Sunday Open Thread - Michigan And Florida Still Front And Center

By Big Tent Democrat

Watching ABC This Week, George Stepanopoulos's show, George and his panel fully understand and explain two things: one, that Hillary Clinton is ready and eager to do revotes in Florida and Michigan and Barack Obama will try and squirm his way out of them and; two, that there has to be a unity ticket, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. They also properly said that not only will there be pressure on the nominee to pick the other as the VP candidate, there will be pressure on the "not nominee" to accept the VP slot. Exactly right imo.

Face The Nation discusses Michigan and Florida at the top of its broadcast. Howard Dean on to discuss it. Dean says the "rules will be followed" but speaks encouragingly about a revote. Particularly about a mail in primary. Even says it is a "great party building exercise." Discusses raising money for funding it. Bill Nelson coming up. I'll update on the flip.

This is an Open Thread.

Bill Nelson and John Kerry on to discuss what to do about Michigan and Florida. Nelson says he has worked hard to avoid the train wreck and got no help at all from the DNC. Nelson points out that the date change was forced upon the Democrats in Florida. Nelson says the only thing to do is to do a do over. Nelson is pitching the mail in option. Just Democrats. Who will pay? Nelson says Florida Democratic Party will raise the money about 6 million dollars.

Kerry says "rules need to be followed." Blah blah blah. Strange pitch by Kerry. But he does say Obama will "play by the rules." Accuses Clinton of not playing by the rules in Michigan by not accepting caucus. Of course Obama is the one who rejected the Michigan proposal. Kerry wants to change the subject.

Nelson has a great response. This is not about Clinton vs. Obama. This is about counting the votes of the people. Kerry looks foolish imo.

Nelson makes the obvious point that if we do not fix this we will lose Florida and Michigan.

Kerry tries to change the tack but goes back to the same blah blah blah. He is really blowing it imo. Kerry lies and says "Obama will accept whatever the states decide." But we know Obama rejected what Michigan decided.

Nelson wants the mail in primary. Kerry says no, even though he says in the same breath "Obama will do whatever is decided."

So Dean and Nelson are for mail in primaries and Kerry, speaking for Obama, seems to be against it. Even though he says Obama will accept "anything the states decide." I guess Obama will be for it before he is against it.

On Fox, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was adamantly opposed to a revote. I do not know what she is going to do when Nelson already has the mail in primary basically ready to go. Regarding Michigan, Debbie Dingell said something will be done, basically implying a revote will happen.

Update (TL): Comments at 200, this thread is closing, but a new one on the topic is here.

< Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama | Ten Key States Update and a Perspective on Pennsylvania >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No matter how much he fears (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    another loss in FLA and MI, Obama will undermine his aura of progressivism if he continues to appear reluctant -- let alone --blocks -- re-votes in those states.

    He can invoke the rules for why the prior votes shouldn't count, but he can't invoke the rules for why they shouldn't be re-done. Dean has made that clear, even if Brazile wants to preserve the status quo -- keeping delegations from those states out, period.l

    He is in a tough spot (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    I'm looking forward to Kos and Josh (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    and the gang explaining why counting all the votes in MI and FL in as public way as possible is, in fact, bad for democracy!

    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    They have already said its changing the rules (none / 0) (#196)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    and moving the goalposts, blah blah blah

    Somehow, Obama in (none / 0) (#5)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    a tough spot never seems to translate into a loss in the polls, or even bad media coverage. The MSM will talk endlessly about how he's 'in a tough spot,' 'has to make a tough decision,' but won't blame him for any of it the way they would (rightly or wrongly) jump to blame Clinton. So a loss in FL or MI might be just that and nothing more.

    Question: who's going to do the 'pressuring' on the winner and loser to embrace and form a unity ticket? Historically, when we've had close primaries, have the two leaders formed a unity ticket? Not sure if Kerry-Edwards is an example of this.


    This is beyond theMedia (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    Fl and MI are too big.

    You might want to check out (none / 0) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to say on Fox News this morning.  

    I did - See my last grafs. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    I think she is the odd person out on this.

    Funny how one thinks they (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    are reading and then the come to find out that they weren't. lol

    Why is (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    he in a "tough spot" ? I don't understand. Because he lost?  That seems self-serving not an honest
    debate into the question of how to fix the mess we are in and how to solve those state's  representation at the convention.

    Superdelegates, particularly the party elders (none / 0) (#12)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM EST
    will do the pressuring.

    what really got me (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    about Kerry was that he kept saying stuff about breaking the rules.  That must be their talking point counter to Carville yesterday saying, "let all the votes count!   Here's the money!"

    This is Obama having it both ways again--saying he'll abide by the rules but intimating a recount is breaking the rules.

    I don't know why Kerry wasn't called out on this.


    Right. If he'd been called on it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:29:51 AM EST
    he would have just repeated himself over and over or folded like a cheap suit.

    He was for the rules (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    before he was against them.

    Sorry, cheap shot, I couldn't resist.


    Yeah and I thought Rendell bested Daschle (none / 0) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    on Meet the Press, and really I don't have a lovey dovey for Rendell either so I'm surprised I thought that. I think the problem is more reflective of the contradictions in the Obama position. But it seems like all they have to do is ride this out and they will probably win the day. Bummer, too, because in the most current Newsweek poll they have Hillary beating McCain 48 to 46, while Obama was over him at 46 to 45. Both within margin of error, of course. Link to poll.

    and bo has a bad agrument (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST

    it is just clear that by saying  rule rules  and no redo  he is blocking the vote of important states... there is no way to spin it other than self interest  and manipulation. they will be seated  delying will not work  no way dems lose the party chances in nov just to satisfy bo.  and also on the rules  counter  other states broke the same rules and were not punished. so it just isnt a winning hand and he needs to drop it fast before he looks even worse...


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    But then it is a low bar...if Daschle was capable of effectively making any argument he would be Senate Majority Leader right now.

    Kerry makes Nelson look like (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    a statesman.  The mind reels.  

    That is how crazy this has become.


    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    Yeah - I moved to FL two years ago, reluctant to leave Colorado, but having to for my job.  The only bright spot I thought I had was at last having a Dem senator.  Wow, was I disappointed, until the last 6 months on this one issue.  I expect he will go back to sleep after the convention.

    There will be no unity ticket (none / 0) (#147)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    Hillary has already seen to it.

    I hope not (none / 0) (#197)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    I would prefer HRC with a strong VP.

    Losing in the delegate count (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    is being in a tough spot.

    So whatever process is chosen, Obama will campaign in those two states. He will have more money and more money on the ground.

    Clinton will most probably win Florida, and maybe in Michigan, too, but the margins of victory won't be the same as the faux primaries in January. How many delegates did Hillary pick up on Obama on Tuesday? So what does Hillary pick up against Obama? Twenty delegates? Thirty? Forty? Fifty? That's not going to win the nomination.

    The Clinton camp will still try to generate bad publicty for Obama while negotiations are ongoing (she has to in order to gain any slight advantage for her losing campaign), but if she doesn't accept a process that all parties agree to then none of their votes count. The news leak yesterday that Obama didn't agree to the agree-upon process in Michigan is another Clinton mistruth because it wasn't agreed-upon by all parties.

    She cannot win without tearing the party apart and there are enough people in the party that don't want that. It's over.


    Check some recent polls (none / 0) (#149)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    They show she would do BETTER in FL now then she did before, which probably explains why the Obama campaign may agree to sit the previous results (less embarrassing).

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST
    why Obama the "uniter" was so adamant against being the VP nominee. Seems unwise and shortsighted. Why didn't he just give a neutral response?
    However, his response did incite more Hillary hate.

