home

Why We Need A Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Remember when Obama famously declared that he could get Clinton's voters but she could not get his? Time to rethink that proposition. The Gallup Poll has Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain (19% of Obama supporters defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.)

Too many in the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and Obama supporting blogs believe that their demonization of Hillary Clinton has had no ill effects on Barack Obama's image among the half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. They are wrong. At this point, without the active and sincere support by Hillary Clinton of his potential Presidential run against John McCain, Obama has no chance in November. And vice versa of course.

We Democrats will need unity in November. I believe a Unity Ticket is the only way to achieve this.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Who Wants A Candidate To Drop Out? 22% Say Clinton, 22% Say Obama | Negative Campaigning >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why We Need A Unity Ticket | 278 comments (278 topical)
    You may be right (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    Personally, I'll vote for Obama no matter how nasty his campaign gets, because I believe in the overriding importance of electing a Dem.  But when it comes to actually putting effort towards working for his election, my attitude is pretty much the same as Michelle Obama's when she was asked about supporting Hillary as the nominee.  You know, I'd sorta have to think about it in light of his tone, and stuff.

    I still can't reconcile the claim that Obama has this thing locked up with the reality that they continue to attack Hillary's character in every way possible.  Note how much trouble Bob Johnson had addressing my point in this thread.

    He had nothing much substantive (none / 0) (#265)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    to say and shut down to snarky, sarcastic misdirection. And it's a very good question.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    I think Obama's Achilles heel has been exposed and it's not clear to me that he'd do the ticket more good than harm.  I used to agree that a unity ticket would be overwhelming, but now I think she might be better off on her own.  With him in the lead slot, with or without her, he's sunk.

    Half & Half (none / 0) (#23)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    Half the Dems want him. Half want her. No matter what happens to his candidacy until the convention (apart from something colossal) half the Dems will want their choice of nominee to be on the ticket. Again, this ticket is unstoppable against McCain. No matter whether you lost respect for either of them, this will be the coolest Dem ticket we've ever seen.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not about my loss or respect (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    for either of them.  My feelings have been like yours for some time, but I really think, like many others here, that Wright seriously damages him.  I don't think he can win the GE now and I don't think her as his VP changes that.  With her in the lead I'm not so sure and hope you're right should we end up there.  

    [ Parent ]
    We're talking about Wright in March (none / 0) (#45)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    This horse will have already been flogged by the time November comes around. We haven't even touched McCain's can of worms yet. Just wait.

    [ Parent ]
    Good luck with that bet. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    Wright aint going no where.

    [ Parent ]
    I want in on that bet! (4.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    Who wants to play? I am taking "Wright until election day" if Obama is nominee, with more surprise tapes "surfacing" week before election.

    How do we set odds? ;)

    [ Parent ]

    There is no way that Wright will not be a (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    major factor in the last days of the campaign. They've got video, great video, and they aren't araid to use it. They only need to pull a small percentage of voters in key states away from Obama and Wight will help them do this. The attacks on Gore as a liar started early in the campaign and plagued him until the end. The attacks on Kerry as an out of touch Easter elite started early and plagued him until the end. Just because an attack comes out relativley early in the cycle doesn't mean it will be dropped by November.

    [ Parent ]
    You are right. (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    In fact, it's the BEST way for an attack to work.  Get it in the public mind early where it sits, and then remind them near voting time.  Works beautifully, and much better than when it's new.  All they need is a new video, or the slightest excuse (and they can easily make it by getting someone to say something), and harp on it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (4.66 / 3) (#160)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    And i would go further and argue that the reason the Wright videos had such an impact was because they played into a narrative that has been floating around in the conservative/media mind for awhile - that Obama isn't sufficiently American/patriotic (please note that I am not saying this is an accurate narrative, just that it was out there.)

    How did this narrative get created? The ground work was being laid last year with the "madrassa" emails, the flag pin emails and the national anthem picture (which was taken last fall as i recall).  So these tiny bits were floating around waiting for Wright to bring it all together.  Now it will float around as a unified picture just waiting for the fall to be broadcast on commercial TV.  (and it's no accident that the "national anthem" picture has become an issue again - reinforcement for Wright.)

    [ Parent ]

    This is why people see (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Skex on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    Democrats as wimps.

    The going gets a little tough and instead of standing up for our ideals we fold like chumps.

    Oooh the big mean republicans are going to attack my candidate guess I gotta give up now and run who they want me too.

    Give me a break the biggest mistake the Democratic party has been making for the last 3 Decades is to let the opposition frame the debate.

