Hillary was NEVER vetted for VP spot

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

From the Politico  August 22, 2008 11:51 AM EST
 

There’s one Democrat who would seem to have little or no chance of being picked by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to be his running mate – his former opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

But it’s not for the reason you think.

Obama has often said, most recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 27, that Clinton “would be on anybody’s short list.”

But apparently not his.

“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?”

The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.

And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.

The Clintons also were not asked about donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library.

“This would be the biggest leap of faith ever,” the official said. “She’s waiting for the text message like everyone else.”


OUCH
 

[YRABNNRM]

Great news.

[skoods]

Yes, because having been in the limelight for 20 years means she's been pretty well-vetted already.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, because having been in the limelight for 20 years means she's been pretty well-vetted already.

"pretty-well" you're right........but it's not the anal exam the VP search committee puts the potential veeps through.

[Reaganfan]

Good. This will help tick off angry Clinton voters more!

[Erc]

To be fair, though, do you really need to vet Clinton, though?

The concern for vetting is to make sure that whatever Democratic congressman in some safe seat who hasn't been under much scrutiny, ever, doesn't have some sort of scandal that will come out in a month or two after investigation by the national media.

Hillary's been under intense scrutiny by the national media since 1992.

Not that 'vetting' was routine practice back then (I think), but imagine a similar article coming out in 1980 saying that President Ford had not been "vetted" by the Reagan campaign and thus he was completely out of consideration for the VP slot...

That said, there are plenty of other indications that it won't be Hillary, but the simple fact that she hasn't been officially "vetted" does not eliminate her outright (unlike any other reasonable candidate [excepting, possibly, Al Gore or John Kerry]).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

To be fair, though, do you really need to vet Clinton, though?

Well what about Biden?........hell he's run for President.  Same with Richardson.

Neh, everyone goes through SOME process.........no matter how little.  And the post-presidential times of BC need vetted.

[cp]

This isn't news. This forum spent 4 months arguing that Clinton would never play second fiddle to Obama

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Her speech at the Convention will be quite telling.  She's not the world's best actress.  If she's pissed you'll know.

[cp]

She can put on a poker face pretty well, it's her voice that's the tell. She's tone deaf and can't manipulate her voice to cover emotion very well

[MODU]

They should have at least did a token maneuver and "lightly vetted" here just to keep some of her ardent supporters happy.  Not that it will, but it might just keep them from supporting Obama on election day.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, because having been in the limelight for 20 years means she's been pretty well-vetted already.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, because having been in the limelight for 20 years means she's been pretty well-vetted already.

Dave, it's not a Hillary problem.........it's Bill's actions since 2000 that need vetted. 

[J. J.]

To be fair, though, do you really need to vet Clinton, though?

Well what about Biden?........hell he's run for President.  Same with Richardson.

Neh, everyone goes through SOME process.........no matter how little.  And the post-presidential times of BC need vetted.

They were both early dropouts that ran poorly and were the subject of press scrutiny at the same level.

Still, Obama is Moses; he just parted the Democratic Party.  A sizable minority of it will not vote for him.

[cp]

There's a good lot of Republicans who aren't going to vote for McCain, you know. They're not making as much noise because they don't have anyone around whom to rally, but they're there. You just have to look at the number of undecideds in polling from the South and Midwest to see how drudgingly McCain's allegiance is.

[ucscgaldamez]

I'm really upset over this.  At this point, I don't really care if Obama loses.