Why We Need A Unity Ticket

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • You may be right (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.  

    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.

    Good luck with that bet. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    Wright aint going no where.

    I want in on that bet! (3.66 / 3) (#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? ;)


    There is no way that Wright will not be a (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    You are right. (5.00 / 3) (#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.  

    Bingo (4.50 / 2) (#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.)


    Wright's got some new comments that came out (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    Garlic noses? (5.00 / 2) (#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?


    I am not amused (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Double counting (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    not that simple. (5.00 / 2) (#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?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    Women, who are 60% of the Dems (5.00 / 6) (#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%.


    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.


    Now it's silly tit-for-tat (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    "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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 0) (#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.


    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.


    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%.

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

    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.


    agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.

    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....

    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 / 2) (#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.

    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.

    That's a myth. (5.00 / 0) (#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.)


    You are making som broad assumptions. (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    She can get Republican Women (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    I think it's just talk (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    The thing is (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    It's not talk (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Guess they exepcted us all to feel like... (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.

    The assumption is (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    Actually, the Numbers Look Even Worse (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    Supreme Court Justices?

    Yah, I mean (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by dk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:15:56 PM EST
    hasn't Obama's campaign (with the exception of the issue of the war) been based on his speeches saying that both the left and the right are equally bad, and that centrism is the way to go?  Unity and all?  The sense that he'd be fine with less health care reform, maybe vouchers for religious schools, etc.

    It seems like those on the left who support Obama all seem to do so on some kind of faith that Obama doesn't mean what he's saying in the campaign, and that as President he will govern from the left.  To me, there is little reason to have that faith.

    On the other hand, to say that McCain is evil (like Dick Cheney) or some sort of born again fundamentalist nut (like George Bush) is pretty absurd.  Is he being tragically stubborn about the war?  Yes.  Does he seem to have no idea about how the economy works and thus advocates policies that hurt the country as a whole and the poor in particular?  Yes.  But I'm sorry, I don't think the man is evil, and I also think with the excesses of the Bush administration power will shift back to the legislative branch, particularly if we have a stronger Democratic majority in Congress.

    So, when I put all that together, might I sit out the presidential election if Obama is the Democratic candidate?  Maybe.


    MCain will destroy our planet (none / 0) (#187)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:33:34 PM EST
    He fakes that he "believes" in global warming, to piss off his base, I guess, but he has not voted YEA for one of the 15 eco votes that have come up.

    His was the one vote that torpedoed our chance at a comprehensive Energy Bill last Dec.

    Heres MCain's eco voting record.

    Yes, of course Obama's Lilliputian-style attack method (to sic millions of bottomup talkingpointing emailees onto Hillary via the blogoshpere) is unappealing, but imagine how effective it might be in the presidency in pressuring GOPers into voting in line.

    His votes have been fine. I get nervous about his RW memes too, but he is likely far better than MCain.

    Theres more than hurt feelings at stake. There's the survival of human civilization.


    It's (none / 0) (#146)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    Silly because no matter how unqualified you believe him to be, he will be infinitely better than McCain.  In many, many ways.  As dems we need to force McCain to fight in every state.  I like Obama and many of the things that Clinton has done have offended me, but I'll certainly get over it if she's our nominee.  We really can't afford 4 (8?) more years of crazy, incompetent, republican rule.  

    Better than McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    he hasn't proven that to me.

    The reason you'll get over it is that Hillary has not been as negative or nasty as Obama.


    As a Hillary supporter.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    I believe Barrack's stances on issues like the War in Iraq, a woman's right to choose, and Supreme Court nominations are enough reason to make sure the old timer (McCain) doesn't step foot in the White House.

    If Barrack truly wants to be a uniter, maybe he can offer McCain the secretary of defense position.


    No (none / 0) (#180)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    And while I appreciate your attempt at reading my mind, let me reveal the real reason I'll get over it.  
    1. McCain will ruin the Supreme Court.  Repubs have figured out the formula: appoint younger, extremely conservative justices, watch them confirmed, repeat.
    2. McCain's economic and healthcare policies are awful.  
    3. His foreign policy is equally if not more woeful.
    4. McCain is a man who was ACTUALLY TORTURED but, because he found it politically expedient, went along with our pro-torture President.  He really will do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
    These are just four of the many, many reasons I will be voting for a democrat in November, no matter whose name is at the top of the ballot.
    I encourage you to compare McCain and Obama's stated positions and respective platforms if you honestly believe they're similar enough to sit this one out.

    I don't understand the difference (none / 0) (#56)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:36 PM EST
    in your numbers from the poll and BTD's.

    Just That (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by The Maven on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    BTD notes that the poll has "Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain", but the real figure is that he loses 41% of Clinton supporters in that they would not vote for him.  Some 28% would switch and vote for McCain, while 13% would apparently not cast any vote in the presidential race (or would go third-party).  Reversing the nominee shows that 19% of Obama supporters would cross over to McCain with an additional 9% staying on the sidelines.

    The figures BTD cites are frightening enough, but he underplays how bad it could end up being if we're not able to patch things up between the two camps.


    oh- I see - thank you! (none / 0) (#181)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    Several Hillary blogs (none / 0) (#280)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    are talking write in votes for her in the fall. That extra 13% may represent those voters. Who have yet to begin to campaign for this option. Hillary's support is very deep and determined. Riverdaughter has had lots of comments on the subject.

    Brokered Convention, Please (none / 0) (#293)
    by KnightErrant on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    I blame Clinton, you blame Obama. Doesn't matter. What does matter is the Party is being torn apart by this fratricidal warfare. This election has gotten so vile that if either Hillary or Barack gain the nomination the November election will be lost before the confetti hits the floor.

    The Convention needs to find a compromise candidate - Al Gore, John Edwards, some other candidate.


    Good point (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    I have long felt that Obama supporters (and the campaign for that matter) have underestimated how attached to Clinton her supporters are.  At first, there was the assumption that Democrats were only behind her because of name recognition.  Now it seems more like, "well maybe they prefer Clinton but will come back into the fold because of Roe, so we don't need to spend any time being nice to them."  It's been pretty condescending and short-sighted.

    I don't think Roe is enough to get some of these people back.  Especially those women who have been appalled by many of the gender-based attacks (not that those are necessarily coming from Obama but he is not speaking out against them and is, indeed, benefitting from them.)  I, for one, have become completely dissatisfied with the Democratic party and the Big Blogs because of how they have handled these matters.  

    But when I raise these issues on other blogs, I'm told to "get over it" and "women won't abandon Roe".  I'm not so sure.  These numbers should worry Obama supporters but will likely just lead to more invective.

    I'm a climate voter (none / 0) (#191)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:36:29 PM EST
    Gore then Edwards then Clinton.

    To assume nobody but a gendervoter sees the good in Clinton is ridiculous.


    No (none / 0) (#200)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    I am saying that is my experience.  And a lot of the dismissiveness of Clinton supporters is done on a gender basis.  Like, "Whatever, women will get behind Barack because of Roe."  See some of the comments here in fact.  I am saying that for many of those women, given what we have seen in this campaign, that might not be enough to appeal to get their votes.

    I like Clinton for a whole host of reasons.  But I must say the continual bashing of Clinton (and her supporters) on a gender basis does not endear me to Obama at all.  


    Who are you? And what have you done with (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Klio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    BTD?  :-)

    I have been quietly anticipating a Unity ticket for many months now -- though to be candid, I am expecting HRC in the top slot.  I still believe it's the only hope but the acrid events of the past fortnight have shaken my conviction that it will happen.  

    You know, afer Iowa I did the hard hard work of coming to supportive terms with BO as the nominee, but I confess that I am now in that outraged minority of Clinton voters who are threatening to sit on their hands come November ....  And I'm horrified to find myself in this position.  Of course, it is still only March.  My  hardened feelings may well soften in time.  

    In the meantime, I'm doing all I can to help my preferred candidate prevail!  {Who's going to PA to gotv?}

    Well Obviously (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    And I'm horrified to find myself in this position.  Of course, it is still only March.  My  hardened feelings may well soften in time.