    They try to make it about Wright we make it about "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran"

    They try to make it about race we make it about class.

    McCain is vulnerable much of his base think he's the Manchurian candidate anyway add to that the fact that he's practically on his death bed and we'll be able to go hell bent on who ever he runs for for VP.

    As far as the Wright stuff goes there isn't anyone with in a hundred miles of a TV or a computer that hasn't heard this stuff. But we got 8 months for that too loose it's sting.

    Traditionally 20% of the electorate decides the election Obama will get get half that just on the African American vote add liberal younger whites and the anybody but a republican crowd and you got a wipe out.

    The Wright angle will be played out long before the november election and the only way this could go at this point is in Obama's favor.

    [ Parent ]

    Wright's got some new comments that came out (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    Now he's making comments about Italians

    Maybe we can have an ethnic slur a week from this guy.

    [ Parent ]

    Garlic noses? (5.00 / 3) (#249)
    by eric on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    Saw this post and googled it.  Here's what I found:

    "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

    "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..."

    What the heck is wrong with this guy?  Is he trying to submarine Obama?


    [ Parent ]

    I am not amused (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    But I am offended on yet again.  I don't think I have ever been thought of in so many disparaging ways at one time.  Now my nose is offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    Double counting (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    Roughly, each candidate, R and D starts with 40% - that's where your 20% independent or swing voters comes from.

    But the black vote does nothing for Obama with that 20%, because it's already in the 40% he begins with (and I'll acknowledge Clinton could lose some of that vote if she's the nominee). You don't get to count it again, because there are virtually no black swing voters in the 20%. There are a lot of Latinos in the middle though.

    Similarly, the youth vote doesn't add much to Obama pulling votes out of the middle. In fact it probably only offsets at best the votes of Latinos, whites and women Obama loses. An increase in black turnout helps him too, but not much.

    So that leaves Obama and Clinton in the same place - trying to attract more than half of the 20% that sits in the middle.


    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#263)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    I'm guessing you were not one of the Obama supporters that spent the first year of this campaign telling anyone who would listen that Clinton was too divisive to win?  Because if I had a nickle for every time I heard that ... (I'd have a couple of bucks based on Obama's statements alone.)

    It would be nice if Democrats fought this stuff - see any evidence of this happening?  Me neither.  Until it does, we need to be prepared for the reality that the media will do the RNC's job (as they always do) and try to torpedo the Democratic candidate.  So we need to be aware of and ready for possible attacks.  Saying it's gonna be a non-issue or "played out" won't cut it.

    In fact, the Democratic establishment has done an absolutely horrible job of prepping the ground for an attack on McCain.  See here for more.  And I no more expect a vigorous defense from the Big Lib pundits for Obama than they gave Gore in 2000 - ie no defense at all.

    But here's the rub for me - The Gore stuff in 2000 was largely bs.  Made up.  He never said he invented the internet.  Didn't lie about Love Canal and was perfectly accurate in his statements about Love Story.  The media twisted and turned all that and turned a stand up guy into a serial liar.  

    I am sorry to say that I can't feel as sympathetic about the Wright issue.  Even if you agree with 100% of what he said, he was clearly a political liability.  The fact that Obama didn't move on this earlier, and didn't respond as well as he should makes this a largely self-inflicted wound.  IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    But it's already headlines (none / 0) (#64)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    Unless something new comes up from it, this card has already been played.

    [ Parent ]
    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    The issue has had saturation coverage for the political geeks, like everyone on this site, but not for the mainstream voters.  Many of those people not obsessed with this stuff the way we are realize something highly controversial was said by someone associated with Obama, but they're not sure exactly who it was who said what.

    Once the Republican 527's and 501(c)4's get into the act, we'll see some witheringly nasty ads showing Wright's statements and Obama's reaction.
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    Right. (none / 0) (#234)
    by 0 politico on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    There is a whole new audience out there that wan't really tune in until after Labor Day.

    Remember, a minority of voters actually bother with primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    smear Meisters not even done with stage I yet (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    Stage I: the smear meisters are only establishing Wright as the worst person on earth this side of Osama Bin Laden.

    Stage II: They barely even begun to use the Wright  set-up as reference and evidence to assassinate Obama's character - stage II.

    Stage III: once Obama's character flaws, are established in stage II by his association with Wright lo these many years, they will then use Obama's character flaws as a filter in which to pass everything he has said / says, and did / does putting a putrid hue on everything about him.

    The Wright factoid is in its very infancy in terms of damaging Obama.
    .