    He's still playing for the top slot (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:43:59 AM EST
    She wants people to know that they can vote for her and get Obama too. He could gain experience as VP and run in 2012 or 2016.  If voters like that scenario, then some who might otherwise vote for Obama in the primary will switch to Clinton.

    Although I believe Clinton genuinely wants Obama as her VP, it's also very smart politics for her to put this out front and use it to her advantage in the primary. I think she and her team have played brilliant politics the last two weeks.


    John Edwards said in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    that he didn't want to be VP. He changed his mind in the interests of party unity.  You can  ALWAYS change your mind in the interests of party unity.

    Although I support Clinton, and think that Obama should ultimately accept joining her ticket if she won the nomination (still a long shot, IMO), I don't blame him for saying he doesn't want to be VP and doesn't want to run with her.  He's still trying to win the nomination and he undercuts his own campaign by suggesting he'd settle for the second slot.

    What I DO blame him for is not saying unequivocally that he would support her 100% if she wins the nomination.  He's always a bit cagey about that.  I don't know whether its a response to the Obama supporters who insist they wouldn't vote for Clinton, or whether he's actually considering not supporting her, but I think he should be clearer about that.


    I've found that evasiveness scary--will he take (none / 0) (#177)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    his campaign skills and just go home? Sit out the election?

    Then he's toast as a Democrat, if he does that or just phones it in.

    Perhaps he thinks he'll pull in fewer indendents and ReThugs if he says he will support whomever the Dems nominate?



    Obama is toast if he doesn't get the nomination (none / 0) (#199)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    I don't see Obama having national political life after 2008 if he is not the nominee (President or VP) this time around.  It's my view that once a person has run for the candidacy, it's unlikely that people will see that candidate as a winner the second time around.

    i totally agree dem cat (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    he has made it very clear that he would never pick her for vp [ and i think with the experience differences it wouldnt fly btw]   - i have agrued for him the vp slot is a good move  because he would be the next in line  and get all the things he is lacking now.  but he is in it for himself... so he isnt thinking that way. but as much as i wouldnt want to see a hrc bo ticket  i think he would never say yes [ and i think she really would do it because she respects the voters and wants to be inclusive]

    That's a good question-- (none / 0) (#167)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    if Hillary is too experienced to be an Obama VP (which I agree with), then who can fill the slot? Someone with name recognition but not way older/experienced than Obama is tough to find. Maybe Edwards?

    Granted, Bush did pick Cheney as his VP without any big fuss. So by Bush Rules, maybe an Obama-Ted Kennedy ticket :-)


    In fairness (none / 0) (#198)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    they're all in it for themselves. I'm not sure even Ghandi would go through this kind of grind simply for the good of the nation.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#109)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    (see my post above also on this)

    Duh. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    Let me see. Where has Hillary said that she is willing to accept the Veep spot?

    Please, Josey, you can figure this out. Both candidates are still running for President. Besides, why would Obama, who is going into the convention leading in delegates, say he'd be the Vice President to the candidate he's beating? Hillary first.


    Counting the chickens (none / 0) (#201)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    I've seen more than one campaign go up in flames in one day.  We have until June to get all the delegates in, including the superdelegates.  Obama has made some big mistakes that may cost him. Being a supporter sort of blinds one to the negative aspects of missteps.  The regular six-pack Joe is ready to be exploited.  The National Enquirer says that Obama is tied to terrorists.  That's front page at your supermarket newsstand. His Rezko connection has won him that front page, even if not true.

    Let The People Vote! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    Irony of ironies that John Kerry might be making these arguments.

    Take a look at his outrage over "voter suppression" in Nevada, "Let the People Vote!"

    For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote.

    Could I have a little hypocrisy with that latte?

    I always thought that this (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    issue with "voter suppression" in Nevada would come back to bite the Obama campaign down under.

    It was exactly at the point when the Obama campaign and Josh Marshall had cried moral outrage over the Nevada situation and then completely dissed the FL primary that I realized that neither of them felt the slightest pull of moral principle when it came to their guy.

    Either disenfranchisement means something to you on principle, or it doesn't. It was 100% obvious that it meant nothing to either the Obama campaign or Josh at that point.

    Kerry is just another highly visible representative of that underlying hypocrisy.


    more of Kerry's "outrage" over (none / 0) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    disenfranchisement. There's this further gem in Kerry's column above:

    This is just plain and simple a matter of principle not politics; the Party that marched alongside Dr. King and stood up with President Kennedy to open the schoolhouse doors in Alabama needs to be the Party of enfranchisement not disenfranchisement in Nevada this Saturday. Some convictions are just too important to be bent and broken to try and tip a few votes this way or that.

    Save your outrage, folks (none / 0) (#153)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    The negotiations are on-going.

    Where is there in Kerry's comments (none / 0) (#187)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    anything that looks like a full throated advocacy of the principle of "Let the people vote", or of the idea that, between "those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote," he and the Obama campaign stand firmly on the side of those who want more people to vote?

    Irony abounds on this thread (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by scribe on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    First, there's Obama, who's promised to unite us (if not in those words, then in that spirit), trying to rule out through his surrogates the possibility of a Democratic unity ticket.

    And that irony is amplified because regardless of who's at the top of a unity ticket, it would be both transcending our shared past and setting new precedent.  It's be either the first woman President and first A-A VP, or first A-A president and woman VP.  

    Then, there's Kerry, who would be running for re-election today had he stood up to Rove and Ken Blackwell stealing votes, making voting impossible for African-Americans (both by trying to purge the voter lists and by making sure there were not enough machines in the heavily Democratic and A-A precincts of Ohio) and then destroying the evidence (or trying to), trying to tell Democrats (this time) their votes should not be counted (or even accepted for non-counting), speaking on behalf of the African-American candidate.

    And, ironic though it would be that Obama's not wanting to have some voting go on, let's not even go near the whole issue of purging voter lists, voter caging, and all the rest, when those have  been a Republican methodology for making sure people of color don't get to vote, especially when they'd vote Democratic.

    And more Kerry et als, telling us the rules don't matter, when the last 8 years of Republican rule has yielded only a forest of broken rules and the inevitable destruction of civilization here and abroad that stems ineluctibly from not following the Rules.  

    Of course, there's also the irony of Bush's initial installation having been heralded by Jim Baker intoning about how the S.Ct.'s decison in Bush v. Gore meant that the Rule of Law had won, which made the rampant law-breaking which proceeded from that day forward all the more galling.  And, further, there's the whole ironic aspect that because Kerry's fold on counting all the votes in Ohio made the 2004 result happen, Kerry's spinelessness, in the face of Bush's demonstrated propensity for torture and lawbreaking, ratified that Bushco misconduct and made it acceptable precedent.  I.e., Kerry folding made it clear a politican won't get turned out of office for torturing people or permitting it to happen unpunished.

    If there's one person whose folding in the face of pressure on vote-counting makes him ineligible to be taken seriously, it's Kerry.  Sad that Obama pushes him out there - he could have chosen a better surrogate.

    agree with all the above (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    but here is the main reason why Kerry is not a good surrogate for Obama: HE LOST.

    lost and his state went for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    Just seeing Kerry is an every day reminder that he's a super for Obama even though his state went for Clinton. But I agree about the lost bit. That's what I think every time I see him. And not that it's unusual to lose to an incumbent and that we should hate him for it, but I think my feeling is more about not standing up for the votes in Ohio like Gore didn't stand up for the votes in FL. Still hard feelings there.

    By 15 points (none / 0) (#202)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    but recall they lived thru the same campaign their front runner knocked out with the same loop holes delegate rich caucuses in red areas of the State and claims of dirty swift boating campaigning when discussing Patrick's lack of a record, you know though it appears lots of losers are jumping to Obama not sure that's good for him certainly or the Party, Daschle, Schrum, Jackson, Sharpton, Brazile, Gore Edwards by default, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy.