    You are ahead of the curve, which bodes well for the party.


    BTD is right again! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Richjo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more. To me the biggest obstacle to this is the main stream media who simply buys into every Obama talking point hook, line, and sinker. The Obama campaign refuses to acknowledge this because to do so would undercut their basic position by showing that their "lead" is really nothing more than an insignificant number that superdelegates want to latch onto to perpetuate the pretense that the people have chosen the nominee rather than the superdelgates. This way the superdelegates don't have to bear any real accountability for that choice. Given an inconclusive process like the one we are bound to wind up with since neither candidate will get a majority of the delegates, I find it an act of cowardice for the superdelegates to abandon their independent judgment in favor of the result of what is clearly a deeply flawed process that represents a very imperfect assessment of the views of the people. Both of these candidates have a very tenuous level of support due to the close nature of the race and the divided nature of the party. The Obama camp would have us believe otherwise, that they are in an insurmountably strong position and Clinton has no chance. (Even though their actions portray a far different scenario.) To accept the need for the unity ticket on any level is to reject the very storyline about the race they have continually set forth. Sadly in continuing that charade they only make the unity ticket that is so desperately needed improbable, if not impossible.

    I dont think it will happen (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    it might but it seems so unlikely now.
    also I dont know if its even necessary.  this is what I think.  I think McCain will not be that difficult to defeat for most candidates, Hillary included.
    I do not think, at this point, Obama could win.  he would probably help Hillary win but I honestly think he could hurt as much as help. and I dont think Hillary as VP would put him over the top.
    I just dont.  I would probably vote for him but I dont think he can win.

    Well - Edwards got out (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    to allow "history to take its course" - and let race and gender fight a bloody battle to the end.
    Why end it? The media and blogs are enjoying the increase in traffic and revenue.

    Whack Um' Up, Side the Head! (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    It's waaay to soon to even discuss a ticket with Obama and Clinton. The internals have Clinton losing. McCain has tremendous baggage, very little money and disinterested Republican voters. The Republican Party in my state has gone bankrupt and they could not field candidates to run in many many districts across the state. In the last two weeks over 2,600 Republicans switched to the Democrat Party in my state. This will be a year for the Democrats. Obama took a vacation while Clinton shot herself in the foot with her sniper story and her Wright comment. We've got a ways to go.......

    Why are you being (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    dishonest? The polls have them BOTH losing to McCain at this point. So let's not start telling mistruths here.

    Polls (none / 0) (#126)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    Polls are just wet fingers in the wind. They change direction constantly..

    LOL. Yet you use the (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    same to try and say that Clinton loses to McCain. If polls mean nothing, why are using them as the source for your argument?

    Whose (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    internals have Clinton losing?

    HRC/BHO ticket is the only (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    unity ticket that works, both in the fall campaign and once in office.

    Sorry, but HRC as VP (yet again, effectively) is a non-starter.  And a step down for her politically.  Probably unnecessary to boot.

    BHO, if nominated, and HRC could have a very warm public embrace in front of the cameras (not too warm of course, like the way Kerry and Edwards kept hugging each other for days ...) at the convention or after the last primary contest, as Hillary enthusiastically endorses his nomination but politely declines his most gracious offer to be his VP.

    That gesture might take the sting out of some of the lingering bitterness felt by the HRC camp over the bitter primary process.

    At that point  BHO would still have the option of going in a 'creative' direction for VP should he feel the need to shore up his support with women.

    Gov Sibelius comes to mind.


    If he went "creative" with a female VP (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    He tanks some womens votes. Don't know how many, but it would be an absolute insult to many women. And he really doesn't rate to high on gender issues. They almost seem like an after thought to him, imo.

    So add some lost women's votes to his other lost Dem votes.


    Stupidest thing Dems could do (3.66 / 3) (#183)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    would be to objectify women.  That means treating us as interchangeable body parts.

    Sorry, not just any uterus will do.  

    Women who are for Clinton prefer her brain and heart to those body parts of Obama's.

    Do you get that at all?


    Were women 'objectified' (none / 0) (#210)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    when Ferraro was picked?  Or when Hill allegedly told Bill that he needed to look only at women for his AG?

    Were women offended when Bill chose a merely okay Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Court?

    It's a cold hard political calculation folks.  And you do what you think works best.  People with too narrow a focus just on Hillary as opposed to women generally making political advances are missing the point, which is to win.  And folks who are too easily offended on the basis of gender or race need to get a grip and open up to the possibility of reasonable alternatives for a winning ticket that doesn't include HRC in the subordinate position.


    I think her point was different. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Lysis on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    Of course, Ferraro was chosen for her gender as a "hail mary pass."  Hillary's a different story.  She has gained traction with the voters because of her extensive record and experience; her candidacy has soared while nearly all previous female candidates floundered.   (Shout-out here to Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American AND first Female to win a presidential primary, way back in 1972!)

    To pick a woman without significant, comparable experience and longevity, just because she's a woman, would indeed be picking her just because of her gender, and implying that the only basis of Hillary's support was because of that.  

    It's as ridiculous as the suggestions that Hillary pick Harold Ford, who has nothing in common with Barack Obama other than skin color.

    Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not candidates that can be replaced symbolically by someone of the same gender or race.  The reason this race remains a draw is that BOTH candidates have unique appeal that has motivated record turnout.  If only one of them was running, they'd have gotten the nomination in a landslide already. The amazing thing about this contest is that in spite of overwhelming turnout of new voters, neither one has a decisive advantage.   They only win states where the types of voters they turn out have decisive numbers.

    They have to run together.   Perhaps even as a precedent-setting co-presidency, where the P gives the VP even more hands-on responsibility than Bill Clinton gave Al Gore.  


    I hate to tell you (none / 0) (#253)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    but the story that Shirley Chisholm won a primary is one of those Internet myths.  I checked the original news sources on Nexis.

    Yep, same for the Patsy Mink myth (none / 0) (#270)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    but bless her, too, for sponsoring Title IX.

    Best I can tell, Clinton is the first woman to win a primary, starting with New Hampshire . . . and then many since.  


    I'm interested... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    to see how the numbers shift when we get to one candidate v. McCain and reality sets in.  Lots of the right were shouting "We won't vote McCain!" when he first got the nod, but I don't hear that too much these days.  

    Maybe the anger will last, but I think a lot of people will get with the program, regardless of which candidate gets the nod.  I, for one, will.

    The Unity Ticket (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by dwoodard on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    I am an Obama supporter, one whose ego gets easily bruised by attacks from the Clinton camp and its supporters.  I used to say that I would sit out the general election if Hillary is the nominee.  I now know that I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is - period.  But I do not think the unity ticket is a good idea, or even likely.  The funny line about it is the notion of Mom and Dad staying together for the kids.  But there is some truth in there, too.  I think we should grow up and take care of business this Fall - defeat Joihn McCain, no matter the nominee.  The country just cannot handle 4 more years of Bush rule.  (Just think about the SCOTUS if nothing else.)  Beyond that, each candidate should be free to pick her or his VP and not be stuck with the other.  I think Obama would help Hillary alot, but I don't think she would want him, nor do I think he would want to run with her.  And the reverse is true, too.  Rather than faust this choice on either of them, let us, their respective supporters, grow up and face the reality of a McCain presidency squarely.

    that was well said (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    admirable sentiments.
    I hope people follow your lead.
    I am not holding my breath.

    Do you mind if I ask (none / 0) (#150)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    At what point you decided that you would vote for the Dem nominee no matter who it is?

    HRC'd love OB as running mate I think (none / 0) (#271)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    << think Obama would help Hillary alot, but I don't think she would want him>>

    She's already suggested Obama as her running mate.


    Good questions (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    Oh and the suggestion that Obama should take the second slot is simply innane why should he settle for second place why should his supporters accept that when he's the front runner.

    Here are the answers:

    He should take the 2nd slot of the superdelegates in their wisdom come to the conclusion that his popularity in Alaska, Idaho, Utah, etc. will not add up to a win in November.