    [ Parent ]

    See what I mean Chimster? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    Even purported Democrats are still all hot and excited over the Wright story.  It would be nice if it went away by November, but that assumes a level of intelligence among the electorate that is not supported by the evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    not that simple. (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    For the record I'm neither hot nor excited about this.  My opinion of Obama as a result of this issue goes only to judgment - a guy with presidential ambition should have known better.

    But to say this issue is about a dumb electorate is simplistic.  People might fairly be put off by a candidate attending a church with a pointed agenda.  I don't think it's as innocent as that either, but in the eyes of many people this matter is significant.  If you want to wave it away as the fault of general stupidity, then where do you stop?

    [ Parent ]

    It's stupid to dislike a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    based on a few things his pastor says when the candidate disavows those statements.  What do these people think?  That Obama's going to be appointing some radical to be Secretary of Defense?  

    An issue can be stupid despite the fact that many people think it is significant.  A lot of people form opinions of candidates for stupid reasons.  If that were not the case George W. Bush would not be residing in the White House at present.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like you don't know much about (none / 0) (#139)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    this matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like you don't have (none / 0) (#168)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    a substantive point.

    [ Parent ]
    x (5.00 / 1) (#287)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    Actually, if you look at exit polls, half the dems DON'T support Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    No it wouldn't (3.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Both of these candidates are extremely weak.  Neither have accomplished much of anything, one has a reputation for dishonesty and there is a festering perception that the other hangs out with Huey Newton types.  Putting them together won't help anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Beg to differ (none / 0) (#42)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    If nothing else, the marquee value and unifying perception of this ticket will propel them to the nomination. No one on Obama blogs will like this. They'll fight it. But they're wasting their time. This combo ticket will put a dem in the White House in 2008.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems like wishful thinking (none / 0) (#61)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    They don't need marquee value to propel them to the nomination.  They're the only two candidates left.  Who else would get the nomination?

    Combining two mediocre candidates into one mediocre ticket isn't going to get anywhere in the GE.  The media would love it, though:

    "Senator Obama, you previously characterized your running mate as a vicious liar who will do anything to win, why are you running on the same ticket?"

    "Senator Clinton, you spent months making the argument that Senator Obama is an empty suit with untold skeletons in his closet.  Why should the American people be comfortable with him when you aren't?"

    Not to mention that, if it's Clinton/Obama, AAs aren't going to be too keen on being told that the black guy has to step aside and let the white lady have her turn.  A dream deferred and all that.

    [ Parent ]

    Women, who are 60% of the Dems (5.00 / 7) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    are not going to be happy that once again the older, more experienced, more accomplished, harder-working woman has to step aside for the new guy.

    Pick the group you want to p*ss off more. 60% or 20%.

    Then add Hispanics to the 60%.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's support among AAs (none / 0) (#166)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    is stronger than HRC's among women.  He gets 80-90% of AAs, she gets 55-60% of women.  Neither candidate can win in November if those groups don't support them.  And neither of them will win, together or seperate.  The Democratic party continues its identity politics flameout.

    [ Parent ]
    80% of 20% (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    Is less than 55% of 60%.

    Plus Hispanics.

    Do the math.

    [ Parent ]

    please read more carefully (none / 0) (#244)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    and quit this silly tit-for-tat.  It doesn't matter who has more hard-core supporters who won't cross over.  The point is that neither of them can win if almost all supporters of the other don't cross over.  When HRC loses by 5% I'm sure you'll be comforted by the thought that Obama would have lost by 10%.

    [ Parent ]
    Now it's silly tit-for-tat (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    Why? Because I proved you were wrong to think that Clinton's presumed loss of AA votes is more than offset by Obama's loss of women's votes?

    If you make an easily rebutted statement, don't call it silly tit-for-tat when someone soundly rebuts it, then try to change the subject.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's your inability to understand (none / 0) (#284)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    basic english, apparently.  Even accepting that you "proved" your point when all you did was speculate.  I don't care if Obama or Clinton will be hurt more.  It's completely irrelevant.  The point is that neither of them will be able to win if the other's supporters are alienated.  I would have thought my 5%/10% comparison would have made that clear, but apparently numbers aren't your game either.  Do you understand that basic point now, or are you just so obsessed with proving that HRC is better than Obama that you can't see that neither of them can win against McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    "Neither candidate can win (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    in November if those groups don't support them." This is exactly why the unity ticket idea will work. Supporters get their person. You need to look way ahead. We're in primary season now. The public's memory is short. Wounds heal over time. New scandals will arive. Heck, there may be stuff that makes the Wright incident look like a walk in the park.