    Dems are not going to accept Mich and Fla not being counted glad to hear Dean has heard that.


    Yes, he did (none / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    and he can do it again.

    Ha! Since rules are so important, Kerry will (none / 0) (#179)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    work for impeachment of BushBoy and Darth Cheney, right?

    I know--he's just playing the political game....

    But he is best when he plays to basic principles.


    Wolcott skewers the blogs (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jes on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    The Sorrow and the Pity Party

    Wherein the earnest one's post at dKos yesterday gets first billing in mockery.

    After Reading Wolcott's Article And Not Going To (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    to Kos, I'd wager some bucks that the Kos diary was written by teacherken.

    You'd win that bet. nt (none / 0) (#189)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    I can't thank you enough for that link... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    ..from the melancholy babies to the Brideshead Revisted references, I smiled the whole way through.

    By the way, one of the things that I have to thank Talkleft for is turning me on to Wolcott. I don't know how I had missed him before. With all of his rhetorical flair, you'd think he would want to align himself with the "creative" class. ;-)


    Does this (none / 0) (#205)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    "teacherken" person actually teach government to children? Ohmygod! He sounds like some victorian damsel about to go into a decline after being left at the alter.

    Yes , HE Does n/t (none / 0) (#211)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    Good! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM EST

    Obama needs to say NOW NO to VP (none / 0) (#14)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    slot.  He needs to say that he will not take the VP slot if Hillary wins the nomination but will support her 100% if she is the nominee.

    Thus if he does lose the nomination, he can say that he has said multiple times in the past that he won't take that position and will be sticking to his word.  However, he will be supporting Hillary 100% and encourages all Dems to vote for her.

    I think it is better for Obama to say no to being Hillary's VP.  

    Better for him to run for president in 2012 or 2016 after being in the Senate to get more experience or after being the Illinois governor in 2010.

    He needs to send out that message (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    but say it in a way that leaves the door open.

    If I were him (none / 0) (#25)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    I would ignore the suggestion of being VP.  I would say, "I already have someone else in mind", then decline to comment when the questioning turns to "who". Then everyone starts speculating on the choice and the topic gets shifted.

    I Hope He Says That (none / 0) (#82)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, I would "welcome" that comment. But for the Obama supporters, you probably don't want that occurring.

    What offends many people about him and his campaign is his perceived (or actual) arrogance. For him to stand up now and say he will ignore half the electorate by picking another VP is only going to feed that image.

    She will win the nomination based on the upcoming states. She has pushed Penn aside and is competing everywhere. She will have the momentum of winning bigger states like Penn and MI/FLA (whether seated or re-vote). No more caucuses exist so she stands a better chance of taking the other states or moving it to a delegate tie (ala Alabama).

    Here's what I predict. After gaining the nomination, she will offer him the VP slot. He will turn it down, expecting her to lose and then let him gain the 2012 slot. But she will win the GE (including FLA, which dems should never concede). After that he I don't know. Part of me suspects that he leaves the Senate after one term. He seems to be a short-termer in jobs.

    Maybe HRC might put him on the Court, which may be a better fit for him. (A friend predicted that months ago but I figured she was crazy. Now I see it makes sense.)


    Calculated (none / 0) (#143)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    Former President Bill Clinton has floated the idea that Barack Obama would be a great VP for Mrs. Clinton. His involvement in or suggestion, is an "enhancer" for many who worry that the former president's idea is another example that he's too involved and will cost Mrs. Clinton some votes. Mums the word Mr. Clinton.

    1jane (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    check your email.  That was yesterday's talking point.  Today's talking point is that Clinton is trying to change the rules by offering to help pay for a revote in FL and MI (clearly cheating), and that Obama will adhere to whatever the states and DNC decide.

    Wouldn't the Court be a terrible place (none / 0) (#164)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    to put a politican as good as Obama?  

    I think he would accept VP for sure.  I also think he would offer Hillary the slot as his VP.  He hasn't made any comments to that effect yet though, even when he was the clear frontrunner discussing his Cabinet.  Interesting...

    Edwards has really fallen off the face of the earth hasn't he?


    I don't want anyone on the Supreme Court who (none / 0) (#182)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    makes reaching out to the likes of Roberts a prime rule of thinking!

    Doesn't matter what he says. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    He promised unequivocally not to run for President in 2008 during his Senate race.  Eighteen months later he was running.  Has it hurt him?  I don't think so.

    I don't think folks care too much about this kind of statement.

    I do think the unity ticket talk is being ginned up by Clinton to attempt to attract voters (like me) who like both Obama and Clinton and in that sense Obama ought to try to quash it.  The problem is his doing that without appearing to be overly personally ambitious.


    You're forgetting (none / 0) (#174)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    Obama Rule #118: personal ambition is only a bad quality for Hillary The Monster, who will 'do anything to win' etc. Obamambition is a virtue. It's inspiring. Yes he can.

    I don't think that's an Obama rule. . . (none / 0) (#180)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST
    I think it's a rule invented by some of his more extreme partisan supporters, not connected to his campaign.

    However, it's certainly true that he's running as a "different kind of candidate" and an appearance of being cold and calculating in determining what benefits his numbers the most runs against the narrative he's established.


    And now you're forgetting (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    that the Obama Rules were not made by Obama.  He is always above the fray.  That, of course, is another Obama Rule that was not made by Obama.  Because he is always above the fray.  That . . . oh, forget it.

    It may hurt him (none / 0) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    If he does that (actually if either does) it may hurt them both in the remaining states and with party people. Also keep in mind if either refuses to join a ticket and the ticket loses they may be blamed for a very long time.

    i think he hurts himself saying no (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    hrc's camp pushing the willingness for a unity ticket is brilliant and bo saying no is hurting himself with SDs nd party elders. she looks like she is willing to do what is best for party  and many think the unity ticket is it  and he looks ego driven. it will hurt him with SDs bigtime  and it is a seriously winning stroyline for her. SDs may pick her thinking they can get a two fer   and if he says no he looks really bad. would hurt him in the future if they coelesce  around her so they can get a unity ticket and pressure him to say yes and he says no.

    I doubt he will be blamed for it (none / 0) (#23)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    if he says no to the VP slot but he will support Hillary 100% and wants the Dems to be united to propel her to victory.  As long as he says that, he will be fine.  Let voters make up their minds whether or not they want to vote for Hillary then.

    If Hillary is supposedly the stronger candidate than Obama to fight McCain than she should be able to win the nomination without Obama.  If Obama is so inexperienced any ways why the heck would Hillary want such an inexperienced VP.  What happened if she died?  According to her campaign Obama is too inexperience to be the VP.   That doesn't make any sense.  


    What Obama says (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    I don't have the feeling that I need to do what Obama says.  Never have.  The number of Clinton supporters who don't support Obama has been inching up slowly but surely.

    I'm just worried about Michelle (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    what if Clinton doesn't manage to capture the right tone for her?

    hee hee (none / 0) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    Wolfie agreed with you this morn (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    and asked whether saying that Obama is ready to be VP means he is ready to be CiC, i.e., president.

    The response was from Penn governor Rendell, and it wasn't awful, but he wasn't as ready for it as he ought to be, if he is going to be a spokesman.  (The answer is, if put more tactfully than I can do without more coffee, that the VPship can train him.)


    But (none / 0) (#108)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    he has repeatedly said "My supporters won't vote for
    Hilalry but hers will support me"  (quite arrogantly  IMHO).

    I think this comments by Obama have fueled quite a bit of division and set up the stage (and his nod) for an open boycott should he lose the nomination.  

