http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=JMS2008060501

Yes,

“To throw someone under the bus” is defined as meaning “to sacrifice; to treat as a scapegoat; to betray,” but I think the key to the phrase really lies in the element of utter betrayal, the sudden, brutal sacrifice of a stalwart and loyal teammate for a temporary and often minor advantage. There is no retirement dinner, no gold watch, for poor schmuck “thrown under the bus.” On the contrary, the scapegoat’s name is liable to disappear from the website overnight.

Just because they competed for the prize does not elimiate the fact they are both on team democrat.

1. Freedom Rebel Says:

“The Obama camp, though anxious to pull the party together after a bitterly fought contest with Clinton, is hostile to the idea of having her on a joint ticket.”

He needs her to win this comfortably if at all so he better do something to make her happy. A week win will make him a week pres if he can get it.

I understand your point, but I think one of the reasons he formed the three person community to pick potential VP’s is to take the heat off of him for the moment. Also, to give everyone a chance to calm their emotions down.

It is a great idea for Caroline Kennedy, Jim Johnson and Eric Holder to come up with the names for potential candidates. I think she would be better served in a cabinet position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. Since Hillary’s strong suit is Health care reform. Maybe, that is what he would like to propose to her, we will all have to wait and see.

Freedom Rebel Says:
Study secretly tracks cell phone users outside US

The thing I found interesting is that the U.S. Office of Naval Research partly funded this.

And the fact they did it outside the US, so that it wasn’t illegal, is the part that scared me the most. They both tie together someway.

Great posts, as usual. ;o)

I grew up in Northern MN cutting wood each Fall for the Winter. I’m very good with a chainsaw, so W better keep his distance!

Kit, Kit, Kit. Do ye think they’d betray you? Those stalwart leaders who are so highly principled?
Jeebutz.

Yeah, but part of that package includes having to clear brush with Dubya.

Considering he wants Change and is willing to talk to anyone even enemies of the state to achieve that, if he does not give HRC something worth while he will be looked upon as the biggest hypocrite alive. Leaving the HRC dems out of the process because he tosses her under the buss and out of the loop will not go over well. If that does happen and HRC sits back during this election as a result he will be in bad shape going it alone.

He needs her to win this comfortably if at all so he better do something to make her happy. A week win will make him a week pres if he can get it.
_________________________________________

First, I doubt he will be looked at as a hypocrite for not giving Clinton the sun, moon, and the stars. Hillary Clinton is not the same as Iran or North Korea — unless she decides to act as a threat to Obama’s campaign, and I think she knows better. And even if she was, Obama would work with her rather than risk conflagration — just as he would with a hostile country.

Clinton has earned a significant profile at the Democratic convention (similar to what Ted Kennedy got in 1980, Reagan got in 1976, and even Pat Buchanan got in 1992). She has earned the right for her issues to be strongly considered for the party platform. He doesn’t owe her the veep slot, a cabinet position, or anything else. (He may offer her a cabinet position or some other exec branch position that would permit her to work on her pet issues he supports, but she may prefer to stay in her role as a Senator.)

Second, I trust Obama to do what is necessary not only for party unity, but for country unity. He will meet with Hillary, and I’m sure they can work out a deal they can both live with.

Third, I don’t see Obama “throwing Hillary under the bus” since there is no bus to throw her under (um… you DO know what that phrase means?).

And last, I disagree with your point about a weak win making for a weak president. Both of Dubya’s victories were absolute squeakers, but this didn’t stop him and his merry band from amassing power the likes of which our country has rarely seen. In fact, MOST recent presidential elections have been decided with a margin of less than 10% in the popular vote. You have to go all the way back to 1984 (almost a quarter of a century ago) to find a presidential election (Reagan vs. Mondale) where the winner was decided by a landslide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iran_kurds;_ylt=AsHKnXBD1dOH7hr.Tf27Hzy9IxIF

Can someone please explain to me where these airstrikes fall on bush’s binary “for us or against us” scale?