    His supporters should accept that if they want to win in November.

    It's not really very complicated, especially if the popular vote totals are close.  

    Being the frontrunner by virtue of winning lots of delegates in states we will lose later and FAILING to capture majorities in states we will need later is not that impressive--at least not if you intend to win next fall.

    I for one care less about the mudslinging, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    that's part of politics, even intra-party politics.  I can't see myself not supporting the democratic nominee regardless of who she/he is.  A unity ticket would be the best thing that could happen to us as dems.  I don't see anything other than Clinton/Obama being plausible.  With that said, should BO go on to get the nomination, I will vote for him but hope we don't get another four years of inept leadership.  That's the main issue for me.  Not only will it suck short term, it might ruin Dem chances down the road.  I don't need to like my elected officials.  I just need to know they're effective in their job.  They can lead as trustee or delegate, they just need to share my positions on as many things as possible.  They should push those positions based on the reality within which they're working.

    The Wright issue is about more than race. (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    And Obama sure didn't seem to get that. Or if he did, he's not addressing it.

    My take (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    I've said several times online that I think a unity ticket would be very easily accomplished, and I stand by that view.  These are politicians we're talking about--show them that it's in their own best interest to do it, and they'll eat a live frog for breakfast.

    To be more specific, I think the way we get from where we are to a unity ticket looks like this:

    Clinton wins PA big and gets at least a few other victories.

    She then makes the case to SD's and the public that the race is basically a dead heat, and there's no way you can deny her the nomination and deny the FL/MI voters a meaningful say.  

    There is a deal: One of them gets the top slot, one gets the VP slot and a very sizable portfolio.  By "very sizable" I mean large enough that Newsweek, Time, et al. will run cover photos of the two candidates with the caption "Co-presidency?", and there's endless talk about how Cheney's inflation of the VP role helped make this possible, etc.

    The candidates make up some dorky story about how they had a long meeting, gazed into each other's eyes, and found a governing soul mate.  The media and just enough of the public buy it.

    Lou that sounds great.... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    ...pity they won't listen to you, though I wish they would.

    Seeking justice (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    It's easy to understand why the Hillary Clinton supporters feel this way...  The cards are stacked against her, mainly the media, they have been so unfair and that almost makes you hate Obama...  Every time her numbers start coming up they start something, like today now she's Tonya Harding....  This doesn't make me want to vote for Obama, it makes me want to smack him in the smirk....

    Why does everyone forget (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    the $200 million that the 527's will use to completely destroy Obama this Fall? it will not work with Hillary who is so thouroughly vetted. The right-wing death machne is salivating over the prospect of Obama at the head of our party-this will be a disaster for the Dems.

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    the "demonization of Hillary Clinton," Florida and Michigan, the re-framing of the progressive movement as consisting of an ephemeral demographic of independents, crossover republicans and non-base democrats, and Al Gore has and probably will continue to have no intention to seek the office of president.

    Yes, I'm quite irritable and its going to linger for a long time.

    Unity ticket unlikely IMO (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    Obama would have to become his own man and break with his major supporters who, after all, drafted him for the express purpose of getting rid of the Clintons.

    I doubt very much that Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, etc. would let him play in the Clinton sandbox if they could prevent it.

    That may well be his greatest test...could he/would he break with them to take a VP slot with Clinton?

    I'm not at all clear that Hillary would say no to the VP slot.  I'd say that's a 50/50 tossup of pluses and minuses for her personally and for the issues she cares about...including winning back the presidency for a Democrat.  

    However, I do not think the anti-Clinton Obama controllers would allow him to offer her the VP slot, so it's probably not an issue she would have to consider.

    Good of the party?

    I hate to break this to you, folks, but KKD and the Obama faction do not give a good goddam for the Democratic Party except as it furthers their personal agendas.  Period.

    Funny (none / 0) (#274)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    I hate to break this to you, folks, but KKD and the Obama faction do not give a good goddam for the Democratic Party except as it furthers their personal agendas.  Period.

    I said the exact same thing about Hillary on Kos yesterday.  Goes to show how far the siege mentality has sunk in on both sides.


    Clinton-Obama, Yes. Obama-Clinton. No. (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    First of all, I think  there are two subsets of voters within this "disenfranchised universe" (or DU) that would develop in each camp if the other candidate wins the nomination: 1) The people that will stay home in the general, and 2) The poeople that would vote for Mcain.  Keep in mind, these "DUs" are only a fraction of each camp's supporters and that the majority of each camp will vote for the dem nominee.

    I would say Obama's DU is made up of 3/4 blacks and 1/4 moderates and the blacks will stay home and the moderates will vote for McCain. Meanwhile Clinton, has 1/4 dem women and 3/4 red necks -- and the dem women will stay home and the red necks will vote for McCain.  So the end result, assuming both camps has roughly the same number of DUs, is that more of Clinton's DUs will vote for McCain than stay at home, which will have a far more devastating impact in undermining the electability of the nominee.

    So, would a unifying ticket solve this problem?

    If it's Obama-Clinton, the Clinton redneck DUs will still be voting for McCain, because Obama is still on top of the ticket, but the Clinton Dems wouldn't stay home and would vote for that ticket: so end result in that scenario is that 3/4 of Clinton's DUs would still be voting for McCain.

    However, if its Clinton-Obama, then most of the Obama's 3/4 black DUs will show up to vote for the ticket, but the 1/4 moderate DUs will probably vote for McCain, because of dislike of Clinton. End result in this scenario: 1/4 of Obama supporters still voting for McCain.

    So, if I'm Obama, I don't really get that much by having Clinton on the ticket and might be better served by having a Wes Clark type to shore up my foreign policy / military credability.  

    So, because these red necks are voting against Obama because of race, it isn't going to matter if Clinton is on the bottom of the ticket-- as long as Obama is on top of the of ticket, they are voting for McCain. However, if its the other way around, Blacks

    Rednecks? Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by Lysis on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    It's disgusting that you assume that racism is the motivating factor for the crossover vote from Obama to McCain, but those who vote for McCain instead of Clinton do so just because they personally dislike Clinton.

    Amazing how Obama only loses votes because of racism and gender bias, while Clinton loses votes because she's so damn unlikable.

    As if it's not possible that some don't like Obama on his merits.


    These are not rednecks (5.00 / 0) (#291)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    these are Reagan Democrats. They will vote for Hillary but not Obama. Main reason: National Security. She has a fairly strong record on these issues. Which the left does not like, but it is there. Calling them racists is self defeating.

    Whoa, you're assuming race is the main factor? (5.00 / 0) (#245)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    I don't know, but your comments read that way to me.

    Your post is too simplistic in attributing motives for both side.


    Clinton-Obama won't happen (none / 0) (#264)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    It's next to impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates, or even popular vote totals.  The only chance here is for a unity ticket is Obama-Clinton.

    Why unity isn't possible. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    First, Obama singled out Geraldine Ferraro as racist.

    Second, he invoked her name as a kind of get-out-of-Wright-mess-free card.

    Third, he said people of color wear one mask for white people and another for their own.

    Women over the age of 60 took all of that as a slap in the face and heart.

    They are the women who put their jobs, friendships, families, and lives on the line for the past 40 years to advance civil rights and equal opportunity in this country.

    They are the ones who feel betrayed, used, rejected, and mocked.

    Now, the Democratic Party has implied they cannot win the White House without the backing of college students and African Americans.

    Women are the largest voting block in this nation, and women over 60 are the most reliable voting block in this nation.

    They've been scorned by Obama and the Democratic Party.

    Obama has lost the vast majority of them.
    And, if Hillary isn't nominated, nothing she can say will get them to vote for him.

    One more thing (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    There are "FIGHTS WORTH HAVING".  And Obama doesn't give the impression that those fights are important.

    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#278)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    We women marched for civil rights and gay rights because we understood oppression and we rallied to the cause.
    And what have we gotten from Obama?
    "Oh Hillary's old gals will come around."
    I don't think so.