    I don't think he said those words casually which make sme wonder whether he really thinks about the Dem. Party or about Obama period.


    maritza (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    Obama doesn't have to do anything right now but win Mississippi.

    Clinton has assured everyone that there won't be a unity ticket with her low-road campaigning. That means when Obama wins the nomination she won't be the VP.


    So is Obama off the hook now.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    ..for being divisive, because supposedly Clinton did it first. I hope he changes his stump speech then.

    Speaking for yourself only (none / 0) (#17)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    You forgot to pre-disclaim

    reliable web site w/ delegate & popular vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by seabos84 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM EST

    (I'm sick of barack and hill ... I've been sick of hill since she f'd up health care in '93 and barack's senate record I do NOT find compelling

    the only reason I caucused for barack here in WA on 9 Feb is that I'd have a new high flying lying slippery Ivy Leauger selling me out.)

    Hopefully barack is ahead in popular and delegates.


    Popular and Delegate vote lead is key (none / 0) (#146)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    It is going to be a travesty either way if the delegate (pledged) and popular vote lead split.

    You'll have the first black man winning one (pledged delegates) only to have a bunch of primarily white party elders take nomination away and give it to someone else and tell him, hey, you can be the side-kick!


    You'll have the first woman winning one (popular vote) only to have a bunch of primarily male party elders take the nomination away and give to some man and tell her, hey, you can be the side-kick!

    Either perception will have some basis in reality and cause a pretty big split IMO


    Agree (none / 0) (#157)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    I don't find either candidate terribly progressive.

    First time I see this video (none / 0) (#21)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    Anybody ever seen it.  Kind of 180 degree turn.  No I have no experience to yes I do have experience.


    I didn't watch (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    but your description sounds like Kerry was being true to form, which is the reason we are not looking at a Kerry RE-Election today, like we shoulda been. I'm laughing at that...Kerry gave us Clinton/Obama...it's his fault.

    He is awful (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    Why Obama sends him out I'll never know.

    He's usually a little better (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    than Donna Brazile.

    THAT (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    is an exceedingly low standard.

    She's one of the big reasons that Al Gore isn't in his valedictory year as president.


    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    I'm looking at the Gore ad on the right of the page, and I want to scream.

    Gore was in a tough spot (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    he needed an AA at or near the top of his campaign team and back then (my guess would be) there were few blacks with her long experience in national politics.

    But when he shook up his campaign team following the primaries in 2000, the record shows that, while she stayed with the title of Camp Mgr, her actual influence was diminished (not that Al could have gotten away with demoting her officially or firing her).  She was no longer in the top echelon of aides making key daily decisions, being given a more narrow role of AA outreach/GOTV.


    That would be... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    damning with faint praise. IMO

    To make Kerry feel more important, (none / 0) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    I imagine. Payback for the Kerry mailing list.

    Tom Daschle is also an ineffective surrogate, IMO.


    All surrogates suck (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    I find Penn and Wolfson to be equally grating.

    Actually, Bill Clinton doesn't suck, but we never seem to hear from him anymore. . .


    That was actually a clever move by Obama camp. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    ..by throwing out the race card accusation they have silenced Bill Clinton. I heard him talking in Mississippi on the economy yesterday for about 3 minutes before CNN cut him off and I thought, hell yeah, we need some more of that.

    Not so clever if Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    because Obaama can't use Bill Clinton on the road now, as it was Obama who denigrated the Clintons.

    And thus, once again, we would have a Dem campaign not using the greatest Dem vote-getter we have had in decades.  It would be 2000 again, and I don't want to watch that twice.  I actually will have to unplug from political junkie-ism.  So just in case, I'm collecting garden catalogs and exterior paint samples to get outside, far from tv and computers.

    So my plan is that, if we lose the White House again, at least my house will look great.


    That sounds like a better (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    way to spend the spring/summer anyway.

    Unless I feel the need for travel (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    to help a campaign once school is out, say to a Caribbean clime . . . I have been humming "Puerto Rico, my heart's devotion/DON'T let it sink back in the ocean."  Ah, can Clinton get Chita Rivera on the campaign trail?

    They haven't silenced Clinton (none / 0) (#203)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    as some commentator pointed out the other day. He's campaigning as much as ever, he's just staying on message more, like the good campaigner he is, so the national media isn't spotlighting him. I think he's still doing her a lot of good on the retail side.

    In my opinion, what Bill was saying wasn't so bad. The worst thing was that he was making the campaign about him, which is the last thing Hillary needed if she wanted to be viewed as an independent force.


    Shhh. Just because Bill (none / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    worked Texas like a guy half his age who never had a bypass, but just stopped paying the way of the media to take the perks and then trash him -- don't let the Obamans know.  They think they silenced him, and they even think Hillary's campaign wants Bill silent.  Nope, we're just staying silent about it, 'kay?

    bill is campaigned more in texas than (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    hillary. he was all over the state and back again.

    knowing that they cajoed obama to (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    run primarily against hillary and helped cause this mess irritates me no end with them. first they can't run the senate when handed to them, now they run the primaries into the ground. i'll say it again, repubs have better party discipline. that's all the good i'll ever say for them though.

    Republicans just run campaigns (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    much smarter than their candidates. :-)

    Criticism of Bush (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    What was our primary criticism of the Bush admin?  Bad planning.  Bad planning in domestic and foreign policy.  Never planning for the worst case scenario, what did the Dems do?  No plan for the worst case scenario.  So, I still think that Brazille and Dean should be held accountable.  

    he's great on votes in 2005-2007, IMO (none / 0) (#76)
    by HadIt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    but his debate/oration style seems to miss the mark more often then not.  I'm happy with him votewise as my senator, though.  

    Which senator that voted ney in the Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    Resolution has stayed true to his cause and never once voted for any of the Iraq funding bills that came after the invasion.  Anybody know.

    Russ Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    Unfortunately, not running for president.

    Clinton-Obama sounds good in theory (none / 0) (#32)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    the "unstoppable force" etc.

    But how does it help Clinton beat McCain is the question. I suppose if you buy all this "threshold" stuff her campaign is peddling then you might believe she can hold her own with McCain on foreign policy / national security issues. (Have you seen who people really want answering that 3 AM call?)

    Does it make sense politically, internally to the party and for the media, for the Clintons to be pushing the Obama VP idea? Definitely.  Do we really believe she will choose him in the end, when faced with McCain? Not so sure.

    I think it helps her in the match-up (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    for one simple reason: Democratic voter turn-out. She doesn't need his credentials, or his geographic balance. She needs him for what he is best at: going out and exciting voters.

    She might also need him (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    to keep the AAs in the party unified and excited about the race, because they'll be awfully disappointed should Obama not get the nom.  Might be a ticket forced on HRC.  

    It won't get us a definite leg up in any particular toss-up state perhaps, but it might have that exciting 'synergy' of 2 dynamic campaigners that, say, Clinton-Gore 92 had which could help Dems compete in places like CO, TN, or VA.

    Of course, with HRC at the top of the ticket, we can almost certainly pick up Ark.


    and i think he will say no (none / 0) (#97)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    i really dont think he will take vp no matter the pressure. and i think it does not help hrc. bo is not vetted at all and the repubs are going to kill him. if he is veep he will still get it. he has not really been attacked yet no matter what anyone wants to say about hrc. the repubs play at a different level [ think max cleland]  and he will topple badly if he is on the ticket... he makes her more vulnerable .... so i think it is a mixed bag but i think more negative.   but i really dont think he will ever say yes. and i think he will really hurt his future.... i hope i am wrong

    I dunno (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    Here is the scenario I forsee:

    He's just lost the presidential nom either by Clinton sweeping up or by the super d's looking at the demographics, realizing that the caucuses are crap, and pressuring him out.  He's lost his chance to make history.  They offer him the VP slot.  His name goes into every history book as the first aa VP.