    A different VP would give access to a whole new vetting process. These two frontrunners are going through the vetting now. We don't need a newbie to start raking through the coals all over again.

    [ Parent ]

    But the unity ticket will not placate (none / 0) (#227)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    those people unless their candidate is at the top.  I was once as optimistic as you are but the past few months have made me cynical.  I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    But those two groups overlap (none / 0) (#232)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    which should be to her benefit.

    [ Parent ]
    Try this.. (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    "Senator Obama, you previously characterized your running mate as a vicious liar who will do anything to win, why are you running on the same ticket?"

    Here's Obama.... Clinton has stated that campaign supporters get overly passionate, I agree. Both campaigns have stumbled and we are stronger for it.  We can use the talents and energy of both campaigns to defeat the Repubs in Nov.  I have gotten to know Clinton extremely well throughout this campaign. She is experienced, she knows what this country needs, we agree on the issues and she has demonstrated she has the capacity to weather an incredibly rough campaign and media attacks.  Everyone exaggerates, heck I exaggerated when I blah, blah, blah.

    "Senator Clinton, you spent months making the argument that Senator Obama is an empty suit with untold skeletons in his closet.  Why should the American people be comfortable with him when you aren't?"

    Here's Clinton.... (her argument for Obama as VP fits better here)  Obama might be inexperienced in the eyes of some (a fact I disagree with on some important issues), but he has developed one important skill.. learning how to run a tough campaign (woohoo.) Obama has a new energy and freshness to bring to politics.  Together we can build a team to take this country in a new direction.  The Repubs will attack my running mate on some issues that we are very familiar to us all.  I have expressed my opinion on the matter and will not address it again.  Some relationships are private no matter how much the Repubs would like to believe otherwise (referencing Bill.) I'm sure they will focus on personal attacks, but we will focus on the issues affecting the American people... blah, blah, blah.

    Heck, if they can't spin this, neither one of them deserves to be President.  If they can't let by-gones be by-gones and work with another Dem, nothing is going to get done.


    [ Parent ]

    Nope, Obama "Tonya Harding'd" Bill (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    at the least, losing a Dem ticket with Obama on it the number-one votegetter we've got.  Bill can't get out there now for a ticket with an Obama on it, because Obama cut him off at the knees with the label of racism.

    And I don't want to hear that Obama didn't say it.  His campaign co-chair said it.  The public recalls it, and rightly so, as Obama saying it.  He didn't reject it -- and from the start in Iowa, he had Michelle making it about race, and then Oprah, and then AA members of the media as soon as Hillary Clinton won one, etc.

    Nor do I want to see four or more years of Obama having all sorts of surrogates attack anyone in his path but letting him claim he's clean.  He's not Teflon, and it sticks to him.

    [ Parent ]

    That would seem to be the case (none / 0) (#282)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    I do think, however,  BTD is right--a unity ticket appears to be the only way the Dems have any chance of beating St. John the McCain.

    And since the unity ticket seems improbable.....

    McCain will do NOTHING as President.  The Economy is bad?  Well, guess what America, you're screwed.  Iraq is bad, America is screwed there too.  He looked so old with Nancy Reagan yesterday...

    Get off my G-D grass!  That should be St. John's campaign motto.

    [ Parent ]

    they can't spin it (none / 0) (#247)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    believably.  This unity ticket is tailor-made for the Tim Russert gotcha quote.  They will look utterly foolish.

    [ Parent ]
    The easy answer (none / 0) (#238)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    to each of those questions is: Well half the country believes they are trustworthy/ready to be president, who am I to say otherwise? This ticket is representative of the will of the people.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes but (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    How can it happen?

    I think Obama, as "front-runner", will not take the #2 spot.  He hasn't shown any capacity for that kind of humility, in my opinion.

    I think Clinton has little to gain from it except humiliation.  

    Obama is young and has lots of time to be president someday.  Clinton, not.  For her to take a number-two spot and face the prospect of being given only duties at the pleasure of Obama is, I think, more risky than keeping a very good job as a Senator.

    Should she do it for the sake of the team?  Maybe.  That would be asking an awful lot at this point.

    I want the woman this time around (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    She was the heir apparent but they stuck a guy in there to counter her eventual nomimation. So what do we have: A experienced woman Senator and a not as experienced younger male Senator. I think a Hillary/Obama could work and would be good for him too not to mention the Democratic Party. I was for it and then when he smirked it off, I figured, fine, forget it.