    If "blame" is your game (5.00 / 0) (#292)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    then you've chosen your candidate well.

    But calling anyone stupid, especially a woman?

    Oh my, and hang onto your earplugs.

    Because we are "Reddy" women, and we have just begun to roar.


    Ferraro repeated (none / 0) (#283)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    what Obama said about himselfpreviously.  It's been posted over and over, Skex.  Look it up for yourself, I'm too tired to repost it.

    MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    That would be a good bet (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    All I have to say is... (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by robertearl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    I told you so. I've been saying over the last few months that the Dems, we, are hurting ourselves. And there is now evidence of that.

    This UNITY ticket won't happen. I can't see Hillary taking the VP nor do I see Obama taking it.

    We have NO chance of beating McCain in November.
    I told you so! WE killed it! We dems were our own worst enemy!

    What a tale of woe! (none / 0) (#276)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    Robertearl, it's March, plenty of time.

    The War, the economy, and John McCain aren't going anywhere.  Save your post-mortems until after the election.  I'm sticking by my prediction of a comfortable Obama victory, whoever his VP is.


    I don't know what you are smoking dmfox (none / 0) (#288)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    but at least share it with the rest of us :-D

    He didn't challenge (4.50 / 2) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    Wright to take responsibility for the things he said.

    I wonder what this statistic really reveals (4.00 / 3) (#35)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    On its face the statistic seems to suggest that Clinton supporters detest Obama in greater volume than Obama supporters detest Clinton.

    Why might that be? It's possible that the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have done a far better job of demonizing Obama than the Obama campaign and its surrogates have done of demonizing Clinton. THis may lend some credence to the Jake Tapper story about the Tanya Harding Option.

    While I'm not convinced that a unity ticket is the only answer, or even that it doesn't carry with it more risk than reward, I think it's certainly clear that the kitchen sink strategy has to go. It's hurting the party, and it's hurting our chances in November. The C-I-C threshold and "ready on day one" memes that Clinton is using are going to hurt democrats in the general if Obama is the nominee, and short of a catastrophic meltdown, he will be. I wish she'd stop.

    The idea that McCain wouldn't use (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    CIC and experience against Obama is a little silly. It's better that Obama get used to this argument now, then face it for the first time in the general.

    No, it's better (none / 0) (#44)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    if McCain can't say it's not his opinion, it's Hillary's. McCain's claims can be more easily pooh poohed as Republican partisanship. Not so, Clinton's.

    Come now (none / 0) (#261)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:37:00 PM EST
    Let me preface this by saying that I think McCain is a weak candidate overall.

    But he is most decidedly NOT week on national security and foreign policy credentials.  He's a bemedalled flyboy who has specialized in foreign policy during his decades in the Senate.  His foreign policy pronouncements have been highly influential for a long time.

    His "claim" to have more foreign policy experience than Obama can't be "pooh poohed" and doesn't require any support to stand on its own.

    A final word:  I DO think that Clinton went too far with her CIC line, but please note that she only said it once, as compared to the Obama campaign's campaign-long daily invocation of Clinton's alleged deceitfulness.


    Geez (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    If Clinton can't even use a vanilla campaign slogan like "ready on day one," that lends support to the theory that Hillary basically isn't even allowed to campaign without being ruled out of bounds.

    It's when you use the slogan (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    She's using it to denigrate her democratic opponent, who has by most accounts practically sewed up the nomination.

    No. By his supporters accounts only (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    Anyone who actually cares to look at the math can see she is very much still in it and Obama has yet to sew up anything at all. Just because it's repeated does not make it any more true.  

    And neither one of them will have it "sewn up" come August. The only hope for Obama is that she drop out. And she will not.  So good on her.


    Look at the math, not the person who's advocating (none / 0) (#109)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST

    Here's a comment I wrote about the math yesterday. BTD himself says that Clinton's chance at the nomination rests somewhere between slim and none. The math is what it is. Clinton can't substantially close the pledged delegate gap. If the pledged delegates are split roughly evenly throughout the remaining 10 contests, which appears likely based on polling, then Clinton will need 75% of the remaining superdelegates to vote for her, instead of the candidate who holds approximately a 170 lead in pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote. That just won't happen.


    And BTD (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    also said he counts for nothing since it's OPINION and she very much still has a chance, whether some people want to admit it or not. It's a matter of FACT that it's still open. Unless he starts clobbering her in the next couple of states, he has nothing sewn up. And she must win the next states overwhelmingly. But to say there is no chance is OPINION only and not fact.

    I didn't say there was no chance (none / 0) (#147)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    And BTD didn't either. Of course there is a theoretical possibility that she could still win the nomination. But in order to evaluate the likelihood of that possibility, we need to take a cold, hard look at where we are right now.

    Here's where we are right now. Obama has 170 more pledged delegates than Clinton. There are 566 pledged delegates left to be assigned. What is most likely to happen here is that the remaining pledged delegates will be split evenly, 283 apiece. Even if Clinton gets low double digit wins in every state from here on out, she will not close that pledged delegate gap to less than 130.

    If, as appears most likely, the remaining pledged delegates are split evenly between the two candidates, Clinton will have to convince 75% of the remaining superdelegates to cast their votes for her instead of Obama, in spite of his substantial lead in the pledged delegate count and his substantial lead in the popular vote. Frankly, I can't see how she will do that. One of my senators, Maria Cantwell, an early Clinton endorser, said yesterday that she'll probably cast her superdelegate vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. It's safe to assume she's not alone in that.

    It is not enough for you to say that Clinton still has a chance. I still have a chance to be president, too. Almost anything is theoretically possible. But to get from theoretically possible to likely, you have to construct an argument, or narrative if you will, that accounts for all currently known facts. For Clinton to get from theoretically possible to likely, she has to account for this delegate math. Frankly, I don't see how she can.


    No theoretical (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    makes it only possible "in theory." Her chances are based solidly in reality. And the next states favor her overwhelmingly. So I'd say the "theory" from the Obama camp is to say she's lost and try and pressure her to drop out.   From all current known facts, there's still states left to cast votes. And from all current known facts, neither one of them has won. And from all current known facts, HRC is still very much in this. Again, just because Obama and surrogates keep saying she lost does not make it so.

    I could be wrong, but (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    I trhought delegates were counted to get to a magical number, If that number is impossible to get to, then they seem pointless. I would think the popular vote (obviously including FL and MI) would be the deciding factor. No?

    It's not quite like that. (none / 0) (#224)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    The magic number of delegates a candidate needs to secure the nomination is 2024 or 2025, depending on whom you ask. There are two types of delegates, pledged and super. Neither candidate will get to 2025 by pledged delegates alone. Thus, a candidate will need some percentage of the superdelegate vote to get over the top.

    Here is a good wikipedia article to explain some if it.

    Right now Obama has 1414 pledged delegates, and Clinton has 1252. There are 566 more pledged delegates to assign. The most likely scenario is that they will split the remaining delegates about 50-50. After this, Obama will need 328 super delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton will need 490 superdelegates to secure the nomination.

    As of today, Clinton has an estimated 246 superdelegates promising to vote for her, and Obama has 209. That leaves 339 superdelegates up in the air.

    Let's assume, as is most likely, that the candidates split the remaining pledged delegate vote.

    Obama: 1697 pledged delegates plus 209 superdelegates = 1906 total delegates. He will need the support of 35% of the remaining superdelegates to get to 2025.

    Clinton: 1535 pledged delegates plus 246 superdelegates = 1791 total delegates. She will need 69% of the remaining superdelegates to get to 2025.

    The likelihood of Clinton persuading that many superdelegates to vote for her despite Obama's lead in the pledged delegate count and a likely lead in the popular vote is, in my opinion, extremely remote. Why? Because too many of these delegates will not want to go against the will of the voters as expressed in both the delegate counts and the popular vote.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    it's called campaigning.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    Because if you can't say that your opponent isn't fit to be President, you basically have nothing left, right?

    "...only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans."