    Edwards was adamantly against the VP slot until he lost his chance at the presidency.  You don't get that high up in politics without having a huge ego (Clinton included).  I think Obama would consider the suggestion, look at what is waiting him back home (and returning to being the second most junior senator in DC, and on top of that having lost) and take the slot.

    The reason this doesn't work for Clinton is because she has many, many more options and tons of seniority.  If she loses the nom this time, she can go back to the senate and walk into the majority leader position and start kicking butt that way.


    True, but HRC also excites voters. (none / 0) (#45)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    In this case, my question is about the Republicans she excites, who will go out in high numbers to vote McCain should she be at the top of the ticket. These Republicans won't be mollified by the presence of Obama as VP. They may be slowed down a little by a combination of their doubts about McCain and the presence of a more experienced, more familiar VP on the Clinton ticket.

    Of course, once the nomination is secured, the Clinton campaign will be all about change not experience. But will that pivot work against McCain and the fired up Republicans?


    This line that HRC at the top (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    will only unite Rs is belied by the fact it didn't happen in her 2 senate races.  Moderate Rs and centrist indies in fact turned out to vote for her upstate.

    Also let's look at the other side of the equation -- her historic nomination (possibly with Obama in the Veep slot) will excite and unite not only Dems but indies and sane moderate Rs sick of the war and worried about the economy.

    Bush-backing McCain only offers a 100 yrs of war in Iraq and will be blown out of the water by Hillary on most domestic issues like health care and generally getting the economy back on track as Bill did in the 90s.  McC has no counter here -- and will look like an old tired unexciting Bob Dole status quo candidate.


    brodie (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:41:27 AM EST
    I totally agree.  People are so busy complaining about Clinton winning that they are ignoring WHY she is winning.  Powers denigrating the duped voters of Ohio to the Scotsman proves that.

    She is winning because people are afraid they are going to lose their homes.  They are afraid that they will get sick and not be able to afford healthcare.  They desperately want a plan to get out of Iraq.  These are the cornerstones of Clinton's campaign.


    Not sure who is complaining here. (none / 0) (#64)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    My question is about the dynamics of the Clinton-McCain match-up.

    It may be true that Obama as Clinton's VP candidate is ideal if you imagine that his presence simply imports a couple of demographics and some youthful exuberance into the Democratic tally.

    But if the key question for the GE, as HRC has put it lately, is about who is best qualified to be C in C, why would Obama's VP presence help her more  than a different, more experienced choice?


    Eyelash apart (none / 0) (#155)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    There are some voters who view McCain and Mrs. Clinton as only an eyelash apart on the Iraq War. Barack Obama has the anti-war voters on the Iraq issue. A firestorm on the blogs erupted when Mrs. Clinton announced that only she and Senator McCain are competent to be the commander and chief. Neither Democratic candidate can beat their chests on crisis-management. Advantage McCain on the Iraq War issue.

    1jane, assessing reality (none / 0) (#212)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    by firestorms on blogs is bad practice.  Might as well measure the depth of the avalanche on Mars.  It was quite colorful to see that in my paper this morning, but then I turned the page and haven't thought about it again until now.  And when I move on from your post, I won't think about it again. . . .

    I think the number (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    of republicans voting "against" Clinton has been greatly exaggerated.  I just don't see the polling that bears it out.  Also, there are some republicans for Clinton--usually women of a certain age--who are voting for her because she is the first viable woman candidate.

    Not everyone does what Limbaugh says, just as not everyone does what Kos says.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    Except when they are allowed to vote in Democratic primaries and then their role has been insufficiently emphasized (not here, though).

    If You Look At Primaries Results, (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    Clinton wins the rural areas easily and Obama loses them all. Also, Republicans are once again using "hot button" issues to get the Republicans out to vote. Just read that doing away with affirmative action will be on the ballot in MO and a couple of other states. They will make sure the Republicans come out to vote in full force one way or another. So the meme that Clinton will generate more Republican turnout seems rather silly IMO.

    yup (none / 0) (#103)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    and of course  remember in the end in tx wasnt it rush  saying to vote for hrc. i really think the whole repub fear of hrc is seriously exaggerated    they are way more afraid of an young inexperienced guy who has a history of pushing the wrong button [ lol  remember that one?]  with his hand on the trigger.  

    Are we underestimating (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    the draw of the combined ticket? I am not talking about the electoral math. Its something more intangible. The two seem like a very interesting complement and contrast of strengths, styles, who they draw, how they draw them.

    Maybe I am delusional but I keep thinking it would be something.


    She wouldn't (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    even if she got the nomination, which she won't.

    Please format your links properly (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:32:59 AM EST

    Clinton (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    would be very good as Secretary of State.

    Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    has the clip from SNL's opening last night.  It's a parody of the 3am call.  The phone is ringing.  Clinton answers it.  It's Obama calling her again to ask her what he should do.

    She doesn't need to be Secretary of State.  She needs to be president.


    that's funny (none / 0) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:04:17 AM EST
    Darn, I missed the show. But that clip is funny.

    I watch SNL (none / 0) (#75)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    almost every week. I could not tell whether that sketch was positive or negative for Hillary. She says, for example, "Of Course Bill isn't here [in her bedroom], it's 3 a.m."

    I think SNL will disappoint Hillary fans with further parodies of that ad in October, and a general rehashing of all the Clinton marital woes and Bill seeking to be president again.

    SNL did help her the last two weeks because  The Media endlessly talked about it, but remember that is what happened with the Swift Boat ads too. A dog that bites is not a good friend to rely on.


    I am a firm Clinton supporter (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    and I found it Hill-larious.  Unlike some Obama supporters, I think there is some valid criticism that can be made about Clinton.  That being said, being portrayed as overly competent and calm and capable next to Obama freaking out and begging Clinton to help does not, in my opinion, paint her in a bad light.

    We all know she can be a tad pedantic and wonky.  Why is it a bad thing?  It's just like last week's skit where "she" said she'd annoy the crap out of people until they gave in and she got her way.

    Again, not a bad thing in my book, and completely true.  Why would you want a president who is going to back down?


    here here kathy (none / 0) (#105)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:25:38 AM EST
    ditto :}

    I thought it worked (none / 0) (#152)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    for Hillary too. The Bill Clinton part was funny too.

    That was hilarious! (none / 0) (#173)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    I now officially want this nominating process to go on forever just to see more.  I loved the Gore-Bush stuff too.

    I think the SNL sketch was pro-Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    Sure, they poked fun at her a little, but the overriding message that I got was Obama's lack of experience and inability to perform under pressure. I loved the bit where she accused him of smoking again and he denied it.  I've been there, done that.  :)

    I'm glad they took the little jab at Bill, not that I don't love Bill, but it made the skit more even-handed.  

    Obama scribbling notes was also funny to me b/c it's like what he does in all the debates.  As a friend said, he's like a 4th grader trying to copy the smart girl's notes.


    also (none / 0) (#158)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    It seems silly but the smoking part kind of reminded us that Obama's not pefect. I say that as a former smoker; and I still have a bias that really smart people wouldn't start smoking. I know that is a completely stupid thought on my part, but I had the thought nonetheless.  Also, the sketch implies he started smoking again because of the pressure of being Pres. Wondered if it was a reminder of all the rumors that Bush has started drinking again. I almost wished he had started drinking again, which would explain a lot. More likely, however, he just lost his freakin mind or he is evil. Both worse than a drunk, if you ask me (for president that is)

    She would (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM EST
    appoint an even better one as president! :)

    Which cabinet position do you see (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    for Obama?  (It's good, btw, that in either case, we would not be losing a Senate seat, as both could go Dem again.)

    something that fits his experience (none / 0) (#81)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    Since he has made a lot of his community experience in IL, I would put him in a compatible position like HUD or Health and Human Services. But then he sure has a gift for gab, so perhaps State would be good.

    ahhh (none / 0) (#114)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    unfortunately  he would never take it. the trouble is that the msm and his fans have lavished such hyperbolic praise on him  that he believes it. i think he will only take prez.

    and it really isnt about working hard for him. look at the subcommittee chairmanship. i am sure he got that so he could use it to buff up his credentials in foreign policy  and it was a HUGE missed opportunity for him. he should have been working - i think it is indicative of his thinking... he will not be satisfied with a another position  imo


    Future (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM EST
    He has to look to his future.  If he stumbles in any way, his prospects for Pres in the future would be gone.  Sometimes it seems he likes to stay under the radar.

