNC and our Michigan Dem leaders have been in disagreement since 2000 and still remain so. Both parties in this battle of primary dates have placed the state in jeopardy of swinging Repub in 2008. Mitt will assist McCain. Obama will take the blame for the delegation problem and the Repubs will make it clear he is at fault while the Repub's own and similar issue will be forgotten. Haven't heard much about it, have we?

It would have been good if Obama had paid as much attention to the state as Clinton did; but, he didn't until the last 30 days. While you may take Fielding to the wood shed for not being magnanimous in Clinton's loss, Fielding is the exception in intellect whereas many voters in Michigan are not. They will hold grudges no matter what is said by Clinton or Obama. We have a rough road to go down in convincing them it is not his fault and that he is the right candidate.

In Michigan, it would go much farther if Clinton was the running mate. Many see her as a negative while I see her as someone who can counter some of the negatives here in Michigan. It may be a hell on wheels relationship; but, it could work to the betterment of the Dems if we can get past the primaries. It is a time to move on to something better.

(not that your framing is necessarily wrong)

It wasn't a clean win. Oh, Obama won, but you run that process a hundred times and it's going to come up about 50/50. It was pretty close to a dead heat. For whatever passes for margin of error in the real thing, we know we're inside it (scenario: many elections this close would allow for a recount).

So is there any obligation on behalf of the winner of, essentially, a coin toss, towards the loser? What special considerations should there be, if any, when you have to round like 50.1/49.9 to 100/0? And what special (un)enlightenment do we have to have just to ask the question?

(We need Bill Maher and a new rule!)

great post! I especially agree that adults acting as adults can reach unifying compromises. Shouldn't even take much effort - being adults. There are no simply, pithy solutions here. Hard work, some swallowing of pride and/or ego and a focused goal of a Democratic win in November. I think the vast majority of the 36 million Primary Voters agree on that. IMHO.