    Unheard of (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    a candidate saying they're better than the other candidate for the job.  Bring in the fainting couch.

    Shocking isn't it? (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    Making a case for yourself by stating you know, you'd be BETTER at the job is ridiculous! It's the kitchen sink I tell ya!

    One minute (none / 0) (#99)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    One minute it's "this is the most innocuous thing she could say" and the next minute it's "toughen up, politics ain't beanbag." I about got whiplash from how fast that goalpost shifted.

    Also, if you look closely, she's not saying that she's better than her opponent, she's saying her opponent is unfit and she's the only choice. That'll make it a little awkward to endorse Obama if he does win (he wasn't ready to be president in January but he is now?) but I guess she'll probably manage.


    Now you're (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    just trying to change words to fit your definition. Politicians have to make a case for themselves to win, including GASP, saying they are qualified to be Pres and their opponent is not. It's the whole point of the campaign. I'm better than him/her.

    No, that is simply not true (none / 0) (#110)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    It is perfectly possible for Hillary to say that she is the better candidate without saying that Obama is not prepared to be president. I'm a little confused about why you would think it wasn't.

    And to me (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    it's awful that Obama has repeatedly called her shady, disingenuous and that she served "tea" at the WH. Not to mention all the sexism that has come from him directly.

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    It might be hard for Obama to endorse Clinton after attacking her character by saying "she'll say anything and change nothing."  But guess what, this is politics and there's nothing particularly remarkable about these attacks.

    Look what happened to McCain and Bush (none / 0) (#203)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    First he's thrown under the bus by Bush. Then, Bush endorses him and he endorses Bush. See? Competing politicians can work things out?  :^0

    Alternatively (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    Its that Obama campaign has really run a stealth and nasty campaign, tearing down a popular president, a strong woman, and has talked down to her supports, and his people have called her a "monster" and worse. I have NEVER heard from anyone from the Clinton campaign saying anything like he is a monster, or that his supporters would just "fall in line" or that they wouldn't support whoever is the nominee.

    Someone prove me wrong on this.


    Okay, I'll take a stab at it - (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    I know the reason that I, a Democrat for all of my adult life, would sit out--for the first time ever--the presidential race if Obama is on the ticket isn't because he's been demonized by HRC or her surrogates.

    It's because his surrogates, and at times him, have been so Rovian that I can no longer stand him. His endorsers, suppporters, and bloggers slings so many insults, and the media is so complicit in building him up, that I'm frankly disgusted by the party, the media, and his supporters.

    Lastly, the sexism and favoritism of the Democratic party, at the very highest levels, has completely turned me off. As a Florida Democrat, I plan on leaving the Democratic party the day after the Democratic convention if Florida isn't seated.

    So for me, Obama's candidacy has made me realize how hollow the Democratic party is, how dishonest and shallow so many bloggers are whom I used to respect, and how sexist the party is.

    It's sad.


    Widespread (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    You speak for a lot of people who will not go out of their way to make an Obama presidency possible.

    The media has convinced you not to vote Democrat? (none / 0) (#74)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    I'm sure they're really heartbroken about that.

    She did not say that (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by honora on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    She said that Obama and his surrogates have influenced her.  She also noted that the DNC has actively helped Obama and burdened Clinton.  Many Democratic voters, including me, feel the same way.

    Sigh- (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    I'm not voting for candidate X because his campaign has been substanceless, insult-driven, and all smokes and mirrors.

    I'm not reading the once-respected bloggers because they seem to have been taken in by this show.

    I'm quitting the Democratic party because they've been sexist and incompetent.


    Well, please at least (none / 0) (#148)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    remember how important the next supreme court appointments are going to be insofar as such issues as choice are concerned, and vote accordingly in November. I don't think there's anything more important than who gets to pick the next nominees.

    You must be kidding! (none / 0) (#79)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    You are allowing the media to define a candidate for you? Pleeeze.

    No - (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    The media didn't define him. He did that just fine by himself.

    The media's sexism and double standards just served as the perfect foil for much of the hypocrisy coming from his campaign.


    No, that's what YOU'RE doing. (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    He's the one they want to cram down out throats.

    Just like they chose Bush.

    Just like they chose war.

    Does it not bother you that you're relying on the media's endorsement, which has proven to be against your best interests?

    I'm influenced by the media to support the candidate they don't want.


    Speaking as a member (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    of the "sit-it-out" crowd, the thing that's polarized me away from Obama is the "progressive blogosphere" and the MSNBC Obama primetime lineup.  Add the slobbering of the regular NBC News and forget it, just forget it....

    Another, of course, is Florida/MI.  And add to that the healthcare issue.  Obama is no better than McCain on my one prime issue.

    It's just as it was in the 90's for me.  Then, the more the media trashed the Clintons, the more the public rallied behind them.

    And I'll state my bumper sticker again:

    "The Iraq War Was a Media Darling Too"  (how'd that work out).


    But see (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    there you go doing exactly what BTD is talking about. You cannot make an objective judgment without spreading talking points from hateful pundits and the MSM (such as your Tonya Harding business).  

    I think it means (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    that many Clinton supporters (like me) are angry at the bashing our candidate has taken from the media while Obama got a free ride up until very recently.  

    Further, many of us remember the Clinton Presidency as years of peace and prosperity and are angry that BO has been highly critical of the Clintons while cozying up to Republicans.  Some of us don't really believe he's a true Democrat.


    Turn it around (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    It's possible that the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have done a far better job of demonizing Obama than the Obama campaign and its surrogates have done of demonizing Clinton.

    And you'll have something.


    "better job of demonizing Obama" (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    heh, Obama does a fine job all on his own for many Clinton supporters.

    The Tonya Harding line is the Obama campaign's latest "she'll do anything" line

    can you name anything she's done since the Wright issue broke that says kitchen sink?


    Yes (none / 0) (#231)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    Check out alegre's diary at MyDD that's currently at the top of the rec list. These talking points came out of the Clinton campaign and alegre basically adopted them point by point.

    One of the things I don't like about Clinton is her inability to just admit error, accept responsibility for it, and move on. Instead, she has to say "but look at him! Look at him!" It's not appealing at all.


    and she promotes unity... (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by myed2x on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    how like this....

    She is as much or more to blame than Obama at this point in tearing the party apart, IMHO.


    Whatever (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    At this point, fingerpointing is meaningless.

    au contraire (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    finger pointing is obvious. It's the only thing anyone knows how to do.

    It's not meaningless (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Dave Dial on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    The obvious fault at the deep divides that now seperate some Democrats is the sole responsibility of the Clinton Machine and their supporters.

    Anyone that is reasonable knows that is the 'love fest' between Clinton and Obama had continued through NH and Soth Carolina, past Nevada into Super Tuesday, that Obama would have a HUGE lead right now and Clinton would have had to drop out.

    It was the Clinton(and her supporters) exuse of 'vetting' Senator Obama that brought about the current situation. They knew the only chance Clinton had was to utterly destroy Obama.

    And so here we are.

    How does an Unity08 ticket of Hagel-Obama sound to you?


    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:59:35 PM EST
    What "love fest" are you talking about?  When the Clintons were being called the "r" word?  When they were being accused of disenfranchising Hispanic voters in NV?  Or being called "dishonest", "entitled", "say or do anything" for the last six months?  I'm sorry I missed this "love fest" - it's sounds transcendent.

    Pssshhhh (1.00 / 5) (#169)
    by Dave Dial on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    I wouldn't expect an admision from a Clintonista.