    Still got nothin' from cannondaddy (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    but thanks for others' thoughts on this.

    Cannondaddy?  Do share your further thoughts on potential cabinets for the candidates -- or other possibilities for Obama's future?


    How can Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:01:51 AM EST
    state unequivocally that only she and McCain have the experience and qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief, and then name Obama as her Vice President?

    I think it was good politics, and placed Obama permanently on the outside looking in for this election, but it may very well cost her some votes in November.

    I am not sure I understand (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Why would saying "he is not ready" somehow stop her from picking him for VP? That would seem the perfect learning grounds, no?

    that's just the talking point (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    every single presidential candidate in American history has said they are more qualified than their opponents.  If you want to examine someone other than Clinton saying he's not ready, you need only look at the YouTube clip of Obama saying this very thing.  The VP slot is seen by most Americans as ceremonial, and thought to be the training ground.

    No one runs for VP.  I think the more Obama waffles on Clinton's "offer" the worse he looks.  


    Cheney (none / 0) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    After Cheney, I don't think of the  VP slot as ceremonial.

    Ceremonial? (none / 0) (#160)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    What about Dick Cheney? The problem for Barack Obama is Clinton already has a VP. His name is Bill.

    I think this is a silly point (none / 0) (#207)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    that I keep hearing repeated. The President almost always has advisors that are closer to him than the VP. The VP isn't the assistant President. Remember, it was generally accepted that Bill had done a good thing by making Gore the most involved VP up to that time.

    As I said on another thread, in order to entice him, she has to offer him full authority over a portfolio, such as education and other relatively high profile areas.

    I think the primary motivation for Hillary picking OBama as VP would be a response to the extortion attempts by his supporters, threatening wholesale defections if he's doesn't get the nom. It will be more to prevent losses than to gain anything.

    Two problems for Hillary. One, it has been obscured for now, but up until this year, the prospect of whether a woman or AA President was considered a real long shot. Both of them still have to overcome a lot of negatives to win (not saying they can't.) Why does Hillary want to increase those negatives? She would be better off  with a white governor of a key state, like Strickland. I think that's an unfortunate truth. As someone said, there's a difference between racial politics and racist politics.

    Second, Obama as VP would be in a position of little or no accountability (which as a Hillary partisan is where I think he shines). He would be able to use his platform for his inspirational speeches, while Hillary would be slogging along on policy and taking all the arrtows. If she had her choice, I'm sure she'd want a VP who wouldn't outshine her. But that's a luxury she can't afford.


    not to me (none / 0) (#99)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    If anyone names a Vice President the VP also has to be ready on Day One. Unless the President can assure the voters he or she is immortal.

    Take John McCain, for example: he has had cancer, he will be the oldest President ever if he wins. My dentists died ten years ago of cancer and his mother is 97.

    McCain argues that his mother's age makes him a good candidate for a long life, but despite the recent 34 year run of good luck, a VP should be "ready for prime time".

    I think it would be a legitimate issue for someone to raise in a debate: "Why did you pick a VP you feel does not qualify as C-i-C?"


    Good point (none / 0) (#110)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    But I would say it has to be balanced with a bit of an eye to the future. VPs are also picked partially as the next successor, so they should be more than just "ready on day one."

    Of course your post made me think of Bush Sr picking Dan Quayle...Honestly I don't know what he was thinking.


    He was lowering the bar for Dubya (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    Maybe it was subconscious, but I think he was getting America used to the idea of the village idiot as president.

    as if (none / 0) (#79)
    by HadIt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:11:45 AM EST
    anything a politician says has an effect on what they do.

    HRC could pivot first by (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    saying she wasn't saying Obama wasn't qualified to be CiC, but that she was merely saying that in a matchup with McCain, she would be better positioned to neutralize his perceived advantage on nat'l security.  She would also add she could have worded it more precisely, it was a heated primary contest and sometimes the rhetoric gets ahead of the facts, etc.

    Pols have to pivot and semi-backtrack all the time.  A medium-sized and surmountable problem for her in a HRC/BHO scenario.

    Also here, we'd have to see who McCain had as his #2.  If it's Charlie Crist or Sen Hutchison, well, the Rs are going to get the questions about national security preparedness and gravitas thrown back at them.  Most folks would see that Obama is no worse in terms of readiness than Gov Charlie or ex news anchor Kay Bailey.

    If they tried to counter Obama with Condi, then they'd have another set of problems -- her close associations with Bush and Iraq.  And Condi would not peel off AAs from the Dems.


    The problem (none / 0) (#166)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    is the Clinton can't outscare the people the way that Republicans can outscare the people. The Republicans can always generate more scary stuff, can always torture more brown people, can always have more scary secrets that they won't tell you than Democrats can. Besides, who does that argument appeal to? Are any of you here at TalkLeft scared? Okay, America has a history of being scared of black men, but you're not slipping into that stuff, are you?

    The whole 3am/CIC argument is scaredy cat stuff. When Dems win they change the argument to something besides the reactionary rambling. (Yes, reactionary. When you are scared or angry, you react.) That last two Dems to successfully win with that argument were JFK and LBJ: JFK with his phony "missile gap" and LBJ with a reverse scary, making people scared of crazy Goldwater starting a nuclear war. Since then scaredy cat tactis have belonged to the Republicans. You can't beat them for scariness.

    There is no 3am phone call. It's imaginary. Who's going to attack America at 3am? The Soviet Union? China? The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore and all China has to do is stop loaning us money.


    The 3am phone call concept (none / 0) (#190)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    is not going to go away in our politics.  Exactly what do you want Bob?  Preparedness, good staff, good intelligence and good strategy are probably much more realistic ways to look at foreign policy, but surprises obviously do come up.  Are you saying Dems should just ignore this archetypal image in their politicking?  It isn't a pure figment of the imagination.  Take for instance when it appeared Iran's boats were coming at the US Navy.  This moment hits the presses, everyone wants to know what's going on, etc.  When I first heard about it, I thought, Oh God, what is Bush going to do??  [fearing the worst, as it's Bush]  Fortunately that 'event' was nothing.  But this is the kind of thing that exists in the public's consciousness.  The '3 am' phone call question appeals to a lot of people.  And Hillary's ad only asked that question.  She didn't make an ad that compared say the 3 am phone call to present votes in the Senate.  That would've been horrid.  I don't think she went over the line with this 3am ad thing.   And I don't understand why you are comparing Repub/Dem views on 'a dangerous world' to "America's fear of black men."  They are not analogous.

    The "scare" thing (none / 0) (#215)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    is part of the spin put out by the Obama camp. It was never implied that we would be attacked. But what President hasn't been woken up at 3 a.m. by a crisis? The ad simply said "When the call comes, who do you want answering the phone?" She made essentially the same point in NH, and it became part of Obama lore that she said we'd be attacked if Obama was elected.