    He is foolish to think he is really going to get all those GOP and Indies in red states. IMHO. Let's see if he really is a uniter.

    [ Parent ]

    Just wondering... (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska all have anti-affirmative action measures on their fall ballots. Does anyone have a theory as to how this would affect an Obama candidacy (since Obama supporters think at least 2 of these states are in play)?

    Just curious.

    [ Parent ]

    Oklahoma in play for Obama? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Klio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    I find that surprising, since HRC smoked him here 55%-31%.

    [ Parent ]
    I will leave that one to BTD (none / 0) (#178)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    N/T

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#236)
    by Nobody on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    I think all the talk of Obama taking the Independent vote away from McCain is overrated. That won't be an easy task, especially if the GOP hits him hard over the Wright issue and tries to portray him as unAmerican (which I think is so stupid on the surface, but in '04 I thought the Swiftboating of Kerry was so dumb that there was no way it would take hold...).  

    I've been hopeful of a unity ticket since Super Tuesday...I hope the egos can be put aside in order to make it happen.

    [ Parent ]

    agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    Plus, he is a charmer and slacker.  The last thing anyone needs is for a woman to do all the work, get none of the credit, and be there extinguishing fires when things gets nasty.  Thanks very much.  She has done the last part once, and I don't think she is the mood to repeat it, to stand by Obama when he screws up.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (none / 0) (#259)
    by 0 politico on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    see any real gain in her going for the VP slot.  She can support the candidate for the election, finish her term, and find other ways to make a difference.  Ways in which she doesn't have to differ to lesser males.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem (none / 0) (#266)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    is that the VP must defer....It's inherent in the position....However, it is an elected position--so the (long ago) calls for Bush to fire Cheney never made sense....

    [ Parent ]
    This poll measures Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    The Obama voters that Hillary can't get are independents and Republicans, so they're not being measured in this poll. The Hillary voters who are currently saying they won't support Obama are Democrats. They have a long time to change their minds after Obama becomes the nominee.

    Sure... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    All the Democrats will just fall in line.
        Except for maybe women and hispanics and  
        the seasoned voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    my mother is a lifelong GOPer. Hillary is her first choice, McCain, second. Go figure.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a myth. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    A complete myth.  I saw a poll once.  Obama was getting something like 5% more I and R, completely offset by the more support that Hillary was getting from democrats.  

    It's a talking point, but doesn't have basis in reality.  Prove to me that he has a net advantage on her come general election (hint: look at match ups against McCain, that should be a clue.)

    [ Parent ]

    You are making som broad assumptions. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    1. That there are a significant number of right wing and independent Obama supporters. There is no solid evidence of this. We know that some right-wingers crossed party lines to vote against Clinton earlier in the process. We also know that the right-wing has only begun to market McCain to their supporters and demonize Obama. I doubt that there will be many right-wingers supporting Obama in the general election, and I have no reason to believe that independents who wouldn't vote for Clinton will vote for Obama.

    2. That independents won't vote for Clinton. She actually gets more support from moderates than she gets credit for. Ironically, one of the early talking points against her was that she was more moderate than Obama. That went out the window when he started pushing his broad appeal to moderates. There are a lot of independents who think she has the right policies to lead the nation.

    3. That Clinton supporters will simply forgive and forget. Speaking for myself, not a chance. I cannot support Obama, for a dozen reasons I won't go into right now. Every week brings new revelations that move me further into the "anybody but Obama" camp.


    [ Parent ]
    What about the Millions of Republican Women? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    I think what many fail to grasp is that something like 58% of registered voters are women. If Hillary gets into the general, it will be a completely different dynamic than what we are experiencing now of the democratic primary demographic choosing between a white woman and a Black man. In the general, it will be a woman voting against old white guy and it will be a completly different ball game. There is no question in my mind that Clinton will pick up more GOP and moderate support.

    In addition, it's already been proven in numerous polls that the Wright incident alone has scared away moderates and GOP support for Obama and its only going to get worse for him as his until-now non-existant negatives continue to be defined.  

    [ Parent ]

    Pleeessszze Hold your breathe on (5.00 / 1) (#294)
    by Boo Radly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM EST
    that last comment. Strictly speaking on evidence presented as to BO's judgement, prior record of accomplishments and factoring in the comments by Wright, his "spiritual" guide(if you will), his arrogance, his wife's arrogance and the behavior of his campaign - there is no chance of me voting for BO ever. With voters votes not being counted it really sealed my opinion as to his unworthness, as well as the attitude of his followers - they ask for nothing from him and trash my candidate and her family who has devoted their lives to issues which I base my vote for her on. Granted, I was an Edwards supporter but I am now seeing I should have always been a Hillary support. She is clearly head and shoulders above the precious - so strong and so gracious.