    1 Billy Shaheen: Barack Obama May Have Been a Drug Dealer! December 12, 2007
    2 Hillary Clinton: Actually, LBJ Did it. January 7th, 2008
    3 Bill Clinton: I can't make her... black?
    6 Andrew Cuomo: Shuck and Jive. January 10, 2008
    7 BET Founder Bob Johnson Attacks. January 13, 2008
    8 Three Volunteers Resign for Spreading MADRASSA EMAIL. December 2007
    9 Bob Kerrey and his Dog Whistle. December 17, 2007
    10 Andrew Cuomo: Beautiful Symbol. January 10, 2008
    11 Bill Clinton: Fairy Tale & Kid. January 2008
    13 Bill Clinton's Charlie Rose Interview. December 14, 2007
    14 Hillary Clinton: I just don't want to see us fall backwards. Jan. 8, 2007
    16 Clinton Team Quietly Raise Obama's Cocaine Use. December 11, 2007
    17 Geraldine Ferraro. January 14, 2008
    19 Rangel: Obama put drug use in book to sell books. January 14, 2008
    21 Playing on the Obama-will-be-assassinated fears. Jan 7, 2007
    22 Hillary Shufflin' about Bob Johnson. January 15, 2008
    23 Black and Brown Instigation. January 9, 2008
    24 Lawd, the Black Man will DOOM..DOOM the entire ticket. February 13, 2007
    25 State Senator Robert Ford on Obama's Iowa Victory. January 7, 2008
    32 Bill Clinton says people in South Carolina will vote for Obama only because he's black. January 23, 2008
    35 Bill Clinton: S.C.? No problem, Obama = Jesse Jackson. January 26, 2008
    40 Clinton Camp Spreads ' Obama has a CULT' Memo. February 17, 2008
    41 Ed Rendell: Obama is BLACK and White folk won't vote for him. February 12, 2008
    43 Obama is a Scary Muslim Once Again. February 25, 2008
    44 Harold Ickes: Obama is Jesse Jackson Once Again. February 25, 2008
    45 Geraldine Ferraro: Obama is LUCKY to be Black. March 10, 2008
    46-Bill Clinton: what happened in SC is a "myth and a mugging"
    47    'Not that I know of'!

    Clintonista Tracker

    And the Hagel-Obama Unity08 ticket is real. It's an Armageddon option that has the backing of some major political players. Former Presidential candidates, Senate Majority leaders and other high profile politicians.

    Big time former Democratic and Republican leaders that are sick of 'politics as usual', and the Clintons in particular.

    I am almost hoping for this to happen.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    Your list makes me laugh.  But I guess it just shows that people can read almost anything into anything.

    And lists like this make me remember why I scoffed at this portion of THE SPEECH:

    We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card.

    Yep, you CAN do that.  And apparently you did.


    I'd Laugh Too If It Wasn't So Dispicable (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    Good grief, we can say any statement is racist, and that makes it so... That's the most negative, insulting and dishonest thing to come out of this contest.  Hold on to your hats, folks, it's going to be racist, racist, racist from now on.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by 0 politico on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    A. Most weren't "race baiting", unless you look at mangling them sa such.

    B. The other campaign, with help from the media, mangled them as such.

    C.  What has any of that got to do with a "Unity Ticket," unless your point is to torpedo any talk of a unity ticket?


    There's a ticket (none / 0) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    that would ensure a Democratic win.

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Dave Dial on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    It would be the last straw to a Democratic coalition that has held together, off and on, for 60 years.

    Just like the Democrats can't win without the support of women, they cannot win with the support of liberals and African Americans either.

    All Clinton and her supporters are doing is making sure there is no chance for a Democratic win in November. The 'Armageddon option' is an answer to that. If the Clintons and her supporters want to blow up the Democratic Party, we will let the Marcia Pappas wing have it.


    Yay! Unity08! (none / 0) (#194)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    The wise old men of Washington will surely save the day.  U-N-I-T-Y

    It's meaningful (none / 0) (#40)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    if the finger is being pointed at means that are likely to damage the Democratic party's chances in November, such as the 3 am phone call, ready on day 1, both McCain and I have passed the C-I-C threshold, etc.

    two things (none / 0) (#199)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    Can you please start proofreading your posts?  Half the time I have no idea what you are trying to say.

    BTD's point, which you and Dial seem to miss is this:  Every single Clinton supporter can point to a hundred things about Obama or his campaign they don't like.  The same holds true for Obama supporters concerning Clinton.  And where does that get us?  Same stagnant cesspool of redundant accusations that have nothing to do with politics or policy or unity; they are self-defeating.


    There are a few more threads you can post this in. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    I don't think you've hit them all. But since you asked, my overriding thought is this:  Wow, she's not afraid to talk to anybody! Isn't the other guy supposed to be the Unity Candidate?

    thats got to be (none / 0) (#118)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    snark right? Unity means using the man who swift boated our last candidate?  Unity with who? Not the Democrats.

    what dreamworld do you come from? (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    Memo:  Hillary is a politician, she is going to give interviews to anyone who wants to print, air, or televise a Q&A.  Same as Obama.

    Scaife may be an ahole, but guess what he owns most of the media outlets in PA.  And he wasn't the man responsible for sb'ing Kerry, he was the guy who trumped up charges on Clinton at every opportunity..like, BC killed Vince Foster.


    OTOH, he's just done so much (none / 0) (#144)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    to unify Democrats. /snark.

    My thought (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by spit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    is that I really haven't seen anything all that bad come from the candidates themselves, honestly. Politics is a nasty business, and IMO most of this campaign has been really rather clean as far as the candidates themselves go.

    The party is IMO being torn apart by the most hardcore supporters and their absolutely over-the-top hatred of the other side. My personal take is that it's the intensity of feeling on the left against the Clintons that provided the early invective -- that's a hatred I watched form in the 90's, and I knew it would be a problem for Hillary Clinton, but I had no idea how much it would feed on itself -- but now the thing has become a cycle in which the really solid supporters in either camp literally blame the other side for every death of cute puppies or whatever, and in which the candidates themselves increasingly have to campaign in an incredibly toxic political environment.

    FWIW, I think most people will come together in the general, though I do think a unity ticket would be helpful in that regard.


    Imagine (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    If two of the most vocal Democratic campaigns this nation has ever seen in a while, get together and use all of this negative energy to destroy McCain. It would/will be a beautiful thing.

    Wow... Great Sources (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    American Spectator and Pajama's Media. Did it ever occur to you that the right wing might have just a little bit of a bias against Clinton, not to mention a desire to make sure that she is not he Democratic Candidate in the fall? I don't know what the truth behind this story is, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who wrote those stories are heavily invested in destroying Clinton. Know your sources. I've seen way too many Obama supporter's using right wing anti-Clinton sources to attack Clinton.

    perhaps you forgot... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    After Fox News deemed Obama a Muslim that attended terrorists schools when he was younger, Obama declared he would not have anything to do with Fox News.
    The Dems even cancelled a debate with Fox News!
    But Obama did go on Fox News - because he'll "say and do anything to win."
    Oh wait - that mantra is only for Hillary.

    Why should one believe (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    Why should one believe

    an unsourced article from a right wing blogger?  My own initial guess (could be wrong) is that the right wing have discovered they can say anything bad about Clinton and the progressive A-list bloggers and their commenters will immediately lap it up (cue Drudge).

    My best reason for thinking this is that the blogger hasn't even taken the simple task of calling up the Clinton Campaign and ask them to confirm or deny the story and then report the response on his blog.  This is basic journalism.  No doubt he has seen what happened to Drudge after that happened and has decided to skip that route altogether.

    Funny comment in the blogger's comments:  he doesn't need to spell out his source because the blogger himself is the source!  So he was the one did the e-mail interview in the first place?  Whatever.


    get real the blogosphere is 1% of (none / 0) (#223)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    the electorate. think about it. there are literally millions of people that aren't with Obama because the Clinton brand works for them.

    They'll be out in full force. Despite the blogosphere. Geez.  

    This is not the real world folks, but a microcosm.


    Would Obama be a liability for Clinton? (2.66 / 3) (#53)
    by davnee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    While a unity ticket with Clinton at the top might be the right way to go to heal some of the Democratic rift and get Dems (particularly AA's) to the polls, my question is does having Obama on the ticket as a VP still cost you Reagan Dems, Independents and R's scared off by Wright?  