    But when Clinton said Obama liked Reagan (which was at least arguable) it became a "smear," and the outrageous way he "twisted" OBama's words was at least as bad as Karl Rove has ever done.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#191)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    it's because she didn't "unequivocally" say any such thing.  Arguably she implied it, but big deal.

    pressure... mildly optimistic (none / 0) (#83)
    by HadIt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    It seems like a push in the right direction(s).  Though, if there is a O/C or C/O ticket, I can't wait to see the supermassive black hole that forms after the ginormous simultaneous head-explosions over at dKos, Americablog, etc.  

    BTD (none / 0) (#87)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    I am a bit confused; is the Obama camp essentially agreeing to a MI re-vote (primary?) but against a FL re-vote?

    Thanks for a clarification.


    Ask them (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    Kerry made no sense today. I can not tell you what they are agreeing are disagreeing to.

    He drones (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    This is exactly where I find Hillary refreshing.  She says something, it's clear, articulate and to the point.   I keep imagining how refreshing it would be to have than in a president.

    Me too (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    That is the first thing that impressed me about her.   What a joy it would be to have someone capable at a press conference.  Obama is more in the Kerry vein when answering questions on the fly.

    Hehee (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    Having worked in community development for years, community organizers always try to "process" which means repeat what everyone is saying over and over and never reach a point of accountability or next steps.  Drives me nuts.  No one makes a decision and owns it cause that would be seen as aggressive--so the droning is part of the job.  Leaving always wiggle room for not doing anything.  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    Even after hours spent on Lexis, Google, his websites (senate and presidential candidate one) I end up with no clearer picture of where he stands on a host of issues. It's so frustrating.

    Best I can tell (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    is that they will agree to whatever gets approved by the DNC.  But Dean says that once FL and MI come up with official plans, they DNC will consult with the candidates before approving the plans.  So Obama and Dean have a nice little circular thing going on.

    Neither Obama and Dean are providing any leadership at all on this.  I agree with those that say they are just stalling, hoping Obama racks up enough delegates without FL and MI that FL and MI can be seated as is at the convention without it meaning that Obama loses.


    ruffian (none / 0) (#168)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    what does this tell you?

    All Sunday shows-not 1 pro for BO as CinC (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    I watched the Sunday shows (except FOX) with an eye toward seeing Obama's surrogates accept Clinton's challenge and say how Obama has crossed the "commander in chief threshold".  Not one of them even tried - they were too busy whining about the question even being asked and,  knocking Clinton's experience.  

    Wouldn't the best way to fight this charge be to, oh let's say, fight the charge?

    they just don't know how to do it (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    It's what Stellaaa said about the droning, times one hundred.  They can't attack the content, so they attack how it was said.  And like many things, Obama himself cannot let it go.  He is STILL harping on that 3am call.  It obviously ticks him off.  All that it accomplishes every time he brings it up is remind people of the ad, which was extremely effective.  Sure, he gets a laugh from the audience playing off it, but the voters aren't laughing.  They are voting Clinton.  

    There have been so many instances in this campaign where Obama gets an "attack" (and I quote it because, let's be honest, these "attacks" are nothing compared to what the big boys will bring out) and he has to harp on it and harp on it until the dead horse is beaten all the way to China because he cannot stand to lose an argument.  His advisors and surrogates are the same way because it comes from the top down.  They are so insulated and have to this point been so coddled, that they have completely lost the thread on how they are being perceived outside their inner circle.

    Amateurs one and all.


    Ironic (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    The irony in how they faced this attack is by saying Hillary has no experience and tear down her experience.  It's obvious he has no more experience than Hillary so, what is the point?  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    Plus, they have to have an answer when McCain asks the same question, so why aren't they coming up with something better than 'I was against the war from the beginning'? That is great, but most of the people on this comment list could say the same thing.  Doesn't make us prepared to be CinC

    Which could be the reverse argument (none / 0) (#169)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST

    Jump ball.


    Irony (none / 0) (#170)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:22:46 PM EST
    The irony is that Barack Obama has been organized in my state for well over a year and we don't vote until May. The experience argument has been pretty even for both candidates. Unfortunately, some of Mrs. Clinton's advisors have turned Hilary into an "experience enhancer". Now there are obsessed Republicans vetting her every word and fact checking her. I read some Republican blogs that delight in finding her "enhancements." Here's one.

    Foreign Policy experience: Referring to her claim she assisted in ending the war in the country of Bosnia, "Bosnia, Mrs. Clinton had a one day visit in Bosnia with performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad as well as her daughter Chelsea." according to the commanding general who hosted her.

    I'm not saying the stuff is true. We need to keep our eye on the ball which is defeating John McCain.


    Mitchell says she helped (none / 0) (#193)
    by rilkefan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    True or not, it refutes your claim.

    Should have said in Ireland n/t (none / 0) (#194)
    by rilkefan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Experience and the candidates (none / 0) (#106)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    NPR did a story this morning comparing the years-of-experience claims of Clinton and Obama.

    They used reporting from
    and they DO give Clinton solid credit for her WH years.

    I think it's a good piece to keep handy.  Actually, note that the Politifacts site has a separate story for each candidate.

    Photo (none / 0) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:45:50 AM EST
    Obama is going after her on experience.  They are circulating the photo of her with Cheryl Crow in Bosnia.  Is it just me, or does that seem kind of weak?

    Great (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    Why can't they say one positive thing about Obama, besides 'The Speech'?  I guess they really do think that going negative works.

    ruffian (none / 0) (#171)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to accuse anyone here of having a tin ear when it comes to positives about Obama and "they." You can always feel free to go to Obama-friendly websites to read about things besides his speech.

    Recognize your disconnect. He is on the verge of winning the nomination and you still can't figure him out. Is that more a comment on your learning curve or the more than half of the Party that's supporting him?


    Clinton's advisors (none / 0) (#175)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST
    It is not weak when the world press is all over Clinton's claims of her foreign policy experience. Get ready for the press about her claims of involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process. She met with a women's group that was carefully chosen. An Irish official stated, "Mrs. Clinton was part of the stage, it was nice to have her here." Her claims about her experience in China will also be refuted. One wag asked, "How does going to Beijing to give a speech show experience in crisis management?" It's going to be a long tough slog for Mrs. Clinton. She'd be better served by better advisors.

    Corporate Law Practice (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    There is an implication that Hillary's corporate law experience was some god awful thing, equal to crime.  I like that she has that experience under her belt. She knows how things work, she has fought some battles.  It's not illegal to be a corporate lawyer.  

    Ithink it qualifies her more than "community organizing", which is the lowest of the jobs in the community development continuim.  Obama was not a community developer bringing funds to a neighborhood, structuring complex projects with multiple resources.   Community organizing is the entry level job-- he was not the executive director of a community based non profit, responsible to a Board or putting together a budget, dealing with implementing programs.  

    Community organizers typically just hold meetings and try to get neighborhood residents to come to local government meetings.  They usually are the entry level job in neighborhood development corporations.  It's hard to find details of his three year job.  


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#172)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    This candidate, corporate lawyer for a union-busting megacorporation that destroys local economies.

    This candidate, head of a law review, teaching Constitutional law.

    Let me think awhile on that one.


    New Thought (none / 0) (#112)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    Has anybody suggested that in Fl and Mi to let the votes stand and since they say that people didn't vote because they thought they would not count, let the people that didn't vote at all to vote now...  It would be a much smaller operation, with fewer voting places and workers,  would cost less and everbody could vote and be counted... Maybe give all the uncommitted votes to Obama when some of them were for Edwards....