    [ Parent ]
    Those Republicans (in particular) and (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    many of the independents won't be Obama voters in November. Neither of them can get Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    She can get Republican Women (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    And Independent Women. She can get the base because she had it before and Democratic women will vote for her again.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not correct. (none / 0) (#225)
    by Lysis on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    The tracking polls measure voters who have or will participate in Democratic primaries, not registered Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    in the interest (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by myed2x on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    of full disclosure...seems HRC's side is the less unified...

    A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

    rest

    Less unified? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by gmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    ...maybe less unified behind a party that seems to be running a 3-ring circus lately, but I think those numbers indicate they're more unified and steadfastly behind Clinton as their candidate at this point.

    And ultimately, I think that's alot of what this poll really shows --  just what people's kneejerk preference/reaction is a loooong 8 months before the actual contest.  

    But it definitely also shows that either candidate will have some work to do in those 8 months.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's just talk (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    I hope this is just talk.
    But the progressive blogs have to tone the anti HRC hate talk down. I think this contributes to the McSame campaign more than it does to Obama's.

    [ Parent ]
    The thing is (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by spit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    that there are quite a few folks out there who aren't trying to contribute to Obama's campaign, nearly so much as they're trying to destroy Hillary Clinton. I want to specifically say that I don't want to paint the majority of Obama supporters with that brush, but it is also a real piece of the left.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not talk (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Pacific John on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    Look at a lot of Hillary's voters: unaligned Hispanics, moderate women, lower income blue collar workers.

    Along the Rio Grande, it's a Hillary movement. They want to vote FOR her. Everyone else is a coin toss. They are at most, casual Dems.

    If anything, the abuse and disrespect these voters received at the caucuses made their second tier motivation anti-Obama. If Obama gets the nom, you can write-off the Southwest and make CA competitive.

    It did not have to be this way, and Obama was in complete control of the way his campaign treated Hispanics.

    [ Parent ]

    Guess they exepcted us all to feel like... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    ..Richardson. There's just something about the guy. Whatever. Latinos like Hillary. That's hard for some people to comprehend, but Latin America has had female presidents and so far we've had none.

    [ Parent ]
    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Pacific John on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    Weird twist of an endorsement. I think it had the opposite effect than desired. The sentiment I kept hearing in TX was, "what is wrong with him for not endorsing Hillary?" The Portland/Judas thing cemented this negative impression.

    [ Parent ]
    California will never be (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    competitive.....Polls show both Obama and Hillary beating McCain by double digits...with Obama beating him by more....

    Latinos will vote for Obama in the general election.....The recent SUSA polls that were so bad for Obama (taken before his speech), showed Obama getting 2/3 of the Latino vote against McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    it's just a poll (none / 0) (#209)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    I don't know how anyone can make a declarative statement either way on this matter.  One poll and over 7 months away.

    [ Parent ]
    California is quite predictable (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    and has been since 1988...That was the last year it went for a Republican when Bush I beat Dukakis by 2 points in a year of a Republican wipe-out...

    Neither Gore nor Kerry did any campaigning or T.V. commercials here.  Dubya ran a lot of television ads and had a lot of direct mail in 2004--I assume in an attempt to run up the popular vote nationally.....still did him no good except getting 2 more percent of the vote.

    The forumula for a Republican in California is simple.  You must be both:

     1. Pro-choice; and
     2. Pro-environment

    If you fail on either, you lose.  If you are good on both, you can argue about taxes and win like Ahnold.

    Pro-life candidates do not win state-wide office here.  End of story.  

    [ Parent ]

    not about California (none / 0) (#239)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    I just mean we cannot predict Obama's Hispanic support in a general election vs McCain because there is no real extensive track record or history there.  Personally I think McCain can get 35%-40% of it vs Obama but may be stuck in the 20s against Clinton.  But again, that's all we can do --speculate.

    [ Parent ]
    The states where the Latino (none / 0) (#248)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    vote will be most critical are New Mexico, Nevada and perhaps Colorado.

    Texas is unreachable (as will be Arizona), so the disaffection of Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley because they weren't treated well (allegedly) in the Texas caucuses will not really matter.

     Current polls show Obama ahead of McCain in Nevada....Bush only won Nevada by 4% last time and he was seen as Latino friendly....

    Richardson should be able to carry the Democratic nominee over the top in New Mexico.