    And sure a unity ticket with BO at the top has the advantage of getting AA's to the polls and some male dems/indies to the polls who just won't vote for a woman to be president, but I don't see that unity ticket as likely because HRC is better off keeping her day job as senator.  And AA's and sexist Dems and Indies will vote for BO irrespective of HRC being on the ticket.  And having HRC as veep does nothing to quell the misgivings about Wright being felt by Reagan Dems and Indies.

    And either way you go on a unity ticket, somebody is going to be asked to sit at the back of the bus.  That may not be the reasoned reality, but it sure is going to be the overwhelming perception.  That's going to cost probably as many votes as a unity ticket might gain.

    I guess I'm not sold on a unity ticket as being that much of a gain, at least not enough to force either party into it.

    STOP the insults please (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    "And AA's and sexist Dems and Indies will vote for BO irrespective of HRC being on the ticket."

    I am a white, female, democrat who will be voting for BO irrespective of HRC being on the ticket.  So is my mom, my grandma, and my sisters.  I will also vote for HRC irrsepective of BO being on the ticket.  But just because I will vote for him does NOT make me sexist.


    Read my post more carefully before taking umbrage (none / 0) (#123)
    by davnee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    I said sexist dems/indies will vote for him regardless of Hillary's place on or off the ticket.  Not that all dems/indies that vote for him are sexist.  Please don't try so hard to take offense.

    I read it (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    I know what you're saying, but you should think about your phrasing a little.  I'm getting really sick of peopple portraying everyone whose ever supported Obama over Hillary in these groups.  And the fact is, you did just lump those together as the people who would vote for him w/o her, and didn't bother to include anyone else.  That seems a bit intentional to me.

    Unity Ticket??? (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by SoCalDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    I personally don't believe a unity ticket will work. To begin with Obama has to much stuff that is still dripping out of his closet, all his nefarious dealings with terrorists. (go to No Quarter) If Hillary isn't the nominee than for those of us who will not vote for Obama I suggest you look at Cynthia Mckinney (green party) Don't vote for Mc Cain.

    yes - go to NQ (none / 0) (#85)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    And you will find a level of political discourse that is on a par with RedState.  "nefarious dealings with terrorists" - my god - LJC and his followers are the bottom of the barrel.

    You will a level of political discourse (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    that is on par with dailykos.

    I'm judging NQ by what is posted at NQ (none / 0) (#122)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    primarily by LJC and also by Susan Hu.  What happens at DKos is not relevent to my sentiment. Both Johnson and Hu hold no quarter when it comes to smears and innuendo.

    Sure (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    But it's relevant to mine.

    I think (none / 0) (#4)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM EST
    that has become apparent for a while.  Each time a poll is taken, the percentage of supporters who would refuse to vote for the other candidate goes up.

    Didn't somebody float this idea on March 5th? (none / 0) (#5)
    by gmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    It's too bad that when Clinton floated this idea (after her own big victories, no less), she was seen as divisive and manipulating.  

    Of course, she put herself at the top of the ticket (who wouldn't?), but Obama rushed to quash the spirit of this idea because he saw it as a way to "steal votes."  (Unlike, say, knocking two states out of the nominating contest.)

    Obama's flat "no" for VP (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    wasn't the response of a "uniter." He could have made a neutral comment for the good of the party without appearing to accept her scenario.

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    This is yet another example of how he can be stunningly tone deaf.

    I keep seeing this pattern in his words and actions, times when my wife and I see a clip of him on TV and then look at each other and say, "the obvious, right answer was X, so why did he say Y???"

    He could have defended Clinton when the attacks were/are at their worst, making himself look like a uniter, a president-in-waiting, and (gasp!) a gentleman.

    His famous "I like you well enough, Hillary" line in a debate, when he could have handled that so much better and come across (as my mother used to say) "like a cold fish."

    His reaction to the Wright mess (aside from The Greatest Speech in the History of History).

    Time and time again he comes across (at least to me) as someone who hasn't had the political seasoning to know when he can help himself and his cause by artfully saying the obviously right thing.  I find that very bothersome, and I think it doesn't bode well for an Obama presidency that has to deal with (likely) less than 60 Dems in the Senate.

    But once again--despite these reservations, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him without hesitation, as he would be light years better than McCain.


    I continue to agree with this (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST

    Do you think (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    that if Obama agreed to campaign for HRC in the fall (assuming she's the nominee), his supporters would fall in line?

    I think that would address at least some of this problem.

    A way out. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kahli on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    I think this is the best possible solution.  

    Voters in the remaining states should be able to make their feelings known, but if it is still as close as it is now, flip a coin to see who gets the top spot.

    Unity, A Nobrainer (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    Also it seems silly to think that either BHO or HRC would forgo the party's interests after a nominee is chosen, because of acting like a normal pol. They will do what it takes to insure a win by the Democratic party in Nov.

    They are both pros imo and looking at the bigger picture, unlike many supporters who are looking very small minded at this point in time.

    Unity needs to start now (none / 0) (#77)
    by fladem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    Circular firing squads have been formed and are currently firing with accuracy.  The blogs, which have long been proud of their combativeness, are increasing recruits daily.

    In fact, I think we are very close to the point of no return.  

    I don't buy the Obama is meaner than Clinton stuff.  It's been the other around from my pov as an Edwards guy.  But whatever.

    Doesn't matter if we lose.

    Also, (none / 0) (#80)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    I have been saying this for weeks. Plenty of politicians that can't stand each other end up on a ticket together.  Besides, I think they honestly respect each other and are not as filled with any kind of hate as their supporters or surrogates might put out there.

    You assume (none / 0) (#98)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    he'll continue to be the front runner. And you may be right. But if she catches him and surpasses him in the popular vote, mark my words he will be on that ticket as VP.

    Delagate count (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    only matter if you cross the threshold. there is no rule saying whoever is ahead wins. It doesn't work that way.

    Ah conspiracy theories (n/t) (none / 0) (#154)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    Popular vote (none / 0) (#159)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    is entirely relevant since it means, that, you know, more VOTES went that way. And I honestly cannot believe self-described Dems claiming that delegates count more than actual voters. I'm cool with Obama getting the nom if he's the pop vote leader. NOT if he's the delegate leader and has lost the pop vote. And I know for sure I'm not the only one.

    Because in that instance it will literally be stealing votes.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#204)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    How many times have you heard the Big Blogs say, "but Gore won the popular vote in 2000 so he was really the choice of the people."  Singing a different tune today (on that and just about everything else.)

    yeah (none / 0) (#275)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    You raise another issue why pledged delegates are less than ideal (even less than electoral college!)  Can anyone figure out why some delegates are worth 10 or 100 times more than other pledged delegate?  It's nice they want to make some districts and rural areas feel important, but it's note very democratic.  At least with the popular vote it's one person, one vote.  Not one person's vote as weighed in a proportional caucus less a certain percent because 2004 vote patterns but bonus points for being rural!  

    Politics is politics (none / 0) (#114)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    I've been a believer in the "unity" ticket for well over a year now. I was initially supporting HRC and supported the Clinton/Obama ticket for one simple reason: the "E" word.  I liked two Clinton terms followed by two Obama terms. I also like my beer cold and my wife likes walks in the moonlight. But some times things don't work out as I imagine. I would now prefer the ticket flipped.

    I voted Obama in the CA primary and would be very happy with a Obama/Clinton ticket.  In fact, I'd also support a Clinton/Obama ticket if that's how it is brokered.

    And I believe it will be brokered.

    One of two things occurs:

    1. HRC runs the table and takes the momentum and the numbers into June. Rather than fracture the party and watch a good portion of the electorate stay home in Nov, Reid, Pelosi, Gore, Carter, etc, persuade Obama to take the Veep slot. It's not the Big Cheese, but it's one hell of an achievement and it puts Obama in line for the future, giving him the one thing that he gets hit hardest on - experience.