    FL/MI vote (none / 0) (#118)
    by gish720 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    Watched CNN just now with Senator  and Senator Menendez from NJ(I'm sure I spelled her name wrong) wherein Clair is arguing adamantly for not counting the vote...they showed a clip of Carvell calling for the vote to count.  Anyway you look at this it look awful for the Obama people.  I'm one of the voters in FL and I thought for a long time that just because some boneheads in the legislature moved the primary date why should the voter be disenfranchised? This is a losing argument for Obama and his people.  Kerry and company all look like hypocrites.

    I meant to say Sentator McCasle (none / 0) (#119)
    by gish720 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    McCaskill (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:40:01 AM EST
    McCaskill (none / 0) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    Obama's possible pro-telecom immunity AG.  I'm sorry, I need to  quit mentioning this.  I need to get over my annoyance with her positions.

    good god (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    I have not heard that. I've been unimpressed with her for many reasons...why do we need to promote her to the cabinet?

    waldenpond (none / 0) (#176)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    Reality check:

    Obama voted against FISA immunity. Clinton didn't bother to vote.


    IIRC, Hillary's vote would not have made any (none / 0) (#186)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST

    What bothers me about both Hillary and Barack is they both oppose immunity for the telcos, but neither of them have made statements that we know of asking their endorsers in the Senate to follow their lead on this.  Both have Senate supporters who voted against the stand of the propose standard bearer.

    I would have like some leadership from both of them on this issue. Besides statements.


    My Senator McCaskill Taking The Opportunity To (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    look as dumb as she votes. May have to ruin my lifetime record of never voting for a Republican in 2012.

     How can these people really think that publicly supporting disenfranchising the voters in two states is a winning issue?


    Delaying tactics (none / 0) (#127)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    are Obama's and Dean's strategy as another poster said. Then Obama can deny he was against a revote.

    The states could just go ahead and redo. Could Dean and Brazile refuse to count a revote?

    I am thoroughly disgusted with Dean. How do we get him out of there?

    I keep repeating the delay tactic (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    I'm annoying.  It is up to th DNC to approve a plan.  That is part of the rules.  They are going to look ridiculous now allowing procedures (primary, caucus, mail in) which are done by states already.  There would be no basis for denial.  The only thing left is to stall.  Tick, tick, tick....

    You are right (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    Dean and Obama have a circular stall going on.  Dean won't approve a plan until presented with one by the states  and consulting with Obama and Clinton, and Obama won't even talk about a plan until the DNC has approved one.

    It is in neither of their interest to revote.  They are hoping that Obama will win enough delegates from other states in the meantime that if they seat the FL and MI delegates as is at the convention it will not matter to the nomination.  That was always Dean's idea - the apparent nominee would be so far ahead that the credentials committee could make nice and 'forgive' FL and MI and seat them at the convention.

    So stall it is.  No leadership forthcoming from either Obama or Dean.


    I don't think FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    will stand for much more delaying, and it only makes the DNC and Obama look bad, because Clinton is shouting solutions from the treetops and they are waffling.

    HRC: Let's revote
    DNC: can't afford it
    HRC: let's raise the money.  I'll pay half
    DNC: sorry, call back later, can't talk now


    Dean (none / 0) (#178)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    Howard Dean is leaving at the end of 2008. Feel better?

    Hello (none / 0) (#183)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    Just a reminder.

    Clinton agreed, AGREED that those primaries would not count.

    Why is Clinton now for counting those primaries? Hmmm. It must have been with her last two months of her thirty-five years of experience.

    Admit it. On January 1 no one in the Clinton camp was shedding a tear for the failure of democracy in Michigan and Florida. She agreed to uphold party rules/kicked the citizens of MI and FL to the curb.

    Now she desperately needs those delegates to get anywhere near Obama's totals. That's hypocrisy based on desperation. You people see it as a moral stand.

    There will be some kind of primary in those states if all parties agree to the specifics. Considering that Clinton's position post-faux primaries was to count them, I don't see why everyone here expects that the Obama camp should immediately agree to all details without negotiating.

    Oh, snap! Hillary supporters want more delegates for Hillary. That's there moral imperative.


    Hillary agreed not to campaign b4 2/5/2008 (none / 0) (#200)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    No one (not even Obama) agreed FL and MI delegates would not be seated.

    Anyone see SNL? (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    Another great opener...3 am, someone answering the phone..it's Sen. Clinton taking an emergency call from Pres. Obama asking for help.  Priceless.  taylormarsh.com has a link to the video.

    And Clinton (none / 0) (#132)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    hands the phone to Sinbad.

    Forward (none / 0) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    Who forwards it to Will-I-am and a music video plays in the war room.

    There won't be a unity ticket (none / 0) (#131)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    After Clinton's low road politics the last couple weeks they can't run together.

    What ticket would anyone here presume? That Clinton is going to run with the guy she called "not ready" to be Commander-In-Chief. It was a stupid argument anyway, and one she will lost to McCain, but to run with the guy she's declared incompetent can only mean she's running with him in order to be President.

    In a flip scenario, Obama will go into the convention with the most pledged delegates. He wants Clinton for what reason? She's the one that challenged his competence. That's going to play well on the campaign trail. Even if he'd thought about it previously, to take her on his ticket now would be political suicide.

    Besides, while it's true that Hillary runs better in some blue states, how many electoral votes would she pull in for him? And how many red states would he pull in for her?

    No, Clinton's made sure that there can be no joint ticket. If Dems have to have a joint ticket to win then Hillary supporters can thank her for losing the White House.

    If you're listening to Stephanopolos for wisdom you're a fool. He's not speaking for Truth, he's speaking for someone else.

    Honestly Bob (none / 0) (#148)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    You think Obama side has been purity and light on this? That he will run with the "Monster?"

    She will need him because of his base of supporters (youth, independents), campaign power, and money.

    He will need her for her experience, base of supporters (base dem, women), and party savvy.

    Why is this somehow overruled by two politicians who are caught up in the heat of a campaign? If you take the supporters "hurt feelings" away its a non issue.


    Do you think (none / 0) (#184)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    that the "monster" remark was intentional? It certainly wasn't as intentional as the 3am commercials. Or her four appearances where she said that McCain was "more prepared" for President than Obama.

    If women voters feel the need to stay home in November then they'll be big losers. To expect the youth who support Obama to rally around someone who's attacked him like a back alley thug isn't going to happen.

    It's not the hurt feelings. It's the Republican talking points.


    If it's the Republican talking points (none / 0) (#192)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM EST
    then stop using them.

    Comments now closed, new thread (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    on FL/MI is here.

    What's the Thinking on (none / 0) (#216)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    the Democratic Win in Illinois 14th District for Democrat Bill Foster? This was Denny Hastert's seat. Obama supporters are claiming a major Obama victory since he cut an ad for Foster and McCain campaigned for the Republican candidate, Jim Oberweis. Says the Obama supporters, this in an indication of a national picture if Obama is the nominee.

    I'm no expert but that doesn't seem quite right to me given that Illinois is Obama's home state. I don't claim to be an expert and am just wondering what others think about this.

    I don't see Obama agreeing to a double ticket. (none / 0) (#217)
    by WillBFair on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    Why should he? He's got the media smear machine behind him. And it's doing a better job on the Clintons than ever. But it's a civic duty to make argument on their behalf. And I'm still commenting on the venom spitting blogs, as unpleasant as reading that junk is. I've also done my best on my own blog with 'Skill and Knowledge vs. The Pander Bear'. Hopefully people can improve on my reasoning, and make better arguments than mine in the blogosphere. I think it's important to at least try and talk with them, and maybe there are a few not completely hypnotized who will listen to what we have to say.

    I've been gone all day (none / 0) (#218)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:42:08 AM EST
    and I sure hope someone's mentioned it, but I find it HILLARY-ous that Obama Girl is rooting for Hillary now.