    Wins in New Mexcio and Nevada should mean the Presidency assuming the Democratic nominee can also wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    [ Parent ]

    Or more disgusted (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    6 of this, 1/2 dozen of the other...spin whichever way you like.

    [ Parent ]
    The assumption is (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    We'll get over it.

    Oh.  And mea culpas, "Ok, maybe we went too far sometimes" after Obama wins should be perceived as adding insult to injury.

    Doubt it (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    Too much bad blood and their egos are too inflated. You have a career politician who has been working towards this for 30+ years vs. a political newcomer who's been told he could run for president because he has no legislative record to tie him down to.

    The Democrats have proven, yet once again, that they can turn a winning situation into a losing one.  I support Hillary but you can count me as one of the 22% that will not support Barack Obama.  I certainly wouldn't vote for McCain.  I'm in Texas anyway. From an electoal college perspective, my vote means zilch.  I am starting to realize more and more that we are not in a true democracy.  And if I lived in MI or FL, I would really feel that way.  Good job Howard Dean.  Good job.

    Me Two! (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    He is just inexperience and therefore rely more on handlers.  By his own admission, he is not the CEO type.  But that is exactly what a president is supposed to be:  Head of the Executive Branch of the government.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the thing (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Pacific John on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    the flip side of situational ethics trumping the long term good is that we have a strategic opening in TX.

    TX is 30% Hispanic, and the vote has awoken with Hillary. You don't have to be a genius or an MD of The One to realize that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to embrace the future of the country rather than squander it away to the GOP.

    There is only one way out of this, and it's not an option that I'm thrilled about: Clinton/Obama '08. But if the SDs can't figure this one out, they deserve the pile of rubble they'll be left with.

    The good news? Howard Dean will a GREAT scapegoat.

    [ Parent ]

    At this point (none / 0) (#228)
    by nemo52 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    I can (still)imagine holding my nose and voting for Obama, but certainly not working to get him elected. For how long I can maintain imagining it, I don't know. Hillary -- I'll be enthused.

    [ Parent ]
    My guess (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    is that Obama will not want this to happen until it becomes an ultimatum for him. If voters think that Barrack will be on the ticket (assuming he agrees to a combined ticket), my guess is that many voters will say he should fill the VP slot (obviously not the opinion of lefty bloggers) and then run for President in 2012. He'll have the experience by then. Hillary has set this scenario up beautifully. He'll fight this all the way, but the ticket concept may just start falling into place sooner rather than later.

    I agree (none / 0) (#285)
    by annabelly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    I started heavily courting a unity ticket after Super Tuesday, and said then that the first person to get out in front of that narrative would likely be on top. I was very pleased to see her float the idea  few weeks ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by jpete on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    It seems to me important to realize that there are a number of different ways in which Clinton's supporters can get turned off of Obama and at least stay home, if not positively vote for McCain.  
    The obvious turn-off comes with associating Obama with the toxic hatred too many of his supporters are expressing.  But, secondly, the comments create a defensive reaction, sort of "how good is your guy, then?"  The comments then become polarizing.  If you're a fan of Clinton's understanding of details, including the details of brokering deals in DC, Obama doesn't withstand close scrutiny too well.  All in my humble opinion, of course.

    And there may well be a third danger.  The discourse on some blogs is so extreme that it is making political discourse very unpleasant; it's a big  turn-off.

    And there are almost certainly more.  To me it looks as though a large segment of the progressive movement is in suicide mode.  That's pretty depressing.

    I should add (none / 0) (#22)
    by jpete on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    who ever is on the ticket, I'll get out there and vote because I'm sure a Dem is better.  But McCain is going to have an easier time because  of what's going on now.  Obviously, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama ruled it out (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    He said we will not see him as Vice President.
    So unity ticket is not possible.

    Pelosi confirmed it's not possible.

    He won't go for it. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    It would make him look bad to have a VP that outshines him.

    [ Parent ]
    If it's "brokered" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    I think the only way it works is for Clinton to be on top of the ticket.

    Hillary needs to win the popular vote by the time this is over in June if she is to have any hope.

    [ Parent ]

    Only said this because (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    if he'd agreed to be on a combined ticket, he would have to be the VP. Once his chances of becoming president fade, he'll be all for the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    He has "misspoken" before (none / 0) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    and made "bone-headed" decisions that he later regretted.

    [ Parent ]
    MoDo wrote today (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    that Hillary aides are (supposedly and privately) talking about a VP spot for her--not Obama....