    2. Obama goes into June with the most states won, the most delegates, the most popular vote, and any other measure. The Dem power brokers listed above broker a deal that puts HRC in the Veep slot. For those who say no way - what's the alternative for Bill and Hill - fight for the nomination and walk away with zip (yeah, I know, she sould get Sen majority leader), or make history and be the first female VP? For those who refuse to believe that Obama would pick HRC, there's another factor - the powers that be may squeeze any other potential VP. If it's Wes Clark or Bill Richardson, they may kneecaps those guys (or grease them) in order to make sure they say "thanks, but no thanks, however I will be very happy with a cabinet position."

    I believe that both Obama and Clinton are Politicians - they want the power and they are willing to make strange bedfellows to get it.

    It WILL happen.

    Clinton/Obama '08
    Obama/Clinton '08

    I don't see it (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    Not because you don't make a good argument, but because I don't think she'll take VP (and I don't think it will be offered).

    Part of the choice for VP is who can be the party's standard bearer in (hopefully) 8 years.  Sad to say, with the sexism still out there, in 8 years, Hillary will be almost 70 years old.  You think there's a lot of tacky jokes about her personal appearance now, just wait. Even John McCain's age is being questioned.

    If she is not the nominee, HRC becomes one of THE most powerful members of the Senate (even if not Majority Leader).  Anything Obama (if he would pull out a miracle and actually win) would want to get through, would have to have her blessing first - whether privately or publicly (especially a health care plan). If McCain is the president, HRC effectively replaces Kennedy as one of the lions of the Senate. Do you think if Obama is beaten and he goes back to being a first-term Senator, people are going to seek his opinion on many things?


    One clarification (none / 0) (#145)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    imo, HRC will need to be dragged into the Veep slot, kicking and screaming... I don't think she wants it at all. I think she (and Bill) will be pressured to accept it... and that Obama will be pressured to offer it. (I also think the reverse it true if HRC wins the nomination.)

    Winning is paramount.


    Awwww, the woman must do as the man wants (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    Good usual theory. No, I do not want her as the VP. It would be like being in a job 10 years and they bring in a new young guy or gal to be the boss and not only did you not get the promotion and the salary raise, you have to train them and do most of the work. That always works out well.

    Precisely-- (none / 0) (#242)
    by nemo52 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    This is a familiar scenario to a lot of Hillary's "old women" supporters and a real source of their rage.

    Play the gender card if you want (none / 0) (#243)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    But try reading the whole comment:

    (I also think the reverse it true if HRC wins the nomination.)


    Obama and Hillary ARE the ticket (none / 0) (#155)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    And they should get over their egomania about who is on top of the ticket and who gets second billing.  If they don't, all their bluster about doing what's best for the country is just that, bluster.  These two adults need to get this counterproductive slopfest over with, come together like MATURE citizens, and do what is best for OTHERS, not simply themselves.  If they can't figure this out yet, then heaven help us all.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    but at some point you also have to do what's right for yourself.

    Clinton, if she accepted VP, would be judged as too 'old' (plus woman) to run for president in 2016.  In addition, the DNC has shown exactly ZERO loyalty to her.

    Obama on the other hand could run in 2012 or 2016.  And the DNC has done everything in their power to push his candidacy.

    The bottom line is Obama is the only one who owes a debt to the DNC to accept the VP spot.  I really believe it would be stupid for Clinton to accept the spot. She'd have more power running for Senate Majority leader.  And at her age (plus woman), this is really her last hurrah.


    CBC (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    Although my right wing brother in law did suggest it over Easter Dinner as a way for Obama to discourage assasination attempts since no one who wants to kill Obama would prefer Clinton.

    Ah, don't be so hasty.  Have you seen the Clinton Body Count? <snark>

    body count (none / 0) (#202)
    by wiredick on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    One of my post was deleted for saying dems should keep their pants zipped, but calling the clintons murderers is ok?

    I was being snarky (none / 0) (#237)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    I AM a Clinton supporter.

    However I HAVE seen the CBC mentioned ON THIS BOARD by an Obama supporter.  Some actually believe the right wing talking points to the extent that the actually think Vince Foster was murdered, etc.

    I was kidding.  It was a bad joke, I agree.


    unity ticket hmm... (none / 0) (#167)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    Hillary floated his idea and the Obama folks weren't cool with it.

    With her on the top (none / 0) (#262)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    She never proposed running as VP.  You don't consider taking taking the VP slot if you're in first place.  Can't blame Obama on that one.

    Just to chime in on the topic (none / 0) (#184)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    If Obama wins, he'll choose Richardson and fulfill the pan-ethnic post-partisanship dream.

    If Clinton wins, she'll pick Clark and continue her message of solutions.

    And I will vote... (none / 0) (#195)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    For either one.

    Course, it's easy for me. I like Richardson and I like Clark.


    Huff Post highlights Condi Rice (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    as possible VP for McCain.  If that happens, yes, a unity ticket is a requirement for the Dems.  Otherwise, I'm resigned to Clinton not being the Dem. nominee; I think Obama needs her bigtime and I think she would accept for the good of the party.  And he is quite fortunate.  

    Perfect (none / 0) (#206)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    One Bushie who didn't know anything about Iraq before the war and sat on info about a possible Al Qaeda attack in the summer of 2000 with another Bushie who doesn't know anything about Iraq and Al Qaeda now.  Dream ticket fur sure.

    Whoops (none / 0) (#207)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    meant sat on info in 2001

    Reagan and Bush I spring to mind (none / 0) (#211)
    by Nobody on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    They dusted it up early in the primaries only to end up on the same ticket.  There was talk at the time about how well they could pivot, but they did and the rest is history.  And that is just the last time it's happened...it's been done before, it can be done again.  I think a unity ticket may be our only way out of this mess.  If either are taking a pass on trying that because of their egos, they are bigger jackasses than I thought.

    nice name (none / 0) (#213)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST

    Unity Ticket (none / 0) (#214)
    by Lahdee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    Agreed, but I wonder sometimes if it's possible in the current climate. It's not hard just now to imagine if Obama is the nominee and loses Hillary gets the blame and if Hillary is the nominee and loses Obama would get it.

    If this goes past May 6th... (none / 0) (#217)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    ...I think it's more likely than not that there will be a unity ticket, probably one imposed on the two of them by party elders.
    If Obama pulls off the upset in PA, or stays within single digits there and then wins big on May 6, I don't think it's mandatory for him to pick Clinton, simply because his legitimacy won't be in question (because she will come out and concede the race under those circumstances).  

    I don't see any scenario where Clinton can avoid offering the veep slot to Obama, should a minor miracle occur and hand her the nomination.

    I'd rather just turn the page (none / 0) (#260)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:36:17 PM EST
    I'd be much happier with new blood in the VP slot.  Hopefully Obama can make it close enough in PA, and then deliver the knockout in NC and IN.

    If it's more muddled than that, and the party demands a joint ticket, I'd be okay with it, so long as it gets settled before the summer.


    Clinton for VP (none / 0) (#219)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    Looks like Clinton is moving to the VP slot. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington State, a super delegate just announced she would stick with Hillary, for now. She went on to say she would follow the will of her state voters in the end. Obama won in Washington State. Softening????

    Then why bother? (none / 0) (#226)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    Why would she say that she's supporting HRC for now, but in the end will go with her state? Her state already voted? Does she think there will be a different result when they finally count the caucus?

    I haven't talked (none / 0) (#233)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    to Maria yet.

    Not a good sign.  To say anything at this point is unnecessary.

    She's probably trying to get the Obamamaniacs off her back and out of her district offices.  It's hard to get any work done when the furniture is being overturned and the chanting drowns out the telephone.


    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#254)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    Are they coming with torches in the dead of night? I HATE when they disrupt work! :D

    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.

    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....


    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.

    The antis will go down as the GE campaign heats up (none / 0) (#257)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    Understandably, hardcore supporters on both sides are loathe to admit that they will support the other candidate.  However, once the campaign to define John McCain gathers steam, that number will decrease drastically.

    I find this site interesting to see how the other side is framing the debate in all this.  I disagree with about 75% of the election commentary here, post above included, but I still find these posts to be interesting reads.

    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.

    Unity Ticket (none / 0) (#286)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#290)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    Thanks for you thoughts, this thread is now closed.