    The reasoning is that Hillary wouldn't want to go back to the Senate with all those other Senators who did not support her....and Cheney wielded a lot of influence....Since Hillary knows the ropes, she could do a Cheney.

    And, MoDo loves Obama, which is weird; she doesn't love anyone in public life and started out calling him Obambi.  Today he is a "cool cat" (her words, not mine) spending time with his daughters in the pool...

    [ Parent ]

    MoDo (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:42:45 PM EST
    Will turn on Obama the second Clinton is out of the picture.  She's loves her some manly GOP men and hates those effeminate Dem men (and those ball busting Dem women).  Her advice and punitry has long been worth less than the paper its printed on.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be a good bet (5.00 / 1) (#277)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    given her track record....She might wait until after he were elected....She seems genuinely smitten, giving him advice on how to be nice to Hillary during the debates....

    It seems funny to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary would take VP (none / 0) (#250)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    one of the few things I'd believe Maureen Dowd is right about.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (none / 0) (#256)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    It could happen....Hillary as VP could steer health care....

    It could be a good combination....I saw the footage of them both siging autographs after the California debate and they seemed like they could be a team....

    It has always been thought that she would be at the top....But with her as VP, there would be less concern about Bill, than if he were bigfooting a VP of Hillary's....

    But too much water under the bridge....I personally think the Democrats are doomed and have been since 3/4.  But who knows, a fusion ticket might revive the Dems....

    [ Parent ]

    But let me remind... (none / 0) (#252)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi already had her say on this matter.  She said unity ticket is "impossible."

    In other news, impeachment is still off the table.

    [ Parent ]

    Just had a discussion with my Dad (none / 0) (#267)
    by Nobody on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:42:41 PM EST
    About what is the next best step for Hillary.  My thought was that the idea of being the first female VP would be too great for her to turn down.  His thought was that to be the first Senate Majority Leader would also be too hard to turn down and she'd have more power to boot.  Not sure why he thinks Reid will just turn the positon over to Hillary...but he's convinced it'll happen.

    Oh...and he's a reformed GOP'er and McCain admirer from days gone by...would vote for Hillary but angry at Obama over the whole Wright thing.  Wants a Dem in the White House because the GOP "has totally screwed up America".  If it's Obama and no unity ticket, I worry he'll pull the lever for McCain...and so will many like him.

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama followers (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    The attacks on HRC only make me feel more strongly pro HRC.
    If "they" find something real, I'd listen. Sad that I can go to dailykos or listen to right wing talk radio and hear exactly the same things. GOP tactics are so yesterday.
    I'm not blaming Obama... yet.
    I will vote dem regardless.

    Me too, (none / 0) (#205)
    by nemo52 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM EST
    A lot of Hillary supporters are just getting more and more angry and hardened in their negative feelings about Obama thanks to his outrageous fans and the slant of the media.  Every time I hear/read another uncalled for smear about Hillary, I become less inclined to vote Obama, even WITH the supreme court hanging in the balance.  Not good.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, the Numbers Look Even Worse (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by The Maven on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    Although these figures are pretty bad in and of themselves, they represent those voters who would potentially switch over to vote for McCain in the general election.  Take a look also at the graphs slightly further down in the Gallup report: they show that only 41% of Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama in the general, with 28% of Obama supporters not voting for Clinton -- the difference here (13 and 9 percent, respectively) being that a sizable number of voters would sit it out entirely, possibly crippling our efforts at winning downticket races.

    That is another danger not to be overlooked.

    Well.... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    Frankly, I'm one of those who is probably going to "sit it out".  I can't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama (unless a miracle happens).  He's crossed that line for me with all these antics - I was on board for a while, but not now.

    But I live in Virginia, and we have a good chance of picking up a Democratic Senate seat, so I will definitely go and vote down-ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Thats silly (none / 0) (#62)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    I'm for her too, but focus on the issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is it silly? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    I don't think he's qualified to be President.  I don't like him anymore.  Why should he get a free pass and get my vote? He has to earn it and he's done nothing to do that except disgust me.

    I don't like being taken for granted. I don't owe him anything, and if I'm still going to send money and support Dems downstream, then why is it silly?

    [ Parent ]

    Its always about voting for the lesser (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    of two evils.  At least almosts always - I happen to think Hillary would be an excellent president.  

    But in the GE... there are light years of difference between Obama and Mccain.  To paraphrase Rush (the band) choosing not to choose is still making a choice.  Inexperience is a reason to favor her for the nomination, but not a reason to abstain from the general.  It's too important and the differences too great.

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (